Transport Committee on March 26th, 2013

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am actually looking for a compromise. I completely agree with Ms. Morin on the importance of our two hours of sitting time. I was thinking that I would not object to starting the meeting at 3:45 p.m. instead of 3:30 p.m., as long as everyone agreed to finish 15 minutes later.

I even propose a friendly challenge to you: start the meeting, scheduled for 3:30 p.m., only when everyone has arrived. Then add one minute to the end of the meeting for every minute we have waited for people to arrive late. I can guarantee you that, after two meetings, everyone will get with the program and arrive at 3:30 p.m., because very few people around this table want to extend their work day past 5:30 p.m.

In any event, I do not think we ought to cut off our work. Some witnesses travel much farther than we do to come and meet with us. We just have to get here from the House of Commons. Some people travel from far away in Canada to come and meet with us. I feel that giving them the time allocated for our meetings is the least we can do for them, as a matter of common decency, especially since their expertise is often very useful for our studies.

I see no good reason for shortening our meetings by 15 minutes. However, I am ready to consider any number of other formulas that would allow us to get our full two hours of sitting time back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

It appeared you were implying, Mr. Aubin, that I or somebody unilaterally shortened the meetings. This was done in consultation with Ms. Chow, who agreed with both the changes last fall, in the session before Christmas, and in the change here.

I just wanted to point that out.

Mr. Holder.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I want to refer to a couple of things. My friend Ms. Morin makes a point, and I think it's a fair point, that she wants it the way it was. But I'd like to remind all colleagues that the way it was and the way it has always been, for a number of meetings now, has been one hour and 45 minutes. If I recall, we had all-party agreement on that timeframe when this was done some time ago, so that there is no shortchanging of time for our guests or, I would hope, for the opportunity for our folks around the table to answer questions.

The second thing I get concerned about with respect to 3:30, and the reason I thought it was so thoughtful at the time that we move to 3:45 p.m., is that I wonder whether anyone around this table can remind me when we finished QP at three o'clock. In my lifetime, since this new....

Maybe it's that the class of 2011 are excited to be there, I'm not sure, but it strikes me... and there's a lot of ambitious response on all sides of the House. As a result, if I have some empathy for the Speaker—I'll remind you that I did run for Speaker once, but that's a different discussion, and I'm not bitter—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

But the thing is, it always runs until five or seven minutes after 3:00, and colleagues, we all know that. So there's that consideration. After that, there tend to be points of privilege, and I think it's important for some of us that we hear some of this so that we have a sense of what's going on. I will tell you that we on the government side.... I have two committees, and all of their meetings are in the afternoon after question period. It becomes a struggle. Part of the reason it becomes a struggle is that QP does not end at 3:00 p.m.; there are points of privilege.

I want to give time for the media to interview Ms. Chow, because I think it's appropriate that she get her time, in case that ever happens after QP. That's just a thought.

That's being a little facetious, but the more significant thing is that sometimes—and I've seen this happen in committee over my many years—all of a sudden, at the very front of the meeting a motion will be put forward, and some of us, with our very best of intentions....

Now, we have more members on the government side, so it's a little more difficult for us to get through that channel than it may be for members opposite, but still, that aside, whether we walk or take the bus, the broader issue is that 3:45 p.m. was, I thought, a very thoughtful compromise to still give us our hour and 45 minutes, and we would finish at 5:30 p.m.

I think, for all of those reasons, it's the best balance of all.

So Chair, I respectfully oppose the motion, for the reasons I mentioned. I just think it makes sense to show respect and it allows us to....

Well, I'll make a brief point. I was interviewed by a reporter today—so this time it was me.

[An hon. member]

That's shameless.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Well, it was shameless, but it was still a few minutes.

You want to be able to allow that kind of thing to happen, too, so this kind of tolerance just makes practical sense. And I am very concerned, Chair, about motions that might come forward right away that I wouldn't be able to participate in, if for any reason I wasn't able to make it on time.

So I will oppose the motion. I certainly understand the considerations, but I will oppose it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Toet.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also would be opposed to the motion, especially because the change was made based on previous...we had changed it to one hour and 45 minutes. So it's not as though we have all of a sudden made a major, drastic change in our committee timeframe over the last period of time. Also, it was done in consultation with all parties. All parties were at the table and were very open to the decision to do this going forward, based on what was happening.

Mr. Holder said question period will go to seven minutes after 3:00; I think many times it's closer to a quarter after the hour, to deal with some last-minute issues that may have come up.

I think it is appropriate that we come here properly prepared. If we talk about consideration for our witnesses, I think coming in here unprepared is not very considerate of them. Ms. Morin and Mr. Aubin both talked about consideration and courtesy to witnesses. Well, I believe it's very inconsiderate to our witnesses when they, as is quite often the case, have been sitting here for 15 minutes before we are ready to proceed with a meeting.

It's much more considerate of us to acknowledge that quite often we are late in starting and to have our witnesses be prepared for a 3:45 p.m. start, rather than sit here in a timeframe such that, quite often.... They're also very busy people with lots of things to do, and have better things to do than to wait for us for 15 minutes, even though we may think differently at times.

Based on all those things, and especially based on history....

The other thing that bothered me a little in the comments that were made was the challenging of the chair, so to speak, on the number of witnesses we've had. I have not noticed a change from our previous chair to the new chair in the number of witnesses we have here. There are times when that's just the the way it works.

We try to have a balanced panel here. Part of having a balanced panel sometimes means you're going to have a few more witnesses. I very much enjoy having a broader perspective and a balanced panel. It allows us to ask questions of witnesses who are appropriate to what we feel is the testimony we desire to come out.

For those reasons, I would also have to stand in opposition to this.

We should also respect.... When as a group we come together and decide on something, we shouldn't be coming back three or four weeks later or whatever it was with a motion to change again. We should have consideration, when we have decided as a group to do something, going forward on that basis, unless we can prove that for some reason we've really gone wrong and have done something as a disservice....

I think that as a service to our witnesses, a 3:45 p.m. start is much better for them and much more considerate.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thanks, Mr. Toet, and thanks for the defence of the chair. But with 22 years of politics, I have alligator skin.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, it seems to me that there are two issues raised with respect to the motion. The first is the start time. I think there have been a lot of sound arguments for delaying the start time to 3:45 p.m. Typically, question period doesn't end on time—especially on Wednesdays, of course, with the anthem in the House and other things like that. By the time you work through, you're now at a quarter after the hour or something in that range.

Of course, we're also in a temporary construction situation. If we were within the parliamentary precinct, the start time would be less of an issue than it is when we are outside it and across the street because of construction with West Block, for example. This isn't going to be an ongoing irritant for many years into the future. We just have the reality of traffic on Wellington Street and some other things to try to negotiate.

I think the start time is fair.

The other issue raised or implicit in this is how much time is needed to proceed on this. I note that we have spent 18 minutes now debating a motion brought forward by the opposition. If it's about respect for witnesses and ample time for MPs to question, I would note that this isn't the first time the NDP has brought a motion forward that takes 15 or so minutes out of the questioning time of our committees. If they want a full two hours to question, then, I would also submit to them, don't bring forward any motions.

But it's not about that. I think that's a convenient argument to try to bring us back to a two-hour meeting period. They're more than happy to have 15 to 20 minutes of debate on any motion they want to bring forward. So it's not really about respect for the witnesses and ample time for questioning.

Secondly, I would submit that in the practice of questioning, already we have established that an hour and 45 minutes is sufficient. Perhaps they want the two hours back so that they can bring in more motions to take 15 minutes out of two hours and give us an hour and 45 minutes with the witnesses.

I'm going to oppose the motion for those reasons, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Daniel.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Like my colleagues, I would like to say that I will be opposing this motion for the very same reasons.

The reason we moved this whole thing was so that we could all get here on time and be able to do things properly. Clearly, QP rarely ends at 3 o'clock; it extends. The current inability to get transportation so that we can be here on time makes it even worse.

It was a reasonable compromise, that compromise is still the same, and we should continue with the 3:45 start.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Sullivan.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

As one of the individuals who in fact didn't get to ask questions last Tuesday, I am all too painfully aware of what happens when we only have an hour and three-quarters. I was cut off by the chair, who said we were out of time and that the meeting couldn't be extended, and so I was unable to ask my questions. This was the day the minister was here.

Essentially, by our making the meeting shorter, this becomes apparently a less important committee than other committees, which manage to get their full two hours in, even if they are meeting at 3:30 on a Tuesday afternoon or a Thursday afternoon—we're not talking about Wednesdays here.

We essentially lose a round of questioning and lose a portion of our ability to question witnesses. In the case of today, we're going to lose some time to do clause-by-clause consideration. We have an hour for witnesses and 45 minutes—which will now be only 30 minutes—for the clause-by-clause consideration of the—

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

There is no witnesses' time today. They're here to answer questions only.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

They're listed as witnesses on the Order Paper. Whatever they are, we're going to ask people questions and they're going to give advice, they're going to give us counsel, they're going to suggest what they think of the bill and the amendments.

My point is that we shouldn't be the only committee.... This is an incredibly important and enormous responsibility: transportation, infrastructure, and communities constitute one of the biggest monetary files in this government. Because those three things are combined into one thing and we're charged with dealing with all three things, it would seem to me unfortunate that we can't spend the time we should be spending to discuss the matters that are before us.

I've heard enough from the government to know where they are going with this thing, but it's really unfortunate. I would prefer that there be a recorded vote, if I'm the last speaker.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You have the right to ask for a recorded vote.

Mr. Holder.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

With great respect to my friend Mr. Sullivan, I have a few things to add.

Just as a point of clarification, he made the point that he didn't have a chance with his round to speak to the minister. That had nothing to do with an hour as distinct from an hour and 45 minutes or two hours. The minister was here for a pre-set amount of time, as we all know. As a result, anyone who wanted to ask a question of the minister would either share time or would work within the speaking order on their own side.

If anyone might have a complaint, it might be our friends from the Liberal Party, who frankly get one kick at this and have to be—

[A voice]

Hear, hear!

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

That's why they sent their best in today, to be clear on this.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

It's about time you recognized that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

The point is that with a minister there's a limited amount of time, and we all know that. To suggest that there wasn't a fair time.... The allocated time is always the allocated time with ministers, and friends around this table all know that this is the case.

Second, our folks here are not giving testimony; they are here in an official support capacity. So while they might be called “witnesses”, their being here is not going to gobble up the time here, depending upon how much longer this all takes.

Third, I just feel as though we're somehow playing politics with this thing. We settled it. Ms. Chow respectfully agreed, and I think we all agreed, if I recall, on two different things: first, to make the meeting one hour and 45 minutes and then to change the meeting time to 3:45. We all knew that, we all agreed, there was no dissenting vote, and if some people were absent at that time, their colleagues would have made the determination in conjunction with those others present from their party when they voted. But as I recall, it was unanimous.

So I look at this, and...you know, you get to the point that it feels as though it's a case of playing politics.

If we don't get through all of this today, then it strikes me that we'll have an opportunity to do it again, because we want to do this right. That is the point. We've always taken that approach, and so if it takes a bit longer, we'll do it right and so be it. The agenda is full—a little fuller as a result of this dialogue—but this is not the time to play politics with it. I don't think so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Ms. Chow, you are the last speaker.