Veterans Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2006

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

That's five rather than seven.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

That's right. Round one the second time would be five minutes. Round one the first time is seven; round two is five; then round three, which is equal to round one, is five. I think that takes cares of—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I'm okay with it, but I want to make sure my colleagues, who sit through these committee meetings, are okay with it.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

The reason I brought it forward the way it was is my impression, which was confirmed by the clerk, that it's identical to the last time around, so I didn't have a problem with the way the motion read.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm wondering, was there a concern the last time at the committee about following this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I think, to be fair, Mr. Perron is the only one who's voiced an objection here.

Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Actually, there were two. The format was taken from the defence committee and the veterans committee. This is a new committee, a stand-alone committee. The way the fisheries committee does it is ten, seven, five, ten, and then five, five, five, five. It goes in that order.

If you're going to go seven, seven, seven, seven, and then go five, five, five, five, we don't have a problem with that. But if you look very carefully at this original motion, to be honest with you, we get our first seven minutes, and then that's it; we're done for the day.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

And that's what happened last time.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

That's right, and it's wrong. That's why it needs to change: to be more equitable. I myself would prefer, if you wanted to, to go ten, seven, five, ten, and then five, five, five, five. That's what our fisheries committee does, and this was actually brought forward by many of your colleagues on that side—which I liked. But if you're going to go seven, seven, seven, seven, then five, five, five, five, and just repeat the first round, only with five-minute intervals, at least we on this side of the fence will get an opportunity to ask a second set of questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Let me make a suggestion, Mr. Stoffer. I think, frankly, by the look of concern on the clerk's face and mine, once we start getting into these funny tens, eights, sevens, and fives, it's going to make our lives a living hell. I would be more amenable to just simplifying it all at five minutes and go from there. That way, there's a greater likelihood that by the time we get to the third round, let's say, for example, you'll get an extra breathing room of eight minutes by skimming it off the first round.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

But, Mr. Chairman, if we don't get an opportunity in the NDP to ask questions in the second round, we're not going to get questions in the third round; it's as simple as that. So we would object to anything that says in the first round we're all equal, then in the second round we're not, and maybe in the third round we'll get back to you. That's something we—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Okay. I'm just sharing some concern at the table up front here, in terms of—

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

But I don't see what's wrong, sir, with going seven, seven, seven, seven, and then five, five, five, five, as the second round, and just keep repeating that if you have a third and fourth round.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I may have an objection to that. I don't mind going to something between what Mrs. Hinton is preparing and what Monsieur Perron and Mr. Stoffer are suggesting, but the original way, the way it's been working at every committee I am in, is that the official opposition gets a little bit more questioning time—we have more seats in the House. As long as, in whatever formula you work with, that is recognized....

I might make an interim suggestion, though, that would make it easier for everybody. We have a motion on the floor that's been circulated in due form and that we've had a chance to study. I would recommend that we vote for that motion for the appearance of the minister, so that we know how it will happen in the meeting with the minister.

It gives us three weeks to negotiate amongst the parties--to have a committee, with the chairman and the vice-chairmen, to look at whether you can come to a formula that's acceptable to everybody and present it at that time. It would include the orders of the appearance, so that you can take care of Mr. Perron's and Mr. Stoffer's concerns, but would maintain that official opposition role also.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

I'm certainly amenable to that, Mr. Thibault.

Monsieur Perron.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Since we're being allocated five minutes, we'll be able to finish this round and go on to a third one. For the sake of equity, I'm proposing that the government be allowed four questions, the Liberals, four questions, the Bloc, two questions, and the NDP, one question. That would mean nine five-minute questions, for a total of 45 minutes. The next round would last 28 minutes. That would give us a total of 93 minutes, or approximately one hour and 30 minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Just to make sure I understand that, the first round would be seven minutes for each party and then after that the second round would be an exact replica of what the committee is itself in terms of its membership. Is that right?

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

That's about right. The standings in the House are as follows: 126 Conservatives, 102 Liberals and 51 Bloc members. The Liberal Party has only twice the number of Bloc MPs. Why would the Liberals get to ask four or five questions, and the Bloc representatives only one? We should be allocated half the number of questions the Liberal have, or two, if I go by our party's representation in the House. We're being taken for fools. The NDP, on the other hand, has 29 members in the House, or approximately one quarter the number of Liberal members.

Mr. Chairman, if you want to be fair and to respect the Bloc representation in the House, you must allow my party to ask another question during the second round, since the Liberals get four questions. They have 102 MPs in the House, while the Bloc has exactly half that number, or 51 MPs. Therefore, you owe us one question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Monsieur Perron, I understand where you're coming from, and yet the actual constitution of the committee is such that it's not a perfect representation of the House. We have the members we have.

Taking that into account, I think some members around the committee here would feel put out by that. I understand where you're coming from in terms of the House representation, but in terms of the committee, Liberals do have four of the--

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

That is the current situation. Besides, you are in a minority on the committee, just as you are in the House. The circumstances here in committee mirror those in the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Let me be clear: I think it's the Liberals who would be the most upset with that arrangement.

I suggest that we go with Mr. Thibault's suggestion, which is to vote on this as it stands. Rather than having a big kind of run amok here at the committee to try to figure this all out, why don't we vote on this and then have somebody who wants to bring a specific change to this, a written-up motion....

Mr. Thibault.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I would agree with that, Mr. Chair.

So that Monsieur Perron understands, I don't disagree with what he's saying; I'd just like to see it fleshed out. I'd like to see it on paper to see if you can make that principle in the way that all parties can agree. We have a management committee to do that, so I would second the motion of Madame Hinton.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Mr. Gaudet, did you want to add something?

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chairman, you are also entitled to ask questions. In reality, you're a fifth representative. Representation here in committee is the same as in the House. The government has five representatives who are entitled to ask questions, while the Liberals have four, we have two and the New Democrats, one. What Mr. Perron is saying is quite true.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Anders]

Just as a point of information, I don't think the chair usually exercises his opportunity to ask questions or what not, unless you're all dry and tired and don't have anything you wish to pursue with the witnesses any further and I have to keep them for some reason.

Mr. Stoffer.