TRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

LE COMITÉ PERMANENT DES TRANSPORTS ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, February 21, 2001

• 1531

[Translation]

The Clerk of the Committee: Committee members, we have a quorum. I am ready to receive motions for the election of a chair.

Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): I nominate Ovid Jackson.

The Clerk: Mr. Ovid Jackson has been nominated by Marcel Proulx. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

[English]

Agreed?

[Translation]

(The motion carries)

The Clerk: I declare that Ovid Jackson has been elected Chair of the committee and I invite him to take the chair.

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order again.

The chair is looking for two vice-chairs.

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): I wish to nominate Jay Hill as vice-chairman.

The Chair: The chair has one nomination, Jay Hill.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to nominate Marcel Proulx.

The Chair: We'll take one at a time.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Well, we need one from opposite and one from—

The Chair: I know, but we're going to vote on one first, unless there's...

All those in favour of Mr. Hill?

(Motion agreed to)

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I'd like to nominate Mr. Marcel Proulx for the other vice-chair.

The Chair: All those in favour of that nomination?

(Motion agreed to)

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: We have some routine business as to how the committee is going to operate. It's the usual stuff, the routine motions. The first one is about the Library of Parliament, about engaging researchers. Does somebody want to move that one?

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): So moved.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The second motion is that the chair be authorized to hold meetings provided there are at least three members, in cases where we don't have a quorum for hearing witnesses.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: So moved.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The third motion is the allocation of time for questioning.

Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, I'd like some discussion on this topic. The House of Commons, as we all know, during question period operates under the premise, roughly, that the Canadian Alliance represents 50% of the opposition in the chamber and therefore has roughly 50% of the questions during that 45-minute question period. Looking at the proposed round of questioning, I just feel that in terms of the allocation of time for questioning under item 3, which we are discussing now, all of the parties should be treated equally, regardless of their numbers and status. I would propose that something similar to what we have in the House of Commons would be more appropriate.

• 1535

The Chair: Well, the committee is in charge of its own order of operation.

The chair recognizes Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Actually, I think what Jay is saying makes some sense. If I could, I'll just relate my own experience with the former committee, and I'm just throwing this into the mix. The government represents a certain percentage of the whole and the opposition parties represent, in terms of their seats, a certain percentage of the whole. What has been attempted in the past is to try to give each of the parties their time in committee in proportion to their seats in the House, including both government and opposition. While it may not be possible to do that perfectly at every meeting, this would prevail over the span of several meetings. Without actually saying that each meeting be precisely to the percentage of each party's seats, if the chair simply undertook on our behalf to try to balance it out in accordance with the seats in the House, I think it would work out in terms of what Mr. Hill was talking about.

The Chair: Ghislain Lebel.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this way of doing things because the purpose of a committee is to arrive at an opinion, to question witnesses. We can't have a third of an opinion because we represent a third of the members of a committee. The result of our final deliberations depends on the members from all parties being given the opportunity to form a clear and complete opinion on a given topic by hearing witnesses. This method may penalize the other opposition parties who have at least as many if not more members of Parliament in the House than the official opposition, if we exclude the party making the request.

Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): At the Transport Committee, on which you sat during the previous Parliament, Mr. Chairman, we had an excellent way of doing things. The first question was put by a member of the official opposition, the second by a Liberal Party member, the third by a Bloc Québécois member, and the fourth by the Liberal Party. We alternated in that fashion so that no matter how many opposition parties were represented within the committee, the opposition had as many questions as the governing party. It worked very well. In fact, I don't understand the proposal the Alliance Party has put forward today because during the committee's previous incarnation, the Alliance Party, which was entitled to three representatives within the committee, only had one or two present, on occasion. Also, often, the party did not ask any questions when given the opportunity to do so. So I don't understand its enthusiasm today.

[English]

The Chair: Since you're the author of the motion, we'll just see if anybody else wants in on it.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): For my part, the opinion put forward by Mr. Asselin seems logical. A fair system means that the governing party may intervene whenever an opposition member asks a question, and everyone gets a turn. I find the proposition in order.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): I'm trying to look at how everyone who is represented in the election might... Where I come from out west, it's heavily Alliance, and there are some big issues out there with Estey and Kroeger and grain handling and transportation. We have very big issues on our plate, and as the government has strong representation from Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada, they can bring forth the issues from those areas. But if we fragment this thing according to five parties, it's very hard for the people who have high representation from those western regions to bring most issues before this committee and deal with them and give voice to them.

• 1540

I would really hate to see that fragmented or sliced up. The government representation is very strong across the board in the other areas. Atlantic Canada, Quebec, and Ontario bring most matters before the House. But the Alliance really has a high percentage of representatives from that region. That's going to be central to some big issues with this transportation committee. I'm sure of it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Jay, if you want to put something on the floor, we'll see whether or not it'll fly.

I'm going to try to be fair. I don't think we can prejudge it. On any given occasion some person from a riding might have a very strong... We've had that from Quebec, for instance, when they've had trouble with the airport at Dorval or Mirabel, or whatever, and we might have a day debate—they're driving it because they have a particular concern.

There could be occasions where the thing could be fair. So let's try it. We're still authors of our... But if Jay wants to make that motion, we'll see if it will fly. If not, we'll try, and then we'll see what happens down the road. I'm going to try to be as fair as I can.

Mr. Jay Hill: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, since the Bloc raised some concerns about what I was saying... I didn't forward a motion yet in any event.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Jay Hill: I read the motion as saying that all of the parties would be given equal time. In other words, unless I'm reading it wrong, each party will be allocated ten minutes for questioning. Then if there is time for a second round, it will be five minutes each.

I just feel, with all due respect, that no matter how many people you have sitting here, we don't each get ten minutes—not at least in any committee I ever sat on. If the time allocation agreed upon by the committee is that the official opposition gets the first ten minutes, then it's however we want to share it. Whether we have one person at the committee or three people, we still only get ten minutes. Likewise for the Liberals, even though there might be seven people sitting over there, which would give each member a thirty-second question, if they all wanted to try to participate.

Maybe we could have a bit of clarification from the Bloc, since they raised it, because I don't know if they understood that, given the way they raised their objection to what I was trying to say.

The Chair: Monsieur Lebel has been a member of this committee, and I think he basically was saying he thought the way it worked was fair. So I don't know if there's anything else.

Monsieur Lebel, do you want to respond to Mr. Hill?

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I am the one who had raised that matter. The procedure used at the Transport Committee, of which you were a regular member, and which was chaired by Mr. Keyes, was excellent. It gave members from all political parties a chance to speak. It was understood that the first question put to the witnesses was from the opposition party, in that case, the Canadian Alliance.

The second question was put by the government party, the third question by the Bloc Québécois, and we alternated in that manner. If there are four opposition parties, this ensures a decent minimum during the first governing party turn of 10 minutes. During the second turn, the government can ask eight questions and all of the members representing our party, which has two or three seats, are sure of being able to ask a question, or at least to share them.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to give you some advice. If we want to avoid problems during the next four years, let's adopt a similar procedure. Obviously, if the topic to hand is the rail transport of grain in the West and if we prefer to devote less time to that topic, we could yield a few questions. I am convinced that we should adopt, right from the outset, a policy of alternating questions. Otherwise, it will be chaos, and people will say: "This doesn't interest me! It doesn't concern me! It's not your area, it's mine!" It will be a circus.

I shall pick up where you interrupted me, Mr. Chairman. I understand the enthusiasm shown by the Canadian Alliance today because this is the first committee meeting. The number of members in attendance will diminish over time, you will see. They have three seats, eventually they will only occupy two, and if the past is any indication, often they will only occupy one, and the occupant of that seat will not even ask any questions.

Let's look at today's time distribution. We are willing to share it with the government party. It is in the interest of the witness that questions be asked by the government as well as by the opposition. It is also in our interest, and the testimony will be all the more complete if all parties can ask questions. Moreover, the witness will be proud of his testimony if each of the members from the different political parties present at the Transport Committee was able to interview him.

• 1545

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Asselin.

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, the way this description is written, it basically says that all parties are treated equally. In fact, the Liberals will get one-fifth of the questions. I thought the principle that was operated on in the past was that with the government representing more than half, it would get half of the time.

Having said that, I think most of us who have been here in the past know that with meetings being two hours long approximately, we very rarely have one witness. In fact, we are going to get on to several witnesses. By the time we get to questions, we're likely going to be past the first hour. This means that probably in a lot of cases there is only going to be one round. I think in that case, should it occur, we probably would be amenable to splitting the time equally, with every party getting an equal share of the remaining time.

In the event that there was only one witness who provided 10 minutes, maybe the chair could then move to something that might be more reflective of the distribution of the representation in the House.

I think the point to be made is that we should remain flexible, not lock ourselves into anything and not make a motion but simply ask the chair to consider each of our meetings on its own merit and make sure that the committee has the best opportunity to do its work in a cooperative manner and leave the flexibility to the chair.

The Chair: We'll now go to Marcel Proulx, before I go back to Jay. You had something you wanted to say.

Did I see a hand up here? I'm sorry.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Should we accept that? Is that acceptable, flexibility?

The Chair: Thank you.

Serge.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: My question to the Member for Charlevoix: do you want to make that a motion? I agree that we have to have a framework for our discussion. We can't proceed randomly when we are questioning people in committee. The issue of a procedure that was used during the previous Parliament has been raised. I did not participate, but I was a member of another government where rules were established in advance. In the National Assembly's rule book, there is a section which regulates the procedures of parliamentary committees. Since there is none here, would the Member for Charlevoix like to make his proposal a motion? I would be willing to second it.

[English]

The Chair: Next is Mr. Lebel and then Jay.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Mr. Chairman, we have a proposal on the table. It seems to me that we should first of all vote on that proposal and stand by it because it divides the time fairly among the various parties here. I did not draft it, you did. It seems to me that we should vote on it.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Hill, and then we'll go back to Mr. Asselin.

Mr. Jay Hill: The honourable member from the Bloc is quite correct, Mr. Chairman. We do have a motion we're discussing. Nobody formally moved it, that I'm aware of, but you did bring it forward for discussion. So we are discussing the motion on item 3 as it appears in our document.

As such I'm a little bit surprised, with all respect to the government members, because although I haven't sat on the transport committee other than the one meeting before the premature election call last fall, prior to that I sat on various other standing committees of the House, and it seemed to me that we always had some format to help guide the chairman. It wasn't just left open.

To have it be based roughly or by agreement that regardless of numbers of sitting members on a standing committee each party is going to have equal time is going to mean, obviously, that the government members and the Canadian Alliance members would be the most penalized, and the most rewarded would be the two smallest parties, which get equal time in an hour.

My experience has been that normally you're lucky to get one round in. Oftentimes we seem to have a limited amount of time, and the chairman tries to hurry the witnesses along as best he can. But you end up with a limited amount of time.

• 1550

I think we should have some formula whereby it goes at least part of the way to recognizing the different numbers on our committee and the makeup in the House of Commons, rather than have a situation where a party that barely has official status has as much right and time to question witnesses as the government that holds more than 50% of the seats in the House of Commons.

The Chair: Okay. I think—

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Can I make a very short one?

The Chair: No, I'll let you in in a second.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Okay.

The Chair: I just want to get back to... Monsieur Lebel, did you move this motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Yes. I was saying that we have a proposal before us according to which each party would have 10 minutes.

[English]

The Chair: So did anybody move this motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Very well, let us move to the vote. You drafted it; it must suit you.

[English]

The Chair: So you're moving that motion?

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, all right.

Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: By my numbers here, the government members in this House and Alliance members in the House are 243. If I understand this rule correctly—and I find this astounding—out of those 243 members, on this committee we're going to be allocated roughly 40% of the time and the balance of the members that make up the 301 in the House are going to get 60% of the time on this committee. I really find that strange and unusual. I'm new to Ottawa, but I find the math kind of illogical.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Mr. Chairman, according to my Canadian Alliance colleague's calculations, if we add all of the other opposition parties to the Liberals, there are more of us than 243.

The Chair: Mr. Asselin.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I find motion III acceptable, but it does not take time into account and granting 10 minutes will not help the chair decide on alternation. The text of motion III suits me very well, except that there is a little part missing. In this motion, it says: "answer of each party, with alternation between opposition parties and the government". Thus, we would be functioning as we have always functioned since 1993, with alternation between the government and the opposition parties. And this is not mentioned in motion III.

According to me, if we want to vote on motion III, we can defeat it and then I could move an amendment to add the words "with alternation between the opposition parties and the government" to that same motion.

[English]

The Chair: That was the intent, Monsieur Asselin.

Monsieur St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I move that the question be called.

The Chair: A motion that the question be called?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Could the question be read?

The Chair: It will be read.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Could the motion that's on the floor be read, please?

The Chair: I'll get the clerk to read it. This is moved by Monsieur Lebel. We heard what he had to say. Or Monsieur Asselin, I guess it was.

Do you want to move the motion as you said it?

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I maintain that a proposal has been made by my colleague; it is motion III. I request that we vote immediately on motion III. If it is passed, we shall live with it. I must warn you, however, that you will have trouble working.

If the motion is defeated, we will then move an amendment.

[English]

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: I think they want to accommodate Monsieur Asselin, because you're just making it complicated.

Monsieur Asselin, you move the motion, then.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: I move, concerning the time reserved for questioning witnesses, that 10 minutes be granted to the witnesses for their opening statement and that during question period, 10 minutes be granted for the first question and answer from each party, with alternation between the opposition parties and the government.

After that we add: "for the five minutes of the second turn" to that paragraph. This allows everyone to ask questions. If there are four of us, after two turns there will have been eight interventions, which means that everyone gets the chance to ask a question.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur St. Denis.

• 1555

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Could I ask Gérard if he would accept a friendly suggestion for his motion, which I think personally is a good one? If we could say, in the questioning of witnesses, they be allocated up to ten minutes... Let's just say we have many witnesses over a short time; then the chairman has to cut things down for everybody equally—that equals up to 10 minutes. But if there are lots of people here and there's much interest, he might have to say, look, it's six minutes for everybody. So we say up to ten minutes. I think that's a very good motion.

The Chair: Is that okay with you, a friendly amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: We might also have a very important witness, such as Robert Milton from Air Canada, who might need more than 10 minutes when he appears before the Transport Committee. I think that the chairman, together with the committee as a whole, when an extension of the 10 minutes is discussed... We can decide, with unanimous consent, or the consent of the majority of committee members, to extend the time allotted, and then the witness could exceed the 10-minute period.

[English]

The Chair: We'll go to Marcel and then Mr. Szabo, and then we'll come back to Jay.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, there's a vote in five minutes in the House.

The Chair: The problem is we're trying to micromanage it. Obviously, the chair is going to be using some discretion. I think you should give me a chance to manage this thing before you—

Mr. Jay Hill: I'd like a point of order here.

The Chair: Yes, Jay.

Mr. Jay Hill: I think what we have to decide here is a matter of fundamental fairness in how the committee is going to operate, with all due respect to you as chairman—and I appreciate that you're going to operate as fairly as is possible with the guidelines you're given. But if we adopt this motion, where it alternates back and forth, we have solved the problem as far as the government members go, because it's as fair as it's going to get for them. They're going to get half of the time for questioning witnesses. But as far as the official opposition goes, we will get one-quarter. In other words, we will get the same amount as the small parties that only have a dozen members in the House of Commons, and that is fundamentally unfair. That's why I cannot support this motion.

Any committee I sat on in the last Parliament, with all due respect to Mr. Szabo, was positioned so that the official opposition perhaps would get ten minutes, come back for another round of five, or something like that, to offset their numbers—either that or it went ten, seven and five and five for the smaller parties. In many respects that's fair anyway, because if you have three members of the official opposition present, for example, or seven of the Liberals, as an individual, if you're concerned about that issue and want to cross-examine that witness, you still only get a couple of minutes to ask questions, whereas the small parties will quite likely only have one individual sitting on the committee.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Jay Hill: Let's table it.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I would like to suspend the meeting, go to the House and vote, and come back after we have a chance to think about this. The vote is right now.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Chairman, we have discussed the motion. I don't want to impose closure on the discussion, but according to me, we are ready to vote. I would ask you as chair, to hold the vote.

[English]

The Chair: I've asked that the question be put, so I'm going to put the question—that's procedure.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Jay Hill: I just want to make the point, Mr. Chairman, that the two smallest parties now will have twice as much time as the official opposition to question witnesses on this committee, with that motion that we just passed. That's a real great start to the way this committee is going to operate.

The Chair: Okay. Item 4, the 48-hour notice.

Yes, Serge.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: Mr. Chairman, in the Assembly rule book, for a parliamentary commission or committee—I am agreeing with what the Member for Charlevoix was saying earlier—when there is a particular witness, on a given topic, any member of the House or member of that Assembly can always ask the chair...

[English]

The Chair: Serge, with all due respect, that question is already done, so we'll deal with the next one, which Mr. Szabo has moved.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I move item 4.

• 1600

The Chair: Is there discussion on the fact that we have to have 48 hours' notice?

All those in favour of the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Motion number 5 is that the expenses are approved by the Board of Internal Economy.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Order in Council appointments. The motion is that the material be circulated.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Chair, I'd like to move 6 through 10, with the acceptance of the committee.

An hon. member: On number 10 we have to make a choice.

An hon. member: Let's go for the morning.

Mr. Paul Szabo: With choice number 2 in number 10.

The Chair: The chair accepts that motion.

(Motions agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Gentlemen, before we adjourn this meeting, I'd like to say that we have a lot of new members and perhaps we should have the officials here.

We have Mr. Blair here tomorrow.

It appears we're going to be meeting from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Tuesdays and Thursdays. The next meeting will be on Tuesday at 11 o'clock. At this time we will have a committee of the whole to discuss future business.

This meeting is adjourned.