Hon. Wayne Easter - 15:41
Lib. (ON)
...More
This relates to time for opening remarks and the questioning of witnesses:
That witnesses be given five minutes—
—which was previously 10 minutes in the last session—
—for their opening statement; that, at the discretion of the chair, during questioning of witnesses, there be allocated six minutes for the first questioner of each party as follows: First round: Conservative Party, Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois, New Democratic Party; For the second and subsequent rounds, the order and time for questioning be as follows: Conservative Party, five minutes, Liberal Party, five minutes, Conservative Party, five minutes, Liberal Party, five minutes, Bloc Québécois, two and a half minutes and New Democratic Party, two and a half minutes.
...Less
Hon. Wayne Easter - 15:43
NDP (BC)
...More
I don't have any problem with the time allocation, but what procedure and House affairs has adopted, and what committees are being urged to adopt is for the second round. The first round is fine. The second round would actually be Conservative Party five, Liberal Party five, Bloc two and a half minutes, NDP two and a half minutes, and then Conservative Party five, and Liberal Party five.
That would be the amendment I would propose to Mr. Fragiskatos. That's what procedure and House affairs has adopted. Hopefully, it'll be a friendly amendment.
...Less
Lib. (PE)
...More
Just to be sure I got this right, the first round would be as is, six minutes. The second round would be Conservatives five, Liberals five, Bloc two and a half, NDP two-and-a-half, and then into the next round starting with Conservatives five and Liberals five.
...Less
NDP (BC)
Hon. Wayne Easter - 15:44
CPC (ON)
...More
Before I speak, can I just confirm, has Mr. Fragiskatos accepted that friendly amendment?
...Less
Lib. (ON)
Hon. Wayne Easter - 15:44
BQ (QC)
...More
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wanted to raise the same point as Mr. Julian. I will support his amendment, as agreed to by the whips. I believe this is the way the committee should proceed.
...Less
Hon. Wayne Easter - 15:45
Lib. (ON)
...More
Yes.
I just need to understand why the proposed change, Mr. Julian? Things went so swimmingly in our first part of the year. Everything went well.
...Less
Hon. Wayne Easter - 15:45
NDP (BC)
...More
The reason that procedure and House affairs adopted that format—even though the third and fourth party have much less time—the way the rotation worked, they are suggesting this and committees are adopting it this way for the second round to ensure that those two and a half minutes actually make it. If you put it right at the end, it's doubtful that the second round actually could be completed, whereas this way, the third and fourth party actually get a second way to ask questions. That's why procedure and House affairs proceeded this way. It's basically a supplementary round for things that come up.
That's why it was proposed by procedure and House affairs. That's why other committees are adopting it that way. We've already seen a number of them over the past. I don't think finance should be an outlier. We deal with very important issues, so having that supplementary question can make a difference, even if it's only two and a half minutes.
...Less
Hon. Wayne Easter - 15:46
Lib. (ON)
...More
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My understanding, Mr. Julian, is that the chair can be empowered to shorten the time to ensure everybody gets two rounds. I think it was traditionally done so that the government party gets first crack at the second round and then the leading opposition gets second crack. I believe maybe PROC, for some reason, specifically decided to agree to this, but I'm not sure that all other committees are going to follow suit.
...Less
Hon. Wayne Easter - 15:48
NDP (BC)
...More
The ones that have so far, yes, they have.
You can certainly talk to your whip about why procedure and House affairs recommended that format. I'm sure it came through discussions.
My point is that if procedure and House affairs is recommending it, all parties agreed to it for procedure and House affairs, and other committees are adopting it this way, why would finance then put the third and fourth party possibly without the ability to ask any supplementary questions? In a minority Parliament all parties have to work together. That's why procedure and House affairs is strongly recommending the format that I proposed.
I'm sure Mr. Fragiskatos was aware of that as well.
...Less
Lib. (ON)
...More
Mr. Chair, Mr. Julian has made it seem that the endorsement from PROC was a unanimous one. It was not.
This is an independent committee. Committees are masters of their own destiny, as we all know. This was—and when I say “this was”, I mean what I originally suggested a few moments ago prior to Mr. Julian seeking to put in place a friendly amendment—an approach that we followed in the previous session and it worked quite well. Everybody had the ability to be given time. Time was allocated very fairly under your leadership, Mr. Chair. I really don't see why that would be a problem henceforth.
I think that what was originally suggested, with due respect to Mr. Julian and Mr. Ste-Marie, is completely fair. I'm not sure why they want to keep pressing this point.
...Less
Hon. Wayne Easter - 15:49
BQ (QC)
...More
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would say to Mr. Fragiskatos that, so far, it hasn't worked very well. During the consultations regarding COVID-19, my colleague Peter Julian and I were given our first two-and-a-half-minute slot. However, because there were so many guests and witnesses and we were discussing very important issues, it was not uncommon at the end of the meetings, if we were lucky, that we could only get a short question because the chair didn't have time to give us our second two-and-a-half-minute slot.
What is being proposed and what has been passed in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs aims to finally secure those two and a half minutes, as my colleague Mr. Julian says. In my opinion, it is not true to say that it has been working well and that, so far, it has been fair. Committees are independent and can determine their own procedures, but sometimes their operation can be cumbersome, lengthy and painful.
...Less
Hon. Wayne Easter - 15:50
CPC (ON)
...More
I gather the only difference here is that in the second round, the Bloc and the NDP would split five minutes right smack in the middle of the round. Do I have that right?
...Less
Lib. (PE)
CPC (ON)
...More
That is effectively the only difference versus what we have right now.
I just want to make sure we understand what we're voting on here. Under Mr. Fragiskatos' motion, the first round is six minutes for the Conservatives, the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP. The second round is five minutes for the Conservatives, five minutes for the Liberals, five minutes for the Conservatives, and five minutes for the Liberals. The third round is when the Bloc and NDP get their last opportunity to speak.
Is that what Mr. Fragiskatos is proposing?
...Less
Lib. (PE)
...More
Well, following that we're back into Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, Liberal. I believe when we've had time, we've brought in the NDP and Bloc after that. It's basically up to the chair, but in the third round normally we're back to the regular order as in the first round, only with less...and often we split that down to three minutes instead of five, depending, in trying to get everybody in.
Mr. Julian.
...Less
NDP (BC)
...More
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The difference, Mr. Poilievre, is that if we lose the five minutes, as we often do when we're doing our rounds, in the case of Mr. Fragiskatos' proposal it would be the Bloc and the NDP that would lose their supplementary question. If we lose that five minutes, there's no possibility for two of the three opposition parties to ask supplementary questions. With what I'm proposing as an amendment, every party gets supplementary questions. If we lose that five minutes, it's the government who chairs the committee, and the chair intervenes quite often. The Liberal Party will have several rounds before that.
It's a difference of equity. Either the government loses the five minutes or two of the three opposition parties lose the five minutes. That's actually a pretty substantial difference, I would suggest. That's why procedure and House affairs has made the recommendation, which I believe we should follow.
...Less
CPC (ON)
...More
Peter, just to clarify, you're saying that under the Fragiskatos model that we followed before, the Bloc and NDP only get their two and a half minutes after the first two rounds are completely finished, and only if the chair finds there's time for that to happen.
...Less
NDP (BC)
...More
If we're doing an hour-long hearing, depending on the number of witnesses, and we lose that last five minutes from the second round, with the Fragiskatos proposal it's two of the three opposition parties who lose that opportunity also for a supplementary question. Under my proposal, it may mean that the government gets one fewer round, but they will have had several rounds earlier.
That's the difference. It's whether you believe the government should basically override, if we have to lose five minutes, or if the two opposition parties should be able to ask supplementary questions in that same time.
...Less
Hon. Wayne Easter - 15:54
Lib. (ON)
...More
I just want to point out a few things. I love that we're calling it the Fragiskatos motion or method. It's great. I think we should trademark it.
My understanding is that this is just the traditional format that has always existed. My sense is that it is because the governing party tends to have first crack and then the leading opposition party has the second crack in the third round. I think it really is just because we have a majority rules government and that's the format that has always existed.
I know that Mr. Julian has pointed out a number of times that PROC has approved it. I will tell you that the Liberal members did not support it. It did not receive unanimous support. It was not meant to be seen as setting a precedent for all the committees.
Those were the two points I wanted to make, Chair.
...Less
Hon. Wayne Easter - 15:55
Lib. (ON)
...More
Thank you, Chair.
I appreciate the call for a trademark.
...Less
Lib. (ON)
...More
Perhaps I'll be accused by my colleagues across the way for being quite rigid here, but I still fail to see and have not heard a compelling reason as to why we can't follow the convention from the previous session which worked very well, Mr. Chair. Why can't we leave it in your very capable hands to make sure that two rounds come to completion?
In the previous Parliament, I don't recall one single time where opposition members complained about not having fair time. This was a committee that dealt with some very challenging issues as far as COVID-19 and the economic response was concerned, and of course we dealt with WE Charity. As we all saw, the opposition was very able to raise issues in any way they wished.
We have an existing format that worked well then. Suddenly you come here and now propose a change. It's not about anything that I proposed. I appreciate Mr. Julian and Mr. Poilievre characterizing this as the Fragiskatos approach or structure or whatever they called it. It's not about me here. I think we have a tradition that we followed on this committee. Why not simply continue with that?
It's a bit perplexing, Mr. Chair.
...Less
Hon. Wayne Easter - 15:57
NDP (BC)
...More
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Fragiskatos has put a very eloquent argument forward for my amendment, which is that you, Mr. Chair, do have the ability to ensure that government members get that final question in. That's terrific.
I think the third and fourth parties have very clearly spelled out that they believe they need to have that guarantee of a supplementary question. Mr. Chair, as you know, the reality is that often you're not able to provide that, so you're very effective in juggling things. If Mr. Fragiskatos believes in what he just said, he should vote for my amendment. Then we can lock in what procedure and House affairs is recommending we do and what other committees are doing as well, in the interest of fairness in a minority Parliament.
...Less
Lib. (PE)
...More
I'll go to Mr. Poilievre and then Ms. Jansen.
Before the vote on the subsequent rounds, I'm going to ask you, Mr. Julian, just to explain to me where we are on that, so at least I understand whichever way it goes.
Mr. Poilievre.
...Less
CPC (ON)
...More
I appreciate Mr. Fragiskatos' humility and modesty in turning down the namesake of the motion, which we tried to ascribe to him. That appellation, I think, is something he could have been proud of and even advertised amongst his constituents: that he has created and invented a procedural innovation at a parliamentary committee. Not many Canadians can say that.
On to the substance of the matter, I think that there is nothing wrong with giving our two opposition compatriots—I hope the Bloc doesn't mind being called a compatriot—an extra two and a half minutes each. I know that the Liberal party would be charitable enough to grant that. The argument that the Fragiskatos model is more established would suggest that we can never improve, but a wise man once said that in Canada, better is always possible. I think there is some room for improvement.
We hope that the NDP, in using that 2.5 minutes, won't simply serve Liberal purposes with it. We are trusting that they will honour their constituents who voted for an opposition party when they elected New Democrats in some of the ridings of the country. We know that they will be mindful of that when they speak out, because we certainly don't need anymore fealty to the government from opposition parties.
I'm inclined to vote in favour of that amendment from Mr. Julian. Hopefully, it will lead to an even more productive finance committee in this Parliament than the one that preceded prorogation.
...Less
Hon. Wayne Easter - 16:01
Tamara Jansen - 16:02
Lib. (NS)
...More
I have a question for Mr. Julian.
During your presentation for the proposed amendment, you indicated that there was a precedent set, more or less, that committees are being encouraged to adopt. I'm curious if there's been any movement or discussion around the practice that committees have adopted where the chair is a member of the opposition and whether, in those circumstances, to meet the suggestion that the chair could accommodate, the same precedent would apply within this case, given where we are in Parliament with the Conservatives last in the round that we're discussing. Has that been discussed in other committees?
...Less
Hon. Wayne Easter - 16:03
NDP (BC)
...More
I don't actually know the answer to that question.
What we're proposing here doesn't have the Conservatives last in that second round. It has the Liberals last in that second round. For subsequent rounds it would be the same. I think the chair was asking that question earlier. It would be the same for subsequent rounds if we were going for a two-hour session. It would be Conservative for five minutes, Liberal for five minutes, Bloc for two and a half minutes, NDP for two and a half minutes, Conservative for five minutes and then Liberal for five minutes.
...Less
Hon. Wayne Easter - 16:03
Lib. (ON)
...More
I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Chair. I'm still trying to figure out where the “raise hand” function is. I've used it a few times on Zoom, but that's why I interrupted there.
I think that Mr. Fraser's question is a very relevant one. I'm not sure if Mr. Julian understood it, with all due respect to him. As I understood him, Mr. Fraser was talking about what happens in cases where the opposition holds the chair if, as in our case and most committees' cases, a Liberal chair is in place.
What Mr. Julian is calling for here, and one would assume in other committees, is that the Liberals finish off questioning. In cases where the opposition is in chairmanship, is he also calling for the opposition, in the form of the Conservatives, to wrap up questioning there, too?
...Less
NDP (BC)
...More
It's a red herring. I don't have the answer. I'd prefer to go to a vote, Mr. Chair.
...Less
Lib. (ON)
...More
Mr. Chair, I would remind my honourable colleague that he is helping to establish a bit of a precedent. I'm not sure it's a precedent that he would be entirely comfortable with.
...Less
Hon. Wayne Easter - 16:05
Tamara Jansen - 16:05
CPC (AB)
...More
Mr. Chair, I had my hand up.
I don't want to debate this too much further, but Mr. Julian's point is correct. It's a red herring in terms of us setting a precedent for an opposition-chaired committee. That will be a question for opposition-chaired committees to determine.
I also agree with Mrs. Jansen that just for order on this, monitoring the participants' hands up would be an orderly way to keep a speakers list.
...Less
Lib. (PE)
...More
Are we ready for the question?
Madam Clerk, perhaps we could turn to you, on the amendment by Mr. Julian.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We'll go on to the next motion. That will be the new order.
Mr. Fragiskatos.
...Less
Peter Fragiskatos - 16:08
Peter Fragiskatos - 16:09
Lib. (ON)
...More
On a point of order, did we vote on the original motion as amended?
...Less
Lib. (PE)
...More
No, we didn't. We'd better do that.
Thank you, Julie.
We'll go back a step and vote on the original motion as amended.
(Motion as amended agreed to)
The Chair: Okay, now we're on working meals.
...Less
Peter Fragiskatos - 16:09