Evidence of meeting #1 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
The second item has to do with the services of analysts from the Library of Parliament: that the committee retain, as needed and at the discretion of the chair, the services of one or more analysts from the Library of Parliament to assist it in its work.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
At this point I would like to invite three people to the table who are the parliamentary research staff, the people we just approved. Katherine Kirkwood is the director of the law and government division and is responsible for the legislative summary program. Jack Stilborn is the principal and coordinator of the PIRS estimates group and was previously assigned to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. And Kristen Douglas was assigned to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy, and Ethics in the last session.
The third item, reduced quorum: that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three members are present, including one member of the opposition.
Mr. Sauvageau.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
I move that we postpone consideration of this motion until it's time to discuss the committee's schedule, although I don't think that's on the agenda. If you don't mind, Mr. Chairman, we could discuss the schedule, and then quorum. However, if my friends and colleagues don't agree, we can discuss it now.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We're going to put that to the end of the list. That's perhaps a good point.
Speaking times: that witnesses be given ten minutes to make their opening statement. I think this is slightly different from what I gave to.... It's the same one? The title is different. It's that witnesses be given ten minutes to make their opening statement; that at the discretion of the chair during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated seven minutes to the first questioner of each party, starting with the opposition parties, and that thereafter five minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner, alternating between opposition parties and government.
Mr. Tonks moved that. Discussion?
Mr. Lukiwski, then Mr. Sauvageau.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There's one thing I don't see here, and I'd just like some clarification, if I could. Are we going to enforce a maximum length of time for witnesses? The reason I bring this up is that, as everyone knows, it's a very hefty piece of legislation. There are 317 clauses we're going to be dealing with clause by clause. I'm assuming the committee will want to bring forward a number of witnesses, including some ministers, officers of Parliament, and that type of thing. I would suggest that in order to try to deal with this expeditiously--and of course on this side we would like to deal with this as expeditiously as possible, while at the same time giving adequate time for discussion by all committee members--we discuss a maximum agreed-upon length of time that witnesses could appear before this committee.
My suggestion--and I'll throw this out--
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
All right, but I would like to get to that at some point.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I'd like you to finish before we start jumping in. Are you finished with what you wanted to say?
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I know we have a motion here that the witnesses would be given 10 minutes to make their opening statement, but after that, the rounds of questioning are such that I'd just like to....
I'm sorry, I understand there was a motion to that effect, so I'll save my comments then.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
On a point of order, I'd like to table a motion on this issue.
The motion would be that witnesses' times not exceed 40 minutes. So you have 10 minutes for the presentation, and then after that we have 30 minutes for questions from members of the committee. Questions can be anywhere from five to seven minutes, alternating from opposition to governing parties for that timeframe. Forty minutes seems to be a fair allotment of time, especially with the number of witnesses we want to see.
So I move that at the end of speaking times--I have this in writing, if you'd like it--we add that testimony of each witness or group of witnesses be limited to 40 minutes unless there is unanimous consent to extend that time.
Conservative
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
Sure. I can repeat it again, because I know you were distracted.
I'm moving that at the end of the speaking times section--
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
No, the entire paragraph: that testimony of each witness or group of witnesses--in other words, allotted for a sequence of time--be limited to 40 minutes unless there is unanimous consent to extend. In other words, the 40 minutes would include the 10-minute presentation and then half an hour for questioning by the committee members, in the structure that's outlined in--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Do you want to make that an amendment, or do you wand to make that a separate motion after--
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
That's an amendment to add on at the end of the speaking times motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
All right. We have an amendment to Mr. Tonks' motion.
Mr. Sauvageau.
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Chairman, do I have to state my position on the amendment, the motion, or both? Either way suits me fine.
Conservative
Bloc
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
I have a lot of reservations about the amendment. I have sat on a number of committees over the past few years, but I have never seen a committee where the time given to witnesses was limited. Generally, when you invite a couple of witnesses to a meeting of a set duration and where the speaking times are allotted, you never need to limit the time the witnesses are given. In 13 years, I have never seen a witness engage in a filibuster. I've seen members do it, but never a witness. So I have a hard time understanding why their speaking time should be limited.
The motion is drafted as follows: “That, at the discretion of the chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated seven (7) minutes to the first questioner of each party, starting with the opposition parties”.
If I understand correctly, that means that the Liberals would have seven minutes, then the Bloc would have seven minutes, then another seven minutes, and then it would be their turn. I don't think that's what you meant to say. And I don't think the Conservatives will support that motion and I can understand why they wouldn't. Maybe we need a bit of a clearer picture of who is to have the floor, because this way, at your discretion, of course, we might have more time than the Conservatives and we would go first. That might not be what the motion is supposed to say.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I'm going to have to call you James Moore, because we've got two Mr. Moores.
Mr. James Moore.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
I agree with what Mr. Sauvageau just said. For greater clarity, the order should be as follows: the opposition, the government, the opposition, the government.