Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 3rd, 2006

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

That would need to be clarified. We can look after that.

In response to the question as to why we want to limit witnesses' speaking time, I would point out that this committee is probably going to sit evenings, perhaps mornings or afternoons as well, and we'll probably be hearing from many witnesses. I think we would be well advised to make sure every witness knows when he or she will appear.

In the past in committees, my colleague may remember on Bill C-38.... We're not limiting people's time. The end of the motion reads that if there's unanimous consent of the committee to extend the time, we can do that. The idea here is to be polite and diplomatic to the guests we're going to have at this committee. I suspect there's going to be a long list of people who are going to be witnesses on this committee. We have a long list of people who we want to propose as witnesses to the committee.

I know there have been times in the past when witnesses have flown here from across the country and have sat in the gallery as we've gone around and around. Often we've had round after round of people talking to a witness about obscure points of legislation.

This is an attempt to have clear blocks of time so that witnesses can come to give their testimony and we can ask our questions. If we want to amend this to a full hour instead of 40 minutes for a concise block of time, for the purpose of booking witnesses and to be polite to them, we can ensure that when people come here they can actually give their testimony on the days they've been allotted.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madame Guay is next, on the amendment.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Chair, we cannot impose time limits on some of the groups that will appear before us. Some groups will be testifying on topics which are far more specialized than others and we will have a lot of questions we want to ask them. So we can't impose such time limits on them; the quality of our work would suffer.

When the Environmental Protection Act was being reviewed, I remember sitting day and night for about a year and a half. We heard from all the witnesses we were supposed to hear from and we really ended up doing some meaningful work. However, if we rush things, the quality of our work may suffer which, in turn, would result in bad legislation.

So, I don't want there to be any time limit. I also think that when witnesses go to the trouble of travelling and drafting briefs, then we should take the time to listen to them. Imposing time limits on them is really not a good idea, in my opinion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

In fairness, I think that Mr. Martin was actually before me. You may go to him.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It's good to see cooperation.

Mr. Martin is next, and then Mr. Poilievre.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That's very gracious of you.

My only concern is making this work. There are a lot of dynamics at play around the table. They're already starting to show themselves. Just being reasonable, I can't imagine how you can not have some limits on a witness. If you fly six people in from around the country, and you have only a three-hour meeting and there are three sets of witnesses waiting to be heard, you can't let the first set of witnesses go on for the whole three hours or you'll fly those people back to Vancouver until we meet again. It's simply not practical. So I think it's reasonable to have a cap on each witness or group of witnesses.

If we have a panel of witnesses, they have 10 minutes to make their presentation. By the end of 40 minutes or an hour--whatever we choose--that should cap off that group of witnesses. I'm willing to accept that 40 minutes is probably a good idea because it forces us to use our time better and not take as long as I have taken to make this point. We might be able to be more compact and compressed. I agree with the amendment, and I would support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre, go ahead, please.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I think, actually, that was exactly what I was going to say, that 40 minutes is plenty of time. So in order not to waste any more time listening to me, why don't we call the question?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have another speaker.

Mr. Sauvageau, go ahead, please.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think there may be another way of reaching the same outcome without making things too complicated. Why make things complicated when they can be simple? If we plan on a three-hour meeting in which we give each of the two witnesses appearing an hour and a half, we are thereby limiting their time, without explicitly saying that's what we're doing.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

The problem with doing things that way is that sometimes we only need 20 minutes with some witnesses. But if we were to have an hour and a half per witness...

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Sauvageau, I'd like him to finish what he was going to say first.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

We don't necessarily need 90 minutes for each witness. Sometimes all we need is about 20 minutes with an expert witness to discuss a particular aspect of a bill, especially because we may just have one question we want to ask. If we give the witness 90 minutes, our committee will sit unnecessarily for a further hour. I think we need to be targeted in the way we use our time. And I think that the 40 minutes I suggested in my motion are enough. What's more, I think that Mr. Martin from the NDP and the Liberals agree.

So, Mr. Chair, I'd ask you to put the question.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

May I just make a comment on what Mr. Moore said?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Could I interject at this point? I'm trying to be unbiased, which will be interesting.

If you have 40 minutes limitation, you'll get one round. You won't get any more rounds. Does everybody understand that? If you want to speak after that, I won't let you, if that happens.

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Let me come back to your example. In your amendment, you say you want 40 minutes, but if we want 60 minutes... In the case of a witness who only needs 20 minutes and yet he has been allocated 60, well, your motion won't solve anything. For the most part in committee we do the math and invite as many witnesses as our time allows. It may be that only one out of a hundred witnesses takes less time than allocated. So why complicate things when they can be simple?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Go ahead, Mr. Poilievre, and then Mr. Martin, please.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

If we don't establish a time limit, we'll have to rehash this issue each time we have witnesses before us. So why don't we establish a reasonable time limit so that everybody has the opportunity to ask questions of each witness, thereby avoiding having witnesses arrive before we are ready to hear from them? That's reasonable.

I think we've talked about this enough and that it is time to vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to let Mr. Martin say something.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair. I just have a question of clarification, actually. I understand that Mr. Sauvageau was saying that it should go opposition, government, opposition, government.

Regarding the time, I understand Benoit's point. But the way this reads now is the way I'm used to on most of the committees I sit on, where opposition goes first--and it goes to three opposition parties--and then to the government side. Are we going to leave that?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay. Just so everybody understands, I'm going to have Mr. Moore tell us what he's trying to do here.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Under the section “Speaking Times”, the paragraph stays the same, with the additional language, “that testimony of each witness or group of witnesses be limited to 40 minutes unless there is unanimous consent to extend”.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All those in favour of the amendment?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're moving right along. The next motion is witnesses' expenses: that, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses, not exceeding two representatives per organization; and that, in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives be at the discretion of the chair.