Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 9th, 2006

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

It's a notice of motion, and it is as follows: that the committee seek to complete its work on Bill C-2 before the House adjourns for summer recess in late June, 2006; and if that work is not complete the committee will continue to sit into the summer without break until its work on Bill C-2 is done, notwithstanding the adjournment of Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Unless the committee directs me to do otherwise, I'd like to proceed with the report of the subcommittee. We've completed items 1 and 2. Items 3 and 4 still need to be dealt with.

Item 3 reads that it was agreed:

That, whenever possible, all Committee meetings for the purpose of hearing witnesses be televised;

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On item 4, I've read it once, I won't read it again.

You want me to read it again? All right:

Pursuant to the motion of the Committee on May 3, 2006, the following motions have been referred to the Committee for its consideration: That each witness or group of witnesses have a total of 10 minutes in which to make an opening statement; That the limit on speaking times for Committee members be limited to 5 minutes, with the exception of the questioning of witnesses.

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

I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is there debate?

Mr. Tonks.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Could we split the two components and vote on each one separately?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Why not? We'll vote on each--(a) and (b), we'll call them.

Mr. Owen.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Just as a point of clarification, I'm not sure I understand the second part, which mentions speaking times for committee members. At what stage, for what purpose, to what issue...?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It's my understanding that the intent of the subcommittee--someone will correct me, I'm sure, if I'm incorrect--is that whenever there is any discussion, debate, or motion, there will be a limitation period for a speaking time of five minutes. The exception to that--

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

No, I'm talking about “with the exception of the questioning of witnesses”.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes. See? We're together. The exception of that five-minute limitation period is the questioning of witnesses, obviously, because with the opening round there are seven minutes.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

You've clarified my question on the first part of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All right. Are there any other comments or debate?

Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I want to talk about No. 4, which states that each witness or group of witnesses has a total of 10 minutes for an opening statement.

No. 1 reads as follows:

[...]That the Committee authorize the Clerk to contact witnesses and attempt to find groupings that reflect the overall desire of each party and, that each grouping be focussed by subjects[...]

So, if I correctly understand No. 4, paragraph two, a number of different organizations could be grouped together, and they will only be allowed 10 minutes. Is that correct?

You could take groups such as the World Wildlife Fund, or a people's advocacy association of a particular city, or a tenants association of another, put them together into one group and give them 10 minutes. Is that what this would mean?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Again, I will try to interpret what the subcommittee decided. The clerk, and I suppose the chair, would have the discretion to determine groups or groups of witnesses within a 40-minute block. Once that group has been decided upon, within that 40-minute block there would be a limitation period of 10 minutes for each group to speak.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

So my understanding is correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Your understanding is correct, yes it is.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

We could have different organizations that you as chair, or the clerk, would put together in one group, and they would have only 10 minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That's a possibility, Madam Jennings. I guess it's going to be a dilemma of the clerk or the chair to try to get groupings that are similar, and we'll do our best.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

If this committee adopts this proposal. On that basis then, given that I do have the floor, I would have to say that I could not support this proposal precisely because it would then limit the access that individual groups, actual legal entities, would have to express their point of view, with their particulars. Even if you have five groups that ultimately do or do not support Bill C-2 overall, they may have different specific recommendations they wish to put forward. They would not be able to do so individually within the question period and their presentation, but would be forced to try to come to some consensus with a whole series of other groups, artificially, so that there's merely one presentation that is put forward. I really do think this is an unreasonable limit. I've never seen that before.

Perhaps there are other committees where this has happened. What we have had in other committees is calling witnesses from different groups seated at the same table, but each individual respective group had its time limit for a witness, whether it was a 10-minute or a 15-minute or a 7-minute period. Each individual representative of a separate group had its time to make its presentation and the points that the group wished to make. Then, during the question period, there was the questioning that could go to each member or to one organization, etc. But it was never the case that the actual groups would have to come together and make one presentation for a limited time only.

I really do think, Mr. Chair, and my colleagues, that this is an unreasonable limit. I would ask a friendly amendment on the part of this organization that there could be a regrouping of witnesses, of representatives, of different groups--

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, it is clear that this member is just running the clock here. Is it possible that we can get on? This has gone on and on.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, that's not a point of order. She can proceed.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I think that in the interest of trying to use the time as wisely as possible it does make sense, when you have several different organizations or associations that will be in favour, to ask the clerk for another grouping that would be opposed and is available at the same time, so that we can have them during the same block of time. But each individual organization would have its opportunity, its 10 minutes--if that's what we decide it is--to make the presentation on behalf of their organization, and then we would have our go-arounds. And I would say that if we have more than, say, three in one grouping, then that 40 minutes for the go-around would be extended to take into account that there is more than one witness.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On a point of order, Mr. James Moore.

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

I appreciate and I understand the objections by Ms. Jennings, but the same point has been made now about three to ten times. So let's roll.