Is there agreement?
Evidence of meeting #14 for Declaration of Emergency in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was officers.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #14 for Declaration of Emergency in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was officers.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
No.
9:10 p.m.
The Joint Clerk Mr. Mark Palmer
I'll call a vote on adjourning the meeting.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
9:10 p.m.
Senator, Ontario, PSG
Thanks very much.
I'm not unsympathetic to getting out of here, but I think it's important for us to at least conclude our thoughts on what is on the table about an hour and a half and an hour and a half, because we have now given direction to the clerks to start scheduling.
It seems to me that unless this committee is resolved to meet to the end of 2023, we're going to have to double up our workload to have two panels a night. It may be that it will lead us, at some point, to say that we'd like a certain person back, or to explore more in a certain area, but let's get going with two panels a session and see what the clerks are able to schedule. If there are obvious adjustments we wish to collectively make, we can do so.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
To pick up on what Senator Harder just said, I don't believe there is anything in my motion that would preclude us from having a pointed discussion on a witness to say that the committee—in its wisdom of votes in favour of changing our usual course of business—have somebody for a full three hours or other amount of time. I think it allows for the flexibility that we need while also ensuring that we get the work done and that we instruct the clerks accordingly, because as Senator Harder just mentioned, the clerks need to call witnesses and schedule them. I think it is also easier to schedule a witness for 1.5 hours than for three hours.
I would now like to address my colleague Mr. Fortin more directly.
I want to point out that for a round, we are talking here about five minutes for the witness's presentation and 40 minutes for questions. That is a total of 45 minutes for the first round, which is entirely feasible in an hour and a half. It would be followed by a second round, as we did in the spring. It worked well in the spring, so I don't see why anyone is scandalized by the proposal today.
Obviously, you are the person managing the meeting, Madam Chair, but I suggest that the motion be put to a vote, and this would allow us to respond to the request made by Mr. Brock, who would like to leave us.
9:10 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
If I can just recap what I heard with respect to the motion—and correct me if I have heard it wrong—I'm hearing that we could use this as guidance in terms of getting schedules in place. If we thought there was a witness we either wanted to recall or wanted to extend the time frame of, we would have that discussion at the time.
Just as a suggestion in trying to get to some sort of finish line on this, would you be comfortable with the chairs reviewing with the clerks and looking at any particular witnesses, and we could raise that as the time goes on, so we can at least start to slot things in?
I'll just put that on the table.
I have Mr. Motz and then Mr. Virani.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you again, Chair.
Rachel, I am prepared to support your motion, as long as the comments you just finished making can be on the motion exactly as said, so that there's flexibility with individual witnesses should the committee so decide, and it has the ability to extend the hour and a half.
If that's on the motion, it makes total sense. Let's do it.
9:15 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
We'll have Mr. Fortin, and then we're getting near the end.
9:15 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Regarding the allocation of the three hours, I imagine an adjustment could be made, rather than making two hour-and-a-half rounds mandatory. Perhaps a one-hour round would be enough with some witnesses, but we would need two hours with other witnesses, to do another round of questions. I don't know whether everyone agrees.
Again, this evening, I find it frustrating that in three minutes, I did not manage to get into a rhythm with Mr. Sloly. A few of us are in that situation.
So I think flexibility is useful. In an ideal world, we would have to go back to two two-hour meetings. In my opinion, that is the best thing. However, if we have to adjust to one three-hour meeting, we have to allow for the possibility of giving one panel of witnesses two hours and another panel one hour, or giving each of the two panels an hour and a half, based on the witnesses who are appearing.
9:15 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
What I'm hearing or seeing around the table is agreement with the motion to a degree, expecting that it gives us flexibility to adjust as we need to, depending on who the witness is.
Does everybody agree to that?
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
I could propose that we add to the motion “unless otherwise agreed”. I think that would take into account this discussion.
9:15 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
It's always good to have a lawyer in the group.
Go ahead, Mr. Virani.
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
It hasn't been circulated, but I think it's a fairly uncontroversial motion, particularly among all of the House representatives here. I move:
That the clerk of the committee be authorized to grant access to the committee's digital binder to the offices of the whips of each recognized party.
This is a motion that's been passed, I believe, at every single House committee. Is it something that we would agree to? I think it might be something new only for the senators.
It allows for more efficacious work within the committee setting.
9:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Yes.
9:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
No.
9:15 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
I wish you all a happy Thanksgiving.
The meeting is adjourned.