Evidence of meeting #1 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:40 a.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I understand the principle and the spirit of Mr. McGuinty's proposal, however, on occasion—and it's no secret—it happens that some witnesses are more relevant than others and we want to spend more time with them. It seems to me that we have created a Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure to assess which witnesses we should call. We will discuss future business, but I think that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure should look at this issue of witnesses when it sets the agenda. From experience, I know that we want to spend more time with some witnesses than with others. Some witnesses do PowerPoint presentations without that necessarily adding any value. I understand Mr. McGuinty's proposal and I think this should go to the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I'll comment on that. I think if there is somebody we want to have a bigger presentation from, then we just have a special meeting for that one particular witness or group, but I think we still want a rule of thumb that we do not have more than 30 minutes of testimony before we break into questioning.
Mr. Watson.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
I just wanted to clarify. I think Mr. McGuinty is hinting at the number of presentations, not witnesses. Some organizations may want to have two or three people with them at the table, only one of whom will be presenting.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Right. They can present, and they can split up their time as they see fit.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I think this is a really good discussion.
Thank you, Mr. McGuinty, for your suggestion of clarification, because often we've tried to squeeze in too many witnesses. If a witness or a witness group has ten minutes, it's not uncommon for it to use less than that. So if the chair had discretion to give another witness a little bit more time so that we would still use up the maximum thirty minutes, that would be a very good idea.
Thank you to Mr. Bigras for his suggestions too.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Definitely we want to do our work as a committee and have a very in-depth discussion with witnesses. The more we crowd at that end of the table, the more difficult our work gets, and then we're just going to frustrate witnesses and not really add quality to the reports we're working on.
Ms. Duncan.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I think it's an excellent suggestion, so long as the process for deciding which witnesses to have is a little fairer than the way we just allocated time to all the parties.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
You'll be on the subcommittee, Ms. Duncan, and that's where we'll decide on which witnesses are coming in. I'd rather add meetings than try to crowd up at the end of the table. That's a cordial agreement among members.
Let's move on to notice of motions. In the last session of Parliament the agreement was that a full 24 hours' notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration, and that the notice of motion be filed with the clerk of the committee prior to 6 p.m. and distributed to members in both official languages.
Are there any comments?
Mr. Warawa.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Chair, in the last Parliament they found the 24 hours a little bit tight. The spirit of this, whether the government is tabling a motion or the opposition is tabling a motion, is that others at committee have a fair amount of time to deal with and research and consider what is being tabled. So I think that 48 hours would be a little bit fairer for both sides. I'm proposing to change it from 24 hours to 48 hours: that 48 hours' notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee; that the motion shall be filed and distributed to the members by the clerk in both official languages; that notice be deemed given when the motion is received.... That's another important point. When does the clock start ticking? It's when the motion is received by the clerk. Also, what does 48 hours mean? Twenty-four hours could be considered one sleep, and 48 hours is two sleeps. I'm suggesting that 48 hours be defined as 48 hours.
February 3rd, 2009 / 9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I would like to ask the clerk to enlighten us on what the normal practice is in other committees. Does it vary much, or has it converged on a set norm?
9:45 a.m.
The Clerk
The practice ranges from 24 hours to 48 hours, so there's no real consistency.
9:45 a.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I find the parliamentary secretary's argument somewhat funny and paradoxical, because he has a whole battery of public officials to look at their motions. We are being told that this leaves us little time to assess the significance of motions. If the opposition is able to do this, I don't see why the government would not have the time and the means to do so.
I think that this rule has generally worked well in the past, unless my opposition colleagues contradict me. So I fail to understand Mr. Warawa's argument. Perhaps he could explain it to us. He has at his disposal a whole battery of public servants and advisors. Time is not the strongest argument in favour of the motion he is making.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you. I think the idea is to have fairness for both sides. If the government were to table a substantive motion with 24 hours' notice defined as one sleep, we could provide something to the clerk and not give the opposition a fair amount of time to consider what that motion meant. So both sides need to have adequate time.
Your point is well taken. The government may have an advantage, with more resources to consider that. So this is a motion that applies to both opposition and government. Both need to have a fair amount of time. What is that? I suggest that the clock start as soon as the clerk receives it. I think that has to be clarified. What does 24 hours or 48 hours mean? I suggest it's 48 hours from when the clerk receives the motion. I think that would provide fairness for both sides.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Thank you.
I think Mr. Bigras made a good point, that the government has all these resources at its disposal to analyze and parse motions rather quickly. As far as the opposition is concerned, we feel that 24 hours is enough, bearing in mind that we don't meet every day or every second day anyway. Sometimes 24 hours becomes de facto 48 hours, 72 hours, or whatever. I'm comfortable with 24 hours.
9:50 a.m.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
What concerns me is the 48 hours straight. In other words, if a motion is tabled at 6 p.m. on Monday evening, it cannot be studied the next day or even on the Wednesday. So that means a two-day delay. Furthermore, if the motion is tabled on Tuesday evening, it cannot be considered until the following week because of when the committee sits, meaning Tuesday and Thursday mornings, so two days apart. This brings us to the following week. That is too long. This means that a motion tabled at the beginning or the middle of the week can only be considered the following week, and events may have changed. So I think that 24 hours' notice is more realistic, to ensure timeliness and relevancy.