Environment Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2009

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I don't want to throw a spanner in the works, but I would remind the committee that, quite often, when the minister appears, he does so during the first hour. If the first round goes from ten to seven minutes, we are cutting the time which members have to question the minister. Quite often, the minister appears during the first hour and public officials during the second hour. Personally, I would prefer to be able to ask the minister questions for as long as possible when he appears. If we go from ten to seven minutes per questioner and then we add the three minutes lost per political party, we realize that we don't have a lot of time in which to ask the minister questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay.

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was trying to pick up on what Mr. Bigras was saying. If the minister appears for an hour, nobody has less time, because an hour is still an hour. What we're really talking about is how we divvy up the pie in that first hour.

If you take a look at the first round, if it's seven minutes, those seven minutes times four are 28 minutes. So we spend the first half hour basically on the first round. The likelihood of getting all the way through the second round in a one-hour session is that it's not going to happen. The likelihood is that we'll have 10 minutes of presentation by the minister, followed by a half an hour for the first round; so that eats up the first 40 minutes.

Then you're going to have an opportunity for one Liberal, one Bloc, and two Conservatives to ask questions for five minutes. And that will take up the last 20 minutes, given the current structure of that. So the likelihood is that in a one-hour session, we're not even going to get to every member of the committee for them to have an opportunity to ask questions.

But the question that I think most committee members have is what does that do for our particular party in terms of the time that we have in that first particular hour? And if you look at it from that perspective, I think if any party were to be short-changed, it would be the governing party, because we would have two members who wouldn't even have an opportunity to ask questions.

So when you look at it from that perspective, there's no other way we can divvy this up to make it 100% or completely fair for everybody at the table, but we can get to a reasonable semblance of what's fair and give most members an opportunity to ask a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

The one thing that applies as well with ministers--it's just been common practice of all committees--is that ministers are not time-allocated. They can present for as long as they wish or as short as they want.

I'll let Mr. Warawa have the floor.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Bigras brings up a very good point, Chair. I thank my colleague Mr. Calkins.

I'd suggest that if we have the rule that witnesses be allowed 10 minutes each, then you're limiting the minister to 10 minutes. I would suggest that the time allocated during questioning for the minister be allocated at the discretion of the chair. If there's more time needed, let the chair...because with the minister, it's quite a different situation.

As a guide for normal witnesses, each group of presenters--sometimes with one organization, we'll have more than one presenter--would have a maximum of 10 minutes. An individual would have 10, and, as you suggest, Chair, there would be a maximum of four witnesses or groups of witnesses, for a total of 40 minutes. Then if we have an hour or 63 minutes of questioning for first and second rounds, we will very definitely have a third round if things are kept very tight.

I would suggest that we add that time allocation during questioning of a minister be at the discretion of the chair. It gives flexibility.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Just before we move on, on the issue of ministers, on page 848 of Marleau and Montpetit, in chapter 20, there's a whole paragraph on time for opening remarks and questioning of witnesses. Near the end of the paragraph, it says:

Each committee seeks to balance, as best it can, the desire to ensure that representatives of all parties have the opportunity to put questions. As well, some committees adopt special rules for the questioning of Ministers.

So if we wish to, we can adopt a special rule, and we can put a time limit on the minister himself.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I'd like to suggest as a friendly amendment that time allocation during questioning of the minister be at your discretion, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

It can be at our discretion, and something we can agree upon, depending on the amount of time we have with the minister.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

The difficulty with that, Mr. Chair, is that past performances would lead some members of the committee to be skeptical. Things have changed, there's no question. The minister has changed. I don't know whether we're contemplating more overhead presentations, videos, powerpoints.

I think it would be reasonable to suggest to the minister that 15 minutes is an appropriate period of time to get the message out. It is important for us. We don't have a lot of time, and I really am sensitive to what Monsieur Bigras said and what Ms. Duncan said. We all want to have a chance to ask the minister the probative questions that we're supposed to here in this process. So I would recommend 15 minutes for the minister. I think we're all mature, and if he's going to go to 17 minutes, I don't think anyone is going to jump out of their seats, but it would be very helpful, I think, to give him and his staff some guidance.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Radford, you laid out how the breakdown of minutes works out, so if we do have a seven-minute round, the first round is 28 minutes. The second round is 35 minutes. It works out that the NDP gets seven minutes, the Bloc Québécois 12 minutes, Liberals 15 minutes, and Conservatives 27 minutes.

So that is the breakdown, and that would be fairly representative of the composition in the House of Commons. That would still leave time to get to a third round, which gives every party a supplementary question.

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, the committees are not supposed to be the same as the House of Commons. We're supposed to be by party. I have yet to hear a good rationale as to why we would not follow the rules and procedures set out by official languages. I think it is eminently fair and reasonable that it would be party to party. By the third round, it would be seven minutes, five minutes, five minutes. I said I'd be quite willing in that third round to simply go through Conservatives. There's no reason why the Conservative members can't share their time with each other and be fair and reasonable, but it should be party to party. That's the purpose here, to have a discourse from different perspectives on policies and laws put forward by the government, and the Conservatives have time in caucus, which we don't have.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay.

So what we have is a motion on the floor from Mr. Warawa, with an amendment proposed by Mr. McGuinty time-limiting ministers to a 15-minute presentation.

Are there any other comments on.... Well, we'll first vote on Mr. McGuinty's amendment at 15 minutes. Or is it a friendly amendment?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It's a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

It's a friendly amendment, so it's agreed upon.

So we're voting on the main motion. We're down into time allocation, and we're at seven minutes, with the addition of the minister being limited to 15 minutes, and members can share their time.

Those are the two amendments. So we're down to a seven-minute first questioning from each party, members have the ability to share time, and the minister is allocated 15 minutes for his opening presentation.

Any final comments?

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have one quick question. The speaking order--we're going to be dealing with it as a separate motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll deal with that as a separate motion.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay, no further discussion.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Now let's go to the speaking order that Mr. Warawa proposed earlier, if you want to put it back on the table.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes.

The order of speaking for the first round of questioning should be as follows: Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Conservative. The questioning during the second round shall alternate between opposition members and the government members in the following fashion: Liberal, Conservative; Bloc, Conservative; Liberal, Conservative; Conservative, based on the principle that each committee member shall have a full opportunity to question the witnesses. If time permits, further rounds shall repeat the pattern of the first two at the discretion of the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay. Any discussion on that? No?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay, notice of motions.

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

May I just raise one more question with respect to witnesses' statements and questioning? I think it would speak to Ms. Duncan's concerns.

My experience is that occasionally our committees overbook witnesses. It gets to the point where, if we have five or six intervenors or four to seven people at a table, it becomes very difficult to have a meaningful exchange. I would also, I think, speak to the chances of having a third round, a full round, which would give Ms. Duncan and other members of the committee the chance to ask questions.

I don't know whether we should cap it, but I just wanted to raise it with everyone, because I think three witnesses at thirty minutes, or a maximum of four witnesses at forty minutes, is enough substance for us to chew on in a two-hour meeting, with the right questions and answers, for us to really get to some tough and important questions.

Sometimes we're so rushed and sometimes there are so many intervenors here that I feel bad for the witnesses, some of whom come down, or fly in, and have six or seven minutes, or they're sharing a presentation. I don't think it's respectful of their time either. I'm wondering if we can, as a kind of rule of thumb, say we can hold ourselves to maybe three witnesses, three solid witnesses. They may bring people accompanying them to answer questions, I don't know, but that's 30 to 35 minutes, you know, with your leeway and your discretion. If someone's in their eleventh minute, I don't know how you intend to proceed, but I don't think...you know, you will cut them off. But if it's 33 minutes, and with three intervenors, three witnesses, it gives us more time to have a more meaningful dialogue.

It's just a suggestion to consider.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

No, and I agree a hundred percent, because we've had similar problems in other committees.

I've got Mr. Calkins, then Monsieur Bigras, and then Mr. Watson.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I would just like to actually support Mr. McGuinty's proposal here. If you do the math, the first and second round take up 63 minutes, and an additional first round takes up another 28 minutes, for a total of 91 minutes. If we have three presenters, at ten minutes apiece, that's another thirty minutes. That basically puts us precisely on the two-hour limit.

However, Mr. Chair, I wouldn't want to handcuff you, at your discretion, to make sure presenters have an opportunity to come and present before the committee. But if that were a rule of thumb or a guiding benchmark that we can use for the committee, I think that would work out very well, plus it would address Ms. Duncan's concern about not getting a second question in from the New Democratic Party.