This really speaks to a concern I think a lot of us have about witnesses and their appearances. It's not only the need to make sure the documents or decks that are distributed, or presentations, are timely and provided to us in both official languages. I don't know to what extent this committee would wish to make it a condition precedent for appearance if you don't show up here having given your documentation two or three days in advance so the clerk can get it translated into English or French. Furthermore, as Ms. Duncan was alluding to, for a lot of witnesses--having been on the other side, having appeared before being elected many times in standing committees as a witness--it's very difficult to know what's expected of you.
I don't know to what extent you get guidance. You're told you have seven minutes, and you have materials that will preferably be distributed in both languages. But that's not always very helpful, and I'm not sure it's always helpful to us in terms of what we're looking at--if it's the Species at Risk Act or another study, whatever the subject matter.
I just want to deposit this here for everybody's consideration. I'm not sure if it's linked exactly to this distribution of documents question, but I think it's opened the door. What do we ask these witnesses to do? To what extent are we clear about our expectations of them if we're bringing them in by teleconference, or if they're coming in? When someone comes in from an organization and spends three or five minutes out of seven telling us about their organization, I guess that's important, but if it's three or four minutes from a seven-minute talk that ought to be dedicated to the merits of the issues we're looking at, that's another question.
From my experience, a lot of witnesses don't know what's expected of them. They're called, they show up, they're not briefed. They don't necessarily receive information in advance. I don't want to make it too onerous here, but it would certainly make it more productive for us.