Evidence of meeting #1 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
If it's the will of the committee, I'm going to suspend—if that's all right—this routine motion and carry on with the others while we.... Perhaps members may want to confer with their whip's staff.
If that's acceptable, I'm going to move on to the next routine motions.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Time for opening remarks and questioning of witnesses:That witnesses be given five minutes for their opening statement; that whenever possible, witnesses provide the committee with their opening statement 72 hours in advance; that at the discretion of the Chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated six minutes for the first questioner of each party as follows for the first round: Conservative Party, Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois, New Democratic Party.
For the second and subsequent rounds, the order and time for questioning be as follows: Conservative Party, five minutes; Liberal Party, five minutes; Bloc Québécois, two and a half minutes; New Democratic Party, two and a half minutes; Conservative Party, five minutes; Liberal Party, five minutes.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
Is there any discussion on that? Is that acceptable? This differs from the one in the previous Parliament a little bit in that the motion for five to seven minutes was adopted before, but it's going to be up to the committee if we want to accept it as moved. Is there any objection?
(Motion agreed to)
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I also have a routine motion that I would like to put on notice of motions before we get to the next one. It's regarding witnesses. It's not on your list. It's a routine motion that I would like to add.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
Okay, you have the floor, Mr. Green, for your motion under witnesses. Go ahead.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you. It reads:
That each party represented on the committee be entitled to select one witness per two-hour witness panel.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
So you're moving that each party can do so.
Is there any discussion on that motion?
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm just wondering if the member can explain a little bit about the logic behind that. Also, if the member was going to propose it, it would have been nice for all of us to have it in writing beforehand, including the member from the Bloc in a translated version as well.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As this is the inaugural or initial meeting, there's no requirement for notices of motion. This is a routine motion, particularly for this committee, the rationale being that hearing from a diverse group of witnesses is a vital part of committee work. Whether these committees are doing their own studies or reviewing a bill that has been passed at second reading by the House, if witnesses are apportioned based on the proportional makeup of the House and the committee, roughly half the witnesses will come from the government side, and the opposition will have to split the other half.
In the last Parliament, this rotation was put in place through an opposition motion sponsored by Michelle Rempel Garner, which instructed the health committee that studied COVID-19. We found it worked very well, and we would also like the opportunity at this committee to have input on the selection of witnesses.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
I'm going to go to the question if there's no discussion.
Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I guess the question I would have is if.... I'm not certain if I understand the import that each opposition party would be able to introduce a proposed witness who will therefore have two hours of testimony before the committee. I'm just trying to figure that out. If that's the case, would that not unduly lengthen the amount of time?
Usually, when we ask for witnesses to come, they appear in a panel. That panel is during a regular meeting of the committee, and that time is split up, as opposed to having one witness for a certain period of time.
I'm just wondering if the honourable member, Mr. Green, could explain.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I'm happy to restate the motion, which would also perhaps some time for the translators. I'll read it slowly so that everybody can gather it:
That each party represented on the committee be entitled to select one witness per two-hour witness panel.
This would be shared in proportion to the makeup of the committee.
11:30 a.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Chair, forgive me for asking you the question. The answer may seem obvious to you, but this is the first time I have sat on this committee. Usually, the committee receives each panel of witnesses for one hour, correct?
11:30 a.m.
A voice
It depends.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm a little bit wary, to be honest. In my past six years as a participant in various committees, we've always come to a consensus on the witnesses we bring in to testify. What if a witness can't make it for two hours? Does that mean we're violating the rules of the committee?
I would really hope that, instead of putting these types of requests for how our committee functions into law, we can play it by ear in a discretionary fashion, based on each of the individual studies we go through. I hope we can work in that spirit of collaboration, instead of dictating exactly how many witnesses, for which party and for how many minutes that witness is going to be presenting.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
Thank you.
I'll hear Mr. Fergus, and then I hope to try to wrap up the discussion, if we can. It's up to members, but we have a number of routine motions that I would like to get through quickly.
Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Chair, I can offer a solution.
I am a member not only of this committee but also of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In the discussions to determine the ground rules, there were very intense but collaborative negotiations between the whips of each of the recognized political parties in the House. No one mentioned a motion to change the operating rules like this.
Could we do as Mr. Brassard has asked on a previous motion, that is, skip this motion to give the whips time to discuss it? In the meantime, we could move on to the other motions which I hope are more routine housekeeping motions.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I'm fascinated by all the interventions today. It's good to be back. I think this is going to be a very interesting committee.
What I would say through you, Mr. Chair, to the members of this committee, is that each committee is the master of its own domain. We don't have to wait for PROC. If that were the case, why would we have independent committees? We would basically concede everything to the whips, and 300 members of Parliament could go home.
I would ask that this motion is on the table. I would like to test the will of this committee. Having the ability in a minority situation....
I don't believe in consensus in this committee. I think that we're going to be working on straight-up votes, so I'll put that out there. We're going to need each and every vote, each and every time.
What I would like to do is test the will of this committee. When that's done, I'd like to move another motion.
Thank you.
