Finance Committee on Dec. 16th, 2021

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

I believe it's in your P9, Pierre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I do not use that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Do you have Mr. Poilievre's email? He doesn't use P9. He uses something else. I don't know what—P8?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

I would be happy if you could propose a solution.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

All right. I have a copy.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Thank you.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

We have provided the copy. I think my motion goes quite well with this motion, in that it addresses the problem the chair caused at the last meeting and makes sure that it doesn't happen at future meetings.

My motion would come as an amendment to this. It would read:

That during questioning of witnesses at all future hearings the chair of the committee apply the following rule: that the time to respond to each question not exceed the time taken to ask it, unless with the permission of the member who has the floor.

We can call that the “Easter rule”, because this was how Wayne Easter, the previous Liberal chair, ran the committee.

Of course, Liberals have raved about how successful the previous Parliament was in responding to COVID. Well, all of the COVID decisions had to come through the finance committee, so in those extraordinary times we were, as a committee.... Although I don't agree with all the policy decisions made, there is no doubt that the—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I believe that this might be a separate motion, although I do find it wonderful that Mr. Poilievre really cherishes our former chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Are you proposing an amendment to the motion, Mr. Poilievre?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Yes, it is an amendment. It amends this motion, but it also amends the committee's rules, so that for all future hearings this would be the rule. It would behoove the committee to get back to the normal course of business and exchanges in committee by adopting this amendment. That would allow us to move forward with a programming motion to get budget consultations going.

It's a very small thing, obviously, just going back to the way we did it in the last Parliament, and that should be very uncontroversial. Of course, it is in order, because committees are their own masters and they can make the rules how they like to. The adoption of this amendment could result in expeditious adoption of other committee business, and we can then all raise a glass of eggnog and celebrate the forthcoming Christmas period.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Mr. Poilievre, can you send that to the clerk for distribution, please?

Now I have on the list Sophie, Julie and then Yvan.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I need a clarification on this motion.

Is it that when we ask a question, and the question is brief but requires a longer explanation, the witness cannot use more time answering the question than the time we used to ask the question?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

The answer to that question is in the final clause, which is “unless with the permission of the member who has the floor”. If you ask a short question and the witness says, “Look, I'd love to give you more information; I just don't have enough time,” then you could say, “Sure, please help yourself. Take your time.”

It does create an equality of time, so that the witness and the questioner get the same amount of time in each block and we don't have a 15-second question followed by a three-minute, unrelated answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Can I call you guys by your first names. Is that all right?

I have Julie, Yvan, Jake and then Gabriel.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

You can call me Julie.

Anyway, I find it admirable, Mr. Poilievre's admiration for our former chair.

Mr. Chair, I don't recall that the rule Mr. Poilievre is stating existed the last time around in the finance committee. If I recall correctly, Mr. Easter tried to manage the time. He did try to keep it more or less in the same time frame.

However, similar to what Ms. Chatel was alluding to, sometimes an answer takes a little longer than a question. Overall, I think the former chair tried to be very fair and very balanced and, if anything, he tried to give a little extra time particularly to our opposition members. I don't believe we ever had a rule in place that formalized that if you asked a two-second question, the witness had to give a two-second answer. Quite honestly, I think it would be detrimental to our hearing some of the more complete answers we may need to hear in order to have proper deliberations and make proper decisions and recommendations on this committee.

While I appreciate Mr. Poilievre's concern, I think there has always been an element of fairness around how long people speak. There is consideration in general around the responses. I'll leave it at that.

I would not be in favour of this motion. It would be negative in terms of our being able to hear proper and full answers and to debate and make proper recommendations, as I've already said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thanks, Julie.

I have Yvan, Jake, Gabriel, Daniel and Adam.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I don't agree with Mr. Poilievre's amendment, and there are a couple of things I want to say. The first is that I don't think this would be fair to the witnesses. Some of the questions can be answered in the same time as the question is asked, but many of them cannot. In general—there are exceptions, but in general—it takes less time to ask a question than it does to answer it, especially if it's a question that doesn't require a yes-or-no answer. I don't think this would be fair to the witnesses or to the other members, because they wouldn't get to hear the answers. I also don't think it would be fair to the members of the public who are trying to watch and follow.

The second thing is a point of clarification for Mr. Poilievre. Would this also mean that witnesses are guaranteed the same amount of time as the member to speak? For example, if a member spoke for two and a half minutes, would that guarantee the witness two and a half minutes of response time, or if the member spoke for four minutes, would it guarantee the witness an equal amount of response time?

At the very least, I would think that if Mr. Poilievre is putting forward something balanced, then balance or equality in terms of time would require that this be guaranteed to the witness as well, and I'm not sure whether members on this committee would be comfortable with that.

In truth, what Mr. Poilievre is proposing, unless we make that change, would not be balanced or fair.

Once again, I am opposed to the amendment. It's not fair to ask a witness to answer questions that are asked in five seconds, when sometimes it requires a 20- or 30-second answer. I don't think it would advance the work of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Go ahead, Jake.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I support the amendment. I found out, personally, here on the committee that when you ask a question as simple as, “How much does it cost to administer the program?”, when a witness goes on for two minutes and doesn't answer the question.... What happens to the MPs around this table is we spend all that time coming up with a good question that the Canadian public deserves an answer for, yet because the witness either doesn't know the answer or doesn't want to provide it, whichever it may be, we lose our ability to ask more questions because of the time they take to ramble.

This amendment is really sufficient. I've sat on a number of committees in my life and I've always found that when the chair interferes with the proceedings too much.... I used to chair the climate and environmental stewardship committee in New Brunswick. I would never get involved. I'd only shut down the debate if it got out of hand, but I would never intervene. I wanted people on the committee to have the back and forth. I wanted the witnesses to have the freedom to answer a question.

This amendment is really sufficient because, I can tell you, the people of Miramichi—Grand Lake want these questions asked. More importantly, they want the answer. If a witness comes in, they should know the answer. Everybody in the Canadian public knows it. If I ask a 30-second question and they take two minutes and don't provide an answer, that takes two more minutes away from me.

Around this table, we're restricted. We're restricted to the time limits upon us, five minutes, six minutes, four minutes, whatever it is. You'd like to ask a number of questions in that time frame. I get it if they can't provide an answer. They should just say, “I don't know the answer,” and then I can ask another question, rather than have them speaking for five minutes and ruining a member of Parliament's opportunity to ask an important question as a follow-up.

This amendment put forward by Mr. Poilievre really keeps the witnesses in check and keeps them accountable, and it allows all the members of the House who are on this committee to ask more questions. The more we can ask, the better.

That's why I support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thanks, Jake.

I have Gabriel, Daniel and then Adam.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The honourable member Mr. Poilievre is right. Before the election, the committee was chaired by Wayne Easter, and he would apply this rule, which is essentially the same as the one used during a committee of the whole in the House.

When the issue came up a few meetings ago, you said that the general rule was that the time taken to ask a question and the time taken to answer it should be the same, and that you would be the judge. The honourable member is now looking to establish that rule formally and give it a stricter application, as is the case in a committee of the whole. I actually have a question for him, but I want to finish sharing my opinion on this.

Further to Mr. Baker's comment, when former chair Wayne Easter saw that the witness wouldn't have an equivalent amount of time to answer the question, he would interrupt the member asking the question to give the witness the same amount of time. That was how the committee was run previously, and I completely agree with the principle because it worked well.

Now this is the question I have for Mr. Poilievre. As I recall, Wayne Easter would apply the rule mainly when ministers and high-ranking officials appeared before the committee. When the witnesses were members of the public or representatives of organizations invited by the committee, he didn't stick to the rule quite as rigidly.

Regardless of the motion or amendment we adopt, I think it is especially important to apply this rule in the case of high-ranking officials, public servants and members of the government. In the case of witnesses who we have invited and who aren't as accustomed to the back and forth of a parliamentary committee, it may not be as important to apply the rule rigidly.

What does the honourable member who proposed the amendment think?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Gabriel.

I have Daniel, Adam, Pierre and then Greg.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I don't think it's any surprise. I think everybody knows I wasn't on the committee in the last Parliament, but I have it on good authority from my colleague Peter Julian, who was on the committee; he seems to recall that there was a serious and successful effort by the chair to try to keep the answers to a question roughly proportionate to the length of time it takes to pose the question.

I don't think that Mr. Baker has to worry too much in terms of whether this works or doesn't work. It works, and was a normal practice in committee of the whole in the examination of the estimates. We did it last week, I think it was. This has been a week when a lot of things have blended together. If it wasn't last week, it was the week before, right around December 9, I think.

I don't think anybody would say things kind of fell apart there, and I also recognize in Mr. Poilievre's motion that there is the possibility for members of Parliament to cede more of their time. It doesn't mean the witness gets another six minutes on top of the six minutes allocated. Just as in the committee of the whole, when you have 15 minutes and you decide to use it all for questions and answers, it doesn't magically become a 30-minute period. It just means that your 15 minutes are divided more proportionately between the MP and, in that case, the minister, but here it would be the witness.

This is reasonable. It would be a good practice. I have sat on a lot of committees where sometimes the most heated and conflictual moments come when there is a feeling that a witness is using all the time but maybe not speaking directly to the issue that the member is interested in. Of course, we have only so much time, so you will see members trying to intervene in order to get the witness back on track, as it were, or to speak directly to the issues that are of interest to the member and that they want to use their time to discuss.

One of the potential virtues of enshrining a rule like this more formally would be to avoid those situations where things are getting a little more heated and a little more intense. It could help bring the temperature down a bit by giving MPs more of a clear sense of how they can manage their own time at committee instead of having to jockey with the witnesses in order to try to get that time management down.

It could have a salutary effect on the proceedings of the committee to eliminate that kind of requirement for members who want to see their time used in a particular way to have to compete with a witness. Of course, it's not always like that, but there are cases when it is like that. I believe we've already seen some of that at this committee in this Parliament, so I think it is a good way to try to avoid the worst instances of that.

I'm happy to speak to the main motion, too. There is a bit of awkwardness where we are clearly talking about two separate kinds of issues, so I would have been happy to just see them presented separately. In any event, if we want to dispose with this relatively quickly, I'm okay to put the two together. If we're pretty confident that both are going to pass, then we may as well pass them together and be efficient, because efficiency is a virtue for all members of the committee. We're probably going to talk a lot about efficiency. We may as well lead by example.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thanks, Daniel.

We have Adam, Pierre and Greg.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I'll be relatively brief. This is about how we want to set our meetings and run them efficiently. I think it is a good practice and will enforce some discipline.

We run the risk of the committee seemingly ending up with a dysfunctional nature, where what will occur is a bunch of speeches every time there is witness testimony, whether that's because it's a fellow member of Parliament, a colleague as a witness, or others who maybe feel a bit unsettled because they don't have an answer on the tips of their tongues. This will force some discipline. Frankly, it's quite reasonable, and, regarding a member's time with witnesses, it is the member's choice how they choose to use their five minutes.

The member may like to make some opening remarks and show some statistics to set the stage for some questions. That is incredibly reasonable as well. I don't think it means the witness should have that long, in terms of replying, just because there was a set-up.

The question itself should be specific. We will get far better answers from witnesses. The meetings will run more crisply and more efficiently, and we'll all find ourselves a little more informed and have a better level of discussion.