Thanks, Adam.
Pierre.
Evidence of meeting #10 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witness.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #10 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witness.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
A number of questions have come forward. Mr. Baker asked a question and I think Gabriel gave a good answer. Yes, the principle is that the witness gets a long answer, a very long answer, if they get a very long question. That kind of forces a discipline on the member not to ramble, which politicians, occasionally even myself included, have a tendency to do. It disciplines us to get to our question.
I would actually go a little further than even Gabriel said. The witness will, in the end, get more time than the members, because the witness has an opening statement. That is the moment when the witness is invited to really elaborate on and build out their concepts and ideas. They usually have 10 minutes, which is a very long time to speak. I'm not saying this is the perfect answer. I think it is the worst answer—except for all the others, as Churchill said about democracy.
Mr. Chair, you rightly pointed out the other day that the interruptions where people are speaking over each other are hard for the interpreters. They're hard for everybody. This is actually a solution to that. If I know I've asked a 30-second question and I'll get a 30-second answer, I don't have to barge in to reclaim my time. The reason members get anxious to barge back in is that they get only five minutes, so if the witness starts to give a speech, they know they won't get very many questions in. The chair's job actually gets very easy. You literally just look at the clock and say, “You asked a 23-second question, so there will be a 23-second answer.” It really doesn't leave any room for anyone on the committee to feel shortchanged, because we're just dealing with the mathematics of time.
As for the occasion raised by Mr. Baker and Mrs. Chatel, where a member asks a question in three seconds that clearly cannot be answered, that will be evident to everyone in the room. It will be self-defeating. Let's say someone says, “Give me the history since the book of Genesis. Start now.” I mean, everybody will say that's a ridiculous challenge. The member will get nowhere and will get no sympathy for getting a non-answer.
Let's say, though, that the member asks, “Look, how much money is there in the Canada pension fund?” We're looking for a number at that point. It doesn't require a speech. This, I think, is the best system we can come up with in order to regulate the very limited amount of time we have for these conversations.
As for Mr. Ste-Marie's other point, I think Wayne was a little more generous with non-ministers and officials. If there were people who were not professional at testifying, they were given a bit more leeway. No one would fault the chair if he were to do the same when we have witnesses who are not members of the executive branch or of the offices of Parliament.
That's the best I can do, I think, in responding to the good questions and concerns.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Chair, I'll keep my comment short and sweet, as the honourable member mentioned.
I agree with both points raised by Mr. Ste‑Marie and Mr. Blaikie.
I will tell you, Mr. Chair, that this was the practice of the previous committee I was on. I don't know why it's being contested here at all, because it makes for better meetings that run much more smoothly.
That being said, I yield.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
If we are going ahead with this motion, I like Gabriel's suggestion that it should be witnesses who are used to this and are regularly invited. I don't know how we can phrase that. I can tentatively offer “witnesses who are regularly invited to this committee”, or maybe “senior officials and ministers”. I don't want to be part of a committee where the chair has to look at 30 seconds and then 30 seconds. I think it would be unfair to put that burden on them.
I would change the last sentence. Instead of saying “unless with the permission of the member who has the floor”, I would say, “when the member who has the floor asks for a short reply”. That would seem to be more.... If you ask a short question, you could ask the witness for a short reply. The chair will then know what's going on and be able to compute the time.
When we invite witnesses, I want to hear what they have to say. Just because I ask a 30-second question, I don't want to put a burden on the chair to interrupt the witness when I want a long answer, because they're there to provide their expertise.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
I'm not sure if there was an amendment moved there, necessarily, but I want to suggest a friendly amendment to Pierre. I'm suggesting it only as a friendly amendment. If he doesn't accept it as a friendly amendment, that's fine, and we can move on.
Just to give some flexibility given the way the amendment is worded, after the colon, where it says “that the time to respond to each question not exceed the time taken to ask it”, there might be a circumstance where it is obvious to the chair—or to anyone—that somebody is closing their sentence or just coming to the end and might not be within that window of a couple of seconds, I would suggest that we add the term “approximately”, so that the time to respond to each question not exceed the approximate time taken to ask it, just to give that flexibility.
Again, I'm not trying to do anything to change the basic nature of what the mover is trying to accomplish. I just think it probably more accurately reflects how the committee was previously run.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Would you like to speak to that, Mr. Poilievre, in terms of the friendly amendment?
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
That's no problem. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wouldn't mind hearing from the clerk.
Is Mr. Poilievre's amendment in order?
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
The clerk confirms it is in order, Julie.
Yvan, do you have your hand up?
5 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
You know what, Julie and Yvan, or anybody who is on the screen, I go by the clerk, who is instructing me that we go in order of how I see the hands as they come up on the screen. That's what I'm going by, so I have Yvan now.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I have just a couple of thoughts.
One is that I haven't seen this rule applied on the committees I've served on—for example, environment and defence in the last Parliament—but I think a couple of points are important.
The first—and maybe, Mr. Poilievre, you support this—is I just want to be sure I understand. There is a bit of discretion, so that if you ask for a dissertation on inflation, for example, and you do that in three seconds, the witness has some time, and some discretion is given to the chair or some mechanism is in place to ensure we treat witnesses appropriately and respectfully and we get answers to the questions you've indicated you want answers to. That's one point of clarification I would put to Mr. Poilievre and any other members of the committee about, to see if they agree.
On the second point, I just want to make sure we're clear.
I want to follow up on what Mr. Ste‑Marie said about the amount of time allocated to witnesses. I'd like some clarity on a few things.
Everyone agrees that witnesses should have the same amount of time to answer as members have to ask their question. For instance, if a member has five minutes, two and a half minutes go to the member for questioning and two and a half minutes go to the witness for answering. The chair is the one who interrupts the member to give the witness the necessary time to answer.
I'd like some clarification on that. I want to be sure I understand what Mr. Poilievre is trying to do and what Mr. Ste‑Marie said.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Just for the record, it's so hard to be here while you guys are all there. I just wanted to let you know.
I would like to formally move what my colleague Mr. Beech proposed: that we add the words “approximately equal time”, and that applies to ministers and government officials. I don't have the amendment Mr. Poilievre suggested, so I'm not able to actually read that out properly to you, but I want to add the word “approximately” and I would like it to apply ministers and government officials. I would like to formally move that, Mr. Chair.
This is a good discussion. Mr. Blaikie mentioned something similar to what I said, where Wayne very much tried to keep things on a very even keel. To those members who mentioned that, for those who were not government officials or ministers, the former chair did provide extra time and, in most circumstances, did allow witnesses to finish what they had to say. He really tried to be very balanced with the time for all of the different sides and all of the different parties.
My two amendments—the adding of “approximately” and the adding of “the ministers and government officials”—address a number of the issues that have been raised in our conversation over the last 20 minutes. I hope that they are adopted by the committee, so that we could move on to maybe discussing the pre-budget consultation aspects of this motion.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Alas, I fear my intervention may have come too late, as we now have a subamendment on the floor. I wanted to offer that in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice manual, under “Committees of the Whole” and “Other Uses of Committees of the Whole”—I don't have the pagination because I'm on my phone, Mr. Chair—it says:
[T]he House frequently adopts special orders setting additional conditions for debate, such as rules ensuring that the answer by the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary does not exceed the time taken for the question....
That language is pretty clear. The problem with the language of “approximate” —while I think that's largely what the chair will end up doing, and there's a bit of discretion in the committee of the whole to that effect—is that it makes your job a lot more difficult. Part of the idea is to set a clear rule that makes it clear how you're to proceed, so if there is a disagreement about the extent to which that's happening appropriately, you can lean on the rule. If you have to get very strict with the clock, then you can. We all hope things will proceed in such a way that people are satisfied that it's roughly similar in terms of time and won't be challenging you on that too often.
However, in the event that there is a challenge, you want the rule to be clear enough that you have firm guidance. If it's not, I fear we will descend into argument about the meaning of “approximate” and your conduct as chair, and whether it's acceptable to the committee or not.
There's a bit of what people sometimes call “future tripping” by my Liberal colleagues about how the rule will happen in practice. I hear that. Until we get a bit of experience with it and people have a sense of what to expect, that's likely to happen. I like having clearer wording. What we're hearing is that the expectation is that this would more likely happen with ministers and with departmental officials than with outside witnesses.
Part of it is to set the rule. If the committee feels like things are proceeding well, this isn't going to come up. Even if a witness is taking a little longer but the MP is not objecting, that is more or less in the motion Mr. Poilievre has proposed in the first place. It's going to come up in hard cases, where there's friction. At that point, you want a clear rule.
The initial wording is adequate. We need a bit of experience with it in order to build a bit of trust and to have people feel good about how it's going to be implemented. If we need to revisit because it is falling apart, then we can do that. Trying to craft something right now that's going to speak to all potential cases of breakdown is going to be difficult. The initial wording really does give you the tools you need, Mr. Chair, to implement what would be a clear intention of the committee if it were to pass. With a little more experience, in the event that it's not working, we can hammer out a compromise.
I'm still inclined to support the wording of the original amendment.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will do some long soul-searching this holiday. I find myself agreeing very much with my NDP colleague. This is the 10th meeting. We have a very good track record.
I just note the time, for the record. It is 5:10. I think we could dispense with much of the discussion. The main motion, at least, seems relatively reasonable. The amendment by Mr. Poilievre seems very reasonable. If members wish to yield more of their time to witnesses, that is completely within their right, but for all the reasons mentioned by my colleague Mr. Blaikie, it would be very nice and in the Christmas spirit, or holiday spirit, if you will, and in co-operation that we dispense with this relatively quickly.
Thank you.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I couldn't agree more with Adam. The word “approximately” is too approximate to be clear, and I think we're going to end up, as our friend Mr. Blaikie said, debating the meaning of that adverb rather than debating the substance before committee on a given day.
In the House, during committees of the whole, it's actually very sharp. It is a three-second question and a three-second answer, a three-minute question and a three-minute answer. Somehow, committees of the whole actually work quite well; we've been very well served by them. Therefore, I think we can just apply the same rule.
Remember that members can offer more time. They can say, “Actually, I think this is going to take a longer time.”
The other thing that can happen is that if a member of the government side believes a minister has not had enough time to answer an opposition question, they can always say, “Minister, I note you had more to say; please take some of my time to elaborate on the answer that you gave to the opposition.” There are a lot of opportunities to manoeuvre around the strictures of this, and I think we should adopt it.