Finance Committee on Dec. 16th, 2021

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To Mr. Poilievre's most recent comments, the finance committee is not similar to the committee of the whole. I want to point that out.

I also want to point out that part of my amendment to the subamendment was to address something Mr. Ste-Marie had mentioned.

I will just read out my amendment to the subamendment, if that's okay, because I think we're coming close to a vote: “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 approximate time taken to ask it unless with the permission of the member who has the floor; and that this rule apply to ministers and senior officials.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Julie.

Now we have Daniel, and then Yvan.

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

We've had a pretty good sampling of opinions around the table. I was going to ask if you might test the committee for unanimous consent at this point to consider the subamendment defeated on division, the amendment passed on division and the main motion as amended passed on division.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Could you just repeat that? There was a lot.

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

The subamendment, which is Ms. Dzerowicz's motion, would be considered defeated on division.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Yes.

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

The amendment would be considered passed on division and the main motion as amended would be considered passed on division.

I just wonder if you might test the committee. I respect that Mr. Baker and other members might want to talk some more. I'm not trying to stop anyone from saying more. I'm just saying, if you test the committee and people are happy with that, we can conclude the debate on all three of these items efficiently.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thanks, Daniel.

I will let Mr. Baker speak, but just before I do, what I've been hearing is that members' time is precious and you have only so much time on committee. You are looking to make the committee as efficient and effective as possible. You want fairness and balance on the committee; you're looking for proportionate answers within the right timings, and you're looking for the chair to be able to hold to that.

What I'd also like to know, just in terms of what I'm hearing from everybody, is how prescriptive you want me to be. If I'm clocking this at 10 seconds and then it's 10 seconds, that's so prescriptive and it would be very challenging and difficult for the chair to cut people off, but you're looking for an answer that gets to the point within reason within that time. Is that it?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

No.

The reason we're writing it down, Chair, is that basically every word you used was a subjective one. You can say the word “fairness”, “approximately” or “reasonable”, but if we all agreed on the meaning of all those words we probably wouldn't even need to have political parties. We'd all agree on everything.

We're trying to lay down specific rules here so we get equal time. This is done by other chairs. It was done by Mr. Easter. It's a little awkward the first time you try it, kind of like riding a bicycle, but it gets very natural after that. At times Mr. Easter would literally interrupt mid-word—not mid-sentence, but mid-word—and it was fine. The witness very quickly got to understand. These were ministers and top officials testifying on $100-billion emergency programs. They got to understand that they had approximately 15 seconds to get the information out, and they got the information out.

It is a firm discipline. It is not a general sentiment. If we leave it to general sentiment, we end up with the kind of bickering that broke out at the last meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Poilievre.

I will commit to Mr. Poilievre and to members here that I will go back and look at the recordings. I'll look at those timings in terms of the question and answer and how Mr. Easter was conducting those meetings, what the exchanges were and how much time they took. Maybe with the clerk's help we can get some of those timings and bring those back to the committee so everybody is aware of what was happening before.

I've sat on international trade and on foreign affairs. I chaired a subcommittee on human rights. What I've learned and how I've conducted those meetings are the same as what happened on those committees. I'm just being open with the members.

I'm going to go to Yvan before we conclude this.

We'll have Yvan and then we'll look to see if we go to a vote or on division as Mr. Blaikie has requested.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I would just like some clarification from committee members.

Mr. Blaikie talked about the importance of clarity, and I agree with him that it's very important. He said it was one of the reasons why he was in favour of this motion.

However, I want some clarity on what would happen if a member took more than half of their allocated time to question the witness. I would just like to be clear on that.

For instance, if I have five minutes, and I go on for two and a half minutes, the chair is supposed to interrupt me to give the remaining two and a half minutes to the witness and thus make sure that the witness has the same amount of time to respond. Is that indeed the committee's intention? Is that how this will work?

I just want that to be clear before we vote, because it will be pointless to debate the motion afterwards. If a member could shed some light on that for me, I would certainly appreciate it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Gabriel.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Baker, here's how it worked in the last Parliament. If our allocated time was five minutes to question the witness, the chair would interrupt us two and a half minutes in, leaving the witness the other two and a half minutes to answer.

That said, the member still had the ability to make a comment rather than ask a question. I've had occasion to use my time to address the committee regarding the issue in hand, instead of questioning the witness.

However, when we hit the halfway point in questioning the witness, Mr. Easter would stop us and give the rest of the time to the witness.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Gabriel.

Daniel.

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

In my experience on committees of the whole, when a member has very little time left, they can use almost all of it to make a comment if they so wish.

When the member ends their remarks with a question, the chair indicates how much time is left for the answer and asks for a brief response.

The member chooses whether they wish to make a comment or not. If that is how they decide to use their time, they clearly aren't looking for an actual answer.

That's how committees of the whole work. The precedents are quite clear and significant when it comes to how this works.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Daniel.

Let me just say that I sat in the Ontario legislature, and they have clocks in committee and in the chamber. I don't know if members would like to try something like that, where you have six minutes, you see the clock, and as soon as it strikes six you're done. Rather than the chair having to try to find the end to an answer or to cut somebody off, we could try something like that. I'd be open to bringing that to our committee if members are open to that.

Mr. Beech.

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

I thought our colleague from the NDP had a very reasonable solution, and I would like to see if we're going to test his solution.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

This is all in the Christmas spirit, right? Great. I think we've heard from everybody.

Clerk, are we voting on the subamendment to the amendment?

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I was referring to the NDP's suggestion on unanimous consent, given division on the subamendment, and then adopting the entire.... Actually, I would suggest that my colleague Daniel, who brought this up in the first place, repeat it so all members understand it. Perhaps we could proceed that way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That would be excellent, yes.

We have Daniel, please.

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

My proposal was to consider Ms. Dzerowicz's subamendment defeated on division, Mr. Poilievre's amendment passed on division, and the main motion as amended. This would be Mr. Beech's motion, as amended, passed on division. If that's amenable to everyone on the committee, I don't see that we need anything further than a yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Mr. Beech, is that clear to you?

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

That sounds great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

To the committee, the subamendment would be defeated on division. The amendment would be passed on division and the main motion would be passed on division as amended.

(Subamendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Motion as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Merry Christmas.