Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 13th, 2020

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I believe it was the practice in the previous session and in other committees to reverse the second and third rounds so that the second is now for the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party, with two and a half minutes each. This avoided the situation where there was no time left for the third round, in which the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party would normally have spoken.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Okay, thank you very much.

Is there other debate or comment?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I would like to speak to that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Please, go ahead.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

The motion would be to move the two-and-a- half-minute rounds for the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party to be after the first five minutes for the Conservative Party and the five minutes for the Liberal Party. Then it would be Bloc for two and a half minutes, the New Democratic Party for two and a half minutes, the Conservative Party for five minutes and the Liberal Party for five minutes. That would be the second round. The first round would stay the same, at six minutes apiece.

That's been done to ensure that with the second round being only two and a half minutes for the Bloc and also for the NDP they would not be cut off with that very short period of time. It would be more equitably shared. There's a subsequent motion that may be made as well, which is potentially reducing the time of opening statements to make it more compatible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

It's incumbent on me, then, to time those two two-and-a half-minute interventions quite precisely. There's a bit more latitude in a five-minute intervention than there is in a two-and-a half-minute intervention. I will do my utmost to give credit to the will of the committee and to implement this proposal if it passes.

Is there any other debate on this? Seeing none, all in favour?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That carries, and we're back to the main motion.

Mr. Chong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to propose an amendment to the motion: that the witnesses be given five minutes for their opening statements and that whenever possible witnesses provide the committee with their opening statements 72 hours in advance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Is there any debate on the amendment?

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

There was some discussion in other committees about this particular motion, in that the five minutes may be very useful, particularly if you have three witnesses in a a session or something like that, but one of the chairs expressed the view that someone suggested that discretion be used to perhaps increase it. The chair was of the view that this particular motion didn't give the chair any discretion to provide a longer time. There may be occasions when we have only one witness, for example, and “at the discretion of the chair” was inserted before the five minutes or somewhere there, so that the chair had discretion in determining the length of the opening statements. It could be for “five to seven minutes” or some general discretion.

One committee that we met with suggested that it be at the discretion of the chair in consultation with the parties. In fact, on the Canada-China committee, it was in consultation with the vice-chairs, of which I was one. That sort of discretion I think ought to be included in the motion as well if someone has a specific amendment to include that. I wanted to raise that point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

From the perspective of the chair, discretion would certainly be appreciated, but I'm not going to sway the debate.

I will pass the floor to Ms. Sahota, please, who is next on the list.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I was going to ask Mr. Chong about the wording. It seems like the wording may be for “72 hours where possible”. Perhaps the five-minute portion could also be made “where possible”, because there are going to be witnesses who are talking about a very in-depth issue in this committee, perhaps one that we don't have that much background on. Or maybe at times when we have one or two witnesses we could have that flexibility or the chair would have that discretion to afford and give them 10 minutes, perhaps, or seven minutes, or five minutes when we have a larger panel, or where the complexity may be less depending on the issue.

Could the language be modified a bit giving you the discretion, as chair, to only give them five to seven minutes where possible?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Ms. Sahota, would you want to go as far as to propose amended language?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Yes. I guess we could just say that we would give five minutes for opening statements when appropriate or where possible, or five to seven minutes we could even say, with five to seven minutes for opening statements when appropriate, leaving discretion to the chair, and then have the rest of it remain the same.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Ms. Sahota.

We'll go to Mr. Genuis for comments on this.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Just for context, Mr. Chair, Mr. Harris referred to this, and I thought I would specifically mention what we did at the Canada-China committee, because in the meantime I have been pulling up those blues.

At the Canada-China committee, we adopted a motion for five-minute opening statements, so we adopted this motion as is. Then we added to it at the end of the motion to say that the chair would “be authorized to adjust” the amount of time of the opening statements “in consultation with the vice-chairs”. I think we might just say “in consultation with the members of the subcommittee” in this case, so that there's just a mechanism for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you for that.

I just may put a caveat in there that there may be instances when we keep things out of the subcommittee. I don't know if the committee has decided yet to go to the subcommittee on all matters. Sometimes we may decide it in plenary, so maybe it's something slightly more general, but the direction is certainly helpful.

Mr. Chong and Ms. Sahota.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Look, I think we should keep it to a single numeral rather than five to seven minutes, but I think we can capture what Ms. Sahota wants to do by simply beginning the sentence with: “that, at the discretion of the chair, witnesses be given five minutes for their opening statements; that, whenever possible, witnesses provide the committee with their opening statements 72 hours in advance”. It gives you, as chair, the flexibility, after you informally consult with members of the committee, about extending it beyond five minutes, but it makes it clear that the standard is five minutes. If there's an exceptional circumstance that warrants giving a witness a longer amount of time, Chair, I trust your judgment that you will consult widely and seek a consensus to use your discretion to elongate the time beyond five minutes.

I think that if we begin it with “that, at the discretion of the chair, witnesses be given five minutes for their opening statements; that, whenever possible, witnesses provide the committee with their opening statements 72 hours in advance”, it captures what Madam Sahota wants to do and what we're trying to do here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chong.

The conversation went from Ms. Sahota to Mr. Genuis to Mr. Chong, and now we're back to Ms. Sahota.

I have you on the list, Ms. Sahota, and then Mr. Oliphant and Mr. Harris.

Ms. Sahota, please.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I was just going to say that I agree with Mr. Chong. I think this is a very good amendment that he has made. I think the wording is good, and I think we should go with that rather than having the vice-chairs added in, because sometimes as chair you really don't have enough time, depending on the study. Sometimes you're calling witnesses or fitting them in at the last minute. You just may not have enough time to confer on every little detail like that with the vice-chairs. I really like Mr. Chong's wording.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Oliphant, please, and then Mr. Harris.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I'm also fine with the wording with respect to “discretion”, and I can live with five minutes, but I actually think it does a disservice to Canadians who want to appear before our committee. I have been on the other end of the table. I have been a witness appearing at parliamentary committees on important issues and have taken great time to prepare statements.

I think that sometimes it's important to remember that it's not all about us. It's not all about our questions. I do think the five minutes can be extremely limiting to expert witnesses whose opening remarks we want to have. I think that is important. I can live with it, but I hope the committee recognizes that this is about our witnesses, too, and I hope the chair will use that discretion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

I have Mr. Harris and then Ms. Fry.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

I'd like to take the opportunity to echo what Mr. Oliphant is saying. Five minutes is a short time for someone as loquacious as I am, and our experts are dealing with far more complicated topics than we sometimes deal with in our short conversations.

I think perhaps the wording ought to be “subject to the discretion of the chair” instead of “in the discretion of the chair”, because for the five minutes it's not either five or nothing, it's five or more. Saying that “subject to the discretion of the chair” five or more minutes would be given to speak would allow that recognition, if we look at the timing of the first and second rounds, for example, depending on whether we have one witness or two or three. If you have three, five minutes is as much as you can fit into a certain length of a meeting, but if there's only one witness.... Often, obviously, we have ministers speaking for 10 minutes or more, and introductions.

I think there is a fair bit of discretion used in these meetings. I think it would be better to state it as not quite open-ended, but that it can be as low as five minutes and it can be longer at the discretion of the chair, and that perhaps, subject to the discretion of the chair, five minutes or more may be allocated to the speaker. That would give us some flexibility without mentioning more than one number.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Ms. Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I want to agree with Rob Oliphant. I think the message we want to give as a standing committee is that we really care about what experts have to tell us. The committees are for Canadians, to give us input and information; they're not supposed to cater to the needs of the committee members.

I think giving that strong message that we really like to see... I would like to say “seven minutes” according to the discretion of the chair. Some people won't use the seven minutes. It sounds generous when we say seven minutes. It sounds like we really care. I also like “the discretion of the Chair”, because nobody opposes this chair. Everyone seems to have confidence in the chair. Let us show that we have confidence in the chair and let's show our witnesses that we care about what they have to say.