Agreed.
Evidence of meeting #1 for Health in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clerk.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #1 for Health in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clerk.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
(Motion as amended agreed to)
Good.
On staff at in camera meetings:
That, unless otherwise ordered, each Committee member in attendance may be permitted to have one (1) staff member present at in camera meetings, and that each party be permitted to have one (1) staff member from the Whip or House Leader's Office present at in camera meetings.
In camera meetings are meetings where the public and most people are asked to leave. This allows us to keep one staff member.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
Okay.
Transcripts for in camera meetings:
That one (1) copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept in the Committee Clerk's office for consultation by members of the Committee and by their staff.
(Motion agreed to)
On notice of motions:
That 48 hours' notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the Committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration; That the notice of motion be filed with the Clerk of the Committee and distributed to members in both official languages; and That motions received by 4 p.m. from Monday to Thursday at 2:00 p.m., on Friday be distributed to members on the same day.
That's just to give everybody lots of chance to know what will be discussed and what issues will be coming up.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
On time limits for witnesses' statements and questioning, it says here that witnesses will be allowed up to 10 minutes to make their opening statements. I have hardly ever heard a witness confine their statement to 10 minutes. Is this what we want to do? This way we would get more questions and we will find out what we want to find out and not necessarily what they want to say.
All in favour of 10 minutes?
Mr. Oliver.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
Sir, may I ask a question? If the committee decides to give them additional time if they ask, would we have the authority to do that? This doesn't limit us from extending their time, does it?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
No. We could extend time if somebody wanted further time. If they wanted to extend their statements, we could do it by unanimous consent or just a vote, could we not?
Yes, by unanimous consent, but I will note for new members that often witnesses will talk for a long time if you don't put a limit on it. Some witnesses have a hard time getting to their point. If we were to put it at 10 minutes, it would be a good place to start. If we want to change it by unanimous consent, we can.
Mr. Davies.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Chairman, I'm in favour of the motion for 10 minutes. I agree with you completely. It has been my experience that 10 minutes is a good amount of time for people to have a good opening statement and preserve the ability of the committee to ask questions.
Some of this, I think, requires us to think a bit further about the structure of the committee. In regard to the two-hour meetings we've had, there are generally two kinds of meetings, in my experience. There is one single two-hour meeting, or very often in fact, I think the more common practice has been to split the two hours into two separate panels.
When we split it into two separate panels of one hour each, sometimes what I find is that if you have more than two witnesses speaking for 10 minutes, it cuts into the questions too much. Let's say you have three witnesses scheduled. That would be 30 minutes. What I would like the committee to think about is that if we are going to go to two panels per meeting—I have language drafted for this—and if we do have a third witness or organization, we restrict their testimony to eight minutes.
I'll read what I have—you don't have to take this down—just so you know where I'm coming from: Where a meeting is divided into two one-hour panels, when two or fewer witnesses or organizations appear before the committee, each shall be allotted 10 minutes to make their opening statement, and when three witnesses or organizations appear before the committee, each shall be allowed eight minutes to make their opening statement.
It's only by getting 24 minutes that you can actually get that first round of questions completed in the hour.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
If I'm not mistaken, each witness is allowed to have two people as a group, so are you talking about maybe three groups of two people?
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Yes, and it's my preference over time that two witnesses per hour actually is ideal, because when you do have three, I think it waters down the time. I think the orthodox position should be two witnesses, but in the event that you decide to schedule three, you have to truncate that a little or else you don't get through the first round of questions.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Darshan Singh Kang Liberal Calgary Skyview, AB
Would the two witnesses get eight minutes, with four minutes each?
Would they get eight minutes each?
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
One organization can come with two people. They can divide the time between them if they want, or one could speak and take the eight minutes. If it's two witnesses, it's 10 minutes for the opening statement. If it's three witnesses, it's eight minutes.
Mr. Carrie.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Mr. Chair, could I make a suggestion?
Don, would you be able to provide members of the committee with your wording, just so we could have it in front of us?
4 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
For the next meeting, he could distribute it to the committee just so there's no confusion.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
Yes, that's a good idea. There's no panic on this. That's good.
That's the end of the routine motions that I have. Does anybody else have any direction or motions they would like to propose?
Mr. Carrie.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Mr. Chair, I was wondering about the second paragraph under speaking order in regard to the questioning during the second round. It talks about the first round of questioning and the second round of questioning. I believe PROC adopted certain—
