Evidence of meeting #1 for Justice and Human Rights in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was garrison.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
The motion on “Meeting Without a Quorum” reads:
That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive and publish evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four members are present, including two members of the opposition and two members of the government; and that when travelling outside the Parliamentary Precinct, the meeting begin after 15 minutes, regardless of members present.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Do I have agreement from everybody to adopt this motion?
(Motion agreed to)
Please go ahead, Mr. Kelloway.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
The motion under “Time for Opening Remarks and Questioning of Witnesses” reads:
That witnesses be given 10 minutes to make their opening statement; and that, at the discretion of the Chair, during the questioning of witnesses in the first round there be allocated six minutes for the first questioner of each party as follows: Conservative Party, Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois, New Democratic Party; that for the second and subsequent rounds the order and time for questioning be as follows: Conservative Party, five minutes, Liberal Party, five minutes, Conservative Party, five minutes, Liberal Party, five minutes, Bloc Québécois, two and a half minutes, New Democratic Party, two and a half minutes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you, Mr. Kelloway.
Mr. Garrison, I understand that this is exactly what your motion speaks to. Would you like to speak to it at this time?
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thanks very much, Madam Chair.
My motion deals with the second round of questioning. I believe it was circulated to members, but I will read it.
I'm moving that the routine motion be amended to replace the text regarding the second round of questioning with the following:
for the second and subsequent rounds, the order and time for questioning be as follows: Conservative Party, five (5) minutes; Liberal Party, five (5) minutes; Bloc Québécois, two and a half (2.5) minutes; New Democratic Party, two and a half (2.5) minutes; Conservative Party, five (5) minutes; Liberal Party, five (5) minutes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Is there any discussion as to why you're proposing this, Mr. Garrison?
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
The way the second round tends to work is the third and fourth parties tend to be left out of the second round of questioning. By changing the order, we ensure it's more likely that all of the parties get a chance to participate in each round of questioning. This motion has been adopted in more than a dozen other committees.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you, Mr. Garrison.
I open it up for debate. Mr. Kelloway, you are first.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
I'm wondering if in that motion we could include the discretion of the chair. The chair has a great pen in this process in terms of being able to modify, meeting to meeting, the timing of opening statements. I'm wondering if there's some consideration for that.
Liberal
October 15th, 2020 / 11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
I appreciate the motion presented by Mr. Garrison. The point he raises is a sound one. We're trying to ensure fairness among the parties in proportion to their representation in the House and ensure that all of the parties get a chance to ask their questions of the witnesses who come before us.
Clearly, Mr. Garrison's motion identifies what has been a problem in the first session of this Parliament, and we're trying to correct that in the second session. That's why I presume it's been passed at many other committees.
I note that other committees have also experienced some technical hiccups, even me personally, and I apologize for that. Sometimes there are some logistical technical issues that arise with getting the committees going in sufficient time. With respect to that, it sometimes means the committee time that's been allotted, a two-hour time frame, can be collapsed and end up as a 90- or 100-minute meeting, for example. We saw that with the heritage committee just yesterday. It had a half-hour dent in its committee time.
The point I'm making here is that we want to ensure fairness for all parties in putting their questions to the witnesses. That's important. Rejigging the order is not something I would object to. Apropos to what Mr. Kelloway just raised, I would propose a friendly amendment that would achieve the goals of ensuring what Mr. Garrison is trying to achieve and also ensure fairness across all parties.
In the first part of the routine motion, in the first line it states, “That witnesses be given 10 minutes”. I would propose that we rephrase it to state, “That witnesses be given a minimum of five minutes for their opening statement”. That would ensure there is enough time for all of the parties to ask their questions. That does require witnesses to be a bit more precise and concise in their opening statements.
For those of us who are litigators, who are used to time limits and getting our points across—we know how to do it in the House in 60 seconds for an S. O. 31—witnesses can be similarly directed to keep it brief, concise and to the point, and provide five minutes of oral submissions to back up their usually voluminous and detailed written submissions. Saying “a minimum of five minutes” does give you some of that discretion, Madam Chair, that Mr. Kelloway mentioned.
You've done this before, and you've acquitted yourself very well as chair, with the able assistance of the analysts and clerks, but I'm sure that you have the ability to tweak it where necessary. Where you want to let a witness go longer than five minutes, you could, all the while preserving the time for all of the parties to put their questions, including those who would now be at the end of the list, which would be the Conservatives and the Liberals.
Long story short, my friendly proposal would delete “10 minutes” in the first line of the fourth part of the routine motion, and insert the words “a minimum of five minutes”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
We have a friendly amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Garrison.
We'll continue at this time with the list of speakers.
I have Mr. Maloney next on my list. Mr. Fortin, please raise your hand so that I can recognize you on my list. I don't see you on my list.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I don't see how I am to indicate that I want to raise my hand.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I don't comment often enough. That is why I am unable to figure out how to do it.
The Clerk
Mr. Fortin, if you look at the list of participants, which is open, you can click on your name. One of the options will enable you to raise your hand, I believe.
