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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Marc-Olivier Girard
Julia Nicol  Committee Researcher

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

You're awesome. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

Mr. Maloney is next on the list to talk about the proposed amendment by Mr. Gerretsen and then the friendly amendment by Mr. Virani.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Thanks, Madam Chair.

I agree with everything that Mr. Virani has just said. I would like to remind people that this issue was addressed at PROC. As somebody said yesterday at a different committee, PROC is viewed as the committee of all committees. If it was deemed good enough there to adopt this process that Mr. Gerretsen and Mr. Virani have suggested, then it should be good enough for us. I recognize that committees have the power to determine their own destiny and their own process, but I think we should view having had it considered at PROC as a good precedent and adopt it.

As for the time limits, I am also a litigator, like Mr. Virani. Sadly, lawyers—and now I realize, politicians—cannot always be brief, and time limits are necessary. Over my shoulder, you'll see a framed picture. It's a quote from a former associate justice of the United States Supreme Court in which he says, “Be pointed, be brief, and let your matter stand”. In other words, cut to the chase, because it saves people a lot of time.

Although we are good at it, sometimes witnesses need a little bit of steering in that process. I think five minutes is adequate time for witnesses to deliver their opening remarks, keeping in mind that the chair has absolute discretion. I have confidence in our chair that if a witness is five minutes into their opening statement and appears they need another minute, she will give them a minute. It all comes out in the wash at the end, in my experience. I find that the questions usually generate more useful information than the opening statements do. Having more time for questions is a good thing.

I propose we vote collectively on the amendments that Mr. Gerretsen and Mr. Virani put on the table.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid

Thanks very much, Mr. Maloney.

I have Mr. Zuberi next on the list, and then Mr. Moore.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Thanks, Madam Chair, for all the work you're doing.

I would like to support what Mr. Virani said with respect to reducing that minimum time given to witnesses to five minutes and leaving it at your discretion to give witnesses more than that.

There are two reasons. The first is that we unanimously put you and the other vice-chairs forth, which means that we have trust and confidence in your ability to manage us and to manage the time that we are dealing with.

Secondly, I'm learning, as many of those around the table who are more experienced than I am know, that most of what the expert witnesses want to say actually comes out through the questions and answers. That's really where the meat is in terms of their testimony, in terms of what we want to hear and in terms of what is helpful for us as legislators for tweaking the bills that are coming in front of us.

For those reasons, I hope we can agree that this friendly amendment from Mr. Virani is in fact friendly and we can move ahead with it.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid

Thank you, Mr. Zuberi.

I have the Hon. Rob Moore next on the list.

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

Thank you, Madam Chair. Congratulations on your appointment.

I agree with what Mr. Garrison has put forward.

I do not believe we should reduce the time limit from 10 minutes to five minutes, and I will tell you why.

We heard from Mr. Virani and Mr. Maloney, who referenced being litigators, but many of the witnesses who appear before us are not lawyers or litigators. It's their first time appearing in a very intimidating format. If what we're saying is that upon arrival, someone who has prepared a 10-minute statement would then be told that, by the way, they only have five minutes, I could foresee that causing more angst for someone who's probably already under a lot of pressure.

I think of the bills we're going to be receiving and the studies we're going to be doing. Not everyone is going to have the kind of experience to be able to handle that.

I would propose a friendly amendment to the friendly amendment and say maybe seven and a half or eight minutes. If we have three witnesses and we reduce their time from 10 to eight or seven and a half minutes, that picks up quite a bit of time that we may have wasted due to technical difficulties. The onus is on us to get our technical challenges under control. I don't want to put any more pressure on witnesses than they are already under.

I think cutting their time in half is a bit too much if what we're proposing is that it would be done on the spot. I would say, at the most, reduce the time to seven and a half minutes.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid

Thanks very much for your intervention, Mr. Moore.

I have Monsieur Fortin next.

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

I think that we could give between five and 10 minutes to witnesses, and they will take the time they want. I agree with Mr. Garrison that it's important to have all the members of the committee able to speak during the second round. We can word it in a thousand and one ways, but that is the important part.

The NDP and the Bloc Québécois already have a reduced speaking time. We have two and a half minutes, compared to the five minutes allocated to the Conservatives and the Liberals. I will not go over this again, as I understand that this is the way that has been—

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid

Mr. Fortin, hold on for a second, please.

Do we have translation for Monsieur Fortin? We do. Wonderful.

Please continue, Monsieur Fortin.

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

I apologize, I was not on the French channel.

Mr. Garrison's argument seems quite relevant to me. We have to make sure that all the committee members can speak in the second round. Right now, the issue is that the two rounds of Liberals and Conservatives come before the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. So, we occasionally do not speak at all.

So I think giving five or 10 minutes to the witnesses is not the issue. It's not a matter of five minutes exactly. That does not change much. The important is to ensure that, in terms of speaking time, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois are entitled to their two and a half minutes, which is already very little. If we compare that to the speaking times of the Liberals and Conservatives, they each have five minutes twice, so 10 minutes in total. Therefore, we must ensure that our turn comes before what is actually the third round of the Conservatives and Liberals. That seems fair to me.

So I will vote accordingly. Respected colleagues, I invite all of you to reach a first unanimous decision on this issue.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid

Thank you, Monsieur Fortin.

Before I go to Mr. Garrison, who is next on the list, if you had your hand raised and you have already spoken, can I ask you to lower your hand proactively, so that the next time you want to speak it will put you at the bottom of the list? Right now I have a number of people who are appearing at the top of my list, and I know you have already spoken.

With that, I go to Mr. Garrison, please.

11:35 a.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

In terms of the way we deal with these questions, there is no such thing as a friendly amendment, but I know we sometimes proceed more informally. It would be helpful if we separate the two questions here and deal with my motion separately from the question of time limits for the introductory remarks, since we appear to have a difference of opinion on them.

If we could deal with my motion and then deal with the second motion on the time for introductory statements, it would make it easier for us to make decisions.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid

Thanks, Mr. Garrison.

Mr. Virani, just take note that your amendment is no longer friendly, so we'll have a subamendment to the amendment to the actual motion in the routine motions.

Before we get to that, I will go to Mr. Maloney.

You're next on the list.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Mr. Garrison, I thought everything was quite friendly to this point, frankly.

It seems that everybody agrees that the speaking order in the second round can be changed, but some of us are only prepared to do that in exchange for a reduction in time for the opening remarks, which I think is fair.

Mr. Moore, I take your point. If somebody shows up expecting to speak for 10 minutes and then they're told they can speak for only five minutes, that's inappropriate. However, the witnesses are going to be told well in advance that they have only five minutes. As I said earlier, I have faith in our chair. You know from your experience that 10 minutes becomes 12 minutes and five minutes becomes seven minutes. Even when we're asking questions, six minutes becomes eight minutes sometimes. You have to have flexibility in these things. If our goal is to accommodate the NDP and the Bloc in getting their question slots, and making sure that everybody has an opportunity to speak, which we all agree on as being a good idea, then I think a reduction in the time is acceptable. The witnesses are going to be told in advance and we do have the flexibility of the chair.

Mr. Garrison, I might suggest to you that we vote on it all together. I wouldn't want to see a situation in which the people who are in the second camp I mentioned earlier, those being the ones who are in favour of changing the order but only if the introductory remarks time is reduced as well, are put in a position where they have to choose—sort of an all or nothing. I think it would be in everybody's best interests if we did this as one motion.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid

Thank you very much for that, Mr. Maloney.

I'll go to Mr. Virani next.

Go ahead, please.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I agree that no one wants to take a witness by surprise, to reiterate the point Mr. Maloney just made. It should be clearly articulated to witnesses prior to their arrival what the time limit would be. I think injecting the discretionary point in the hands of the chair is critical to addressing the second point raised by Mr. Moore, which is that if perhaps five minutes is too short, maybe something in the order of seven and a half minutes would be sufficient.

I want to reiterate that we live in a world of time limits, so witnesses coming here, even if it's their first time, have to understand that time is not unlimited. We don't have nine-hour committee meetings, absent certain extreme situations. There's always a time limit that's applied. We're just debating what the time limit should be.

I don't know whether to call it friendly or not, but my original language was that it was a minimum of five minutes. That is what I indicated, but it could be something along the lines of, “that witnesses be given between five and seven and a half minutes, at the discretion of the Chair, for their opening statement”. That would perhaps accommodate what Mr. Moore was indicating but give flexibility and a potential window, and it would still save time so that all people could pose their questions.

As Mr. Maloney said, we are absolutely in favour of rejigging the order so that the third and fourth parties get the ability to ask a second round of questions. It's unfair for them not to be able to do so, but let's ensure that Liberal and Conservative parties also have the ability, if they are now on the back end, to pose their questions. That can be accommodated by a slight adjustment in the time limits.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid

Thanks, Mr. Virani.

Before I go to Mr. Sangha, who is next on the list, I just want to clarify that, as we're adopting these routine motions, we basically conduct our committee according to these routine motions. When we send invitations to witnesses to come and present before us, we will tell them ahead of time, “This is how much time you have allotted to you for your opening remarks, and then there will be questions and answers”. Logistically, they would not be taken by surprise in any way, based on whatever we finally agree on with the routine motions and how we decide to govern ourselves. I just wanted to clarify that.

With that said, Mr. Sangha, you're next on the list.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Ramesh Sangha Liberal Brampton Centre, ON

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and congratulations on your re-election today.

I want to make a motion regarding seniors. It is on elder abuse and neglect by caregivers.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid

Hold on, Mr. Sangha. We're still discussing routine motions at this time, so that motion is a bit early.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Ramesh Sangha Liberal Brampton Centre, ON

All right, thank you.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid

If you have motions, we'll come back to you after we're done the routine motions. In the meantime, can you lower your hand so that I know not to come to you until we have passed the routine motions?

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Ramesh Sangha Liberal Brampton Centre, ON

Yes, thank you.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid

Thank you.

Mr. Maguire, you are next.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Thanks, Madam Chair.¸

It's good to be back on the committee, even just for a day.

Listening to the discussions, I see there is agreement to change the order. Mr. Virani just indicated that. I appreciate that and follow that as well. I agree with that.

I'd like to add that I remember Mr. Moore made comments about people being nervous. It is some time ago—many decades, actually—since I first made a presentation to a House of Commons committee meeting, and I was as nervous as hell.

I just want to say that having a few extra minutes above the five minutes is not out of order. Maybe 10 minutes is too many, but we could easily say seven or eight minutes. If you want to go to seven and a half minutes for a minimum presentation, if they don't want to use all of that, then of course they don't have to, but it puts the onus back on the people who are making the presentation to determine what their presentation will be.

I know full well that the time limit is clarified before they start, but sometimes people are nervous when they are getting going, so I would look at a compromise on the amount of time for the presentations to be made.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid

Thanks very much for that, Mr. Maguire.

It is really wonderful to have you, even if it is just for the one day. You're quite a personality on our committee. We're going to miss you. Thank you for being here.

I have Mr. Fortin next on the speakers list.

Please go ahead, Mr. Fortin.