Justice Committee on Oct. 15th, 2020

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I cannot take away my raised hand. However, all that I can add to what I already said is that witness speaking time is no problem for me, be it five or 10 minutes. I think it would be important to let them know in advance for the sake of fairness.

The situation is different for us. Mr. Garrison is proposing to ensure that the Bloc and the NDP can speak in the second round, a request I agree with and think is important for fairness. As for whether the witnesses will have five, seven or 10 introductory minutes, I am somewhat certain that they will all balance out. All they want is to be informed ahead of time.

So even if we were to spend the afternoon arguing on one or two minutes more or less in terms of introductory speaking time, I don't think that changes much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thanks very much, Mr. Fortin, for your intervention.

I have Mr. Moore next on my list.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thanks.

Not to belabour the point, but I think there is some confusion over what was proposed by Mr. Virani. When it was originally presented, I thought I heard him say that because there could be technical difficulties at the beginning of the meeting, witnesses' time could be reduced. Now we're talking about something quite different.

Obviously the witness needs to know. It is only professional that we tell people in advance how much time they will have. I'm comfortable with saying that the witnesses would speak for seven and a half minutes and I'm comfortable with what Mr. Garrison has proposed for the speaking order, but I find problematic the idea that we would use up the witnesses' time rather than find some other way.

I don't know that we're all talking about the same thing. What I heard was that we would have 10 minutes of speaking per witness unless, at the chair's discretion, we found that we had less time because of some technical glitch, and then the witness would be told, “By the way, you only have five minutes, not the 10 minutes we originally told you.” Now we're talking about something different, and it is a really important distinction. If we're talking about a permanent move to seven and a half minutes, then that's quite different.

Once we get up and running, we would probably have very little reason to reduce a witness's time to speak, and if anything, that should come out of the question time, not out of the one shot that witnesses have to put their thoughts out there.

Maybe we could get a little clarity on the nature of the amendment. Are we sticking with 10 minutes with a potential to reduce it, or are we looking at a more permanent change to the standing order?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thanks very much, Mr. Moore.

Mr. Virani, before we come to you, I have Mr. Zuberi and Mr. Maloney on the list. If I have the consent of everybody, I'll go straight to Mr. Virani so that he can speak to clarify what Mr. Moore is asking. I see nodding from everybody.

Mr. Virani, go ahead, please.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to everyone else on the committee.

To be crystal clear, what I'm trying to do is suggest an amendment to the motion that was presented by Mr. Garrison. The first point is that I believe we should vote on the amendment to Mr. Garrison's motion before voting on Mr. Garrison's motion itself.

Second, I just want to reiterate that I do believe a point that has not really been fully fleshed out here is that by limiting an opening statement of a witness, we're not purporting to limit their evidence. We know, as members of this committee, including people who have done this through multiple Parliaments, that a lot of witness testimony actually is solicited via questioning, and usually in a much more robust and analytical manner, as opposed to simply through the opening statement. It is through the questioning that we get a lot of the answers to the questions that are pertinent for our purposes and help us in drafting legislation, including amendments to legislation.

To be very clear in terms of what Mr. Moore just asked, what I'm proposing is that Mr. Garrison's motion be amended in a way such that we would amend the language in line one of that same paragraph. The paragraph currently reads, “That witnesses be given 10 minutes for their opening statement”. In an attempt to meet Mr. Moore partway in terms of what he's been suggesting, what I'm proposing in terms of language is that the first line would read, “That witnesses be given between five and seven and a half minutes, at the discretion of the Chair, for their opening statement”. That would be the first line of that passage.

It is a firm change to the rules, but I do believe it accommodates the length of time that Mr. Moore, Mr. Maguire and others have indicated. Maybe we need it to be similar, in a range allowing up to seven and a half minutes, but still shortening it from the original 10 minutes, because of the various hiccups that occur at committees and because of the necessity of ensuring that all parties are able to ask a second round of questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thanks, Mr. Virani.

We'll go to Mr. Zuberi next. Please go ahead, Mr. Zuberi.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I want to support what Mr. Virani just said. I feel strongly that a lot of what we want to hear as members will come out through the questions and answers. We know we're operating remotely. We just saw at this meeting that a lot of us had sound check challenges, and then some of us were logging in with our P9s. We're scheduled to run until one o'clock. Personally, I have a meeting at one o'clock. We know that sometimes we have hard stops for members to participate fully, so I feel that what Mr. Virani is proposing does accommodate what Mr. Garrison and Mr. Fortin rightfully want, which is equity with respect to time and with respect to questions.

This is what we should be seeking as members to really bring out pieces of legislation that are meaningful and that serve the full population within the country. This allows for that. It accommodates that by giving everybody time to ask questions. It also allows for the chair to do the chair's job, which is to shepherd our conversation and to shepherd the time allotted to witnesses. It allows us to have a really fulsome conversation.

I'm just hoping that we can come to some form of agreement here by hashing together these ideas and moving a bit. For this reason, I think Mr. Virani just put forth an accommodation himself. Initially he was suggesting a minimum of five minutes. Now he's saying a window of between five and seven and a half minutes. At the same time we'll request the equity principle. I hope we can agree to this together.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you so much for that, Mr. Zuberi.

I have Mr. Maloney next on my list.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

I'm not going to repeat anything that's been said already. We've all been in committee meetings where we wish that 10 minutes was three minutes or that 10 minutes was 30 minutes. It depends on the witness.

It goes back to the chair's discretion. I will repeat that most of the important evidence comes out during the course of the questions. I understand Mr. Moore's concern. I think that any technical difficulty should not fall in the lap of the witness, and I don't think that was Mr. Virani's intent.

My sense here is that we have an agreement. We're just not clear on what it is. I think we all agree on Mr. Garrison's original motion. We want to accommodate his request. We still have some divide in the group as to whether or not we do that by reducing the opening statements at all, and if so, whether it's seven and a half, five minutes or something in between all of that.

What I would suggest is, rather than go around and around, somebody can speak to Mr. Garrison on the side, and we can work out language that addresses his concern and accommodates everybody else's response. We can then get this done and over with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much, Mr. Maloney.

I have Mr. Moore and Monsieur Fortin on my list.

Before I go to them, Mr. Clerk, I just want to seek some clarity. What we have before us are two proposed amendments to the routine motion for time for opening remarks and questioning of witnesses. The first amendment, which has been proposed from the floor, by my understanding is in the first line of that motion, which is that witnesses be given five to seven and a half minutes for their opening statement. The second amendment is what is being proposed by Mr. Garrison on the second round of questions within the text of that routine motion. Am I correct to say that?

[The Clerk]

Yes, you are correct in your understanding, if I'm not mistaken, with the nuance that Mr. Virani would like to add, in the first sentence of the motion, when we say that witnesses be given between five to seven and a half minutes, “at the discretion of the Chair, for their opening statement”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Would that be something that you would agree to Mr. Virani? I see a thumbs up.

Mr. Clerk, can we just have that as the official amendment Mr. Virani is proposing at this time? Is that okay?

[The Clerk]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

On the floor, we have these two amendments.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Chair, I just want to be certain that it's clear, as it isn't for me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

I'm sorry, Monsieur Fortin. I'm just seeking some clarity from the clerk. I see you on the list. I will come to you in 30 seconds. I just want to be sure that I know exactly what is before me. Thank you.

Mr. Clerk, we have before us two amendments to the main routine motion. What I'm trying to understand is whether we vote on both of these amendments separately, if we're not coming together with one language within the committee.

[The Clerk]

Yes. That's what I would suggest to facilitate your deliberations. You can vote on both the amendments, one after the other.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you so much for that clarity, Mr. Clerk.

I will now go to Mr. Moore, who is next on my list. After Mr. Moore, I have Monsieur Fortin.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I just want to get something clarified. I am not going to be getting into the substance of the motion.

As far as I understand, these are two proposed amendments to the routine motion. However, they concern two different topics. I must say, with all due respect, Madam Chair, that the way you have presented them gave me the impression that you were interpreting Mr. Virani's motion as if it were amending Mr. Garrison's motion. However, this is not a subamendment to Mr. Garrison's amendment.

Mr. Virani is proposing an amendment to the routine motion, and Mr. Garrison is proposing another amendment to the same motion. If I understand correctly, those two amendments can be adopted or rejected, or one can be adopted and the other one rejected.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

You're correct, Monsieur Fortin.

If you recall, Mr. Virani tried to put forward a friendly amendment to Mr. Garrison's amendment, but I think we ultimately decided that these are going to be two separate amendments to that routine motion with respect to timing for opening remarks. We will be voting two separate times, it seems, at this point, unless we can come to an agreement otherwise. I'm happy to keep the debate open until I'm satisfied that each and every one of you is satisfied with how we will proceed.

Mr. Moore, you're next on the list. Thank you for your patience.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I think there was a mischaracterization that this was a subamendment. In fact, it doesn't amend what Mr. Garrison is proposing.

I think there is a great deal of agreement around what Mr. Garrison is proposing. I certainly support it, but the more I hear about this time change at the chair's discretion.... There's no reason whatsoever that we as a committee cannot set the length of time that witnesses are to speak.

We're going to get quite used to this format very quickly. There should be work done with witnesses to have them set up. They're not just going to log in the moment our committee starts. There should be work done to make sure they're up and running and ready to testify.

The most important thing that those individuals are going to want to get out, the thing that they think will be impactful to our study, is what they're going to say in their opening statement. I do not accept that, within a two-hour time frame, we cannot tell people that the way our committee operates is that they have seven and a half minutes to speak and that it won't be reduced to five, and certainly not from 10 down to five.

I'm certainly supportive of what Mr. Garrison is proposing. I don't want to belabour the point, but the more I'm hearing, the more I'm uncomfortable with having some kind of fluid characterization of when.... I think that's the one thing that should be quite solid: how much time our witnesses have. For all of them, it's going to be their moment when they get to testify at a House of Commons committee. For all of us, this is our day to day. They're the ones under the most intense pressure. In order to have as much certainty as possible, I think it's only fair that we say that witnesses have the seven and a half minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you so much, Mr. Moore, for your intervention.

Before I go to Mr. Garrison, who is next on my list, I'll turn to Mr. Clerk to confirm that witnesses have the ability to submit written briefs as well as their verbal remarks when they're invited to present.

[The Clerk]

Yes, you're right. They do, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you for that, Mr. Clerk.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Garrison, who is next on the list.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

In terms of procedures, I am agreeing with what the chair is suggesting. These both amend the same section. If we deal with the question of the opening time limits first and then deal with my motion, that's fine. I think that works well for all of us.

I'm supportive of Mr. Virani's amendment. I think we all know that in practice, the number of witnesses on a panel has quite often determined how much time we give those witnesses who are appearing. I don't think this is actually a change in our practice, with the wording Mr. Virani has suggested. Sometimes we have more witnesses on a panel; sometimes we have fewer.

I'm supportive of dealing with these sequentially, starting with the time limit, and I'm supportive of Mr. Virani's amendment.