Evidence of meeting #3 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 vote.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I have a concern about the number of people who have expressed an interest. You say 99 are proposed. Could we then add another witness to our panels and accommodate four witnesses per panel, which would allow some more people to be heard on a very important topic?
Liberal
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
It's on the topic of witnesses. I object to the 10, 10, two, two. I will not agree to that.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
To Mr. Moore's point about going to four witnesses per panel, it's going to require some give and take in the questioning, but that would make for 32 witnesses, which on the original ballots would be 12, 12, four, four.
I'm not sure if that appeases Mr. Garrison, or if he would suggest something else.
Mr. Garrison, we would then be in a world of 32 witnesses being divided. It's open for Mr. Garrison's approval.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you, Mr. Virani.
My concern is the technological challenges, and having four witnesses per panel would leave less time for questioning. We all recognize that the majority of the testimony comes out during the questioning anyway, so I advise all of you to take that into account as we propose to have bigger panels.
The other alternative... I'm hoping that maybe you can provide some. If all the parties can concede Mr. Garrison's point with respect to the number of witnesses for the Bloc and the NDP, I put that to you.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
My concern is that if we're rigid with this witness allocation, we will end up putting ourselves in a corner. If we're down to the second-last meeting, we're going to invite a whole bunch of witnesses, some of whom aren't going to be able to attend, and we can only have a panel of two witnesses because we haven't complied with some rigid schedule.
It may end up that, based on witness availability, we end up with eight and Mr. Garrison ends up with four. I would suggest we leave that to your discretion with the focus being on making sure we have the right number of meetings and a full slate of witnesses.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you, Mr. Maloney.
With that, what I will ask each party to do is to submit, for the Liberals and Conservatives, please, your top 10 witnesses that you must have or would really like to have appear. For the Bloc and the NDP, I would ask that you each submit your top three witnesses. I'm sure there will be a lot of overlap in which witnesses are proposed.
Let's start from there, and then, obviously, we can revisit and readjust as witnesses are able to attend to testify or not able to attend to testify.
Do I have agreement on that from everybody?
Conservative
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
I thought Mr. Virani's suggestion was reasonable: 12, 12, four and four. I think we should be submitting our top 12, 12, four and four. That way we have more flexibility.
I think we all are able to understand time commitments, but it does allow for more voices. We may ask fewer questions of each witness, but it allows for greater participation when you have four times that number wanting to participate.
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
I think it responds to my colleague, Mr. Garrison's, concerns as well.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you for that, Madam Findlay.
Monsieur Thériault, do you want to intervene here?
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
I'd like to start by saying hello to all the members. I work with some of you on the Standing Committee on Health.
I'm not sure I know exactly where the committee is headed. The Bloc Québécois could put forward more than three witnesses, but we will keep it to three. I heard someone say that having four was a problem because it didn't leave enough time for questions. I think we have to be able to ask questions. We receive briefs, we read them and we listen to people's presentations. They can keep their presentations short since we get their briefs beforehand. That way, we can have a back and forth with them. That back and forth is the important part.
If there does turn out to be overlap in the witnesses proposed, I imagine it will be necessary to put forward more names afterwards. We can propose three witnesses, but if they have all been chosen by another party, I am going to suggest others. I could put forward eight or 10. It's important to have a balance, to hear from as many people as possible with a wide range of backgrounds, to talk to them, to have time to ask them questions and to gain a clear understanding of their views. That's all I wanted to say.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
If we do go to four per panel, I realize it presents challenges, but I think it is important to hear more voices. If we go to four, then the 12, 12, four and four is acceptable to me. I think it's a good way of proceeding.
Thank you.
Conservative
Chris Lewis Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yes, this is a very important topic, as all of us on this committee know. I am very much in favour 12, 12, four and four. We need as many brains as we can get around the table.
Thank you.