Evidence of meeting #1 for Natural Resources in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
We're going to that next. I just wanted to clear this up first.
Yes, Mr. Cullen.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
I think the 75 minutes, in the way it's been described, works, but I think we need to look at it in the practical realities of a meeting that will typically last two hours. The idea that we'd have this full turnout for every meeting and that everyone would want to ask a question is not totally realistic. By the same token, there could be a topic that is very hot and topical and everyone will want to get their dibs in.
I think the chair and the staff need to be guided by this being a two-hour meeting and by how many witnesses we have, so that there's an opportunity for this to happen. Otherwise, 75 minutes of questioning becomes a practical impossibility.
If it's a two-hour meeting and you have four on a panel—
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
And none of them will keep to the 10 minutes. You know that as well as I do.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
I think in the spirit of cooperation sometimes we just have to trust judgments. That's why we say “at the discretion of the chair”. I'm sure that if you're not happy with the discretion of the chair, I'll be hearing about it. Basically this is a method that's probably going to work best for all of us.
Mr. McGuinty, did you want to wrap on that one?
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Okay, so let us then have an agreement that we're going to go with that format as described. Each member essentially will get five minutes in the first three rounds, and then we'll have a fourth round where we revert to the first five minutes from the Liberals, five for the Bloc, five for the NDP, and the last word to the government party.
Okay, so that's the way we're going to go with our questions, and I'd like now to go back to the question that Mr. Harris raised with regard to witnesses, the times for minutes.
Ms. Bell commented that she thought that with the distances people come to a committee maybe 10 minutes was adequate. We wouldn't want to cut it lower than that. So that's where the debate stands on the question, and let's limit our discussion here to the witnesses' times for opening statements.
On the list that we had prior to that little break, it was Mr. St. Amand.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
I'd like to incorporate both ideas. I agree with Ms. Bell that witnesses come here often from a great distance and we should listen to them respectfully. But left unfettered, of course--Mr. Harris's point is well taken--that could be 10 minutes times....
Frankly, from the point of view of the witnesses, I think it's unfair to the witnesses when four or five of them are huddled, and have prepared, and they're told for the first time, “By the way, folks, I, as chair, am exercising my even-handed discretion. You'll be limited to 25 minutes among the five of you.” In my experience, I think that has caught them off guard.
So I would propose that individual witnesses be provided with 10 minutes for their opening statements, but a panel of three or more will, in totality, be limited to perhaps 30 minutes, and that would afford us time for the potential 75 minutes of questioning.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Excuse me, did you make a motion, Mr. Harris, or was it for debate?
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Because we wouldn't be able to continue the discussion if we had a motion on the floor. So let's presume it was just debate for the time being, and if we want to make a motion after the discussion, we'll do that.
Let's continue this. Mr. McGuinty.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I'd like to pick up on what Mr. St. Amand said, and I support one of Mr. Harris's comments very strongly, and support Mr. Cullen.
It's really difficult for witnesses to speak for less than 10 minutes and encapsulate...I speak as a person who is new to Parliament but who spent many hours preparing to appear before committees in a previous life, and it's very difficult to hold oneself to 10 minutes when one is dealing with a complexity of the kind we're going to be dealing with.
I would rather see a general approach where we reduce the number of witnesses and have a more fulsome and probing discussion with those witnesses, but I would also strongly support something Mr. Harris said. I really do not like to see witnesses appear here without having delivered to us, say 24 hours before their appearance, a five-page executive summary of what they're going to say. That is common practice in most places today, so I would certainly support Mr. Harris. I think Mr. Harris mentioned this. It would be very useful for us to have a quick synopsis--three or four pages, five maximum, perhaps. To receive, as members, disparate kinds of documents--some translated, some not--on time.... I think it would be fairly easy, Mr. Chairman, for the clerk to frame some kind of general parameters for witnesses' documents as they submit them to committee.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Yes, thank you. I sense there is a consensus here, and in fact, perhaps before we go to Monsieur Godin next, the sense I'm getting is that we're all on the same wavelength here. We want to allow the witnesses to say their piece but not go on forever. There are obviously going to be some differences, if there's a group, if we have more than one.
I think one of the key elements to make this work better is going to be the instructions the clerk gives to potential witnesses as they come in, as suggested by Mr. McGuinty, Ms. Bell, and Mr. Harris, and that is we should just make it clear that their brief will be limited to 10 pages with attachments, if there are any, that there's to be an executive summary, and that we do have this provided to the committee 24 hours before the committee meeting, in both official languages. They must be prepared. I think it works out better for the witnesses as well as for us, and we can determine it, and then we'll flow with the will of the meeting and the discretion of the chair in each case.
As our researcher suggested to me briefly a moment ago, there are occasions, of course, when we're going to have ministers here on estimates, we're going to have briefings from departments, and we might just want them to go on a little longer in terms of where they're coming from before we get to questions. So I think we're going to have to leave a little latitude, but I think the general consensus we seem to be getting here is that what's important is firm instructions from the clerk to potential witnesses ahead of time.
With that, I'll go to Mr. Cardin.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
We agree on the 10- minute rule. If we want to have some time left, we need to arrange not to hear from 20 witnesses, each of whom would have 10 minutes. There wouldn't be any time left to ask questions. In short, we will need to manage our time according to the number of witnesses scheduled to appear at each meeting.
In any event, out of consideration for the witnesses, we need to allocate a minimum of 10 minutes to each individual. Witnesses will have the chance to respond and to clarify their comments if members confine themselves to asking more direct questions.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
I can live with the 10 minutes. I won't push that one anymore.
The big concern is that we've sat in committee meetings where the witnesses had been advised, prior to coming, of their time limit for talking, whether it was ten minutes or five, but with great respect, totally disregarded the time. They were allowed to go on and on, five minutes would turn into ten, and then the first thing you'd know, you'd be running out of time and all the questions weren't answered.
So I would like to suggest that the chair, or whoever is in the chair at the time of the meeting, be very judicial in the finishing of the allotted time, that witnesses are not allowed to simply disregard the time and go on just because they have good stuff. They all have good stuff, but it's important that the committee be punctual, that all the witnesses get a chance to have their allotted time, and that there's available time to ask all the questions.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Not to belabour the point, but sometimes these things become problems later, so this is a good time to talk about them.
I think somehow in the communication with witnesses we should tell people, in the most polite way we can, that it's not appropriate that they read their brief. This is where we always run into problems. People sit there and read their brief, and they invariably go over the time. We need to tell the witnesses that their brief will be circulated, that members will have it.
David, your idea about an executive summary is good. When you get into five pages, though--of course, it depends on the font--five pages is getting heavy. I don't know what the right length is, but a one- or two-page executive summary can basically form the thrust of their presentation, and the detailed brief will be available to all the members.
We really need to hammer this home, because I don't know how many meetings you've sat on where the people came and read their brief and droned on and on forever. It just drives you nuts.
Noon
Conservative
Christian Paradis Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
I'm not very familiar with the procedure regarding submissions. At the Court of Appeal, for example, lawyers cannot table submissions that are drafted in small print or that run on and on. Perhaps some guidelines are in order, if some aren't already in place.
When a minister is invited to appear before the committee, the 24-hour rule could be a problem because of his or her schedule. Could we possibly take that fact into consideration?
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
In those areas, whether it's a ministerial briefing or whatever, there certainly can be exceptions to this general rule. I think what we're discussing primarily is the normal course of events of witnesses appearing, and they have something to say. We're interested in what they have to say; that's why we invited them to appear as witnesses. And then, of course, we have, as was pointed out earlier, 75 minutes of questioning to elaborate on their 10-minute opening statement.
I think we're finding a pretty good format here, if we can get the clerk to insist that some executive summary is presented--and maybe a page is enough, or two pages at the most, just a little executive summary--and that they keep it to 10 minutes.
The clerk has just advised me that he's going to bring a timer, and we'll strictly adhere to it, again at the discretion of the committee and at the will of the committee. It may be that in questions you'll bring up more stuff, but I think we should point out at the same time that the five minutes each that's allotted includes the answer time for those questions. Much of it will depend on the length and content of your questions as well.
Mr. Cullen.
Noon
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Yes, sometimes people take up the whole five minutes asking a question or making a statement. I know you can't rule on that, but it's often rude to have witnesses here and not put a question to them. We'll have to be guided by our own good judgment.
I don't know, Mr. Paradis, if the question was also with respect to the lead time to get ministers to come to the committee. I think that's what you're on to as well.
Noon
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Having been in government, I can tell you on this side we try to resolve that collegially, as long as the minister is not being obstructive or trying to stay away from the committee. We understand--and the Liberals here and others--that fitting it into a schedule is something we have to try to accommodate.
Certainly from the Liberals we won't find a problem, and I'm sure from the other colleagues. We understand that ministers have lots on their schedule. So unless it's a national crises or emergency...there will be cooperation on this side to recognize that.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Is there any more question about that, or can we have a motion?
Mr. Harris, did you want to make that motion?