Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 14th, 2020

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

It is exactly the same words, but it says, “provided that at least four members are present, including two members of the opposition and two members of the government, but when travelling outside the parliamentary precinct, that the meeting begin after fifteen minutes, regardless of members present.”

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Does anybody object to that?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion as amended agreed to)

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

We're on to time for opening remarks and questioning of witnesses. I move:

That witnesses be given 10 minutes for their opening statement; 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.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Again, I sent in an amendment to that. Usually when we proceed in this manner, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP never get to their two and a half minutes. It's just to add a bit of fairness to the procedure. My amendment is the same amendment that was passed at PROC, agriculture and other committees, so it has that precedent. If the mother of all committees, PROC, thinks it is okay, I'm hoping that you will find it okay.

After “subsequent rounds”—so this is the second round—it would continue, “the order and time for questioning be as follows: Conservative Party, five minutes, Liberal Party, five minutes, Bloc Québécois, two and a half minutes, New Democratic Party, two and a half minutes, Conservative Party, five minutes, Liberal Party, five minutes.”

It just moves those Bloc Québécois and NDP slots up after the first Conservative and Liberal rounds. I hope that is okay.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, we would agree with that amendment. The only stipulation would be that we would shorten the witness time. Traditionally, they would have 10 minutes to provide an opening statement. If we could shorten that to five minutes, that would then make what Mr. Cannings is proposing doable in terms of getting to those questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Okay, Mr. Simard is next. Then it's Mr. Cannings and Mr. McLean.

Do you guys mind using the function on the screen? It is easier for me to keep track.

Mr. Simard, go ahead.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I would support Mr. Cannings' motion for the simple reason that there have been times at committee meetings when we have not been able to ask questions of witnesses during the last rounds. I won't hide from you that I am a little more reluctant to reduce the amount of time allowed for witnesses to make their presentations. It would be rather difficult to discuss a presentation that would have lasted only five minutes. I fully agree with Mr. Cannings' motion, which I think is fairer.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Okay, Richard, you had your hand up. Then we'll go to Mr. McLean.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I was just going to say what Monsieur Simard said. I think that when we call witnesses, especially under normal times when they travel to Ottawa, it behooves us to give them at least 10 minutes to present their testimony. Ten minutes is a short enough time. To cut it down to five minutes for witnesses who may have quite a detailed presentation.... Also, if we cut it down to five minutes, it makes the moving up of our timeslots.... Maybe we wouldn't need to do that.

I would rather keep it at 10 minutes and move our little two and a half minute slots up so that we get a chance to get a short snapper in before the rest of the round continues. I would appreciate just keeping it at 10 minutes and moving the Bloc and NDP up.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

We understood that this had already been agreed to at PROC, as far as the changing of 10 minutes to five minutes goes, and then allowing the exact change we talked about, with the two and a half minutes coming in the second round of questioning in advance of where it had previously been for the other two opposition parties.

That, I understand, was a gentlemen's agreement between the other parties at PROC. I think here we're supposed to just verify that. We can obviously do something different, but I thought it had already been agreed to as a gentlemen's agreement between all the parties, that this was a new way going forward.

In addition, they were talking about asking for 72 hours' notice from the witnesses. If they could provide something written where possible, the five minutes could be better spent just quickly presenting their position, which we should have examined a little ahead of time.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. McLean basically mentioned what I was going to touch on. In the veterans affairs committee, we've approved this change as well.

Let's be frank. We are looking at dropping the Liberal slot down the list. If you do the math, Mr. Cannings, if you have two witnesses each with 10 minutes, we'll never get to that Liberal question. Therefore, the only way I would support it is if we—of course, at the discretion of the chair—reduce the time from 10 minutes down to five.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you for that.

I know the feeling regarding not getting to the question, and that's why we're proposing this. I know that PROC changed the witness time to five minutes. Other committees have changed it to seven and a half as a bit of a compromise. I'd be happy with that.

If push came to shove, I would rather move our time slot up and have five minutes instead of not having it. I think, though, that some recognition that witnesses should have a proper amount of time is important, so I would propose a compromise of seven and a half minutes, as has happened in other committees, if that might be okay with people.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Cannings.

Richard, you and I have been doing this for five years now. You know I'm pretty accommodating. Ten minutes sometimes means 12 minutes, and five minutes could mean seven minutes. I try to balance things out so that nobody is shortchanged or feels shortchanged. Maybe keep that in mind during this discussion.

Mr. Lefebvre.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

On the same point Mr. McLean and Mr. May have made, maybe just go back to the opening comments made by Mr. Cannings, if PROC is the mother of all committees, basically we should be following what they're doing and not be amending at this point. Not only, as Brian mentioned, would it certainly affect our position, it would also affect the Conservatives' in that they would have less time. That's not what the agreement was in the first place.

I agree, having done committees since 2016, that certainly when the witnesses read from a paper that we could have received in advance, I think we could be more productive as a committee. We should be going right into the questions and trying to get as much evidence, support and whatnot as we can from these witnesses, obviously, for the reports we are preparing for the government.

That's why I think it's more productive for everybody. I agree that the opposition, the NDP and the Bloc would have a bit more time, and at the same time we'd just be more effective. I believe that a compromise has been reached on most of the committees, and I think I'll be supporting what is being proposed by Mr. McLean and Mr. May as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Peter, you had your hand up, and now it's down.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I'm not a member of this committee but am subbing today. Based on the discussion I just heard, I would think that with the five minutes—and at your discretion, as you've said—if you have a witness who is compelling or who needs an extra 30 seconds or a minute, I am sure you would give them that flexibility to be able to finish their comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I don't see anybody else with their hand up.

If I'm reading the screen properly, I think what we're doing now is voting on the motion proposed by Mr. Sidhu and amended by Mr. Cannings and Mr. May.

Is that a fair summary of where we are? Does anybody object to that? In other words, the time allocation will be five minutes for opening remarks and the order will be changed, as Mr. Cannings has proposed.

[The Clerk]

If I may, Mr. Chair, I also have the addition by Mr. McLean requesting that the witnesses provide their speaking notes 72 hours in advance, if possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I don't have any problem with that, as long as it's “if possible”. Sometimes there are last-minute changes because of cancellations or whatnot, and I don't want to be bound by a strict interpretation that prevents us from having a meeting.

I see Mr. McLean is nodding that he's okay with that.

Does anybody object to that addition?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

It's unanimous. Thank you very much.

Moving right along, Mr. Weiler, you were going to take over from here, if I'm not mistaken.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I think that Maninder has a few more motions. I'll continue on in French from there.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

All right.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

On document distribution, I move:

That the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents to members of the committee and only when the documents are available in both official languages, and that witnesses be advised accordingly.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Next is working meals. I don't know how many meals we're going to have.

I move:

That the clerk of the committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide working meals for the committee and its subcommittees.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Does that include delivery?