Mr. Chairman, the first two paragraphs go together. The members who attended our last meeting understand that the purpose of the amendment that I am moving is not to limit the amount of time available to them to ask questions. On the contrary, they will be left with more or less the same amount of time. Moreover, they will in fact be guaranteed a reasonable amount of time to put their questions to expert witnesses. Because they know time is limited, witnesses unduly stretch out their answers during the first and second rounds of questioning, to use up as much of the time allocated to members and thus avoid having to answer more specific or embarrassing questions.
I'm not imagining things. Despite my limited experience, I've seen it happen here. Moreover, mention was made of this publicly in the newspapers in connection with hearings of the Public Accounts Committee into the sponsorship scandal. Witnesses were informed that they would be testifying, but that the process was not as complicated as actual court proceedings. They were told that they could take up to seven minutes to respond and that a member would therefore not have enough time remaining to ask another question.
I recall discussing this matter in committee. I'm bringing the matter up again for those who weren't here at the time. When we put forward this suggestion last year at a briefing session for new members, a House expert remarked that it was an excellent proposal because basically, that's what was in fact occurring.
I submit that in order to conduct a proper interrogation, nearly half of the time should be set aside for questions, and the remaining half for answers. That's why I'm proposing that the seven minutes be divided in two. That way, the first questioner of each party would know that he has a minimum of three and a half minutes to put his questions, while subsequent questioners would have two and a half minutes to ask their questions.
Because I feel it's important, I've included in the first paragraph of my amendment a reference to the fact that time is allocated to the first questioner of each party “to ask questions”. For greater certainty, I've included the second paragraph which states the following: “The time provided for questioning in the preceding paragraph is calculated according to the time members ask questions [...]”
One criticism has been voiced about the rights of the witnesses being affected. With all due respect, I don't believe this should stand in the way of the adoption of my amendment. In actual fact, this amendment will ensure that the witness has even more rights than before. Moreover, if this amendment does not pass, the only person who could stop a witness who is deliberately avoiding having to answer questions or who moves on to another subject to avoid being asked questions, would in fact be the member asking questions or the Chair. If I were chairing the committee and wanted to be fair, I would let a certain amount of time go by before stepping in. Therefore, I'd be giving considerable latitude to a creative, experienced witness who's really trying to avoid answering questions.
My proposal might mean that some witnesses might try to stretch out their answers unnecessarily. If that happens, the Chair could interrupt them with greater confidence, because after all, he will have given them the benefit of the doubt. However, in so doing, he will also have given them considerably more time to speak. Would you not agree?
In my view, this proposal would really be to the advantage of committee members hearing from witnesses. Based on my experience, I know that some of the witnesses who have appeared before this committee are experts at this tactic. I don't want to name names, although I could. When they appeared before us, we knew in advance that they would avoid answering our questions, either by continually straying from the subject at hand or by providing very lengthy, convoluted answers.
This proposal would help put an end to this type of behaviour on the part of witnesses. It would treat all witnesses fairly, but above all, it would give committee members an equal opportunity to question all witnesses in a thorough, serious manner.
