Over the past two decades or so, I have had a number of opportunities to appear as a witness before parliamentary and legislative committees , where I have spoken to various bills related to violence against women, family and criminal law and, more generally, access to justice.
For the most part, I have found these appearances to be interesting and to provide for a respectful exchange of ideas between witnesses and MPPS or MPs. Whether or not the suggestions brought by witnesses have led to changes to the bill under discussion, the hearing process has felt like an opportunity to educate the politicians. It hasn’t been uncommon for political staff to follow up later, wanting more information, and sometimes appearing before a committee has led to productive ongoing relationships with politicians and their staff.
When I am feeling idealistic, I think of these appearances as an example of democracy in action; opportunities for elected officials to hear from community-based experts as well as members of the public about the pros and cons of proposed legislation.
What’s a committee?
The general purpose of these committees, at both the federal and provincial levels, is to allow for a deeper study of issues that are before the government. They come in different forms: standing committees, which are permanent; legislative committees, which are established for a particular bill; special committees that are struck to conduct a specific inquiry, study or other task and, at the federal level, joint committees, which have membership from both the House of Commons and the Senate.
(At the federal level, the Senate also has its own committee system, and once a bill passes third reading in the House of Commons and moves to the Senate, it will likely be referred to a committee for study. Senate committees have become much more interesting and important since Justin Trudeau established the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointment. In fact, it’s not uncommon for the Senate to propose amendments to make legislatin more progressive, which is a far cry from the somewhat conservative rubber stamp that it used to be.)
The federal government has 25 standing committees, including justice and human rights and status of women, which are the two I have appeared before most often. Ontario has eight standing committees, and I have appeared before both the justice and social policy committees.
Most commonly, a bill goes to the relevant committee for study after it has passed second reading in either the House of Commons or the provincial legislature. At this point, the committee can undertake its own investigation of the bill, which can include inviting witnesses to appear to provide their perspective, insights and expertise on the bill under consideration.
How it works
Appearing in front of a committee can be a lot of work, especially for small organizations, few of which have budget lines to cover this.
Relationship building – with politicians, but also with their senior staff, including policy advisors – is critical. These are the folks who can let advocates know that a new bill is in the works or when an existing one is going to start moving along.
It’s also important to forge connections with the committee clerks. These are the people who can make an organization’s presentation to a committee flow smoothly – or not.
People most often appear before a committee because they have been invited, through the clerk, by the chair of that committee. The turnaround time between an invitation and an appearance can be as short as a day, but more often the invitee will have at least a couple of weeks’ notice.
That time is important: witnesses are expected to prepare a written brief, subject to strict length limitations, that is submitted to the committee before the hearing. Once that is done, the witness needs to prepare their spoken presentation, which is generally limited to five to seven minutes.
The witness or their organization may want to get endorsements for its position, so the committee can readily see that more than one person or agency supports what the witness is saying. They may also want to alert the media to their appearance, to bring public attention to the issue.
At the hearing, each witness speaks and then — following a tightly controlled, timed process – committee members ask the witness questions. (It’s smart for a witness, before the hearing, to connect with any committee members who are sympathetic to their position to discuss questions the witness might like to be asked.)
Once the hearing is over, the witness may have further materials they wish to share with the committee or they may receive requests from individual committee members for more information or discussion.
The process is a bit archaic and overly rigid but, as I noted above, in my experience it is a generally good way for the government to hear a range of opinions and perspectives before it makes a final decision about laws and policies that will have an impact on the lives of many people.
However, over the past few months, I have seen two examples of what is supposed to be an open and democratic process be manipulated to silence that participation, which I will discuss here next week.