Public Safety Committee on May 1st, 2006

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I understand the problem, but I don't know if that's the real solution. You're going to limit the time of the questioner, but I don't know how you're going to limit the time of the witnesses, because you may want to hear them for more than a short period of time. I think the member is absolutely right, there are those people who are pretty astute in running out the time on you, but they are witnesses before the committee, and I don't know how you can get them to speed up what you want to hear from them or to address only those issues you want to hear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'm very sympathetic to what you're trying to do. I'm just trying to understand how, as a chair, in trying to be fair, I can actually enforce that. That, to me, would be a concern.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Chairman, you may not have to intervene at all. Of course, the witness has all the time he or she feels is needed to reply to the question.

Under the current system, when a witness is encroaching on a member's speaking time, he can only take it so far, but he prevents the other members of the committee from asking questions. If a witness is obviously talking about something else besides the topic raised by the question, I am sure that you will be able to intervene in an impartial and fair manner in order to direct the witness to address the questions that are being put to him.

I do not think that this poses a problem for the witness, since there is no time limit set on answering questions.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

In trying to sort it out, because it does tend to be a problem sometimes, and it is difficult for you to control it.... But given that it is an issue we all would like to see resolved a bit, is it possible for you to tell each witness to please be specific, to the point, and to try to keep their answers to within two minutes--something along those lines?

It's not easy for you to do that, though, because you're going to have to remind them continually to try to keep their answers to two minutes, and there are times when they're going to have to exceed that, which would be the exception.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Yes, you make a good point, Ms. Sgro.

I tend to be a servant of the committee. If you see this happening.... Very often a member will say, “On a point of order, would the chair please ask the witness to answer the question?” I would almost throw the onus back on you to keep things on track. If I come down with a heavy hammer all the time, some members of the committee will say I'm playing favourites. Sometimes the onus should be on the members to help me ensure that witnesses do stay on topic. Very often, they simply do that through points of order.

Could the problem be solved, Monsieur Ménard, with members of the committee saying, “On a point of order, would the chair please ask the witness to reflect on this aspect of what I've asked about?” Do you think we could leave it at that? I think it would be very difficult to put this into a standing order that would be enforceable.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

What I am suggesting is much easier, both for the chairman and for the witness. The latter has all the time he feels is needed to answer questions, and the chairman only has to intervene in the most exceptional cases, since he knows that the witness is not misusing the time he has. Under the current system, if you have to intervene, you do so when there is little time left, whereas with the other system, you would not intervene, because you'd always give the witness the benefit of the doubt. You can give the witness a little more time and only intervene in the most extreme cases.

I am convinced that my method would be extremely fair to witnesses and that it would be much more efficient for the members of the committee, who have prepared serious questions they would like the witness to answer. This is new, and perhaps the novelty of it is frightening to people. I am convinced that the method you are trying to adopt has already been tested and does not work. I assure you that in the case of an experienced witness, the chairman can intervene three or four times. The fourth time, the allocated time has already expired, the member who asked the questions is disappointed, as well as the other members of the committee, and the witness has attained his objective, which was to not answer questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

If there's no further discussion, may I suggest the following: that you submit a proposal in writing that we could discuss at a future meeting or maybe bring up at a steering committee.

Mr. MacKenzie has also made a proposal here for the speaking order. Do you want to bring up both of these? We can adopt motion number 6 as it is now, and yours would be in addition to that, a clarification, or we could postpone motion number 6.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I think it would be preferable to postpone that study. We could also agree on a common suggestion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Well, I'm suggesting a way to proceed. If you think there's another suggestion as to where we can go from here, just let me know.

Yes, Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I agree with the chair's suggestion. I think if you put it in writing, because some of the committee members.... I understand what you're saying and I don't have a problem with it, but I think some of the committee members may not understand it.

If Mr. MacKenzie puts his proposal in writing, I'd also like it if the clerks could, adjacent to Mr. MacKenzie's proposal, put the rotation that we used last time on this committee so we could have a comparison.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I think that rotation is number 6. Okay, that's a good suggestion.

Okay, let's move on to motion number 7, witnesses' expenses: that if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation, and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses, not exceeding one representative per organization; and that in exceptional circumstances payment for more representatives be at the discretion of the chair.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

So moved.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Motion number 8, staff at in camera meetings: that unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one staff at an in camera meeting.

Yes.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a minor amendment to propose. The motion refers to one staff member. This means on member of the MP's staff, and that is not necessarily the case. It could be a member of his party's staff, but not necessarily a member of his own staff. I would like the motion to be amended in this way: that unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to be accompanied by a party staff member at an in camera meeting. It could be someone from the research service; the person present is not necessarily one of the member's assistants.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Let me have a clarification on that. What you're suggesting doesn't contradict this, does it? If you have a staff person accompanying you, it's up to you who that staff person is.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Yes. However, according to the French wording, this refers exclusively to a member of the member's staff. However, that is not necessarily the case.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

In my opinion, something has obviously been added to the translation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay, we can correct that in the French. Apparently that is what it is.

Is there any other discussion on that?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Last is private members' business: that when a private members' business bill is referred to the committee it be placed on the agenda, and that a sponsor be invited to appear before the committee.

Is there any discussion on that one?

[An hon. member]

I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We have two more.

Motion number 10 is that one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation by members of the committee.

It is so moved. Is there any discussion?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

The next one is on notices of motions: that 48 hours' notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration; and that the notice of motion be filed with the clerk of the committee and distributed to members in both official languages.

That is pretty standard.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

On Wednesday we have a delegation from the Czech Republic that would like to meet with members of this committee. They are in town only until this Wednesday, May 4. The question is, should we hold a meeting? We could arrange to meet with them informally during our regular meeting time or prior to the meeting, if you wish.

The delegation is composed of members of the permanent commission for the control of military intelligence services and permanent commission for the use of operational technique by the police in the Czech Republic. These are part of the structure of the chamber of deputies in their Parliament. They wanted to discuss topics such as the RCMP, budget monitoring, anti-drug policies, anti-terrorism, organized crime, criminal issues, and also Parliament and the activities and powers of the Security Intelligence Review Committee and various issues associated with it. There are seven members of the committee.

What is your desire in relation to that? Does anybody have any comments or want to make a motion that we meet either before or during our regular committee time on Wednesday? We do not have any other agenda items at this point that I am aware of.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

It seems appropriate, if there are no other matters to be brought forward.