Public Safety Committee on April 28th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I've been on the Hill quite a number of years, and every private member's bill that I've ever participated in did not regard the person who was moving the motion as a witness to the bill. The committee then would hear from them, often for two hours, including officials from the department. Each committee may do it a little differently. Then, after that, they would begin to hear the witnesses. But the committee is master of itself. That's just the usual practice that I have observed here on the Hill, and I know of no exception to that.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Move your amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Are you finished, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj? Okay.

Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

It seems to me we're getting down here to splitting hairs. If the presenter of the bill gets 30 minutes to present the bill, we don't ask questions. Hopefully, then, we could all agree that she's not a witness, that she will not be part of the witness list. She just simply presents her bill. I don't know why we want to beat this thing to death. I thought Ms. Mourani's motion was pretty clear. Surely the committee would expect the presenter of the bill to make a presentation. If we don't want to ask questions, then I think my colleague from the Liberal Party has come up with what should be deemed a fairly reasonable thing. We give her half an hour. We don't ask questions; she's not a witness on our witness list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay.

Mr. Holland.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

As I said, Mr. Chair, I'll hold that out as the amendment. But I'll add as an additional thing, just so it's clear that she's getting special consideration, that the mover of the bill, Mrs. Hoeppner, be granted 30 minutes at the beginning to present her private member's bill, and that she be included in the list of 15 witnesses afforded to the Conservative Party.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You've heard the amendment. Any discussion?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

A recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

All right. Call the roll.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay, that carries.

We'll now go back to the main motion, which you have before you. It's been amended.

Mr. Rathgeber, please.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you.

Again, I have a question of clarification. I think this is an important one.

I need to know, before we vote on the motion, what is considered a witness. I anticipate a number of groups will be on the list of the respective parties. I can think of the hunters and anglers, and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. I'm assuming, and I hope my assumption is correct, that a witness may include a group of two or more persons, but they will only be allotted one ten-minute speaking time and one round of questioning. If they bring support people to answer questions, especially of a technical nature, I'm assuming those are not considered multiple witnesses, that a witness includes a group of individuals. Is my assumption correct? It's not correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Holland.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, and I appreciate the suggestion, but we're going to run into huge problems on both sides. We have victims groups coming to our committee. We have associations representing national police organizations. We already have 33 witnesses. So I think we could be ratcheting this up to 40, 50, 60, 70, or 80 people speaking. I think we have to ask organizations to condense their comments to a person representing an organization, and that constitutes a witness.

For example, if the Association des étudiants de Polytechnique want to have a representative, that's one person who speaks on behalf of all the very many people who are part of that organization. I think if we get into a situation where ten people want to make one-minute statements, it's just too much. I think we have to say one organization, one witness, and decide among yourselves who is going to represent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, and then Mr. Rathgeber.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

In response to that question, I have not been on the Hill as long as our chair, but the practice is that witnesses are individuals. You just have to take a look at your agendas for each committee: those individuals represent organizations. If the RCMP makes a representation, it's individuals. So we list the names of the individuals who are the witnesses. There are times when you allow three witnesses from one organization. That will be an opportunity for you when you make your selections of the individuals who are coming forward as witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

If you have a witness before the committee, and three of them show up, they would still get ten minutes as an opening presentation. Is that clear?

Is that what your question was?

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Well, yes, part of it.

Mr. Holland would answer that only one of them would be allowed at the table.

[An hon. member]

No, not at the table, but to speak.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

And I agree with him that we shouldn't have ten one-minute dissertations. What we have frequently found in this committee is that a group, such as the RCMP, will bring a small entourage. The individuals won't speak during the first ten-minute round, but they may answer a question if the question....

Okay, I guess we could have support people in the back. I'm just having a conversation with Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, whose mike isn't on.

As long as we're clear. We have had situations, I'm sure you'll agree with me, whereby the RCMP, for example, will bring the deputy commissioner and two or three support people. They'll all sit at the table, and some of them may take questions.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj says only if they're listed, and I think he's probably right.

So I don't have particularly strong feelings about this. I just want to make sure we're clear and that the rules are known. I'd like to hear Mr. Comartin, if he's prepared to enter into this, because I think he has years and wisdom, notwithstanding what I said earlier.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Order.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

And I apologize to anyone who was in my sights--just so we are clear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We'll get the committee's permission for Mr. Comartin to answer his question before we go to Mr. Kania.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I think it was quite common before the justice committee and the public safety committee when I was on it to have the ten minutes split. I don't think I ever saw it more than in half.

On the point Madame Mourani made about the victims groups, I think we will hear from them that they would like more than one person to speak. So we should simply say that's fine, but have no more than two. It's hard to say much in less than five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

The clerk is taking notes, so he can direct them, unless there are strong objections here.