Public Safety Committee on April 28th, 2010

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

Well, presenting the witnesses in a balanced manner is not the same as having an equal number of witnesses.

So I would move an amendment that it be an equal number of witnesses, or as close to equal as possible, because—

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Chair, point of order.

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

—there are slightly more opposition than government witnesses, but there should be, at minimum, a balance of opposition and government witnesses at each meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Ms. Mourani had the floor next.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Chair, it says here—I am not sure whether it is clear in English: “...that the various points of view be presented in a balanced manner at each meeting.” I totally agree with Mr. Holland, but it is already in the motion.

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

If we can get that as a direction of the clerk, I'll withdraw the amendments, as long as we're clear that there would be a minimum of a balancing of government and opposition witnesses on each day.

My second point, Mr. Chair, is that you said we are going to have department officials. Again, if we're all presenting witnesses, then they have to come from our witnesses. I would suggest that whether or not that witness is the mover of the bill, or whether or not that witness is a department official you want to call or whoever, there's only one pool of witnesses. I want to make sure we're very clear on that point, too.

There are no special bonus witnesses for anybody. There are no bonus witnesses that are outside these rules. Everybody gets an opportunity to put forward, by this motion, a certain number of witnesses. If you want those witnesses, whoever they may be, make sure you include them in your list. I want to make sure that that's expressly understood.

Is there a need for an amendment, or is that an expressed understanding in the motion that could be a direction of the clerk?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Ms. Mourani suggested that the mover of the private member's bill would be given a half hour right at the beginning—a special provision, as is normal in private members' business. Do you still agree to that?

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

It was my understanding that that was to be taken from the Conservative witnesses.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Chair, I consider the sponsor to be a witness as well. You say there is a practice. I would like to check that with Mr. Préfontaine.

What is the practice, Mr. Préfontaine? Is the person who sponsors a bill a witness or do they have special status?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Roger Préfontaine]

Without ruling on the issue of whether the person is considered a witness or not, I can confirm that it is customary for the sponsor of the bill to be invited to introduce their bill to the committee studying it when the hearings begin.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

So the sponsor is not considered a witness? Is that what you mean?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Just wait. Let Ms. Mourani finish.

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

It is due to the point of order, is it not? I kept speaking. I stopped because I wanted to move an amendment, but I want to check whether it is necessary to move a motion. So it is a point of order. I already have the floor, I imagine—

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

May I respond, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Ms. Mourani.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

If I understand correctly, Mr. Holland is talking about selecting witnesses, agreeing on when they will appear and having their points of view presented in a balanced manner. The idea of balance is provided for with the following wording: “...that the various points of view be presented in a balanced manner at each meeting.”

Now as for the rest, we can deal with it in a friendly manner. I think that Mr. MacKenzie would agree. If not, Mr. Holland should move his motion for the amendment.

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

Yes, but I think that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Holland, you have to get the attention of the chair. You can't just have a conversation with Ms. Mourani. You have to go through the chair.

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

If I could, I still have the floor. I only stopped moving an amendment so that I could get clarity. I still have the floor. I didn't move the motion because I wanted to know whether it was necessary or was implicit in the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You're playing by some loose rules.

Go ahead.

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

Hearing that there isn't a consensus on this matter, I'll put it to a motion. I don't intend to debate it, but I would just move that we vote on it and move on. My motion would be that there would be no additional witnesses, and that should a member of the committee want a witness to appear they should ensure that their witness is on the submitted list.

We can vote on that, if there's agreement or disagreement. My point is that there's—

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

To clarify that, you're asking that the mover of the private member's bill not have any special consideration.

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

No, of course there is special consideration. I agree that she'll be given 30 minutes at the front end of the meeting to start the meeting. That's a very special consideration. I'm simply saying that we just agreed to having 15 witnesses. I'm just saying that I'm not agreeing to 16.

I'm saying that she is given special consideration. She'll be at the front of the meeting. She'll be given the first opportunity to speak, as is the normal course. But I'm saying that what we just agreed to, in my view, when we presented this motion was 15 witnesses. Now I'm being told that there are bonus witnesses. I want to eliminate that confusion with the motion that I've just presented. If it carries, great. If it doesn't carry, then we can continue on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Any other discussion?

Sir, did you want to comment?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I'd like some clarification and guidance. Normally, from what I've experienced on committees, when a private member's bill does come forward, as was mentioned, the mover has the opportunity to present it to committee and to speak to the committee. Is the presenter of the bill considered a witness? If the presenter is considered a witness, I've also seen in committees where the presenter of a bill does his or her presentation, but is not questioned by committee members. So if they're just presenting and making a statement in presenting their bill, are they considered a witness? This would then mean engaging in questions and answers. Or are they outside of that understanding of being a witness, and they just present, and then there are no questions and answers?

I'd like some clarification, because I'm not quite sure what we're deciding right now.