Justice Committee on May 4th, 2006

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I want to point out that in the last part where it states “...be allocated to each subsequent questioner, until every member has spoken once”, I know there were some questions in the last session.

For example, you have four Liberals, two Bloc, one NDP, and four over here. It would go to the official opposition, then to the Bloc, then to Joe, and then the Liberals; back there and there, and back to Joe and here; and back there, and back there, and back to Joe, and back here.

For example, Joe would get maybe three chances for questions.

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

That was brilliant!

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

It was a great move, but somehow or another there were members left out because of that.

I need to clarify this. Does this mean when it says “every member has spoken once”—and I'm not picking on you, Joe, but you're the example—would each member speak once before Joe gets to speak a second time?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Your vice-chair certainly has a view and an interpretation of that, but I should defer to the clerk, if you wish to speak to it.

Do other members wish to comment or have a question on that particular issue before we go to the clerk?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

We all agree that during the first round, the chair will recognize all opposition parties first, followed by a representative of the government party. This is not a contentious issue. Each party has seven minutes.

For the second round, it was my understanding that the chair will recognize the opposition first, then move on to the Bloc and then to the government, ending with an NDP representative. The opposition parties do not ask questions one after the other. It's important to understand the order followed during the second five-minute round of questioning.

I'm a firm believer in the principle that every member must be given the opportunity to speak. If we want members to attend committee meetings, they must all be given a chance to speak. However, I didn't think that during the second round, the Official Opposition would go first, followed by the Bloc, the government and then the NDP.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Okay. Does any other member wish to speak to it before we go to the clerk?

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I want to go after the clerk. It explains what we did last time.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Sure, okay.

Could you comment on what the committee did last time and what this proposal is?

[The Clerk]

Okay. This proposal is what the justice committee adopted at the end of the last Parliament. The intention was that the first round would be exactly as Mr. Ménard said.

But the second round would be the Liberals and the Bloc, the second member of the Bloc, and after that, back to the Conservatives, because the NDP member had his chance; and after that the Liberals, then Conservatives only, because the two Bloc had the chance to express themselves, and also Mr. Comartin, until there's no one else who wants to say something. It would be the four Liberals, the four Conservatives, and after that we would start again. That's the way the justice committee has been doing it.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

That's correct.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Is that okay, Mr. Bagnell? You don't have any further comment?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

No, it's good, because everyone gets to speak once.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

By the way, on a point of order, you don't have to question if you don't want to.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

That's correct.

Okay. So we've agreed on that format then, and in the first round, the party trumps the system. It will be seven, seven, seven from the opposition parties and seven from the government. On the subsequent rounds, it will be five minutes, rotated around, until each member has had a chance to ask questions. After that, my experience is that it will bounce based on the discretion of the chair and the attitude of the members. I don't recall any big problems developing with that in the last half-hour of the meeting.

If that's okay, we can adopt this motion the way it is.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Well done.

Are there any questions about witnesses' expenses?

Mr. Bagnell moves it.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Next we have staff at in camera meetings. One person per....

Monsieur Ménard, you have a question.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

A contentious issue has been raised in other committees. A routine motion states that a member may be accompanied by a staff person. I simply want assurances that “staff person” also means a staff person in the whip's office. Some committees have refused to interpret the wording this way. However, as everyone well knows, the staff in the whip's office is critically important to members.

We're agreed then that in cases where a member is not accompanied by a member of his own staff, the generic term “staff person” also means a staff member in the whip's office. This holds true for all parties in the House.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I think the problem with the other committees was that the French and the English didn't match. The English version basically said that you could bring anyone, and the French version said you had to bring someone from your MP's staff. So as long as both languages can be stated to mean that you can basically bring anyone from your staff, or the whip's staff....

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

I want to thank Monsieur Ménard for asking the question, and then we'll go to Mr. Comartin.

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

I actually think we should change the wording. This came up at a public security meeting earlier in the week, and it was brought up by the Bloc because they ran into the problem.

What we should do is change the wording so that the staff person is designated by the member, that we choose who we want, rather than having the chair interpret who a staff person is.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Yes, it can sometimes be embarrassing when you don't exactly know what the relationship is between the member and a particular staffer sitting in the room, and you don't know where he or she has come from.

Can we adapt the wording to accommodate that?

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

Yes, after “one staff person”, you could add “as designated by the member”.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

The wording in French...

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

The motion would read “d'une personne de son choix”.