Evidence of meeting #1 for Public Safety and National Security in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was meeting.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Thank you.
(Motion agreed to)
Number 3 concerns reduced quorum: that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three members are present, including one member of the opposition. That's for special subcommittees.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Thank you.
The next motion concerns the distribution of documents: that the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute to the members of the committee only the documents that are available in both official languages.
I believe that's standard for all committees. Are there any questions on that?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
The fourth motion concerns working meals: that the clerk of the committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide for working meals for the committee and its subcommittees. I think there's a limit to how many we can have, but that is something that is usually--
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Number 6 deals with time limits for witnesses, statements and questioning.
David.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I'm wondering if we would be advised to list the rotation of the speakers.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Perhaps you can give us an idea of what your suggestion is there.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I'd suggest we say that, in the first round, the Liberal Party goes first, then the Bloc, the NDP, and the Conservatives; in the second round, the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Bloc, and the Conservatives; and in the third round, the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Liberals, the Conservatives, and, if there's additional time, the Bloc and the NDP.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
That's because of the division of parties in this Parliament, so that all members would have a chance to get a question in?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
That's right. I know in the last parliament the NDP sometimes didn't get a chance to speak if we got short of time. This way the rotation would be there.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Have we finished dealing with the matter raised by Mr. MacKenzie?
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
My comment is on another topic, but one which is still related to motion no. 6.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I would like to see the time set aside for the questioning of witnesses reduced by half, that is to say, I suggest that we give three and half minutes to the first speaker and two and half minutes to the next ones, but that we only count the time spent asking questions.
That suggestion is based on my experience, which is short, but which is confirmed by the experience of the members who have been sitting on this committee far longer than I have. I remember that at a briefing given to new members during the last session, one of the wise advisors who had been assigned to us pointed out the same thing, which was that we would be hearing — especially in the area of public safety and security — experienced witnesses who would be very well aware of the rules and limits to our interrogations. They have learned to take a very long time to answer questions. During a seven-minute period, we can ask one or two questions, but the witness can choose not to answer the question precisely and use up all of the available time.
I know that tactic was used when the Standing Committee on Public Accounts was examining everything related to sponsorships. A newspaper reported that one of the witnesses from the Prime Minister's Office had coached the other witnesses on what they had to do: They needed to use up the five to seven minutes available replying to the first question.
This might also teach us to ask succinct and precise questions, which would allow us to obtain more information from witnesses. It would not be a bad thing.
When I made this suggestion at the briefing given to new members the House of Commons advisors who were present replied that this would be a positive thing.
I am making this suggestion because it would really give us time to ask questions. If a witness is attempting to avoid answering a question, we can get him to address the topic of the question by asking him short and well-thoughts out questions.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
I don't know if anybody has a response to that.
My concern would be how you can put that on paper, and how can you enforce that kind of thing? Sometimes there is a series of questions. Would you time each one individually? That might be a very difficult thing to try to implement.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think there are, and have been for a long time, all kinds of timekeeping systems on the market. It would be a good thing if the clerk kept an eye on things and informed you of the fact that a given member of the committee has spoken for two and a half minutes and that he has one minute remaining. For instance, we could grant three and a half minutes to the first speaker from each party and two and a half minutes to the other speakers. The clerk could inform you that the member's time has expired.
Of course, the time allocated would not always be the same. Since I sat on committees with you before, I am convinced that you are sufficiently impartial to do this. You might have to interrupt a witness who appears to be—since we always have to give the benefit of the doubt to the witness—avoiding answering the question or is continuing to speak without really addressing the topic of the question that was put to him. In my opinion, this procedure would require that the chair intervene a little more often. However, we elected you because we know that you can chair with impartiality.
How do we keep track? It is simple: as soon as the committee member begins to put his question, the clerk pushes the button and starts the chronometer; when the member has finished asking his question, the clerk presses the button to stop the chronometer. He does the same thing all over again as soon as the member starts to ask another question. The House will have to purchase a few chronometers, but they are easy to find on the market.
