Public Safety Committee on Nov. 13th, 2007

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

The idea is to give people 48 hours to study the motion. So it has to be 48 hours, period.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

That's what it says.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I agree. I think it's protection for the members to have a chance to look at the motions. That's been the purpose of having 48 hours' notice.

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

But if a meeting is convened while the House is not in session, which is possible, we cannot ask for a 48-hour sitting day notice, since we are not sitting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I see what you're saying.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I don't think this says anything about sitting days.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

That was our discussion.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I'm just going back to what we have here. This doesn't say sitting days; it says 48 hours from the time the clerk distributes it.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

You might need to include that the clerk should immediately distribute it.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I'm just thinking about when you come back on Tuesday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

The clerk has made a suggestion, which we can consider next Tuesday, that we put “working days” into the wording. Then if you have an emergency meeting you would have two normal working days, which would not include Saturday and Sunday. You could put that in the motion instead of “sitting days”. That would address your concern.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay, that's something to think about.

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

Let's move on to the other one now. You went a bit fast, you skipped my favourite one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Go ahead, Monsieur Ménard.

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

There is the allocation of speaking time.

Will we be sitting Thursday, or next Tuesday?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

In one week, Tuesday.

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

As you know, I feel that certain witnesses have perfected the art of dodging committee questions. They answer the first question at length, avoid the topic completely and come back later. Mr. Zaccardelli, if memory serves, had mastered the art.

I will be drafting my text accordingly. I simply want to warn you so that you will not be too surprised when I submit this to you, Mr. Chairman. We had already discussed it, but we were not in agreement with the majority. Nevertheless, I think that it is worth repeating the proposal. Rather than allocating seven minutes, we would allocate three and a half minutes during the first turn, and two and a half minutes subsequently. However, only the time used to ask questions would be taken into account. In that way, we would really have the time to ask them.

Here, two extremes are possible. Some members have a tendancy to make speeches rather than ask questions. I think that if we ask witnesses to come, it is because we want to hear them. However, certain professional witnesses give answers that are completely off-topic and go on forever when they don't want to reply.

I can tell you that this method practiced by certain witnesses here has even been the subject of newspaper reports, at least in Quebec. When he was questioned in reference to the sponsorship scandal, Mr. Jean Pelletier, Jean Chrétien's former chief of staff, said openly to reporters that appearing before a committee was not complicated. In reply to the first question, one simply has to deliver the speech one has prepared, which fills up the seven minutes.

I note that there are two disadvantages; one is minor and the other one merits consideration. With this system, it is difficult to calculate the exact time needed to question witnesses. We won't have unlimited time. As for the second disadvantage, I think that technology may come to our assistance, otherwise I will give someone my watch. We could use chronometers. When we finished asking a question, the chair or the clerk could push the button, and the clock would stop. When the member asked a new question, the chair or clerk would push the button and the chronometer would start running again, and so on and so forth.

I would like us to try once more to find a way of countering the tactic certain witnesses use to avoid answering questions. Would calculating only the time used by the member to ask his question, rather than the time taken by the witness to answer it, not constitute an improvement over the current procedure?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

That's a very interesting suggestion.

I have one question before I go to Mr. Norlock and Ms. Priddy.

Mr. Ménard, would you at the same time suggest that we limit the answers of the witnesses? If you allow three and a half minutes for the questions on a seven-minute round, the witness would have to complete their answers within the seven minutes. Is that what you're suggesting? Otherwise they could still stonewall the committee, making a ten-minute....

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

I am not suggesting that we limit the replies. Most of the witnesses who come here are not professional witnesses, even if some of them are. In my opinion, some witnesses know how to use the procedure so as to avoid providing the committees with information. Be that as it may, I don't think that the witnesses would abuse the situation. If they did, the chair could always intervene and stop them. There is no doubt that that does lead to some uncertainty when it comes to calculating the time, but I think that that disadvantage is insignificant when weighed against the possibility of being able to get real answers to our questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Norlock.

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

I don't know how that helps or hinders. Here's the way I see it. The person asking the question can take six and a half minutes of their seven minutes because they don't put much weight on the witness and want to get their point across.

I think this begins to limit the questioner and the answerer. If you really want an answer to your question you'll make it succinct. If the witness is obfuscating, you will interrupt that witness and direct them to answer the question--as you so ably did on several occasions, sir.

I really don't see the benefit of what you're suggesting. I think it depends on the quality of the questioner.

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

I was making that suggestion in view of our discussing it the next time we meet. I submitted the idea so that you would not be too surprised. When it comes to making an important change, some people like to have a chance to think about it before making up their minds.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Ms. Priddy.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to something that you described just a moment ago, which is how you allocated the questions last time. I gather it was, as you described it, by representation. Therefore, the NDP gets one question, and I guess the Bloc gets two, and the Liberals get four, or whatever that was, which I would suggest I have a primary difficulty with.

What you just described, Mr. MacKenzie, or what is described in here actually expands that so that you would simply continue doing the rotation.

Am I understanding your change correctly that it would then potentially add the number of questions that, in this case, the smallest party, the NDP, would ask? I'm following along here with your example of Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, NDP, and then doing that same round again.