Public Safety Committee on Nov. 20th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Yes, we've already agreed that we're striking that off, “be destroyed at the end of the session”. I thought we had agreed to that. Is that fine?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

I do not understand. Someone behind me was talking at the same time.

So we are removing the words “and that these transcripts be destroyed at the end of the session”?

[An Hon. Member]

That's right.

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

I agree.

I reminded you that it was worth while keeping the long discussions that we had in subcommittee on the Anti-terrorism Act when we began again in a new Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Monsieur Ménard, I understand that these in camera meeting minutes will be kept with the clerk of the committee until the end of the parliamentary session and then they will go to the archives. Did you understand something different? They will not be destroyed. They will become part of the archives. Okay? All right.

We're going to add now “and that the research staff be allowed to have access to them”, or whatever wording is appropriate. So all we have to do is add “members and staff of the committee”.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

The next motion is on working meals:

That the committee hereby authorize the clerk of the committee, in consultation with the chair, to make the necessary arrangements to provide for working meals, as may be required, and that the cost of these meals be charged to the committee budget.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

The next motion is on witnesses expenses:

That, as established by the Board of Internal Economy and if requested, reasonable travelling, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses who are invited to appear before the Committee up to a maximum of two (2) representatives from any one organization, and that if requested, reasonable family care expenses of the witnesses shall be reimbursed.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

All right. There are no concerns with that.

On priority of legislation, the motion reads as follows:

That the consideration and examination of any Bill, which falls within the expressed mandate of the committee shall take precedence over any study or non-legislative examination. In such circumstances the non-legislative study shall be deferred until such time as the Bill is reported back to the House.

If you're sitting on that side of the table, you'd better be careful what you object to here.

Okay, there are no problems with that--

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

No, we have a problem with it.

As my colleague pointed out at the last meeting, it has been a tradition here that government bills in particular have to be moved on very quickly, but when the committee is in the middle of a study or almost at the end of a study, it makes common sense to have the last two meetings to complete the study before you pick up the bill.

This implies that if a bill is sent from the House, we would have to pick it up and deal with it at the very next meeting and leave the tail end of a study or another private member's bill or something like that languishing until we did the government bill. It has always been the tradition that the committee feels obligated to move on the government bill fairly expeditiously, but not without common sense, in other words.

I don't think we even need this clause, because there is already this tradition in Parliament. We are putting into rules things that are working well; we're solving a problem that doesn't exist.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Well, okay. Are there any other comments?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I don't disagree with what the member is saying, but I'm wondering if it could have something in there that says it takes precedence, even if it....

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

That's the same thing. That's exactly what it says.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

This committee has always worked well. I can't speak for other committees. It has always worked well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We may not have all the reasonable members who are present sitting here all the time.

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

Maybe we could just say “reasonable” in front of that word. That means you could wait a meeting or two, but that it does take precedence--I'm sorry, we could say “reasonable priority”. It then allows you some flexibility.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay, that's one suggestion. The other one was the word “normally”, that it shall normally take precedence.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I think I made a point last time, and I'll make it again: nothing in the motions from the last sitting exists with respect to this matter. This is brand new. It is unnecessary, as pointed out by my colleague. The history of this committee, and generally of Parliament, tells us that government bills are given the attention they deserve--maybe not at the immediate next meeting, but a couple of meetings afterward.

We're all governed by common sense, and I just don't think this is--we're not going to support it. It's not the case that the government should be able to tell the committee what to do. I don't think it's within the accepted bounds of parliamentary procedure and convention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

All right. Are there any other comments? The proposal seems to be that we would strike this particular motion.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add that if such a guideline wasn't there before, and your committee was working well in the previous session, as I've heard--this is my first time sitting here--I don't see why it's necessary to add this. From that aspect I can't see the logic in prejudging, if I may use that word, that the committee is not going to continue to function as well as you described it earlier and as I sense it does.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We have two definite opinions here. How are we going to resolve this? Does anybody have any more points they'd like to make?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Why don't we just vote on it? If we lose it, we lose it.