Evidence of meeting #76 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Schiefke Liberal Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
I just want to make sure that we're following all the rules, Mr. Chair, as always.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I'd be open to suspending if people want to talk, but I'm happy to keep going.
Mr. Chair, I admire Mr. Schiefke's concern for the rules of quorum being enforced. I think that sometimes that's been interpreted as being at the table or in the room. I don't know how that's interpreted by the chair here because I think we have some folks who are in the room but not at the table.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Mr. Genuis, the chair has already observed that. You don't need to second-guess the chair all the time.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There might be some value in second-guessing the chair under the circumstances, but I gather that second-guessing the chair isn't encouraged by the chair, which is understandable on a psychological level if not on a substantive level.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Mr. Genuis, if you wish to differ with the chair's decisions, you're free to challenge them.
Otherwise, let's just move on with the business at hand.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, I don't think the chair had made a decision, nor had I challenged it. I was simply pointing out some matters of context.
I'll return to the previous matter that I was discussing, which was the way in which Mr. Julian's motion as originally written could notionally be operationalized. The motion as it's written involves eight witnesses, or nine with a potential addition. Considering the possibility that the minister might not show up, we're looking at eight or nine people or groups that would need to come. I was saying that one way of operationalizing the desire to have nine different people or groups at the same three-hour committee meeting is to have three stakeholders appear in each hour.
This is what that would look like. You would have, say, the minister with the deputy minister and the commissioner of Correctional Services. Then you would have the correctional investigator, the federal ombudsman for victims of crime, and Tim Danson all appear together. Then you would need to have the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, the Union of Safety and Justice Employees and the former minister, Mr. Mendicino, sitting at the same time. Either way, you end up with some awkward combinations.
My colleague was just pointing out that of course it's normal and expected to have ministers appear on their own, and I agree. I think it would also make sense to have Mr. Danson appear alone and be able to have the time that's required to present and answer questions.
I'm simply pointing out that the framework we've been given in terms of the motion from Mr. Julian requires us to create these kinds of awkward witness combinations where people with very different experience and perspectives on the same topic are therefore required to sit at the table together and potentially debate with each other or focus on very different aspects of the topic. In committees that I've been a part of in the past, our general practice has been not to do that. The practice has been to say, first of all, are there witnesses for whom, given the nature of their experience or their position, it makes sense to appear alone? Generally, in the case of the former minister and Mr. Danson, I think with the nature of their experience and what they bring to the topic, it makes sense for them to appear alone or, in the case of the minister, with the officials he would want to bring with him to play a supporting role.
It doesn't seem to me to be a serious approach to the committee managing its agenda to try to say that these are the kinds of combinations that would be required. I'm obviously naturally suspicious of what's going on here. Why would we say that we have to pack all of these individuals and groups into one three-hour session?
The other thing about having the meeting set up as three consecutive one-hour meetings is that once you've heard from the witnesses, you have very limited time for questions. If you have a one-hour session and you have three witnesses, you can allow conservatively five minutes for each opening statement. Again, given the sensitivities of the matter and given the issues we're dealing with, we may want to give more time. In fact, I think a trauma-informed approach might lend itself, in this kind of situation, especially with either victims or their representatives, to not being as rigorous in terms of time. If somebody is in the midst of sharing very personal reflections about how certain events impacted them, it would potentially be a judgment call of the committee and/or the chair to say that we want to let that person finish what they're saying.
If you allow, theoretically, a minimum of 15 minutes for three witnesses or witness groups to present—but more likely, because of people going slightly overtime or because of other aspects of context, you're going to get that out to at least 20 minutes—and then you have to allow probably five to 10 minutes between witness groups—
6:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Genuis talked earlier about the minutes. To clarify for the minutes, I want to say that a fresh copy of the motion we're debating has been sent to the clerk, including the name of the federal ombudsman for victims of crime, Benjamin Roebuck, and clarifying “Tim Danson, lawyer for the victims, to appear”. I want to make sure the minutes reflect what was said at the mike.
Thank you.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
On that point of order, because I am confused—
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Yes.
Mr. Julian, are you saying that the form of the motion you moved is the same as the form that you put on notice verbally on Monday? It seems like it's different from the written version that was distributed.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Mr. Genuis, Mr. Julian just said that. When he moved the motion, what he said was somewhat different from what is actually in the written motion. He's just clarifying that he sent an updated copy—hard copies to everybody—so that we're on the same page.
Mr. Julian, did you want to respond as well?
6:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
As Mr. Genuis knows, we talked about the federal ombudsman for victims of crime. I included his name in the updated motion sent to the clerk. Tim Danson was listed in the original motion, but not with his title, which is “lawyer for the victims”.
For the purposes of the minutes, I wanted to ensure that both the name and the title of those two individuals were in the motion we are considering.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you for your clarification. It is, of course, important that the minutes are accurate.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
On the same point of order, it wasn't clear to me.
I'm sorry, Mr. Julian, but my question was, is the text that you moved the same as the text of what was read on Monday?
You're nodding that it is, so fair enough.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I believe not.
The text of what you moved is what you just sent out to us. Is that correct?
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
It's the same as what you read out on Monday, which I understand you believe should have been in the minutes but wasn't.
6:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
The name and title are the same as what I read out on Monday, but for further clarification it includes the name of the federal ombudsman and the title for Tim Danson.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you for the clarification.
Mr. Genuis, do you wish to carry on with the point of order or carry on with your arguments?
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I'll return to my remarks, but I'll just say that it would be helpful if the clerk could distribute the text of what was read to the members, given that it was not in Monday's minutes.