Mr. Obhrai.
Evidence of meeting #15 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lebanon.
Evidence of meeting #15 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lebanon.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Both of my colleagues on the other side have talked about being chairs of the committee. They seem to forget we were also part of this committee. When somebody calls for a special committee meeting, which they did.... They went out of their way and they wanted to talk, as Madam Alexa McDonough said, on the important issue of the Middle East crisis, and we agreed. We all agreed. This is important, so let's come forward and let's talk about it.
As for the spirit that was given, as per Madame Lalonde's letter, she put forward a motion, which is before us, that they want to discuss.
What has happened, from our perspective, is that this thing is turning into a political football right now, whereby they want to score political points by saying these witnesses can come, and those cannot come, and to choose. They had time, because they are the ones who put the motion forward, and should have attached a list of witnesses, as you have rightfully pointed out.
What I'm saying is that in the spirit of cooperation, because the crisis is going on, we need to discuss this. People are watching us, so let's hear what CIDA has to say, to give people an idea, and let's hear the witnesses who are here and get their point of view. Then, if they want to have additional witnesses, they are more than free to call them or whatever they want to do. But to say now, at this juncture, when we've all come here and this is televised, no, we don't want to talk to these witnesses after the taxpayers have already paid for them to come here....
Just let's listen to everybody. Let's get to what we want. Let's hear from CIDA, let's hear from the witnesses, and if that does not satisfy the committee members of the opposition, nothing stops them from calling in more witnesses later on. In that spirit, I say let's move forward.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Obhrai.
To clarify one thing, I want to make sure the opposition understands what is on the agenda here. We're not proposing that everything be pushed back until after the witnesses. We're proposing that we listen to CIDA and then do committee business as per what we have on the agenda this morning. It's not that we're going to push committee business right back to the very tail end of the day. It's that we have an opportunity to hear CIDA, so we have ample opportunity for committee business, for Madame Lalonde's motion.
I recognize Madame Lalonde.
1:20 p.m.
Bloc
Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Chairman, on July 19 last, my colleague Diane and I took it upon ourselves to request that the committee be convened , in accordance with one of the two rules of procedure whereby committees may be convened when the House is adjourned. We made it clear that we wished to discuss the following three topics: the evacuation, humanitarian relief and the crisis itself.
You deemed it best that we take the second approach to convene a committee meeting, namely that we collect four signatures. Therefore, in addition to our own signatures, we collected those of Alexa McDonough and Bernard Patry. You ultimately agreed to call a meeting. This isn't the first time that I've resorted to this approach. I did so during the 2003 crisis when Iraq was attacked.
As I recalled -- and I verified the facts -- when the Chair receives a request of this nature, he must convene the committee which then decides whether or not to consider the motion and if so, how. The committee also decides then whether or not to hear from witnesses. In this particular instance, the following request was ultimately made:
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), we the undersigned members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development request that you convene at the earliest opportunity a meeting of the committee to discuss the tragic events in the Middle East.
To be honest, Mr. Chairman, it was neither my intention nor that of my colleague to undertake a lengthy study of the situation. Rather, it was our wish to draft a motion for consideration by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. We maintain this position. I have a great deal of respect for those who wish to testify, but if we go down that road, then we will have to be fair.
I for one have not called anyone. To my knowledge, there are very few Quebeckers, despite their keen interest in this crisis, who would be prepared to appear, unless it was a last minute decision on their part. In an emergency situation, the committee should use this valuable time to endeavour to adopt a majority position. Later, we could pursue or complete our study on Lebanon or the Middle East. However, we cannot hear from witnesses in a fair and equitable manner. That would take a great deal of time. In my opinion, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development mustn't waste any time on this.
I stand by my position which hasn't changed since I requested a committee meeting.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
August 1st, 2006 / 1:25 p.m.
Liberal
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
I certainly don't want to use up the time of the committee repeating much of what my colleague Madame Lalonde has said, but I'm very concerned--and I don't mean this as a point of order, but only as a point of discussion--that only part of the exchange I had with the committee chair on Friday was brought forward to the committee. I'm sure it wasn't his intention, but I called precisely because I got a notice of meeting with a list of witnesses on it, and my instant response and reaction was that this represents a very narrow range of interests. It's not that they're not legitimate voices to be heard--I don't say that for a moment--but they are not broadly representative. It's not a comprehensive list, and in fact, most of the witnesses on there are clearly identified with a small, fairly well-defined position.
I'm not talking about our officials. Let me make it very clear.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
My argument was that if there are going to be witnesses—and I wasn't prepared to hear from witnesses who looked very much as though they represented one particular set of interests—I was not prepared for us to hear witnesses unless and until we had a more balanced, broadly representative range of witnesses. We don't have that now.
I think what we should do is spend a few minutes in committee to decide where we go from here. I greatly value and respect the time and the testimony of our CIDA officials who are here with us, and the Red Cross officials. I think we should then go back to dealing with the longer-term plan for what we're going to do. But let's be fair here. I'm very concerned that the clerk's office will get scapegoated, much in the same way as the Lebanese are getting scapegoated by people taking up one side of a position.
When I contacted the clerk to say I'm concerned about this very narrow range of interests that have now been confirmed as witnesses, with no consultation, I was told that the clerk simply contacted the people he was instructed to contact by the chair. I don't want to see the clerk's office scapegoated in this.
But I think what we have to do, as we always have a responsibility to do, is to come up with a broad, representative set of witnesses on this occasion and any other occasion when we're dealing with issues. Since the very point of the overwhelming concern about the government's position is that it's unilateral, that it's narrow, that it doesn't take into consideration the vast complexity and range of interests involved, we don't need to turn around in an all-party committee, especially in a minority government, and repeat that sin.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Madam McDonough.
Let me make it very clear, there was no solicitation. I submitted the names of those who came forward. I did not screen to see who.... You know what? I don't think I have met any of the witnesses ever, and I may be proven wrong, but they were forwarded as I felt all opposition parties were submitting.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Mr. Chair, you're debating about witnesses. That's not the idea. We're not debating about witnesses. We have a motion that is going on.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
1:25 p.m.
Bloc
Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Marleau-Montpetit notes the following:
A committee may wish to hear testimony from private individuals, representatives of groups, or public officials concerning the matter which it is studying. Witness selection may be carried out in a number of different ways. Normally, witnesses are proposed by individual committee members. The committee may also invite potential witnesses to indicate their interest in appearing. The selection is often delegated to the Sub-committee on Procedure and Agenda, subject to ratification by the full committee.
It is the responsibility of the committee as a whole to determine which witnesses it will hear. Practical considerations, such as the length of time allocated for a study, limit the number of witnesses the committee will be able to accommodate. While any member of a committee may propose witnesses, the committee makes the final decision as to who will be heard.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Correct. If that's what your committee business is, the point of debate right now is whether or not we're going to hear from CIDA or if we're going to committee business. If we go to committee business, I know it's going to take a fair bit of time to deal with your 25-point motion.
I recognize Mr. Goldring.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the meeting here was, in three points, to evaluate the evacuation, the humanitarian aid, and the ongoing crisis.
In a situation like this where the witnesses clearly have been called, and they have been laid out, and they're here ready to make their presentation, I think it's a matter of respect that we should proceed with this and listen to this. And as well, there's the simple fact that I would certainly like to hear from these witnesses to be able to formulate in my mind exactly what the end result of this will be if it does come to a vote. I think it's ignoring that fact if we go into committee business, which may very well impact on a decision to be made, without hearing from the witnesses. I think it's absolutely imperative to hear from the witnesses first, and this is the way the meeting had been structured.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
I just heard Madame McDonough and Madame Lalonde give lengthy discussions on witnesses. I don't see anywhere in the motion, which has been put, that we move to committee business.
We're discussing whether to hear the witnesses in front of us or deal with committee business now. I think we were actually discussing the committee business. I'm only speculating, because I don't know what they wish to put. The only committee business I'm aware of is a motion by Madame Lalonde, which will be quite lengthy. That motion should only be dealt with after we've heard evidence, so we can make a reasonable decision, rather than prejudging matters before we hear the witnesses.
However, I did hear Ms. McDonough say that she has no problem with the witnesses from CIDA. If that is indeed the position of the other parties, then I see no reason for us to be upsetting our agenda if there's no problem. Then we have committee business scheduled to take place after the witnesses from CIDA.
I know from discussing this with them, when we asked them to indulge us and come back at one o'clock, that they have very important priorities and business regarding humanitarian aid right now. If the opposition is genuine—and the crocodile tears they cry for the humanitarian situation in Lebanon right now—they would not be seeking to detain and delay these officials any longer, with regard to what seems a wholly unnecessary reordering of procedure.
As I understand it, at least from Madame McDonough, there's no problem with hearing CIDA, and we're happy to hear CIDA. We can have whatever other discussion regarding witnesses after CIDA has appeared. I see no problem there, and I don't understand why we need to delay them. We have an agenda and it's set out already. We have work to do. Let's do the work that the people of Canada sent us here to do.
1:30 p.m.
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Chairman, I know the record will clearly show—and if members choose to recall—I tried to prevent what is happening here. I begged the chairman to assure us that we would deal with it before we adjourned for lunch, and possibly not adjourn for lunch at all. Over lunch, we could have dealt with this committee business matter without subjecting our colleagues to this.
I think it needs to be recognized that this is a situation created by unilateral decisions made on the government side, and by the chairman, to not acknowledge that there was a problem about the scheduling of witnesses, which we should have discussed over lunch, if necessary, to be able to carry on. I think it's not acceptable for members to say that what we're now creating is terrible. This morning we tried to prevent this from happening.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Not necessarily. The fact of the matter is that we have witnesses. When we extended the one meeting to more than one, which happened only because we wanted to cooperate as much as possible with the opposition, we needed to fill that extra time. At that point, the names had been submitted, and I'm not scapegoating the clerk's office, but they contacted those people. I didn't know who they were, but some were brought here, and as I understand, some came from all across the country.
All we're saying is that we can have other witnesses at other dates and times when we come back this fall. I'm certain there will be balance. I hope there will be balance in hearing these witnesses today. I have no indication there won't. All I have are some accusations from the opposition that it's lopsided--one viewpoint. I don't believe that. I think they are people who are going to give their opinions on what they saw when they were evacuated and on how it went. There are all kinds of different groups represented here.
Mr. Martin, were you waving your hand?
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
All right, I'll go.
I want to state one thing, Mr. Chair. You talk about fairness, but we had a gentleman's agreement at 11:55 to keep going until the minister left and then do committee business. You said yes. That was a gentleman's agreement, I'm very sorry. I challenge you on this. We had a gentleman's agreement to proceed, and you said it would take five or ten minutes maximum. Then you decided to suspend and come back at one o'clock. That's fine, no problem, since you stated that we were going to start with this. That is what you told me, and I have witnesses. You decided not to do it.
If you want us to keep working as a committee in a unanimous way, I think it's great to have the opposition on your side. I must tell you that some other colleagues provided you with some witness lists, but it was said that the list was closed. That's not the way—
