Foreign Affairs Committee on Aug. 1st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madam McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I agree it's a very frustrating situation we're faced with. I'm sorry to say I think it's of the government's own creation, and I think it's not out of order to say there was no traditional consultation whatsoever with committee members about how we would proceed.

The parliamentary secretary, Mr. Van Loan, has just cited for the third time that the purpose of this meeting is to deal with the evacuation question. I was one of four petitioners for this meeting. I made it very clear we were asking to deal with the escalating Middle East crisis, which has many aspects. I think it's time for the committee to take some shared responsibility--which even in a majority government would happen, never mind in a minority government--to set the course of our work for the rest of the day. The less time we spend debating that, the more time we can allow our officials to get on with their other work.

I think this committee has a responsibility to re-establish some kind of order to our proceedings. So far, what we've had is a completely unilateral assumption of responsibility by the chairman. I guess he accepts responsibility for the fact that some witnesses have been lined up with no consultation with the steering committee. So we're conducting committee business that hasn't actually been put together by the committee.

In seconding the motion, I would argue that we move very quickly to deal with some of that committee business and then come back to hearing with great enthusiasm from our CIDA officials, who are doing an incredible job in spite of the horrors they're dealing with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Just let me, please--

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I happen to take great exception to the characterization of the chair having unilaterally set the agenda of this meeting. The agenda of this meeting was set by the request from the opposition.

Madame Lalonde's letter clearly says:

“Second, it should look at ways Canada could contribute to the humanitarian relief effort underway and help the people affected.”

That is what Madame Lalonde asked that this meeting deal with. That is what the witnesses in front of us are here to deal with. That is how the agenda of this meeting was established, according to the request from the opposition that set it. I say we came here to do work; you, in the opposition, asked us to do work; let's do the work. Let's hear the evidence.

I don't know why we would go into committee business and make decisions before we've heard the evidence. I've never heard of a court of law in a democracy that decides to pass its verdict first and then hear the witnesses later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Van Loan, let me just respond to the...I wouldn't call it an accusation; I give Madam McDonough more credit than that. For a number of reasons--because this morning's meeting was late starting and because it went past the 12 o'clock time--we did not adjourn. We suspended the meeting so that we could pick up where we were.

Certainly, I do not want to cut committee business short. I want to give Madame Lalonde, who I know will be bringing forward a motion, ample time to deal with that.

The other point you made was that unilaterally the chair put forward witnesses. There are two things. First of all, all witnesses who applied through the chair were then forwarded to the clerk. I did not screen witnesses. Every witness, as far as I know, who came in to our office was just forwarded to the clerk as per the norm. It is up to the parliamentary group, the clerk's office, to choose the witnesses.

Never has the steering committee picked and chosen witnesses. We pick and choose topics. We bring forward witnesses. If I could pick and choose, if I could veto certain witnesses coming forward, I would suggest that would be a terribly dangerous situation. No, the steering committee does not veto or pick and choose witnesses. We choose the direction that the committee is going, and that's what we tried to do.

The opposition brought forward the parameters of what this committee would be called back on. The researchers and clerks understood the different parameters, and we waited, as you have done always in the past, for witness lists to appear. Maybe I should check with some of my colleagues to see if they sent witnesses to my office, but I don't believe they did. As far as I know, we did forward all witnesses.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I just want to pinpoint something, Mr. Chair. First of all, if you had adjourned this morning--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I didn't.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

No, if you had adjourned this morning, there would be no more meeting this afternoon. One way or the other, we need to suspend, and from the reaction this morning at noon...I say we suspend for two minutes and get to the committee business right now, at 12:05. You decided on the other way. Now you need to take the responsibility--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

And I will.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

The second thing is this. I was chair of this committee for many years, and the clerk never chooses the witnesses. It's not the clerk's job to choose the witnesses. They provide names to the chair, names to the committee, and the standing committee, the full committee, decides who the witnesses will be in accordance with an agreement with all the committees.

We have a motion right now to go to committee business because there's none on the afternoon schedule. It was not there. It was there on the morning schedule. We're going to go now; you have a motion, and I ask you for the vote right now. You have a motion to go to the vote right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

That's fine, Mr. Patry.

We have a speaking list, and this is a debatable motion.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

No, no, no.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'll refer to the clerk.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

No, no. I asked for the vote; when the vote is asked for, you need to call the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Can I ask the clerk for procedural...?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mrs. Angela Crandall]

Calling for the question is not acceptable in committee.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Chair, it might be helpful to ask you a simple question, if I may have the floor.

I agree, I too am very disconcerted with how this has arrived. Was there in fact, pursuant to the request by the members, a call for witnesses by you? Yes or no?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'll have to talk to the clerk. For myself--

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Chair, if you could answer that question now, I think it would certainly give rise to support for what my colleagues have been saying here--that we ought to immediately go to business. Given that there was no call--I'm going to assume there was no call--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, just wait. I can tell you what I clearly passed on to the office of the clerk. I'm not sure to whom I spoke at that time, but what I said was...because at one point in time, we had been requested to have one meeting of the foreign affairs committee.

I spoke to another member; in fact, Madam McDonough called me, and I appreciated it. She said, “Mr. Sorenson, we do not want this thing just to happen in one quick meeting.” I don't think I'm breaking any confidence; I don't know if that phone call was confidential. She said we want to give time for this committee to meet. I won't put words into her mouth, but the idea was that we wanted to have extended time. At one point it was a Monday and possibly a Tuesday meeting.

So we asked the clerk's office, Mr. McTeague, to make sure we had enough people who could be brought forward, whether that would be the departments or CIDA or whoever, and to arrange for that and--

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate that, but I also respect the fact that no member—

I'm sorry. Can you hear?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'll take Mr. McTeague, and then we'll come to you, Mr. Obhrai.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I think it's very clear, Mr. Chair, that the request by the members for this meeting, which has been accepted, did not make, in fact, a call for witnesses, nor did you proceed with a call for witnesses. As such, in order for this committee to properly examine this issue, given the time constraint we have, and honouring what Mr. Van Loan has said—he is very concerned about the time that can be spent by these officials—I suggest we get on with this vote and that we respect the fact that you did not make a call for witnesses and that what you have is a very selective group.

Normally, on any other committee—and I sat on this committee, as you did, Mr. Chair—we would take the time through a steering committee to select and go over the names of people. I'm sure there are probably witnesses here right now, or people who want to be witnesses who could not be here, and I think in fairness to this issue, if we really want to take it seriously, Canadians expect us to be balanced in terms of who we bring forward.

Given that there was no call, I suggest you honour what is an obvious answer, and that's that there was no call for witnesses and therefore there ought not to be witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

There was a call for witnesses, in that we knew we were going to have more than one meeting. It's the responsibility of the table, I guess, to make sure we have people here to give testimony, and that's what they attempted to do. That constitutes, in my opinion, a call for witnesses.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

No, it doesn't, Chair, and you've not asked for witnesses. I think there's a more formal way—