Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 13th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We're going to have to wait to learn how to pronounce your last name, Ms. Mychajlyszyn. How is it? We sometimes may end up calling you Natalie. When Borys is here, we call Borys “Borys”.

Gerry Schmitz will be back. Gerry is on a mission somewhere around the world for us, doing his work.

Welcome back. I can tell you, from all parties, that we appreciate the work of the Library of Parliament and our researchers here.

The third motion is the quorum for receiving evidence:

That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive and publish evidence when a quorum is not present provided that at least three (3) members are present, including a member of the opposition.

Mr. Allison.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know that what's happened previously is that because of other meetings, etc., we've left witnesses waiting. Is there any way to suggest that after 15 minutes--we have scheduled meetings--we'd be able to hear witnesses, regardless of whether there's a member of the opposition or a member of the government present to hear testimony?

I'm not suggesting moving forward on motions or anything, but just to get the meeting started, out of respect for the witnesses we have coming in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

The meeting would be called to order by whom?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

By the chair; I'm assuming the chair would be here. We'd be required to start the meeting after 15 minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Even without quorum, if it's only to hear witnesses?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

I would still suggest that we have at least three. I realize that it does state to make sure there's one member of the government and one member of the opposition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right, that's....

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Sorry, can you clarify what the difference is, Dean? Thank you.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

No, that's when we're outside the parliamentary precinct, when we're on the road hearing witnesses.

I know that in our HR committee we had some concerns when we were hearing witnesses. People were late coming in, etc., so we held our witnesses up and we weren't able to hear witnesses, even though people did show up after the meetings got started. It put us behind considerably, as we were trying to hear witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

So you're saying everything would still be recorded in the blues and it would be in the committee....

Mr. Martin.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I would argue, Mr. Chair, that we keep the status quo. It's important that at least one member of an opposition party be there. This is there for a reason. It's an issue of fairness and representation. If we as a group cannot muster one person, then you deserve to hammer us mercilessly.

So I think it should be the status quo.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Patry.

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

It all depends. I agree with Mr. Allison in the sense that if you're travelling, depending on where it is, you could split the committee into two or three, with some out west, some in central Canada, some in the eastern provinces. If we're just two or three, and sometimes we're just two, you maybe have five or ten witnesses over there. So it all depends.

This motion is for Ottawa hearings. In Ottawa hearings we need to be three. I think it's important. When we say “be authorized to hold meetings”, it's meetings for witnesses, not for any other meetings. It's just for witnesses. For witnesses we can be three minimum, but if it's for voting, it doesn't mean we can vote. We need to get a quorum to vote anything else.

So it's just to hold witness meetings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'm wondering, Mr. Patry, since you served as chair of this committee for so long, if we were involved in a case like that where we were travelling, and we perhaps had a split committee, would it be possible, if we knew that there may be a problem...? Let's say all of a sudden some people had to go home for something. Could we at that point in time ask for permission to go against this motion?

I mean, if this is for here, then that's acceptable. But if during travel we all of a sudden don't have someone from the opposition....

This is a good point. If we split up, we may only have two opposition members. We've had it in the past where a member from the NDP had to go home for a funeral--I remember that one--and all of a sudden we were left very short. So Mr. Allison has a good point.

You know what? I think we'd probably cross that bridge at that time, when we got to it. This committee usually has a really good working relationship. I've been on other committees, and we've always tried to have this committee operate, in cases like that, with not necessarily consensus but with an attempt to accommodate in that type of case, when we got to it.

I just think that's something to be aware of.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Once again, my suggestion is just to add that if we're outside the parliamentary precinct, we would only be required to wait 15 minutes before receiving evidence.

I'll just state again my example of being in Montreal, where one of our members on the Conservative side was flying in or taking a train in, and they were late. We were forced to wait, and we were late all day for hearing witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I have been there too. I don't know what happened in Montreal, but all of a sudden, to be quite honest, I was embarrassed by the turnout of the committee. I can't remember what the issue was, but it was foreign affairs. I think it ended up being one opposition member and maybe only one from the government. That was a couple of parliaments ago.

Would we be open to that addition, then, on that motion?

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

The addition of what?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Allison, go ahead.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Just that any meetings taking place outside the parliamentary precinct would require the committee to wait only 15 minutes before being able to hear witnesses.

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

Which means that we can hear witnesses with two people. That's fine, I agree.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Barbot.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the current wording does not state that. It should be worded in a way that specifies that when we are away, meetings should be allowed with fewer committee members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

That's what we would add to this here. Mr. Allison's suggestion is that we would add that when we're outside and travelling, and witnesses come to meet with us but some of us have maybe gone home or whatever, we could still start, after waiting 15 minutes.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Fifteen minutes is mentioned but not the number of committee members in attendance. The purpose is to ensure that if we are away, the meeting can begin after 15 minutes regardless of how many committee members are in attendance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, right. That's in travel, being away from here, if the need came up.

You know, for all parties, for Parliament, it's an embarrassment when witnesses come, they're ready, we don't show up--and there may be real and legitimate reasons for it--and the witnesses can't present. This would at least give them the opportunity.

So I think that's a good point, Mr. Allison.

Mr. Dewar.