Evidence of meeting #1 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
That is carried. We're finished with number one.
Let's move right along to the second motion, that the committee retain the services of one or more analysts from the Parliamentary Information and Research Service of the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist it in its work, at the discretion of the chair.
Mr. Dewar.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
I just had a question on this for the clerk. What services did we have in the last Parliament? What was the makeup?
3:55 p.m.
The Clerk
Through the chair, we had a principal analyst and an analyst, James Lee and Gerry Schmidt, and, as needed, any other analyst would come on to the committee.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
So I'm correct in understanding that we had two analysts on a regular basis and a third when needed. Right now, we have James, who is replacing Gerry.
4 p.m.
The Clerk
We also have, I believe, Melissa Radford, who will be assisting the committee on a regular basis. So we will have two on a regular basis and will continue to call on the service of any specialist we need from the Library of Parliament.
4 p.m.
NDP
4 p.m.
The Clerk
Exactly.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Depending on who you speak to, he is still within the Library of Parliament but promoted to a different position. We can communicate with him, though, if need be.
4 p.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Oh. So the complement's the same. We have two. We need two full time.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Yes. If we meet and we say, listen, last year we had Gerry, James, and Natalie--I think we realized that with the reports we were doing we needed Natalie there to help out--and if it is indeed the case again, we would make that request again.
4 p.m.
NDP
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All in favour of routine motion 2?
Do we have to have a mover and a seconder on each one of these?
4 p.m.
The Clerk
Just a mover.
4 p.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Sorry to interrupt. It says here that we “retain the services of one or more”. In the past, we've always had two. So would it not be better to---
4 p.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
I know what the motion is, but the result is that we've always had two. I just want to ensure that we're always going to have two. This motion doesn't say that.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
We will have two. It's the same motion.
Paul moves the motion. All in favour?
(Motion agreed to)
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Motion 3 is that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three members are present, including a member of the opposition, but when travelling outside the parliamentary precinct, that the meeting begin after 15 minutes, regardless of members present.
Monsieur Crête.
Excusez. First, do we have a mover for this motion? Then we'll come into debate. We have Mr. Abbott.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I move that we remove everything from “...including a member of the opposition...“ and add “...provided that at least three members are present, including a member of the opposition“ to what remains. So we would keep “...a member of the opposition...“ but we would take out the rest. We would take everything from “...but when travelling outside the parliamentary precinct, that the meeting begin after 15 minutes, regardless of members present.“ This is because it creates uncertainty, a laxity that I do not think is justified. We should make sure that the quorum is three members, including one from the opposition.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I do not agree for one simple reason: it has happened that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has travelled to several cites across Canada at the same time. So we could be in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. The committee has 12 members, and if only two are in Montreal, no meeting could be held and witnesses could prepare briefs that no one would hear. It has happened several times before. We could start a meeting with two members in order to hear witnesses. I even sat by myself once, in Montreal, because my colleagues from other parties for various good reasons had to leave. This is my simple reason. It is easy to get three people when we travel abroad with a full committee; we had planned to go to Washington and New York. But when we travel in our own country, the committee could split into two or three groups. In that case, it would be quite impossible to have three members at all sessions. That is why I support this motion.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I know that we have been outside the country and, as Mr. Patry said, there are times when you get one or two. If my memory serves me correctly, I remember once Madam McDonough was called back for a funeral and all of a sudden there was a real lack. These people show up and this allows us to still take the presentation.
Mr. Obhrai.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Mr. Chair, I agree with Bernard. It has been the practice in the past committee that people haven't shown up. I won't repeat the argument of what Bernard has said. He said it from experience and we know that is what happens.
What I want to say is on a point of clarity. If you're going to say three members and one from the opposition, I think you just say one member of the government and one member of the opposition in order to make it clear. When we say three members and one from the opposition, it is presumed the government member is already there--it's presumed. Just make it as a point of clarity to say one member of the opposition and one from the government. That's my understanding. This one reads in a manner that says at least one member from the opposition, which presumes the other will be from the government. Let's have clarity--one and one.