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.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
You're adding one government member to the motion, right?
(Amendment agreed to)
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
The motion as amended 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 and a government member, but when travelling outside the parliamentary precinct, that the meeting begin after 15 minutes, regardless of members present.
Mr. Crête.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
The amendment that we have just passed—which really leads me to wonder whether I am going to vote for the motion—gives the government an absolutely extraordinary right of veto. We are actually stipulating that, in order to have a quorum, there must be a government member.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I think that is correct. There has to be an opposition member and a government member.
Mr. Patry.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
But it is still just when we are hearing witnesses, not when we are making decisions. This is about hearing witnesses, not about preparing reports or voting. Otherwise, if they are in the meeting for 10 minutes, for example, opposition members could start by themselves, without the chair or the vice-chairs, and the meeting is in session. No, we must all act as a united group.
No decisions are being made, no votes are being held. This is just about hearing witnesses.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
It's to start the meeting; it's to begin the meeting. You get your witnesses here. Can you listen to testimony? If it's all government and no opposition, no. If it's all opposition and no government, what passed says no.
Mr. Crête.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I just want to draw the committee's attention to this real possibility. After inviting people to come and give evidence, we are giving the government a tool if it does not want to hear a given witness. If no government member is present, the witness cannot be heard since a government member must be present for there to be a quorum and for witnesses to be heard.
We must establish very clearly that, when witnesses are called, we do not intend to play that game. Otherwise, it can get very frustrating. People might come from all over the place to give evidence, and, all of a sudden, the government members could all get up and leave. That may be a political choice, but the consequence would be that invited guests would be prevented from giving evidence.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
That certainly hasn't ever been the practice of this committee that I can recall.
The other thing is, witnesses are submitted, and we have the opportunity to go through the witness list earlier than that. There are many times when other parties will say, “Listen, we'd rather this witness not be part of the presentations”. That's the place to deal with that. This is more just to hear the witnesses.
Mr. Dewar.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Well, actually, it's on that point, Chair, now that you mention it. If, for instance, the government doesn't want to hear from a witness--I'm not saying you would ever do that, but conceivably that could happen. I guess that's the concern.
The fact that the rules were written the way they were before was to avoid that. In effect, you're saying that if you don't want to hear from a witness, and you as the chair and the government don't want to hear from whatever group, you could easily shut it down--not that you would ever do that. It's not in any book, I'm sure, but it's something you could do, the way it's written. I know that's not what anyone is contemplating here, but by design, if you decided you didn't want it, you could have a veto on it.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I find this argument a little circular, because the fact of the matter is that if an opposition member does not turn up, the testimony cannot be heard. If a government member does not turn up, the witness cannot be heard. It's quid pro quo. What is good for the goose is good for the gravy. So I don't understand the argument.
4:10 p.m.
An hon. member
I think you mixed your metaphors there.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
We have Mr. Crête again and then Mr. Obhrai. Did I see Mr. Lunney's hand?
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I just want to remind ourselves that, in the great majority of cases, people who come to give evidence have things to say that are not necessarily what the government wants to hear. Those people are looking for an opportunity to give evidence to the committee. To start with, the opposition wanted to make sure that there could be a quorum if an opposition member were present. But we do not need to spend the whole day debating this. Let us get it settled.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
No, I'm ready for the question.
(Motion as amended agreed to)
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Motion number 4 is that witnesses be given ten minutes for their opening statement; that, at the discretion of the chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated ten minutes for the first questioner of each party when a minister appears before the committee and five minutes for the other meetings, and that thereafter five minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner, alternating between government and opposition parties.
Do we have a mover for that motion?
Mr. Dewar moves.
Mr. Lunney, and then Mr. Crête.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Let me just suggest that having opening statements of ten minutes is fine. The witnesses come a long way to make a statement. That's no problem. But when you're talking about a ten-minute intervention for the first questioners, I want to suggest maybe that could be worked down to seven minutes to allow people to get into a second round and allow more members of the committee to actually participate.
Can I make that an amendment--
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
