Afghanistan Committee on March 11th, 2009

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Chair, I say to my colleagues on the other side, you would want a chair who is neutral, not a Conservative sitting there looking out for Conservatives, although the Conservatives have the chairmanship. It would be far more advisable to do as is done with every other committee: that we have the chair remain neutral to make his rulings, and then we have one member from every party. That works very well with everything else. I don't see any problem.

If you are going to use the chair as a Conservative member, then you are actually compromising the position of the chair by forcing him to be a Conservative member and not a neutral member. It is important to recognize that the chair should be neutral. And then you have members from all parties, who will now be hoping the chair will act that way.

That's critically important, I must say, for the functioning of a committee. Let's be very careful here and not make the chair a member putting forward a Conservative point of view.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Bachand.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if this is really the issue here. Does Mr. Hawn want the parliamentary secretary to the minister to sit on the committee? If that's the case, then I'm against the idea, just as I opposed it on the Defence Committee.

If we agree to have a member of the Conservative Party in addition to our chair, then we run the risk of having the parliamentary secretary seated at the table, and I was against that idea on the Defence Committee. I would also remind Mr. Hawn and the Conservative party that when they were in opposition, they systematically objected to the presence of parliamentary secretaries. I simply want the Conservatives to be consistent in their thinking and actions. Would Mr. Hawn be the person selected?

Colleagues also need to understand that this is a steering committee. Ordinarily, members of this committee try to get along. Rest assured that as a group, you will have to adopt the report from the steering committee. However, it can be amended after the fact. I don't have a problem with the current makeup of the subcommittee, namely one representative per party, plus Mr. Casson, who represents the Conservative Party.

I'd like Mr. Hawn to answer my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Bachand is quite incorrect. I have never advocated against parliamentary secretaries being on steering committees, so he's quite wrong. That is absolutely a false statement. The simple fact is that this is the way it worked last time. The simple fact is that we're all parliamentary secretaries on this side of the room anyway, so it really doesn't matter, if you're saying a parliamentary secretary can't be on it, because we're all parliamentary secretaries.

My simple point is that the way it worked last time worked well. That was the chair and a member of each party.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Wilfert.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether this is a solution, but I remember Mr. Hawn being on the steering committee. If we accept the motion the way it is, which is the chair and three members of the opposition.... I would just ask the clerk that we get the original motion for the next meeting—in other words, strike the steering committee as is, so that we can go ahead with business. But if in fact the motion said....

Mr. Hawn was on it. I'm not sure how he got on it, but he was on it. If the motion does say that he was on it, I would be amenable to having him on, if that is what we had originally. It worked fine; I certainly had no problem. But in fairness, we need to see the original motion.

In order to do this, I would simply move it as it is, if it hasn't been moved, which is you and one of us from each opposition. In the meantime, the clerk can undertake to get the original motion, and if Mr. Hawn is on it, then we can--

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I have a problem with this motion—the one that was presented, not the second one here--that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be composed of the chair and one representative of each opposition party.

The motion says that I am the chair, and then there is each opposition party. I somewhat agree with Deepak. I think those of you who have been around know that I try to be very fair on these issues, and I'd just as soon be the chair and not be the one representing the government, even at the steering committee. You can take that for what it's worth, but that's how I feel about it.

I'm not sure what I need to do. Mr. Wilfert suggested that we pass a motion and then revisit it later, and I'm not sure that would be wise, Mr. Wilfert. I would like somehow to...[Technical difficulty--Editor]...right now.

What if we don't deal with this at this meeting? What if we deal with all the other routine motions? We can get the clerk to do the research that has been asked for by Mr. Wilfert. I prefer that way.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Do you mean before the end of this week?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

No, I don't think we could do it by then. We can pass all the routine motions except the steering committee motion.

So how do we meet again? We couldn't.

[The Co-Clerk, Ms. Angela Crandall]

You could meet at the call of the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We could meet at the call of the chair of this committee. So we would have to bring the whole committee back together to strike the steering committee.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Chair, we should go ahead and vote on the other routine motions. If we find last year's motion before the end of the meeting, then we can discuss it. Otherwise, we'll discuss it at the next meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I think we need to deal with it somehow today, because if we don't deal with establishing the subcommittee on agenda, then the committee is still stalled. We really need to get this thing going, to my mind.

We're going to stand this for a moment and we'll come back to it at the end. Hopefully we'll have more information by then.

The fourth routine motion is that the clerks of the committee be authorized to distribute to the members of the committee only documents that are available in both official languages; and that the practice of the committee will be that unless there are exceptional circumstances, all written material will be distributed to committee members 24 hours in advance.

It is moved by Mr. MacKenzie.

(Motion agreed to)

Motion five is that the clerks of the committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide working meals for the committee and its subcommittees.

It is moved by Mr. MacKenzie.

(Motion agreed to)

Motion six is that, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation, and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses, not exceeding two representatives per organization; and that in exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the chair.

It is moved by Mr. Dewar.

(Motion agreed to)

The next is that, unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to be accompanied by one staff person at in camera meetings, and that a representative of the whip’s office of each party be allowed to attend in camera meetings.

It is moved by Mr. Wilfert.

(Motion agreed to)

Next is that one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting be kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation by members of the committee.

It is moved by Mr. Crête.

(Motion agreed to)

The next motion is that 48 hours’ notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration; and that the notice of motion be filed with the clerks of the committee and be distributed to members in both official languages.

It is moved by Mr. MacKenzie.

(Motion agreed to)

Next is the motion for the good old rotation: that at the discretion of the chair, witnesses be given ten minutes to make their opening statement; and that at the discretion of the chair, during the questioning of witnesses the time allocated to each party be as follows: first round, seven minutes, Liberal, Bloc Québécois, NDP, Conservative; second round, five minutes, Liberal, Conservative, Bloc Québécois, Conservative, Liberal, NDP; and that if there is a third round of questioning, the committee will revert to the same order as in the second round; and that when a minister is in attendance, the order and time allocation for questioning witnesses be the same as above, with the exception that in the first round of questioning, ten minutes be allocated to each party.

Does somebody want to move that?

Mr. Crête moved it.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I have an amendment.

I want to run this idea by my colleagues opposite. It is what is done In the foreign affairs committee: you have the Liberals, the Bloc, and then it's the Conservatives, then the NDP. It means you don't have all the opposition on one side; It breaks and allows the government one, and then it goes back to the NDP, as it is done in the foreign affairs committee. It then goes back to the Liberals and back to us. It works very well in the foreign affairs committee.

Would you not agree, Paul, that we do that?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

As the man said, what's in it for me?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I actually don't have a problem with it.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

If we can do that, it's fine and in the spirit of cooperation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

The only amendment you're suggesting is that in the first round it go Liberal, Bloc, Conservative, NDP. The rest of it is the same.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Go ahead.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I just have one question. It goes through the first round and then it says “Conservative second round”. What does that mean?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I think that should be a spot, shouldn't it?

Committee, I just want to make a point here. If we adopt what has been proposed, in the first two rounds not every member at the table will get a chance to speak, because there are only four Conservative spots in the first two rounds. We structured it at the other committee so that in the first two rounds everybody would get a pop at it. So it should be Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, NDP.

Do you get my point?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

That's on the second round.