Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 13th, 2007

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'm just trying to follow the logic here, Chair. You were saying that in a previous parliament, when you were travelling with a committee, only two people showed up and it was embarrassing, and I grant you that. I'm not sure this deals with that. This is actually saying you'd go ahead with that kind of quorum.

I appreciate Mr. Allison's point of view. You're not on this committee? I'm just trying to figure out what we're dealing with here. Maybe we should stick to the rules we have. At some point we can come back to them if there is a scenario where we have that concern.

I think if this has worked well.... I go back to Mr. Martin's view, that these are routine measures that have been used before. They've worked well. I go back to the axiom of “if it ain't broke...”. So I'm suggesting maybe we stick with this for now, and I appreciate Mr. Allison's experience on the other committee, but if it hasn't been a problem with this committee, let's just stick with what we have and move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I have an amendment moved to that, so we'll continue to speak to that.

Mr. Khan.

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

I'd ask when we're going to have an amendment and move on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

He read his amendment into the motion. Did you want to speak to that then?

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

I want to respond to Mr. Dewar. The examples given here before are that it didn't work well in the past. The witnesses had to wait; therefore we don't need to wait longer than 15 minutes, and I think that's quite reasonable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madam Barbot.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

When there is a meeting, in principle everyone should be there. Otherwise we have individuals waiting. It makes sense that the meeting be able to begin. I do not know why we would have to make this a rule at this point in time. It is the responsibility of each member to attend when a meeting is called. When witnesses are invited a meeting is held. I understand the terms but I do not understand the purpose.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

The problem, as explained by the clerk to me, is that according to procedure, after 15 minutes, if you don't have a quorum, the meeting is cancelled. That can be a problem in travel, especially when you're travelling around the country. It's 15 minutes, and then you tell the people who've waited a month and prepared and had everything translated, the meeting is over. Or it can be postponed, if we can work that into our schedule. But this would allow them to give their presentation or at least to be on record. It may not be used. We may not use it. We may be able to say, will it work for you to postpone your meeting for an hour and we'll be there? Then it works. But if people aren't here, it gives them the opportunity.... Otherwise, as the chair, I'm tied to what tradition says, and this would be that the meeting could be cancelled.

That gives a lot of responsibility to the chair. If I don't like these witnesses, I can say, we aren't there, the meeting is cancelled. No, let's get their testimony.

Mr. Patry.

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

I've had meetings in Montreal when we started out as three and I finished alone after two hours because someone had to go for the train, and we've had witnesses. Are you going to cancel? They're here in front of you.

I think the only thing we should say is that this quorum of three for receiving evidence doesn't apply while travelling. The quorum of three doesn't apply while we're travelling. At that time, within 15 minutes we can start. This quorum of three doesn't apply. That would be my solution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

That's a friendly amendment to the amendment.

Do you want to hear the motion as amended?

Go ahead, Clerk.

[The Clerk]

The motion is that meetings taking place outside of the parliamentary precincts be allowed to proceed with no quorum.

Is that what the members want?

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

That the quorum doesn't apply to the meeting; the meeting could start 15 minutes after.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. So we've got the general feel for it.

All in favour of that motion as amended?

(Motion as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'm now looking at the next one, time for opening remarks and questioning of witnesses. The motion is:

That witnesses be given ten (10) minutes for their opening statement that, at the discretion of the Chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated ten (10) minutes for the first questioner of each party when a Minister appears before the Committee...and that thereafter five (5) minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner alternating between Government and opposition parties.

Mr. Wilfert.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I move it, and that doesn't preclude the fact that someone who has ten minutes may share with one of his or her colleagues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. That's fairly straightforward. That's at the discretion of the chair.

As those of you who have served on this committee know, that isn't a routine proceeding. We've moved it in the past to seven minutes for the opening round--isn't that right, with the minister? No, it was ten minutes with the minister and seven minutes with someone else. That's what we've done in the past.

[An hon. member]

This is fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Leave it this way?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right; it's easy.

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

We're doing it, but the chair runs it, and that's it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

I would suggest that the seven minutes will allow more to be involved and engaged. Sometimes we do run a little short on the rounds of the questioning, and that would certainly give everybody an opportunity. Surely in a seven-minute period of time you can put forward your case and your question, but it certainly would allow more of a round of questioning, particularly for some that come in under one hour and shorter time periods.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. Are you proposing...?

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

I'm proposing a seven-minute round, followed by five.