Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2009

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'll state my concern on this, Chair. I'm not sure if we can amend it to satisfy everyone, but I'll take a stab at it.

My concern is that I remember well that last time around, members who were anxious to get to business never got to it. The clock would always run out, or we would have very little time to get to it. Because it was the final 15 minutes, people wanted to...because of votes or whatever. Notwithstanding that there was 15 minutes at the end of meetings, the fact of the matter is that there wasn't always 15 minutes.

So either we have that business at the beginning of meetings or we just don't delegate exactly when that should happen, and it would be at the consensus of the committee. I look to others to give their impression on this, but I found that we often never got to business at the end. Notwithstanding the chair's trying to manage time well--and he did--it just happened that we ended up not getting to motions. It kind of fell off the table. At the end of committee business, often people don't want to get into it, or they have to leave or what have you.

I would like to hear from others on whether they have that same concern, and on whether we can agree on something to change it so that we can actually get to the business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We have Mr. Rae, Mr. Goldring, and Mr. Crête.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

It's a bit of a problem, Mr. Chairman. I don't know how we'd do it except by....

I've thought a lot about this, Paul. If you change it, the risk you run is that you end up spending your entire meetings talking about motions and getting nowhere, and not doing the substantive work, which, from my brief experience on the committee, we've been pretty good at doing. We've actually covered a lot of ground.

On the other hand, there is a problem. I've experienced that frustration; you have a motion that you think is really important and then we don't get to it. I'd ask the clerk about the list of motions we had from the last Parliament that we didn't get to. We never got to discuss them because we ran out of time every time.

I actually don't think there's a solution. I think all you can do is hope that where there's a deep feeling that we have to get at something, and it's a bit of an urgent matter, we try to work it out. But I think our real discussion has to be following the meeting of the committee, where we put in our proposals for what we want to do this session and try to anticipate some of the issues that we know are going to be coming up, and then say, “Okay, how are we going to handle these things?” I think the advantage of having this is that we're able to focus our attention on the issues that we've all agreed have to be done, and we don't end up getting caught by one party or another trying to move a gazillion motions to get us to fill up the schedule.

So it's not an easy choice, but I guess my sense would be that we would do the 15 minutes, and we'll just have to see how it goes. If it doesn't end up working, we can fight about it at some point and ask what all the issues are that we haven't been able to deal with and see if we can work it out. But I don't think there's a solution that doesn't create more problems.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, well said.

I think, for what it's worth, maybe what we're going to have to look at, if we do pass this motion, is that we try to arrange it so that we never have four on the last hour, for example. If four come to give their presentations, then yes, we're going to run out of time. Maybe what we're going to have to start looking at doing is cutting back that last hour of presentations, considering there will be motions to deal with.

So I agree with what I think most are suggesting: you have to keep the 15 minutes. But on the other hand, I would hate.... To be quite frank, I think it would be a disaster if we had it at the beginning of a meeting. You'll have presenters here, and debate will go on forever on our motions, and they've come from wherever.

All right, who else do we have? Mr. Goldring, Mr. Crête, Mr. Lunney, and Mr. Dewar.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

I certainly agree with that, and it was going to be my point, too, to have the witnesses at the beginning of the meeting. Sometimes we have heated discussions. There are many other things. I think it is a matter of order and good process that it be kept to the end of the meeting. I think it could be disruptive.

You're starting a meeting well by having your witnesses properly ushered in and properly seated. From the point of orderly process, I think that should be maintained out of respect for the witnesses, and the discussion, should it ever be a heated discussion, should be in the final 15 minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Crête.

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

This motion takes away a little of the strength that we provided with the motion on the 48 hours' notice. By doing that, we decided that there is some degree of urgency. This motion allows it to be put at the end of a meeting. So the impact of the motion is possibly reduced. I understand the argument that, when witnesses are present, they must absolutely be dealt with first. Now we must have something on the other side of the scale that allows us to have enough discussion. We could try 30 minutes instead of 15. Say that a meeting is scheduled from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. We could have the half-hour from 5:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Half an hour would mean less likelihood of avoiding the issue. That might be a possible compromise that would help us out of this situation. It is very frustrating to bring a motion forward and see that it is not going to be considered. The motion is important, we wait until the end of the meeting, and then we only have 15 minutes to consider it. We do not come to grips with the matter, and other things come up. Often, when we call witnesses, if we know in advance and if the rule is pretty clear, we can set the time aside. I find that, with 15 minutes, the frustration level gets a little high.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I feel like I'm butting in here when I should be letting others speak. Maybe this is what our steering committee should do, and remember, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. In the past, we've always been pressed on these reports. That's been the problem. Perhaps we need to say that we need one meeting for committee business. We've done that in the past many a time. Then it affords that opportunity.

I know that when you're working on the reports the way we have, we've basically gone past the cut-off date and have filed in the summer because we've been so pressured to get our reports done. Perhaps our steering committee needs to suggest a few more meetings where we specifically do committee business.

Mr. Lunney, Mr. Dewar, and Mr. Patry.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

It's been said already, but I think the point about having the procedural motions at the end of the meeting is really appropriate, especially if we have witnesses present.

There are indignities for people who aren't used to the parliamentary process when we get into the importance of our motions, procedures, and rules of procedure, and get the clerk involved in what we can and can't do. It's not something we want to subject the witnesses to when they've come to pour their hearts out on some important issue.

If I heard Mr. Crête correctly, he was suggesting 30 minutes. Maybe there's room to consider extending the 15 minutes to 20 to protect that, pour protéger ces 15 minutes, to extend it to 20 minutes so that we actually get 15 minutes for the motion. Maybe that's a simple compromise that could be discussed at the steering committee. Maybe you could just extend it.

I think 30 minutes is a little severe, in my view. I would suggest that we move on. I think we've heard most of our arguments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

In terms of decorum, there might be an argument to have it at the beginning so people would perhaps behave a little more appropriately when company's around. That's just a theory.

As we look at this issue, it sounds like we need to kick it around a bit more. I will simply observe that I have all the standards for all the committees here. I simply note that every other committee seems to have the notice as 48 hours. There are a couple of committees that have different timelines, but they just advance the business to the next meeting. When you look at that, you say, well, how is it that other committees do it? You could argue that they don't go far, either.

Maybe we should kick it around more and come up with an idea that would help. I'd just like to try something, because I have found it frustrating. I don't disagree with Bob about trying to get work done on the one hand, but on the other, you still want motions to get forwarded as well.

We can always look at these and bring them back, no? To change the--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, absolutely.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Maybe we should consider deferring this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Patry.

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

It's very nice when it's written like this, but just to say what Mr. Lunney pinpointed before, it's pratico pratique. If you start at the beginning, it's not gracious. Most of the time the discussion for motions is not gracious at all.

The problem we have to face is quite easy. You're going to get a dozen motions, and until the first one is finished, you're never going to go to the second one, or the third one. That happened before. At that time, we just lose more time. You could come out, or Paul could come out, or any one of us could come out with a motion, and because the first one has not been dealt with totally, things are just postponed and postponed, and we achieve nothing.

I'll leave it like it is right now. The standing committee is going to meet, and we could come up with having 30 minutes or one hour just on motions, I think, because with a group it's just impossible to achieve anything in 15 minutes. That's the way I feel. I think we should leave it as it is for the moment. We can live with this, but it needs to be done at the end. The most important thing is that when we have witnesses, if it's 9 to 11, then in the last hour there should not be more than two witnesses, because at that time, you see, we're just completely finished.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

As you know, too, people will put motions on the order paper, but then they're in no rush to call them forward to be dealt with. They want them there. They may want to have the timing somewhere down the road. But if we know that there are motions that people want to deal with right away, then that would give us that opportunity.

Mr. Obhrai, on this question.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I've been on this committee for a long time. This committee, the motions, and everything is very complex, and every issue is a very complex issue, so we just cannot put in one little thing and say extend it.

I agree with Bernard on that, too. We should leave it at 15 minutes. In the past it has worked to some degree and it has not worked to some degree. Again, whatever you do it will work to some degree and it will not work to some degree. I think at the end of the day, when the steering committee meets, it can then decide for itself whether there have been too many motions that have not been discussed and maybe put in more time. But that is something that we will do as we progress ahead. It has worked, when we have done this thing, so I would agree with Bernard to leave it as it is right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

My question is to Mr. Crête.

When we were discussing the time, you spoke of 30 minutes. Did you move an amendment to make it 30 minutes, or was that just part of the discussion?

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

I did not move an amendment, but if the committee wishes, I am prepared to discuss one. It was not a formal amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It seems to me as though we have a bit of...I wouldn't say complete consensus, but I think the majority of people suggest keeping it as it is. Let's deal with this at steering committee. If we find that we do not have enough time at steering committee, we may re-evaluate this motion. Is that fair?

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

Yes, but let us vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

For the vote, we'll vote on it as presented.

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

Ask who is in favour of the motion and who is against.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

That's why I wanted to make sure he didn't move an amendment that we had to deal with first.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

This is the final motion, I believe. This is about the subcommittee. This motion is that pursuant to Standing Orders 108(1) and 108(2), a subcommittee on international human rights be chaired by a member elected by the subcommittee, be established to inquire into matters relating to the promotion of respect for international human rights, as may be referred to it by the committee; that the subcommittee be composed of seven members or associate members, of which three shall be government members and two shall be Liberal members, one shall be from the Bloc Québécois and one from the New Democratic Party, to be named following the usual consultations with the whips; and that the subcommittee be empowered to send for persons, papers, and records, to receive evidence, to sit during a time when the committee is not sitting in Ottawa, to sit when the committee is sitting outside the parliamentary precinct, and to sit during periods when the House stands adjourned, and the chair of the subcommittee meet with the steering committee of the foreign affairs committee at their mutual discretion.