National Defence Committee on June 5th, 2007

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

Move what, exactly?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Just move a motion that this be the order of precedence for questioning.

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

I want to know if the order listed here was agreed upon after negotiating with the parties or was it decided on by the clerk or clerks?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

It comes from the clerks of both committees based on the rotation that we have. It basically follows what we do.

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

Will it also be adopted by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Yes, this document is with the other committee.

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

Also.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Yes.

Is there any further discussion? Mr. Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I want to understand the exact procedure involved here. Apparently, we are supporting a motion, and the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is drafting another motion. Who has precedence? If we are holding a joint meeting, why then is a different motion on the table? It is a question of common decency. I totally agree with Mr. Bachand's contention that once again, the government appears to be orchestrating these proceedings. I have nothing personal against the Minister of International Cooperation, but we are supposed to be discussing detainees, and she is going to blather on for seven minutes about her responsibility for one of the three Ds. However, the D that interests us does not stand for development, but for detainee. It's unfortunate that we are caught in this situation.

That's the fourth D, now.

I believe, Mr. Chair, that not only is it totally unacceptable, it shows a lack of respect for that committee.

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

The fifth D is even worse: Denis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Hiebert.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Could I get an answer? Who has precedence on committees of this nature? If we adopt a motion, I suppose it does not really matter, because the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is setting the agenda. Mr. Sorenson had promised that he would reduce the amount of time allotted to ministers, but we need more than that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

In this case, I know the clerks worked together to come up with this recommendation. I talked to the chair of the other committee, and we were in agreement. So he's going to be arguing for this at his committee, as I am here. But if they choose to do a different one, who has precedence? I think it then breaks down into some kind of negotiation, as it did with the original motion.

Bringing these two committees together is never an easy thing to do. We're at a point here, Denis, where I honestly cannot answer who would have precedence. I think then it becomes an issue for the chairs and the clerks to work out something together.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I am trying to understand. We were told that we would only have two hours instead of three because a vote was expected tomorrow evening. As it happens, there will not be a vote tomorrow evening after all. There will be one this evening, as well as a ways and means vote on Thursday. I want everything to be clear, because this portion of the meeting will be conducted in public. If the only reason for cutting into our time was the scheduled vote, well, we know there will be not be one now. I want people to understand that we are losing 67 minutes, the time it will take a minister to deliver a useful speech, as well as another sixty-minute period. We can discuss many things in 60 minutes, especially if this minister, who often trips over his own feet, is forced to address this committee. I am not sure that tomorrow's meeting will be very productive.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you for that.

We have Mr. Cannis.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to pick up where Denis left off. Certainly when we asked for three, we got two. Fewer ministers is more. He put forward a very good point, Mr. Chairman, for discussion: who takes precedence? We've had joint sessions with the Senate and the House of Commons committees in the past, and they've worked well, only because there were special circumstances.

But I must say to you that I'm not pleased, only because.... I don't want to use the word “set-up”—I don't like that word—but it certainly does not give this committee the opportunity, given the circumstances, given the issues all of us have laboured on and the witnesses who have come before us, to try to explain to Canadians, because we've taken away time and have now added more witnesses.

I would then ask you, Mr. Chairman, as you've done always, to be very vigilant with the time. I would like to say—I'll make this comment with respect to my good friend General Henault, who was here the other day trying to give us so much information—that we know traditionally the chair says to the witness, “You have 10 minutes”, for example, or whatever it is. As you have done so admirably over the past little while, you've cut us right there, maybe, a bit of flexibility, so that 10 minutes could be fully taken advantage of.

But in closing, Mr. Chairman, I tell you that I am not pleased. It looks very nice. I agree with what Russ said. It's a lot of work to get so many ministers in one committee. I don't even think it's happened before, not that I can recall. But given that you made this effort, Mr. Chairman, there should have been more time to really reflect the seriousness of why we wanted these ministers there.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We have Mr. Bachand and then Mr. Hiebert.

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

Mr. Chairman, do we need a motion to ensure that the Chair of the National Defence Committee presides over tomorrow's meeting?

You could let your committee know that you have a resolution from the Standing Committee on National Defence requesting that your chair tomorrow's meeting. That would be a very important symbolic gesture for me. Therefore, I would like to a motion to that effect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We have a motion to deal with here—

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

What is the motion we're dealing with now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We'd like to have our chair chair.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Then I want to propose an amendment to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We're running out of time.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Can I propose an amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

You can propose an amendment.

Mr. Hiebert's right, he's next, and then Ms. Black.