FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 2, 2001

• 0904

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Members of the committee, I see a quorum.

In conformity with Standing Order 106, your first order of business is election of a chair. I am ready to receive motions to that effect.

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): I'd like to move that our chair be Bill Graham. I wanted to make that nomination or suggestion.

[Translation]

The Clerk: Mr. Pallister nominates Mr. Graham as chair of the committee. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

(The motion carries)

• 0905

The Clerk: I invite Mr. Graham to take the chair.

[English]

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Chair (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): What was it Churchill said, over there your honourable friends and over there your enemies?

Thank you very much, colleagues, I appreciate your support. Obviously we're going to have an extraordinary year ahead of us in terms of work and work program.

But we'll get back to that, because I understand the next motion is to elect a vice-chair.

Monsieur Patry.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): I nominate Jean Augustine as first vice-chair.

[English]

The Chair: I have Jean Augustine nominated. If it's the will of the committee, perhaps we can deal with that and then move to our second nomination. We can only deal with one at a time.

I have Ms. Augustine's name. Are there any other names forwarded? Then I take it she's elected unanimously.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Chair: Congratulations, Jean.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): I thank my mother and I thank—

The Chair: I'm glad you thanked your mother.

Just remember, colleagues, it was the vice-chair of this committee who was in Kazakhstan last year, so maybe what's happening in that part of the world is part of her responsibility.

I would then ask if there are nominations for second vice-chair.

Ms. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): I nominate Mr. Brian Pallister as second vice-chair of the standing committee.

The Chair: Are there any other nominations for vice-chair of the committee?

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Does he object?

The Chair: Mr. Pallister accepts.

Seeing no other nominations, I declare Mr. Pallister elected vice-chair of the committee.

Congratulations.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Chair: You can see, Mr. Pallister, that the weight of power is very quick in this committee, because you just joined the committee and you're already the vice-chair. You'll soon be admiral or whatever. It took Ms. Augustine years to get there, and here we are.

Thank you very much, everybody. We'll now turn our attention to subcommittees. We have to have elections to, and names for, those who will sit on the various subcommittees.

I believe, Ms. Carroll, you had names of the Liberal MPs you would nominate for the human rights and international development subcommittee.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Chair, I would like to nominate Beth Phinney as chair of the Sub-committee on Human Rights and International Development.

The Chair: They elect their own chair. Perhaps you could just give us the names of the people. They will elect their own chair.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Oh, sorry. So you wish the names of all our nominees for that subcommittee?

The Chair: The clerk tells me we can actually elect the chair here if we want to do it that way. We can do it that way if you're going to nominate them that way.

Sorry, Ms. Carroll, I interrupted you, and I shouldn't have. The clerk corrected me. Maybe we could start again.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: It's quite all right.

I think I'm correct in nominating a person as chair, and in addition giving you the recommended names of the people we would have sit on that committee.

The Chair: Right. Exactly.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: My recommendation is for Beth Phinney as chair, and the names of the Liberal members to sit on that committee are Marlene Jennings, Irwin Cotler, Colleen Beaumier, and Sarkis Assadourian.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Colleagues, we've heard the motion that Ms. Phinney be chair of the subcommittee.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure what the procedure is for entertaining other nominations, but I would like to propose the name of Irwin Cotler as chair of the Sub-committee on Human Rights and International Development.

• 0910

The Chair: But Ms. Phinney has accepted the nomination, and she is the sitting chair. Well, what I have is the name of Ms. Phinney, so I'll take a vote on that. If it goes through, then the chance of having another person would be... But you've indicated that if Ms. Phinney were not acceptable as chair, then you could then nominate Mr. Cotler. That's the way we can handle it.

Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I'm quite sure the members of the subcommittee are fully qualified to elect their own chair. Why don't we leave this matter to the subcommittee? I don't think we have to be that paternalistic.

An hon. member: I second the motion.

The Chair: Well, that was my original proposal—

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. O'Brien has seconded the motion.

The Chair: —and then I was corrected and told I was wrong. I flip-flopped once, but I'm not prepared to flip-flop twice.

Mr. John Harvard: If you require that as a motion, Mr. Chairman, I so move.

An hon. member: And I second the motion.

The Chair: Well, we have actually a motion on the floor that Ms. Phinney be the chair of the subcommittee. Mr. Robinson has indicated that in the event she were not elected chair, he would push for Mr. Cotler. We've also been told what the other Liberal nominations are. After we've finished this, I'll go around the room to find out who the other nominees are for that committee as well. But let's at least get to this motion.

I hear what you're saying. Your suggestion, Mr. Harvard, is to let them elect their own chair, but let me find out how the room feels.

Is it the will of the room that we adopt the motion that we constitute the subcommittee, and Ms. Phinney be the chair of the subcommittee?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. O'Brien has suggested that each subcommittee should elect its own chair. If that's the case, then presumably Ms. Carroll would either withdraw her motion or... If she's not prepared to withdraw the motion, I certainly move that it be tabled.

The Chair: That was Mr. Harvard's suggestion as well, but I don't know; I don't get the impression that Ms. Carroll is withdrawing the motion.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: No, I have no difficulty withdrawing the motion in favour of my colleagues'...and seconded by Mr. O'Brien, that...

Mr. Stan Keyes: You don't have to. We did this last time, and Mr. Cotler said no, thank you.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Yes, but who calls the meeting if there's no chair?

Mr. Stan Keyes: The clerk.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Might it be easier if I tabled my motion?

The Chair: No, no, we're going to get this through this morning. I think you're right. Let's do it.

Colleagues, let me tell you what the problem is so that everybody understands what we're trying to do. The problem is, there already is work scheduled to some extent for those two subcommittees, and they want to hit the ground running. The practice the last time we met was that we the committee, this committee, nominated and elected a chair of each of the two subcommittees. We delegated to the whips the authority to name the various persons who would sit on the committee. Then the Liberals, as Ms. Carroll would do this morning, would tell us who the Liberals would be on the committee. I don't know whether the Alliance is ready to tell us who their members would be, and the same with all the other parties around the table.

So at least we'd know that, and this way, if we elect the chair today, they can hit the ground running and be organized. Otherwise, if we throw this over, as has been suggested, they will have to have a constitutive meeting. And we don't have the authority, necessarily. We'll have to nominate or elect all the people to go on the committee rather than letting the whips do it, and then they'll have to have a meeting, get somebody elected, and go through all that before they can get going.

So I would urge you, colleagues, if we could go back to Ms. Carroll's original motion, which was to elect Ms. Phinney as chair of the subcommittee and delegate to the whips the authority to nominate, that would be by far the most efficient way to deal with this.

Madame Lalonde and then Mr. Robinson.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Chair, what you are saying seems sensible, but the representative of the Bloc on this subcommittee was very unhappy with the way in which the chair guided, or rather did not guide the work, because she only convened the subcommittee infrequently. So there is some very real discontent.

• 0915

It has happened that debates were held on one person or another strictly on the basis of names. This time, at least from my perspective... If that member were here, he would say so: he's not at all satisfied with the way in which the work was conducted. That is why it seems to me that the committee should appoint its chairman or chairwoman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, this is not a huge procedural nightmare that has been suggested. If the subcommittee has business to do—and it does—the next item of business is on, I believe, October 17. There is a meeting with the Anglican Archbishop of Sudan. Immediately prior to that meeting with the Archbishop of Sudan, presumably the committee can elect its chair. That's not difficult to do. The membership of the subcommittee presumably is designated by the whips.

So it's not an issue of the membership. It's just a question of the committee at that meeting—it takes about 30 seconds—electing its chair.

As for this idea that somehow this is really difficult, I'm not sure where the chair is coming from, or the clerk. It's not difficult. It's very straightforward.

Frankly, there is an important issue here. Mr. Keyes grumbles and says, well, you know, the whips have already decided who the chairs are going to be. For heaven's sake, I'm suggesting that maybe, just maybe—a revolutionary thought here—the subcommittee might actually elect its own chair. If the subcommittee decides in its infinite wisdom that the whips' recommendation is appropriate, fine. If not, then the subcommittee can elect another member.

But it is absolute nonsense to suggest that there is some great procedural difficulty in doing this. If the substance is that the fix is in, that Phinney is supposed to be the chair, then say that, but let's not have this nonsense about the procedural difficulties here.

Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Can we call for a vote?

The Chair: We'll get the feeling of the room and then we'll have a vote, but the motion on the table at the moment is Ms. Carroll's motion that Ms. Phinney be named chair.

Mr. Svend Robinson: No, that is not the motion on the table. She withdrew her motion.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: No, I offered to withdraw.

You asked me not to.

The Chair: Did you actually withdraw it or offer to?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I said I would be willing to withdraw or table it, and you said hold it.

The Chair: So it's still on the table.

Mr. Harvard, sir.

Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Chairman, I don't think the subcommittee needs advice from this committee as to how important their work is or how expeditious they might have to be to deal with their work. If they have something coming up on October 17 and if they have to have an election before that, you know, they're big boys and girls. They can decide that. We don't have to do that work for them. Leave it to the committee.

To use Svend's words, I guess the fix is in to a certain degree, but I understand that the chairman can be picked by the subcommittee. Leave it to them.

I don't think we have to be that paternalistic, Bill. I just don't think so.

The Chair: Well, I hear what you're saying. As you saw, that's what I had originally proposed myself, but I was told I was wrong. It's partly my fault, perhaps, for starting down this road, but here we are, colleagues. We have two choices. I'm going to put this to the vote now.

There's a motion on the table by Madam Carroll that Ms. Phinney be named chair of the Sub-committee on Human Rights and International Development and that the whips then name the other members to that subcommittee. Ms. Carroll's in a position to tell us who the other members are. That's the motion.

For those who would rather, as Mr. Harvard and Mr. Robinson have suggested, let the subcommittee choose its own chair, obviously you would vote down that motion.

Then what I would propose—

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

The Chair: Let me finish.

Mr. Svend Robinson: But that's not the only option, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Let me finish so that you'll understand.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Okay, go ahead.

The Chair: If I don't finish, you won't understand. I'm not sure I understand myself, of course, at this point, but at any rate, as I understand it, if we were to do that, then what this committee would have to do is give the names. We would have to name all the members of that subcommittee. The Liberals would name theirs, and then we would pass those names on. At that point there would be a list of subcommittee members, and that's all. At that point they would meet and elect their chair.

Those are the two alternatives we have before us.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I move that Ms. Carroll's motion be tabled.

The Chair: I understand that's not debatable.

Oh, we have a very subtle clerk here.

Are you referring to tabling in the American or the Canadian sense, Mr. Robinson?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Both, Mr. Chair.

• 0920

The Chair: Okay. Do we understand your motion to be that we withdraw this whole motion for the moment and put it aside? Is that what you want to do?

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's correct.

The Chair: I'm just going to put that motion then.

Those in favour of tabling Ms. Carroll's motion, which is to say to delay dealing with it... But in that case we won't...

Okay. Those in favour of tabling it?

Are you voting in favour of tabling your own motion?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: According to the clerk, you cannot vote on a motion on tabling your own motion, in which case I'm abstaining.

An hon. member: Sure you can. You can vote any way you want on anything.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): It doesn't have to be a tabling motion.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): The simplest thing is if the motion is just withdrawn.

An hon. member: Does she need unanimous consent to withdraw?

The Chair: The clerk advises me that the tabling of the motion problem, Mr. Robinson, is that it's already on the table. I mean, Ms. Carroll's motion is on the table. So the only way we can deal with it, actually, is to have it withdrawn. That's what you really want to do. If Ms. Carroll wants to withdraw it, it can be withdrawn by unanimous consent. Otherwise, I think we have to vote on it.

Otherwise, if what you suggest is putting it on the table, then it will sit there, and we can't then go and move anything about the committee, because it's still hanging around. It will hang over everything and nothing will happen with the committee.

Colleagues, have we understood this? If Ms. Carroll wants to withdraw her motion, it can be withdrawn by unanimous consent. Otherwise we have to vote on it. That's the only way we can deal with it.

Ms. Carroll, can I give the floor to you?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Yes, Mr. Chair.

I request unanimous consent of the committee to allow me to withdraw my motion.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I'm not going to agree to that, so it's not unanimous.

The Chair: Then it's not withdrawn. Then we'll have to vote on it.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, we were in the middle of a vote.

With respect, I don't understand what the chair is saying. The chair said there's already a motion on the table, so another motion to table is... Whenever a motion to table is put forward, there's obviously already another motion on the table. This logic is absolutely bizarre, and it's getting more bizarre.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect, I don't know what the clerk is telling the chair. There's a motion before this committee. That motion is on the table. If this committee chooses to table that motion, we can do so.

The Chair: Look, what I understand—

Mr. Svend Robinson: A motion to table is in order.

The Chair: Wait a minute. The trouble is, we're not clear on what you mean by “table”. The motion is already on the table. When you say you're going to table the motion, it's already on the table. But I think what you mean by that, in our parlance, is that you move that we adjourn debate on this motion. And if we were to adjourn debate on this motion, then of course that's fine, we adjourn debate on the motion.

However, I tell you, Mr. Robinson, you're not going to achieve what you want to achieve, because then everything will go into limbo. We will have adjourned debate on this motion, we'll have no members of the subcommittee, we'll have no chair, and the subcommittee won't be able to meet.

• 0925

So what I highly recommend, members... There's an easy choice before the members. I think everybody's... and I'm partly responsible for that. If Ms. Carroll and most of the members seem to be willing to have her motion withdrawn, her motion will be put to you quickly. If that's the majority wish, let it be defeated, and we can then move on and deal with it by naming the members of the committee. At that point, everybody achieves.

So I'm going to call for the vote on Ms. Carroll's motion.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Roll call, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Okay.

Her motion was that Ms. Phinney be named chair of the Sub-committee on Human Rights and International Development, and that the whips be delegated to name the other members. That is what we did the last time, and how the committee handles that.

Yes.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, don't we have to deal first with Mr. Robinson's motion to adjourn debate? Is that not first in the order of procedure? I'm just asking for advice from the chair.

The Chair: Yes, theoretically, but then the problem is if we adjourn debate we could be in a position where we don't form the committee. The way I see this is that we have two procedures ahead of us.

If your motion is developed, if your motion is accepted, then we'll go the way we did in the spring. If your motion is defeated, we will go the way Mr. Robinson and others seem to want to go, which is to name the members of the committee and let them choose their own chair, basically. I mean, we can do it this way, without getting into too many procedural things about whether we adjourn the motion.

Svend.

Mr. Svend Robinson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I still have to ask, why is my motion not being proceeded with?

The Chair: Because you said you wanted to table it, and the clerk tells me we're already on the table, and that's not acceptable.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Again, Mr. Chairman, that is bizarre logic. The clerk says we're already on the table. Any motion that's being tabled is on the table for discussion. Are you moving to adjourn debate?

The Chair: Well, okay, maybe it's terminological at this point. Are you moving that we adjourn debate? Is that what you want to do?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, however you phrase it, that's the intent of it, and that would mean that the subcommittee would then have the power to meet, to elect its chair...

The Chair: Okay. We'll move to adjourn debate.

I'm calling the question. Those in favour of adjourning debate.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: What does that mean? I'm sorry.

[English]

The Chair: Oh, no, Madame, ask Mr. Robinson; he's now in charge of the procedure of the committee.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Adjourning the debate would mean that the subcommittee would have the power to meet, elect its chair...

The Chair: We don't have any members of the subcommittee because we will have adjourned debate, Mr. Robinson. There will be no members and there will be no subcommittee.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, you say there are no members. The motion before us is that a person be elected chair of the subcommittee. This doesn't in any way name members.

The Chair: No, that's right. The motion before us was that we do just exactly what we did last time, which was to name the chair of the subcommittee and delegate to the whips the authority to appoint members to the subcommittee.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's not what the motion says, Mr. Chairman. All she says is that we elect the chair.

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): But that's not Aileen Carroll's. It doesn't matter what's written here. Aileen's motion was very specific. It named the members of the committee on the Liberal side—

The Chair: Yes, that's correct. That is this motion. But the second part of the motion would be that we have to give the whips the authority to delegate. Otherwise, what this committee is going to have to do, as I've said to you, is name each one. We can name all the members of the subcommittee and let them do their own job, but why—

• 0930

Mr. Svend Robinson: On that point, look, we can give that authority now. The sole purpose of my motion is to ensure that the subcommittee has the power to elect its own chair. That's the only motion that I'm suggesting we not proceed with in this committee. The motion to name the members of the subcommittee we can proceed with now.

The Chair: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Procedurally, I agree with that, Mr. Chairman. I don't know how Ms. Carroll phrased it, but you could split it. The issue of the chair and the membership could be dealt with separately.

After this much time on the issue, it seems to me it ought to go to the subcommittee to work out who they want to chair.

The Chair: I have no problem with either one of these ways. I'd just like to get on with it and do one of them. I proposed what I thought was a fairly simple solution of actually getting there, but everybody wants to add their own solution rather than just a solution.

[Translation]

Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree that your motion be amended in order to allow us simply to appoint members of the Sub-committee on Human Rights on the basis of the list issued by Ms. Carroll and those that will be provided to us by members of the opposition. Then we will have this motion as well as the other, and for the second, we will see.

[English]

The Chair: So we would then take up Mr. Robinson's motion to adjourn debate on the motion that is before you, which is to name the chair, and vote on that now.

Those in favour of adjourning debate on the motion to name the chair.

(Motion agreed to See—Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Do I now hear a motion to name members to that committee?

Mr. Harvard, sir.

Mr. John Harvard: I so move that we submit a list of names for the subcommittee.

The Chair: Ms. Carroll, perhaps you could submit the list of names.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Do you wish me to read the names again?

The Chair: Yes, if you could, please.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: The names nominated are Sarkis Assadourian, Colleen Beaumier, Irwin Cotler, Marlene Jennings, and Beth Phinney.

The Chair: Mr. Pallister, could you or Mr. Duncan give us the names of...

Mr. John Duncan: We get to name one, am I correct? Then that's Deepak Obhrai.

The Chair: Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Antoine Dubé.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

[Translation]

Mr. Svend Robinson: Myself.

[English]

The Chair: And Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC/DR): Mr. Casey.

The Chair: The ubiquitous Mr. Robinson and Mr. Casey.

Those in favour of the motion that the subcommittee be constituted as the names have been given by the various parties.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Colleagues, thanks very much. I appreciate it. I'm sorry we got taken off into such a...

Now we have the second subcommittee, the international trade subcommittee. Do I have a motion in respect of the subcommittee?

An hon. member: I just don't wish to make the same error here.

Mr. John Duncan: Exactly.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Why don't we try to follow the same procedure.

The Chair: I'm quite happy to do that.

Mr. John Harvard: I'll move it.

The Chair: Mr. Harvard moves that the committee proceed by naming the members of the subcommittee, and that they will then elect their own chair. Okay?

Ms. Carroll, for the Liberal Party.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Chair, the names are Mark Eyking, Mac Harb, Patrick O'Brien, Bob Speller, and Tony Valeri.

The Chair: Mr. Pallister or Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I designate Rick Casson.

The Chair: Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Pierre Paquette.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

[Translation]

Mr. Svend Robinson: Myself.

[English]

The Chair: Power grab.

Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Casey.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: It was sympathy. Mr. Casey as well?

[English]

The Chair: Those in favour of the subcommittee being so constituted as those named by the various parties.

Mr. Casey, yes, sir.

Mr. Bill Casey: I'd like to withdraw my name and put on Gary Lunn, please.

The Chair: Very well.

We'll now vote on constituting the subcommittee.

(Motion agreed to)

• 0935

The Chair: Again, apologies for all the wrangling, but we've got our subcommittees constituted.

We now have to turn to other business, colleagues, which means we have to discuss future business. Do we want to go...

Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: Before we go to future business, Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about the business of questioning witnesses. I want to talk about the rotation of questioning witnesses and I want to talk about time allotment.

I was not happy with the way we did things last time. I think it was a practice of giving all the opposition parties, at least in some instances, a chance to question witnesses before you got to the government members. I think that demeans the members on the government side of this committee.

I think it's a practice in many, many House of Commons standing committees to give the first two rounds of questions to representatives of the official opposition and the second party, and the third round goes to a government member. The fourth and fifth rounds go to the number four and number five parties in the House. After that it's alternated between opposition and government. That isn't what I witnessed or experienced before last June.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is time allotment. I think the first round should not exceed ten minutes. In fact, if I had my way it would be eight, but I can live with ten. However, when we say ten, we mean ten. We don't mean twelve and we don't mean fourteen and we don't mean seventeen.

I'm not suggesting that it be right down to the last second, because people have to be allowed to finish their thoughts, but I think it's a matter of great discourtesy to members who are at the back of a lineup of questioners, to be left very often just hanging because so much time has been given to questioners or to witnesses to go on and on.

I think we have to simply tighten up our procedures, and I want the matters of rotation and time allotment dealt with. I don't know whether I have to make a motion, because I assume that we already have rules with respect to that. I don't know whether those rules have to be reconfirmed every time the committee is reconstituted, but that's what I would like to have.

The Chair: Well, that's fair. It's certainly a discussion we've had before on the committee. You've made that point before, Mr. Harvard.

The current rule of the committee is that witnesses be given ten minutes for their opening statement, and that ten minutes be allotted for the first questioner of each party when a minister appears before the committee, and five minutes for other meetings, and that thereafter five minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner, alternating between opposition and government parties at the discretion of the chair.

That's the way the motion read and that would be the procedure that would apply today if we just stayed with our former rule.

My recollection, Mr. Harvard, was that originally, some years ago, this committee had proceeded whereby when a minister came we went down all the opposition before we went to the Liberal side. In fact, a year ago we adopted the change whereby we did take the first two opposition, then we went to a Liberal member, then we went to the second two opposition, and then we went back.

As I understand the present rule, it is when ministers appear that the most political problems are caused. I know your understanding is also about when we're dealing with these areas where we have panels and things like that. Clearly people want to have an opportunity to speak to or ask ministers questions. It would be ten minutes for the opening questioners and it would be the first two opposition parties, then a Liberal, then the second two opposition parties, then back to a Liberal, who would be five minutes, and then back and forth from there.

• 0940

That's my understanding of the rule for ministers. The rule for other meetings is five minutes, instead of the ten for the opening for ministers.

Now, I think your problem has been that you feel I haven't been strong enough, really, in applying that rule. I understand your objections. I'll try to be stricter. But that is the present rule.

I don't know whether you want to change that rule. Does that satisfy you, if it's the rule?

Mr. John Harvard: I'm not too sure I would draw a distinction between ministers and other witnesses, Bill. Sometimes there are some very interesting, provocative witnesses.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. John Harvard: I think providing in the first round only five minutes is perhaps a bit restrictive. I could certainly live with eight, let's say.

You know, I support this rotation the way you're enunciating it, Bill, but that was not the practice in at least some of the cases. I can distinctly remember one meeting where all opposition members were allowed to ask questions before it came to the government, and I just think that's grossly unfair.

The Chair: Well, I don't—

Mr. John Harvard: But if you say the practice or the policy is two, and then one government, and then two opposition, and then government, and then back and forth after that, that's what I support.

The Chair: No, the way the committee operated for many years was to go all the way down. Then you came on the committee, and other members, and we did change the procedure. I quite agree with you, it was... And the problem was largely that of ministers, because if a minister came before the committee, was here for an hour and a half, made a 20-minute statement, and then you had 40 minutes of questions down there and 10 minutes over here, literally nobody else got a chance to ask a question. It was totally unfair, I agree with you. I tried to get something in myself.

So I don't disagree with your point. I will try to manage it. But if you want to move the ten minutes for ministers to eight, and see if we can manage that better—

Mr. John Harvard: No, keep the ten minutes for ministers, but I think that sometimes there are some fairly outstanding witnesses, and holding it to five minutes in the first round is a bit difficult.

The Chair: Okay. I have tried, Mr. Harvard. One of the problems is that when I'm looking at the way in which the thing is going, if I get a good witness and somebody's asking really good questions, I like to let them run with it a bit, because some of the other members feel those are the questions they wanted to get answered, too. Now, admittedly, everybody wants to get on, but at the same time...

We have two competing interests here. I would want to have an exchange where we understand what's happening and everybody wants to get on. There are two different things here, and we have to get a balance between the two.

Mr. John Harvard: I would suggest that for non-ministers the opening round be eight minutes, and then after that it's all five.

The Chair: Okay. Well, that's a recommendation.

[Translation]

Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chairman, it is simply a matter of accepting the principle of rotation as we have always done, and the rest will be done according to your discretion, according to the number of witnesses and the number of members present. I think that you have always shown excellent discretion. I think that we should continue along those lines and simply accept the principle of rotation today.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I don't have a problem with what John is suggesting, and I think, in fact, what he's suggesting has recently been the practice of the committee. I would just note, since I've sat on the committee for the better part of 20 years, that things have changed significantly.

It used to be that the first round of this committee with ministers was fifteen minutes. It went right down the opposition side, fifteen minutes for each opposition party, and then went over to the other side of the committee, in view of the fact that, particularly with ministers, there are a lot of issues you want to follow up on.

So if we're suggesting now that it's ten minutes... And Stan will remember in other committees that this was the practice. But if the suggestion is now we take the first two opposition, then over to the government and then back to the next two, ten minutes, I think that's been the practice. I don't have a problem with that.

I do agree with Mr. Harvard's suggestion, on the first round and other witnesses, that five minutes is really pretty tough to develop much of a line of questioning in. If we agree to eight minutes, I think that makes some sense.

The Chair: Okay.

I see in general that everybody says eight, so we'll put eight into the rule, Mr. Clerk, instead of five, which was the... for ordinary witnesses. We'll put eight for the original round.

Mr. John Harvard: Thanks, Bill.

The Chair: No, no, thank you for the discussion.

Mr. John Harvard: I don't mean it as an attack on the chairmanship at all.

The Chair: I understand that. It's a very difficult thing.

• 0945

As I've often said, I don't want to just sit here and be a timekeeper, because that's not the object of what we're trying to do. We're trying to get a dynamic going of understanding the issues, and that's what we're all working on, the best we can.

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I would like to point out to Mr. Harvard that once again today, in six committees out of sixteen, the four opposition parties were given the floor one after the other.

[English]

The Chair: And I think also—

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: This means that his influence brought about a change in the practice here.

[English]

The Chair: Right.

Well, Mr. Harvard himself was a knowledgeable chair, so I think probably he knows how the experience worked in his own committee.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I have some further changes to the rules that I'd like to see.

The Chair: Can we deal with one other thing before we go to that?

Mr. John Duncan: Yes.

The Chair: We need to form a steering committee on the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. We need to have nine people on that, so we need the names of the representatives. Normally what we've constituted, of course, is the chair and the two vice-chairs, so that would naturally be me, Ms. Augustine, and Mr. Pallister. Then the parliamentary secretary, Ms. Carroll, would be one of the Liberal members.

Can it be assumed that the Bloc Québécois member would be Madame Lalonde, that the Conservative member would be Mr. Casey, and the NDP member would be Mr. Robinson?

So we are missing now our two additional Liberal members.

Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I move that Mr. Harvard be one of the Liberal members.

The Chair: Mr. Harvard, do you accept that? Excellent.

We need a second nomination from the Liberals to sit on the...

Mr. Bernard Patry: Madame Marleau.

The Chair: Okay. What about...

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Bernard Patry: ...

The Chair: Okay. Then if the parliamentary secretary portrayed is not on, you'll have to negotiate with some of these other people.

Colleagues, there's one other procedural matter we have to deal with. By virtue of the fact that we elected members to each subcommittee without electing a chair, they will have to get that matter dealt with expeditiously. Therefore, it's recommended that we adopt a motion providing that they meet this week to elect a chair, so that can be done immediately.

Are you agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you very much. That's helpful. We've gotten everything done and we now move to other business.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I'd like to make three recommendations for changes to the rules. The first would be that all meetings at which a minister appears be televised.

The Chair: Can I speak to that?

Mr. John Duncan: Certainly. It's one of three.

The Chair: There are two television rooms now available, but only two. We've often discussed, at the liaison committee and in other committees, the possibility of having more television rooms. The problem with having more television rooms is that the television stations can take only so much. If you televised every committee all the time, clearly they wouldn't be shown anyway, because it wouldn't be on.

So there are only two television rooms, and to be very brutal about it, we have to fight for them.

• 0950

Mr. John Duncan: You missed my point, though. My point is, you can open up your meeting so that outside television may choose to come in.

The Chair: Oh, that's a totally different discussion.

Mr. John Duncan: That's under the new—

The Chair: That's a different motion.

Mr. John Duncan: That's the motion I was meaning to make.

The Chair: I understand. Okay. That's a different motion.

So your motion would be that in the event ministers come, the rule would be that the committee would as of now decide that television would be admitted to televise if they wish. If they don't...

Mr. John Duncan: Yes.

The Chair: However, that's understanding, of course, that if we have an important meeting with a minister, I try, as your chair—and the clerk has always been instructed thus—to try to get one of the two television rooms. Because this fall there's going to be a great deal of interest, obviously, in the work of this committee. So I would have thought we should and will try to get the television rooms as much as we can for that.

Mr. John Duncan: Yes.

The Chair: So I understand that. The motion is not that we try to get the television room, which we try to get anyway, but that we allow television cameras to come and film.

Ms. Jean Augustine: The whole meeting or...

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Chair, I'm totally opposed to that, because—

The Chair: The clerk tells me that only the House can authorize that.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I'm totally opposed to that and the question from my colleague, Ms. Augustine, explains why. Is it the whole meeting? How much should they televise? Does CTV come in and when they have enough, leave, and CBC no?

Having chaired SCONDVA for two years, I am totally opposed to this. I think it would be absolute chaos unless perhaps we had a guarantee that they were coming in and staying for the whole meeting. But I don't know how you would get such a guarantee.

The Chair: In any event, on reflection, I'm afraid, Mr. Duncan, I have to rule the motion out of order, because only the House can authorize that procedure. We're not entitled to authorize it.

Mr. John Duncan: I think the point is, there are new rules under the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. They set the rules for outside television, and the rules are exactly as you state. They can't just come in and cherry-pick. The rule is that all committee meetings may be televised under the new guidelines set by that committee.

All I'm saying is that in order to expedite this the committee agrees, when the minister appears, that the meeting shall be open, under the rules established by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

The Chair: You'll have to excuse us, because these are new rules—

Mr. John Duncan: They are new rules.

The Chair: —and I appreciate that there have been new rules just adopted. You're quite right.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Through the chair to Mr. Duncan—and I understand he has a couple of other suggested procedural motions—I wonder whether it might be appropriate to bring these before the steering committee and perhaps give the clerk notice of them so that we could get some procedural guidance before the steering committee meets and then make a decision at that time.

The Chair: I think it would be helpful if we could do that, Mr. Duncan, because I think we are trying to grapple with the problem of these new rules, I quite agree. We're certainly trying to be as accommodating as we can. I don't like to rule things out of order like that just because... and I know there has been a lot of discussion.

Maybe you could give us notice of what your other two propositions are and then we could deal with them at the steering committee and come back and recommend.

Mr. John Duncan: Well, I'll agree to... on that particular motion, but I'm not convinced the other two need to go to steering committee.

The Chair: Fine. Well, let's try it on for size.

Mr. John Duncan: The second one is that if this committee is voting to go in camera, at least two members of the opposition must concur, in a recorded vote. In other words, the government cannot unilaterally decide to go in camera.

The Chair: Is there any need to put that to the steering committee or shall I just test the...

Mr. Stan Keyes: No. We can vote on that right now. No problem. Let's vote.

The Chair: Does anyone wish to speak to it?

Okay. I don't see anybody wishing to speak on this motion that in the event the committee moves to go in camera, two members of the opposition...

I'm sorry, Mr. Duncan; would it have to be members representing two opposition parties or two members of the opposition?

Mr. John Duncan: Any two opposition members.

The Chair: Any two members of the opposition would have to concur in such a motion.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: Third motion.

• 0955

Mr. John Duncan: My third motion is not to go in camera.

No, my third motion is just to try to clarify something so that we don't get into the same discussion again, and that would be that the subcommittees of this standing committee nominate and elect their own chairs. That would be a change to our rules. We've agreed in this instance, but I'm talking about a change to the rules of the committee.

The Chair: I think the problem with that would be you can't really bind future committees. I mean, future committees will decide whether they're going to do that or not.

Mr. John Duncan: Well, all our rules are that way. You can change our rules.

The Chair: We've already established the principle that this time we're going to do that. If the committee wants to pass that as a motion for the future, we can go ahead, but understand that if we do, future committees can say, no, we're going to nominate the chair. Nothing binds them anyway, so it's not...

Ms. Marlene Jennings: This committee itself could change that. For instance, the subcommittee could choose their chair. A year from now or six months from now that particular member, for reasons that we ignore at this time, may no longer be in the position to be chair, and we could decide then that, no, it's not going to be the subcommittee, it's going to be us.

The Chair: Exactly. Mr. Duncan wants to enshrine that principle forever.

Mr. John Duncan: I thought it might be simpler for the committee.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: Okay. We've dealt with that. Thank you very much.

Anything else under other business, colleagues?

The Chair: Mr. Pallister has a motion.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Oh, is this future business? I'm sorry.

The Chair: Yes, I want to talk about future business, but I want to hear from anybody else on the floor first. I have some announcements to make about future business.

Go ahead. Was this about future business?

Mr. Brian Pallister: Yes. It's under the category of future business.

The Chair: Ms. Augustine, did you have something?

Ms. Jean Augustine: Just so we can arrange our scheduling, etc., I would like to confirm whether we had agreed on a specific day of the week, and times.

The Chair: What time we're meeting, do you mean?

Ms. Jean Augustine: Is it Tuesdays, and Fridays, I notice?

The Chair: It's Tuesday and Thursday and anything on Friday or any other day of the week are those optional meetings where we try to divide into team A, team B, and people come or not, depending on their availability.

Let's talk a bit about scheduling so that everybody understands where we're going.

Ms. Jean Augustine: That's right.

The Chair: Let me give you a little bit of an overview about what faces us for the fall. Obviously the steering committee will be meeting and discussing things. Last week we met and we discussed the events of September and how they're going to affect our work. We're now a new committee, but I assume that the discussion we had last week still is fresh in everybody's mind and we've sort of decided what we're going to do.

You will recall that the members last week felt that if we were to continue with the original plan we had, which was to study Canada-U.S. relations, using that, however, as a focal point to discuss the issues of terrorism and how Canada could deal with that in terms of its multilateral and other relations, but particularly bearing on the U.S., we could use our U.S. study as a way of introducing and recognizing that we clearly have to focus on the problem of what Canada's international reaction to terrorism is going to be.

So I'm kind of hoping that this is what the steering committee, when we have our meeting, will agree to do in terms of a work program.

However, let me also draw it to your attention, everybody, that three pieces of legislation will come to the committee this fall—the Export Development Act, the Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement act, and an act concerning foreign missions. So those three pieces of legislation could well be before the committee this fall.

We have 16 regular hearings between now and the Christmas recess. If you took two hearings for each of those bills, that would leave about eight hearings for everything else between now and Christmas, including all of the issues we obviously are interested in.

• 1000

It's therefore going to be my recommendation that we send the Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement to the international trade subcommittee and let them deal with that, because there are some contentious issues in there about sugar. You'll recall around the table last week people said they want to hear some—

Ms. Francine Lalonde: And chapter 11.

The Chair: And chapter 11, which is not in that agreement and therefore will make you very happy, Madame Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: The principles are there.

The Chair: So there are those. I don't know; can we do that right now? If members are in agreement with that suggestion, I'd like to see whether we could try that.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay. So I take it there's no opposition to our referring the matter of the Canada-Costa Rica FTA.

Ms. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Being new to your committee, I'm wondering, once a matter has been dealt with within subcommittee, does it then come back to the larger committee?

The Chair: Yes, it has to come back here for ratification.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I see. Is there any time allotted for discussion, or is it simply a yea or nay?

The Chair: No, we have time allotment for discussion, but it's hoped that we don't take a lot of time. Normally it goes through pretty quickly, but certainly there's an opportunity if members are concerned about an issue to bring it up.

But we don't call witnesses—

Ms. Aileen Carroll: That's what I thought.

The Chair: —and we don't bring in departmental witnesses. We do have an opportunity to discuss it ourselves.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: And all of the witnesses and so on have already been called to the subcommittee.

The Chair: Yes, Ms. Carroll. That's the way it works.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Of course any member of the committee can go to the subcommittee and ask witnesses. You'll get notice of the subcommittee meetings and things like that. So if there's an issue that interests you can go to the subcommittee.

On the other hand, I think probably we could do the Export Development Act in this committee. I think probably the feeling is, if that's all right, we should deal with it. Frankly, we don't know much about the act concerning foreign missions, so I think we'll just hold that until we get more notice on what it is. I'm not too sure what it is.

That will then leave us more time to deal with North American integration and security. Colleagues, we had originally thought we'd try to get going on some of the legislation on Thursday, but subject to your comments I think we should hold a meeting at least on Thursday. We are trying to get the minister to come—he's now been named, as you know, coordinator for security—which would be excellent. Ms. Carroll has said she's willing to speak to him. Obviously we can speak to him in the House and see whether we can get him to come. He has an enormously busy schedule. If he can't come we might be able to get Mr. Wright.

I've asked our clerk to put together a group that we can start with on Thursday in connection with the security issues facing us, because if we don't start this week to do something, basically it will be after the break. So we will have done nothing until after the break.

I don't know how colleagues feel, but my own view is that we should do something. We should try to get going on this issue before the break.

With your permission, what I'd like to suggest is that you leave to the chair the ability to put together witnesses from the government or other sources who can come and can discuss the security issues with us on Thursday. Then when we come back from the break we will be going either straight into that issue or the EDC issue, and we'll have a steering committee meeting where we can discuss that and come back with recommendations.

Is that a satisfactory way of doing it?

Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: But I take it your priority is to have a government witness.

The Chair: Yes, sir, hopefully. The priority is to have the minister, but there's also recognition that the minister is very busy. If the minister isn't there, my own personal view is perhaps we could get Mr. Wright to come. Most of us are familiar with him from our Bosnia work, and he's delegated to be in charge of this file.

So that is what we're working on. If they're all tied up in these meetings, we will bring in some other witnesses who can at least give us some reflection and an opportunity for members to ask questions and discuss issues.

Madame Lalonde, and then Mr. Pallister.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, when we were preparing for this session, before the events we know about occurred, I had sent a motion in connection with the long-term study the committee has undertaken, and my motion dealt with Africa. We know that for the next meeting of the G-8, Canada had committed itself to preparing proposals in connection with the battle against poverty in Africa.

• 1005

It is a forgotten continent, and it seems to me that the Foreign Affairs Committee should study this matter and not miss the opportunity to have an influence on what is going to happen at the meeting of the G-8.

I know that there are urgent questions, but it seems to me that we could begin to prepare now—we can discuss this at the steering committee—for the second session in order to ensure that we have an impact on this issue.

The Chair: Very well. I think that we will be able to discuss this at the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. As I pointed out last week, we could very well consider preparing for the meeting of the G-8 a report similar to the one we had prepared for the Quebec Summit. In that case, Africa would be at the heart of our concerns. The Prime Minister announced that the African issue would be the focus of the G-8 meeting. Thus, I believe that we could combine our work on the G-8 with the study on Africa. We can discuss this further at the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Pallister, sir.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I'm wondering, Mr. Chair, pursuant to your earlier comments about the urgency of having the minister questioned by members of the committee, if it wouldn't be appropriate to give formal expression to our desire to have the minister here by way of a motion. I therefore would move that the committee send for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to appear before this committee at the earliest possible opportunity.

The Chair: Absolutely. I think that was what we agreed to.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I would want it to take the form of a motion, sir. We agreed in discussion, but we did not have a motion that appears in our record.

The Chair: Okay, that's fine. For the record.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I'd like to see that motion in our records.

The Chair: I don't see any objection to that motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Colleagues, any other observations or comments?

Mr. Casey, perhaps you want to announce to the committee where you're going on the Israel—

Mr. Bill Casey: What city I'm going to now?

First of all, I just wanted to say that I think we're all right on this, based on the last motion, but I believe the committee should hear from the minister, considering the gravity of the situation and all the things we're going to have to face and deal with. So I'd just like to add my support to a real effort to get the minister here. I don't think it should be optional. I think he should have to come.

The Chair: Well, as you know—

Mr. Bill Casey: And I know he's busy.

The Chair: Ms. Carroll, as the parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: As the chair has done, I will do my utmost to convey what has been said this morning and make it as much a priority as I can. Although I recognize the situation that we all know it to be, rest assured that I will do all I can to bring it to his attention.

Mr. Bill Casey: And I appreciate that. I realize how busy he is. I can only imagine it. I know he's very astute at his job, but we should hear from him if we can.

On the peace forum we have planned, as far as I know, at this minute it's still a go. The sessions will take place in Ottawa now rather than Halifax. The Province of Nova Scotia asked us not to proceed with them. We had total cooperation here on the Hill to shift it to Ottawa. We'll have six Palestinian legislators, six Israeli legislators, and six or eight Canadian members of Parliament at this. But it's just hour by hour, as things unfold in the Middle East.

I had a call last night from the head of the delegation from Israel. I don't know what the call was, but I don't like the sound of it. I don't like it when he calls me. It's never good news.

At any rate, as far as I know, at the moment we're proceeding with it. I believe it's very timely, very important, and I hope we're able to succeed. I hope we're able to have the meeting. Right now everything's a go. The Solicitor General has helped, totally, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been extremely helpful. The clerk, the Speaker especially, the RCMP—everybody has cooperated 100%.

The Chair: And the dates; remind the members of the committee of the dates.

Mr. Bill Casey: There will be a reception on Sunday night, October 14, if it all comes together. Then we'll have meetings on Monday morning and afternoon and Tuesday morning and afternoon. We have a block of rooms over in the Wellington Building. There's one room for the meetings and there are breakout rooms for each delegation to discuss things.

• 1010

As far as I know, it's a go, and we're going to do everything we can to keep it on the rails.

The Chair: Well, congratulations on all the work you've done to put that together. It's been a very important initiative. I'm sure other members of the committee, once we get closer to it, will want to be engaged any way we can to be supportive and to make it work.

Mr. Bill Casey: Thank you.

The Chair: Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I want to ask Mr. Casey which parliamentarians are members of the committee.

[English]

Mr. Bill Casey: From the Bloc, Richard Marceau, who's been very active in it; Keith Martin from the Alliance; from the Conservatives, Gerald Keddy; and from the NDP, Peter Stoffer. On the Liberal side there will be the chair of the Canada-Israel Committee, Carolyn Bennett, and the chair of the Canada-Arab committee, Sarkis Assadourian, Irwin Cotler. The co-chairs are Bill Graham and me.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Bill Casey: On the steering committee, we have the diplomats from Israel and Palestine. It's been really interesting to see the Israelis and the Palestinians working together, in a common cause, just to make the meeting happen. They have worked together better than the MPs in a lot of cases, perhaps.

The Chair: Mr. Baker.

Mr. George Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): I just want to note for the record that it was through no fault of the clerk that there was confusion earlier. The clerk was giving expert advice to the chair. It was confusion among the members around the table that caused the disruption.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Baker.

Maybe we'll just say Mr. Baker's motion is that the confusion was total. That's my fault, and I apologize for that, but we're off and running.

I thank you very much, colleagues, for your cooperation.

We're adjourned.