NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 27, 2001

• 1616

[English]

The Chair (Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.)): I'd like to call the second meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to order.

The first item we have on our agenda is the routine motions. The clerk has been kind enough to provide us with copies of the motions that guided the committee during the last Parliament. Perhaps what we could do is go through each of these motions, if there's a mover, and deal with them accordingly.

Do we have a mover for the first motion?

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): I so move.

The Chair: Will members indicate if they're in favour of setting up a subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CA): Are you going to allow any discussion, or an amendment?

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, CA): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a couple of comments about the first motion. I would like to see it amended to include an additional official opposition member, in the person of our critic, Art Hanger. The reason behind that, of course, is that the official opposition comprises over 50% of the opposition. Secondary to that is perhaps the expunction or the exclusion and deletion of the two parliamentary secretaries.

The Chair: Is there any discussion?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Who are the two vice-chairs?

The Chair: The two vice-chairs are Mr. Goldring and Mr. Price.

An hon. member: Quality people.

The Chair: Is there any other discussion?

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, CA): Yes, I have a point.

On the immigration committee last time, the parliamentary secretary was in fact taken from the list. The reason was that we felt there was too much influence directly from the minister through the parliamentary secretary. This should be a committee of the House that operates on its own, and that should include the agenda of the committee. I would say that there is just no real reason that seems to make any sense to have the parliamentary secretary involved in steering committee business.

The Chair: Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): I don't quite agree with that in the sense that, first of all, the steering committee isn't voting on anything. It has to come back here to be voted on, and we could get some input from the parliamentary secretaries, if needed.

Mr. Art Hanger: We could ask them to come in.

Mr. David Price: We're just sitting there discussing. That's what it comes down to, and then we bring forward something to the whole committee. That's where it's decided just what we're going to go ahead with. There are no votes that take place in that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Well, I haven't seen a steering committee yet where there wasn't agreement asked for from within that committee. That then gives that steering committee some authority when they come back to the committee, so I would disagree with you entirely. I say it is critical that it is members of this committee who determine the agenda of this committee.

The Chair: I have Mr. Bachand, then Mrs. Wayne.

Mr. Bachand, you have the floor.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): I didn't raise my hand.

The Chair: Okay. Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: The two parliamentary secretaries don't have a vote, do they?

An hon. member: No.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: No, they don't. So they're just more or less there to give us information, not to direct us. That's it, right?

Mr. Art Hanger: This is on the subcommittee?

The Chair: On the subcommittee, yes.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: No problem. They don't have a vote, so...

• 1620

The Chair: Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Chair, it was part of my suggestion that there be included an additional member from the official opposition party.

The Chair: Perhaps you can read the amendment to the motion that's before us here, just so that we're all clear on it.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes. I would like to amend it to read that in addition to the persons indicated there, there be included an additional member from the Canadian Alliance Party in the person of our critic, Art Hanger.

An hon. member: No, just an additional member.

Mr. Peter Goldring: An additional member of the Canadian Alliance.

The Chair: Keep it generic. Okay.

(Amendment negatived)

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: The next motion relates to research assistance.

Mr. David Price: I so move.

The Chair: We have Mr. Price moving the motion.

I presume everyone has a copy of the motions in front of them, so we'll dispense with reading them.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Mr. Leon Benoit: It reads at the end, “to assist the Committee in its work, at the discretion of the Chair.” I would like to propose an amendment that would remove “the Chair” and add “this Committee”, so that it says “at the discretion of this Committee.” We can delegate to the chair the ability to make that decision if we so choose.

The Chair: Perhaps it might be useful at this point to have the clerk provide us with some guidance on this.

Is there any reason why it's worded the way it is? Do you have any comments on that?

The Clerk of the Committee: No.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Do I get a chance to speak on that a little bit?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Again, the reason for that is to try to make this committee have control over as much of the agenda and the business as we can without giving too much, and undue, control to parliamentary secretaries, to the chair, and so on, while still respecting the position of the chair.

The Chair: Are there any further comments?

Mrs. Longfield and Mr. Regan.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): I'm going to speak in opposition only because a good number of members have been on this committee for quite some time. I think there has been a whole lot of goodwill. I don't think the chair has ever acted unilaterally or without consulting the committee. I don't think there has ever been a problem, and I wouldn't want to create one now by suggesting that somehow the chair is not accountable to the committee. The chair has been accountable to the committee.

The Chair: Mr. Regan, and then back to Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): I just wanted to ask if you could perhaps ask the clerk, Mr. Chair, if this change would suggest that the committee as a whole would direct the researcher. Or would it in some way suggest that individual members of the committee could do that?

The Chair: No, I don't think that's what Mr. Benoit has in mind.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, it would be up to the committee to determine who would make those decisions. We may well say we're quite happy with the chair making the decision. There may be times, though, when we would want the committee to take a different position.

An hon. member: Masters of their own destiny.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Doesn't the chairman reflect the direction of the committee in any event?

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So what's the problem with putting this in, then, if that's the case?

The Chair: I would ask members to direct their comments through the chair and not speak to each other.

Finally, Mr. Benoit, if you want to sum up.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Well, I think Mr. Regan's argument is a good one. When has there ever been a problem? I guess I'm asking why there would be a problem with having the committee designated as having the authority. I think that was the argument he made.

The Chair: Mrs. Wayne, and then Mr. Stoffer and Mr. Bachand.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Chair, I have to say that we have a chairperson, and there is a job for that chairperson to do. When he hears the discussions that are going on around this table, from all of us, then he knows what kind of research we want done, and the research officers know that as well.

• 1625

But there is a role for the chair, and if we feel very strongly that the chair is not doing what the committee feels it wants done, then we'll correct that and bring it to his attention. Certainly I feel that in order for him to do the job and get the agenda before us, there has to be the discretion of the chair in certain areas.

I see nothing wrong with this one here. I really don't.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer and then Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Chair, I have no real problem with the way number two is researched, but Mr. Benoit's question is whether a successful change of number two would affect number three. Sometimes when we have those small meetings, the clerk can be asked to do some additional work, or the researcher, based on the meeting. If you're down to just three members, including one, that may affect...

Have you given number three any consideration, if you are successful with number two?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Well, you still don't have with number two, if I remember what it's about...

No, I don't understand your concern, actually.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You're saying you want to change “at the discretion of the Chair” to “at the discretion of the Committee”. Is that right?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. Now, if number three stays as it is—the status quo—you can have a meeting without a quorum. Those people at that meeting without quorum could end up asking the researcher to do something.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In fact, if there's no quorum, there is no committee. So that's taken care of.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: But at those meetings without quorum, what I'm asking, Mr. Chair, is whether the researcher can be asked to do things in that regard.

The Chair: No, I don't think that the... if there's no quorum. If I'm not here, someone has to be in the chair. That's the bottom line. Certainly based on previous practice, we wouldn't have directions going to the researcher from a very small number of members.

As to the question of whether it could happen theoretically, I suppose so, but I think in those sorts of instances the researcher would probably bring it to the attention of the entire committee, where it probably could be dealt with.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I just want to help buddy out here, that's all.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be the first member to speak French here. I hope that the interpreters have their wits about them, because we intend to speak in French as often as possible. Moreover, I have read the motions that will be introduced and we will share them. I am referring, particularly, to the motion dealing with documents that are to be tabled in both official languages.

Let me say, first of all, that even though the chairman was not chosen by a secret ballot, I have faith in his abilities. I want that to be perfectly clear. Unless we have reason to believe otherwise, my party and myself usually put our faith in people. Today, on the agenda, we will deal with the future business of the committee; we feel that there are some very pressing issues before us. We want to move forward. However, I believe that if we must, at each meeting, begin to discuss the relevance of inviting the Library of Parliament researchers, this will become extremely cumbersome and we will not make much progress.

I believe that the text that we have before us shows that this is a flexible way of proceeding. I trust the chairman and, if, from time to time, he drops his neutral stand or goes too far procedurally, there are ways of calling him back to order. Therefore, I am perfectly content with the motion that we have before us.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Mr. O'Reilly and then Mr. Benoit.

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): If you take the time to read this, the only thing this motion does is allow the chair to have more than one researcher, if needed. That's all the motion says. It doesn't say anything different from “retain the services of one or more research officers from the Library of Parliament, as needed”. If we need more, it's at the discretion of the chair to go out and get more researchers. That's all this motion says. It doesn't question the chair, or the chair's authority. It merely decides whether we have one researcher, or two researchers, or whether we need more if we're doing heavy work.

The Chair: Perhaps I can add by way of clarification—and thank you for that comment, Mr. O'Reilly—that even if the committee requests more research officers, there's no guarantee that the House is going to provide the committee with that assistance.

• 1630

Mr. John O'Reilly: We're here to make that request for a research assistant. We already have one, we may need two or three—that's all that's there for.

The Chair: Okay. I presume we're winding up the discussion on this particular item.

Mr. Benoit, any final comments?

[Translation]

A voice: Why don't we vote?

[English]

The Chair: Are we ready for the vote on the amendment then?

(Amendment negatived)

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Do we have a mover for our next item, meeting without a quorum?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I so move.

The Chair: Any discussion? Ms. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: On this one I have great concerns. If we don't have a quorum, I don't feel that the meeting should be held whatsoever. If there's something so wrong that we can't bring a quorum together, then we have to set another date, another time, and you can do that within another day, or what have you. But to say that we be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present...

Our people here have to feel an obligation that when they're put on the defence committee, they should be here. They're obligated to be here. That's our job. But to say you're going to have it with five people? Look at the numbers of us. Look at what's here today. You're going to have five out of 15 or 16? No, I oppose that, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Okay. I've got Mr. O'Reilly, and then Mr. Goldring, and then Mr. Hanger.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Mr. Chairman, I would remind the committee that we've had meetings where witnesses have been brought in from overseas, have been brought in from all over Canada, have sat in these chairs waiting for a quorum, and have then left because there wasn't quorum. We don't hear their evidence, they can't come back, it costs money to bring them back, it costs money to bring them here. It's a matter of getting their evidence written into the record. If we don't have a quorum, of course, there are no votes, but we allow that courtesy to the witnesses, that they be able to read their evidence into the record. Then the committee has the benefit of that evidence.

That's the only reason we would ever meet without a quorum, to hear witnesses.

The Chair: Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I certainly agree with Elsie on this. If the importance of the meeting is that great and we do have serious witnesses that have travelled a great distance, there are enough people on this committee, and it's up to us to bring enough people to the table here to have a quorum. If we can't do that, then we're providing a disservice to the witnesses when they appear here. The important thing should be to have full committee representation.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: I'm curious. The quorum issue has come up several times over the last two or three years in this committee. On occasion, I believe, meetings have been cancelled as a result. Is there any feedback as to why quorums are never reached? Is it because members have no interest in showing up for some witnesses that may be testifying? Or what's the problem?

Personally, I think there should be some rules dealing with quorum, and I am prepared to support Mrs. Wayne on this point.

The Chair: Just by way of clarification—and my memory is a little bit faded on this—my recollection is that we didn't use that provision very often over the course of the last Parliament. I think members were pretty diligent in making sure they were here for meetings.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The reason Mrs. Wayne's motion makes sense is that we saw this morning what that side can do. We were here, we waited, and all of a sudden they all went outside to discuss something, maybe to have a group bathroom break, and then came back. They delayed today's proceedings by a good 10 minutes.

So if the responsibility actually lies on the government side to ensure their members are here... Prior to the election, at the HRDC committee the entire Liberal side lost their way and couldn't find the room. Opposition were there, accepting their responsibilities, but the government members were not there.

So if we get rid of this, at least it gives us one little tool to work with, to say the government members must be present in order to meet quorum. Otherwise, regarding the expense of those people who come to visit us, that's unfortunate, but it's up to the government to be responsible in ensuring their members are in their place at the time in order to meet quorum.

• 1635

The Chair: I'd just like to clarify for members that Mrs. Wayne has not moved an amendment to the motion that's in front of us.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Then we'll strike it.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I'll move it.

The Chair: Precisely what are you moving?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: To get rid of it.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I move that we strike this number three and that we do not allow the chair to hold meetings without a quorum.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. That's not an amendment.

The Chair: That's right, it's not a proper amendment. The way to deal with that is simply to vote against the motion.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I'm not dealing with an amendment. I'm saying we defeat number three.

The Chair: That's right. I thought you might have had some suggestions with regard to—

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: No, I don't have any amendments. I'm just suggesting we defeat the motion.

The Chair: Are there any further speakers on this?

Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price: I have just one quick point. If we remember, during the last Parliament several times we ended up with only three or four people here. I remember being the only one on that side. No members of the Alliance and the Bloc showed up, and, Peter, nothing against the NDP, but they almost opted out for a good period of time.

The Chair: Order.

Mr. David Price: I'm just making the point that when we have witnesses here, we don't want to send them away. It's not right. It's not fair to them. They at least should get on the record.

Let's vote on Ms. Longfield's motion.

The Chair: Okay.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Next is item four, the questioning of witnesses. Do we have a motion on that?

Mr. Geoff Regan: I so move.

The Chair: Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I'd like to amend the scheduling of that, and there are very particular reasons. We have the precedent set by question period in the House of Commons where we have a certain number of questions in accordance with the numbers we represent. Representing over 50% of the opposition, the amount of questions we're allowed in committee should be representative of that fact.

So I have a suggestion for the question rotation that I think should be adopted in order to demonstrate this fairness. It would be ten minutes, Canadian Alliance; ten minutes, Liberal; ten minutes, Canadian Alliance; five minutes, Liberal; ten minutes, Bloc; five minutes, Liberal; five minutes, NDP; five minutes, Liberal; and five minutes, PC. I think that would be a fairer reflection.

The Chair: On my list I have Mr. Stoffer, Mrs. Wayne, and Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: If anything, you have to give the Alliance Party credit for consistency. They've tried this in other committees as well.

Absolutely not. This isn't question period. This is our one kick at the can in terms of people like the Conservatives and the NDP—even though we're small in numbers, we're mighty in voice—having an opportunity. The witnesses don't care how many of us are in the House of Commons. They want to be asked questions fairly and in a balanced way, and this is a pretty fair and balanced motion. Whoever drew that up, right on.

Sorry, Peter, but not now.

The Chair: Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have to say that the Liberals have more people in the House than any of the opposition parties, and they have no problems whatsoever with what's here. They're not asking for more time or anything else. They're asking that we all be equal. We're here to deal with the military and defence. As far as I'm concerned, this is an excellent motion, and I appreciate, Mr. Chair, the wording of this motion.

The Chair: Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: I think that committee work is much less partisan than what we do in the House. In fact, I would not be surprised if, somewhere in the Standing Orders of the House, there is not something that states specifically that committee work should be less partisan. If we apply that logic to the exact representation according to the number of seats, the Liberals will want more time, as if they have not already done that, so they will want more, and the other parties will run out of time to speak.

So we are trying to avoid such partisanship. The only thing that we have in committee is a representation which is fairly based on the number of seats we hold in Parliament. I think that if we want to give more privileges to the official opposition or to any other opposition party, then we will be allowing partisanship and I don't think that is good for the committee. I believe that here, we have a rare opportunity to speak as equals. And I think that is the approach we should favour. That is the reason why we cannot amend the motion. To my mind, motion no. 4, as it is now worded, is perfect.

• 1640

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Longfield, then Mr. Goldring, Mr. Hanger, and Mr. Grose.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I think the members opposite have hit it right on the head. If you look at it, in the 35 minutes, the Liberals have seven minutes. If you break it down, that's not a minute each. We're prepared to do this. If you're going to talk about strict representation, Leon and Art, then I think you would yell the loudest because we'd get more than 50% of the questioning here, and that's not what...

I mean, this is not like question period. In question period, arguably members on the government side have better access to the ministers. When a witness is here, I don't have any better access to that witness than anyone on the other side.

So it's different from question period. We are equal here. We are one person and a witness, and as I say, my access to a witness here is no better because I'm on the government side. In fact, under this, it's a lot worse.

An hon. member: It's lousy.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I'll speak later.

The Chair: Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: I'm going to have to disagree with my opposition colleague when he talks about partisanship. The very nature of the way this committee is made up shows partisanship. The official opposition has three members sitting on this board. We're allowed seven minutes for questions. The other opposition parties, which don't even come close to our number, are given representation according to their numbers.

In that regard, in having three members on this board, we should be entitled to additional time as far as questioning the witnesses and government policy is concerned. That's what this is all about: questioning government policy as those witnesses come forward to testify. So in that regard, yes, it's partisanship. It's broken down according to numbers in the parties, and I think it should also be reflected in the questions.

I can understand those parties with smaller numbers in their midst objecting to the official opposition in seeking more time. Unfortunately, if they had campaigned harder, they may have obtained greater numbers to be represented here.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

An hon. member: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

An hon. member: That's one of the reasons, Mr. Chairman. That statement shows you why they shouldn't get any more time, let me tell you right now.

The Chair: I have Mr. Grose, and then Mr. Stoffer.

An hon. member: We didn't do so well, Art.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be the first to admit that I'm possibly thick in the head, but the way I interpret this is that in the first round, the opposition gets 28 minutes while the government gets seven. In the second round and any succeeding round, the opposition gets 20 minutes and the government gets five minutes. That's the way this thing reads.

An hon. member: Cut them all down.

An hon. member: Exactly.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Ordinarily, in the second round—

Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): So what are you complaining about?

Mr. Ivan Grose: —it's always been back and forth between five, five, and five. I've never seen this before. By the time you get finished the second round, the government has had a total of twelve minutes and it's over.

An hon. member: There's a reason for that, Ivan.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: What is it?

An hon. member: Get the chair to explain why the time was set up even as it is.

Mr. Art Hanger: It's for the opposition.

Mr. Janko Peric: Who'll take 50% of the time.

The Chair: I would ask that members—

Mr. Ivan Grose: I'm correct, then, in my interpretation?

An hon. member: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Art Hanger: It's for the opposition.

The Chair: I would ask the members to direct their comments through the chair. We have a speakers list here, so let's try to stick to it.

Mr. Goldring had not forfeited his time to Mr. Hanger, so, Mr. Goldring, I'm going to recognize you now because you lost your place in the order.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I wish to repeat that it is more to represent the number of seats that we do have. I suppose in return that there would be no serious objection to the government of course increasing relatively the number of minutes for its questioning. But I think it is important to recognize that it has been set up in question period for that very reason. With that in mind, I would like to make this into a motion.

I would like to propose the motion that the questioning periods be modified according to—and I'll read the listing here—ten minutes for the Canadian Alliance, ten minutes for the Liberals, ten minutes for the Canadian Alliance—

The Chair: Mr. Goldring, that was the previous motion that you had moved?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes. I had not made it into a full motion, so I'm making it a motion now.

Mr. Art Hanger: It was a suggestion, he said.

• 1645

Mr. Peter Goldring: So you'll accept that as an amendment now?

The Chair: Yes. That's obviously fairly detailed. Can you provide a copy of that to the clerk?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes, I can.

An hon. member: Can you read that again?

Mr. Peter Goldring: It'll be ten minutes for the Canadian Alliance; ten minutes, Liberal; ten minutes, Canadian Alliance; five minutes, Liberal; ten minutes, Bloc; five minutes, Liberal; five minutes, NDP; five minutes, Liberal; and five minutes, PC.

I think you can see by the figures there that this gives an additional amount of time for the Liberals to ask questions too, but it fully recognizes the number of seats we represent in the House, over 50% of the opposition.

The Chair: Now, is everyone clear on what Mr. Goldring has proposed?

An hon. member: Very clear.

The Chair: I'm going to go back to the speakers list now. We have Mr. Stoffer, Mr. Price, and then Mr. Peric.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I think, Mr. Chair, I'll not make any further comments. I suggest we call the question.

The Chair: Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price: Again, going back to previous experience, when I was sitting down at that end, I can remember many times when you wouldn't get any questions at all. This was in part because quite often we'd end up getting through a meeting within an hour and not having our full time because of either votes in the House, something happening, extra witnesses, or giving extra time to witnesses. Therefore, with the formula that's being put forward in the amendment, there's a good chance that neither the NDP nor the PC would have any questions, and that's not fair. So I can't agree with it at all.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Peric. And I apologize for not recognizing you earlier.

Mr. Janko Peric: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to make a criticism. If you calculate the time, you're going to come out to five minutes more for three members from the Alliance than for anybody else. I would appreciate it if you would pay a little more attention to both sides. I was trying to get my time for the last five minutes and I couldn't.

I would support the motion; call the question right now.

The Chair: Okay. Are you moving that the question be put?

Mr. Janko Peric: Yes.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Are we doing the amendment?

The Chair: Yes, it is moved that the question be put on the amendment. Are we in agreement that the question be put?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I have something else to say here.

The Chair: As far as I know, that motion is not debatable, is it?

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's at the discretion of the chair as to whether more debate is allowed now.

An hon. member: The question has been called.

The Chair: I'm just seeking some clarification.

The advice I'm getting is that the question should be put now. We will vote on Mr. Goldring's amendment.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Are we ready for the question on the main motion?

Mr. Peter Goldring: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. If I may, I will now propose for consideration an additional method of proceeding on this basis. I think it demonstrates a little bit of flexibility on it. I would like to propose at this time that it be considered as a motion to provide ten minutes for the Canadian Alliance; ten minutes for the Liberals; ten minutes for the Canadian Alliance; ten minutes for the Bloc; five minutes for the NDP; and five minutes for the PCs. I so move.

The Chair: With the exception of the Liberal questioning on that, I think the motion is essentially the same. I'm in the hands of the committee.

Some hon. members: Put the question.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: I'll now put the question on the main motion concerning the questioning of witnesses. That was moved way back when by Mr. Regan.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: The next motion concerns witness expenses.

Mr. John O'Reilly: I so move.

The Chair: Is there any discussion?

Mr. Benoit.

• 1650

Mr. Leon Benoit: I propose an amendment to replace “Chair” with “Committee” in this motion as well.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: On the main motion moved by Mr. O'Reilly, all those in favour?

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We are now on motion six, Order in Council appointments.

Mr. David Price: I so move.

The Chair: Thank you for working with me.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: This is motion seven, document distribution.

Mr. Janko Peric: I so move.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Motion eight, notice of motions, is also moved by Mr. Peric. Any discussion?

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: This practice of not allowing motions to be made, debated, and voted on at the time right in the committee hearing is, I think, anti-democratic. It's certainly undemocratic. It's unacceptable, and I propose a motion to remove the 24-hour notice period on that.

The Chair: Just by way of clarification, I might say that the way we worked in the last Parliament—and certainly it was according to the rules—a motion could be introduced if there was unanimous consent. I offer this just so it's clear and everyone's fine.

Is there any further discussion?

Mrs. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I've been on committees and most of my committees required 48 hours' notice.

Mr. Art Hanger: That is not consistent with the—

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I'm just telling you that I've been on committees that have had 48 hours, that it's worked reasonably well, and that it's given members an opportunity, if a motion is put, to get their notes together and have some discussion within their caucus. I certainly wouldn't support less than 24 hours, and I'm going to propose 48 if I have an opportunity.

An hon. member: That's a motion.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. O'Reilly.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The reason we adopted this was to accommodate the distribution of notices of motion in both official languages.

During the Parliament previous to the last Parliament, we had people coming and making motions. We were then unable to get them properly translated, so we had a tough time dealing with them. Basically, the 24 hours allows everyone to make a motion in both official languages and to make sure that it's properly circulated. That was the only reason for it.

Mr. Grose.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Well, if you want the benefit of my experience on the justice committee in the last Parliament, I proposed that we change 48 hours to 24, which we did. I won, and the other day at a committee meeting I proposed that we go back to 48 because 24 wasn't working. It's not sufficient time to get a proper translation, so I won again. We changed it back to 48.

The Chair: Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: If you recall, in our defence committee over the last three years, prior to this last election, there was no need for notification, and motions were put directly from the committee and voted on.

In reference to Mr. O'Reilly's comment, if there's a need to put a motion forward, the individual putting it forward will have ample time to prepare to deal with that particular topic and determine what has to be done if he knows of it in advance. The 24 hours' notice is really a moot point in such a situation. In keeping with the way this committee has run in the past, I don't see any reason why we need 24 hours' notice, and I think it is undemocratic.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'd just like to let the Canadian Alliance know that I don't oppose everything they do. I do support Mr. Benoit's motion on this.

• 1655

In terms of the translation, we have some fabulous translators right behind us, and they can interpret exactly what we're saying if need be. Again, on the opposition side, it gives us one avenue to be able to propose a motion and put to the governing side, “Put your things on the table and let's do it. Let's talk about it. Let's deal with these issues right now.”

Because let's face it, the reality is that you've put a 24- or 48-hour time period, and what happens is that you get nine of you in here and then you vote against it. That's standard. That's what makes committee work many times a farce.

The fact is, you have to give the opposition some tools to work with, and removing the 24 hours... You can always be here and defeat the motions. Nothing says you can't. But you have to give us some tools to work with, and this is the one thing we in opposition have been asking for.

So I agree with you, Mr. Benoit, let's do it.

The Chair: Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): As far as the time is concerned, Mr. Chairman, I think it's absolutely essential that individuals be given time to do research and groundwork and so forth in order to better prepare themselves to deal with any discussion pertaining to any notice of motion presented.

I think it is most undemocratic for a motion prepared by some member of this committee to be thrown out on the floor in an attempt to try to surprise everyone and catch them with their pants down.

If this committee is going to be really effective, I think every single member should have the opportunity to do research, study, and background work on any issue that's presented through a notice of motion.

There's another question I have to raise here. If, at a Thursday meeting, you come up with some discussion that leads to a notice of motion, and the individual goes running to the clerk to present it on Friday, be careful of this kind of 24-hour motion you have here. You have no clause here to get yourself out of this awkward situation.

I think any notice of written motion presented to the clerk on a Friday should be deemed in your records to be received on the following Monday.

The Chair: Okay. That's not what the current motion for us states, though I'm in the hands of the committee in terms of any other amendments they might want to make on this.

I have Mr. Benoit, then Mr. Stoffer again, then Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Dromisky prefaced his comments by talking about the democratic process, and I would suggest that what we've seen here on this particular motion is a concern. But look at what's been done on particularly the time allocated for questioning witnesses, and consider that the purpose of this committee is for the opposition to be able to scrutinize government legislation often, or certainly to scrutinize government ideas, government positions put forth, and that type of thing.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: The witnesses aren't government.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Most often at committees we're dealing with legislation. When you consider that, and then the role of the opposition in that, what's been done here today really disregards the purpose of this committee. I would suggest that with what's been done here today, the chances of this committee being a functional committee are very low.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: God love you, Stan, but the fact is, there isn't one of you who's going to research any of our motions to the extent where you're going to learn it, understand it, and debate it. The reality—and every committee that I've been to does this—is that there's a motion on the floor, whether it be right away, 24 hours, or 48 hours, you're advised which way to vote, and you come in and vote en masse against it.

I have not yet seen this side of the House, in any committee I've been to, support an opposition motion, whether it's 24 or 48 hours. The nonsense about “We need to research it, and individuals study it”—I don't believe for a second that any of one of you back there is going to research any of the motions we ever put forward. You're just going to say either no or yes, according to what you're advised to say. That's the political reality of it. This is why we need to eliminate the 24-hour one, to give us a shot.

The Chair: Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I too disagree with the arguments against having motions that can be immediately presented. I think the arguments are weak. The translation services here are excellent, they're ready, and most motions are not that complex in nature.

• 1700

Traditionally in committees, as Art said, we have been able to present motions in an immediate fashion. I think it adds much more, and it makes this committee truly immediately responsive to circumstances and conditions.

Of course, there are other means whereby we can deal with motions that have some complexity. There are tabling procedures and other democratic procedures that can be used, so we do have a lot of ways to handle immediate motions. But the most important thing is that it's adding a responsiveness to this committee that I think is important.

The Chair: Mrs. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I just want to make a comment about witnesses. The witnesses who come here are not government witnesses. They are chosen with input from all parties.

Mr. Art Hanger: Some of them are.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Some of them, in all fairness, are very much opposed to the government legislation. I'm thinking of the merchant navy veterans and all kinds of people who have sat in those chairs. For you to suggest that you are the only ones who can poke holes or question those people, I think, does us a great disservice.

Mr. Art Hanger: What are you talking about here?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: We are individuals and—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Where did you hear “only”?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: You said it should be the opposition because it's your right as a committee member to cross-examine government witnesses. The witnesses who are sitting here are addressing the whole committee. Sometimes they're in favour, and sometimes they're opposed.

Mr. Art Hanger: Why is the time allotted arranged the way it is?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: That's what we've done. I take great offence at that, because I think I have as much right to question as does Mrs. Wayne or you. I think the arrangement is very fair.

Mr. Chair, I would ask you to call the question on both amendments and then get to the main motion.

The Chair: It has been asked that the question be put on this issue.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I just wanted some clarification, if I could have it, Mr. Chairman. Could you as the chair tell us why you feel there should be a 24-hour notice period for motions? You tell us the reason for that.

The Chair: My recollection, based on the last Parliament, is that it did have a lot to do with the translation of motions in terms of... Some of the motions we dealt with were somewhat complicated, and we wanted to ensure that everyone understood precisely what was before us. To a certain extent you can certainly rely on our very capable interpreters, but in other instances it was just simply not possible. There was too much confusion.

Perhaps I say by way of clarification as well that we have the government side over here and the opposition side over here, and at any given time the government can outvote the opposition on any particular motion. So if it's a question of voting against a motion on the day the motion is put or two days later, the bottom line is that it doesn't make any difference.

As some of the members will know, there was a very high level of collegiality on the defence committee during the last Parliament, and some members genuinely wanted time to consider aspects and to understand the various ramifications of motions before they voted on an opposition motion. That happened in the past as well. I think that's worth while considering, but ultimately the committee is master of its own destiny.

Mr. Art Hanger: That's why all these motions are coming forward now. We're masters of our own destiny, topped off by the Liberal majority.

The Chair: Mr. Hanger, these motions were the motions—

Mr. Leon Benoit: A dysfunctional committee is what you're going to have.

The Chair: —that guided the committee in the last Parliament. I think it's safe to say—and you remember the committee—that we did some excellent work in the area of quality of life, procurement—

Mr. Art Hanger: Then why all these extra rules?

The Chair: These are the rules that guided the committee in the last Parliament.

Mr. Art Hanger: No, they aren't. This last one we're voting on right now did not.

The Chair: They're exactly the same.

If there is consensus, we'll go directly to the vote on this.

Mr. Leon Benoit: There's no consensus.

The Chair: I don't see any speakers, so I'll call the question on Mr. Benoit's amendment.

An hon. member: What does the amendment say?

• 1705

The Chair: The amendment was essentially to forego the notice period.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We'll now vote on the motion that was moved originally by Mr. Peric on number eight, the 24-hour notice period, just so everyone is clear. We're now voting on the main motion that the committee adopt a 24-hour notice period for motions, unless otherwise ordered by the committee.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The next item on the agenda is a discussion of ideas members might have for the future business of the committee. Obviously, we're going to be using these suggestions as grist for the mill as far as the steering committee is concerned. If members would like to be recognized, please let me know. On my list is Mr. Goldring, Mrs. Wayne, Mr. Stoffer, and Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Chairman, I have five items I'd like to see put on the agenda. The first one is the procurement report from the committee during the last parliamentary session, the second item is national missile defence, the third item is a veterans review and appeal board, the fourth item is quality of life, and the fifth item is recruitment.

The Chair: Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mine are the same as the Reformer.

With regard to national missile defence, we certainly have to bring someone in because there has been a change in government in the United States. We have to find out where they stand now and what they're doing.

My items include the state of the forces and the operational readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces. We all know because of what has happened with the report that came back from Bosnia telling us of low morale, torn clothing, equipment failures, and so on, and the breakup of the family because of the lack of numbers for peacekeepers. We have to deal with that.

Certainly, we have to focus in on the maritime helicopter replacement. There is no question about that, and that is an urgent matter.

On February 5 the Prime Minister announced the creation of the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness. It is unclear in what form this office will come to be implemented, but it is known that the office will operate under and report to the Minister of National Defence. We need to have the minister in to tell us just exactly what's happening.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Number one, I would agree with Mr. Goldring, is the NMD project. He talked about that as something our committee should look at very seriously. Another item is the issue of veterans and the pay allowance, especially to do with depleted uranium, as well as dealing with the merchant mariners and the Buchenwald veterans.

It all relates to my next item, which Mr. Goldring also brought up, of recruiting. In my area right now an awful lot of young people who at one time had thought of the military as a career are now hearing all the so-called horror stories through the media about how veterans are treated and the condition of the current military personnel, and they're not choosing the military as a career any more. A lot of them are going to the private sector. Of course, that's hurting recruitment drives within the military. This is something we need to look at very seriously in terms of quality of life.

As well there is the concern of the civilian workers who are attached to the military bases' supply chain and ultimate service delivery. Mr. Regan, I note that in your area, as well as in our area and the communities we share in Lower Sackville, there are an awful lot of people who work in the supply chain, and they're very concerned about ultimate service delivery and the contracting out of the supply chain. The reality is that it doesn't save money in the long run.

• 1710

There are many other issues. One, of course, is the Sea Kings. But the last one concerns a committee that went around in a clandestine manner throughout Nova Scotia. The committee went to Shearwater, Halifax, and Greenwood to discuss the possible amalgamation of services or operations. Our fear is that either Greenwood or Shearwater may eventually shut down—or perhaps both. We need to address the cuts to the air force and what that means to our air force bases across the country, as well.

I know that's a lot. I'm sure we can have that all finalized by tomorrow night.

The Chair: Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: I asked a question today about depleted uranium. It was my first question as National Defence critic.

It was the first time that I asked the question and I believe that it is an important subject because it involves troop morale and the difficulty we are experiencing in recruiting. This difficulty is due to the fact that things are happening and people feel that the veterans are being cast aside. In my opinion, depleted uranium is a typical example. I know that NATO is examining the issue, but what I read on the NATO website is far from reassuring.

Even if a briefing session was given at the NATO General Assembly recently, which we attended, I must admit that what I read on the NATO website leaves me very concerned. They are taking soil, water and plant samples and they have noted that this ammunition might be the source of certain types of pollution. Many soldiers who served in the Balkans are extremely ill and they say that it is because of depleted uranium.

It seems to me we could have examined that. We could have called the minister, experts, and perhaps we could have gone a little further to try to reassure people. Both my party and I myself, feel that depleted uranium should simply be the first subject on the list of future business to be undertaken by this committee.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. O'Reilly.

Mr. John O'Reilly: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether we could have the research staff or the clerk make sure that each member has a quality of life report. The members may have misplaced them. Perhaps we could also have a report of the national missile defence paper that was produced in the last Parliament. If we could have copies of some of these things which we're going to be dealing with, it might bring us up to date on them. Perhaps we could also have a copy of the recruitment procedure that's going on right now, just so we are up to date on what's going on with the department.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Provenzano, did you have your hand up?

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): No.

The Chair: Are there any further comments?

Mrs. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I think it has been covered.

The Chair: All right. Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Is it up to the whole committee to set the priority for future business or is that the responsibility of the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure? I ask the question because other committees operate differently. In our case, the steering committee set the priorities. I want to know if the same thing applies here.

[English]

The Chair: That's correct, Mr. Bachand. It would be the steering committee, the committee on procedure and agenda.

I would also like to invite members... Obviously we've gone around the table partially here in terms of some suggestions, but if anyone has any further thoughts on other issues that they would like to bring forward, by all means feel free to either call me or send me an e-mail or a letter. I'd be happy to bring that to the steering committee's attention as well.

With that, I thank you.

Excuse me. I have neglected my duties here. I was to inform the committee, as well, of an invitation from the Royal Danish Embassy to participate in a round table discussion with the Danish minister of foreign affairs on Friday, March 9. Many of you may have received an invitation. If anyone is available to participate, please let me know and I'll ensure that you have all of the necessary coordinates.

• 1715

A request to appear has also come in from the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Hear, hear.

The Chair: They have asked to come before the committee. If there's consensus, maybe what we can do is just fold that into the other requests that have been made by committee members, and it will be thrown into the hopper for consideration.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Is depleted uranium a nuclear weapon?

The Chair: Is depleted uranium a nuclear weapon? I don't think so.

Mr. Peter Goldring: It's nuclear material used as a weapon.

Mr. Geoff Regan: There's no nuclear fusion process.

Mr. John O'Reilly: And the F-18 wings aren't rusting, Peter. Those are the American ones.

The Chair: I don't think that, even in the most generous of interpretations, you could consider depleted uranium a nuclear weapon.

Mr. Peter Goldring: It's just a health hazard.

The Chair: As someone has already mentioned, though, there is a lot of information on the NATO website with respect to depleted uranium. I would encourage members to have a look at that website and to review the information.

Okay, Mr. O'Reilly, you were kind enough to move a motion to adjourn.

Mr. John O'Reilly: I was.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you.