;

NDVA Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

1535

The Clerk of the Committee

The Clerk

The Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.))

1540

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC)

1545

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP)

1550

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

The Chair

Hon. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

1555

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Hon. David Price

The Chair

1600

Hon. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien

The Chair

1605

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

The Clerk

Mr. William Farrell (Committee Clerk)

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC)

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Hon. David Price

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Hon. David Price

The Chair

Hon. David Price

1610

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mr. Janko Peric

Mr. Bill Blaikie

Mr. Janko Peric

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

1615

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Hon. David Price

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

The Clerk

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

1620

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

1625

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

Hon. David Price

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Hon. David Price

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

1630

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

The Clerk

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Clerk

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Bob Wood

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Hon. David Price

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

NUMBER 001

3rd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Members, we have a quorum.

I'll receive nominations for the chair of the committee.

An hon. member: I move that Pat O'Brien be nominated for chair.

The Clerk: Are there any other nominations?

The motion before the committee is that Mr. Pat O'Brien be elected chair of the committee.

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: I can't accept any questions. I can only accept nominations for the positions of chair and vice-chair.

An hon. member: What if we have a point of order?

The Clerk: Sorry, I can't take any points of order either. Can you reserve your point of order until the chair takes the meeting? I can't accept any other motions or points of order.

Is it the will of the committee to elect the vice-chairs at this time?

An hon. member: It is.

The Clerk: Okay. I'll take nominations for the position of the opposition vice-chair to begin with.

An hon. member: I nominate Jay Hill.

The Clerk: Okay. Are there any other nominations? The nominations are closed.

So the motion is that Mr. Jay Hill be elected vice-chair of the committee.

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: Now I'll take motions for the election of the vice-chair for the government.

An hon. member: I nominate Janco Peric.

The Clerk: Okay. Are there any other nominations? The nominations are closed.

The motion is that Mr. Peric be elected vice-chair from the government for the committee.

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: Mr. O'Brien, would you like to take the chair?

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)): Order, please.

Colleagues, it's nice to return to the defence committee. I did have the honour of chairing it in 1999 and 2000. I will just say that at that time I found it to be a committee that kept the obvious and normal partisanship that this place is all about, to some extent, to a sensible minimum. We actually did some very good work. Many of you were on that committee at that time. We passed the quality of life report, and with the help of the Price amendment we will revisit certain things.

Let me congratulate you, David, on your appointment to Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade.

I would like to congratulate, in absentia, my vice-chair at that time, who now has moved on to be the Minister of National Defence. We would like to congratulate Minister Pratt on his appointment. Frankly, I don't think too many backbenchers have come any more qualified to that particular job than Mr. Pratt.

So it's great to be back on the defence committee. I appreciate your confidence in me, in electing me chair. I will do my utmost to run a very fair committee in the best spirit of non-partisanship so that we can actually bite into the issues and get some important work done. We all know how valuable the Canadian Forces are to this country.

With that there a number of procedural motions we need to go through, if we can just walk through those.

I need a motion establishing a subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

It is moved by Mr. O'Reilly and seconded by Mr. Peric.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

¹ (1540)

The Chair: I need a motion that we retain the services of one or more analysts from the Library of Parliament. You can read it for yourself.

It is moved by Mr. Peric and seconded by Mr. Calder.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We need a motion to receive and publish evidence in the absence of a quorum.

It is moved by Mr. Wood and seconded by Mr. Price.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We need a motion on time limits for witness statements and questioning. I've been away from this committee for two and a half years and some of you are new to it. Maybe we should just revisit some of this. If I'm going too fast, just indicate and we'll slow it down.

I think it's the normal ten minutes for opening statements. For questioning of witnesses.... You can see the way it's detailed there.

Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My predecessor at that time, the Canadian Alliance defence critic, had a real problem with the way this is structured. It is patently unfair to the official opposition, because it treats virtually all the parties as equal regardless of members. I substituted on the health committee yesterday when it went through exactly the same process, and it didn't come to a resolution on that committee for the same reason: that there was a disparity of opinion.

Even more than on this, there was a difference of opinion about whether there should be a different rotation of questioning and times when a minister appears as distinct from when general witnesses appear. The health committee had a discussion about that as well.

To make a long story short, in the end staff was directed to go away and come back with three or four options for the committee to consider at the following meeting. I don't know how that is going to turn out.

The point I made at the health committee yesterday, and I stand by it, is I've always believed that if a committee is going to truly function in a non-partisan way, or at least in as non-partisan a manner as possible, the operations of the committee should reflect the equality of the members.

I've often felt, in the 10 years I have been here, that the government members are shortchanged in the questioning time. You just have to look here today to see—I notice Murray is here; he was there for the discussion yesterday as well—that there are as many government members as there are members of the entire opposition.

I feel that this type of arrangement, while it's fair to the government members in this particular case because it goes back and forth, is obviously not fair to the official opposition. Now, with the merger of the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance into one party, we will have four members sitting on the committee; the NDP will only have one; the Bloc will have two. Likewise, it's not fair to the Bloc, if it has two members present, that it only have one time slot. The NDP member, with all due respect, gets an equal amount of time with four members for the official opposition and the two for the Bloc Québécois. I don't feel that is a fair division of the time.

I don't have a precise alternate motion to put forward today, but I certainly could draft one for the next meeting. My suggestion might be to do something similar to what the health committee did. There could even be some discussion between clerks of the different committees. There is no point in reinventing the wheel here. There will be similar issues raised at all of the various committees.

In fact, I find it a bit time-consuming that.... I recognize that committees are a power unto themselves, but you would think there would be a standard. If there is some reason why a specific committee wants to deviate from the norm, there could be a discussion to decide that; you would think there would be some normal process. But in my 10 years here, it seems every committee gets into this every time the committees are formed. It takes a lot of time to go through it.

¹ (1545)

The Chair: Before I recognize Mr. Bachand, I might suggest, if there's consent, we refer this to staff to come back with two or three scenarios. It could go to a steering committee; it could come back to the full committee. You have picked the right time to raise this, as we're constituting ourselves at the first meeting. Let's just hold that thought in abeyance for a second, but we could refer it to staff to come back with two or three options.

First to Monsieur Bachand, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind everyone of the history behind the proposal which is before us. In fact, I see that the Conservatives have changed their tune, because at the time, this was their idea and we were not very happy with it. Indeed, as a member of the opposition, I think that a committee should allow the opposition more time to speak.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot advocate a straight-down-the-middle, fifty-fifty approach whereby the party with 170 members gets half the questions and the opposition parties get the other half. You cannot support that approach if you believe that the opposition should have a little more time for questions.

It is understandable that at the time, the members of the Bloc Québécois were not in favour of dividing the time equally between the government and the opposition. However, the Canadian Alliance and the Liberals voted in favour of that idea. Back then, I could not understand why the Canadian Alliance, which has now become the new Conservative Party, told the government that it should have as much time as the opposition. They are the ones who proposed the motion. But I do not agree with it.

Committees do not all have the same rules of procedure. Generally speaking, more time is given to the opposition. Some committees have decided that all opposition members should first be given the floor, for a first round of seven-minute questions, before alternating. In fact, when that idea was proposed, some members of the Liberal Party felt that the Liberal Party should not have as much time as the opposition, but the official opposition insisted, which I am at a loss to explain.

I understand that they have changed their mind today, but I personally would prefer going back to the way we operated previously. Back then, the opposition got the first round of seven-minute questions, followed by five minutes for the Liberal Party. After that, the questions alternated. That is how a lot of committees work.

However, this system does not work to the advantage of the opposition, if the point is to give the opposition more time for questions on committee. This is a non-partisan forum, as was just said. I do not think that the party with 170 seats should be awarded so many questions, that the party with 70 seats should have proportionately less, and that our party, which has 35 seats, should accordingly have that many.

Can I make a suggestion? I would really like to go back to the old way of doing things. I hope that my colleagues would agree that the opposition should get a first round of seven-minute questions, followed by seven minutes for the Liberal Party, and then that we should alternate. I think that we should begin alternating after the first round. Therefore, I suggest that we go back to the way we did things in the past.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

I think we can entertain anything we want here today. We've got something in front of us, so we'll use that as a basis for discussion.

I have Mr. Blaikie and then Mrs. Gallant.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): I've always thought that the arrangement here, with respect to those who may have been responsible for designing it, was very odd, given my own considerable experience in committees. I've never seen an arrangement like this.

When I came in here about a year ago this was the given. Then there was a big fight about it. I went back and read the transcripts of the committee meeting in which this was set up. It seemed to me that somehow--I say this with affection--Mr. Benoit managed to talk himself into a horrible situation.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

¹ (1550)

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It was a horrible situation for his party.

Certainly the tradition, as I understand it, and the practice in many places is for there to be a first round in which the opposition parties get.... Sometimes the official opposition is first, which is what you have here, then all the opposition parties are next, and then the government. Or you can have the official opposition, then the government, and then all the rest of the opposition parties, before you go back to the government.

What I find objectionable about this is that you have a seven-minute round for the Liberals, and then another seven-minute round for the Liberals before you get to the NDP. So it's not just a question of how much time is given to the respective parties; it's also a question of the order.

A good suggestion is for the staff to come up with some options, and maybe at the steering committee or the subcommittee on agenda we can sit down and try to hammer this out in this context. But at the moment, it's quite out of the ordinary to have what's in here now. I certainly couldn't vote for it. I accepted it because it was there. We now have an opportunity to correct it, and I think we should correct it.

Once you go to a second round, you can do that on the basis of attendance. I don't think the government or anyone else is entitled to a whole bunch more time. If you only have one government member here, the entitlement is different than if you have six government members here who want to ask questions. If they're here and they want to monopolize the time, so be it. They're members like everyone else.

So I think we can work something out here.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs. Gallant, and Mr. Price.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): With all due respect to the previous committee report--and congratulations, Mr. Chairman--what Mr. Benoit articulated wasn't what transpired afterwards. He wanted seven minutes for the Liberals and then seven minutes all the way around, so there would be more of an opportunity for every member at the table to speak. I would have to agree with my colleagues here that in starting to zigzag during the introductory time, on many occasions there were several members who did not have a chance to speak at all. So if we could go the one round for the seven minutes without zigzagging, and then continue, I think we'd have a much more harmonious and less partisan working committee.

The Chair: Thank you for that.

Mr. Price.

Hon. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Mr. Chair, of course we were all quite thrilled to see what Leon had proposed. Naturally we voted for it. But in actual fact, we were very surprised too.

What has changed, though, is that having one less party is going to make it a little more interesting, I think, for everybody concerned, no matter which way we do it. I think the old way, which, when you were last there, Mr. Chair, was the same...we went down the opposition side and then started and went back and forth, as Mr. Bachand is proposing. We never had any problem with that, and I think it's a pretty solid way of doing it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Peric.

Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I would propose that we reduce the time from seven to five minutes. It would go much faster and it would give more opportunity to more members to speak. If we have 10 minutes, we would go on and on for 10 minutes just because we had 10 minutes. But if we reduced the time to five minutes, I think the questions would be more direct, more constructive, instead of dragging on.

That's my proposal.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Do you want to go again, Jay? Then I want to comment at the end.

Mr. Jay Hill: I have just a quick response.

It seems to me where this is going is the equality of the parties, and I have a bit of a problem with that. What I was talking about was the equality of members.

I respect what Bill was saying in the sense that when we get into the second round of questioning, perhaps there should be more flexibility given to the chairman, based upon attendance. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

In that light, it would be the same for us. There won't always be four Conservatives sitting at the table, or two Bloc members. Sometimes there'll just be one Bloc and maybe only two of us. So on the subsequent round, certainly I think it's fair to suggest we give the chairman more flexibility to use his own judgment to some extent, based upon who actually shows up for the meeting.

But on the opening round, I have great difficulty with the idea that the official opposition, if they do have four members present, get only one slot. That's not the way it is in the House of Commons.

If that's the question, then why in question period is it roughly based upon members? It would be the same thing as saying the Liberals, the government side, get only one slot. Well, you don't. It goes back and forth. And rightly so, so that people over there actually get a chance to ask a witness a question.

I just want to make that very clear, that if we go down this road where it's the equality of parties versus the equality of committee members, I'm going to have a problem with it.

¹ (1555)

The Chair: Fair enough.

Monsieur Bachand, and then Mr. Price.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: I just want to say that committees operate differently from the House of Commons. The point is that committees should be non-partisan. Mr. Hill is proposing a system of semi-fairness. But if you want to be fair, the government should have as much time as the opposition, since they have more seats in the House . He says that does not make sense, but then goes on to say that the time given to an opposition party should be directly related to the number of seats it has. This is a dangerous argument, because the government party may jump on it and defend it, saying it is based on fairness and on the number of seats each party has.

What we are saying is that the opposition should be given more time. I am not only talking about the official opposition, but of all opposition parties. That is why I come back to my original point, which is that the previous way of operating was much fairer and advantageous to the opposition.

I would just like to repeat that at the time this proposal was made, even the Liberals were saying that it did not make any sense, but they decided to take advantage of the situation, as David said. However, I now have the feeling that they are in a more cooperative mood. But I would not want us to take into account the number of opposition members for each party, nor would I want us to invoke the argument of non-partisanship to defend the argument that since the Conservative Party has 70 members, it should get the two first questions, that the Bloc Québécois should only get one, and that Bill would skip his turn because his party only has 12 members and that he will get his turn later on. I do not agree with that approach.

I think that we should proceed as we did previously, which is that the opposition members should be allowed to speak during the first round, and that we should alternate afterwards.

[English]

The Chair: Merci.

Mr. Price.

Hon. David Price: Two things, Mr. Chair. First of all, one of the problems we saw, Jay, is people popping in to fit into their question slot and then popping back out. I agree with you. If four people are sitting there for the whole meeting, we should find a way for all of them to have a chance to speak.

The other thing, Mr. Chair, is we talked to the minister and he is quite open to getting more from the opposition. We could maybe look at increasing the up-front time for the opposition to do questions when either of the ministers are here. I'm sure he would consider it.

The Chair: Right. That's a good observation.

As I recall, when I chaired this committee--when I was a member of it three or four years ago and it seemed to work well--I thought we went opposition, Bloc, then Liberals, to give the government side one shot, then we finished the opposition, and then I thought we alternated.

The point is it was agreed to with a consensus. It wasn't very hard to get that agreement. Art Hanger was then the official critic. René Laurin was the Bloc critic. And everybody liked it. It was the time of the Kosovo hearings and we had a number of joint hearings with the foreign affairs committee. They had a totally different system that we thought was wacky--remember, Art? Our people loved our system and they were coming around....

I don't care, frankly, as chair and as a member, what system we come up with as long as we have a consensus.

Why don't I ask for a motion now that we ask staff to prepare three or four options for the consideration of the steering committee? Once we strike it, I'm prepared to meet tomorrow on this. The staff can put together three or four options, we could come back with a recommendation to the committee at the next full meeting, and we'll have a vote on it.

I guess my philosophy is, first and foremost, the committee--and it should be the same in the House--because we're in a democracy, the opposition has to have a chance to have a crack at--

º (1600)

Hon. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): To oppose.

The Chair: Exactly, to oppose, as Jane says.

So I agree with some of the observations that have been made here. I also agree with Bill that there's a little difference between the House and the committee. We're individual members here--yes, we're with a party, but we're individual members. We all want to have a crack at it.

I can tell you right now, I'm going to try to be as fair and impartial a chair as I can be, but I want to know what the rules are. I don't want the flexibility. I want to know what rules we're going to operate with. I don't want somebody saying, “You're favouring the Liberals”. I don't intend to favour anybody; I intend to enforce the rules of the committee.

Can I ask for a motion that we develop three or four...? Jay.

Mr. Jay Hill: Just before we move, one final point--and I guess I'm stating the obvious. David said earlier that the situation has changed, with all due respect. The fact is we used to have another party and that party used to have a time slot. Now that individual has been added to our delegation, for lack of a better term, our group of committee members.

So if we're going to say, “Okay, well, let's just revert to the way it was before,” I'll be willing to look at that, but I would want that time slot, so at least we get the two time slots we would have had with the Conservatives.

And it's interesting to note in defence of that position that when the merger happened prior to the House resuming two weeks ago, the House leaders sat down and renegotiated how the rotation in question period would work, based upon that, and to ensure that the official opposition didn't lose any time available during question period because of the merger. And eventually they agreed to that.

The Chair: The other observation I would make is when ministers were here in any committee I've served on--we've all served on many. I think it's just a given that you have to give the heavier shot of the questioning to the opposition even more than you normally do. But I'd like to see it in the rules.

So unless there's an objection, I'm going to ask for a motion to the staff to develop three or four scenarios and refer that to the first meeting of the steering committee.

Do you want to move that, Mr. Hill?

Mr. Jay Hill: I so move.

The Chair: Seconded by Mr. O'Reilly.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Thanks for the very good discussion on that important issue.

Now we have a motion to pay witnesses' travel and living expenses.

Do I have a mover?

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): I so move.

The Chair: Seconded by Mr. Price.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: I have a motion to distribute only documents that have been translated and that are available in both official languages.

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): I so move.

The Chair: Seconded by Mr. Calder. Opposed?

Sorry, Mrs. Gallant.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: On several occasions information was provided to the committee, to the clerk, and it was only in English. Now, those of us in the opposition did not realize that the papers even existed because they weren't distributed; however, in many situations the Bloc knew the document existed and had a chance to read it in advance because it was only in English, while the rest of us on this committee didn't even know the document was there. They had the heads up because they were advised that it was in English only--and we weren't told that the document even existed.

I would like to make sure that regardless of whether or not a document comes in only one language, everyone on the committee knows it has been submitted to the clerk so we can get it on our own.

The Chair: I absolutely agree with that. Whatever information you obtain on your own, from other sources, is up to you or me, but if any member of the committee is informed by the chairman or the staff, then all the members of the committee are going to be informed at the same time.

At any rate, let's have a motion. Nothing's distributed unless it's distributed in both official languages? Do we have a motion to that effect?

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: The point is that it's not necessarily the case. In some cases you'll get witnesses coming in with English only, and I think what Cheryl is saying is that instead of just the Bloc having the opportunity, everybody should have that opportunity.

An hon. member: Or no one.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Or no one--one or the other.

The Chair: No, I understand that, Lawrence.

I want to be clear here, because I've been in this position before.

If they show up with something in either official language, it doesn't matter which, it's not distributed until it's available in both official languages. They can reference it as notes, but they can't distribute it. It's not distributed through the clerk. If somebody wants to go and give out information on their own, there's nothing any of us can do about that, but it cannot be officially distributed through the clerk unless it's available in both official languages. That's what the motion means.

So do we have a motion to that effect?

º (1605)

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): I so move.

The Chair: Seconded by Mr. Bachand.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Next is working meals, where necessary.

Mr. Bob Wood: So moved.

The Chair: Seconded by Mr. Peric.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Next on the list is order in council appointments. You can read the motion to that effect.

Mr. John O'Reilly: I so move.

The Chair: Seconded by Mr. Peric.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: The next motion deals with video recording, with the 48 hours' notice.

Is that understood?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: What does it mean?

The Chair: Perhaps I can ask the clerk to explain this a little further.

The Clerk: Actually, the situation has changed. The procedure and House affairs committee has tabled their report, so they don't need 48 hours' notice.

Right?

Mr. William Farrell (Committee Clerk): It's never existed, 48 hours' notice. Reasonable notice can be two hours ahead of time if they want to notify the clerk that they want to come in and televise or record a committee meeting.

The Chair: Okay.

Let's withdraw this and ask the clerk to bring it back to the next meeting.

Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Jay.

Mr. Jay Hill: I just don't understand what the issue would be. I mean, if we're not in camera--we're all politicians here, and we're used to having our mugs on television--what difference does it make if somebody comes and records the committee meeting?

An hon. member: We don't all look as good as you do, Jay.

An hon. member: We can't afford those suits.

Mr. Jay Hill: And you're not as cute, I know that.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: So we'll withdraw it for now and ask the clerk to clean it up a little and bring it back.

The next motion deals with the subcommittee on veterans affairs. We'd better read this one out, I think, or at least in part, that:

...a Sub-Committee on Veterans Affairs be established to inquire into matters relating to Veterans Affairs; that the Sub-Committee be composed of nine (9) members or associate members of which five (5) shall be government and four (4) shall be opposition members with all parties represented; and that the Sub-Committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records....

It's because of the workload of the committee and the special needs required of veterans affairs.

By the way, I was remiss in not also congratulating Mr. O'Reilly, who is special assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

Congratulations. We look for good work from you.

Do we have a mover for the motion?

Mr. Jay Hill: I so move.

The Chair: Seconded by Mr. Wood.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: The next motion, dealing with in camera meeting transcripts, is pretty straightforward.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC): I so move.

The Chair: And it's seconded by Mr. Blaikie.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: The next motion deals with staff attending in camera meetings:

That, unless otherwise ordered, each Committee member be allowed to have one staff person present at in camera meetings.

Discussion? Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: As Murray knows, this came up and we had a pretty good discussion, kicking it around at the health committee yesterday. I just don't see--and I agreed with the statements made yesterday at health committee--the need to have staff present if the MP is present at an in camera meeting.

They came up with a kind of compromise yesterday at the health committee and reworded this to say that if the member of Parliament was going to be absent from the in camera meeting for--I forget what term they used--a bona fide reason like other committee travel--the NDP often sit on two or three different committees--they might have a real reason to not be at that particular meeting and want to know what's going on there.

If we adapt it, similar to what we did at the health committee, it would make a little more sense, rather than just have it that anybody can decide to not show up and send their staff instead. I don't think that's right.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Price.

Hon. David Price: I don't know. I've always thought that there shouldn't be any staff at those meetings, period, so we can have free and open discussions. It's just the way I feel about it.

Mr. Jay Hill: The rationale that emerged yesterday was that there are very real reasons why an MP sometimes can't come. Especially in cases where NDP members are carrying several jobs at once, it is helpful for them to have their staff attend meetings so they're kept in the loop about what's going on.

The Chair: I don't want to get into a big.... I have some other speakers.

Hon. David Price: I wasn't quite finished.

The Chair: Sorry. I thought you were done, David. Go ahead.

Hon. David Price: I understand what Jay is saying. What I'm getting at is staff members don't have any right to speak at those meetings anyway; they're only there to listen. A member can get information on what went on at the meeting from the clerk after, just verbally.

Staff members can't sit at the table and actually get into the discussion. That's why I don't see the need to have the staff there. The clerk can pass the information on to the member after.

º (1610)

The Chair: As the clerk has noted, the minutes are available through the clerk's office.

Next are Monsieur Bachand and Mr. Blaikie.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Chairman, I have been sitting on this committee for a while now, and I think I will take advantage of my experience to impart some of my wisdom. I just want to point out that the motion before us is not the same one which was before the committee the last time. Back then, the party in power said that we were not allowed to have staff with us. In fact, the official opposition, the NDP, the Progressive Conservative Party and myself all wanted to allow someone from our staff to be present.

Unless I am mistaken, the official opposition has changed its tune once again. I do not see why we cannot have members of our staff at committee meetings. If I want someone from my staff to be with me at an in camera meeting, what is wrong with that? We are all very busy and some of us may have other commitments. For instance, I may propose something to the committee and leave immediately afterwards to give a speech, prepare questions or prepare a speech, and I may forget what I said. But my assistant will have taken it down and will remind me that I made a commitment. Therefore, I see no reason why we should not be accompanied by a member of our staff if we so wish.

I personally do not think there is a problem with that. If assistants to members of the Liberal Party want to be here and take notes for their boss, I do not have an issue with that. They are also subject to in camera confidentiality. Of course, if the assistant leaves the room to speak with reporters about what has just been said, that is another matter, but it has never happened before.

Back then, we fought for the wording which we now have before us. I do not see why that should change again. I personally would not object to having a member of my staff or a member of someone else's staff present at an in camera meeting.

[English]

The Chair: Merci.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I don't have any problem with this motion. If I wasn't going to be at an in camera meeting, I wouldn't send a staff person anyway. I don't think I ever have. I would try to arrange for some other New Democratic member of Parliament to be there if I could; otherwise, I would just rely on what I could glean afterwards from members of other parties even, or from the clerk.

If I were at an in camera meeting and we were trying to draft a report or do something, it would be useful to have somebody there. I don't see any problem with that. So I don't see any problem with the motion as it stands.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Peric.

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

I don't think we have so many in camera meetings. I personally believe that when we have an in camera meeting, it is confidential, for members only.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: We could have that kind of meeting too. We could have two different kinds of in camera meetings.

Mr. Janko Peric: When we have an in camera meeting, if you can't be present you can always obtain information from the clerk. There's nothing wrong with that.

There is a reason why we've had in camera meetings. But otherwise, at any other meeting, I don't have any problems if you want to bring two or three staffers.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Well, at some of those meetings anybody can be here anyway.

The Chair: Yes. I would just point out to you that as it's worded the committee could ask that all staff now leave. You still have that option.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes. This doesn't preclude that.

The Chair: So it's not automatic.

Anyway, I hear different points of view. Do we want to deal with it by just calling a vote on it, or do you want to refer it to staff? I don't know what there is to refer, really.

It is moved by Mr. O'Brien and seconded by Mr. Blaikie that unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to have one staff person present at in camera meetings.

I just want to ask a question myself before we go to the vote. I don't know all your staff; you don't know mine; the clerk doesn't know everybody's staff. How does that person identify himself or herself as a staff member? To whom do they identify themselves?

An hon. member: You need one of those biometric things.

The Chair: Yes, that's right. I want to make sure it's not the Ottawa Sun in here or something.

It's a serious question, though—

An hon. member: A sworn affidavit should do it.

The Chair: Yes, there you go. They would tell the clerk that they're the staff, then....

All those opposed to the motion, please signify.

I see three opposed, so it's carried.

(Motion agreed to)

º (1615)

The Chair: Are you okay with that?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I wasn't opposed; I moved it.

The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry. Why did you put your hand up?

We've all been in dozens of committees. I've been in an awful lot in 23 years. Instead of calling those in favour and those opposed—I'll call it that way if you want—I always found it saved time to just call the opposed, or usually. But I'll call it the other way, if you prefer.

What do you want, Jay?

Mr. Jay Hill: Well, I would appreciate it if you call—either opposed or in favour—the vote both ways, because there will be times when people want to abstain; they don't want to vote either way. It will happen occasionally, and I don't think this would be fair to the rest of the members.

The Chair: Fair enough. It was just a matter of expediting things. But if it works the other way better....

All right, let me call it again. All in favour of having staff members allowed in, please signify. Opposed?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Now, the last routine motion calls for 24-hour notice—I'm assuming it means written notice—to the committee for any motion.

Maybe I'd better read this right out for you, although you can read it:

That, unless otherwise ordered by the committee

—because we'll all remember, when this is relevant—

when witnesses appear before the committee, substantive motions, for which a 24-hours' notice has to be given to the members of the committee, be considered at the end of the meeting and that, if a vote is called, it be deferred to the beginning of the next committee meeting.

We all recall.... If you don't mind an editorial comment, I've seen some pretty crazy abuses here, where we've had a member lurking around a committee trying to negotiate with a chairman about when his or her motion is going to be heard, in the middle of a whole lot of other things that are going on. I won't make any more editorial comment, but I'm not surprised to see this here; let me put it that way.

Is there any discussion on this motion?

Mr. Price.

Hon. David Price: I think, Mr. Chair, we should have it open: that it be either at the beginning or the end of the meeting. We've run into problems before of having enough people around here.

The Chair: Okay. There's a friendly amendment suggested that it be either at the very start of the meeting, before witnesses, or at the end of the meeting, after witnesses.

Is the friendly amendment accepted?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: On the motion, are there speakers? Those in favour of the amended motion of Mr. Price, please signify.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Is that everything, Madam Clerk?

An hon. member: There's one opposed.

The Chair: Mrs. Gallant.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: I'm not opposed. I don't think we really got to the heart of the issue on the submissions from witnesses.

The Chair: Okay. Go ahead, please.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: The practice is that if the document is available in only one language—I've only known of it being available in English only—and somehow the Bloc finds out that it's available in English only, the clerk does not distribute it to everyone. The practice is that it sits on the desk and we are able to pick it up, so that technically the clerk is not distributing it.

But the rest of us don't even know the document exists; only the Bloc is told that it exists, because it does not exist in their language. What I want is for everybody in the committee to be told that a document exists.

The Chair: I fully agree with that. There's no way we're going to have it any other way if I'm chairing the committee.

I understand your concern, but I want to have the clerk speak to it. I want to give others an opportunity.

Madam Clerk.

The Clerk: My practice, and I will only speak to that, is that when I receive a document that is in only one language, it's sent to translation. As soon as I have the document available in both languages, I distribute it to the members of the committee.

I think it happened once last session that we received a document less than 24 hours before, or on the very day of a meeting, and I didn't distribute the document. I do not have a practice of letting any members know about existing documents if I'm not distributing them. That's the way I will certainly continue to function.

If the translation isn't available at the time of the meeting, I certainly will undertake to make sure the document is distributed as soon as it's been translated.

The practice is that witnesses who bring documents with them.... We don't have any control over them in that sense. We do tell them that they shouldn't distribute them if they're not available in both languages.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: It's ridiculous to have it only available in English, and the person who most opposes the fact that it's not in both languages receives the document where the rest of us don't.

º (1620)

The Chair: I think your point is made. I can assure you, because I've seen this cause some problems in committees—we all have—that I will be absolutely rigid in enforcing that nothing is going to be distributed to this committee in either official language until it's distributed in both official languages to everybody: not in any way, shape, or form.

We can't stop a witness from bringing what was going to have been distributed and then using those things as notes. They have a right to do that.

I can give you my assurance, and the clerk has just given her assurance, that we'll be very vigilant about that, because that's the spirit of the rules.

Is there anything else now?

Mr. Blaikie. Then we'll hear Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Hill.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Chairman, I have a motion I'd like the committee to entertain. I say this with great respect and affection for the parliamentary secretary—not the assistant to the minister, or whatever. I have respect for him too, but the motion isn't directed at him.

You'll know that the presence on the committees of parliamentary secretaries is controversial. I believe it's become more controversial with the swearing-in of the parliamentary secretaries. Contrary to the claim that this is a part of democratic reform, I think having people on the committee who are actually more tied to the government than they were before is going in the opposite direction, certainly, of what was recommended by the McGrath committee and by other committees over the years.

I understand that the committee on agriculture yesterday actually passed a motion excluding the parliamentary secretary from their committee. I think this is an opportunity for committees to demonstrate that they don't, as I say with respect, want to be coached and that they want to have some independence.

I would therefore move, seconded by someone, I hope—

The Chair: Mr. O'Reilly.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Bill Blaikie: —that the government whip be asked to remove the parliamentary secretary from this committee.

The Chair: All right. It is moved by Mr. Blaikie, seconded by Mr. O'Reilly—were you serious? Okay.

For discussion now on this motion, I have Mr. O'Reilly. Is it on this motion, Mr. O'Reilly?

Mr. John O'Reilly: Yes.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Well, I hate to agree with the opposition, and I'm not a parliamentary secretary, but I was, and from that experience I think I added something of value to the committee. But now that the parliamentary secretary has been sworn to the Privy Council, I don't think he should be on the committee. I didn't think at the time I was one that I should have been on it, but the ministers want you there to correct information that may be false and that type of thing.

I'm speaking very seriously here. I've always said parliamentary secretaries shouldn't be on committees. That's part of what I feel in going to committees and experiencing them. So I agree with Mr. Blaikie one hundred per cent on this.

Now, in our own caucus, our whip is now a member of the Privy Council. If you take the oath of cabinet solidarity, who do you represent when you're the whip of the party? You can't have both. You can't be true to the members and true to the cabinet. You cannot break your cabinet solidarity.

I love David; he's a nice guy...I don't love him that much. But the fact is he is now a privy councillor and privy to the various things that are available to him. So I agree one hundred per cent. I don't think parliamentary secretaries should be on committees.

The Chair: Thank you.

I have several speakers: Monsieur Bachand, Mr. Hill, and Mrs. Gallant.

Monsieur Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Bill had mentioned his motion to me. I think that the Speaker of the House ruled on the issue this week, but I am not sure. I was told that the Speaker ruled that the parliamentary secretary could be a member of the committee. So before passing the motion and then realizing that the Speaker of the House had already ruled on the matter, perhaps we should find out what is what first.

[English]

The Chair: I wasn't proposing to call a motion. I took a verbal notice of motion from Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: No, I moved it, Mr. Chair.

But if I might, I'll just speak to the point of order.

º (1625)

The Chair: Okay, sure.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: The reason I worded it the way I did was because the parliamentary secretary is here on the authority of the government whip, who appoints members to the committee. Now, I didn't move a motion booting the parliamentary secretary off the committee. I don't think the committee has the power to do that. I moved the motion that this committee ask the government whip to remove the parliamentary secretary, and that's perfectly within the procedural capacity of this committee. If the government whip doesn't respect that, then that's another matter.

So I don't think there's a procedural point that requires any delay here. I think the motion is pretty plain.

The Chair: I appreciate the clarification.

Mr. Hill and Mrs. Gallant, and then we'll see how we want to proceed.

Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Well, John, with all due respect, made the points I was going to make.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mrs. Gallant.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Recognizing the continuity that Mr. Price brings to this committee, his having been on it for such a long time, and the institutional memory, I would like to ask David, from his perspective.... And we know how important it is to have the Arctic protected with the upcoming opening of the Northwest Passage. He's been very passionate about this. We would promise to keep that concern at the forefront. But how do you, Mr. Price, feel about being a member of Privy Council, the parliamentary secretary...?

The Chair: Mr. Price, would you like to hold forth and share your wisdom with us?

Hon. David Price: I want to say first off that my full intention in coming here--and I felt uncomfortable right off the bat, I have to admit that--was that first of all, I would not sit there any longer; I would sit there, and I would not ask any questions. That was my intention. But I would be available if anybody needed information on things, clarification, as John said--difficult as it would be for me not to ask any questions. But that's the role I felt I would be playing.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Are you done, Cheryl?

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: The only question I would have is whether or not you would want to sit in on these meetings but voluntarily remove yourself as an official member of the committee?

Hon. David Price: I can't do that.

The Chair: Procedurally, if I might, we just a minute ago passed a motion requiring 24 hours' notice.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: That was on substantive motions; this is a procedural one.

The Chair: A procedural motion, yes, that's fair enough. We can deal with Mr. Blaikie's motion...I don't care whether we deal with it now or later.

All right, if you want to deal with it now, we can deal with it now.

Does everybody understand the motion that the committee ask the government whip to remove the parliamentary secretary?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: We shall so ask.

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Perhaps a motion isn't in order here. Maybe we could talk about this at the subcommittee. If the situation doesn't improve, I would certainly be moving a motion at some point.

I'd really like somebody to have a rule about cellphones, or compulsory vibrators, or whatever. I just find at more and more committee meetings phones are ringing. I don't just mean members. We got along for what seemed like a couple of decades for me without any cellphones whatsoever. We had phones in the room. If there was an emergency, people could be contacted. It's distracting. It's disrespectful. We're here to work with each other, and nobody in this room is so important that they can't--unless there's been a crisis in the family or their staff has walked out on them or something, in which case there's nobody to call them anyway--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Bill Blaikie: --that we can't put down the cellphones for an hour and a half and pay attention to each other.

The Chair: Could I ask you to raise that at the steering committee and we could look at possibly bringing something forward. I don't want to get into a debate on that now, but I think it's a good point.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I put the committee on notice that if we don't deal with this--

The Chair: Fair enough. I think maybe we should refer it to the steering committee.

Now we have two other items that I want to work through and then I'll go to members, because some may want to absent themselves.

We have a notice of motion from Mr. Hill. That means in 24 hours we would deal with it.

Do you want to speak to it at all first, though, Jay?

Mr. Jay Hill: I think it's been distributed, so there's no point in me flapping my gums about it. I think it's self-explanatory, and all the committee members will have a chance to look at it before the next meeting. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

You should also all have a letter from Christine Fisher. I'll read it:

Mr. Dragoljub Micunovic, President of the Parliament of Serbia and Montenegro and his accompanying delegation, will be in Ottawa for an official visit....

They wish to meet with the committee. Do we wish to meet with them? So on February 24 we would meet with this delegation. We don't need a motion, do we? Is there anyone who would speak against it? No? Okay.

Are there other items from committee members? Mr. O'Reilly.

º (1630)

Mr. John O'Reilly: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, at what point you're going to elect a chair for the subcommittee on veterans affairs.

The Chair: The committee will decide at its first.... Let me ask the clerk to speak to that.

The Clerk: The whips will send me a list of members for the subcommittee, and as soon as I have all the members, then we can set a date for the first meeting and elect the chair.

The Chair: Much as we did here.

The Clerk: Exactly. So I have to wait until I get a membership list from the whips, and as soon as I have that....

Mr. John O'Reilly: Isn't it the same members we have here?

The Clerk: Associate members can be members of the subcommittee as well. It's the whips who decide the membership of the committee.

Mr. John O'Reilly: It was just a point of clarification.

The Chair: No, that's very good.

Before I go to Jay, and before we break up, are we going to have a steering committee meeting tomorrow?

The Clerk: We have this room booked for tomorrow at 3:30 p.m. if we want to have a meeting.

The Chair: Who's going to be on the steering committee? Jay Hill and Bill Blaikie for the NDP.

Claude?

Mr. Claude Bachand: Louis Plamondon.

The Chair: All right. Can the steering committee meet here at 3:30 p.m. tomorrow? We'll have a notice sent out. Thank you.

Now I'll go to Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: I just want to revisit this issue about the meeting with the President of Serbia and Montenegro. It isn't clear from this letter whether that would be a regular meeting of ours. I'm a little concerned about taking time just for this. To me, this type of diplomatic photo op is a pretty low priority. I have no problem with it, if it's sort of an extra, and those members who want to show up can show up. I am certainly opposed to having it take up any time of the committee when we have a lot of things that I'm sure all of us want to delve into.

Mr. Bob Wood: It doesn't say what kind of delegation. Do they have any defence people there?

Mr. Jay Hill: As long as it's an extra meeting over and above our regular committee meeting....

The Chair: Those are fair comments. Maybe the clerk can speak to that too.

The Clerk: We get requests like this from time to time from the exchange people. Frequently, we accommodate them because when we travel we're received by foreign committees and foreign governments.

They would be interested in meeting with the committee to discuss the power of parliamentary committees and maybe some defence issues. I'm not sure if any of the members who are travelling with the president are actually the minister of defence. I haven't received the list yet. We will be getting a briefing book that I will distribute to the committee members.

If you want, perhaps I can talk with them and arrange another time than the regular meeting.

The Chair: Well, I'm going to suggest that we refer this request and the issue of these types of requests to the steering committee for some discussion tomorrow. All right?

Mr. Price.

Hon. David Price: One of the reasons is they are lobbying to enter into NATO in the next phase. That's one of the big things they're doing. They are going to be friendly, very much so. We'll probably want to talk a little bit about that.

The Chair: Fair enough.

Is there anything else?

The meeting is now adjourned. Thank you.