NDVA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

¹

1530

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

¹

1535

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

¹

1540

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Hon. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP)

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

¹

1545

Hon. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

Hon. Bill Blaikie

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ)

¹

1550

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ)

¹

1555

The Chair

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

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

Hon. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

The Chair

Hon. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

The Chair

Hon. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

º

1600

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.)

The Chair

The Chair

The Chair

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

º

1605

Mr. Wolf Koerner (Committee Researcher)

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. Wolf Koerner

The Chair

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

The Chair

Hon. Bill Blaikie

º

1610

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Hon. Bill Blaikie

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Wolf Koerner

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Wolf Koerner

The Chair

Hon. David Price

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly

º

1615

The Chair

Hon. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

º

1620

Hon. Bill Blaikie

Mr. Jay Hill

Hon. Bill Blaikie

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Hon. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Hon. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

The Chair

Hon. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

º

1625

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.)

The Chair

Hon. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Hon. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

º

1630

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

Mr. Michel Rossignol (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

º

1635

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Wolf Koerner

The Chair

The Chair

Hon. David Price

The Chair

Hon. David Price

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.)

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

º

1640

Hon. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

Hon. David Price

The Chair

Hon. David Price

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

---

NUMBER 002

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1530)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)): I call to order the second meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

    I would like to take up the Blaikie motion that was fully endorsed by the committee, asking all persons in possession of a cellphone, whether they be members of Parliament or anyone else in the room, to turn them off right now, so that we're not interrupted during the meeting.

    I don't know how long we will be. We have a few routine motions and we have an overview of what the previous committee has done on the study of Canada-U.S. defence cooperation. Maybe I could take a moment and report on the steering committee work last week. We kicked around a number of items.

    The first one I'd refer to is the issue of the white paper on defence. The minister spoke to that this morning when he joined us for a while at the tour at DND. I put that question to him. I had already spoken to him about it and was pretty sure I knew what he'd say, but he confirmed again today that it will not be before fall. We could have an election this spring; we could have an election this fall. Who knows? It would be more likely in the fall. The parameters haven't been decided yet. His preference, as minister, is that SCONDVA would play an important role in that review. As to whether we would have a joint committee with SCFAIT, which has been the suggestion of some, including Bill Rompkey, who chaired the last review in 1994, the minister said there hadn't been a decision made. He saw pros and cons--it sounded like there were more cons. There are a lot of things about foreign affairs that wouldn't necessarily relate to defence and a lot of things about defence that the foreign affairs people might not be that interested in.

    That is the report on what he said. We kicked this around at the steering committee. I was to talk to the minister, and there is his answer. What it says is, we'll want to carve out some work in whatever period of time we have, whether it's a few meetings or a lot of meetings until summer. We won't be asked before fall, at the earliest, to be any part of a defence review. However, that commitment is firm, it's solid, it's going to happen, it's going to go forward. The Prime Minister wants it, the minister wants it. It's just that the final decisions haven't been made or the final timing set, but it will be more likely in the fall.

    On the other items we dealt with, the clerk is going to distribute the report of the subcommittee. By the way, all the parties are represented at the subcommittee. We don't vote there; it's kind of done by consensus. We don't make any binding decisions. Obviously, any matter has to come to the full committee, which then makes any final decision.

    We kicked around the question of how much time we would allot to the various parties and members for questioning. There are two options that we lay before you. I'll just give you a minute to have a look at those.

    The floor is open for motions.

    Mr. Hill.

¹  (1535)  

    Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Just as a way of explanation—in particular for Mr. Blaikie, who was unable to attend the subcommittee meeting and is probably wondering how these two options came about—as you say, Mr. Chairman, those of us who were in attendance had a pretty good discussion about the whole issue of both the rotation of questions and the amount of time allocated to each party and each committee member.

    My assertion, which resulted in option A, was that there should be some recognition, in fairness to members from both sides of the committee room—both the government and the opposition side—of how many members are present. To have virtually the same amount of time in the opening round based upon parties was an injustice to those parties—both the government side and in particular the official opposition—that had more members, who would be sitting here presumably wanting to participate and ask questions.

    First of all, what we ended up with was agreement on the rotation. You will notice, if you look at both option A and option B, it is virtually the same. The one difference, which is contained in both options, is that when a minister is present, all three opposition parties get to cross-examine the minister before the government does. There was general agreement from those of us present at the subcommittee as to that.

    The difference of opinion came in when option B, as you will notice, gives virtually the same amount of time to each party, going from the Conservatives to the Bloc, then to the government, and then to the New Democratic Party. Under the old way, apparently—I wasn't on the committee in the last Parliament, but the chairman was, and he said that was the way it was done then—the same time was allocated for each party; in other words, there was seven minutes for each party.

    If the opposition were allocated 21 minutes in total, my argument was that in the interest of fairness we should maybe give two minutes from the NDP to the official opposition, recognizing that we have more members present. If we have three or four members sitting here and the NDP only has one, effectively those members would be muted by a lack of opportunity to participate, whereas we could split the time if it were a nine-seven-ten-five rotation, the “ten” recognizing likewise that on the government side there is presumably more than one member who wants to participate in the questioning. Some recognition of this was granted with the amendment that there be ten minutes for the Liberals. That resulted in option A, which gives nine, seven, ten, and five minutes.

    We couldn't arrive at a decision, partly because Bill wasn't there, so the NDP wasn't present, and partly because, in his defence, Claude spoke up on behalf of the Bloc and said the question is obviously going to have to go back to the committee. In any event, as the chairman has already indicated, any decision or consensus reached at subcommittee has to come back to the full committee.

    I said I was comfortable with that. I felt that was fair, and I said I would make my arguments, as I am doing right now, to the entire committee, basically stating that on the basis of equality of membership of the committee, regardless of party affiliation, this is fairer than option B, which is based strictly on the equality of the parties and not of each individual committee member.

    That's the basis for my argument. I said I was willing to let Bill argue the opposite, as I suspect he will in a moment. We could then have a vote, either by a show of hands or, if the committee is more comfortable, perhaps with a secret ballot on this issue. Obviously, for whatever the duration of this Parliament is, we're going to be bound by the decision as far as cross-examining witnesses appearing before us is concerned.

    That is basically the thrust of my argument, based upon fairness and the equality of each individual committee member, regardless of partisanship.

¹  (1540)  

    The Chair: Do you want to make a motion?

    Mr. Jay Hill: Yes.

    I would move that the committee accept option A as the rotation and the time allocated, to be administered by the chairman, for cross-examining witnesses when they appear before our committee.

    The Chair: It is moved by Mr. Hill. Is there a seconder for that motion? Mr. Casson seconds it.

    Just before we speak to it, I think there is a typo, Jay. It says ten minutes to the Liberals. I think it should be nine minutes to the Liberals, shouldn't it, the same time as for the official opposition?

    Mr. Jay Hill: Well, I thought we said--

    The Chair: Or did we say 10?

    Mr. Jay Hill: I was certainly open to that. It came about at the end, as I recall--the clerk may be able to speak to this. I said if my argument is going to hold water that it should be roughly based on equity of the individual members, it should be 10 minutes.

    The Chair: Okay. I wasn't sure. I don't want to take any time away from anybody. I just want to be sure we're--

    Mr. Jay Hill: With that further friendly amendment to nine minutes, I don't care, as long as there's some recognition of the--

    The Chair: That's fine. We'll leave it there.

    We have a motion. Are there speakers to it?

    Mr. Blaikie.

    Hon. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): I'd like to speak against the motion, Mr. Chairman, for a number of reasons.

    First, I'm not completely happy with either option, but I'm certainly more unhappy with option A, and I would urge the committee to defeat the motion and allow a motion to come forward to adopt option B. This is a departure from any way of operating in committees I've been familiar with. The equality of the parties I don't think is a bad thing. It certainly has always been the case that the parties in the first round have had the same number of minutes for questioning, and this obtained no matter what the relative size of the parties was. When the Conservatives had way more members than they have now, they still had the same amount on the opening round as the other opposition party at that time. I see no reason for abandoning that principle. I would say to Jay that I know it's not identical, but it's not dissimilar to the argument your party sometimes makes about provinces having a certain kind of equality at the table, regardless of population. You like that argument there, but you don't seem to like it here.

    I would also say, at the same time as I urge the government members to take my view of the situation and go for option B, this is a very dangerous precedent for an opposition party to be bringing forward, that somehow it should be based on numbers. If that's the case, the next time we do this, if I were the government, I would say, well, that's cute, we'll pass it this time, and next time we have this kind of meeting I'm going to make the opposition eat their argument about how everything should be allocated on the basis of how many members you have on the committee.

    You have more members on the committee, and you will have more question time, even if we have an equal round of seven minutes at the beginning. If you have your members here and you go back and forth, the chairman will recognize your second member and your third member and your fourth member, presumably, before he even gets to the NDP again, so it's not as if you won't get your--

    Mr. Jay Hill: It's not true. I've never seen it work like that in committees.

    The Chair: If I could help out here, it's time slots. It's not really members; it's so much time. In other words, Bill, on a second round it would be the Conservative Party time slot for five minutes, then somebody from the Liberal slot, and so on down the table, by party, not by member.

¹  (1545)  

    Hon. Bill Blaikie: It is not clear what is supposed to happen in the motion here, but I think the equality in the first round is critical and would be a major departure from any way of operating I've been familiar with over the last 25 years.

    The Chair: Okay, fair enough.

    As a point of information for people, I obviously don't have a lot of stake in how we do this, as long as we can have everybody relatively satisfied, if not unanimous. We looked at a couple of other standing committees that have gone to the kind of proposal in option A in this Parliament, I think aboriginal affairs and agriculture. So if you wanted to go this way, you wouldn't be setting a brand-new precedent. But you're right, it hasn't been done as frequently as equal time.

    Let me go to other speakers. Mr. Hill.

    Mr. Jay Hill: I'll try not to take too much time, because I don't want to belabour this.

    The Chair: No, we are going to have to call the subcommittee—

    Mr. Jay Hill: I said at the subcommittee that I'm willing to have a vote on it and live with the results. As we all agree, it might not be very long anyway: we might not have a lot of meetings and a lot of witnesses before we're all thrown into an election campaign. Obviously the new committee, whoever its members are after the next election, is going to have the opportunity to revisit this. But I was trying to make some points on this, and I feel fairly strongly about it. That's why I put forward option A.

    Just as a way of rebuttal to what Bill has said—he spoke about the equality of parties—it's not the case in question period in the House of Commons, and quite frankly, I don't see why it should necessarily be different here.

    If the government side at committee were going to make the argument that this opens up that Pandora's box and that they'll be able to demand equal or more time in the future even for the opening round, then why can't they make that argument in the House of Commons for question period? Everybody recognizes that wouldn't hold water.

    As the chairman has already said, this isn't setting a precedent. It's happened a couple of times in the past. It happened two parliaments ago when I was involved in the natural resources committee, where there was some recognition of the number of parties.

    Hon. Bill Blaikie: It's a bad idea that follows you around, Jay.

    Mr. Jay Hill: It's not a bad idea from my window; it's a bad idea from your window.

    On the third issue, where Bill made a remark about our party being supportive of the equality of provinces, it's interesting to note that where we say we're supportive of that principle is in the Senate, not in the House of Commons. This is a House of Commons committee, I think. We're supportive of a true “triple-E” Senate, not the equality of everybody in the House of Commons, which of course is based upon population. So I would argue that point—although nice try, Bill.

    The last point is that there is equality of parties in the succeeding round. In the second round the parties are recognized, as the chairman has said. That's quite normal; it gives equal time to the government and opposition parties by party, not as Bill said. In any committee I've ever sat on, that second round was always based upon party. As long as Bill Blaikie was sitting down there and wanted to ask another question, he would get his chance before some other member who was sitting here would, after we had used our five-minute slot.

    So I still stand by my assertion that option A is the fairest, based upon the equality of each member who has taken the time to actually sit here and listen to the witnesses and wants to participate in their cross-examination.

    The Chair: Whichever option you go for, I think it's clear, and it's been my experience—we've all served on a lot of committees and chaired committees and meetings—in either round you don't recognize individual people; you recognize the party. They can carve up their minutes any way they want until they are all gone.

    I have two more speakers, and then maybe we should make a decision on this.

    Monsieur Bachand, and then Mr. O'Reilly.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): The last time, I thought we had to look at both options. I did not want to arrive at a recommendation by which some opposition parties would have more time than others. My position has not changed and I will tell you why.

    We were talking about question period. It is true that question period is probably divided, in terms of the opposition, so that the number of members can be taken into consideration. The number of questions is proportional to the number of members.

    I would just like to point out that parliamentary tradition regarding committees is that committees normally ought to be less partisan. Certainly, people will often complain that the government majority members vote as a block, but in any case, in all the documents about parliamentary theory, tradition has always been that committees are less partisan.

    I also want to mention to the committee that at the last meeting of the steering committee, we learned what the other committees have done. Most of the other committees held to the principle that the opposition parties should all have equal speaking time. Some did not agree; I am not sure but I think it may be the official languages committee that counted a certain number of minutes per opposition party. But most committees have said that the opposition should take precedence, as parliamentary procedure says and that precedence should be given on an equal basis.

    So, if the time is 7 minutes, each opposition party has 7 minutes. If it is 10 minutes, each opposition party has 10 minutes. The only exception, to my knowledge, is the one we were told about last week, which is the Committee on Official Languages. Personally, I prefer option B. That is why I shall vote against the motion before us.

¹  (1550)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    The last word goes to Mr. O'Reilly, and then I'm going to call the question.

    Mr. O'Reilly.

    Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): If in fact committees are an extension of the House of Commons, then what Mr. Hill talks about makes perfect sense. House of Commons work is supposed to be done in committees, and committees are an extension of the House of Commons.

    In the same way, I think, a quorum call in the House of Commons should take into account the people who are on committees. If this is an extension of the House of Commons, and we are doing House of Commons work in committees, then because we're not in the House, quorum calls shouldn't be called without....

    At any rate, if we are truly an extension of the House of Commons, then as long as the opposition is reasonably happy with the breakdown in time, I don't see anything wrong with it. But I also think you have to take account of...and not get into the “I have more members than you” type of thing.

    If we are an extension, I think it's only fair that it be recognized. I'm happy with either one, but the thing that bothers me is that probably three weeks from now it won't be relevant to any of us. So I'm not really interested in getting into a big argument about it. I mean, half of the members are at home trying to win nominations, fighting for their lives, and here we are arguing about seven minutes versus ten minutes.

    The Chair: I think all we're going to do today is discuss this.

    Mr. Plamondon, and then Ms. Gallant and Mr. Blaikie.

[Translation]

    Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Perhaps in a few weeks John will be right. because there will be fewer of them!

    In the House of Commons, where there are debates, there is usually no argument about the number of minutes allocated. There is a rotation among the parties and it is 20 minutes for everyone. Since there are fewer members in some parties, they have fewer 20-minute periods, but no one has ever told them that the first opposition party will speak for 20 minutes, the second for 15 minutes and the third for 5 minutes. We each have the same number of minutes except that in the rotation the parties that have more members in the House get to speak more often; they have more turns to speak.

    Here in committee, like all the other committees, tradition provides 7 minutes for each party in the first round, and after that there is a rotation. Since there are more Conservative Party members and more Liberal Party members present, these people will have more chances to speak than the New Democratic Party.

    In that sense, it seems to me that we should stay in line with tradition and with the other committees. And if there is something to reconsider about the legal status of the parties, we can do that after the election, depending on which party is in power. At that time we will be able to do that, in a committee where all parties are represented, during a debate through which it may be decided that each committee should be represented differently or have different speaking times.

    It seems to me that we should, at this time, act in accordance with the other committees, according to what has been established based on the principles and traditions of the British parliamentary system.

¹  (1555)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I guess the point is that when we talk about a steering committee, there are various things being done at the other committees.

    At any rate, let's go to Ms. Gallant and then Mr. Blaikie, and maybe then we can try to call the question.

    Ms. Gallant.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): I just wanted clarification as to the rotation. Is it exactly as written here? This is where we got into trouble the last time. So it would go to the Canadian Alliance...or to the Conservatives, pardon me--

    An hon. member: You said that, not me.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: --and then the Liberals, then it would come back to the Bloc.

    Would it go then back to the Liberals and continue on this way?

    The Chair: No. Maybe I can help. It's just as printed. You start with the Conservatives for seven, the Bloc for seven, the Liberals for ten, and the NDP for five. That's the end of round one.

    In round two you go to the Conservatives for five. And that's the party; if there's nobody there from the party.....

    So we go to the Conservatives for five, the Liberals for five, and so on all the way down the line.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: The only concern I would express, Mr. Chairman, is that when a minister comes, he's often here just for one hour. That means only one person from each party--

    The Chair: I'm sorry, but that's not for a minister. Then, when we get to a minister, it's 10, 10, 10.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: For each person or each party?

    The Chair: Each party.

    I don't know why this is confusing because we've all sat on a number of committees. I have never seen a committee where the chair recognizes an individual; he recognizes a party. That's what is always recognized from the chair. I don't recognize Jay Hill; I recognize the Conservative Party. They carve it up any way they want. I've never seen a committee do it any other way. Has anybody? So that part is not confusing, really.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: And is there splitting of time?

    The Chair: It's up to the party. When this thing tells me 10 minutes are up--and I tend to go pretty much on this to be fair--then I try to let the person finish their thought and I say, thanks, your party's time is up; now it's the next party. That's the way it's going to go and that's the way it always goes.

    The last word goes to Bill, and then maybe we could get on with it.

    Hon. Bill Blaikie: I think that's an interesting theory. We could have a longer discussion about that, about whether we're here strictly as parties--because I think the whole spirit of parliamentary reform is that we're not just here as parties; we're here as individual members of Parliament. But let's not go there.

    I think if you try to make an argument for option A on the basis that this somehow corresponds to the House of Commons, it doesn't wash. Either you decide you like option A or you decide you like option B, but there's no argument that follows from what happens in the House of Commons that leads directly to either option A or B.

    So in the interests of, I would say, intellectual clarity, let's not pretend that either of these options flows from what happens in the House of Commons. Each chamber, each context, has its own set of rules. Committees have had their own set of rules for years. This is somewhat of a departure, as far as I'm concerned. People can either vote for it or against it.

    The Chair: Okay, fair enough. Let's do that now. We have a motion moved and seconded.

    (Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: I'm open to other motions.

    Mr. Blaikie has a subsequent motion.

    Hon. Bill Blaikie: I'll move option B, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Mr. Blaikie moves option B, seconded by Mr. Bachand.

    (Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: So we'll go with option B, which, interestingly enough, is exactly what the committee did in 1988 and 1989 when I chaired it.

    Hon. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): You were here in 1988 and 1989?

    The Chair: I was here then, yes.

    Mr. Jay Hill: Try 1993.

º  (1600)  

    The Chair: Sorry, Freudian slip, Jay, thanks. Try 1998 and 1999, yes, when I was chair. I wish I had been here--I'd like to see my pension.

    Thank you very much for an interesting discussion.

    Mr. Jay Hill: I have a point of order.

    The Chair: Yes, a point of order, Mr. Hill.

    Mr. Jay Hill: I don't see it on our agenda, unless I've somehow missed it, but I think it was Mr. Blaikie who made a motion that we, as a committee, send a request to the government whip regarding the privy council member who sits on this committee, and I was wondering if we'd had any indication back from them yet.

    The Chair: No, and that's a good point. That request has gone informally. We haven't had a response, but I will commit to take this up personally with the government whip before the next meeting of this committee and get an answer from the government whip, and we can deal with it however we want. Okay?

    I'm told that as of now no other standing committee of the House--I wanted this information so I'll share it with you--has made a similar motion. But we had every right to make the motion we did. It passed, and I'll take it up with the government whip.

    Mr. Wood.

    Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): I got here a little late. Did we do the motions I think Mr. Hill--

    The Chair: No, we're about to start those now. The first thing we did was the timing.

    The first thing is Mr. Hill's motion. It is moved by Jay Hill, seconded by Rick Casson, that whenever the main estimates or the supplementary estimates are tabled in the House, the committee invite the minister and any relevant senior officials of a department to appear at a televised meeting, if possible, of the committee.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: The next motion is that whenever a chapter of a report of the Auditor General refers to a subject under the mandate of the committee, the committee invite the Office of the Auditor General of Canada and any relevant senior officials of a department to appear at a televised meeting.

    Who's moving that one? It is moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Mr. O'Reilly.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Now we have a motion to adduce evidence from the previous work of the committee on Canada-U.S. relations, so that we can bring that work forward.

    It is moved by Mr. O'Reilly, seconded by Mr. Calder.

    (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: The other routine motion is that the report of the subcommittee on procedure be concurred in. It's just a report to you of what we have discussed anyway. Do we have a mover for that?

    It is moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Mrs. Stewart.

    (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Those are the routine motions.

    As I said before, with the defence review not to start until fall, the subcommittee felt it would be useful to continue with the study on Canadian-American relations. I've had the staff circulate that information, and I'd like to go through it.

    First, Jay, do you have a question?

    Mr. Jay Hill: It's not so much a question, but I want to be on record here, Mr. Chairman, as questioning the government on this.

    All of us, even myself, who have only been directly involved in this committee since last June, recognize that our Canadian Forces—there was another big story in the news today—have their backs to the wall.

    For us to delay this review, which seems to have a lot of support for our recognizing the Canadian Forces' needs, contingent upon the review.... This was my worry when the new Prime Minister announced it in December, and now the review is going to be put off until fall before we even start it. I just want it on record that the Conservative Party of Canada is opposed to this further delay in supporting the Canadian Forces.

    The Chair: Mr. O'Reilly.

    Mr. John O'Reilly: Any review that is ordered has to be ordered by the minister. If we want to put on any heat, we have to put it on the minister, because it's up to him to decide whether there's a review or not. This committee should tell the minister we want to start it.

    Mr. Jay Hill: Then I would so move, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. John O'Reilly: Foreign Affairs has to decide they want it, and the Minister of Defence has to agree to it and then order it, because it involves foreign policy.

    The Chair: I'll let you make whatever motion you want, Jay, in a second.

    I think it's important that we get a little context on this, and then we can all make whatever points we want here. I think we're all anxious to get on with the review, but there are a few things to keep in mind.

    Maybe I can get Mr. Koerner to give us a bit of context here, although I want to tell you further what the minister said, because you weren't all able to be there to hear it.

    It's not as though nothing is going on; there's an awful lot of work going on. The colleagues over there this morning can recall these comments. There's an awful lot of work going on at DND right now to set up the review. With all due respect, it's not something you just start because we're all anxious to do it; there has to be some preparatory work done, and I want to have Mr. Koerner speak to that. The department is doing a bunch of that work right now.

    Mr. Koerner.

º  (1605)  

    Mr. Wolf Koerner (Committee Researcher): We're pretty much stuck with having to wait. I think the way the process is being put in place is that the government or Foreign Affairs is planning to table a green paper. That's a discussion document that will set the parameters of the debate, to a certain extent. This committee and other committees will use it as a starting point to hold hearings and then draft a response.

    Internally the department has certainly been doing some work. They have stuff in their closet waiting to pull out in response to this as well. But there's no point—

    Mr. John O'Reilly: No more closet stuff, okay?

    Mr. Wolf Koerner: Okay. There's no point in our starting a defence review until we get those parameters from the minister.

    In 1994 the same thing was done. The minister at the time tabled a series of questions for the two special joint committees to consider. Those questions were the questions that were used for carrying on those reviews. This is a similar sort of process.

    The Chair: Mr. Price, and then I see Mr. Blaikie.

    Hon. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I'll speak strictly as a member of SCONDVA and not as the parliamentary secretary, and also as the chair of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

    What we're doing right now in a Canada-U.S. study leads also towards the review that we're going to be doing. We've been trying to travel for a while, and I think it's a part that's missing on this committee. We should be visiting Norfolk in particular, as I think was mentioned in one of the documents I saw. We should visit Norfolk to see the part the U.S. is working on in the transformation of their forces, and the transformation centre for NATO is located just a couple of miles down the road.

    Those are two key points we should be looking at to know what they're doing so that we can put this in a context when we go into our own review here. But it is part of Canada-U.S. relations, so it all fits into it if we just continue with the Canada-U.S.....

    The Chair: Thank you.

    It's Mr. Blaikie and then Mrs. Gallant.

    Hon. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Chair, the problem I see is this. We can study Canada-U.S. relations, but it's not very good Canada-U.S. relations if we keep setting up tours of the United States that we have to keep cancelling because of the unpredictability of the political situation here at home.

    In the fall the committee's work was scuppered by--if you'll forgive me--Liberal politics, and we're facing the same situation right now. How can the committee line up and say we're going to go to Colorado or we're going to go to Norfolk? We don't know when the election is going to be called, and we don't know this and we don't know that, and the worst damn thing to do would be to set up a whole bunch of other stuff again and have to cancel it.

    I think we're hostages to whatever is going on in the mind of the Prime Minister with respect to when the election will be, and I'm personally not very keen on doing much that can't be completed if there's going to be an election. It seems pointless, unless there's something more immediate in the short term whereby we can get somebody here and we can find out about this report about a $500 million shortfall, or a report that's suggesting closing four bases. Let's have somebody here to tell us about that and learn more about it.

    It should be some short-term thing that the committee is rightfully interested in, or have a quick look at something that's happening in the reserves or something. I don't know. There are lots of things to look at. There's even travel we can do in the country, but again that's another matter.

    I think we should be looking at the infrastructure of the reserves. I've been to armouries in Winnipeg. I used to go there as a cadet. It's the one place where I can go and feel that nothing has changed. Everywhere else I go in the world you can tell it's 40 years later, except when you go into Minto Armouries. I'm not kidding you. There's part of it I would never want to see change; it's a heritage building. But in terms of other things, from the ranges to the washrooms, you can just tell that things are being run down.

    I think there's probably some good work we can do in the short term, but I just think it's a real risky proposition for whoever has to get on the phone with the Americans again and say, “Yes, we're coming again.” If I were them I would say “Yeah, sure.” It looks Mickey Mouse.

º  (1610)  

    The Chair: It is a good point. I would just add that there's no money until the end of March for committees to travel, but that doesn't mean we couldn't continue that study you were engaged in by having witnesses here.

    I have Mrs. Gallant and then Mr. Price.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: The minister this morning said that the draft white paper was going to be available in the fall. So then realistically we're pretty well done in this last month for any review.

    Hon. Bill Blaikie: Is it a green paper or a white paper?

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: He referred to it as a draft white paper, which is a green paper, I suppose.

    So there's not going to be any input whatsoever from this committee on that draft paper or any review or recommendations. It's just after the fact that they present this to the new committee.

    Mr. Wolf Koerner: The way I understand it, and the way everyone is talking, is it's the Minister of Foreign Affairs who's taking the lead on this and doing a review of security and foreign policy. So they want security and foreign policy together, meaning defence policy as well.

    As to the role of this committee, I think that is still a little bit up in the air whether or not it's going to be this committee, which is the minister's preference, doing the defence review and the defence input, or whether it's going to be some kind of joint committee.

    In 1994 there were two special committees with the Senate and the House--one on defence and one on foreign policy--and then another special committee on social policy.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: The joint committee you're talking about is joint House and Senate, not joint DFAIT and SCONDVA?

    Mr. Wolf Koerner: That was 1994. This time it might either be this committee doing the defence review or it might be us, this committee, and the foreign affairs committee, sitting as a joint committee. From what the minister said this morning, that still doesn't seem to have been decided. It's still up in the air. His preference is that this committee do it.

    The Chair: Mr. Price, Mr. O'Reilly, Mr. Blaikie, and then Mr. Hill.

    Hon. David Price: I love Bill's idea of looking at the reserves, but I'm a little biased on that side.

    What we could do as far as the U.S. is concerned...I realize we can't travel from now to March, but the chief of staff for the NATO operation in Norfolk is a Canadian. I'm sure we could get him to come and visit us and explain what's going on. He has extremely good background knowledge of not only what NATO is doing but what the U.S. is doing.

    All of that is going to fit very much into our review, what we're going to be doing, because naturally we're going to follow along. We work almost totally with NATO; therefore, we're going to have to be set up with them.

    The Chair: Mr. O'Reilly.

    Mr. John O'Reilly: Following on Mr. Blaikie's suggestion, I think the committee should visit the Simcoe armoury, which has just opened. It's a brand-new armoury and it's set up for today's modern situation. In fact, I was involved with the opening of it, filling in for the minister. It's a model for new armouries. It's on the edge of town. It has excess land, it has ranges, woods, and all the automatic firing things that are all computerized--all the war games.

    I think it would do the committee well to go look at something like that. If we're talking about upgrading the reserves and the armouries, that one and the Oshawa armoury have been upgraded. The Oshawa one is the old building with some renovations done to it, with modern equipment put in, and a very healthy armoury. The Simcoe armoury is brand new. They marched from the old one to the new one and did the opening. It's worth seeing. The committee would do very well to visit it to see what a new, modern armoury looks like and see what others should be done if you're going to change them.

    You know, I still didn't get my last pay out of the Lindsay armoury when it closed up when I was in the 45th medium. It's not even there now; it belongs to the town. It's a senior citizens' home, so it's even slower than yours.

    Anyway, on another topic, if I have the floor, in my role as assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I've been doing a fair bit of work on the 60th anniversary celebrations in Normandy. The French call it 80 days of emotion and celebration, starting the first week in June.

    I would like to bring the committee that information at some future point so we can work on it and push the government to increase the veterans' budget, which I've been doing, and to compensate the Canadian veterans who are going over there. We're probably one of the only countries that doesn't compensate them.

    There's a question for question period, for Jay or Rick.

    I don't get involved in the briefing books and all that. That's not my role. My role is to help the minister outside of here when I can. I run the website for Normandy. It's in French and English. It takes you from day one, where it shows the flags on the beach, right up to the end. Each day is shaded in as to where the battles were and so forth. It's an incredible website, and there are a lot of celebrations going on. I wouldn't mind briefing the committee on it.

º  (1615)  

    The Chair: That's a good suggestion.

    Just to remind you, we're talking about future work. The subcommittee discussed it and felt there was value in continuing the Canadian-American study, which could easily be folded into the larger defence review, if and when we ever get it. I think we're anxious, whatever side you're sitting on at this table, to get on to that if we can. But there are realities, and we can't just do it starting tomorrow. It's not possible to do that. We're now discussing what future work we want to do, and I think that's productive. Maybe we can come up with some priorities.

    Next is Mr. Blaikie and then Mr. Hill.

    Hon. Bill Blaikie: I'm glad to hear that a new armoury has been built somewhere. It might be interesting to know more about that at some point or even to visit it.

    I have another suggestion, which may or may not sit well with other members. A big issue in terms of defence right now in the public mind and in the media and in Parliament is this whole question of national missile defence and what it does and doesn't entail. There are conflicting claims as to what it entails at the moment and what it will ultimately entail and what it necessarily does or doesn't entail. There's a lot of detail there to be sorted out. I don't know if the steering committee discussed this. But if we were looking for something in the short term that's topical and that is obviously on the table in some way between Canada and the United States, calling some witnesses on that might be a useful thing to do. I just throw that out.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Hill.

    Mr. Jay Hill: First of all, Bill, at the subcommittee we didn't talk about missile defence because you weren't there.

º  (1620)  

    Hon. Bill Blaikie: I'm glad I'm here today.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Jay Hill: I don't know why the Bloc didn't raise it. Maybe they felt they raised it enough in the House.

    Anyway, it wasn't discussed, so we can discuss it now.

    Hon. Bill Blaikie: It is a Canada-U.S. relationship issue.

    Mr. Jay Hill: I think of more importance is the issue Bill raised earlier, which is the funding shortfall. All of us have been impressed by the seriousness of the funding problem facing the Canadian Forces, all three branches of our military. Perhaps we can address that somehow and bring some pressure to bear prior to the budget on March 23.

    We're not going to do a hell of a lot otherwise. We can't travel. I really question the wisdom of going to an armoury or anywhere else in March. Certainly at the start of a parliament I wouldn't be opposed to setting up that type of educational program to learn more about the reserves and specifically about money we're investing in new armouries, but I don't see any real advantage to doing it in the dying days of this parliament when many of us might not be back on this committee. I'll leave it to people's individual opinion as to whether many of us will be back, period.

    Mr. John O'Reilly: We hate to see you go. We have so much fun with you.

    Mr. Jay Hill: We'll have a little bet after the meeting about which one of us will be back, John.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Jay Hill: It seems to me that we're just spinning our wheels here. Perhaps we could focus on Bill's suggestion about calling some witnesses and addressing the ongoing funding shortfall and what, if anything, we should be recommending to the government, such as loosening the purse strings. We've heard about the potential cutbacks in the bureaucracy at DND.

    Some of you visited DND yesterday. I didn't bother going along.

    Maybe there are some recommendations we could make in the short term that would actually accomplish something.

    The Chair: Let me try to bring some focus to this. I think there are some good ideas floating around. None of us knows when the election is going to be. There's only one person who would know that, but I don't think he has made up his mind. The reality is that we have this week. We have three weeks in March. The earliest scenario would be an election call in April. So we're talking about six meetings.

    Mr. Jay Hill: Seven including Thursday.

    The Chair: On March 25 we've already scheduled the veterans affairs minister for estimates. We have five more meetings in March. So it's whatever work we want to try to get into. I assume we will want to have the Minister of National Defence here. We have to have him here for estimates.

    Hon. Bill Blaikie: We could have him more than once.

    The Chair: We could have him more than once, or we could have him for a good long time.

    Hon. Bill Blaikie: When I first came here, ministers used to come two or three times, until people had asked what they needed to ask.

    The Chair: Right. Frankly, I hope that's one of the changes we're going to see. The minister should be more available. I think Minister Pratt is quite willing to get to the committee as much as he can and as much as the committee wants.

    It's a bit frustrating for all of us. We're all paid to be here and do our jobs. We know we'll have about five or six meetings. Let's make a decision on what we want to bite into and get on with it.

    Ms. Gallant.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: There's been quite a bit of controversy surrounding the proposed purchase of the Stryker vehicle. It's a significant investment, and there are conflicting opinions between the bureaucrats and the soldiers as to whether or not this vehicle is the appropriate one for the future of Canada's army.

    I'd like to suggest, in addition to the estimates, that we analyze both sides, what's being done, and why certain aspects of the military think it's a good idea, and hear from the soldiers who command whether or not this is the appropriate vehicle we should be sinking millions of dollars into.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Is it the committee's wish that we invite the Minister of National Defence to come to us as soon as possible? The estimates were tabled today.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: We'll ask the clerk to issue that invitation right away and stress that we would really like it to be as soon as possible, and besides the estimates, we would like to really get into a wide range of discussions with the minister on a number of topics, including the white paper and funding for the forces--have a real session with the minister. That might be a useful way to spend one of our five meetings.

    Hon. Bill Blaikie: Could we have a motion on the minister to reflect the fact that we'd like to have him come to the committee at least twice, and he could suggest the two occasions on the available schedule that would be most convenient for him?

    The Chair: Okay.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Mr. Jay Hill: Will that be televised, as per our earlier motion?

    The Chair: Yes, if at all possible we would like to have it televised.

    We're now talking about the work we want to do for the three or four meetings we know we're going to have. If we don't have an election call in April, we're going to be looking at having a number of meetings until June. After we have the two ministers, we're looking at what topic we would like to get into for three or four meetings. I'm open to suggestions. We've already had some good ones. Are there any others?

º  (1625)  

    Mr. John O'Reilly: We're out of ideas. It's up to you.

    The Chair: Right. You might not like what I come up with.

    Jay.

    Mr. Jay Hill: My only other question has to do with the dual function of the committee on the veterans affairs side. We still have some ongoing concern being expressed by veterans on the VIP program for veterans' spouses. Is that something the committee as a whole would deal with, or is it something a subcommittee would deal with? We haven't even talked about veterans issues in our discussions today.

    The Chair: I can help you with that. The clerk has been trying to get all the committees to submit their memberships.

    The Clerk of the Committee: I've called all the whips' offices to get their members' names for the subcommittee. I've heard from some of the parties, so as soon as I have that....

    The Chair: Encourage your party to respond to the call to put some names forward.

    Jay.

    Mr. Jay Hill: Just to finish, is that something the subcommittee on veterans affairs would do?

    The Chair: Yes. But we can also take up anything we want, as the standing committee.

    Murray.

    Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Thanks, Mr. Chair.

    On that point, there's something the subcommittee on veterans affairs could take a look at. In 1995, when the legislation was changed, a certain number of veterans who were on the program were grandfathered. The issue right now with the VIP program is the triggering--how much income a veteran brings in at the end of each month. If it's over $1,058 for a single veteran in rural Canada, they don't qualify for the program.

    The subcommittee on veterans affairs could take a look at the poverty line and the means test. That would be a huge one for us, because we'd know right off the bat that we had a fixed number of veterans. If the means test were ever increased, we could pretty well nail down what the cost was going to be and that it would be the highest cost of the program. It would diminish from there on in because the veterans are dying off.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Blaikie.

    Hon. Bill Blaikie: I was going to suggest, as we're trying to fill these meetings, why don't we have the veterans affairs minister come before this whole committee?

    The Chair: He's coming on March 25 for the estimates.

    Hon. Bill Blaikie: Oh, I'm sorry.

    The Chair: I want to pick up one of Bill's suggestions and ask the clerk to resurrect the report we tabled in the House in June of 2000, I believe, on missile defence.

    When I last chaired the committee we held a series of really good and interesting hearings. We submitted what I would call a summative report to cabinet. Jane might remember this. I'm not sure how many people ever read this thing, but I know that some of the people speaking on both sides of the House on missile defence surely didn't read it, because it's obvious they're asking basic questions that were specifically addressed by witnesses in here.

    So I think it would behoove us, one, to circulate that report to everybody on this committee, because there's a lot of valuable work in there. We had a huge range of witnesses. Some of you were on that committee at that time. And then if we want to take it further, Bill, we could. But let's at least review what the committee already did three years ago.

    Are there any other speakers?

    Cheryl.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: I have a question, Mr. Chairman.

    With all of the years we have been doing this Canada-U.S. relations study, what happens? Does it just go into suspended animation and die? Are we really just wasting time?

º  (1630)  

    The Chair: No, that's exactly what we are talking about. The subcommittee the other day recommended.... That's why this was circulated to you.

    At some point we should give Michel a few minutes to give us an overview of what the previous committee did.

    The suggestion from the subcommittee was that given the reality about the white paper, and so on, not being till fall—for some very good reasons that might frustrate all of us.... But they are very good reasons; they have to start with this green paper from Foreign Affairs and so on. So the subcommittee suggested that maybe what we ought to do is advance this study of Canadian and American relations whatever little bit we can. We can't travel; we know that, but David suggested that we can bring people in.

    We have General George Macdonald here, who is now the deputy CDS. Correct? He was the deputy commander of Cheyenne Mountain. He was the man in the chair commanding NORAD on the day 9/11 happened. He might be an interesting witness to get to this committee. He just has to travel across the canal to talk to us. So there's a lot of....

    We want to advance this and have it fold into the white paper—when we get into the white paper. I think the committee did some valuable work on this over the past few months, and it would be a shame to see that lost. I don't want to see it lost, as one member of the committee.

    So to answer your question, we agreed at the subcommittee that we should bring that forward and try to advance the ball a little bit.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: We're not just going to wind up with a report now?

    The Chair: No, we're not ready to wind it up. It would be an embarrassing thing to wind up now, because as Bill or several people have already said, how can you report on Canada-U.S. military relations when you haven't even visited Cheyenne Mountain as a committee? You have to do that. If you haven't been there to see it, it's really worth seeing, and it's important that it be part of the study.

    But that's why we were suggesting calling in some useful witnesses on this topic and to advance it a little bit. If it's only three or four meetings, then it's three or four meetings.

    Do we want to give Michel, our researcher, a few minutes to refer to this document submitted or circulated to you, to give us an overview of at what point the committee was on that topic, please?

    Mr. Michel Rossignol (Committee Researcher): The committee undertook a study of Canada-U.S. defence cooperation in early 2003. We had a number of meetings during the spring with representatives and officials from the departments of both national defence and foreign affairs. As well, a number of academics and other persons came before the committee. The study was continued into the fall because of problems with the planned trips to the United States.

    A variety of issues were considered. It was a broad study of all of the elements of Canada-U.S. defence cooperation, including the relationship with U.S. Northern Command and NORAD, and the missile defence issue. There also was the question of interoperability and the effects of the transformation of both Canadian and U.S. forces, and what impact this has had on the interoperability between Canadian and U.S. forces.

    There were a few other issues that perhaps were less important but that still had some value in terms of understanding our relationship within NATO, and how changing relations within the European countries and the U.S. are affecting our relationship with our allies on both sides of the Atlantic.

    We also examined industrial and scientific cooperation, and all the questions affecting Canadian industry--including, notably, Canada's participation in the development of the joint strike fighter aircraft.

    So we had quite a broad-ranging study on the issues, and we had a number of meetings on specific issues, including missile defence. All of these issues were also considered during meetings with members from the department, and each aspect was considered, including the readiness of the Canadian Forces and questions about equipment and future capital projects, and how that will affect the interoperability of Canadian and U.S. forces.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    You have the summary in front of you. You can see some of the things we've mentioned--the future of NORAD, missile defence.

    Are there any questions for the researchers on the work that the committee had been doing? No questions?

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Jay Hill: I'd just like to read through it.

    The Chair: All right, let's take a minute....

    Mr. Jay Hill: No, I meant later.

    The Chair: Oh, later.

    Did you want to add anything, Wolf?

    Mr. Wolf Koerner: No. I just think that some of the themes that have come up here--for instance, the whole problem of transformation and interoperability, given the fact that the Americans have set up their transformation command at Norfolk--will be important issues. That's being looked at very closely by the Europeans, especially the new “transitional” democracies, as they're called, some of the new NATO members.

    So that's something we could focus on. If we're going to have witnesses, we could bring someone up on pretty short notice from the U.S., and they'd be more than willing to come.

    The Chair: Very good. Thank you.

    Do we need a motion, or are we agreed that we should move forward with this topic, as well as have the defence minister and the veterans affairs minister here as soon as possible?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Good. So we can leave it then to the clerk and the researchers. If you have any suggestions for specific witnesses....

    David, can you help us there?

    Hon. David Price: General Maisonneuve is our chief of staff at NATO headquarters in Norfolk, and he knows his stuff.

    The Chair: What about General Macdonald? Would it be useful--

    Hon. David Price: We also have General Pennie, the head of our air force. He was in charge of the total operation in Colorado, so he would have both sides of it.

    The Chair: All right.

    We'll also get the clerk to...but perhaps you would convey to the minister, your minister--and I'd ask Mr. O'Reilly to convey the same to veterans affairs--that we would like to have him here as soon as possible for some discussion of a number of topics. Okay?

    Jay.

    Mr. Jay Hill: Well, I once again want to be on the record. You kind of said we're in agreement that we're going to move forward with this. I just don't see how we can move forward.

    Yes, we can fill in those and get some witnesses to appear for three or four meetings in March, but if in fact it's the Prime Minister's intention to call an election in early April, this thing is not going to be finished any more than it was finished last spring or any more than it was finished last fall. When the Liberals decide to prorogue Parliament, or call an election, or take a summer break, or whatever the hell they want to do that disrupts the committees again, this thing is going to be on the sidelines.

    An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]

    Mr. Jay Hill: So? You don't care because you're not even going to be here. You'll be in Switzerland, skiing or something. Good on you. Congratulations. But the rest of us who are actually accomplishing something--

    An hon. member: Don't kill your invitation.

    The Chair: Through the chair, please. I know it's some friendly heckling.

    I sense the frustration. The reality is, we can count on three or four meetings. Nobody's pretending we're going to finish the study, but what we're saying is there are some useful witnesses we can bring to move the study a little further. Other than that, we sit here and play euchre, and I don't want to defend that to my constituents as much as I'd rather defend trying to move this report forward.

    That's just the reality we're stuck in. None of us can do anything about it, so let's move it forward.

    Is there anything else?

    Go ahead.

    Mr. Jay Hill: I'm going to belabour this just for one more moment then.

    On this side of the committee, Mr. Blaikie and Ms. Gallant brought up some things that could be done in the short term. We're going to spend millions of dollars on Strykers, and nobody's convinced they're even the right damn vehicle to be buying, but we're just going to do it because the government has decided we're going to do it.

    Bill brought up missile defence, a big issue with him and with the Bloc Québécois, but no, what we're going to do is use what limited time we have to push this thing forward about Canada-U.S. relations, and then it's going to sit in the doldrums until after the next election, just as it did last summer and last winter.

    Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): So what's your suggestion?

    Mr. Jay Hill: My suggestion is that we do something productive and at least look at something that can end by the end of March, which is a study of the purchase of the Strykers.

    The Chair: Let me just respond here for a second.

    We had a steering committee. All the parties were there. Mr. Blaikie wasn't able to make it, but Mr. Hill was there. None of the suggestions we're hearing today were floated.

    There are some wonderful suggestions. We're willing to take them under advisement and make a collective committee decision. Missile defence is part of the study of the Canadian-American military.

    The fact of the matter is that we have three or four meetings other than with the ministers. If somebody wants to put a motion on the floor that we look at a specific topic--

º  (1640)  

    Hon. Bill Blaikie: In the context of Canada and the U.S., maybe the clerk could look at who might be available to come to talk about missile defence.

    The Chair: Right, but the steering committee--Jay, you'll recall--suggested that we move forward on this.

    I understand that we're all in politics here, but the reality is we have both ministers coming, and we have three or four other meetings. I don't care. Let's make a decision as to what you want to bite into. We'll pass a motion, we'll vote on it, and we'll move forward.

    Ms. Gallant.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Under the context, then, if we are going forward with completing the study, let's look at the Stryker purchase, because that does play into interoperability, I believe. We should see whether or not the interoperability benefits override the practicality of using that particular vehicle.

    The Chair: That's a good comment. In fact, most of the suggestions I've heard today fit right into this study. You can take your own thing and run with it right within this here.

    Mr. Price.

    Hon. David Price: Just to follow up on that, Mr. Koerner, if we're talking about transformation, both U.S. and NATO, the Stryker comes into it; missile defence comes into it. They're all items that are there. We're going to hear about the American attitude on what Canada should be doing. Is Stryker the right thing? That's an open discussion with them too.

    It's the same thing with NATO--

    The Chair: You can capture it all.

    Hon. David Price: NATO is looking at an overall package: what can Canada supply, what can the Netherlands supply, so that we get a full-force package? They are super discussions to have with these people too.

    The Chair: So it's agreed that we will move forward on this topic and bring in the other topics that were raised. Thank you.

    The meeting is adjourned.