NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 26, 1999

• 1530

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Members, I see a quorum. The first order of business is the election of the chair. I'm ready to take nominations.

Mr. O'Reilly.

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I nominate Pat O'Brien.

Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): I second.

The Clerk: Pat O'Brien has been nominated as chair.

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: I would invite Mr. O'Brien to take the Chair.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair (Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)): Thank you very much, colleagues. This is a short acceptance speech. I'm pleased to be chair for the second year. I am gratified by your confidence in me. Certainly I expect support from my colleagues on this side, but you can't be sure.

To the opposition side, I appreciate your support as well.

Essentially the committee is the same as last year's. Last year, with very few exceptions, I thought, we were able to keep our discussions to pretty non-partisan issues in a non-partisan style in order to move forward issues of importance for national defence, our forces, and our veterans. I really look forward to working with all of you again in that spirit this year, because we have some issues that aren't finished and we have some new issues to tackle—for sure.

With that brief comment, we'll go right to the election of the vice-chairs.

Let me take a nomination, Mr. Clouthier.

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): I nominate David Pratt for a position of first vice-chair.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): I second.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Thank you.

Nominations for vice-chair for the opposition?

Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): I nominate Jim Hart.

Mr. Janko Peric: I second that.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Congratulations, Jim and David, our opposition and government vice-chairs.

Now we have several organizational matters to look at. Maybe we'll just do the routine ones first. You have your agendas; maybe we can tackle them all.

Can someone move the motion on the Library of Parliament?

Mr. George Proud: So moved.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: Number two is witness expenses. Can I have a motion on witness expenses?

Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): So moved.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: Next is the motion on Order in Council appointments.

Mr. Peric.

Mr. Janko Peric: So moved.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: Next is a motion on meetings in the absence of a quorum. Now maybe we can take a look at this: “That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present”—

Mr. George Proud: Why don't you go to item four on that other attachment?

The Chairman: Is it the same?

Mr. George Proud: It was moved by Mr. Clouthier.

The Chairman: —“provided that at least five members are present, two of whom should be opposition members.” Is that agreeable? And after fifteen minutes, reduce it to three. Do we need a motion, then?

Mr. Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): So moved.

(Motion agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chairman: The presence of five members, two of whom must represent opposition parties, is required.

[English]

Next is a motion on opening statements and questioning of witnesses.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Chair, on a point of order, it seems to me that we had a fairly lengthy discussion about this during the last session, and I think the consensus of the committee.... I don't recall exactly what the durations were in terms of minutes for opposition and government, but I think we decided that was a more equitable distribution of time. I would suggest we simply re-adopt that.

• 1535

The Chairman: Okay. We're referring now to attachment 5. That's the last method the committee was using.

Mr. George Proud: What's the opening statement by witnesses, though?

The Chairman: For the opening statement by witnesses, most committees use 10 minutes.

Then we'd go to this questioning format. If you turn to the last page, you'll see we'd go to Reform, Bloc, etc., for seven minutes, and then we'd go to a second round of five-minute questions in the same speaking order as before, only for a reduced time.

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): It's the same thing.

The Chairman: Yes, it's the same thing.

It's moved by Mr. Proud.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: Next is the appointment of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. That's number 6. It will be made up of the chair, the vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretary, and one from each opposition party. That's what we had before, right?

Mr. George Proud: Is this the steering committee?

The Chairman: Yes.

Is that agreeable, one from each opposition party? Okay.

It's moved by Monsieur Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I want assurances that the two parliamentary secretaries will be sitting on this sub-committee.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, both parliamentary secretaries and then one member from each—

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Bertrand: The parliamentary secretaries to the ministers of National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

[English]

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: On number 7, the notice period for motions was 24 hours. Can I have a mover for that?

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: One moment, please.

The Chairman: Mr. Laurin.

Mr. René Laurin: Aren't we supposed to appoint the other members of the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure?

[English]

The Chairman: It's one member from each party.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Should someone move that the Bloc Québécois representative be yours truly, René Laurin?

[English]

The Chairman: The thing is, Monsieur Laurin, if you're away, it will allow a colleague of yours—

Mr. René Laurin: Okay.

The Chairman: As long as one Bloc member is present, that's what we want. Is that agreeable?

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Fine.

[English]

The Chairman: Great.

On number 7, the notice period was 24 hours. Can I have a motion that we ask for 24 hours' notice of a motion?

Mr. George Proud: So moved.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: On distribution of documents, I sat in at the environment committee, and they had some discussion of this. So do we. We'll just take a second here.

Here's the situation we agreed to last time. First of all, we asked the clerk to tell witnesses appearing at the committee that we operate on a policy of two official languages in the Parliament of Canada, as per our Constitution, and we want both languages respected. We request their documentation to be as brief as possible—and we have to really emphasize that—and given to us in plenty of time to be translated into the other official language. They can't send it in the day before.

If it's available in both official languages, then we can distribute it at that meeting. If it is not available in both official languages, then they're welcome to make a verbal presentation, but not to distribute the documents until after the meeting, in fairness to the members who don't have it in the language they're most comfortable in during the meeting. That's what we agreed to last time.

Do you want to move that, Mr. Clouthier?

[Translation]

Do you agree with Mr. Laurin?

[English]

Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): I'd just like to say that at times you receive information that possibly isn't in both official languages, but it should be brought to the attention of the committee or to witnesses. This motion could prevent the document, if it's in either official language, from being presented in a timely manner if it's something that's of relevance to the committee. I find this a problem.

Because we are a bilingual country and we should respect both official languages, if I receive a document in one language, I should have the ability to present that when it comes to my attention.

The Chairman: That's when you receive a document. Okay. I can comment on that, then. It's not so much the members. If I come here with notes on something, I can refer to anything I want, as a member of Parliament in this committee.

But, Mr. Hart, this refers to a witness appearing before the committee. Let's say they're from Montreal or Trois-Rivières or wherever, and they only have documents in French. If they distribute those documents in French, then those of us who aren't francophones are at a disadvantage. So we would say to that witness, make your verbal presentation, but don't give out the documents and put me at a disadvantage and probably you at a disadvantage. Wait until both languages are available and then give out the documents.

• 1540

Mr. Jim Hart: There was an instance in the last committee when I had received a document that was just in English. It was an access to information document. The witness was here, and I tried to raise that issue and was told I couldn't use my access to information document because it was only in the English language. As I say, I had just received the access to information document hours before the committee meeting. The relevant person to bring this to the attention of was the witness, and I was denied by this committee. As a matter of fact, the members across the way prevented me from raising that.

The Chairman: Well, obviously I can't recall that incident, but I accept what you say. I hear it from other colleagues. If you have a document and you want to refer to it, I don't think it matters what language it's in, but if you want to distribute it or if the witness wants to distribute it, then it should be in both. That's my own feeling.

Monsieur Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I recall that event. A scheduled witness submitted a document to my colleague and I asked that it not be distributed until it had been translated into the other official language. I've no objections to a colleague referring to a document in his possession, but I can't agree to allow him to distribute that document before it has been translated. By all means he can table it with the committee clerk if he wishes, and once the clerk has arranged to have it translated, then he can circulate copies to each member for discussion purposes. That's why I would like us to stick with the same rules.

[English]

The Chairman: Right. Yes, now I do recall the situation we are talking about.

Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): When witnesses are approached or when you know witnesses will be appearing, is there a process in place to follow up with them at an appropriate time and notify them that it must be—

The Chairman: Yes, there is. Maybe the clerk can—

Mr. Peter Goldring: Is there any assistance given to do that?

The Clerk: Whenever we invite someone to come to the committee, that is one of the first instructions. If you have material, if you have it in both languages, great; if you don't, provide it to us as soon as possible and we'll have it translated.

The Chairman: I think we have to emphasize, if we don't already—and I think all the clerks in the House probably do—that “as soon as possible” means it can't be twenty minutes before the meeting or the day before. There has to be some time for translation.

Mr. Hart.

Mr. Jim Hart: I just wanted to say that I think the committee has to follow the law of the land. I think we have to follow the law of the country. We are a bilingual country, and that's accepted, but when we are denying someone the privilege of presenting their document in their official language, I think that may be in contravention of the laws of Canada. I think we have to be very cautious.

Now, in the specific instance I am talking about, I believe the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages is actually investigating that. I think it's very important that we tread very lightly on what we are saying here and the instruction we are communicating to the public, because I think if someone comes here with a document in their official language, it is our obligation, not their obligation, to make sure it is translated.

The Chairman: That's absolutely correct. We agree with that. But it has to be emphasized to them that they have to give our staff the proper amount of time to do that. We quite agree with you that it's not up to them to translate it. There's no disagreement there at all.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: Those are all the routine motions—

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the SCONDVA committee, and hopefully they would agree, if we could hold an in camera meeting Thursday morning to discuss the merchant navy situation.

The Chairman: Okay. There's a request from the parliamentary secretary to hold a special in camera meeting on Thursday morning. At what time?

Mr. Bob Wood: At around 9:30 or 10 o'clock, whenever.

The Clerk: We have a room booked from 9 o'clock to 11 o'clock.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Peric.

Mr. Janko Peric: I have a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman. From my past experience in committees, when the meeting was in camera the assistants were able to participate. Is that the same case here in this committee, or is it elected members only?

The Chairman: Members' assistants can be in the room, I think so, yes.

Mr. Bob Wood: I don't have a problem with that.

The Chairman: Unless the members decide otherwise.

Mr. Janko Peric: No, I'm just....

• 1545

The Chairman: Yes, that's the normal practice.

There's a request from Mr. Wood to have a special meeting, and the clerk has booked Room 237-C from 9 to 11 o'clock on Thursday—

Mr. Bob Wood: Excellent.

The Chairman: —for an important in camera meeting on the merchant navy situation.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: That's Room 237-C, Centre Block. Okay, everybody's aware of that meeting.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you.

The Chairman: That's great. We'll be looking forward to that.

We can do one of two things, colleagues. We can begin to look now at some topics that we think we will want to look at in the near future as a committee, or we can leave that until the next meeting—I don't mean this Thursday's meeting, but the next regular meeting—and make it the first order of business. Do you want to take a few minutes now and discuss potential work of the committee, or would you rather think it over and come to the next regular meeting?

Mrs. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Chair, we had been dealing with some fairly important issues. Procurement was one, and I think that's something we should continue to work on.

The Chairman: Right, pick it up and continue.

Monsieur Bertrand.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: There are a few things I would like to bring to the attention of this committee. Number one is that around the first of November the Secretary General of NATO will be visiting here in Ottawa, and I think it would be important to see if he could appear before a joint sitting of our committee and SCOFAIT, foreign affairs.

The Chairman: A joint committee meeting?

Mr. Robert Bertrand: A joint committee meeting.

The Chairman: Potentially around November 1?

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Yes.

The Chairman: Colleagues, it's possible we have a meeting on November 1 to hear from the pretty new Secretary General of NATO.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Mr. Robertson.

The Chairman: On that point, Mr. Wood and then Monsieur Laurin.

Mr. Bob Wood: In light of the agreement to meet on Thursday, I would appreciate it if nothing on the agenda was talked about until after Thursday.

The Chairman: The fact that we're meeting at all, you mean?

Mr. Bob Wood: I don't mind that, but as far as setting up an agenda for future work is concerned—

The Chairman: I see.

Mr. Bob Wood: —I would appreciate it if we didn't do it until after Thursday.

The Chairman: Okay. Mr. Wood is saying that maybe it would be wiser to hold this discussion after Thursday. Is that agreed?

Monsieur Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I would rather we be allowed to list today, without necessarily getting into a debate, all of the topics that we would like to examine in the coming days. We could always choose to debate them later. I'd like to draw the committee's attention to a number of important issues and to impress upon it the urgent nature of these matters.

[English]

The Chairman: Sure. All right.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: And if Bob were to agree to that, without our discussing it.

[English]

The Chairman: Perhaps what we can do—

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: If my colleagues have no objections, Mr. Chairman, I move that we agree immediately to include as a topic of discussion the participation of Canadian forces members in missions abroad.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: I won't get into this issue right now, but I do think it's important that we discuss it. Recently, we met with several forces members taking part in missions abroad and they had a great deal to say to us. I think it's important that we discuss this subject at some point in the near future.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud: I'd like to add to the agenda—and I think we had it on the agenda the last time—the RMA, the revolution in military affairs. That's something we should continue to talk about, I think.

The Chairman: Yes. Maybe we could have a steering committee meeting. Before the next committee meeting, maybe the steering committee could meet and discuss a potential list of work for the committee and then bring that to the next regular committee meeting, not on Thursday. That goes along with Mr. Wood's request. At the next regular meeting of the committee, the steering committee would present a proposed list of topics for work, and members would be free to propose any additional topics. Is that a good idea?

Mr. George Proud: Good idea.

The Chairman: Okay? Can we leave it that way, then?

Mr. George Proud: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Bertrand.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Would this steering committee be before the Thursday one?

The Chairman: No, after Thursday.

• 1550

Now just a last item, I think, colleagues, on our regular meetings, starting next Tuesday. We want to get on to our regular committee meetings.

An hon. member: Thursday mornings, hopefully.

The Chairman: Yes, at the same time as last year, which was on Tuesday afternoons, 3:30 to 5:30, and on Thursday mornings from 9 to 11. Guys, that's 9 o'clock, not 9:20. Your friendly chair is going to ask you to come on time. That's still outside of our block time, so that meeting may have to move, but other than that, where will we be?

The Clerk: It will be from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. I don't have a room yet, but I'll let you know. It will be somewhere around here, in the East Block.

The Chairman: All right. So we will have the same room as regularly as possible.

Mr. George Proud: Let's get the War Room.

The Chairman: One more item, colleagues. Can I read this proposed motion into the record and have somebody move it? It refers to the point of Mrs. Longfield on the contracting and procurement policy:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the evidence taken by the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs in relation to its study on contracting the procurement policy during the first session of the present Parliament be deemed adduced by the committee in the current session.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I move that motion.

The Chairman: Are there any objections to that? We're going to pick up the work we did on procurement and move it on from there—among other topics that we'll do. We don't want to start all over again.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: All right. Do I have a motion to adjourn?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, what about the work that we did with the reserves?

The Chairman: Yes, we can do the same kind of motion.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Can we make the same motion?

The Chairman: We'll make the same motion at the next meeting.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Can we do it right now?

The Chairman: We could do it right now if you wanted.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: My point is that we did the same thing with the reserves, and if we make a similar motion that materials we received and witnesses we heard—

The Chairman: Moved by Mrs. Longfield that the same motion apply to our work with the reserves. Agreed?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned. Thank you, colleagues.