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, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, November 7, 2002

0905

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP)

The Clerk

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

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC)

The Clerk

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance)

The Clerk

Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance)

The Clerk

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Clerk

0910

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Clerk

The Chair (Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.))

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

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ)

0915

The Chair

Ms. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ)

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

0920

The Chair

Mr. David Price

The Chair

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

0925

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Joe McGuire

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

Ms. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

0930

Ms. Cheryl Gallant

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mr. David Price

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. David Price

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

0935

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mr. David Price

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

0940

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Ms. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Ms. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

0945

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

0950

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. David Price

The Chair

Mr. Joe McGuire

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

M. David Price

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

0955

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Ms. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

NUMBER 001

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, November 7, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[Translation]

The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, we have a quorum. Our first item of business is the election of the Chair.

[English]

Are there any nominations for the position of chair?

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): I just wanted to check on that nomination.

The Clerk: There are no more nominations, so the nominations are closed. All those in favour that Mr. Pratt be elected chair?

I declare Mr. Pratt elected chair of the committee.

With the new procedures, I'm the one who also presides over the election of the vice-chairs.

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): I move that David Price be first vice-chair.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): I'll second it.

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

All those in favour that Mr. Price be elected government vice-chair? Carried.

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Do we need a vote?

The Clerk: No, we don't need a secret ballot for that.

We can now proceed to the election of opposition vice-chair.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): I nominate Leon Benoit.

The Clerk: Are there any other nominations?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I nominate Elsie Wayne, please.

The Clerk: Elsie Wayne.

[Translation]

Are there any other nominations?

[English]

The nominations are now closed. Because we have two nominations, there will be a secret ballot.

[Members vote by secret ballot]

The Clerk: We now have a successful candidate. The opposition vice-chair is Mrs. Elsie Wayne.

¿ (0910)

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I want to thank each and every one of you. I think we have a lot of work to do, and I look forward to working very closely with David, as we have in the past with both Davids--David number one and David number two. This committee has a lot of work to do, as we know, and we will all work together to achieve it.

Thank you very much.

The Clerk: I will invite the chair to come and take the chair.

The Chair (Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.)): Thank you very much, Madam Clerk, for your work today. It is much appreciated.

I too would like to echo the words of Elsie in terms of thanking the committee for their support. Elsie is right, we certainly do have a lot of work ahead of us. I look forward to working with each and every one of you for the benefit of the men and women of the Canadian Forces and also for the benefit of our veterans, certainly.

David, did you want to make a comment?

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): I want to thank everybody too.

I'll just echo what Elsie said. We have a lot of work ahead of us, so let's get on with it.

The Chair: I gather we have a series of routine motions we should deal with. We are going to need some movers for these particular motions, which are being circulated at this point.

Mr. John O'Reilly: I have a point of order. I think your first motion on the subcommittee on agenda is flawed because it says we have a Progressive Conservative Party representative as a vice-chair. It should be a member of the official opposition, not the Progressive Conservative Party.

The Chair: That's moved. All those in favour?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I have a question. There are two parliamentary secretaries on the steering committee. Some committees keep parliamentary secretaries from those positions specifically so they don't have too much control over the direction of the committee. I would suggest that we should do that here.

The Chair: I'm in the hands of the committee in terms of what you would like to do. Typically, there has been a Liberal majority on the subcommittee. What's the view?

Mr. John O'Reilly: I'm a parliamentary secretary, and I certainly have something valuable to add to that committee, as does the parliamentary secretary for veterans affairs. One is defence and one is veterans affairs; it's a dual committee. I don't think we're trying to run anything. As I said, I think that it's just part of the agenda that this is the way it was set up.

The Chair: Ms. Tremblay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Moreover, if we want the steering committee to enjoy considerable flexibility in terms of addressing the genuine needs of the public, this is a golden opportunity to allow members to make a worthwhile contribution, without having to ask the two parliamentary secretaries to control things and put forward the ministers' agenda, rather than the members' agenda. As I see it, the two parliamentary secretaries should not serve on the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. Substitute two other Liberal members, if you wish, but the parliamentary secretaries shouldn't be on the subcommittee.

¿ (0915)

[English]

The Chair: We'll have Ms. Gallant.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: We take issue with parliamentary secretaries being part of this committee. To put the two parliamentary secretaries on the steering committee provides even further imbalance, not to mention an overly weighted vote in favour of the government on that particular subcommittee.

The Chair: Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Some thoughts are entering my own mind. We just recently created a subcommittee on veterans affairs. There's no provision in this motion, in terms of the composition of the committee, to make the chair of that committee a member of this committee automatically. We have traditionally, as a committee, ignored veterans affairs. I'm not saying there hasn't been reason for it, but it really hasn't occupied much of the agenda.

I think the parliamentary secretary for veterans affairs--whoever it might be--can play a role as a liaison, because I'm only going to be here for two more weeks.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: On a point of order, there's a motion on the floor and we should be discussing it.

The Chair: I don't have an amendment.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I made a motion to amend--

The Chair: I would ask committee members to wait until Mr. Provenzano has had an opportunity to speak on this.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I'm going to wrap it up right now.

I think the parliamentary secretary for veterans affairs would play an important role on this agenda committee, especially in terms of providing the linkage between a subcommittee that is struck just to deal with veterans affairs and the main committee. So I would say that the motion has merit, to leave it as it is with the two parliamentary secretaries being part of the committee.

The Chair: Next I have Peter, then Claude, and then Elsie.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It hasn't been the world's greatest parliamentary experience, but in the last years on the veterans affairs committee, I think it's worked fairly well. I think this motion is in proper order. The fact is that a lot of the time people are scratching for time to get to a meeting, or whatever. I doubt very much you're going to see two PSs there the best of times, with their workload.

The reality is, what Carmen said is absolutely correct. We need a little more input into veterans, as well as whatever information can come from the department. If that can help us in our agenda procedures, there will be no worries on this side.

The Chair: Next is Claude, and then Elsie.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): I felt that we were on a democracy roll this past week, that we were seeing fewer appointments by the minister or Prime Minister. If we're to continue in this direction, then I have problem, politically speaking, with the presence of the parliamentary secretaries. We elected the Vice-Chair by secret ballot and that's fine. However, to have committee members try and push through their agenda...Whether we like it or not, the parliamentary secretary is not just any ordinary member. That person has a stake in the Department of National Defence. He is often called upon to testify before the committee at the request of the Defence Minister to try and influence decisions one way or another. I'm not saying that's wrong, but it's a game, a Liberal Party game. Admittedly, that's the parliamentary secretary's job, but our job is to be the opposition.

As far as committees are concerned, we have also sought more freedom within the committee structure. This is part of British culture and tradition. In that respect, I would prefer that the two parliamentary secretaries be replaced. I have no problem with them being replaced by Liberals. They are colleagues, backbenchers like us, but politically, they will not be as tied to the party line as parliamentary secretaries.

[English]

The Chair: Elsie is next, and then David Price.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Like my colleague, Peter, I agree that the two parliamentary secretaries should certainly be there, when it comes to veterans affairs. I sit on that committee as well. There has to be a good understanding, from our defence committee right through to veterans affairs, of the needs that are out there today for them.

We've always worked. We were able to achieve many things when it came to our merchant navy men and other veterans. So I'm in favour of the parliamentary secretaries being there as representatives.

¿ (0920)

The Chair: Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price: I've been on this committee for four or five years now, and I was also on the subcommittee. At any meetings I've attended--and I've attended pretty well all of them--the parliamentary secretaries have been rather invaluable, because of certain information they can bring to the subcommittee on future subjects we want to deal with.

I definitely agree we tend to put veterans affairs aside a little bit, and we really need that input. So it's very important that we have the parliamentary secretaries there. Of course they're going to vote with the government; there's no question there. But I don't think they'll push the agenda. We'll push our own agenda.

The Chair: Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Chair, I think the way the motion reads is that there are eight members. I don't know if you use votes when you set the agenda or not, but there's potential for a deadlock right there. If you drop the two parliamentary secretaries, you will have six members, with the majority party really in a minority position.

I think if you didn't have the parliamentary secretaries we would be asking, as we're always doing, what is the government going to do here, or what are they thinking there? If they weren't there, you'd have to call them in anyway for a lot of your meetings. So you might as well have them there.

But I also think there is a little danger of the majority party having a minority position here.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. McGuire.

Ms. Gallant, you wanted to make another comment?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: No, not now.

The Chair: Okay, all right.

We've had a motion to correct—I think it's more of a housekeeping motion than anything else—from Mr. O'Reilly. Maybe we could vote on that first, in terms of the representative of the Canadian Alliance or representative of the official opposition on the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

(Amendment agreed to)

Mr. Benoit, would you like to move your motion?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, that the two parliamentary secretaries be removed from the membership of the subcommittee.

The Chair: With no replacements?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Not...so we'd have to have a government member, of course, with the chair and the vice-chair as their members.

The Chair: To understand your intent, then, it is to remove the parliamentary secretaries and to replace them with two Liberal members?

Mr. Leon Benoit: No.

The Chair: Okay, all right. So we're clear on the motion then?

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Could I move a sub-amendment to the motion? I move that the two parliamentary secretaries be replaced by two Liberal backbenchers.

[English]

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, I'll accept that. It makes sense.

The Chair: So we'll consider that a friendly amendment. So we'll vote on Mr. Benoit's amendment then.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: All right. We're on the main motion as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Do we have a mover for motion number two?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I so move.

The Chair: On research assistance, Mr. Stoffer, would you like to read the motion?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I move that the committee retain the services of one or more research officers in the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist the committee in its work, at the discretion of the chair.

(Motion agreed to)

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Do we have a mover for motion number three?

Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You have to read it though.

Mr. Joe McGuire: I move that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that as least five members are present, including two members of the opposition, and that after fifteen minutes the number be reduced to three members, including one member of the opposition.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: On motion number four, the questioning of witnesses, Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I so propose.

The Chair: Moved by Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Do you want me to read it in French or in English?

[Translation]

I move that witnesses be given ten minutes for their opening statement and that during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated in the first round, seven minutes each for the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc Québécois, the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party; and in the second round, five minutes for each party in the same order.

[English]

The Chair: Is there any discussion?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. I'll state my case briefly, Mr. Chair, which is that when we had discussions on this at length before, several members of the committee said--and of course I argued--that in the first round the Canadian Alliance should have either 10 or 15 minutes. If it was 10 minutes, then the Bloc should have seven and each of the Conservatives and the New Democrats five--of course, going across to the Liberals with equal time--and then we would follow through on the second round with five minutes for each member alternating.

As I was presenting that case, several members said it would be much more fair. Each member on the committee is equal, and time should be equal for each member. I would just suggest that we keep in the spirit even though I don't agree that it's fair. Being the official opposition, we should certainly have more time. I would move that we have equal time for each member on the committee, starting with the official opposition and going through in the same order as proposed in this motion, so each member on the committee is treated equally.

The Chair: I have Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'll just give you a heads-up. Yesterday I was at the justice committee, and this is the exact same motion that was passed at justice. We all know the Alliance is fairly strong on justice issues. They had four members there yesterday, and they actually agreed that this is the proper way to go in the justice committee. Now, our fisheries committee is completely different. We're going to change that because it's weighted very heavily towards the official opposition, but we have to accept that. But this is exactly as it is in justice. I think it worked quite well the last time.

The Chair: I have Ms. Tremblay now.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, once a member is elected to the House and addresses the House, regardless of the number of members in the House, each member is allotted 20 minutes or 10 minutes, depending on the rules. Members have either ten minutes or five minutes for questions. It doesn't matter if your party has 12 members or 175 members, it makes no sense to allot time based on representation. In my view, everyone should be allocated the same amount of time, be they government or opposition members. We are all interested in putting questions to witnesses and we should be allotted equal time to do so. As I see it, proportionality has nothing to do with this. It's an indefensible argument, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Gallant.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: First I have a question, and then I have a remark. The question is, when witnesses are given 10 minutes, does that mean that when we have five witnesses they each receive 10 minutes or as a group they receive 10 minutes?

The Chair: The rule has been 10 minutes, but let's face it, anybody familiar with this committee over the course of the last few years will know that if the witness goes over by a few minutes, we don't slap their wrists. We let them continue their presentation.

The short answer to your question is no, but it's always within the discretion of the committee as to the relevance of what's being said and the need to ask questions, and we have maintained a fairly flexible approach to statements by witnesses.

Now, what is your statement?

¿ (0930)

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: This is in response to Mr. Stoffer's remarks. In industry yesterday our thrust was that we wanted to make sure that everyone did have equal time, including backbenchers. By the time you go several rounds there are some people who do not get a chance to speak during an entire meeting. I would like to change the seven minutes to five minutes and continue the rotations so all members have a greater chance to speak.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: A member cannot move a motion when there is already one on the table.

[English]

The Chair: I have Mrs. Wayne on my list now.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that I agree with the motion that is here because that makes each party equal and the time for each party equal. We're not individuals, we're here as representatives of our parties. Each party is treated equally, and that's the way it should be. One party shouldn't be getting 10 or 15 minutes more than the rest of us; that isn't fair. You have to divide it up amongst your members who are here.

The Chair: Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price: This is just offered as a point of information, Mr. Chair. I sat on foreign affairs and there they have just a little change. It's a 10-minute round if there's a minister, it's a five-minute round if there are other witnesses, and then it goes back and forth. The first round goes through 10 minutes to all parties, and then it's back and forth after that.

The Chair: Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): I don't have a problem with Ms. Gallant's motion to give everybody five minutes and keep going around the table until everybody gets a chance. I think it's a fair way of doing it. From seven minutes to five minutes is not a big deal to me, as long as everybody gets a chance to voice their opinions and ask their questions.

She's absolutely right. Sometimes when people are here, whether they're colleagues of mine or colleagues across the way, they just don't get a chance to talk and ask questions. I think they feel a little left out, and that's not what this committee is all about. It's an inclusive thing, and the more we can include our colleagues the better. So I don't have a problem with the five minutes.

The Chair: I should also note that the clerk of the committee has prepared a list of the speaking times for each of the committees in the House. Perhaps the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, because this very much relates to our procedures, could attempt to deal with this issue, once we have it in front of us. I throw that out as a suggestion to committee, if you want to look at that.

Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price: I think that's a good suggestion. We'll take a lot of time here going back and forth. That way we can sit and concentrate on that subject. But it is always a subject of contention.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit is next, and then Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I want to make a motion. I guess I didn't make that a motion originally.

Just for clarification, in the past--certainly at immigration committee, as an example--the official opposition had more time, but I can see there's no mood for that, so each member should have equal time. I move that in the first round, one member from each party will get seven minutes. After that we'll go to five minutes. So it will go not to parties, but to members. All government members will get a chance to state their case or ask questions, at least in the five-minute round.

For example, if the official opposition has three members on the committee, all three will be allowed to ask questions before a second round goes to the parties that have one member on committee. Going by the actual individual MPs, each will have equal time back and forth, with the exception of the first round, which will be seven minutes. So the first round will get two minutes more, and after that every member will be given a equal chance.

The Chair: Next is Mr. Bachand, and then Mrs. Wayne.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: I'm looking at how this debate is unfolding. We're arguing over an extra minute or two allocated to a particular party. I've listened to the two vice-chairs and to the Chair talk about getting down to business. I don't understand why people are objecting because the motion is straightforward. Furthermore, I'm opposed to referring this matter to the subcommittee. It's the responsibility of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to ensure that the questioning of witnesses proceeds correctly. I don't understand why we're quibbling over two minutes, or why one party is trying to get five minutes more than another. Things are fine as they are. As I recall, Mr. Chairman, this is how we worked last year. The same motion was moved and everything went smoothly.

Therefore, I ask that you call the vote immediately on this motion, if possible.

¿ (0935)

[English]

The Chair: Okay, I've got Ms. Wayne, and then Mr. Price.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: If each member has seven minutes, that will be 49 minutes for the government side with seven members. Then we come back over here to this side, and the Alliance will have 21 minutes. Then you will have 14 minutes, and we'll have seven minutes--this is ridiculous.

For the love of heaven, the way we operated before was very good. It was successful. There's no way you can bring a witness in here, for God's sake, and for 49 minutes have everybody ask questions on one side. It is ridiculous.

Let's get on with it, Mr. Chairman. What we have here is fair and just. Each party is being treated equally and fairly, and that's the way it should be, whether you have one member, seven members, or three members.

The Chair: Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price: …[Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...what's happening here and it will continue, so I move that we move this to a subcommittee to be looked at there.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: No. There's a motion on the table, David.

[English]

There's a proposal on the table, sir, and we ask for the vote. The vote being called, you must proceed to the vote.

An hon. member: My motion is on the table.

The Chair: Mr. O'Reilly.

Mr. John O'Reilly: On a point of order, is Ms. Gallant's motion on the table?

The Chair: Mr. Benoit is the only person who has proposed a motion.

Mr. Bob Wood: It was just a suggestion.

The Chair: Actually, Mr. Price has moved that we refer this to the subcommittee on procedure and agenda. Quite frankly, there is clearly disagreement around the table. Nobody has anything in front of them to try to make any sort of decision one way or another. With respect, committee members, if we were to make any changes whatsoever, I think we would want to understand fully the implications of those changes.

So Mr. Price's motion is on the table. I'm going to call a vote on that motion, because it does take precedence, and we'll govern ourselves accordingly.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Is it considered to be a tabling motion?

The Chair: No, it's a motion for referral to the subcommittee on procedure and agenda.

Yes, Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Will the subcommittee's decision be referred back to the main committee for discussion?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes, this is not something for the subcommittee to decide.

[English]

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I'll second the motion to refer.

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I'd like you to call a recorded vote on the motion. We have no business deferring this matter to the subcommittee. It's a complete and utter waste of time. We have the power to decide. Otherwise, we'll only have to start our discussions all over again and we'll never make any headway.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, I think all those who wanted to speak on this have had an opportunity, and it's time we dealt with the question.

Clerk, would you like to call the vote?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: A recorded vote.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Could you tell us what your motion is? Is it a referral motion?

The Chair: The motion is to refer to the subcommittee on procedure and agenda--

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: —and by implication, to report back to the main committee.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That's right.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Could we possibly have a recorded vote?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Also, implicit in that is that we are going to receive written proposals.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes.

The Chair: The clerk will call the vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 9; yeas 4)

¿ (0940)

The Chair: So the motion was defeated. We are dealing with individual motions now.

The Chair: Madame Tremblay.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Benoit's proposal cannot be accepted by you, because it's a completely different proposal from the one Mr. Bachand put on the table. You cannot make an amendment that changes the whole proposal. So if your amendment is changing the original proposal, you have to refuse it as chair. That's it, that's all.

The Chair: Ms. Tremblay, I think this committee would benefit from you being a full-time member. But with respect, I think having a motion on the table allows amendments to that motion dealing with any variations thereof. We can vote on the amendment to the main motion and deal with it accordingly.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: That's if the amendment doesn't change the whole proposal. It's a completely different thing. It's not an amendment to that. Anyway, I'm calling the vote on this amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, would you like to speak on this?

Mr. Leon Benoit: What I could do, so that we do have a written proposal in front of us and have time to consider it, is accept a tabling motion so we could table it until the next meeting. Everybody could have a look at it and discuss it.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Then I'll go ahead with the motion.

The motion is that, in the same order--

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, just to be clear on this, I think it's a general rule of procedure that you cannot do indirectly what you can't do directly. The committee decided that it was not possible to look at it from the standpoint of the subcommittee on procedure and agenda, so tabling would have essentially the same effect.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I didn't mean defer it to the--

The Chair: I realize that, so let's go ahead with this. I simply wanted to give you the reasons why we want to deal with this right now and not table it.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay.

The motion is that the order of questioning witnesses starts with the official opposition, seven minutes; government, seven; Bloc, seven; government, seven; NDP, seven; government, seven; Conservative, seven; government...or pardon me, we should be going to five on government after the first seven-minute spot. So we go to five with government after that, and then after that, official opposition, five; government, five; down the line, back and forth. So it would be Bloc, five; government, five; and so on. Then we go to the third member from the official opposition, government, and if we have a second...well, if we have a second; we would have already taken care of the second, I guess, in the Bloc. Then let the government members each finish their five-minute slot.

That way every member on this committee has a chance to ask questions.

The Chair: Okay.

I have Ms. Gallant, and then Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: I have a question on that. You said that in the second round, the second person in the official opposition goes, and then the Bloc. Then you said, “and so on”. I think your intent is to have speaking time according to the number of seats in the House.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, no, not at all.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Did you mean that it would not go to the NDP and the PCs after the Bloc in the second round because they don't have any more members?

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's right. Each party would get a chance to present first, then we go to the members who haven't had a chance to question, and back and forth until each member has had a chance to question.

The Chair: Cheryl.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: So for the parties who do not have more than one person, that means they would not speak again until after everyone else has spoken. Is that your intent?

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's correct, yes.

The Chair: Does everyone around the table understand?

Some hon. members: Yes.

An hon. member: And we're not agreed.

The Chair: Ms. Tremblay, and then Mr. Stoffer.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I'd like you to call the vote now on the member's motion, since we're ready for the question.

[English]

The Chair: We're not ready just yet. We're going to hear from Mr. Stoffer first.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Again, Mr. Chairman, I go back to my lack of parliamentary experience, but if we can't figure this out, it's no wonder we can't replace the Sea Kings.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The difficulty we have here is that we understand the motion all too well. Put it to a vote and we'll discuss it, right now.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: No other speakers?

Should we have a voice vote or a recorded vote?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Recorded.

The Chair: Okay, a recorded vote on Mr. Benoit's amendment.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 6)

Mr. Bob Wood: How did we lose that? I'm counting, and I think the nays had it.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, I've been advised that we need to deal with the motion as amended, so we'll have a recorded vote.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. What that basically means is that Peter and I have one question, we don't have any time after that, but everybody else does. We have one round for us, and after that it's over. Mr. Chair, that isn't the way we have gone in this democratic system we have always had; it was always democratic, where every party was treated fairly and justly. We sure don't have that now.

The Chair: Mrs. Wayne, we just had a democratic vote here, and the proposition of Mr. Benoit won by a vote of seven to six. I didn't vote.

I think it's time to move on to deal with the motion as amended, and we'll do a recorded vote as well.

¿ (0950)

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Can we see the amended vote?

The Chair: Okay. I'm going to rely on Mr. Benoit to fill in the blanks here, but we have a recording of this meeting, so we can deal with any particular nuances if there's any dispute at some future point. The motion is that witnesses be given 10 minutes for their opening statement and that during the questioning of witnesses there be allocated in the first round--

Mr. Leon Benoit: I pretty much have to go through it, but the official opposition will have seven minutes, government right down the line, seven minutes each--

The Chair: —Bloc seven, government seven, NDP seven, government seven, Conservatives seven, and then we go to the five-minute rounds.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, and then there are five-minute rounds starting with the official opposition and going back and forth as there are members on committee and as allocated to the parties.

The Chair: Okay, we all understand it. Please, let's get on with the motion as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 6)

The Chair: We're on the next item, witness expenses. Do we have a mover for that?

Mr. David Price: I would move that, at the discretion of the chair, reasonable travelling expenses, as per the regulations established by the Board of Internal Economy, be paid to witnesses invited to appear before the committee, and that payment of these expenses be limited to two representatives per organization.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: On number six, order in council appointments, do we have a mover?

Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Joe McGuire: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: For the motion on documents, do we have a mover?

Okay, Mr. O'Reilly.

Mr. John O'Reilly: I move that the clerk of the committee be authorized to circulate the documents received only when they exist in both official languages.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: On number eight, notices of motion, Mr. Wood, would you move it.

Mr. Bob Wood: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: On number nine, video recording, moved by Ms. Wayne, will you dispense with reading it?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Sure. I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: On number 10, subcommittee on veterans affairs, do I have a mover?

Mr. Price.

M. David Price: I will dispense with the reading. I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Sir, in the fisheries committee we had a motion on here that basically said that when the minister appeared before the committee we would try to televise that meeting if at all possible.

Is it possible to include something like that in here?

The Chair: That has been our practice in the past and we will definitely take note of that.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Is that motion in here?

The Chair: I don't think we necessarily need a motion, but if you want to move one, I'm sure that members would probably...

¿ (0955)

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I would move that when the minister is asked to appear before the committee the chair try to access television, or the cameras, so that it can be recorded for the general public.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Any further suggestions for other motions?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I have a question on televising witnesses.

Sometimes the notice for witnesses is very short, which makes it difficult to meet that 48-hour timetable for requesting that it be televised. There are some witnesses who lend themselves very well to being televised. We need something to ensure that all members of committee have some time between the time the notice of witnesses is given, before that 48-hour deadline, and I don't believe that is provided in the rules that this committee operates under.

We often deal on 48 hours' notice for committees, so there's no time, then, to request that this be televised. So I think we should have a minimum of 24 hours to give committee members at least 24 hours before that 48-hour deadline. So that would mean that the committee would receive a minimum of 72 hours' notice of witnesses appearing, for that reason.

The Chair: Okay. Perhaps we could take that up at the subcommittee on procedure and agenda.

I don't think it's an unreasonable request. Certainly I think that we should be giving the members of this committee as much advance notice as possible for the appearance of specific witnesses.

I would like to suggest perhaps that we convene a very brief meeting of the subcommittee on procedure and agenda after this meeting concludes. No?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I have no time. I'm under time constraints already.

The Chair: Okay. If we could deal with this as a committee of the whole issue, can I suggest that we attempt to get the minister in front of the committee as quickly as possible, and the Chief of the Defence Staff as well? If we can start with those two, we can convene a meeting of the subcommittee on procedure and agenda as quickly as possible to deal with other potential witnesses.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: There are two other issues. One involves your riding, I believe, Mr. Pratt. In the event that we cannot get the minister or the Chief of the Defence Staff right away for the upcoming meetings, would it be possible to call as witnesses...the neighbourhood surrounding the current site of the JTF-2, and as well, call in witnesses to discuss the issue of the Canadian Emergency Preparedness College?

The Chair: Ms. Gallant, in the case of the former, I'm in the process of meeting with my residents, so I think I'll try to look after that issue. There'll be some indication, probably, as to what the resolution is following that meeting with the residents.

On the other issue, I think we're going to have to leave that as an item for the subcommittee on procedure and agenda to deal with and consider on its merits. Given what we've heard from members around here, they don't have time to deal with those items now. So if we could get started with the minister and the CDS, then we can entertain other suggestions for witnesses.

We talked earlier in the fall about the possibility of beginning a study on Canada-U.S. relations--military relations, defence relations--and there's also the upcoming budget, which I think has certainly been the focus of our attention over the course of the last little while that we will want to deal with.

Perhaps we could get started with those two witnesses, then deal with others at the next meeting of the subcommittee on procedure and agenda. Is that agreeable to members around the table? Okay.

Having no further business to conduct--

Mr. John O'Reilly: I move to adjourn.

The Chair: Moved by Mr. O'Reilly.

This meeting is adjourned.