NDVA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, January 30, 2003

¿

0920

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

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ)

The Chair

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

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Michel Rossignol (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. Michel Rossignol

The Chair

Mr. Ivan Grose

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. David Price

The Chair

Mr. David Price

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

¿

0930

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

Mr. Michel Rossignol

The Chair

Mr. Michel Rossignol

The Chair

Mr. Michel Rossignol

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Ivan Grose

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

¿

0935

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

---

NUMBER 007

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, January 30, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0920)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.)): I'd like to call this meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to order. We would like to thank and recognize the honourable member for Etobicoke North, welcome him to the defence committee, and get on with the items of business that we have on our agenda.

    The first item is the second report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. It deals with three motions in total, relating to our deliberations earlier this week. Let's get it on the floor. Do we have a mover?

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): I so move.

    The Chair: It's moved by Elsie.

    We'll go ahead with the discussion now.

    Claude.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): We're discussing the motion to adopt that which we adopted in the smaller committee this week. I suggested that we have a general presentation on everything that comes under the heading of protocol or treaty. I don't see this anywhere in the outline. Is that suggestion included?

[English]

    The Chair: I'm informed that this report was formulated at the time of the...it's going to be added to this study outline. It is recognized as being part of it. I think everyone agreed that your suggestion was a good one, Claude, and that the documents relating to Canada–U.S. defence relations are going to be part of the equation in terms of the study. I think that's covered off.

    Are there any other questions or comments? It was moved by Elsie.

    Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): I'll second it, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: It's seconded by David.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: There's no further discussion in terms of witnesses, then? If people do have suggestions with respect to witnesses, they can bring them forward at any time.

    Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): I noticed a couple of things. I noticed you are considering the Air Force Association of Canada, but not the Royal Canadian Legion. That will put their noses out of joint. Maybe we should just put their name on and make them happy.

    The Chair: Actually, you raise a good point there, Ivan. Was there any rationale for the Air Force Association being included?

    Mr. Michel Rossignol (Committee Researcher): No, it was added because of the—

    The Chair: Strictly speaking, though, the Air Force Association is not a veterans'....

    Mr. Michel Rossignol: No, the Legion is the veterans' organization. The Air Force Association was added for industrial issues, air force issues, and things like that.

    The Chair: If we had invited the army, navy, and air force veterans, I think we perhaps would have run into trouble in terms of relations with the Legion. Frankly, though, I'm not sure the Legion would bring much value-added to this discussion.

    Mr. Ivan Grose: I don't think so either.

    Another thing I noticed is that we have no one from the reserves. They're a big component of the regular force now. In my home town, we have an armoured regiment, and they train with the Americans. We have three generals who went on from being colonels of the regiment to being area commanders. I think they could add something to it, because there's a lot of interplay. I don't know whether it's true of all regiments, but it is with ours.

    The Chair: That's a good suggestion.

    I think Peter had a comment, and then we'll go to David and Mrs. Gallant.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Chair, for the names—

    The Chair: Is this on the reserves, Peter?

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, it's on the list of witnesses.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Does anyone have a follow-up on Ivan's comment?

    David, on the reserves.

    Mr. David Price: Yes, I just want to follow it up.

    Ivan is absolutely right. I know my reserve units train with the Americans all the time. There is a relationship there, and I think it's something we should touch. In fact, part of the defence committee went previously to Fort Lewis to visit our reserve units that were in place and training with the Americans.

    The Chair: We were there together, I think.

    Mr. David Price: I think that's important.

    The Chair: Mrs. Gallant, do you have anything on the reserves?

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): No, not on the reserves.

    The Chair: Peter, and then Mrs. Gallant.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Would you like a verbal list of some names to add to the witness list?

¿  (0930)  

    The Chair: If you have any suggestions, you can run them by the committee.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: I just have a couple of names.

    When we were at NORAD, we met Lieutenant-General Ken Pennie, and I understand he has a responsibility for joint discussions right now. I think he would be a good one to speak to.

    The Chair: He's down on the list.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Admiral Dusty Miller would be good, too. He was down at Norfolk, Virginia, and he has risen in rank as well.

    Another person to put on the list is Dan Middlemiss, from Nova Scotia. He's well known in strategic thinking circles.

    One other organization is the Royal United Services Institute of Nova Scotia. Bruce MacDonald is the president, and I can get you his phone number. They're a group in Atlantic Canada that does a lot of academic studies on port security, cooperation with the U.S., and things of that nature, and I think they'd be quite good.

    The Chair: As long as their focus is defence, because I think we had this discussion—

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, and they're all ex-military personnel.

    The Chair: All right.

    Mrs. Gallant, then Elsie.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: In the outline, reference is made to the cooperation between the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and OCIPEP. I would like to have a witness from OCIPEP to explain how they're working together.

    As well, our special forces are working together more and more, so perhaps Vice-Admiral Greg Madison would be a good choice.

    The Chair: We have Margaret Purdy on the list. She's from OCIPEP, so they're already there.

    Is Admiral Madison on the list? No?

    Mr. Michel Rossignol: No, we have the Chief of the Defence Staff.

    The Chair: Typically, Admiral Madison comes with General Ray Henault, though. Isn't he the VCDS?

    Mr. Michel Rossignol: Yes, and the vice-chief is indicated.

    The Chair: Is it the vice-chief who is responsible for...?

    Mr. Michel Rossignol: No, the deputy chief is responsible for special forces.

    The Chair: Is there anything further?

    Elsie, followed by Peter.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Just a week ago, I had an opportunity to speak to the Royal United Services Institute at Camp Gagetown, and General Lou Cuppens. He should be someone who is on this list.

    He also is involved in the Royal United Services Institute. He came to see me because the little stipends that they've always received for the work they do with regard to the military and with regard to keeping their finger on the pulse of everything, was stopped just this past month. For the first time ever, DND took it away from them because they didn't have the money. I think around $17,000 was the maximum for the whole of the Royal United Services Institute across the nation. In any event, he should be in here on these other issues.

    The Chair: I would agree that General Cuppens would be a very good witness before the committee. I think he was deputy commander of NORAD at one time.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, he was deputy commander.

    The Chair: As far as the grants to various organizations—

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: No, I just mentioned that to you, but that's not why we would bring him in. He should be coming in to discuss the situation of today.

    The Chair: All right.

    Peter, do you have anything further?

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes.

    I point to the list here, and it's pretty much a centre-right or right-leaning group of people. Just to offer a bit of balance, I thought I'd maybe offer up the opportunity for Lloyd Axworthy to appear.

    The Chair: That radical left-winger?

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Hey, if you want to give the perception of points of view from all sides, then he's no longer in the government, he's in an institute. I think it would be a fair—

    The Chair: I think we should extend that invitation.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's up to him to appear if he wants to.

    The Chair: Or perhaps somebody else from the institute can come if he can't make it.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Sure, because I think it would just offer some sort of balance.

    There's also a guy from New Brunswick who gave a presentation a couple of years ago. I forget his name, but I thought his presentation was very good. He was a professor from New Brunswick, remember?

    The Chair: David Charters?

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: David Charters, yes. That's the guy. I thought he gave a very good, balanced view on military issues.

    The Chair: We can extend invitations to these folks, obviously. I think we have a list of witnesses that could easily take us into the fall, quite frankly.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's a proper thing.

    The Chair: I don't think there's going to be any shortage of grist for the mill that way.

    Claude.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand: Since the Minister, Mr. Graham, is currently in the middle of a policy review, I'm wondering if we could have a Foreign Affairs representative come and give us his take on Canada-US relations from a military perspective. This would provide us with an opportunity to make a modest contribution to the policy review process, whereas we haven't yet started our own review. I think it's important for us to do both, but I won't revisit that question. I think this would be one way for us to get involved in the goings-on at Foreign Affairs.

[English]

    The Chair: The short answer, Claude, is that I think we could possibly benefit from some cross-fertilization between departments.

    Mr. Claude Bachand: Exactly.

    The Chair: The ideas that would flow from interdepartmental comments on this issue are very important.

    Is there anything further, Claude? No? Okay.

    Have we covered off the issue of witnesses to everyone's satisfaction, then? Yes? All right.

    The next item I had on the agenda was really getting the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs up and running. I'm advised now that all of the lists have been submitted in terms of the participation of all of the parties on the subcommittee. There will therefore be a meeting of the subcommittee next Wednesday at 5:30, at a place yet to be determined. People can hopefully put that on their schedules and govern themselves accordingly.

    Peter, you had a question.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Have you received the entire list from our party yet?

    The Clerk of the Committee: Yes.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: For the critic?

    The Clerk: For the critic, no.

    The Chair: Are you the veterans affairs critic as well, Peter?

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: As I speak, yes. I don't know if I'm going to be next week, though. Our new leader hasn't announced the critic positions yet.

    The Clerk: I haven't heard anything on the new ones, so I'll check again. I had received something a few weeks ago.

    An hon. member: Who's listed on the government side?

    The Chair: The people we have on the government side are Mr. Grose, Mr. Wood, Mr. McTeague, Mr. Provenzano, and Mrs. Ur. I'm sure that list could be subject to change based on consultations with the whip's office, though.

    Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Has the whip consulted anybody on this committee to see if they want to be on the subcommittee?

    The Chair: We are sometimes given a fait accompli on these matters.

    Mr. Ivan Grose: Welcome to the real world.

    The Chair: Again, if members are interested in serving on that subcommittee, either from the government side or the opposition side, they should make those views known to their whips. We had some difficulty getting a list of people. It was a relief, for me at least, to finally get the list so that we can get this committee underway.

    Is there anything further?

    Claude.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand: Getting back to the link that needs to be maintained with the subcommittee on veterans affairs, if the subcommittee meets next Wednesday, for example, would it be at liberty to study whatever it likes, or must it accept a mandate from the main committee?

[English]

    The Chair: The subcommittee is master of its own procedures that way, in terms of the issues it wishes to study. Of course, it will have to report back to this committee, as the main committee, in terms of any reports it wants to make.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Our committee travelled out west, remember? We then went to Ontario and Quebec to look at the veterans' hospitals. It hasn't been back east to the maritime provinces, though, and it was supposed to go there. They're still waiting for it to come.

    The Chair: A trip was cancelled in September.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, it was.

    The Chair: Hopefully we'll have some cooperation as far as travel goes.

    Are there any other items of business that members want to raise?

    Peter.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: As I mentioned the other day, on some of the cost overruns and the perceptions of serious waste within the department, we need to at least have somebody come before us to explain some of those expenditures. As I said before, it makes it very difficult, especially in my circumstance, to advocate and fight very hard for additional resources when the current resources appear to be misspent. I wouldn't mind somebody coming before us so we can ask them, “What in hell are you doing?” We can ask about the supply chain, the radar systems, the NATO flying, and the satellite system. Every two or three months, we hear of another x number of millions of dollars that have gone out the window, and that has to stop.

    You're right. Every department, especially one this big, will have slippage. But if the Canadian people are going to get behind the department in terms of more additional resources, we want at least to have someone who can account for some of those errors in judgment and who can at least say exactly what happened, so that we don't have to read it in the headlines and can have a better understanding.

¿  (0935)  

    The Chair: As I think I mentioned at our previous meeting, Peter, there is going to be an opportunity to have the minister in front of the committee in terms of the estimates. That has to happen. These issues obviously have been around for a number of months at this point. We're going into a budget very soon and we are going to get some announcements with respect to defence spending, I would expect.

    These are proper questions for the minister when he comes before the committee. He is the person responsible in that way. I don't disagree with you in terms of the import of these issues. I think we have a consensus within the committee that we have to forge ahead with the Canada–U.S. study, but there will be opportunities to question the minister on these other issues that preoccupy a lot of us.

    Thank you.

    The meeting is adjourned.