Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, April 9, 1997

.1622

[English]

The Chair (Ms Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.)): I will now call the meeting to order and welcome you all. I'll also welcome our temporary greffier, Madame Parent-Bélisle, and say that the steering committee met on Monday. We did not have a representative from the Reform Party at that meeting, so I'm delighted that we do have a representative here today.

Is it proper for me to submit the report or should...?

The Clerk of the Committee: It could be either you or a member who was there.

The Chair: Okay.

John, would you like to do that, then?

The Clerk: I do have copies. Would you like me to distribute some?

The Chair: I don't know. It's a fairly short resolution. Did the members of the committee want...?

Monsieur Jacob, you're already familiar with it. I think you've probably told Monsieur Leroux.

I would just like to say that because of the nature of the resolution that is coming forward, we clearly need unanimous consent. If we don't have unanimous consent....

Anyway, go ahead, John.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth - Wellington - Waterloo, Lib.): Madam Chairman, from the steering committee, I'd like to move a motion that was drafted and discussed at that committee:

The Chair: I would not think there would be any discussion on this. I'm prepared to entertain discussion if there is, but I was prepared to move to a vote.

Ms Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): I just need one point of clarification. On the fourth line, the motion indicates ``across Canada''. I'm making reference to a news release - I think it was from around March 7 - in relation to six areas to be visited, and they were predominantly in the Maritimes. Has that number been expanded?

.1625

The Chair: No, it was always the plan that we would be visiting approximately eight military bases across the country. That was the original plan.

Given what one might expect, the exigencies of the electoral process that may be before us, we went to the House leader and asked that if it should become necessary, we would like a House order that would allow this committee to survive an election.

So this week we were supposed to be in Atlantic Canada, in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and next week in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Those plans unfortunately had to be terminated, and we are attempting again. But it is apparently not a problem; I know, having served on a committee that survived an election. House Leader Gray was prepared to put forward that plan if and when the House was to be dissolved. So the balance of travel would be done most likely in the next Parliament.

Ms Margaret Bridgman: I'm not familiar with committees surviving from one election to another, so I think I'm possibly asking for clarification. Has that actually been achieved? Is it the status of -

The Chair: It doesn't happen until an election is imminent.

Ms Margaret Bridgman: Okay.

The Chair: But Mr. Gray and his executive assistant on the House leader side, Mr. Yanover, have assured me that it isn't a problem. As I said, I myself served my first term on the Standing Committee on Health, which was in the middle of hearings on a report. We then took a further eight or nine months to finish and write a final report. New committee members were, of course, given access to any submissions and to the testimony of previous witnesses.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, B.Q.): Madam Chair, it was stated at Monday's meeting that the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the Estimates, which is not the case. I clearly remember that when the vote on this point was held, I voted against, as did the Reform member. I don't know whether you noted that, because it was done quite quickly. But the Bloc Québécois voted against the adoption of the estimates, and I want to make that clear.

As you know, committees are always looking for responsibilities they can assume when a new Parliament is formed. When we come back after the upcoming elections, it might perhaps be useful if we could do some in-depth work, although for the moment we are just outlining it. We are going to spend $300,000, and that will probably end up like many things which the committee has done in recent years: it will simply be shelved. That is why I think we should wait. We will therefore vote against, just as we have already done.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Leroux. I'm glad you brought this up, because I want to take the opportunity to make it very clear on the record exactly what happened.

Yes, it is very true that in the actual motion in committee both the Bloc and the Reform members voted against. That was not the difficulty I referred to in the committee last week. What I referred to was the fact that before I ever brought this to committee, I sought out the members. I went to you and you told me you had no objection but that I would need to speak to Mr. Brien, which I did and got Mr. Brien's agreement. I spoke to both Mr. Frazer and Mr. Hart and got their agreement as well.

I think we all understand that negotiation is a prime part of this job, and when we did have the motion at committee I'm sure you're aware that in spite of its defeat a very protracted period of negotiation went on between the government House leadership, the official opposition House leadership, and the third-party House leadership.

.1630

While the motion was not unanimous at the time in committee, there had been agreement by all parties on this committee, because I would not have brought the matter to committee if I hadn't had the word of those members at the time.

That clearly has changed, and we understand that - or I should say we understand it has changed. The motivation may be a little less clear.

Do you have any comment?

Ms Margaret Bridgman: I do have one more question, just to follow up. If the status of the committee cannot be verified today in relation to its standing through an election, if you can't do this until after an election is called, would it not be more prudent to address it at that time?

The Chair: No, the reason being that the survival of the committee is not without precedent. It has happened before. We have the word of the House leader that it can happen again. We indeed have the undertaking from the House leader that he will see it happen again.

As I understand it, on this issue in particular we don't have a problem, from either of the opposition parties on the committee, surviving on this report. To kill this report entirely - I mean if that's what you want to do, but I would find that.... First of all, I don't think it can be done by one party not agreeing. It's not a question of whether; it's a question of when.

Yes, Mr. Richardson?

Mr. John Richardson: The urgency is the fact that the need has been defined - the need to go and look and to meet with the people to see the reality of the situation. The need has been defined for some time. There is an expectation on the part of those people that we would come, because as much as three to four months ago we made a commitment to go into the field and listen to people, to see facilities, to see conditions -

The Chair: Based on an all-party agreement.

Mr. John Richardson: Based on an all-party agreement - and to hear and observe and report back to Parliament what we found, to try to right some wrongs we know exist out there. It doesn't matter where it is in Canada. There are some concerns for every part of the forces and the situations in which they live.

They have already notified, as we requested in committee, that they use the facilities of the service's communications to notify, and have done a nice job in some of the brochures they've sent out, or their papers, through their personnel system. These talk to some degree about us getting there. You know, they're going to say, ``Boy, they really have a big interest in us. They're not following through. They're disintegrating.''

If we could get a week or so on the ground it would show that yes, we have made a legitimate attempt to get out there, and we were concerned about the voices of the sailors, soldiers, and airmen on the ground and their dependents. If we could hit one or two places before the election, it would certainly make a big difference.

The Chair: Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): I don't know if I'm in order here, but I would like to maybe take a little -

The Chair: I think I know what you're going to do. Can we wait? We need a vote on this motion. Okay?

Mr. Bob Wood: Sure.

The Chair: Yes, Ms Bridgman?

Ms Margaret Bridgman: It is certainly not our position to not do the study, or this kind of thing. I think what we're most concerned about is the process or the method being employed in this study, and that is to travel at this particular time, with the election call speculation.

My understanding is that there was a call for written submissions by June 30, initially. I'm wondering if it would not be more prudent for the committee to see witnesses here until later and do travelling following, when there is -

.1635

The Chair: I realize you've just come to this committee. We have been hearing witnesses here for the past month. Some of the people we wanted to see in Halifax in particular were spouses, social service support workers, widows, and people like that who, in spite of this committee's ability to pay for their travel and accommodation, just can't pick up and leave their children, their jobs, or their domestic situations. Given that this committee was to particularly look at those services, written submissions will not do the job; people need to go to see what's happening on the bases.

Ms Margaret Bridgman: Thank you.

The Chair: I'm prepared to call the question.

Motion agreed to

The Chair: The motion carries, but it's pointless, because without unanimous consent, it cannot fly.

Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you, Madam Chair.

As you know, I have a very large base in my area. I'm prepared to make a motion, Madam Chair, that would read something like this:

The Chair: Do I have a seconder? Thanks, John.

Any discussion? Could we have a copy of that motion?

Mr. Bob Wood: If you can read my writing, that would be great.

The Chair: What Mr. Wood is suggesting here is that members of the committee who wished to would travel on their own points. Mr. Wood, having given me notice of this motion some time ago, discussed the fact that we could perhaps fly from here, for example, to Valcartier and come back in one day. We would at least be able to see and hear a few of the people who need to be heard. Certainly it is possible to fly from Ottawa, spend the day in Halifax, and fly back. There are several other bases where it is possible to do that on our points.

We also, of course, do not need unanimous consent for this. Consequently, if there is no further discussion, I'll call the question on this motion.

Motion agreed to

The Chair: I think perhaps it would seem therefore that it would only be the government members of the committee who would be interested in following through on this.

Mr. John Richardson: I'm not so sure.

The Chair: Are you interested as well?

Mr. John Richardson: Jean-Marc may want to go to Valcartier.

The Chair: Did you abstain, Mr. Jacob?

Mr. Bob Wood: Or we could go to Bagotville.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, B.Q.): I would have liked to make one short comment, but I didn't have the time to do so and I was not able to vote.

[English]

The Chair: I asked if there were any further comments. You didn't indicate that there were any.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob: I didn't have time to respond. May I speak now even though the vote has already been held and it may be too late?

I would just like to say that Mr. Wood's proposal is certainly valid. However, I still wonder whether visiting Valcartier, Halifax or any other military base during a pre-election period will lead the committee to propose any solutions or increase our knowledge about a subject with which we are already familiar, as I pointed out on Monday. Mr. Richardson and Mr. Bertrand, who were at the committee, can testify to that.

I very much doubt that visiting the bases just before the election can help to resolve the problem which we already know about. The approach advocated by Mr. Wood is clearly different.

.1640

As far as I am concerned, there is no doubt that if a visit is organized to Valcartier, I will take part since the base is in my riding. Thus I go there quite regularly and I really do not see what more I'm going to learn by visiting a base with the committee. That's the point I wanted to make.

[English]

The Chair: I don't think so either, actually.

If I may say in response, Mr. Jacob, I'm not quite sure how the imminence or lack of imminence of an election is going to change how day care is provided on a base. It certainly has very little relevance to questions of sexual harassment. It probably makes very little difference to questions of housing costs.

However, if you come or don't come, that's your choice. This is a decision that has been made without the support of the opposition parties, so it therefore becomes a government initiative. If you want to come to Valcartier, it's your choice.

Is there any further business?

The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page

;