Evidence of meeting #29 for National Defence in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
We will now begin the public portion of this meeting, during which we will be studying the government's response to the committee's report on Arctic sovereignty.
All the committee members should have before them the report we received on October 15, 2010.
If you have any comments, the floor is open.
Laurie.
4:30 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Okay. It's a comment? I don't know, but....
Mr. Wilfert, you wanted to add something.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Chairman, having been on both sides of the aisle, I understand the comment of the parliamentary secretary.
By the way, through you to the parliamentary secretary, when legislation was to come to a committee, it was always my priority, because I wanted to get it through so the minister would then be off my back.
This is sort of a general comment before I go into a few specifics. For these reports, we spend a lot of time with witnesses. We do these reports. We send them off. Then we get back the response of the government, and sometimes just nothing ever happens. I could actually show you reports that have been done and then, five years later, we're talking about practically the same thing.
I guess I'm always concerned that when you spend that amount of time and money on a report, you'd like to know there are some action items and what's happened. And if something can't be done, we want really good explanations as to why it can't be done. As parliamentarians, we need to hold the government accountable, whatever side of the aisle we're on.
The government response to recommendation one says that the creation of a cabinet committee on Arctic affairs--which we spent some time on--is not required. They said the existing committee structure works, etc., with cross-cutting lines and so on.
We can comment on that, on whether we think that's...but ultimately all we're doing, I presume, is giving responses back that will go to the government, to which the government can say, “Well, you know, that's very nice....”
I'd just like there to be a way for us, as well as government, to be more accountable when it comes to these reports, because if they just sit on the shelf, they're not of much value.
Recommendation two was that a cabinet committee on Arctic affairs engage other stakeholders in developing policies. The government said they disagreed with creating it in the first place. They said other cabinet committees do it. There really wasn't much supporting evidence as to why in terms of that position.
Take recommendation six, that the Arctic Council consider interests of other stakeholders. It actually says that the government should “encourage the Arctic Council to consider the interests”, etc. We didn't think it was inclusive enough, and they actually cut the number of groups, but again, there was not really a clear explanation as to why.
I could go on. There's a whole slew of recommendations here. I don't know whether somebody--maybe Wolf--can refresh my memory as to what has generally been the response. Once these are done and after the mandatory timeframe....
4:30 p.m.
Wolfgang Koerner Committee Researcher
I would say that generally very little has been done over the years, as we all know. The one time we did have an effective response was back on the big study we did on quality of life. We asked that the government come back once a year and give us an update on what they had been doing, and they did that consistently, quite honestly, for about five years. Then they asked if we needed more, and we said, no, that was fine.
Those were very specific recommendations with respect to pay, housing, and a whole variety of issues that were there. The recommendations were written so that the government would have to respond specifically.
What one can do with this is that in a year from now we can bring some of the officials back and say, okay, this was your response and now we have these questions. You know, we can check it out with the stakeholders first and then ask the officials what progress has been made on it.
That's about the only option one really has. You have to structure the report and the recommendations ahead of time, to kind of push the government, but that means also knowing what's going on in places where we should know what's going on. I won't go into the history of the other report, but that's the best way of doing it, I would say, to bring them back.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Through you, Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to be able to flag ahead of time how we would then proceed. At the same time, I think we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to the stakeholders who have come to us asking whatever happened to what they'd said.
Obviously there are things I disagree with in here, which is my right, but I was just trying to figure out how we'd get a better structure in place so that we'd be able to have more accountability and oversight.
You're suggesting a year, but we'd structure it in such a way that when we're doing the report, members would keep that in mind, to allow us that kind of assurance and also some flexibility.
4:35 p.m.
Committee Researcher
Well, there what to do, along with the recommendations, I think, is to say to the government that we want a response in such and such a time to see what the progress is--if it's the kind of recommendation where you're expecting certain progress. Shipbuilding is a classic example: where are you at now, and what's happening?
For the future, I think that's a very good idea. We should do that again.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
One other comment is that the post-traumatic stress disorder report was an example of where I think we had set some very clear priorities as a committee. We could call the appropriate individuals back in a year to ask what they did in terms of the number of x, or....
To me, it just seems a shame that we do all this work and then we get the report back and it's “Have a nice day”. I'd really like to see more accountability, whatever side of the aisle we're on.
Thank you.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
4:35 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
You know, we said there should be a cabinet committee; they said, no, we're not going to do it. We said they should appoint an Arctic ambassador; they said, no, we have a senior Arctic officer. We make recommendations; they say no.
I mean, they are the government. If we don't like it and we want to be particularly obstreperous, we can then make another comment on it, I suppose, and pass a motion that these folks will vote against and we can vote for, if we're particularly angry about one thing.
Frankly, I'm very disappointed that the government response on the issue of aboriginal people is so weak and unresponsive to the kind of information that we heard here during this committee from the aboriginal leaders. They talked about the failure to adhere to the agreement signed in 1993, the land claims agreement, and the desperate problem with the lack of funding for education and lack of control over education. That was the information they gave to us and passionately spoke about.
Now, they do make what I would call lip service to greater governance. Progress is being made--I'm not suggesting it's not--and money for housing in the north is a positive thing. But there doesn't seem to be any substantive response to the failure of the government, and not just this government, to adhere to the 1993 land claims agreement, which is holding back the Inuit from making progress and having some control over their environment, having jobs for their people, avoiding the horrors that happen with drug addiction, and all of that. That seems to be substantially ignored.
If we were going to do something, making a statement about that would be something that I'd want us to do. It may fall on deaf ears, but it's the role of the committee, the role of the opposition, to point out that we did make these recommendations, that these were brought to the government's attention, and that the government has failed to substantively respond.
I'd be in favour of making a motion to that effect, if it's something that would get the support of the committee.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I think it's reasonable that any of these reports get followed up on at some point down the road. Bryon's points are valid; regardless of....
I suspect this hasn't changed much in the last 50 years; I have no idea.
4:35 p.m.
An hon. member
It isn't just this government.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
No, no.
I think there should be a mechanism to bring it back up, a year from now or whenever, call somebody in, remind them of whatever the government said they would do, and say, “Okay, have you done it? Where are we?”
I think that's a perfectly valid process.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Chair, before I came to the Standing Committee on National Defence, I was on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Some of you may not know that there is a huge repository in Ottawa where reports go to die. If we receive the government's response and it is not discussed, the report ends up on a shelf somewhere in Parliament or in the Library of Parliament. It is inscribed with the phrase “In memory of the committee”, the date is added, and unfortunately that is the end of the line. I would be in favour of holding the government more accountable in terms of its responses.
This may be a procedural matter, but do we have to adopt the government's response? We do not have to. We could say that we are not satisfied and that we want the government to re-examine certain parts of the report.
I am not satisfied with this report. I spent two hours reading it yesterday. Key issues are addressed, particularly the six or seven villages in northern Quebec that, I would remind you, are not included in the northern policy. There is another such town in Jack Harris's riding. That is unacceptable. Under these circumstances, the committee can say that it finds the government's response unsatisfactory and wants the government to re-examine the issue. We cannot simply ask for a follow-up the next year. That would involve resurrecting the report and keeping it alive for years, which would be hard to do.
I think the motion could state that the committee finds the government's response inadequate and insufficient, and that the committee wants the government to give the report more consideration and to provide a different type of response. As you said, the committee is the master of its own destiny.
I would like to know what my colleagues think and whether they feel I am going too far here. The report covers many important areas. We are being told that certain parts are good because they are in line with the policy and that other parts are not and therefore will not be implemented. To my mind, that response is a bit too quick and easy. We can tell the government that we do not accept its response.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
This process hasn't changed in however many decades. If you want to ask the same question, don't be surprised when you get the same answer.
Now, if the committee or anybody disagrees with it strongly enough, I guess you can.... The committee can do whatever it wants. But just to go back and say, “We don't like your answers, give us new answers”, well, guess what? You're going to get the same answers back.
So I'm not sure what you're suggesting.
4:40 p.m.
Committee Researcher
I was going to say that the times when committee reports have worked, there's been a commonality of interest, to a certain degree, between the departments and the committee; they weren't working at cross purposes. Too many committee reports are done just for the sake of doing committee reports, I think, quite frankly. The quality of life report was one for which there was a commonality of interest.
There was a study done a few years back, too, on breast cancer, by the status of women subcommittee. That report got a lot of attention, because what happened was that a whole variety of groups coalesced around the issue and lobbied the government, and the government ended up putting money into it. That may have caught the government by surprise, to a certain extent, but that was an issue that hadn't really been looked at by a parliamentary committee.
To make these things really effective in the kind of system we have is not all that easy. I would rather go the route of making friends with the bureaucracy than always trying to beat them over the head with a baseball bat. Now, sometimes they need that, but not all the time.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative