Evidence of meeting #81 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mostly I'd like a point of clarification from James.
Who did you attribute those comments to, about the process needing to be sped up? On the one hand, you're saying you want to make sure the government sticks to the process, but on the other hand, you want to change the process. Who said you needed to speed up the timeline from the regular process? I just don't remember hearing that.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
On Tuesday, we had questions being asked of Mr. Crosby and Mr. Page. In my questions, first, I asked Mr. Page what was in the RFI and about the timelines that were published on the PSPC website. He said, “As you mentioned, things can change. Sometimes speed is a factor. For this case here, it was not so much about speed, but the context that changed for DND. It conveyed to us a new window”.
I went on and asked, “What was the impetus or the catalyst to change the window, Mr. Crosby?”
Mr. Crosby responded, “The timelines that we're working toward or that we're anchored around are based on the life of the CP-140 Aurora as it is right now. The reality is that there isn't a specific date on a calendar in the future when the CP-140 will suddenly no longer be able to fly or operate. What we see is a degradation in capability over time and an increase in the threat environment over time.”
What they were alluding to, and now one of the arguments we hear as the reason for a potential sole-source contract with Boeing and for buying the P-8, was the concern about the current life expectancy of the CP-140 Aurora fleet.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I just wonder whether we, at this table, are qualified to be able to say that the process could be sped up. I'm not certain that I got enough out of what you said there, James, to be certain that a change in the time frame wouldn't hinder the process.
I'm fine for now, but that's just my concern at the moment.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
We don't have the expertise. However, we did hear from witnesses. I think we should take the politics out of this, and that's what we're seeing right now with the potential sole-source contract; there is political interference coming from the Liberal government.
My suggestion is that we let industry, in collaboration with the Royal Canadian Air Force, PSPC and DND, figure out what that timeline is, what the life expectancy of the Auroras is, and base that bid.... I'm just saying to speed it up because, by the sound of it, the Auroras are running out of time.
This is doing what's right for the taxpayer, what's right for the Royal Canadian Air Force and what's right for the defence industry.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'm new to this committee, and I've been through some part of the witnesses on procurement. I think there have been over nine sessions where we heard from actual procurements. What's most interesting for me is that when we say we are not playing politics, actually this is what we're proposing to do.
We're actually interrupting a study, and we felt very strongly about having veteran witnesses here today, to debate a motion that, with all due respect, is extremely important, but we're doing political interference in the procurement process.
When you talk about transparency, I agree. We're here to study the procurement, to make recommendations to the government, and from that perspective, I hope that I would have support to bring a subamendment to the motion, if I may, Mr. Chair.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
Thank you very much.
I would like to bring a subamendment to the motion. The last paragraph would read, “that the Chairman of the committee immediately report this resolution of the committee to the House and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.”
The reason I'm proposing this is it would be—
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I have a point of order.
I would just say that the subamendment isn't an amendment to the amendment, so I'd say it's out of order.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I'm not sure it is out of order, but it is correct for you to observe that it is not an amendment to the amendment.
I'm going to allow it to stand, because when members are voting on the entire.... At this point, it's three votes. I will call the votes in the order of the subamendment, your amendment and the main motion, if it is amended.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I have a point of order.
Mr. Chair, if you go to chapter 20, page 1067, in the rule book, under “Amendments”, it reads:
As with a main motion, a motion to amend can itself be amended. A subamendment is a proposed amendment to an amendment. In most cases, there is no limit on the number of amendments that may be moved; however, only one amendment and one subamendment may be considered by a committee at one time.
The motion that was before us that you said was in order is not an amendment to the amendment that's on the table, so I'd say it's out of order.
I'd invite you, Mr. Chair, to deal with the amendment that's before us, which I moved, and then we can come back and deal with the amendment to the motion.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
It says, “only one amendment and one subamendment may be considered....”
We have one amendment—
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
But the subamendment has to be an amendment to the amendment.
I'm a stickler for process.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
All right. The ruling has been made. Challenge the chair. I ruled that her subamendment was in order.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
But it's not a subamendment to the amendment—
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
I rise on a point of order.
We already have an amendment on the floor, and the sub that was proposed by the parliamentary secretary, the extension of the minister's office, is not an amendment to the amendment, so it's out of order.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
He has an amendment to the main motion. She is proposing a subamendment.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
Mr. Chair, as a good steward of this committee, because I do believe in close collaboration, I will remove my subamendment. We'll continue the debate on the amendment, and I will bring my amendment after.
Mr. Chair, I don't want to undermine you. Thank you very much for your service to this committee.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
On that, Mr. Chair, your role as chair is to protect the freedom of speech of each and every one of us as members.
I would ask that you apologize for saying that you don't care about me.