National Defence Committee on May 9th, 2006

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, the committee has just been struck. It is my understanding that the committee has just commenced activities now that we have the chair and the vice-chairs of the committee. So does it not make sense that with the proposal of motions, the 48 hours would commence now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I understand that can happen.

Do we want to deal, committee, with the order of questioning and the time limits now? Would you like to do that?

Okay. We have some documents to hand out. This is what the process was in the last go around.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Would that be changed to “Liberal, Bloc, NDP”, instead of “Conservative, Bloc, NDP”?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Yes.

Have you all got a copy of what we did last time?

There were two sets of time limits. One was just general witnesses and one was changed somewhat when the ministers were here. So the first one is what's in front of you now.

I'm assuming then that we just change “Conservative” and “Liberal”, and that should do it.

The first round of questions would be what's being proposed here. The Liberals--the official opposition--would start off with seven minutes, the Bloc would get seven, the NDP would get seven, and then it would switch to the government for seven.

On the second round, the Liberal Party would go with five, it would go back to the government for five, to the Bloc for five, to the government for five, to the Liberals for five, and so on, as it states there. Then for the last question it would be the Liberals.

In the third round, it would be as it's laid out there, for five minutes, and then the NDP would be back in the round.

Is there any discussion on how that happens?

Does that surprise you, Ms. Black?

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

I guess every committee has an opportunity to look at these. Perhaps members of this committee would like to consider having the NDP in the second round as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

The reason it was structured this way is that there are the same number of spots as there are members from each party, and it actually gives everybody a crack at it. That's with just one member from the NDP, but we'll open up for debate if we want to.

Mr. Cannis.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For the new member on the committee, I know the chair has also signalled or indicated that this committee has worked so well and flexibly over the years that most of us have served on it. I want to assure Ms. Black that I'm confident the new chair will exercise the same flexibility as there was in the past, and he has indicated that as well. This system served us well. The flexibility was there.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we retain this as a blueprint that has worked well for us and leave it to your discretion as committees unfold in the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

That's a fair comment. I can't recall a committee meeting where somebody who had a burning question was left out in the cold. We were always able to accommodate that. And we try to make that concession.

Go ahead, Ms. Black.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

No, that's fine. I just wanted to raise that issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Bachand, go ahead.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

To my mind, there is a difference. I have in hand the minutes from 2004. I would remind colleagues that we have always tried to avoid partisanship. However, when it comes to committees, British parliamentary tradition allows for adversarial debate. Indeed, we think that the government has several tools at its disposal.

During the last Parliament, the Official Opposition was the first party to ask questions when a witness finished speaking. The floor was then passed to the third or fourth party, and then the government spoke after them. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that is what is written here. This text would allow for the Conservative Party to ask the first question, would it not?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Just to verify, this is the presentation from the last time. Where it says “Conservative”, put in “Liberal”, and where it says “government”, it'll be “Conservative”.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I fully understand the mix-up there.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Chair, I was going to ask if, when a minister is attending, there is a minimum amount of time that this committee wants the minister to stay. Many times they have a very important engagement in an hour's time and off they go. You probably remember that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I remember that, yes.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Is that a fair way to handle a minister who is coming in and wants to leave prematurely, against the committee's wishes?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I'm not sure how much control we can have over the minister's time, but I think that in the request that is sent to the minister, we could indicate that we want him here for such and such a length of time. I know there have been some ministers who have had to leave early, but it has been my experience on this committee that when they've come, they've stayed until the time was exhausted. I don't know if that'll change. I can't comment on that.

Are you suggesting that when we do invite a minister, we say that we want him for a minimum length of time?

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Right. We normally want to meet for two to two and a half hours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

It is two hours.

If the minister is the only witness scheduled for that meeting, the assumption is that it will be for two hours.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, if I may put my colleague, Mr. McGuire, at ease, the time for the minister to be here before committee is predicated on the time slots available to the members to ask questions. If the Liberal team, for example, has three rounds, it's their prerogative to exhaust the seven minutes, five minutes, five minutes, and so on that we have. If other members choose not to, it results in some flexibility. I know the chair always exercises flexibility for other questions. There's no question, I'm sure, that the minister will be more than receptive to allowing us to go through our time slots.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I was going to say, Mr. McGuire, that when the minister is here, the first round is ten minutes each, not seven. That takes up 50 minutes there, and then after that it drops to five. That gives every party an opportunity. It's the same rotation; it would be the Liberal Party, Bloc, NDP, and then the government.

Is everybody all right with that?

Do we have somebody to move that? Mr. Calkins.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I'd like to acknowledge Patrick Bertrand. If you could stand, so we know who are.... He is the committee's assistant, and he works for the clerk in the Wellington Building. He's often the contact person. If you phone the clerk's office, it's Patrick you may be talking to most times. So now you can put a face to a name.

Another notice that just came in is that the Parliamentary State Secretary to the Federal Minister of Defence of Germany will be in Ottawa on June 6. The German embassy is preparing a program for the visit and has been in contact with our clerk to explore the feasibility of a meeting of the Parliamentary State Secretary with the committee. He has a brief biographical note, which we will translate and circulate to the committee in both official languages. We'll keep that in mind as we work through our agenda, and on June 6 there may be an opportunity to meet with this person.

We have run out of the routine things to do, and we now have a notice of motion to deal with. Now that we're fully loaded and ready to roll, we'll do that.

I'll give the presenter of the motion the first opportunity to speak, and then we'll have a speakers' list and go through that.

The motion from the NDP, Ms. Black, states:

That the Committee invite the former Minister of National Defence, Bill Graham, and the current Minister of National Defence, Gordon O’Connor, to appear before the Committee to answer questions regarding Canada’s role in Afghanistan.

Ms. Black.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I present this motion to the committee because obviously the entire issue of what's happening in Afghanistan right now with the Canadian Forces is very topical for Canadians. People from every region of the country have serious concerns about this and are asking questions.

When I look back on the former Minister of National Defence's presentation to this committee in November--and I've read the transcript--the role that was presented at that time appears to be quite different from the role that is being performed there now. It seems to me that it has evolved considerably. I think it would be a good thing if the people on this committee had an opportunity to ask questions about the rationale for the movement down to the southern area of Afghanistan and to hear firsthand from the past Minister of National Defence about exactly how things evolved to this point, particularly concerning the agreement that the Chief of the Defence Staff signed during the election campaign on the transfer of prisoners. I think that needs to be explained more thoroughly to Canadians and the committee.

Obviously, the current Minister of National Defence could answer questions that the members of Parliament around this table have about what's happening now. I think that's a valuable role to play as well.

So I put the motion in and ask for support that we invite both the previous and current Ministers of National Defence to appear before the committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We think Mr. Dosanjh was first here. Anybody else, please put your hand up.

Mr. Hawn.

Okay, go ahead.