National Defence Committee on May 9th, 2006

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

First of all, it would be my preference to defer this motion. If we want to deal with it, we can deal with it. My view is that the committee is not fully constituted until the chair and the vice-chairs are in place and we're ready to roll, in a manner of speaking. The 48 hours should commence then.

I propose we defer this motion and deal with it as we look at our work plan at the next meeting to figure out what we need to do as a committee.

If that's not where the majority of members are, however, it would be my view that.... If you look at the practice in the House of Commons, when you move ministers from portfolios, they aren't answerable to Parliament for their actions in previous portfolios. I believe that if we begin to veer away from that in our practice before the committees, we would be opening up a Pandora's box and playing partisan games with these issues. Then we would have leaders of all the opposition parties, and any other member of the House, before us on a rotating basis.

I don't think that's a good way to start the work of this committee. I am told by all of you who previously were members of this committee that it functioned in a serious, sober fashion because it deals with a very serious issue: defence. Therefore, my view would be that we not pass this motion, that we defeat it as it's currently worded.

There will be opportunities to have the current Minister of Defence before us, either through estimates or otherwise, and we should talk to him respectfully but probingly. But if we go back to asking questions of ministers in the previous government or in their previous portfolios, we're on a very slippery slope towards a disruptive, partisan approach to our work. I submit that shouldn't be done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you, Mr. Dosanjh.

Mr. Bachand is next, and then Mr. Hawn.

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

Firstly, I would like to thank my colleague for handing me her motion ahead of time. It took me a while, but I managed to find a section in Marleau-Montpetit that deals with summoning witnesses. I will disregard the paragraph on senators, that is another procedure. Mr. Marleau was a great man who heavily influenced work and procedure in the Chamber. With respect to MPs and senators, he writes:

Committees are not empowered to summon Members of the House of Common or Senators. Should a Member refuse to testify when requested to do so by a committee, the committee can report to the House which will then decide what action, if any, is necessary.

I am afraid that this will lead to delaying tactics and other similar things. By summoning MPs and former ministers and senators who were previously ministers, I believe that we risk creating a dangerous precedent. Indeed, if we call the former Minister of Defence and he declines our invitation, we may have to ask the House of Commons to intervene and do what is necessary. I, for one, would prefer avoiding this scenario.

There is also the problem of Afghanistan. I believe we will have to invite the minister when we consider appropriations for the department. We are not strictly limiting ourselves to the issue of Afghanistan. I understand my colleague's intention, but I would like us adopt a broader perspective. From the outset, I have a few reservations on this proposal. My colleague will have to provide me with additional explanations on this subject. For now, I am not convinced.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you.

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I agree with my two colleagues.

I also think it should be deferred. The current minister of any department is answerable for what his or her department is doing, and if we start going back we can wind up going back forever. Where does it stop? But I would prefer to see the motion deferred or defeated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Okay.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I think we should defeat it and then it can come back.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I agree with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Ms. Black.

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

It's clear that there's not support for the motion.

To the member from the Bloc Québecois, I know we cannot summon a previous minister, or anyone from the House for that matter, but an invitation is different from a summons. It's simply an invitation to ask someone to come and talk about what happened under their authority during the election campaign, when agreements were signed about which I think a number of people have really serious concerns.

It's interesting that my friend Mr. Dosanjh is opposed to this. I know he wants to bring the current minister in and ask him some questions about his past work. I don't see that it is such a difficult thing to want to discuss. I agree that it is a very serious issue, which is all the more reason why we should hear from the people who've been involved in a leadership capacity. But it's clear that there isn't support, so I'll leave it. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

So you're withdrawing the motion?

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

No. I prefer to have a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Okay.

Is there any further discussion?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I just want to clarify something, if I may. I sat beside my colleague here, and I do not recall hearing--I don't know if anybody else heard--that he wanted to bring in the current minister to discuss anything but estimates. That's the word he used. For the record--because it's now on the record--I would ask in all fairness that that be taken out, the transparency.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Ms. Black, do you have any comment?

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

I believe it was a question in the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

It had nothing to do with the comments of Mr. Dosanjh at this meeting. Okay. We understand that.

The motion is:

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.

(Motion negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Is the steering committee for agenda items the chair, a member of the official opposition and one other, or one from each party?

[The Clerk]

It's the chairs and the member from the other opposition party.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Okay, so all the parties would be represented.

Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday. Are there any suggestions on how we should move forward from this meeting?

Mr. Cannis.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know we've had our discussions. This is my first opportunity as a good friend to congratulate you on your election.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

As I said earlier, I'm confident that you're going to continue the tradition we've had.

I have one request that I will ask you to go to bat for us on. That is, this is a lovely room and we enjoy it, but there's a certain tradition and a certain attachment, if I may describe it as such, to having our committee sessions in the so-called “war room” in the East Block. I don't know if we can, but would you take that under consideration such that every effort be made to have that room as the steady location?

It's difficult, as you know, every week or every committee, to go from one building to the other. There is a certain continuity we've created there. If you would move in that direction, I personally would appreciate it, and I'm sure everybody would.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I don't know if the clerk wants to comment on that right now, if he can, or whether we are scheduled into the war room for the rest of our meetings. He's indicating with a nod that we are.

I agree that moving committees from room to room can be dangerous, because committee members have become lost in the past and failed to show up. So we'll make sure to try to stick to the routine days and routine locations.

Ms. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Chairman, were you asking for possible subjects to cover for the upcoming meeting?