Evidence of meeting #49 for National Defence in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
I was just going to say this, for the benefit of Mr. Bachand, who I think was predisposed at the time. I was suggesting a moment ago that if it is too broad, if that's your concern, perhaps we can make some amendments to the motion, even today. And then we can have an opportunity to revise it and discuss it further at our next meeting, if that would be amenable to you.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal John Cannis
I have Ms. Gallant first, unless she's prepared to—because he's looking for a response. It's up to you.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Are you going to be responding? Go ahead.
9:15 a.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I think that we must use what Mr. Hawn has prepared, have a steering committee meeting, tidy up all the files that are involved, come back to the committee and make a recommendation. That is the normal procedure. The steering committee sets terms and parameters and submits proposals for approval to the whole committee. At that time, we can start a study step by step.
Starting immediately by a motion is a little hasty in my view. I suggest that this motion go back to the steering committee. The discussions that you mention could take place. If we decide that it is best not to include immigration, we can take it out and then make a recommendation to the whole committee. I am not ready to vote this morning: so I would be forced not to support this motion. I think that Mr. Hawn has done a good job, and it would be a shame, because of questions of procedure...
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
I just want to mention that since the quality of life study, there has been nothing substantial done by this committee. We're the only committee in Parliament that has not yet tabled a report. This committee is basically flying by the seat of its pants.
Yes, we did the Canada-U.S. cooperation study when you were chair previously, but there was never any report done. Nothing came of it. This is the defence committee of Canada, and we have really nothing to show for it. For ages we've been talking about doing North American defence. Every time there's a change in session, we have a new cast of characters, and we've never followed through on what our plans have been. The defence of North America, the future of NORAD, the very future of whether or not we're going to have a bilateral role as opposed to a secondary role, being under a command of U.S. war....
North American defence is of prime concern to Canadians and something worthwhile going forward with. Yes, it's bound to have little studies here and there, but we do have to get some focus and have a long-term study. The reason Mr. Hawn provided a motion so well in advance is so that we can line up credible witnesses well in advance, instead of having to cancel meetings here and there because we don't know if somebody is going to show.
In the quality of life study—there was probably somebody here on that committee—they saw hundreds of witnesses, but it takes time to do the planning. So be it tabled or not, I do believe this should go forward at some point rather than just, helter-skelter, focusing on whatever is the flavour of the day as opposed to doing something meaningful such that we can see the fruits of our efforts.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal John Cannis
I don't think anybody around this table disagrees with you, and that is why I think my sense has been, and still is, that we want to finish this study that we are now close to completing and table it so that this committee, indeed, as you said and we all agree, has something to present to Parliament of all the work we've been doing.
In the interim, with all due respect, some of the other topics that were discussed in that steering committee in terms of quality of life, etc., were not meant to be a study per se, but more so one committee session. Correct me if I'm wrong, the colleague who brought it forward.
Ms. Black, I'm just reconfirming in terms of one topic that was suggested in the steering committee—quality of life, for example. If I understood correctly during that meeting, it wasn't meant to be as a study per se, but more so one committee session. Am I correct there?
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
We have a briefing now on what happened in the original quality of life study. The discussion at the steering committee, as I recollect it, was that we might look at that to see how those recommendations had been implemented and if there was anything outstanding. So I didn't see it as another study or anything, just looking at that report and examining whether everything had been followed up on or what state recommendations were at.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal John Cannis
Personally, unless anybody disagrees around the table, Ms. Gallant, we agree with you that we need to show something. We've been working on the Afghanistan study for quite some time. We're now close to the recommendation part of the study, and that's what we want to focus on, so that we have something to table in the House.
Then of course, we have discussed different topics. I believe Mr. Hawn's issues that he's bringing forward today were also discussed in the steering committee and were well received. There's no question about that.
I'll go to other speakers first. Mr. Blaney, please.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to commend Mr. Hawn's initiative.
In December, before we began the study of procurements, our parliamentary secretary actually proposed, likely before I arrived, that we should discuss continental defence. We were told that the minister was open to the committee's recommendations. In my opinion, the committee has an opportunity to influence the decisions of the minister and the government on an important matter.
This is the reason why this study is important. Nothing is stopping us dealing with current matters one by one. That being the case, the steering committee can give us a game plan for the coming sessions. We set aside continental defence in December, but it seems to me a good time to remind members of the steering committee that this is something that deserves to be discussed, accepting what has been said beforehand.
Thank you.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
We should wait until there is a new Minister of Defence.
Maybe, Laurie, you'll be the defence minister by that time.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal John Cannis
Are there any further comments? Colleagues, any further comments?
I've had two suggestions here, either a vote or we request that Mr. Hawn just withdraw and we....
Mr. Hiebert.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
I'm wondering if some of the members could give some indication, those who are not interested in voting on it today, as to when they might be more amenable to looking at this motion. I think sending it back to the steering committee is part of the solution, but ultimately it's going to have to come back to the whole committee for discussion anyway. So if you have any idea as to when you think you might be more open to the topic, that would be helpful. We could table it until that date.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I think that's a reasonable suggestion on Mr. Hiebert's part. Frankly, I'll be happy to go back and rework it in perhaps what's more of a logical flow in terms of a starting point with Canada COM to USNORTHCOM to PSEPC to DHS. All lot of these things will fall out of that, so I think—
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
We should have it at the steering committee. The issue here is that we're not saying no. That has to be clear. We all believe in that issue, but there's a process—
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
I have just one more point on planning and preparation.
Even if this study doesn't arise until September, when we come back after summer break, perhaps we could at least have an agreement as to when it's going to start. And since we're so restricted on travel, if travel is going to be included as a part of this study, we are quite restricted on time when Parliament is not sitting. So if there are places we're going to see, it would be helpful to be able to use the summer. As well, the researchers and the clerk would be able to look up witnesses for the summer and prepare for the big study. So if it is going to be tabled, I would request that we do meetings on planning what the parameters are going to be, and an idea of what we want to see, prior to rising from Parliament this summer.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal John Cannis
I agree with you, and that will be up to the steering committee, as this is one issue that was also discussed in the past, I believe. Let me just say also, for my part, that nobody's questioning the topics that are put forward here; I think it's the timing aspect of it, and certainly at the next session of the steering committee it should be brought up again.
Mr. Hiebert.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Can I propose that we revisit this topic at the meeting immediately following the conclusion of our Afghanistan report? Is that amenable?
9:25 a.m.
Conservative