National Defence Committee on June 5th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Okay. We're good to go.

Mr. Coderre has brought up the issue that we as a committee passed a motion to invite, I believe, three ministers for three hours. That's what we moved forward, and we invited those three ministers.

However, at the same time as we were passing that motion, the foreign affairs committee passed the original motion. What we've been doing since is trying to weave this all together. As it turns out, I believe there are four ministers coming. What we have today reflects these questions, and the order of precedence, or how the questioning will take place, is a combined effort between the clerk and the chairmen of the two committees.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

So, there will be four of us. Who exactly will be there? Ministers Day, O'Connor, Verner, MacKay or Guergis?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Ministers MacKay, Day, O'Connor, Verner, and Guergis.

[An hon. member]

So five?

[An hon. member]

Who's talking?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We've indicated that there will be opening remarks from all four for seven minutes.

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

So the parliamentary secretary is not speaking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

The response we received from that minister indicated that the parliamentary secretary would be accompanying the minister.

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

But not taking seven minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

That's the way I interpreted it, but I'm hesitant to go there.

At the present time, my understanding is that we get four ministers for seven minutes, which is 28 minutes. That will leave us basically with the first and second rounds of what we usually do: the official opposition for 10 minutes, the Bloc for ten minutes, the New Democratic Party for 10 minutes, and the government for 10 minutes. And then in the second round we go Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, Liberal.

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

That's as far as we'll get.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

That is as far as we'll get.

I know, Mr. Coderre, it doesn't follow the motion that we put forward, but I think with the confusion and complications when the two motions didn't match, how do you accommodate that?

I understand the reason you wanted more time and fewer ministers was to focus the questioning on who you felt was relevant to the situation. I do believe that still can happen. Besides the opening statements, each party can go after whichever minister they wish. In this instance, nobody can say, well, that's somebody else's responsibility and you'll have to get them in front of you, because they will be in front of us. Hopefully that will bring to a head any questions that are asked.

There should be somebody sitting in front of us who can answer them. I believe that's what the focus and reasoning was for setting it up this way. In my mind, it will work.

Anybody else?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I have a big problem with that, Mr. Chairman. Tomorrow we are scheduled to talk about inmates. I have no idea why the Minister of International Cooperation is on this list. Already she will be using up seven minutes. I am sorry, but they will have 28 minutes, or a total of one-half hour, to speak on the subject. The Conservative Party will have 35 minutes, the Liberal Party, 30 minutes, the Bloc Québécois, 20 minutes, and the NDP, 15 minutes.

If we really want to get to the bottom...The fact that you are focusing, in my opinion, more on National Defence and Foreign Affairs...I can find enough to say to fill 10 minutes, but so too can my foreign affairs colleague. If we split the time between ourselves, it's going to look like we are trying to sidestep the question.

I must admit that I'm none too pleased with this turn of events. You will recall that we decided the Minister of National Defence should nevertheless testify before the committee, but I fail to see the relevance of having other ministers put in an appearance. I am not sure that we will be able to get to the bottom of things, Mr. Chairman. That's what I think.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I know that's your opinion, Mr. Coderre, and I appreciate that, but I have a different one.

Claude.

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

In terms of how the situation has evolved, I do not give much credence to the theory that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has short-circuited the Standing Committee on National Defence. I think we're seeing a well-orchestrated initiative on the part of the government. Let me explain what I mean by that.

The Minister of National Defence is the one who has dropped the ball two or three times since the very beginning. Tomorrow's scheduled meeting is designed to take him out of the line of fire. In other words, we are going to be diluting our proceedings. Not only are we going to hear from more...

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

We're not getting any translation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Okay, go ahead.

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

Not only have we decided to invited more ministers in an attempt to water down these proceedings, but what's more, we are cutting the meeting short. Understandably, I'm none to pleased about that.

Ideally, we wanted to hear from the Minister of National Defence alone. He is the person to whom we would like to direct our questions. I would even venture to say that when we do put a question about the agreement to the Minister of National Defence tomorrow, I would not be surprised if the Minister of Foreign Affairs jumps in to answer. There is nothing to stop me from directing my question to the Minister of National Defence, but what will I do if the Minister of Foreign Affairs interjects to inform me that international treaties are the domain of DFAIT, not DND. I want things to be on the record.

To my mind, it is very clear that the whole purpose of this government exercise is to take the minister out of the line of fire. Nor is this the first time we have seen this happen. We asked questions in the House, but he put off answering them for two or three weeks. Others were left to field our questions. I am concerned that the same thing will happen tomorrow. If it does, then the matter will not have been resolved.

I will probably be asking the committee again to formally agree to having the Minister of National Defence appears on his own before the committee. Then, he will not be able to deflect any questions on the pretext that responsibility for answering them fall to someone else.

I simply wanted you to know that I am not satisfied with the plans for tomorrow and that I am planning to move another motion. As far as I am concerned, the person who is primarily responsible is the person we insisted on talking to, namely the Minister of National Defence. However, I have the feeling that we will not have every opportunity to put questions to him tomorrow.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Before we move on, I would just reiterate that at the last meeting, Claude, a request was made of the clerk and the chairman to write a letter to the Minister of National Defence to indicate that tomorrow's meeting did not preclude the request for him to come to this meeting, and that has been sent, so that's very clear.

Next we will have Ms. Gallant, Ms. Black, and Mr. Hiebert.

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

I just want to comment on Denis's concern over the time allocations.

It's difficult enough for everyone at this table during the defence committee meetings to pose a question to witnesses. Even if it means perhaps decreasing the amount in the first round, could we consider taking the total time available for questioning and dividing it up so that everyone in each committee has a chance to pose at least one question? First of all, we'll have to figure out many people are going to be there, but instead of having 10 minutes for one person, we could just divide it up a little more evenly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We've indicated that there'll be 10 minutes for the official opposition. That will be their time, as it will be the government's. All parties will have to decide how they're going to divide their time. That will be up to them. Instead of trying to structure it that way, if we leave it up to the parties, they can decide who's going to ask what question.

But thank you for that.

Go ahead, Ms. Black.

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

I would like to reiterate that at the last meeting I was the one who had some reluctance about this format. Then a motion was passed through the committee to drop the international cooperation minister. Now we find that not only is that minister coming, but the parliamentary secretary is also at the front of the table. I concur that this will not be an opportunity for all the opposition parties to really ask the questions they have around the issue of the detainee transfer agreement and the history of it.

We did reiterate again that the Minister of National Defence has been requested to come before this committee. He had set a date to be here and then cancelled that appearance. In no way does this meeting with five representatives take the place of his appearance with General Hillier at the Standing Committee on National Defence to answer the questions that all of us have put to them.

I know the letter has gone out after the committee reiterated that request, and I'm wondering if we've had any response yet from the minister's office.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Not that I'm aware of.

The indication is that upon the committee's asking what has transpired, the request is in the minister's office. That's the response we've received.

Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This might be an instance of some members thinking the glass is half empty and others thinking the glass is half full.

At the same time as there are concerns expressed about this meeting, I think another perspective could be seen in that the government is clearly working hard to provide an opportunity for all members in all committees to address their concerns. It's no small task to bring four ministers and a secretary of state together at one time to answer questions related to these issues. I think, at the same time, we could clearly indicate that the government is working hard to be responsive to these requests.

With respect to the motion you've brought forward, are you leading us to have somebody move this motion and have a vote on this motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Yes. I apologize. I should have done that before discussion. But I would need somebody to move it.

Mr. Hawn.