National Defence Committee on June 14th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Go ahead, Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Just to finish that off, I support what Dean said. We can reopen everything continually and never get to actually doing a report. I think we've done it; I missed most of that because I was doing something else, but I followed what was going on here. There was a thorough job done, and I think it's time to get on with the program as laid out by the subcommittee and get on with continental defence and all the other things we need to look at.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Go ahead, Mrs. Gallant.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dean is correct. This committee has studied procurement twice in as many years. This committee is not a congressional oversight committee with the power to reverse government decisions. We agreed to discuss continental defence, and it's possible for this committee to have an influence on reversing the apparent trend for NORAD to be blended into NORTHCOM, an organization in which Canadians have no say when it comes to North American continental defence—that is, unless Denis wants to capitulate to the United States on North American defence.

This committee previously voted to follow an agreed set of topics, so this motion is out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I'm not sure it's out of order. We take motions in, but I will agree that the steering committee has come up with a plan that was agreed to as to what our forward studies would be: Afghanistan, procurement, and then continental defence or NORAD, and whatever that shapes into. This is asking for a change in what we've already agreed to.

Is there anybody who wants to comment?

Claude, for you and Dawn, we've already dealt with the motion on Afghanistan. We've agreed to apply to go, or whatever the process is. I have a list of what the processes involve and I'll get that out to you after we deal with this motion, because we need more detail from the committee on Afghanistan.

Is there anybody else on this?

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

I'll offer some comments.

Throughout the Afghanistan report we continually had the debate about whether to bring in more witnesses as the situation evolved. We as a committee agreed on numerous occasions that it would simply not be appropriate because it would extend this report indefinitely, since the circumstances are always changing.

I think we're now experiencing the same thing on procurement. It's an ongoing issue for the government, and of course there's going to be ongoing comment from industry, associations, and groups like this. It would be, for all the reasons that have been mentioned, inappropriate for this committee to reopen this debate after we already agreed some time ago that the researchers should draft a report.

I'm wondering, Mr. Chair, if you could tell us what the status of that report is. I was expecting it to be drafted at any time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We've also been working on it. I had one look at a very preliminary report. It went back for some work, some more editing, and whatnot. So what we've done to date is pretty close to having something fit and suitable for the committee.

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

Again, this would send the researchers back to incorporate new comments and witnesses.

As Mr. Del Mastro suggested, if we open it up to one group, we have to have other perspectives available as well. I see this simply dragging on in a way that we agreed with the Afghanistan report would not be appropriate, because we felt we had a deadline to get a report out.

Now we're very close to having that happen, after a very long period of time. I would not want to see that happen on this issue as well, especially since the steering committee has made it clear what our priorities are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Okay.

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

I have a comment.

The motion looks to me like it's only one meeting. I don't think it needs to be more than one meeting.

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

But if we have this group present, there will be others wanting to present an alternative perspective.

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

We could make a decision on that when the time comes.

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

He had his chance and missed it.

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

I'll support the motion, because I believe it will only take one meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thanks, Ms. Black.

Mr. Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I'm calling the question, and I mention the fact that we're talking about a procurement report. We're totally in order, so let's vote.

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

Mr. Chair, before we vote, I'd like to move an amendment to this motion. I guess it would come at the end of the existing motion, and the spirit of it would be to invite other groups to provide an alternative perspective to those provided by said groups.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

In the past, when we've taken on a study, all parties were welcome to bring forward witness lists. However, this motion is very specific to these people, so your amendment indicates that the motion be amended to open it up even more.

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

Okay. How about this? After “Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives”, add “and other groups” or “and others”, and then it continues.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

This is a friendly amendment, and I don't mind.

Just for the record, we were very specific. To say that because we have them, we don't have the alternatives, if you look at all the lists of witnesses who came out, we had all points of view. We have to remember that a report is not just based on witnesses; they are not the sole source of reference.

I believe that for the sake of the recommendation we will deposit those points of view, and I think that would be good.

I said about Colonel Drapeau that it was about the inspector general, so we don't want to expand and rewrite the report.

We want to look to their point of view, so we can have those discussions eventually, afterwards, on the recommendations. I don't see any problems there at all, and if you want to put it as a friendly amendment, I don't have any problem. I'm open to have others; it's not the issue.

Specifically, the purpose was to say that it's going to be one meeting and that's it. We don't want to expand, but as you wish. If you want to have an amendment, we'll support it. But if you want a friendly amendment, let's put it as a friendly amendment and then vote on the motion as is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We're getting a list, but I'll let Mr. Hiebert go first, because he proposed an amendment.

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

I think Mr. Coderre made the suggestion that this be limited to one meeting. This would be an additional friendly amendment that I'd like to make. After “alternatives and others to appear”, it would read “for one meeting before completing its report on procurement”.

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

Do the “and others” have to appear at the same meeting?

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

Yes.

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

We don't know how many “and others” there are?