National Defence Committee on June 14th, 2007

[An hon. member]

That's the issue.

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

Then I can't vote for the amendment.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

No, we can't vote for that.

The friendly amendment said that you want more, but if you want one meeting to add your six people, or ten, divided by two hours, come on, I'm generous, but not naive.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

The amendment is....

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Make your amendment, and if you want three hours, I don't mind.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Okay.

You're suggesting “and others for one meeting”. Is that the amendment?

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

Yes.

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

That is undefined and unlisted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

That's the amendment that has been proposed that would come in after the words “alternatives and others to appear at one meeting before completing our report”.

I have a list of people: Cheryl, Mr. Rota, and then Mr. Hawn.

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

I want to be next after the vote on this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Okay, we have Mr. Rota and then Mr. Hawn.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I wasn't going to speak to the amendment, but I will.

It sounds as if we're trying to cram everything in here and dilute it to the point where it won't have any effect.

We've covered procurement in the past, and bringing someone forward now to give a little more information isn't such a bad thing, because it is an ongoing problem. It gives us a little more information, a little more insight, from a different view.

Saying we are going to cram everybody into one hour doesn't solve any problems. It says we are going to dilute it, as I said earlier. We want to leave it open so that if there are others we want to bring forward, we can bring them as needed and use some common sense.

That is something the committee can do. It seems a little more confrontational than it used to be when I was here, but still, it doesn't mean you can't come to an agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Okay. We'll take that as a comment.

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I want to point out that in Mr. Coderre's own words about three or four minutes ago, he said we heard from all sides on the original study. I agree we heard from all sides. If we're going to do another study, fine, propose another study and go to the subcommittee and it will come up, but you said yourself we heard from all sides in the first place, so, fine, let's do the report and let's move on to the agenda that was already agreed to by the subcommittee.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

So you are voting against the amendment.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

[Inaudible--Editor]...but I'm just saying there is the amendment and the motion itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I'd like to speak specifically to the amendment. It is important. I want to build a little bit on what Laurie just said, which is that the previous committee hearings focused on testimony from all sides. It is important, if we're not going to conduct some kind of kangaroo court hearing, that we do hear from all sides, and if we're only going to listen to one side of an issue and produce a report on one side of an issue, then the report isn't worth the paper it's written on. It is very critical.

I agree with Russ' motion. There is no reason why it can't be one meeting. Let's do a three-hour meeting with two panels. We can mix it up and have people from both sides, but if we only have people who are jilted from the process coming forward to testify just before the report is to be processed, you run the risk of having a slanted report, and I don't think that is what we want to see. We want something that is rounded, that speaks to the issue, and that may very well produce some very worthwhile recommendations.

Otherwise, what are we going through the process for? If we're going through the process to somehow make the entire process look exceptionally flawed, unfair, or unjust, then the motion itself is a very bad one.

Let's do the job right. Let's make sure we're listening to all sides. If we want to have another meeting, that's fine. Let's just make sure it's open to all those who want to attend. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you.

Ms. Gallant wants to speak after the amendment.

Ms. Black.

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

I agree with what Mr. Del Mastro said; however, if you leave it open to “and others”—we just finished going through a situation with a joint committee of foreign affairs and defence that really was not worth the time that was put into it by all the members on the committee. I don't want to see another meeting like that. By leaving it open to “and others”, you're inviting a zoo—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Okay. Is there anybody else?

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

—without being more specific or putting time commitments on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Del Mastro or Mr. Hiebert.

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

Mr. Chair, if the member's concern is that there are too many—

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

No, it's wide open. You don't say anything but “and others”.