National Defence Committee on June 14th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Hiebert.

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

Up to an equal number—that's a good suggestion, which I'd be willing to consider.

Let me start by saying that here this morning we've had agreement from all sides that we don't want this debate to go on indefinitely. I've heard it from at least two of the opposition parties. We've also agreed, again among opposition members, that we need to have alternative perspectives. There's been agreement on that, so the amendment I'm moving simply codifies what we've already agreed on. We don't want this to go on indefinitely, which is why I suggested we go for one more meeting. We don't want to have a slanted, one-sided report, which is why I amended it to add others. We have agreement on that. I don't understand—

[An hon. member]

No, we don't have agreement.

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

I've heard agreement on that this morning.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

No, and in fact you haven't specified how much time, you haven't specified—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Just a minute.

Let's get on the speaking list here.

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

Would you prefer that I specify that there be three hours? Would that accommodate the opposition? We would have two panels and indicate however many people can fit in one panel and however many people can fit in another panel?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

That would be better.

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

Okay, Chair, I make that amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

What will that amendment say?

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

That amendment would say “and others to appear for one meeting of two separate panels of equal size for a maximum of three hours”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Is somebody writing this down? It's “of three hours”. You're—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Now you're changing your amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Yes, you're changing your—

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

I'm amending my amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We're going to have to deal with the subamendment. This is a subamendment to the amendment. We'll deal with the subamendment first and then we'll deal with the amendment.

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

They're all friendly, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I'm not sure they are.

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

That's how they were described by my friend, Mr. Coderre.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Hang on here.

Who's on the list?

Mr. Coderre, you have the floor.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

So this is your new amendment.

Mr. Chair, I think that we are underestimating the sincerity of the people who are going to come and testify. There is not any political wangling going on. Certain individuals and one think tank have issued some opinions. From the beginning, military lobbyists plugged into the government have been allowed to come and make their sales pitch and say exactly the same thing. These are people to whom you yourselves gave a briefing. Let us call a spade a spade.

It must not be assumed that people are insincere. I said that it would be interesting to hear the EADS group, since people have said that the Advance Contract Award Notice applied, that there was just one company that could deliver the goods and that it was the one wanted.

Having another point of view would show Canadians how it might have worked if there had been a sales pitch. Once again, I say that Colonel Drapeau appeared for you. Unless you present us with a Liberal from your list. It is assuming the worst if we say that we are going to increase the number of... You are the ones who wanted to stretch things out, not us. I do not think that any assumptions should be made about this meeting.

If you want to hold a three-hour meeting, that is fine with me. But do not make the assumption that these people are partial. These are professionals and free thinkers and they are not card-carrying members of any political party whatsoever. One of them perhaps used to have one, but it was not ours. That is your problem. If you no longer agree with him, you can have a coffee with him or something stronger. That is your problem.

I think that people testify in complete objectivity. There will be some recommendations. We are entirely in order. The next stage, after the Afghanistan report, on which we worked so hard, will be to finalize the procurement of military equipment.

Mr. Chair, if we are told we can invite other witnesses, I do not think that we should assume that. These four people are enough. If we want to invite others, we can present another motion. I do not know whether our colleague, Ms. Black, will suggest other persons. She said that we could have another meeting. Everyone has agreed to invite people who do not necessarily represent the point of view of the opposition, but who will help complete our work on the recommendations.

Mr. Chair, we are ready to vote on the amendment. If we realize that it is just to stretch things out longer and that people are thinking, on the government side, that it is absolutely necessary for them to have their friends too, we will vote against it. I think that we are ready to vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We're discussing the subamendment, and we have one more person here who wants to comment.

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

It's not a point of having your friends, Mr. Coderre. And you said it before: we already heard from all sides. This group of folks, I know and you know, will represent a particular viewpoint.

If we're going to have all sides and continue to have all sides, then we do need more than these folks. If that means two meetings, or one long meeting with two panels of equal size, we can leave the chair and the clerk the discretion to say there are three, four, two, whatever, but if we are going to hear all sides, then let's hear all sides.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Okay.

Mr. Hiebert.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to appeal to the sense of fairness that has been operating at this committee for a great deal of time now. I think we've worked really well over the last number of months on the Afghanistan report in trying to have a balanced perspective.

I'm a little bit surprised this morning to see this evolving as it has. It does concern me, because I think we have worked well together, trying to have a fair representation of all views before this committee. What I see happening this morning seems to be deviating from that.

I appeal to the sense of fairness of my colleagues to thoroughly consider the amendments as they've been put.