National Defence Committee on Feb. 4th, 2009

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Let me ask a question. What has changed from the last time to make it acceptable last time and not this time?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

We've looked at it, and I'm back in the new “Coderre”, and I believe that it's okay like that. It's not a problem. The problem is why do we want to have you there when you're already in the full committee, and we take the final decision here?

That's just logic. It's nothing personal.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I have another question, Mr. Chair.

I don't take it personally.

I throw this out as an advisor, as somebody who can bring some perspective from the department to the steering committee, to provide information it may not have. It would seem to have worked pretty well last time.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

The advisors are there. We have a general here.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

They're not in the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

One at a time. Let's go through the chair.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Let me just say, Mr. Chair, I'm a little disappointed. We had a very good working committee and subcommittee last time, and I'm sure we will again this time. It's just a bit disappointing to see a step backwards, in my view, from adding what I think was valuable input last time to the subcommittee. It's too bad the other members don't see it that way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Boughen.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

From what I hear in the dialogue and discussions, I think we may be missing a key part of the question. I think the key part of the question is whether Mr. Hawn is going to be a good, solid resource for the committee, whether he will bring something to the committee that the rest of us can't bring to the committee because we don't have his background. I think as a committee we want to have all the solid resources we can have, and I would certainly sponsor Mr. Hawn's presence there, because I think he would bring something that facilitates decision-making that the rest of us don't bring.

I'll leave it there, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thanks for that input.

Claude, did you have a comment, or are you voting?

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

No, I'm not voting. Vous n'avez pas encore demandé le vote.

Mr. Dawn needs to have confidence in the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. I appreciate Mr. Hawn's great qualities. If the subcommittee really needs him, then it can always invite him to a meeting; that's up to us to decide. There is no need for him to be an integral member of the subcommittee. He needs to trust us: when we need his services, we will certainly call on him for help and invite him to attend our meeting. Again, Mr. Hawn needs to have confidence in us.

I'm satisfied with the current makeup of the subcommittee. When we need the parliamentary secretary's help, we will let him know and gladly welcome him.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thanks for that.

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I would like to add that it's not a matter of trust or no trust. I do trust the subcommittee. This committee has worked very well together before. It happened many times that when things came up during subcommittee meetings, I was able to add a perspective that other subcommittee members didn't have. You're going to lose that opportunity of the moment, because I'm not going to be at that meeting. It worked very well last time, from my point of view, and I didn't hear any objections or any contradictory statements that it didn't work well. So why mess with something that's been working?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you. I appreciate those comments.

Mr. Blaney, for comments, and then we have to bring this to a conclusion.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Hawn's approach is constructive, because it would help advance of the work of the committee. I think it would be interesting to have him on the subcommittee. As the saying goes, when it's not broke, don't fix in. This committee is one that works very well, and I'm confident that it will continue to work well. The presence of the parliamentary secretary has in the past helped to set the agenda, guide witnesses and circulate information among committee members.

In terms of representation, this is an important consideration. I'm surprised to see how well represented the other side is. To ensure fairness among the different committee members, I feel it is important for the parliamentary secretary to serve on the steering committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I appreciate those comments. Anything further?

Okay, I'm going to call the question on the amendment put forward by Mr. Hawn that the parliamentary secretary sit on the subcommittee as a non-voting advisor.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

So now we will vote on the main motion as it appears on your paper.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Reduced quorum: That the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three members are present, including one member of the opposition.

Any discussion?

There seems to be an amendment. Okay.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I propose an amendment to the first paragraph to say that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four members are present, including one member from each recognized party.

This would obviously allow for a balance of the quorum.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Do we accept that amendment?

[An hon. member]

It was taken as friendly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

No, it doesn't seem to be friendly. So we have it. We'll open up for debate.

Ms. Black and then Mr. Bachand.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to be opposed to the amendment that Mr. Hawn presented, but my experience early on at this committee, when we had some witnesses here, was that the government members walked out on all the witnesses one day, and that ensured that the meeting could not proceed. Witnesses who had been brought to this meeting here—at Canadian taxpayers' expense, as a matter of fact—were left high and dry.

My concern with this amendment is that we could have a situation where one government member can dictate whether or not we will hear witnesses. The past experience I had in that situation indicates to me that I must oppose this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Bachand.

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

Let me put it another way: I cannot give the government a veto right. All it would take is for all of the government members to walk out and we would be left with only two or three people. We would not be able to hear from witnesses and we would have to stop the meeting. I clearly recall the incident mentioned by Ms. Black. I was the one chairing the meeting. As soon as quorum was lost, someone moved the we adjourn and that was that. If the government's record was intact and we had not lived through this experience, then maybe we'd be inclined to go along with this proposal. However, I for one cannot, because it would be tantamount to giving the members of the government party veto power. In the absence of a quorum, they could very well say that they don't like the type of presentation or the witness and walk out. If that were to happen, we would be at an impasse. I prefer to stick with the motion as it is now worded.