National Defence Committee on Aug. 25th, 2010

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chair, this matter is urgent. Today's meeting is important since we want to discuss the guarantee of regional economic benefits. I have a hard time understanding the Conservative members. If they agree with the motion, why didn't we hear from any witnesses today?

This summer, I attended committee meetings, specifically the meetings of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. We had already made commitments and witnesses were waiting in the hallway. The motion was carried and we started the discussions right away. Regional economic benefits are too important an issue to defer. Obviously, if we had done that, we would have saved taxpayers' money.

So, I am in favour of proceeding with this as soon as possible. We can sit full weeks. I do not have a problem with that since the summer is meant for working and spending as much time as possible on settling a matter. I hope that, if there is a consensus, we will do it as soon as possible, and I know, Mr. Chair, that you will be vigilant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Mr. Hawn, the floor is yours.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

With respect to the timing and to the importance of the issue, we don't disagree about the importance of the issue, but this is not an emergency. This is not something that has to be done in the next three weeks. This is not something that has to be done before Parliament comes back on September 20. That is absolutely not required.

People's summers are, frankly, screwed up enough as it is. We all have responsibilities in ridings. I'm not talking about me personally; mine has an extra aspect to it, as does Bryon's. There are responsibilities and commitments that we have all made in our ridings, and so on, and this is just not an emergency that has to be dealt with before we come back on September 20. We will oppose any motion to have meetings before then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Mr. Laframboise, you have the floor.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chair, we are talking about regional economic benefits and the financial planning of each company. This government is talking about economic recovery. You keep talking about Canada's economic action plan, but when it's time to discuss regional economic benefits, that topic is not deemed urgent or important. That is what you have just said, Mr. Hawn. Mr. Chair, perhaps that Conservatives should get their story straight.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Hawn, and then Mr. Dosanjh.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

No one is denying the importance of this. That is not what I said. What I said is that it is not an emergency. In terms of these kinds of industrial benefits, we are talking about benefits from now until 2050. We're talking about contracts that won't be let for years. It is not urgent to address this issue in the next three weeks. That is just pure nonsense. It is political game-playing. If it comes to a vote, we'll probably lose. That's just fine; that's the way this works. But we will oppose it because it is not an emergency in the next three weeks. It's just not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Wilfert, you have the floor.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would appreciate from the clerk a work plan once we have the witnesses who have come forward and there's agreement on how we're going to approach this in terms of categories such as economic benefit. Certainly, in our view, the issue is whether we're getting the economic benefits for this and whether this is the right aircraft given responsibilities and the needs of Canadians in regard to the air force. It may well be, but I think we need to have that discussion and a very clear work plan.

I would agree with Mr. Hawn that we need to roll this out in a way that is as clear and transparent as possible. When we do this, let's try to be concise in terms of the witnesses, the objective that we are looking for here, and then what outcomes we will have, which hopefully will deal with recommendations to the government. Clearly Mr. Hawn has indicated that these contracts aren't going to be awarded tomorrow, but I do believe there are other issues as well. So I think we need to be crisp, clear, and direct in terms of what we're looking for, and then hopefully we'll see where we go from there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Dosanjh.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe we should actually look at what the next possible date might be for a meeting. We should hold at least one meeting between now and the time we return to the House. I would suggest that we do a meeting on September 9. I've checked with some friends here on this side, not all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I'm in Cold Lake on that day, doing an announcement relative to some of this. If we're going to do one meeting before we come back, why don't we do it towards the middle or the end of the week before we come back? September 9 is a non-starter for me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

My understanding is that the members of the committee will submit their lists as soon as possible—if you agree, before the end of next week. The clerk will work on that list. We can have a meeting just before the session starts—

[An hon. member]

September 16.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

—to approve the witnesses and the timeline.

Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

September 9 or 10 certainly wouldn't work for me. I already have other commitments that I can't get out of right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

For me, Monday of that week, September 13, won't work. I'm supposed to be on holidays outside the country. The members will decide, but I won't be able to be here as the chair at that time. I would prefer that we have that meeting on the Tuesday, but it is up to the committee.

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

The completion of the helicopter safety inquiry in St. John's is on September 8, 9, and 10, so it's not a good time for me.

On September 2 or 16, it could be done, but I don't think we should schedule a meeting to organize witnesses. I think we can do that in the interim. If we're going to have a meeting between now and when the House resumes, one of the values in doing so is that we can have an all-day session and perhaps two or three panels in one day. It would require some coordination, but there is time to do that. The chair and the clerk can work on that and we can agree on a date to submit witness lists. I don't see why we can't have a full day.

I know the industry committee is doing that with respect to the census. I believe they're having three panels in one day, with three two-hour sessions. Something like that could be done.

I agree with Laurie. I don't see the point in a committee meeting just to discuss who the witnesses are going to be and in what order we're going to hear them. I think there's a pretty broad consensus of certain people we do have to hear from. I have faith that the chair and the clerk can organize these witnesses with suggestions from members so that we can have a full-day meeting. It is pretty hard to do when the House is in session. Frankly, we don't get to do that. But prior to the House coming into session on September 20, we could have a full-day session here in Ottawa with many of the witnesses we've been talking about.

That's my suggestion. I'm not going to put it in the form of a motion yet because we're still in the process of discussion, but I don't think we should have another organizational meeting. We should have a meeting to hear from witnesses, and the clerk and the chair could coordinate that meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

We would support that. I would suggest September 16 or 17. The only cautionary note is that you probably won't get the ministers on that day. I can't speak for them, but they probably have some fairly firm commitments. But other witnesses, any grouping that makes sense to the clerk and the chair, are fine with us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

My understanding is that we have agreement in regard to witnesses. I think Mr. Hawn was pretty clear that the opposition wanted the four ministers and we'll have the four ministers, but it is just a question of their agenda. We will also have the experts from the industry, the union, and any other experts.

If the members agree, we can ask all the members to give us a list of their witnesses before the end of next week. I think we have consensus on not having a meeting to discuss the witnesses. The clerk and I can work on that. I see agreement that it's important and we must have a fair balance of witnesses, our next meeting must be a meeting with all the witnesses, and we could have an all-day meeting.

I can suggest September 15. A meeting on that date could be chaired by my very good vice-chair Mr. Wilfert, because I'll be outside the country that week, the only holiday I will take during the summer. I know you all appreciate it when Bryon is the chair of this committee.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I agree, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

So I just want to suggest to you the date of September 15 for an all-day meeting. Does everybody agree?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.