Evidence of meeting #26 for National Defence in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was aircraft.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
If you want to thank the witnesses, then I'll just raise my point of order.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
I just want to thank you for being with us today. That was very useful for our work. Thank you very much.
We'll have a discussion right now. Do you want it to be in camera?
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
I just want to raise a quick point of order. At last Thursday's meeting, my colleague Mr. Hawn mentioned bringing back Dan Ross, the assistant deputy minister of materiel, and my understanding was that we were going to discuss that at this committee. The notice of meeting that I received for Thursday had Alan Williams, former assistant deputy minister for materiel, at 3:30, and at 4:30, Lieutenant-General (Retired) Angus Watt was coming. I've now been informed that in fact Mr. Ross is coming in the 4:30 slot.
Through you to the clerk, Mr. Chair, my question is this. Procedurally, how did that happen? If we're going to bring somebody in to rebut somebody, we could do this continually. So I would be concerned about that precedent.
I first of all wonder, from the mechanics of it, how it is that Mr. Ross is now on an amended agenda. Second, I thought this was supposed to be under discussion. So could someone clarify for me?
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
The point of order Laurie Hawn raised at the beginning blew past me, but I recall the discussion we had last week. There was some debate about whether it was Madame Findlay or Madame Chow, but it was said that this whole question of the order of witnesses, and who's called first and people rebutting, was something that we were concerned about. I think the only resolve that we had was that this couldn't be resolved without the august presence of the new defence critic, the vice-chair of the committee, and the chair of the committee, whom we have here with us today.
I don't think any real decision was made, and it's up for discussion today as to how we should proceed on that. I think that was the ultimate conclusion. I know the chair wasn't here. Monsieur Bachand was in the chair. He could perhaps confirm that, so we kind of put that over for today for discussion, when the new defence critic and vice-chair are here. That's where we are with this, as far as I understand.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
In fairness, that was the discussion last week, that's true, so we probably should not have put out, I suggest, a notice of meeting with witnesses.
Conservative
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
A point of order. Would it be okay to dismiss our witnesses?
Conservative
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Also, I just want to clarify, when we discussed future business, was our discussion last week in camera?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
No, it was public.
So let us open the discussion right now.
Mr. Hawn.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
We can put it in the form of rebutting this or rebutting that. The simple fact is that Mr. Williams is a witness that the opposition wants, and that's fine. He is a former, five years past, associate deputy minister of materiel. It makes perfect sense to have the current associate deputy minister of materiel, who has been on the job for five years, here, back to back. That just makes perfect sense if we want to get the information that we should be getting, to draw whatever conclusion we want to draw. If we want to play other teams, that's another story, but clearly, the current ADM of materiel, with five years' experience, has a lot to offer. He was here previously, but as one part of a panel of about five or six people.
It's time now to drill down into some of the issues the opposition members have brought up, and that's fine. That's their right to do that, but if we are going to drill down into those issues with somebody with an opinion that is dated in fact, albeit dated, then we should be drilling down into the same material with the individual who is currently in the position and has been doing it for the past five years. That to me, Mr. Chair, is logical, fair, professional, and complete.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Chairman, I want to assure my honourable colleague that nobody wants to play games. In the second panel, on September 15, Mr. Ross was part of a group that included Mr. Michael Slack, director of Continental Materiel Cooperation, and others. How it was decided to apportion who was going to speak or who was not obviously had nothing to do with me. I was only chairing the meeting.
I want to point out that at that time there was ample opportunity to comment. If in fact we would like to have Mr. Ross at another time, maybe at the end, when we've heard all of the other presenters, I don't see any difficulty with that. But I would think, having him only two weeks basically, or three weeks, after he was already here, regardless of whatever capacity, wasn't our decision. I think it would be a dangerous precedent to do that. I would say, yes, have him, but after we've heard other witnesses that have been put forth.
That would be my submission.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Again, for the benefit of those who weren't here last week, my position last Thursday was that we should have Mr. Williams here for two hours. The man has written a book on procurement; he served for many years as ADM Materiel; he knows a lot about this.
Now, as was pointed out, Mr. Ross has been here. He did answer questions and participated in the meeting before, but this really is a question about what procurement policies are being followed by the Government of Canada, and I think we have an opportunity to hear about it.
We also talked about balance the other day. In my mind, balance is not something that happens on each day. We didn't have balance today: we had five industry reps who are looking for work and are anxious to have a crack at it. I don't have a problem with that.
We have a different mandate, and one of the things that we have a mandate to do is to determine whether the procurement policies being followed are appropriate for Canada, are in the best interests of Canada, and are in the best interests of this particular contract.
So to spend two hours on one day, with the kind of format we have, to deal with somebody who has significant knowledge and, let's face it, probably a critique, from what I've heard so far of Mr. Williams, of the government's approach.... I don't see anything wrong with that. If we want to achieve balance, we can have Mr. Ross back some other time.
But if we're going to do this, I don't see why we need Angus Watt here. I think we should have Mr. Williams for two hours. That's my preference.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Well, Mr. Chair, perhaps when we hear from panels like the one we heard today, and what we hear is so consistent, maybe that's just the truth. Maybe that's just the real story. Call me crazy, but—
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
—maybe if everybody is saying the same thing, that's the actual story.
With regard to this, if we are talking about procurement processes in the Canadian Forces or in DND and have Mr. Williams, who has opinions, that's fine. If we're going to drill down into this, then it makes perfect sense, if we're going to have Mr. Williams, that we have the current ADM Materiel, who is much more current on what's going on today in the real world than is Mr. Williams, notwithstanding opinions that either one of them might have. It makes no sense, if we're going to drill down into that aspect, that we don't have them back to back. That is the only thing that makes sense. Anything else, I'm sorry, is “situating the appreciation”, as the army would put it.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I move that we ask Mr. Alan Williams to appear before the committee next Thursday for two hours.