National Defence Committee on Oct. 7th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the 27th meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence.

In accordance with Standing Order 108(2), we will be continuing consideration of the new generation of fighter planes.

Before beginning, I would like to note that

we received a motion by Mr. Laurie Hawn, in line with all our regulations, that this committee invite Mr. Dan Ross, Assistant Deputy Minister for Materiel for the Department of National Defence, to appear as the only witness on Tuesday, October 19, 2010, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

I will give the floor to Mr. Hawn on that.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

As we discussed at our last meeting, if we're going to get some balance on a couple of different aspects of this issue, then it obviously makes good sense for us to have the current ADM Mat)eriel, who clearly has the knowledge base on what is going on with procurement today and for the past five years, to appear before the committee as well.

That seems pretty clear and pretty fair to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, this witness has already been heard from on this topic by the committee. We have no problem with witnesses being recalled after we've heard from those on the list we're going to hear from, but I don't see the point of having someone come back when we've heard them once already before we've heard from the other witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The simple fact is there was some discussion here. The last time Mr. Ross was here he was part of a panel of five or six. He was not the main witness. We're giving two hours to Mr. Williams, and I have no problem with that, as a former ADM Materiel five years removed. I think it is simply common sense that we give a full period of time to the current ADM Materiel, and the closer they are together, then the easier it is for committee members to make judgments however they want.

It seems pretty clear to me, it seems pretty fair to me, and I'll be pretty surprised if ultimately my colleagues across the way don't understand that and see it the same way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Madame Folco.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to oppose the motion that we invite Mr. Ross. I was not present when he appeared, but first, if I understand correctly, Mr. Ross testified on September 15 on the issue before us today. Second, and correct me if I am wrong, all members of the group who attended with him on September 15 presented arguments to the same effect as Mr. Ross's. What that means, in fact, is that all members of the group on September 15 stated opinions that paralleled Mr. Ross's.

In reply to Mr. Hawn, I will say that as I understand things, the people who advocate that view have had two hours to do it and it is entirely reasonable for us now to hear people who advocate a different view.

I therefore oppose Mr. Hawn's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In terms of some balance on this, I believe in all fairness that certainly Mr. Ross didn't have a full two hours. There were a number of other witnesses there.

Also, I'd like to point out that the Liberal member, Ms. Findlay, who was sitting in, did indicate that we should have both witnesses here for at least an hour to ensure that we get a proper balance. I would certainly be disappointed if our colleagues on the other side of the table didn't understand fairness and balance.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Monsieur Harris.

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

I want to address the question of balance. We had a session on September 15 and there was a two-hour period for the department to explain the procurement process: why it's doing what it's doing, talking about sole sourcing. Mr. Ross was there, Mr. Slack was there, the chief of air staff was there. That side of it was presented. The notion of balance that Mr. Hawn is presenting here is that if there happens to be one witness who has a different point of view, then that should be countered by another witness to do the whole thing.

I don't have a real problem with hearing from Mr. Ross again, but I don't know if balance requires a full two-hour meeting so that there can be equal time. This gentleman here is a retired public servant who has a point of view. I'm sure Mr. Ross has his point of view and can express it. But where was the balance the last day? We had three people who were interested in the business on the F-35s, all here talking all afternoon. There was nobody from the competitors saying there should be another way of doing things.

Balance is a long-term thing, it's not a one for one, meeting for meeting, witness for witness, which is being proposed here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Braid, you have the floor.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is not only a matter of fairness; it's also a matter of consistency. At the last meeting, earlier this week, in the wisdom of this committee, it was decided that one witness could have a full two-hour meeting today. When Mr. Ross was here on September 15, when, in the wisdom of the opposition members, we were all recalled to Ottawa a week before Parliament resumed, he had very limited time--at significant cost to the taxpayer, I might add.

Again, it comes down to a matter of fairness and consistency. And now that we're drilling further down into the issue of procurement itself, we need to have Mr. Ross come back so that we can fully explore and fully investigate and fully discuss this important issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Yes, just to add to Mr. Harris's comments, it would be pretty hard to find anybody in Canadian industry who would express anything very much different from what we heard from those folks. So there really aren't two sides to that at all.

With respect to two sides, one of the things we are proposing--and you don't have this yet--is a panel on October 26 of Lockheed and Boeing so that the two major manufacturers of fighter aircraft in North America today could do that.

The position of the ADM Materiel is a pretty unique, pretty powerful position, and it's right and proper that we hear from a former ADM Materiel who has some strong opinions. But that should be balanced by the current ADM Materiel for a similar length of time, as was said, to drill down and focus on the issues that are being discussed and are in some dispute.

Mr. Chair, I'll just say again--and obviously we know where this is going, because that's the way these things work--in our view, it would show a lack of fairness and a lack of good faith if Mr. Ross did not appear on October 19.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Mr. Boughen.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It seems to me that if one of the goals of the committee is to get information to make wise decisions, then I'm not sure that we should shortchange a speaker for an hour or so. I missed the meeting on September 15 because it was called after we had called the Saskatchewan caucus to meet in Saskatoon. I chair that caucus, and therefore I couldn't be here on the 15th. I regret that I didn't hear the presentation. I'd very much like to hear the presentation and hear that speaker.

And again, Chair, if our goal in taking extra time to work through this is to be investigative, to hear people, then I think it's just automatic that we should hear the witness to the extent that we all have a chance to hear him. I apologize that I didn't have a chance to hear him because of other commitments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Monsieur Bachand.

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

Mr. Chair, ordinarily I am in favour of public meetings, like this one today. However, when the discussion drags on, I actually prefer that the meeting be held in camera.

I would also like to ask a question about procedure. I would like to know whether it has been 48 hours since Mr. Hawn submitted his motion. To my knowledge, the motion was submitted after the meeting on Tuesday afternoon.

Did you receive it before the committee meeting on Tuesday?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

I can tell you, from the information we have from the clerk, that yes, we can discuss the motion today, since it was received within the 48-hour notice period. According to the clerk, that means two nights.

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

Two nights?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Two nights.

[A voice]

Two shuteyes.

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

We don't have the same definition of what a 48-hour notice period means, but it isn't a major thing. I don't want Mr. Hawn to think I am blocking his motion, because that isn't the case. It's just that abiding by the time limits in the Standing Orders gives us time to talk about things with our colleagues and see whether we can't negotiate. That's all I wanted to say.

As for my own position, since we are discussing this and we are going to decide the question, I would like to note that last time, and I don't want my opposition colleagues to think ill of me, I said I was interested in hearing from Mr. Ross, since he is the one who currently holds the position. So it's important. Mr. Williams, who is at the meeting today, knows that even within ADM (Mat) there are often differing philosophies. I recall that Mr. Williams had some good discussions with Mr. Lagueux, his predecessor. He doesn't see things the same way. In any event, the important thing is to also hear the opinion of the person who is currently in the position.

I said last time that I feared for Mr. Williams' safety. I talked about the need to keep the former and current occupants of the position a sword's length apart. That image, that principle, is just as applicable in the army as in the Canadian Parliament.

I think you will be at more than a sword's length: you will be about two weeks apart from each other.

So I am going to support this motion, so we can hear his testimony. That will put an end to the political debate around why one would go first and the other second. We will settle the issue once and for all and then move on to something else.