National Defence Committee on June 21st, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

On the speaking list, I have Harris, Opitz, Alexander, and then Gallant.

I would ask that everybody keep their interventions concise.

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

I just want to respond to some of Mr. Norlock's comments. Without getting too deep into democratic theory, it's pretty clear the makeup of the House is different from the last House, and I have no problem with the subcommittee reflecting that. So the proposal to have five members, including two Conservatives, added to the chair and vice-chairs is reasonable.

The problem I see goes back to this issue of the parliamentary secretary, Mr. McKay's comments about the role of committees being the voice of members of Parliament. A parliamentary committee is not a subcommittee of government. It does not have to reflect the government's wishes.

That doesn't mean we're set up in opposition to the government. This is not an opposition party; this is a subcommittee of individual, private members of the House of Commons. The government has chosen to put the parliamentary secretary on this committee, and we can't stop that. We can argue about it for the reasons I stated in terms of deciding what this committee is going to study, the details of when we hold meetings, whether we hold meetings or not, at what time we hold meetings, what witnesses to call, and what objects to study, etc. The organizing of our business is something that should be up to the committee members themselves and not be a function of government or a subcommittee of government.

With respect, Mr. Norlock, I think the analogy to municipal government subcommittees is not a good one. This is the legislative body. Mr. Alexander is part of the executive and this is not a subcommittee of the executive of government. It has nothing to do with Mr. Alexander as Mr. Alexander but with the theory of government that we're talking about. We have very strong objections to this, and we think the committee.... As Mr. McKay said, each committee has its own history and its own culture, in a way. I think, Mr. Bezan, you recognize that from other committees you were on. I haven't been around as long as Mr. McKay, but I do know that in this committee there was a great deal of mutual respect across the way. I was in the position that Mr. McKay was in, as a sole member. There were two other parties on this side of the House, and the only witnesses are Ms. Gallant and the clerk, but I had to say that I was treated with respect by the chair and as part of the committee. I got to play a fulsome role. I think that has been the nature of this committee and I hope it will continue.

We got along very well without having the parliamentary secretary on the committee, and I don't t think the committee, even with a majority in the opposition, was one that sought to play a role in opposition to the government. We studied issues that were of importance to members of the committee and presented reports. We listened to briefings and did some travel. We were working on a number of topics, all without the need for a parliamentary secretary to be on the steering committee, and we felt that was important to our independence.

So I think this is an important point for our committee. If we're going to continue to have this collegiality while doing important work for Parliament and for the people, then it can be done better, frankly, without having a parliamentary secretary there on behalf of the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Opitz.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Harris, I think your objectives are going to be met. This will be a collegial place, respect will be shared, but it's all about capabilities and appointments. I haven't been on any committee; this is my first time here and I've been elected for the first time.

From my perspective, I think we have to show some flexibility. It's about capabilities and not appointments. I don't think anybody is going to argue with me the immense depth and experience of Mr. Alexander, and his experience is directly related to this committee and the roles we are going to study. He has a tremendous value in being able to add to that. So I see this as more of an efficient allocation of human resources. I believe his inclusion can only enhance our ability to study issues and come out with the best possible reports this committee is capable of producing.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Alexander.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thanks very much.

I must say, I'm impressed by the ability of Mr. Harris to argue that a measure to exclude someone from a subcommittee would result in greater collegiality. I just have a difficult time seeing the logic of that argument.

The role of a parliamentary secretary is not to be part of the executive. Quite the contrary: parliamentary secretaries are not part of the ministry. Yes, they serve the government in Parliament, but they are servants of Parliament. It is in their title, “parliamentary secretary”.

Indeed, Mr. McKay and Mr. Harris I think would do better, as experienced members of Parliament, to remember that we have a parliamentary system of government. Our government is embedded in our Parliament. The independence and credibility of committees will be served not only by their minimizing their contact with the government, by their lack of exposure to the government's agenda, by their working on an independent set of issues from the government...which seems to be the initial line, at least, that these two are taking. It will be served also, and I think principally, by our ability to generate results, to achieve results in the field of national defence that matter for the people of Canada, that are relevant for this population, for this society, for our interests in defence nationally, in North America, and around the world.

With all due respect to their comments and their experience, I would submit that they are underestimating the ability of a parliamentary secretary--others of my colleagues in other portfolios may well be playing this role in subcommittees, but certainly it includes this parliamentary secretary--to contribute to the independent role of a committee.

As for representativeness and the equality of parties, I think it is quite generous of both the government and the official opposition to see without hesitation a member of the Liberal Party as vice-chair of this committee: 20% of the weight in that committee vice-chair role, for a party that has roughly 11% or 12% of the seats in the House of Commons.

So let's not cut off our noses to spite our faces. This is a new Parliament. We will be judged, I think all of us, as individual parliamentarians, as individual MPs, but also collectively as a team trying to achieve results, first and foremost by our ability to be relevant and to be productive. Honestly, I think the format put forward here today is going to help us on both fronts.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Ms. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Chair, am I the last one on the list?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

No, Mr. McKay will be back on.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Actually, my colleague made the points I wished to make, so I'll pass.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay.

Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Well, I was going to say I welcome Mr. Alexander to his naïveté.

I've been in that position. You are a mouthpiece for the government. That's the idea. That's the point of being a parliamentary secretary. You're sitting here as the representative of the minister at this committee. That's the point.

You may wish to style yourself as a servant of Parliament, that you are a parliamentary secretary and that you have the integrity to separate your role. If you succeed in that, you'll be the first parliamentary secretary I've ever seen succeed, and I've sat on a lot of committees: justice, finance, government operations, etc. So with the greatest of respect, I think your argument is not based in any experience I've ever seen in 14 years being here.

Last week I went over and congratulated Minister MacKay on his vote. The reason I congratulated him--it was 294 to one, which shows enormous support on the part of Parliament--was that he worked at it. He worked at it and he got that support. He got it because he didn't try to skewer the debate by overloading this way or overloading that way.

That is what you, as government, want out of this committee--ultimately support, and independent support, for the government's agenda. We are here to critique. We might even criticize, but we're here to critique. Ultimately you'll get your way because you have the mandate. There are, how shall we say, “symbols” of independence such as this, which will go a long way towards creating the credibility of this committee, which I think is very important. Certainly it's important over four years.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Brahmi, the floor is yours.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

I would first like to tell Mr. Alexandre that this is not about a personal stand. I think Mr. Alexander has shown us in question period in the House that he is quite competent in this area. I was very impressed with the quality of his answers. There is nothing personal about this; it is a matter of principle.

I understand the argument made by Mr. Alexander, who says that Parliament has changed, that the make up of Parliament has changed. But, at the same time, we have to remember that the Canadian population has also changed. There are more and more immigrants. Many immigrants are from countries that are republics, not parliamentary monarchies. Personally, I come from France and more and more immigrants are from republican systems.

There is a very clear distinction between the legislative and executive branches. It is true that, in the British parliamentarian system, there is an osmosis between the two. But I feel that the fact that a parliamentary secretary cannot be a part of a subcommittee speaks to that.

Changing an existing rule to move towards a system that confuses executive power with legislative power even further would go against what more and more new Canadians think, since they are used to having a clear distinction between legislative and executive powers; they are used to true independence.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Merci.

Mr. Alexander.

I hope this is the last intervention.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I would like to thank Mr. Brahmi for his comments. Of course, in people's minds, even in Canada, we tend to think in terms of legislative power and executive power. You are right to say that the principles of a republic are well known here in Canada—we study them—but we have our system and it remains what it is.

I would like to underline that the best proof of independence is to implement good ideas and for everyone to work hard in their areas to achieve the objectives of a committee like this one. That's something the government, the ministers and the departments cannot do independently. That's what we are going to try to do here.

If a member of this committee thinks this shows naiveté, I can accept that, but I ask this person to be aware because being cynical like that about the tradition of our parliamentary committee will neither strengthen our independence nor our productivity.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

When we get into these situations, I usually like to preface my remarks by saying that these remarks are not necessarily for anyone around the table but rather for people at home who might be interested in how our democracy works.

You see, democracy is, for all intents and purposes, the exercise of power, despite what all the nice, fancy words come down to. And of course the exercise of power in a Parliament goes by the numerics of that Parliament. So the weakest in the chain likes to exercise as much power as the number that can possibly be permitted by the rules and regulations of the institution itself to take place, or more appropriately, usually, the ability of that individual or group of individuals to be able to use--some people would use the word “manipulate”--the tools at their disposal.

Mr. Harris is exactly and very much wrong when he says that this committee is very much different from municipal or other provincial legislative committees. This committee's job is to take a look at the minutiae and the finer details and to examine very closely, of course, not only the legislation passed down to it from Parliament but also anything else the committee chooses to entertain in its area of responsibility. Parliament as a whole, as a body of 308 individuals, very structured, very time-sensitive, cannot do that, whereas committees are very flexible and do not have the kinds of time constraints the House does. So this is exactly the same sort of reason that there are committees municipally, provincially, and of course federally.

When we talk about new Canadians perceiving the committee work, I would suggest that many new Canadians, if they come from a democracy, do come, usually, from democracies that have a republican system. But many come from countries governed by dictators and autocrats. This country is a constitutional monarchy. When you come to this country, you know that it is a constitutional monarchy, which means it's a democracy. And the crown is simply a symbol of the governing party or the government at the time.

So I think new Canadians would readily adapt to this system, because they know it's founded on democratic principles. Actually, if I may be so bold as to suggest, we get things done much faster than do most republican systems because of that, because of the Westminster style of governance. So I think new Canadians would readily adapt and appreciate the workings of this committee under the whole parliamentary system.

This committee is reflective of Parliament. The one thing, though, that is constant is this. They used to say there are two constants: death and taxes. Actually, there are three. And one of them is change. Change does not mean less or more respect. Change is just that. Things change. When we don't want to change, that's when we run into disrespect and many problems.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Madame Moore, and then Mr. Harris.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I would just like to give a practical example so that we understand what this is all about. In this case, Mr. Alexander has to deal with it. Let's suppose, for example that the subcommittee decides to choose one study over another, that is delaying one of them, just because that's what makes most sense based on the agenda. If the study that was delayed reports on major errors or on some kind of dramatic situation, the public can get the impression that things have been deliberately set up this way. I think that, if we were to get someone other than the parliamentary secretary to sit on this subcommittee, we would keep our independence and our integrity before Canadians. That's very important.

I would also like us to avoid situations like the one Mr. Alexander has experienced. Even though, at the outset, he had no idea there were errors, that type of situation can seem odd. To avoid that, it makes sense to me to have a member of the party other than the parliamentary secretary to do this work. I am sure that many people in the Conservative Party can do it. In addition, that would make it possible to preserve the integrity of the parliamentary secretary and to ensure that he is not caught between a rock and a hard place.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Harris.

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

Thank you. I'll be brief.

I have a concern about Mr. Norlock's comments about democracy being the exercise of power. It is in fact the exercise of power by the people through their institutions, and one of those institutions is Parliament.

The fact of the matter is that the parliamentary secretary is a representative of government, and the executive answers for the government in the House of Commons when the minister is not there.

There has been a trend and a concern, by all parties, over the years of ensuring that the committees are independent and that they be independent of the executive. I didn't get a chance to do enough research, but I'm very sure, given the kinds of comments that Chuck Strahl has made in the House, that if I looked hard enough, I'd probably find a comment from him on parliamentary secretaries on committees, because that was a strong view of the party at the time in opposition.

The fact is, what we're going to see very shortly is an exercise of power, in the sense that the majority on this committee will wish to put the representative of government on the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, and frankly they have the power to do that. The fact of the matter is, this committee would operate with or without that.

I will, however, take Mr. Alexander at his word. I think he said on the record here this morning that he will take action to ensure that this committee is independent. So we will be calling you on that, sir, whenever the occasion arises. But it's not something that we relish, because it is in fact a backward step for this committee to be closer to the executive and to have that influence on the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Before I allow any more debate, and I'm hoping we can get to the question, I want to remind members, first of all, the new members, to make sure you get familiar with House of Commons Procedure and Practice, O'Brien and Bosc, the last edition that we have. Chapter 20 deals with committees.

As committees, we are masters of our own domain--or, if you want, masters of our own demise. Essentially, we're here to set up the rules that govern us the way we see best. There's no question that every committee has different subcommittees. Every committee that I've ever served on always had a parliamentary secretary, even when I was in opposition. The parliamentary secretary served on the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. Just so you know, the subcommittee is still at the service of this main standing committee.

This is on page 969 of O'Brien and Bosc:

Once established, subcommittees carry out their own work within the mandate entrusted to them. They are free to adopt rules to govern their activities, provided these are consistent with the framework established by the main committee. Subcommittees report to their main committee with respect to resolutions, motions or reports they wish the main committee to concur in.

So even as we set an agenda, we have to report that back to the main committee, and the main committee has to adopt it.

Proposals by a steering committee as to how the main committee's work is to be organized must be approved by the committee itself. In every case, this is achieved by having the subcommittee adopt a report for presentation to the main committee. Unless the House or the committees decide otherwise, main committees may amend the reports of their subcommittees before concurring in them.

The way I've always carried out business under subcommittees is I tried to work on consensus, because we have to get it approved anyway by the main committee. When I was on the environment committee, the parliamentary secretary served on a subcommittee. When I was on the agriculture committee in both opposition and in government, the parliamentary secretary served on those subcommittees. Although that may not have been the practice of the national defence committee, every committee has the power to set their own agenda.

Seeing that there are no more speakers, Mr. Alexander, can you read that motion into the record one more time?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I move that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be composed of five members, including the chair, the two vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretary, and a member of the Conservative Party; that quorum of the subcommittee shall consist of at least three members; that each member of the subcommittee shall be permitted to have one assistant attend any meetings of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure; and in addition, that each party shall be permitted to have one staff member from a House officer attend any meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Is that what you mean when you say “House officer”?