Evidence of meeting #34 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was norad.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
No, Mr. Larose is a regular member. PROC has not submitted its changes in membership of the committee, and so as a regular member, he is entitled to speak.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
As I understand the rules, sir, the time is divided between the government, the official opposition, and the Liberal Party. That was in the standing orders agreed to by this committee at the beginning of the committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Peter Kent
At the beginning of this committee, in November 2013, we did establish a rotation between the Conservatives, the NDP, and the Liberals, but it is within the latitude of the operation of the committee for a member to cede to a guest at the table. Mr. Larose, pending the reconstituting of committees, does remain a member of this committee, and Mr. Bezan, should he wish, can cede his time—
Conservative
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Well, I understand that this is often done, but in between caucuses as a courtesy, but to give it to another member who is not in your caucus I think would require unanimous consent, unless there is a rule to the contrary.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Yes, on this issue, as a chair and a long-time member in this place—and I'm sure Mr. Harris should know this and probably does—you are correct, Mr. Chair, that it is very legal for Mr. Bezan to give his question to whomever he wants, if that's what he wants to do.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Peter Kent
I recognize that it is inconvenient to the NDP, given the limbo that the party has left us in, but—
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I'm not concerned about inconvenience, sir. If it's legal for Mr. Bezan to do it—
Conservative
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Let's go to the Standing Orders. First of all, Standing Order 114(1) states:
The membership of standing and standing joint committees shall be set out in the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs—
—which we did last year—
—which shall prepare lists of members in accordance with Standing Order 104. Once the report of the Committee is concurred in,—
—which it was—
—the membership shall continue from session to session within a Parliament, subject to such changes as may be effected from time to time.
The membership of Mr. Larose is established.
Standing Order 119 is also referenced on page 1018, chapter 20, of O'Brien and Bosc, and clearly states:
Any Member of the House who is not a member of a standing, special or legislative committee, may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum.
The difference is, and this is where I come to you, that in chapter 20, page 1027 of O'Brien and Bosc, it indicates:
At meetings, the very principle of substitution means that it may only occur when the substituted member is absent from the meeting.
The regular member is here; therefore, he has the ability and he cannot be substituted—
—but retains his or her right to participate and vote during the meeting.
He has a right to participate and vote, as was just described in O'Brien and Bosc, and I'm prepared to give my time. Since the NDP won't give up its time, I'm prepared to give some of the Conservatives' time to Monsieur Larose.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Peter Kent
Thank you, Mr. Bezan.
The clerk advises me that we do have precedents.
Without any further discussion, and in the interest of time and the witnesses....
Mr. Larose.
Conservative
Conservative
October 30th, 2014 / 4:35 p.m.
Forces et Démocratie
Jean-François Larose Forces et Démocratie Repentigny, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to make it clear that the situation was actually created by the official opposition. I maintain that I am a permanent member and I do not find it at all usual to be ignored. I did not ask to find myself in this situation.
All members of Parliament have a right to do their jobs. Once again, I find myself out in the cold, cast aside. I appreciate the chair’s indulgence, but I do not at all appreciate the position of the party opposite. I have a right to speak and a right to vote. I should not be ignored.
Thank you.
Conservative
Conservative
John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
On that, I salute Mr. Bezan turning over his right, but I would suggest that in the future, if Mr. Larose wants to be heard, he will be taking a position from the NDP.
We went through this in the House of Commons. Mr. Harris suggests that caucuses coordinate this. As the Speaker ruled in the House, we use these lists to coordinate, but if members want to stand and be heard, they have that right to do so.
Mr. Larose is a member. There are only two other NDP members. They can coordinate among themselves, but any time Mr. Larose wants to come in here, he should be granted his allotted time, and it should not come from the government side. I salute you for that. In the future, it will come from the NDP side.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Peter Kent
Thank you very much, Mr. Williamson.
Thank you all for the interventions.
In the interest of time and the fact that we have witnesses before us today, it is the decision of the chair that we will proceed.
Mr. Bezan, in this case, is allowed to cede his time to Mr. Larose.
Mr. Larose, please, for five minutes.
Forces et Démocratie
Jean-François Larose Forces et Démocratie Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My thanks to the witnesses for their patience.
In terms of the shipyards, Mr. Norlock mentioned—and I agree with him—that we have to maintain our knowledge and our expertise for the future. When we bring shipbuilding projects down to simple job creation, we lose out. We have ships that are extremely out of date.
Currently in Canada, two shipyards are working and one of them is in Quebec City. Logically, should we not be activating them all so that we can maintain the expertise, accelerate the process and expand our shipbuilding capacities in Canada?
Fellow, Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute
If I understand the question correctly, you're asking if we should use all of our capacity all the time. I think the answer to that is probably no. If the question is whether we should maintain what we think is the right amount of capacity, I think it's up to naval procurement experts, really, to sort out how much is the right amount of capacity to maintain over time. I am not one of those experts. I couldn't say.
LGen George Macdonald
I am not an expert either in naval procurement, but I respect the national shipbuilding procurement strategy process, which selected the two shipyards that will have combatant and non-combatant responsibilities for construction of vessels. One would hope there is a sharing of other shipyard opportunities beyond those projects that would be distributed equitably across Canada.
Forces et Démocratie
Jean-François Larose Forces et Démocratie Repentigny, QC
Thank you very much for that answer.
Earlier, you mentioned Lockheed-Martin aircraft. I agree that they are excellent aircraft, but we have other options available.
Would it not be preferable to establish a balance by using several technologies, drones, for example? Could that not be an worthwhile approach: to obtain more drones and use jets in support?
I am not sure if you fully understand my question.