Evidence of meeting #57 for National Defence in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
I think the intention was to give me some flexibility to make sure that we have the best opportunity to get witnesses that we all want to see, but respecting the fact that the committee wants it done before Parliament resumes.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
Is there any more discussion on that?
By a show of hands, all in favour of the amendment?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Back to the main motion. Is there any more discussion?
Just to catch up, holding a public hearing before the House resumes was the substantive change to the main motion. Now, unless there's any more discussion....
Mr. Fisher.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Back to the date again, Mr. Chair, will you and the clerk determine that?
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
I'll work with the clerk and the vice-chairs to make sure that everyone is agreeable to a time that works for all involved.
The clerk just wants to make sure that everybody is on the same page. So the word “study” becomes “to further understand”, and “defence experts” becomes “subject matter experts” as originally proposed by Mr. Gerretsen, with the undertaking that the study will happen before the House sits. I'll work with the vice-chairs and the clerk to make sure that we get the timing and the people that we would like to see all come together.
Mr. Bezan.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
We can live with the amendment as long as there's an understanding that there will be more than just one sitting. If we could do it over a number of panels over a day, I think that would be ideal rather than having just one two-hour meeting—as long as we're all under the impression that it may take us more than two hours. It may take us several hours. As long as we can do it within a day or two, I think that would be ideal.
In response to Ms. Laverdière's comment about involving the foreign affairs committee and talking about diplomatic solutions, we definitely want to see those diplomatic solutions being presented and pursued. I think the United Nations Security Council resolution supported by China, as well as China's economic sanctions against North Korea, will go a long way to helping change the mind of North Korean leadership from continuing down the path they've been pursuing. The foreign affairs committee of course is welcome to join us for those hearings. I don't think all parliamentarians are allowed to participate in committee meetings, but if the foreign affairs committee wants to have their own hearings on that, we're not going to stop them from doing so. I think our focus needs to be on the readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces and how prepared the Government of Canada is in the event of the most unfortunate situation, if it does arise.
1:15 p.m.
NDP
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
My apologies, but I come from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. I also think that the committee's focus is to prepare the Canadian Armed Forces, but Canadians' focus is their general safety. That is what makes the diplomatic and preventive aspects extremely important.
I was going to suggest another amendment, which I don't think is restrictive, but I have unfortunately not drafted it. Its aim was simply to ask that the chair look into the possibility of holding some or all of the meetings jointly with the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I think the motion leaves it to the chair's discretion with his counterpart in the other committee. I'm not necessarily opposed to this amendment. However, I do foresee potential conflict arising pretty quickly when you consider the week that the NATO association is doing a bunch of stuff plus the fact that the committee is getting ready to travel, so there's a lot going on. I don't know how it will come together, but if the motion is just to ask the chair to explore that, then I guess—
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
I can take it as an undertaking and not muddy the motion that we've already somewhat agreed to. We have to go back to vote on the amended motion, but I can take it as an undertaking to work with the chair to see if there's something that can be done.
Mr. Paul-Hus.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Chair, Ms. Laverdière's idea is not bad.
However, we shouldn't forget that the motion's main objective is to look at the operational status of the Canadian Forces, Public Safety Canada and all other departments concerned in case of a problem arising on our soil. So it's not a matter of diplomacy, but rather of operational checks.
Let's not get lost. The motion's objective is not to rewrite Canada's foreign policy.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
Is there any other discussion? I just want to make sure I haven't missed anybody?
We'll vote on the motion as amended by a show of hands.
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
If there's nothing else, then I'm going to suspend so we can go in camera and discuss our trip.
[Proceedings continue in camera]