National Defence Committee on Feb. 7th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The clerk is looking that up.

[The Clerk]

The original motion was for a minimum of four meetings, which we have hit. As far as our witness list is concerned, the military family resource centre was invited and declined the invitation. I could reach out to them for another meeting. That was more or less everyone who was provided for on the list, if I remember correctly. I'm just bringing it up right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is that the end of your intervention, Marie-France?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

For me, the point is this: Why do we need to name them? We're acting in good faith. This motion would add more time and an opportunity for all of us to bring forward additional witnesses. Certainly, on the additional two hours for the study, I know there have been challenges throughout the weeks leading up to finding and adding.... This provides a bit of flexibility for the clerk—adding the additional two hours for our study.

Then, we can propose—since Mr. Bezan originally put this forward—extra witnesses. I don't see the relevance of naming them, at this point. We had this study started. We want to be collaborative in expanding on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I have Kelly, Mathyssen, Gallant and Bezan.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

If I may speak in response to the question that Mrs. Lalonde put of why we need to identify witnesses and whether two hours are enough, I think the point is that the witness we would most want to hear from is the Minister of Housing. A minister is not going to appear as one witness on a panel of three or four other witnesses. If we're going to have a minister, which would be our priority, and in fact we want not one but two ministers, if we have each minister for an hour, that's a meeting and that's your two hours.

I think having two meetings is more appropriate. That would be a way we could hear from a minister, who would be our priority witness. We have other witnesses and you can guess who they would be based on the other motion we just adjourned debate on.

I don't see how we could accomplish any of that—or very much of that—by simply adding two hours. Two hours are fine if you have four witnesses in two different panels, but those aren't the kinds of meetings I envision on this. We need to hear from the Minister of Housing on this, at a minimum.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is it two additional meetings, rather than two additional hours?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Yes, that's per Mr. Bezan's amendment to the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. We have Mathyssen, then Gallant and then Bezan.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I like the original motion. I don't understand why the Conservatives feel they have to.... They would already have the opportunity within those meetings to add the witnesses they choose. They get quite a lot of witnesses. They have longer witness lists certainly than other parties do, and they can make the choices within them. I don't think it's fair, necessarily, to then continue to add all the witnesses they want, and then they get another set of witnesses they can add as per the original motion.

I think that it's fine. My concern, of course, is whether this will take place immediately, or as immediately as it can, disrupting the calendar we have already negotiated. All of these conversations should be happening at the subcommittee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Mrs. Gallant.

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

Mr. Chairman, one type of witness we haven't heard yet—and maybe one of these witnesses could be in support of a minister—is the base commanders, the people who actually live on the ground and have to deal with this, day in and day out. They know their bases best, they know the infrastructure, and they'd probably give it to us straight and not give some polished answer from an ivory tower here in Ottawa.

It could even be the one for Petawawa, for CDSG. I think he's pretty plain-spoken, and he'd probably tell us the way it is on base. Also, he's responsible for a number of bases.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Do you like him more than you like the Minister of Defence?

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

I don't care whom you ask, but I think a base commander can give a perspective that we won't hear from someone who is just out of Ottawa.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You can put him on the witness list.

Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To Ms. Mathyssen's point, we don't have a calendar at this point in time. It's still being developed. Second, we've already exhausted.... There are four meetings, and we've already used up those four meetings. Also, new information came out during the Christmas break. We're all aware of the sad story coming from Halifax. Therefore, we want to hear from those witnesses from Halifax.

We haven't heard from the Minister of Defence on this issue. Also, we should hear from the Minister of Housing, who ultimately is responsible for housing across this country. Housing is in a dire situation. It is impacting our forces wherever they're stationed across this country. It seems to be more chronic in places like Esquimalt and in Halifax. Largely, it is our navy officers situated in both of those cities who are being impacted desperately by the housing shortage we're experiencing. That's why I think we need to have two more meetings.

Not to bring forward witnesses, but I would suggest that Peter Stoffer has also been part of these stories. Peter would provide some expert, on-the-ground knowledge on what's happening in Halifax. I would be willing to hear from him as well, and I'd hope that Lindsay would suggest him as a witness.

The reason I'm suggesting two meetings is that, as I see it, we'd have one meeting with both the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Housing, either together or one hour each, followed up by the witnesses who were quoted in the Halifax Chronicle newspaper about the crisis we're seeing in Halifax.

This is germane to this study, and it is imperative that we undertake hearing from everyone before we prematurely shut down this committee study and start drafting a report without getting all the intel, especially where the crisis seems to be greatest, which is coming out of Halifax.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I might take issue with “prematurely shut down this committee study” because that was what the committee agreed to, and it hit pretty well every witness who was submitted. This is an entirely different motion.

Madame Normandin.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I am still finding it quite fascinating that we are using an entire meeting to argue whether or not we should hold an additional meeting.

That said, I understand the purpose of having both ministers appear. It is true that the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities is a relevant guest for our committee insofar as many military members do not necessarily live on bases and the general housing situation must be part of a comprehensive study.

I also find it relevant for us to have a little more time to hear from some of the other witnesses, including the Nova Scotia/Nunavut Command of the Royal Canadian Legion, whose statement with regard to food banks, according to some articles reported to us, contradicts the National Defence's statement.

I will vote in favour of Mrs. Lalonde's amendment proposing the addition of two meetings and the invitation to the two ministers, in the hope that it can put an end to this debate so that we can finish this study and move on to something else.

I know this is wishful thinking and I doubt it will happen, but I support what my colleague Ms. Mathyssen said and fervently hope that in the future this type of debate will be held in subcommittee, given the incredible amount time we are wasting debating the schedule instead of hearing from witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is that it? Are there other interventions?

The vote is on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The next vote is on the main motion, unamended.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

May I reiterate Ms. Normandin's last intervention? This is not the way to go about trying to set up an agenda. The clerk and the analysts worked very hard on our instructions, and then when we change all our instructions, it becomes “let's do this all over again”.

As a point of clarification for the chair, do you consider this motion to be an extension of the original motion, or is this a stand-alone motion? That will affect how the report actually takes place.

[The Clerk]

It's adding two additional hours to the study.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We will treat this as open until we exhaust these two hours. Okay.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I would just ask when the additional witnesses and those lists are due.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Should we say as soon as possible, but no later than Monday?

[The Clerk]

No later than Monday would be great.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

The meeting is adjourned.