NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 18, 1999

• 0859

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to order. I would like to start by congratulating Mr. Peric on his fiftieth birthday yesterday. Condolences, sir, on joining the club of the elderly, of which Mr. O'Reilly and I are members, as are others.

We now have a quorum. I really appreciate your cooperation, members, in getting here on time so that we can start on time.

• 0900

I'll just explain what we're going to do today. There's a suspended motion from Mrs. Wayne. There was a request of motion from Mr. Laurin at the last meeting, for which he gave proper notice. Then we'll go to a motion by Mr. Goldring that formalizes a written commitment that's already been made by the committee. It's just a formalizing of that commitment, and there's certainly no problem in doing that. We'll go in that order, starting with Mrs. Wayne's motion.

I'll refer you to the second page of the agenda. I'll just read it:

That the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs recommend that the Merchant Navy Veterans be recognized as war veterans, that they receive prisoner of war benefits, that they receive a one time payment in lieu of benefits afforded to other veterans of World War II and that they be recognized as veterans on ceremonial days.

As you know, committee members, there's been an agreement, I understand, from all parties concerned, or certainly that's what we were told, to not deal with the merchant mariner issue as part of Bill C-61, which was the original intention at everybody's request and understanding. Now we will just deal with Bill C-61 and leave that issue in abeyance, and that speaks to Mr. Goldring's motion, which we'll deal with in a minute.

Mrs. Wayne, did you want to comment?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Yes. The only way I will agree that we deal with this in this manner is if Mr. MacLean and Cliff Chadderton and the committee come before our committee before Easter. That is what they have requested; the men have asked me. They were on the phone again this morning.

If we can agree that the merchant navy will be here before Easter to meet with us, then I don't have a problem.

The Chairman: After our break next week in the ridings, we have four weeks before the Easter break. That means essentially eight meetings. We do have a number of other items that are pressing, but I believe we could probably....

Mr. Wood, do you have any reaction as the parliamentary secretary?

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): I don't have any problem with that at all, Mr. Chairman. I think that is reasonable. Due to the circumstances and the fact that everybody has done a lot of work on this particular bill to make sure it passes quickly, we shouldn't have a problem accommodating the merchant navy marines.

We've certainly given them our word, and I know they have some strong feelings. We will be dealing with this in a few minutes in Mr. Goldring's motion. I think we should try to accommodate these people before Easter. I don't see it as a problem.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you.

I would just note that it will likely take us several meetings. I understand Mrs. Wayne's intention that we start those hearings before Easter, and as Mr. Wood has said, we could accommodate that.

I wouldn't want to give the wrong signal, that we're going to have the issue dealt with before Easter. We could start the hearings before Easter, but I doubt very much that the committee could finish it.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: It would be ongoing.

Mr. Bob Wood: It will be ongoing, yes.

The Chairman: I doubt if we could finish it before Easter, that's all.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes.

The Chairman: Just so we're clear. I don't want to hear later that somebody said no, you'd have this over and done with by Easter.

Mr. Bob Wood: No. I agree with you.

The Chairman: I don't think that's physically possible for the committee. But we can start.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: No, I understand that.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I will certainly tell them that. As long as they get back here.

The Chairman: So we would begin the hearings before Easter.

Mr. Bob Wood: We can begin the hearings before Easter, Mr. Chairman, with the merchant navy leading off the hearings. But I agree with you that it will take some time, and there are other witnesses we will want to call besides the merchant navy.

The Chairman: Yes. We are committed to several others, and staff have done research and so on.

All right then, with that understanding, Mrs. Wayne, shall we consider your motion deferred until some period before Easter?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you.

Now to Mr. Laurin's motion of the last meeting.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Chairman, what is happening to Ms. Wayne's motion? Is it being stood?

• 0905

[English]

The Chairman: No. We're bringing it forward now to deal with. You asked that your motion be on this meeting and I'm giving you the floor now. Do you wish to make that motion now?

Mr. René Laurin: Oui, oui.

The Chairman: So Monsieur Laurin's motion, tabled, is before the committee. Is there any comment?

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: I tabled it at the last meeting of the committee. I believe it speaks for itself. I have no further information to add. I am asking my colleagues' approval to have the flight logs of all Challenger and Airbus aircraft for the period from 1 to 9 February, 1999 tabled before the National Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee.

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laurin.

Now we'll go to Mr. Goldring's motion, which all members should have a copy of. There are a couple of semantic changes for the members. Maybe I'll ask Mr. Goldring to read it with the changes he's proposing. They're not substantive or we wouldn't be able to accept them in the committee.

Mr. Peter Goldring: The change in the first portion of the motion is to delete the word “that” after “Bill C-61” and, in the second paragraph, “As a condition of passage of the first paragraph” of this motion “I further would move that this Committee agree...”.

The Chairman: I can see that. It read rather awkwardly.

Mr. Peter Goldring: It just makes the flow a little clearer.

The purpose of this motion is to add a little clarity to the letter of confirmation you sent to witnesses. We're asking that hearings, including the veterans' organizations and a report with recommendations, be prepared and presented to Parliament in a timely manner, and that these hearings be conducted before the parliamentary summer recess.

The Chairman: Okay. There's a grammatical addition there—a semicolon after the first paragraph—for the grammarians in the crowd.

I think it's a rather clear commitment in writing to the groups who asked for it. This motion certainly formalizes that action here at the committee. We obviously have no problem with it. We have just passed a motion by Mrs. Wayne that tightens the commitment more than this, saying we will begin hearings before Easter.

(Motion agreed to on division)

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

Now, if we can proceed to Bill C-61, does everyone have the bill in front of them?

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): I apologize for not having been able to follow. We did not support the motion as presented. I would like us to...

[English]

The Chairman: Which motion do you mean?

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Goldring's motion.

Mr. Maurice Godin: Yes, Mr. Goldring's motion.

[English]

The Chairman: It's passed now. Do you want to object to it? Okay, there's one objection to it.

On Bill C-61, just by way of introductory comment, I understand all parties have discussed this bill. There's a high degree of support for it, certainly among the veterans, save and except for the merchant marine issue.

• 0910

The intention is that if the committee deals with it expeditiously, I will report it back to the House as early as this morning, if there's no contentious discussion on it.

We can walk through it. There's an amendment at clause 48, but are there objections or comments on clauses 1 to 48 of this bill?

Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I have some.

The Chairman: Okay.

(On clause 23)

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Clause 23 on page 26 says:

23. The portion of section 8 of the act before paragraph (b) is replaced by the following:

8. For the purposes of this Part, where official records of a person's service, or of injuries or disease suffered or contracted by a person during service, are not available, the Minister may accept a statutory declaration or like statement from anyone if

(a) information about the existence of any registered or licensed ship on which the person claims to have served is corroborated by official records;

The biggest problem I have with proposed paragraph 8(a) is that, as you know, the records for the merchant navy were not kept; they were not recorded in the same manner as they were with the army, navy, and air force. So I would like to see proposed paragraph 8(a) excluded, with a period after “anyone”. Then they would have the benefit of the doubt like everyone else and be totally equal.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: In answer to Mrs. Wayne's question, I understand that the records of the ships are complete. Is that not right?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Are they complete now? For a lot of the merchant navy men who came to see us, no records were kept of them being aboard the ships.

Mr. Bob Wood: Mr. Brunton tells me you're probably right that the personnel records are incomplete, but the records of the ships are complete.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: But the benefit of the doubt can apply in this and the minister can.... Is that how it will work?

Mr. Bob Wood: Definitely.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Okay.

The Chairman: Are you making an amendment then, Mrs. Wayne?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: As you were saying, Bob, if the personnel records aren't there and somebody else who was aboard the ship says this man was aboard...I'm just worried proposed paragraph 8(a) will take away that benefit of doubt. We have to allow the benefit of doubt there because, as the gentleman from Veterans Affairs has said, it's the personnel records that are incomplete.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): The benefit of the doubt is there anyway. It's always there. It's part of the process.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, but it hasn't been applied the way it should be.

Mr. George Proud: It should be.

The Chairman: Mr. Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): In relation to that point, the question would be, what is meant by official records? Does it mean the official record of the ship or does it mean the official record of the individual? What does that mean?

Mr. Bob Wood: Mr. Brunton tells me it's the transport records and Lloyd's Register of Shipping.

Mr. Gordon Earle: So if there are no transport records and the individual claims they were on the ship, they wouldn't qualify.

Mr. Bob Wood: I don't think, to our knowledge, that problem has cropped up yet, Mr. Earle. They're all registered in Lloyd's Register of Shipping.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Laurin.

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, the information referred to deals with the existence of the ship. We're not talking about information about the mariner's existence. In the document before me, it says that certain conditions have to be met, notably, that the information about the ship on which the individual claims to have served must be supported by official records.

• 0915

Therefore, it is the existence of the ship that must be supported by the official records, and not that of the seaman or his service records aboard the ship. This is how I read the document.

A ship that existed must certainly have left some traces somewhere.

[English]

The Chairman: That's true. That's the way I read it as well.

Mr. Goldring and Mrs. Wayne.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I have a question. Have there been any instances where ships have been identified that have not been fully registered, or is there any possibility that men would be serving on ships that wouldn't come under regular registry?

Mr. Bob Wood: No.

Mr. Peter Goldring: So all ships would be identified.

Mr. Bob Wood: All ships.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I have cases—and I have a case with Bob right now. One is from Mr. Gallant from Nova Scotia. Mr. Gallant was in the merchant navy, yet for some reason they don't have any record of him being aboard a ship. He even had his statement signed, okayed, by another merchant navy man who was aboard the ship with the man, and they wouldn't accept that signed declaration by the other man. That man has truly suffered. He truly has, and this is why I am concerned. I am truly concerned about what we're doing. I'm not trying to be difficult.

Mr. Bob Wood: No.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I want to make sure.

Mr. Bob Wood: It's important. I think the best thing to do, Elsie, is to have John or some of us talk to Del afterwards. I don't think they have any knowledge of this. No, they don't have any knowledge of this.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: All right.

Mr. Bob Wood: If we can clear that up, we would be more than happy to do so—and to the benefit of Mr. Gallant obviously.

The Chairman: Mrs. Wayne, you would always have the option, if you're not happy with what is determined, of putting an amendment at report stage anyway.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Okay.

(Clauses 1 to 23 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 37)

The Chairman: Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I'm sure most of you, if you're dealing with veterans' issues, have found that the veterans are having a difficult time with the last post amount that is set aside for them right now. It used to be $24,000 for a veteran, and that was when it was cheaper for a burial. Now I believe it's $6,001 for the husband, for the veteran, and $6,001 for the wife. I've had people come to me when the veteran has died and, dear God, the wife couldn't even afford to bury him. Yet they're saying she had $6,001. One was told to sell her car and bury him. I think we've gone a little too far, and I think in this day and age, for us to do that to veterans with the last post fund.... I think there should be a change. I really think this committee should recommend a change. I really do.

We've had time to observe what this means and how it affects them, and it has affected them in a negative way. It's really been quite an insult to them. I think we as a committee, each and every one of us sitting here with respect for our veterans, should ask that the last post fund be restored, if not to the $24,000, at least bring it up to $10,000 or $12,000, but something for them. If you want to say $24,000 for the family, that's a different thing.

Mr. Bob Wood: I think it's $12,000 now.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: But it's husband and wife. It's $6,001 for the....

The Chairman: Mr. Wood, can you clarify at all?

Mr. Bob Wood: I think it is at $12,000 already. I think if the veteran has passed away, to my knowledge, it's still $12,000, is it not? I think it is.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: No, it isn't.

Mr. Bob Wood: I think it is.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I can tell you because I had to sit down myself with one of our veterans in Saint John, and his little wife.... This was Reg Wanamaker. Everybody knew him in town because he was on TV, God bless him. He died. They said his wife had over $6,000 left and she could afford to pay it. When I sat down...I said, “Don't you include how much it costs to bury the man?” They said, “Yes, we forgot to take that into consideration.” In the end I was able to convince them that they should pay for Reggie's burial. They said she could only have $6,001 and she had to pay for it. So somebody down there—-

• 0920

Mr. Bob Wood: Obviously, there's something wrong there, because I think they are allowed $12,000. If that happened, I think we should be looking into it. Obviously there are things that fall into the cracks and we want to know about it, and we would certainly look into it, to make sure that—

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Do all of my colleagues agree that $12,000 is enough, instead of $24,000, where it was?

Mr. Bob Wood: Yes.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: You do?

Mr. Gordon Earle: I'm not sure.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I don't.

The Chairman: If I could bring a bit of order to this, I'd ask you to speak through the chair, please, or we'll lose a little direction.

We've had a clarification from Mr. Wood on what the understanding is. Mrs. Wayne has raised a valid point. We're going to seek some definitive clarification for the committee, Mr. Wood, on that, are we? Then if the concern is not satisfied—

Mr. Bob Wood: It is $12,000. If the committee or members of the committee want to put in to try to change it, I don't think we can change it right now, because it's a money issue and it would be ruled out of order. If there is some other way we should maybe look at it...and that would be up to you or whoever else wants to bring it forward.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Just on a point of clarification—

The Chairman: If I might, Mrs. Wayne, I understand that if that concern does exist, it would require the government to bring an amendment at report stage, and if any member of the committee wants to try to effect that change, they can discuss it with Mr. Wood and see if there's a chance to convince the government.

Mrs. Wayne and Mr. Earle.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: It's a means test, Mr. Chairman, of husband and wife both. At one time it was $24,000 for the veteran—for the veteran. But it's a means test for husband and wife. That's what they're doing with it. So I think it's something we should look at.

The Chairman: Let's leave it that way. We'll get a very clear statement of what the benefit is, and then we can pursue it further at another stage or try to convince the government to make that change. Okay?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I think we should look at it.

The Chairman: Mr. Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle: My point is related to that issue, because I had a similar case in my riding where the family apparently didn't qualify, just by a few dollars, for the burial expenses, but over and above that, the lady was then concerned about not being able to get a marker, a plaque. She was concerned about this because she felt it was a mark of respect by Canada to the veterans, and on a matter of principle she didn't feel she should, just because of a few dollars, have to pay for this herself. It wasn't that it cost so much that was a big issue to her; it was the very fact that she would have to pay for this marker for her husband's grave when he had served his country, and others she knew had gotten this, up to a certain point, when the changes came about.

I don't know. Does this proposed paragraph 5(1)(g.5) deal with that, where it authorizes:

the Minister to establish, subject to any regulation made under paragraph (g.4), standards relating to any gravemarker, service or assistance referred to in paragraph (g.1);

Does that give any discretion to the minister?

Mr. Bob Wood: No, it doesn't. But I think in answer to your question, Gord, it's means tested, I believe.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, it is.

Mr. Bob Wood: If the means test can help prove in favour of the lady in your riding, there's no reason why she shouldn't have a marker. It's a means test to that effect.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

(Clauses 24 to 47 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 48)

The Chairman: Monsieur Godin has a proposed amendment to clause 48. It's really a reworking of that clause.

Monsieur Godin, would you like to read it for the record? Members have this on their desks.

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Godin: They don't have it? Very well.

A member: Translation doesn't have it.

[English]

The Chairman: I'll ask Monsieur Godin to read his proposed change.

• 0925

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Godin: I propose that Bill C-61 be amended by adding after line 31 on page 36 the following new clause:

48.1 All payments of allowance or other benefits under the Pension Act or the War Veterans Allowance Act in respect of a merchant navy veteran of World War I or World War II or a Canadian merchant navy veteran of the Korean War are payable for a period beginning on the day on which that veteran would have otherwise first become entitled to the payment if the provisions of this Act had been in force on the date of commencement of World War I, World War II or the Korean War, as the case may be.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Godin.

In reviewing the rules of committees, it's pretty clear that this motion would be out of order for the following reason. It seeks to commit the government to a payment of moneys, which, as we've discussed in an earlier situation, is beyond the purview of this committee. The motion, as you have it constituted, is calling for an additional payment and would be out of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Godin: Mr. Chairman, may I ask for unanimous consent to table it?

[English]

The Chairman: Unfortunately, Mr. Godin, you can't table a motion that's out of order. You could take it back and rethink it, speak to the minister and his staff, and try to rework it to accomplish your intention, but as it is, I can't accept the tabling of a motion that's out of order. It's contrary to the rules.

Did you want to comment, Mr. Wood?

Mr. Bob Wood: I agree with you, Mr. Chair, but it would be just about impossible. First of all, it would probably cost millions and millions of dollars to make it all retroactive. Then, to do that, you would have to know what the income was of individuals in World War I and World War II—income tested. It would be just about impossible to even do any of that.

So I agree it's out of order, but those were some comments of my own.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Godin, I'm going to advise, then, that given those comments, you may want to meet on your own with the minister and/or his officials to seek some clarification, keeping in mind Mr. Wood's comments. But for the purpose of this meeting, it is out of order, and we'll have to rule it that way and refer it back to you for further pursuit of the idea.

Mr. Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know why the motion is out of order. You have said that the motion is not in order because of Mr. Wood's intervention who states that it would be impossible to calculate the wages owed to those people because we did not have, at the time of World War I, World War II—

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Laurin, I took Mr. Wood's comments, but going by the rules of the committee the motion was clearly out of order. He had some comments speaking to the spirit of the motion, but it's clearly out of order by the rules.

I could cite the paragraph if you'd like. It calls for a money payment beyond the intention, the scope, of the original bill before us, and it can't be accepted that way.

What we can do is refer Mr. Godin back to officials to pursue the idea. He would have an opportunity perhaps at another time to bring forward the idea, but for today's meeting, it's clearly out of order.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Can we ask the committee members to decide on the admissibility of the motion?

[English]

The Chairman: No, it's the chair's duty to rule a motion either acceptable or unacceptable. I have to go by the rules.

I'm happy to read this for you. It seeks to clarify. I'm reading from Beauchesne's 6th Edition:

698.(7) An amendment is out of order if it imposes a charge upon the Public Treasury, if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the Royal Recommendation.

The proposed motion clearly does extend the object and purposes and seeks to impose an additional charge. So I have no choice as chair. It's clearly out of order. It's off the table now for discussion, and in the spirit of trying to accommodate the member, I refer him to officials for further discussion.

• 0930

Can we go to the next one?

Mr. Bob Wood: Just as a follow-up, the officials have no problem sitting down with Mr. Godin at any time to talk about this.

The Chairman: Right. I appreciate that, Mr. Wood. It's in the spirit of trying to accommodate the member. It's just that I can't accept it as it is because it's out of order.

Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: When the merchant navy men come before us, they're going to talk about a compensation package of sorts, and we thank them very much for that. If he wishes to discuss it then, that is the time to do so. All of us have been setting everything aside on it, and certainly that compensation package issue isn't going to go away.

The Chairman: No, and I'm certainly not trying to shut down the discussion. As Mr. Wood has indicated, the officials are happy to meet with Mr. Godin on this. For my purposes for this meeting, however, it has to be ruled out of order.

(Clauses 48 to 50 inclusive agreed to)

The Chairman: I would now refer you to the agenda.

Shall the title of this bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall I report the bill to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: All right. Thank you very much.

At 10 o'clock or shortly thereafter, I will report the deliberations of this committee on the bill back to the House.

Mr. Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Would it be in order just to give notice to the committee that when we consider the question of compensation—which we deferred—as part of that consideration, I would like us to also consider compensation for aboriginal war veterans. It's an issue of concern for the aboriginals. When they returned from service, they did not receive the benefits that others received, and they want that issue brought forward. Can we consider that as an issue for this committee?

The Chairman: We certainly can. On a pilgrimage, I had the good pleasure to meet Mr. Sam Sinclair, as did Mr. Goldring and probably a number of you. Mr. Sinclair is a distinguished aboriginal veteran and quite a witty man. I would indicate to you, though, that to the best of my knowledge, there has been no request from the aboriginal veterans to appear. If you or any other members have knowledge that they wish to appear, I would suggest that you tell them to write to Mr. Morawski as soon as possible with an indication of their desire to appear. They would certainly be very welcome here.

Mr. Bob Wood: Just for clarification, Mr. Chair, what is Mr. Earle referring to?

The Chairman: Can you clarify that, Mr. Earle?

Mr. Bob Wood: Does he want to put the aboriginal compensation package in with the merchant navy one? Is that what he's saying?

Mr. Gordon Earle: Not in the same package, no. It's a separate issue, but I would like to have it discussed.

Mr. Bob Wood: All right, because I think we have to honour the resolution put forward by Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Gordon Earle: No, I'm not saying to merge the two.

The Chairman: If and when we get requests from aboriginal veterans, we would honour their requests to appear after we deal with the merchant mariners' request, which has precedence. Okay? Thank you.

I'll now turn this over to our researchers, who are going to give us a briefing on the very important topic of procurement. We had the Auditor General before us at our last meeting. He had some criticisms that I personally found valid, but perhaps he had some other criticisms members didn't find valid. It certainly is something that is an important topic for this committee, so we'll now hear from Mr. Koerner.

Mr. Wolfgang Koerner (Committee Researcher): What we'd like to give you today is a sense of where we can go with this study on procurement. We sent out a briefing note yesterday, although I don't know if members have had a chance to read it. No? Well, we'd like to get your comments on it.

Briefly, what the briefing note does is simply set out a tentative study plan. In terms of looking at the issue of procurement, what we would like to do first of all is bring in the departments and bring in DND. There are about six departments we would have to hear from. We would look at the interrelationships amongst those departments with respect to procurement, and after that we would bring in some technical witnesses. We would bring in industry, bring in some academics, and then bring the departments back again.

• 0935

In terms of a report, then, we're looking at helping the department by seeing the committee as a catalyst with respect to the reforms that the department itself is making in terms of procurement. We'd be looking at how the procurement process works and then at whether or not we're in fact buying the appropriate kind of kit for the forces. If that's okay with the committee, we can start setting up hearings after the break.

The Chairman: Is there any comment from the members, any reaction to the proposal outlined in terms of how we would proceed on this issue? Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud: I just need to get an update on that. I've been away for a couple of weeks. What is our role to be? Are we to be a catalyst within this procurement issue? Is that what you're suggesting?

Mr. Wolfgang Koerner: What we're looking at is a whole series of issues. The department is in the process of reforming procurement, but we'd be looking at issues like whether we buy off the shelf or not, at whether or not that is a more efficient process, and at department-industry relationships. In the briefing note, there's a recommendation that we go to Washington to talk to the Americans. We might also want to ago to Britain, because they have a completely different process in regard to planning these issues.

The Chairman: Mr. Wood, did you have a question?

Mr. Bob Wood: Basically, Mr. Chairman, if we're going to do this, I think we should check with other countries to see how they do it, as Wolf has just said. I just wanted to know if we'll get an opportunity to travel. I know Britain has expressed some interest in having the committee go over there. I just wondered if that was on the agenda, or is it something you have taken into consideration, Mr. Researcher?

The Chairman: Wolf and I, along with a number of members of the committee, have certainly discussed it. I agree with you that when the committee went to Germany, I certainly learned some very interesting information. I therefore think it probably would be very useful for us to make a couple of selective trips to talk to our allies to see what they do.

Frankly, I'm a little embarrassed. I thought the Auditor General and his people had some valid criticisms. We're testing equipment after we've committed to buying it? That seems a little backwards to me. Whether you're buying a car or a helicopter, you'd think you'd want to test drive it or something before you buy the damn thing.

Mr. Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Two years ago, I went to Washington on a special study for the minister. It was on the development of careers for senior officers, particularly since ours basically stop at the rank of major. I went to the United States National Defense University. It has four affiliated colleges, and one of them is for procurement—a whole college developed in the career service of senior officers, people who are going on to the rank of general, brigadier general, or above.

I found the kinds of curricula or programs developed there very interesting. These people came out with a full and thorough knowledge of how you developed it, from scratch to the end. There was a protocol that had to be followed in all cases. I'm not so sure we do that in our operation—and I say I'm not sure because I've seen the development on a number of issues that have come forward and have been disasters after the purchase, with no way to go back on those issues.

If we can go—and Wolf or the clerk is going to suggest that we do go—I would propose that we do go to the United States National Defense University, particularly to ask to be briefed on procurement development by one or two of their people. We could also do the same thing with the British at the Imperial Defence College.

The Chairman: Where is the American college that you referred to?

Mr. John Richardson: It's right in Washington, and it's in a most beautiful site. You're going to see some of the most beautiful homes. There are about ten of them in a row. They're typical colonial-period homes, all pillars, at Appomattox, on the river. The university is on that campus as well.

• 0940

The Chairman: That's as in the surrender at Appomattox.

Mr. John Richardson: And it's right across from Arlington Cemetery.

Mr. Wolfgang Koerner: I suggest we go to the army materiel command at Alexandria, Virginia. I think the Americans have almost as many people working in procurement as we have in the armed forces. It's a huge installation.

The Chairman: Thanks for those comments.

Mr. Laurin and then Mr. Pratt.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, we have been presented with a list of witnesses. We may not be able to hear all of them. We will no doubt have to choose some.

[English]

The Chairman: I would just interject, Mr. Laurin, to say it's a proposed list. We could certainly add to or delete from this list.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: That's correct. Mr. Chairman, I would like this list to be left open so that at other meetings, we can decide whether we want to hear other people whom we may not have thought about at the beginning.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. René Laurin: Secondly, before we think about travelling to see what is happening abroad, in the United States or in Great Britain, I think that it would be useful to start by examining exactly how we do things at home, to see what is working and what is not. If we cannot find solutions to these problems, we could then ask for help and see what is being done elsewhere.

Personally, I would like to have a better look at how our system is working before we go and see what is being done elsewhere.

[English]

Mr. Wolfgang Koerner: The idea is that we look at the Canadian system first. We have DND come in and start with the statement of requirements, how they begin their whole procurement process. Industry Canada could come in, and we could look at the relationship they have in that process. Here we have six departments involved in procurement, and sometimes it's a little difficult to know who has responsibility exactly for what. Once we get that figured out, then we can go and see how someone else does it.

I've put the major industries on this list that have been involved in capital acquisition projects, either as the main contractor or as a subcontractor. This is $250,000 at least, and into the millions.

In terms of the defence industry in Canada, there are about 246 companies that are involved in this process, but a lot of them are fairly small. With respect to going to Britain, I know the high commissioner there would like the committee to come and is very interested in building further on our purchase of the Upholders from the British. They would like to see a little reciprocity perhaps. Maybe they would buy something from us. They have quite a good system of procurement as well.

The Chairman: I have Mr. Pratt and then Mrs. Wayne.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear all of the previous comments, but Mr. Richardson and I were just discussing the need to get some basis in procurement in terms of understanding how the system operates here.

The Chairman: Right. That was the gist of the comments.

Mr. David Pratt: As well, I think it would be helpful, and maybe Mr. Koerner could provide some insights on this, to understand agreements like, for instance, the defence production sharing agreement between Canada and the United States, so that we can have a good grounding.

Mr. Wolfgang Koerner: Yes, that's all in our briefing. It was only sent out yesterday because it took a while to get it translated.

Mr. David Pratt: That would be helpful certainly before we got the industrial witnesses before us. I would suggest as well that we warn the people at Western Star Trucks to bring along their bulletproof vests.

The Chairman: Mrs. Wayne.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I'm glad, Mr. Chairman, that we are talking about procurement, because we have the most modern shipyard there is in the world in Saint John, New Brunswick. Mr. Trudeau, who was the prime minister of the day, put millions and millions of dollars into it. Then the following prime minister did the same—

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Who was he?

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: —as you know, and he was just as good.

We had over 4,000 men working just in Saint John when it came to shipbuilding. Today you have 175 men working, and you've lost all that expertise. They've gone back to Scotland; they've gone back to England. I want to tell you, we are the only country in the OECD—the only country in the OECD—that is adhering to the old shipbuilding agreement that was entered into. All the rest of them have said this is crazy. We have bid on over 50 contracts around the world, and we cannot compete because the others, as you know, are not adhering to it.

• 0945

We need a national shipbuilding policy. I have to tell you that when you do that, then all of these other industries become involved, because they need equipment, parts, etc., and that adds to the economy right across this nation. It's something that should be coming from here. I have to tell you, honestly and truly and with respect, that if we had built the bloody submarines, we'd have been a heck of a lot better off than with used submarines. We should have done that. Now we're going to pay more. Down the road we're going to pay more.

But the whole thing is that you have the Jones Act in the United States. You cannot bid in the United States to build one of their ships, but by God they can walk right into Canada and take a bid from us.

This committee should take a leadership role on this one. We truly should, because we can put people to work where they make good salaries and pay their taxes and are not on welfare or anything else. Those men are really begging this government to do it.

The Chairman: We'll have a good opportunity to be proactive when we look at procurement. I think those are valid comments.

Mr. John Richardson: Mr. Chairman, in your own riding, billions of dollars' worth of contracts have been signed with the United States Marine Corps for those APCs.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That's right.

The Chairman: The APC is made in the great riding of London—Fanshawe at General Motors Diesel and sold to the American marines, etc. We're winning on some things, such as the APC, which is creating a lot of jobs in London and also for suppliers right across Canada. But if we go back to doing it in shipbuilding or anything else, wonderful, let's look at it.

Let's go back to Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud: Mrs. Wayne probably asked this question herself. Every time you ask this question, a standard answer comes back from Industry Canada as to why we don't do that. I don't know what that answer is now.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: If I may, the answer is always that we're not into the subsidy business. I can tell you that they are not asking for subsidies.

Mr. George Proud: No, I know that.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: They are not. They're asking for a longer term for repayment of their loans. That's all they're asking for. You'll get every penny back.

For some reason we have not been able to get through to the Minister of Industry and neither has the national shipbuilding committee, and they have tried. They have said, we don't understand why he keeps saying we're not into subsidies, because we're not asking for subsidies. None of us are. But I have to tell you that those in the OECD are getting subsidies. Nevertheless, our boys say they have come up with a way in which they can compete, if only the minister would listen to them.

I know we can't go to the Minister of Finance, because he's in the business too. But he understands. I know he understands. I honestly believe that even if you get to your prime minister, he'll know, because it will create jobs in Quebec too. A lot of the work came out of Quebec too, and it was good. It helps P.E.I., it helps Nova Scotia, it helps British Columbia—it helps all of us.

The Chairman: That's the beautiful thing about any of these. As a lot of you know, if you take the APC contract, which is a major contract that Mr. Richardson referred to, they're produced in my riding, but the suppliers are involved from Atlantic Canada right across to the west.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That's right.

Mr. George Proud: I think it's something we have to really seriously look at.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments on where we're going? Mr. Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I just want to support and endorse what Mrs. Wayne has indicated, because I've raised the same question around a national shipbuilding policy, and the standard answer that comes back is, well, we have a policy. In reality it just pulls together bits and pieces of things that are happening, but there's no coherent policy or sense of direction.

I was really very disappointed that when we had a pretty much all-party committee meeting with the shipbuilding industry, including labour, management, and everybody supporting that industry here on Parliament Hill, the people who were not there were the members of the government, the Liberals. Everybody there was supporting a national industry, and yet the response from the government was nothing.

So I think we have to take the lead on this and support it, because even in my area it means very good jobs, and the people there are highly skilled and ready to go with this.

Mr. George Proud: I think, if I might be so adamant, that one of the reasons for it is because the fact of the matter is that the capital of Canada is not on salt water and it's not looked on as an important industry.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That's right, George. That's exactly right. You have it.

• 0950

Mr. Wolfgang Koerner: That goes to the whole question as to whether we need a defence industrial-based policy. That's a question people are beginning to ask. The Americans have their act together on that and so do the British, and we haven't done it yet.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: They're way ahead of us.

The Chairman: Those are some very good comments for the researcher and for each other. Is there anything else?

When we come back after the riding week, the first several meetings will be on procurement. We'll have the department officials in. We will begin going through the list of witnesses, following Mr. Laurin's earlier comments. This is not a closed list in any way. If you have proposed witnesses, please contact Mr. Koerner as soon as possible, and we'll try to accommodate them. We'll move through the witnesses expeditiously, but some of these people are going to need a fair bit of time to share their expertise with us. We'll see how long that takes us. But we'll always have in mind to honour the commitment to begin the hearings with the merchant mariners before the Easter recess.

Is there anything else?

Mr. Wolfgang Koerner: No, that's good, sir.

The Chairman: I think that's all we have to deal with.

The committee is adjourned.