NDVA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 8, 2003

¿

0915

The Chair (Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.))

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC)

¿

0920

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance)

¿

0925

¿

0930

¿

0935

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ)

¿

0940

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

¿

0945

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.)

¿

0950

The Chair

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc

Mr. Bill Blaikie

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

¿

0955

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.)

À

1000

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. David Price

Mr. Leon Benoit

The Chair

Mr. David Price

The Chair

À

1005

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

À

1010

The Chair

Mrs. Elsie Wayne

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

---

NUMBER 020

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 8, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0915)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, we now have a quorum for the meeting.

    As you are probably aware, our witness for today cancelled out, so it was decided that we should perhaps pick up where we left off in connection with the steering committee meeting in regard to the future of the Canada–U.S. defence cooperation study that we are doing.

    Just so that members who aren't on the steering committee can be updated, we had an informal steering committee meeting last week, because we didn't have a full quorum. We discussed the problem of travel to the United States. As many of you are aware, we have had some difficulty at the Board of Internal Economy in terms of getting our travel approved by the board. Based on the information that I have available to me, it would seem as though our travel to the United States was blocked at the board by the Canadian Alliance.

    As many of you are aware, things are done by consensus at the Board of Internal Economy, especially as they relate to travel. Last week, Leon Benoit, as a representative of the Alliance, put a number of issues on the table in regard to problems the Alliance has with the way this committee operates. I think it's probably safe to say—and, Mr. Benoit, I can allow you to speak for yourself—that a number of items were placed on the table last week. They were the issue of the amount of time the Alliance gets; the position of the vice-chair; and the treatment by the chair—and that is, according to Mr. Benoit, the number of interruptions that I am responsible for in terms of his questioning.

    I don't know. We can get into the comments in a second, Elsie, but just to try to frame the discussion somewhat on this, I want to indicate that we have a number of possibilities that we can pursue in connection with this failure or lack of consensus at the Board of Internal Economy. One is to ask the Board of Internal Economy to revisit this issue of travel by the defence committee, given that we've already invested a significant amount of time in this study. The second might be a work-around strategy that would not necessarily involve a motion by the board, but perhaps individual members working together—those of us who want to go down to the United States to complete this study—to see what we can do in that regard. Number three might be to request a motion in the House to allow the defence committee to travel. And number four, which I think is the least desirable option, would be just to drop the study completely.

    One other issue that I think we should deal with as well is the fact that we have votes this afternoon. There was a scheduled visit to National Defence Headquarters, and I think we should decide at this meeting whether or not we should proceed with that. At the most, we would probably only have about an hour on site.

    I'll recognize Elsie, and then Bill.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: Just on that last point, if I might, Mr. Chair, I also think that, at three o'clock, there will be tributes to the Prime Minister on the 40th anniversary of his election to Parliament. If you combine that with the votes, your trip to National Defence is kaput.

    The Chair: We'll have to reschedule that, then. Thank you for that information.

    Elsie.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): First and foremost, with regard to our Canada–U.S. visit, I really feel very strongly that our defence committee should be going down to the U.S., particularly right now, in order to build our bridges and to keep building our bridges with them, to show them that we're working with them and want to continue to work with them, and so on.

    When we went down before—and it has been quite some time—and met with congressmen and everything, it was a very successful trip. It truly was. They were very impressed with our representatives from our board.

    I really feel we should continue trying to find a way to go. I'd say to go to a vote in the House if they voted against us—and someone voted against us before. We probably wouldn't get unanimous agreement, but I'm sure we could get a majority.

    Did you want me to speak about this other issue, about the time?

¿  (0920)  

    The Chair: The floor is open.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Look, we're all equal at this table, and no one is more equal than anyone else. Each and every one of us at this table is equal. We all got elected, and there is no reason in the world for any one person to get more time than anyone else when we're questioning our guests.

    I have to say, Mr. Chair, that I was voted in as vice-chair, and I don't see any reason why any one person should be the only person who can be the vice-chair. You people voted me in. I really appreciate that, and I haven't played politics with it either. I don't intend to play politics at this table.

    The other thing is that as far as you interrupting anyone is concerned, I've never seen you interrupt anyone except to tell us that our time is up, and rightfully so. That's why you're in the chair. If we're out of order with what we're saying, then you have the right to bring it to our attention, and you should be bringing it to our attention. So I want to thank you very much for the manner in which you have chaired our meetings, David. I want to thank you very much for making us all equal at this table.

    And we are equal. Most of us realize that, although there might be somebody who doesn't. But I have to tell you right now that, as far as I'm concerned, these are things we shouldn't even be wasting our time on. We need to be putting all of our focus on the Canada–U.S. relationship.

    The Chair: Are there any further comments or any suggestions?

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Chair, I think it's important to hear from Mr. Benoit if he has something to say, so that we can respond to it.

    Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Yes, I have a presentation to make to present my position on this issue and to explain things, because I think the committee deserves an explanation of why I'm taking the position I'm taking.

    I think we're all well aware that the committee is controlled by government. They have a majority of members, and I respect that. Faced with a Liberal majority, members of the opposition have very few options when it comes to trying to deal with problems within these House committees. Virtually the only recourse available, limited though it is, is to slow down travel. And we're all well aware that if the government really believes the committee should travel, then it will travel. They have the option to pass a motion in the House of Commons to ensure that travel does occur. So the official opposition really has no real power to ensure fairness and justice on these committees, but I won't stop trying to achieve those things—and I'll explain what I'm getting at.

    I've made it clear on many occasions that I have very real concerns about the way the official opposition is treated not only by this committee, but by several committees in the House. On this particular committee, we're not being given the respect that I think we're entitled to by virtue of being Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I therefore want to take this opportunity to clarify what I'm getting at.

    First, on the issue of time allocation, this committee has chosen to give the fourth and fifth parties the same amount of time to question witnesses as is given to the official opposition. Mrs. Wayne has just said everyone on this committee is equal and should be treated as equal. In fact, Mr. Chair, that's not what happens at all, as you well know. What happens is that the fourth and fifth parties are each given the same time as the official opposition, in spite of the fact that we have more than five times as many members and are allocated three spots at the committee while each of them is allocated one. So if you're talking about equality of each member, that definitely is not there with the way this committee is running. Furthermore, the official opposition has more members of Parliament than all other opposition parties put together, and that's certainly not reflected at this committee.

    Secondly, I want to point out that I feel the chair of this committee is not respecting an agreement on speaking times that was supported by this committee with its former members. Although I don't feel that arrangement was fair—and I made that clear at the time; when I put forth the proposal, I said I clearly didn't believe it was really fair—I put it forth to try to reach an agreement of some kind, and I do respect the fact that the issue was debated by the members who were on the committee at that time.

    Anyone who was at that particular meeting knows that the motion's intent was quite clear, and certainly the background discussion was quite clear. Specifically, the proposal meant to ensure that each member of the committee would have the opportunity to question a witness before any member had a second chance to question that witness. For this purpose, each opposition party would be given a spot for each position that they have at the committee, whether the member is there or not. Therefore, the Canadian Alliance would have three spots and three chances to speak before any member or any spot allocated to another party would have a second chance. But that's not what happens. In fact, the members of the fourth and fifth parties have three opportunities to speak when we have one each as members of the official opposition. I'd like to state that if the chair and the committee can't even respect such a basic agreement as the agreement we arrived at in that committee, then there's a serious problem with the way this group is functioning.

¿  (0925)  

    I've tried to bring this problem to the attention of the chair. I naively believed at first that once the error was pointed out, the chair would go back to the minutes, think about the discussions that took place, and realize that there's a discrepancy and that what was proposed and agreed to is not happening. Instead of a civil discussion of the situation, the chair chose to completely ignore my attempts to comment—and that was at the very meeting after we had reached what I thought was an agreement. In fact, it was an agreement at the committee meeting at which we established the rules of the committee.

    The next issue that I have a serious concern with is witness questioning. It's just fine at most meetings, Mr. Chair. I say there isn't a problem at most meetings. But when we get to what I consider to be the more important meetings, the flow of my questioning is quite often interrupted, in fact. I see that as a problem, and I'd like to see it dealt with.

    The chair may respond to my comments by stating that we're free to bring a motion of non-confidence against the chair. However, he knows very well that a majority of seats on the committee are government seats and that nothing would come of that. Any effort that I might make to have this committee function fairly and democratically will be overruled, so there's no point in doing that, nor do I really wish to do that.

    Now, obviously the other opposition parties are happy with the status quo. After all, they're receiving more than their fair share of questioning time. Even in Mrs. Wayne's comments earlier, she commented clearly once again, as she has before, that she believes each member of the committee should be treated equally. That's simply not what's happening at this committee. We see that the other opposition parties are quite happy. If I were in the position of the members of the fourth and fifth parties and was getting three times as many opportunities to question as each member of the official opposition party is, I'd be quite happy with that, too.

    Now, with regard to travel, I want to reiterate that if the government really wants to travel, then it will happen. I believe they can use Standing Order 56.2 in the House to guarantee that travel goes ahead.

    Some members state that travel to the United States to add to this report is important, and I don't entirely disagree with that. This Canada–U.S. relations study was an Alliance recommendation, one I put forward some time ago. However, travel is really only a benefit to the members in that it adds to their own information base. You are all aware that our reports have been routinely ignored by government, some insultingly so. You've stated that yourselves. As a result, I'm sure you often join me in questioning the importance of the committee process at all, except that it provides us individually with a chance to broaden our knowledge base on particular subjects through witness testimony, as well as—and this is important—a chance to hold the government accountable. When it comes to ministers, bureaucrats, or civil servants, we can hold them accountable on behalf of the people of Canada when the wishes of Canadians as we see them are ignored.

    That accountability is important. However, that accountability issue certainly doesn't apply when we're talking about travelling to the United States, because we can't hold Americans accountable for anything. The one real benefit of the travel is that each member of the committee would learn a lot about the issue we're studying, and I see that as being important.

    Again, we're not questioning anyone under Canadian authority in the States, so we're not holding anyone accountable. That important part of the task simply isn't there. Therefore, by slowing down the process in order to at last have a chance to focus on some major concerns that I have with this committee, I do not feel we are adversely affecting the true purpose of this group. In fact, I want it to work better and in a more fair and democratic way over the long haul.

    Another issue I'm going to take the opportunity to bring to the table is the fact that government members have gone on record several times recently as being anti-American with anti-American comments. Any such lapse on the part of a committee member while travelling in the United States would be even more damaging to our relationship than those remarks made here at home, and I want to be no part of that, certainly. It would be a very embarrassing thing for our country. However, I do want to make clear, with due respect for the committee members, that I mean no slight to any member of this committee. Those things have happened, though, and those things are a concern.

¿  (0930)  

    Some crucial issues are facing the defence department at the moment, and this committee should be equally eager to study them, I believe. As I've stated previously, many of this committee's reports and recommendations have been ignored. We should address those issues and request that the government take our work seriously. In other words, we should follow up on past reports of this committee. I've heard many of you comment that the response from the government to this committee's reports is sometimes insulting, or very weak at best. I believe we should go through each of those previous reports in a more serious fashion, starting with the quality-of-life report. We should have a close evaluation of what they have actually accomplished, and push the agenda on those reports. In that way, I think we'll get a lot greater benefit from our reports.

    One example that I can think of in particular is the procurement study, which was tabled in March 2001. It was largely ignored, as was the June 2001 report on plans and priorities. The November 2001 interim report on terrorism was ignored in the December budget. The key recommendations in that report, such as those involving airlift and sealift, training for Canadian Forces members to deal with nuclear, chemical, and biological attacks, and the full foreign affairs and defence policy reviews, should be re-addressed because those things have not been followed up. So I think there is some serious work to be done there.

    We actually recommended at the time, at one point, that the helicopter replacement project be accelerated to ensure that all the Sea Kings are replaced by the end of the decade. There are some real problems with that process, including the fact that it's a lowest cost process rather than a best value process. I therefore think we should be monitoring that issue in a serious fashion.

    In our most recent report, the number one recommendation was that approximately $5 billion be added to the DND base budget by 2005. We have had only $800 million added to the base so far, so there's a long way to go.

    So those recommendations clearly haven't been followed up.

    I think the committee should also be dealing with a whole series of other issues, including SISIP, the service income security insurance plan for the Canadian Forces; post-traumatic stress disorder; and changes to the grievance process. They're all supposed to be revisited in the quality-of-life study, to ascertain whether or not recommendations are being followed and what their impact has been. We have not done that, nor are there plans to do so. Because we don't follow up on past committee recommendations, these reports sit and collect dust. Quite frankly, I think that's a real shame. If we had more serious follow-up on those, we could probably have much more useful reports.

    I'm aware that the government may try to find—and I'm closing now—some way to score political points due to the Canadian Alliance's lack of support for the proposed travel or our refusal to support travel at this stage. I wouldn't expect anything different, really. However, I would remind them that we're simply using the one method that we have to bring our concerns to the attention of all committee members and to the Canadian public, and that any attempt to denigrate that will simply result in a loss of respect for the process, not any one member or any party.

    Again, Standing Order 56.2 clearly allows the government to force travel any time they feel it's warranted. Meanwhile, until these issues are at least addressed, I will continue to use this very limited means that I have at my disposal to try to obtain an appropriate level of respect for the position of official opposition.

    I'm aware that the situation is not unique at SCONDVA, so I'm also taking this action on behalf of other committees at which the official opposition simply isn't treated as the official opposition should be, based on numbers of MPs elected and based on the official status given to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I do think it's truly a shame for the democratic and parliamentary process that this proper respect isn't there.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me an opportunity to make my comments.

¿  (0935)  

    The Chair: Well, Mr. Benoit, notwithstanding your presentation, one item that you dealt with last week wasn't dealt with in that presentation, and that was the business of the vice-chair. Do you have any comments for us on that issue?

    Mr. Leon Benoit: The only reason I brought that up last week was that it again shows a lack of respect for the position of official opposition. At most committees, that position is given to the official opposition. For some reason, this committee chose not to do that. To me, though, it's certainly not the most important issue.

    The Chair: Are there any other comments at the table at this point?

    Mr. McGuire and Mr. Bachand.

    Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Chair, one area on which I do agree with Mr. Benoit is the time allocated to the official opposition. We have certain privileges based on our numbers, and so does the official opposition. On other committees that I've been on, they have always gotten more questioning time than other opposition members. I think we've served on other committees together, and that was the modus operandi on those committees. In that way, due to their numbers and because they have earned the title and position of official opposition, they did get more time to question witnesses.

    On the vice-chair position, no matter how people voted, we used the method that was instituted recently by the Canadian Alliance itself. Previously, it was designated that a vice-chair would be from the official opposition. That designation doesn't exist anymore, basically because of a motion of his party, as I understand it, and if you make your bed, you lie in it. But I do think he has a point on the questioning time, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McGuire.

    Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): I noted Leon's comments, which reflected what he said last week. I do not agree at all that the official opposition is mistreated or that it is being subjected to discrimination.

    I wish to remind the members of the Canadian Alliance that there is no status quo with regard to the speaking time that is alloted to members. We of the opposition parties are not very satisfied with current time allocation practices. Mr. Benoit of the Canadian Alliance proposed the last time that the government be given more time to speak than the opposition. We have to remember that.

    I also remember that this committee used to work effectively, that all the members of the opposition asked questions, and that we alternated with the government. Mr. Benoit's proposal would have us alternate from one side of the table to the other from the first intervention, which gives the official opposition—and the opposition parties in general— less speaking time. He is the one who made that proposal, after all.

    Now, concerning the fact that the first three turns should be taken by the Canadian Alliance, I think that if we allocate time in proportion to the size of political parties—because this is what the member suggested—this would mean that the government, with 170 seats, would be given the first six or seven interventions, and that the opposition or the official opposition would then have three turns each, and we would have to be satisfied with one turn, probably at the end of the time period devoted to questioning the witnesses.

    I do not think that we can have time allocation based on the size of political parties. The tradition and culture of committees has been that a little more time is granted to the opposition. So if the official opposition wants to take all of the opposition time, I conclude that the government, if time were allocated according to party representation, would have more than half the speaking time; and the other members, from opposition parties, would have less time to ask questions.

    I hardly dare say it, but you can't tell me that you want the sun to rise in the west and set in the east. The sun has always risen in the east and has always set in the west. Now, I can't use this as a pretext to say that I won't cooperate with the committee any longer. But that is what I am feeling; unfortunately, I have to say it, I feel that the Canadian Alliance may be acting in bad faith.

    Also, I am having trouble accepting the principle of individual travel only. I think that this is reneging on a fundamental parliamentary principle. We are doing collective work as best we can, together. Sometimes we criticize you, but at other times you criticize us. It is certain that if we travel with the committee, we will derive some individual benefit from that travel. However, when I feel like treating myself, as an individual, I buy a ticket, I travel to some south sea island, and I go and learn things.

    But that is not the committee's objective. The committee's objective is to carry out a study with the Americans and to do some collective work following that. There is room for collective work as well. This is work which may take some time, because there are negotiations involved. For instance, we might not like a certain passage, or we might want to modify it and change the wording. However, the fact remains that a committee's work is collective work; it is not individual work. It is certain that we derive some incidental benefits from it, but that is not its purpose.

    Now, as for the alleged political point to be scored with the government, I am sure the Alliance will understand that it will be extremely negative, it will not be in its favour.

    I want to say right from the outset that if there is a vote in the House on this topic, I do believe that the Bloc Québécois will be in favour of travelling. I cannot speak for my colleagues, but I think that the Conservatives, the New Democratic Party and the government will agree to travel, which will leave the Canadian Alliance alone in its corner, seeming to say: “You did not understand”.

    So that is the political point that will be scored, and the government will not be the only one to have made that decision. Antagonists may say that this is a matter of the government being against the Alliance, against the official opposition. However, according to my interpretation of what has been going on, I would say that what we will see is the official opposition against everyone else. So, that is how I see things.

    If we submit a motion to the House to free up funds for travel, I want to tell you right now that the Bloc Québécois will be in favour of it, in order to allow us to conclude our study, which is well launched in any case.

    I think that we should conclude our study and go to the United States. So, if a motion is made in this regard in Parliament, in the House of Commons, we would be in favour of obtaining those funds.

¿  (0940)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

    Mr. Blaikie.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Chairman, I'm at a little bit of a disadvantage because I'm new to the committee.

    I want to agree with at least one thing Mr. Benoit said. Of course, this is true of many committees, but it would be nice if the committee did have the opportunity to follow up on reports it has made in the past to see what level of compliance there is. Even though I haven't been a member of this committee, I have experienced committee reports being ignored before, being responded to insubstantially, etc., so I would certainly want to concur on that.

    What is the rule for the speaking order?

    The Chair: The speaking order, Mr. Blaikie, is seven minutes for the official opposition, seven minutes for the Liberals, seven minutes for the Bloc, seven minutes for the Liberals, seven minutes for the NDP, seven minutes for the Liberals, seven minutes for the PCs, and seven minutes for the Liberals. When we go to the second round, that basically repeats itself with a five-minute allocation.

    For those of you who have been on the committee for only a short period of time, I think it's important for you to know that the motion we adopted with respect to this speaking order was one Mr. Benoit moved at this committee in November. We adopted his motion, but it seems as though what he intended by his motion was not what was conveyed within the motion itself.

    I recall that members on this side in particular jumped at the opportunity to get more questioning. From that standpoint, it appears as though Mr. Benoit's motion was counterproductive from the standpoint of the official opposition's position, because in the final analysis, it actually gave them less time.

    With respect to the issue of the vice-chair, you will recall that the official opposition was pushing very vociferously in the House to elect the chairs and the vice-chairs freely, not via appointment. The cards fell where they fell, and Mr. Benoit was not elected.

    One could say that in terms of both the time allocation and the issue of the vice-chairs, the wounds the Alliance suffered on both occasions were self-inflicted.

¿  (0945)  

    Mr. Leon Benoit: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: You're coming up in the rotation in terms of speaking, Mr. Benoit.

    Mr. Blaikie, do you have any further comments?

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: I got more of a political interpretation than I asked for. I just asked for what the rule was, but maybe Mr. Benoit does have a point.

    You'll notice that I generally have to leave after the first round because I have so many other things to do, so I didn't really know how it unfolds. I certainly wouldn't have devised such a motion if I was the official opposition. It's an unusual procedure that I think gives the government more time than it usually gets within a committee—at least, in the committees that I'm in and that I have experience with—and it actually does give the official opposition less than what I had understood to be the case.

    The Chair: Okay, thank you.

    Mr. LeBlanc, Mr. Benoit, and then Mrs. Wayne.

    Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief.

    Like Bill, I have little experience in this committee, and I obviously have much less experience in Parliament than he does as well, so I want my comments taken with that screen.

    Based on my two and a half years here, Mr. Chairman, I think you're doing a wonderful job. I share Mrs. Wayne's comments about how you conduct the meetings in terms of the time allocation and maintaining an order, following on the motion that was passed by this committee. In terms of interrupting witnesses and questioners, I don't share Mr. Benoit's view. I haven't seen that, and I think you're doing a good job.

    Both you and Mr. McGuire have talked about the secret ballots to elect vice-chairs and chairs. I voted against that motion for a secret ballot, so my conscience is clean.

    On routinely ignoring reports, I have seen that on the fisheries committee. In some cases, the action is slower and the committee doesn't get the follow-up that we all wish we would get after having made a lot of good-faith effort and after having put a lot of time and thought into the reports. Like any MP who works on these committees, I therefore share that concern to some extent. But the idea of doing this study was Mr. Benoit's. To propose a study and to then say it's going to be ignored, and to say that if we don't travel we can go on to study other things that I assume will in turn be ignored, is to me a little inconsistent.

    On the substantive issue of travelling to the U.S., Mr. Chairman,

[Translation]

    Mr. Bachand said it very clearly, and I share his feelings completely, as regards individual travel to learn things. A few weeks ago I went to Florida. I enjoyed my trip very much and I may have learned certain things that have nothing to do with this study, but

[English]

I think Claude said it well. From the experience that I've had in travelling with committees, one of the things that comes out of these trips, apart from the substantive learning process of hearing witnesses and of visiting places, is the camaraderie that develops amongst colleagues. I've also enjoyed a few trips that I've done with committees for just that reason.

    If the substantive study that we're working on is as important as I feel it is, and if it's as interesting and as potentially positive as I believe it is in terms of its subject matter, then I feel strongly that we have to travel to the United States. Otherwise, if we miss that important component of the exercise, maybe the study will deserve to be ignored because we will have only done two-thirds of the job. In and of itself, that can become a reason to say that listening to a group of academics or government officials that we brought in is interesting and that we've learned a lot, but an important part is to go out and hear the other side of the story.

    I'll conclude by commenting on Mr. Benoit's worry that some of our colleagues have said things that haven't been helpful in the current context. I share his concern, and I've said that publicly. I see this trip by this committee as a chance to show the other side of that coin in some ways. It's a chance to show that there are good examples of defence cooperation and other examples of cooperation. To some extent, I can see this committee's trip to Washington as contributing positively, and not in the negative way that we all feel things have occurred in some cases in recent weeks. I see a great opportunity in sending this committee to the United States, and I feel strongly that we're missing a chance to do some good work if we don't go.

    And perhaps I can finish by asking a question, as Mr. Blaikie did. On this Standing Order and the government forcing the travel, I've always thought it was by consensus. And it wouldn't just be the government. I appreciate what Mr. Bachand said, because it would be—I hope—other parties as well that would be approving the travel. I don't think that's a very common procedure. I haven't seen it in my limited experience. Does that happen regularly, or is it an extraordinary circumstance?

¿  (0950)  

    The Chair: You're right. It is extraordinary.

    Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: So it's a rule that is never used, it's illusory. And it also allows some people to then vote against the trip, but I assume they can then join us on the trip.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: I'll probably vote for it.

    Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Anyway, I worry about the idea. That's why I think that if you are to be consistent, if you vote against the trip, then I don't know why you would join in on the trip.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc.

    Mr. Benoit, and then Mrs. Wayne.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    For the benefit of Claude and Mr. Blaikie, who hasn't been long at the committee, I want to explain exactly what I was proposing.

    Claude, you completely misunderstood what I was suggesting. First of all, I want to make a couple of things clear. When I made the proposal at the committee meeting at which we established the speaking order, I made it very clear that I saw this proposal as an interim measure and that it was not what I considered to be an appropriate solution or recommendation for the speaking times. However, the meeting was going on and I could see that no agreement was forthcoming. To bring some kind of resolution, I proposed this as an interim measure until we could arrive at a better time.

    What really adds to it is that what was proposed and what was agreed to by the committee in fact is not happening at the committee. What I proposed as an interim measure was that each member of the committee—and “each member” would be taken as each spot at the committee—would have a chance to question before anybody has a second chance. That's not what happens here. What happens now is that the fourth and fifth parties get exactly the same time for questioning at the committee as the official opposition party does. That hardly seems like a fair proposal.

¿  (0955)  

    The way the rotation works is as the chair explained for the first round. That's the way it goes. But it goes exactly the same for the second round. When the second Alliance member gets a chance to question, so does the Bloc, which is fine, but so do the fourth and fifth parties. For the third round, the third Alliance member finally gets a chance to ask questions, and then the fourth and fifth parties get a third chance. So if it goes through the full rotation, we each get exactly the same time.

    An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Each committee does.

    What I proposed as an interim measure was that each member would get a chance to question before any member gets a second opportunity. That isn't being respected.

    The resolution that came to the full committee for a vote was in fact drafted after the committee broke up—and if you read the minutes of that meeting, you'll learn a lot about what happened. When the resolution was put forth, it was made clear that if anybody at the committee had a problem with the way the resolution was drafted, we were to bring it up at a later time and straighten it out. I brought it up at the very next meeting. I said that what the chair had done at the committee was not what we agreed to, but the chair ignored it. I brought it up again and again, yet the chair ignored it.

    So from that, I hope you can understand why I feel the official opposition isn't being treated fairly. Even the agreement that I put in as an interim measure until we could sort it out isn't being respected. As a member of the official opposition, I'm upset about that. I think that has caused hard feelings with the chair and certain other members of the committee who, it appears to me, simply aren't listening. I want to get it straightened out, and this is one of the only tools I have to straighten it out.

    So, Mr. Bachand, what you were saying is absolutely not what I was ever proposing. I wasn't proposing that all of the committee members from the official opposition would get a chance to question before it goes on to any other party. But I do agree with you, Mr. Bachand, that the government shouldn't have as much opportunity per member as the opposition, because we have a special role of holding the government accountable. The government doesn't play that role, so I agree with you.

    I proposed this clearly. It's in the minutes. I don't think it's reflected exactly as I stated, but it's in there that this was an interim measure. We were in a deadlock, and it was a measure that I put forth to make a point, actually, because Mrs. Wayne and some other members of the committee said to give each member equal opportunity. I said this proposal would give each member equal opportunity, and I wanted to show her that even what she was proposing was better than what the committee was proposing at the time.

    So I put that proposal forth for two reasons. First, it was better than what the committee was offering the official opposition but could still have put through. You know, they could force the vote and win it. And it was also the only thing I thought we could do to reach a settlement at the time.

    So that's my concern. And again, Mr. Chair, by any stretch of the imagination, it certainly isn't at every committee meeting that I feel you interfere inappropriately. However, it seems to be the case at the most important committees, the ones at which I really want to have an opportunity to question the witnesses in a rapid-fire way. It's at those meetings that I feel the interruptions simply aren't fair.

    The Chair: I'll be responding to that in a few minutes.

    Mrs. Wayne.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Just so some of my colleagues know, Mr. Chair, you will remember that we looked into other committees that also have the same policy that we have when it comes to the question period. Not all of them do it in a different manner as Joe and Bill have stated. Other committees do it the same as we are doing right now. We looked into that as well, and we're not alone.

    I think it is very important that all of those on the government side and all of those on the opposition side be treated equally. Nobody is going to come to this committee and sit here and listen to everyone else and not have an opportunity to speak. As you know, Mr. Chair, when we sit here as we do now with the time that we have, sometimes Bill or I will get a second question. Bill is usually not here, but when his predecessor was, we could sometimes get a second question with the way the system is right now. But I'll tell you that if we go the other way, we're never going to get a second question, dear. I'll tell you that.

    I don't care whether my colleagues are on the government side or not. We are on the defence committee. This is a non-political committee. This is one in which we are looking to see what is best for all Canadians, for our military, and so on, so you don't play politics with it.

    When I look at Claude and his people, they ask questions. The questions they have are questions about what's best for the military, not what's best for the press out there. That's what we do, that's what we should continue to do, and each and every one of us sitting here should be equal in order to ask those questions, whether you're on the government side or the opposition side.

    I don't care if you're official opposition or just opposition. I don't refer to people as being in the fourth or fifth party, or the second or third party, and all that garbage. We're opposition, that's what we are. All of us. And you're no better than the rest.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Wayne.

    Mr. Price.

    Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Well, I think a couple of the comments already stated what I had to say, but I just have a couple of things as follow-up.

    Bill does bring up a good point on committee reports, but the problem that we have to deal with is time. We look at this each time the standing committee sits down and looks at it. We never have enough time. We've tried to concentrate, and we've ended up with a consensus all the time on what we're going to put forward for study. On this particular study, as Leon said, he put forward...well, I think we were all looking at that type of study at the time, because it is very timely and it's what we should be looking at right now.

    I agree, Bill—and Leon said this, too—that we should be following up on committee reports. But we have a lack of time, and that's our biggest problem. In fact, we even had to go to a subcommittee to handle veterans affairs, because we were not able to handle that area within the full committee.

    As far as equal opportunity for everybody to speak is concerned, I think we were all in agreement at that point. Leon, you put it forward, it's happening now, and everybody is happy with it except for you. That's unfortunate.

À  (1000)  

    Mr. Leon Benoit: It is not happening.

    Mr. David Price: It is happening.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: No, it is not.

    The Chair: Mr. Benoit, please allow Mr. Price to speak, and please direct your comments through the chair.

    Mr. David Price: I think it is. I've sat in different positions on other committees. I've even sat at the far corner of the table and have known what it's like to have a chance. I've also known what it's like to maybe not have a chance, because quite often witnesses cannot sit for the full time. Sometimes the fifth party doesn't get any chance at all to ask questions. That has happened.

    On the Liberal side, it's nice for everybody to have a chance to ask questions, because the way this committee has always worked is through consensus. It's very rare that we put out a minority report from this committee. We usually agree on things. As Elsie said, we're all working for the best for our military and for the best for Canada's defence.

    I don't have any major problem with it. Granted, on some other committees that I do sit on, the opposition—and I don't say just the official opposition—has more time than the government side. Maybe some spots are skipped on the government side when it goes back and forth, but usually the opposition down the line has pretty well the same amount of time.

    The other thing that bothers me—and I think it's going to hurt the Alliance far worse—is that if we do go to the House with this, the Alliance is going to come out looking pretty bad. In fact, the Alliance is still a part of the Government of Canada. Therefore, Canada looks bad again, and it's going to be the Alliance's fault. That's unfortunate.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Price.

    I would like to make a few comments on this as well, in the sense that, as chair, I'm in the hands of the committee. I'm a tool of the committee in that way, to help the committee try to do its work.

    In terms of what developed on November 7, Mr. Benoit—and I go back to this—what you meant may have not been what you moved, but everybody at the table understood the implications of your motion. At least, I think everybody at the table did. Certainly, that was my sense of the meeting. Perhaps you didn't, but everybody else did and they adopted that motion.

    We did get bogged down at the time. There's no question about that. But if we go back to the minutes, there was a suggestion that this issue be referred to the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. We had a little debate on that, the question was put, and it was negatived. It was defeated, so we had to deal with it in this committee at the time. And we did deal with it. An acting clerk was involved at the time, but it's all here in the records of the Minutes of Proceedings.

    I think that once the implications of this became clear to you, you indicated—as you have obviously indicated on a number of occasions—that you wanted this issue revisited. You took it to the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, but there was no desire to revisit the issue at that point. There was none whatsoever, so what you may have meant as an interim step or an interim measure has become a rather permanent feature of this committee, and one that I think members have gotten used to in terms of the amount of time allocated to them.

    Whether or not the committee wants to revisit this at some point in the future will be up to the committee. If you want to bring this forward at some point in the future, that is entirely up to you. But I don't decide these questions. The committee as a whole decides these questions, and I think we have to respect those decisions, certainly.

    I also want to talk to you and to the committee about the flow of questioning. I think it's important for members at the table to recognize that if we follow the rules as the rules are spelled out in various procedural manuals, all of the questioning has to be directed through the chair to the witness.

    I like to maintain a level of collegiality at this committee, because I think it's important in terms of the work that we do. Therefore, I don't always enforce the letter of the law, as it were, in terms of how questioning should proceed. But when you talk about your rapid-fire style of questioning, Mr. Benoit, well, quite frankly, that is completely against the rules of the committee in terms of interrupting the witnesses. The witnesses are here for a reason. They're here to make a presentation and they're here to respond to questions. They're not here to respond necessarily to your particular agenda on any particular day. The Standing Orders and the rules say very clearly that when witnesses are answering questions, they're to be treated with courtesy and fairness. That means they are to be allowed to respond fully to your questions.

    I repeat that in some instances, I have...in the case of Janko Peric, for instance, I interrupted him a month or two ago because of the nature of the questions he was asking. In my view, they did not show courtesy and they did not show respect to the witnesses, and his line of questioning was stopped. I think it's a rare occasion indeed that it happens, but I intend to do the same thing in the future if members of the committee don't show respect for our witnesses. I am going to cut them off. I am going to observe the rules. I want to make that very clear.

À  (1005)  

    Now, in terms of what's before us, I would suggest—and I do so with some hesitancy, certainly, because we seem to have moved toward some sort of an impasse on this—that it would set a very difficult precedent for this committee if we were to simply say, “Yes, Leon, whatever you want, we'll give it to you, because we think the study is important enough and the travel to the United States is such that we're prepared to accede to all of your demands.”

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: It's procedural terrorism.

    The Chair: Well, that's one way to put it, Mr. Blaikie.

    Anyway, if it is the desire of the committee to revisit these issues at some point, then perhaps we could have a suggestion to that effect, and perhaps discussions. Frankly, though, I would think that in the interest of the work of this committee, perhaps we could proceed with the work of the committee in terms of the visit to the United States, with an understanding that perhaps when the committee gets reconstituted next September, when the chair has to be voted on again, you might want to get rid of the chair. In any event, I do think this is not the sort of thing we should be discussing a month before we're scheduled to go to the United States.

    So I lay that out before the committee. Again, I'm in your hands if someone wants to put a motion on the table or put no motion on the table. However, I do think we have to work on some strategy to try to move this forward or to make a decision to stop this study, because if we can't travel to the United States, then it is clearly rather pointless to continue.

    I did map out a number of options before, but maybe other members have other options that they'd like to suggest. Mine included asking the Board of Internal Economy to revisit this; to develop some sort of a work-around strategy; to make a motion in the House; or to drop the study altogether. It's in your hands.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I agree with the idea that we put the motion in the House in regard to our visit to the U.S. I think you'll find that the majority of our people in the House agree that the defence committee should be going, so I would move that motion, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Following the rules of the committee, we need notice for a motion, so we could put the motion on the table. Alternatively, if we can agree unanimously, we can waive that notice requirement. Again, I'm in the hands of the committee. Is it the will of the committee to waive the notice procedure for the motion?

    An hon. member: Agreed.

À  (1010)  

    The Chair: Mrs. Wayne, again, your motion is that we ask the House to consider a motion to allow the committee to travel.

    Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That's right.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: It looks like the motion carried unanimously, so that will be our approach. Based on that, it seems to me that, at least until we have some determination from the House as to how they want to deal with this, we should continue with the next witness on Thursday.

    I don't have anything further, unless other members wish to raise any issue related to procedure or agenda. No?

    The meeting is adjourned.