NDVA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, October 2, 2003

Á

1100

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)

The Clerk

The Clerk

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance)

The Clerk

The Clerk

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance)

The Clerk

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.)

The Clerk

The Clerk

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

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Á

1110

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

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

Á

1115

The Chair

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.)

Á

1120

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Janko Peric

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

Á

1125

The Chair

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

---

NUMBER 036

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, October 2, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1100)  

[English]

    The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see that we have a quorum.

    I am now ready to receive motions for the election of the chair of the committee.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): I'd like to nominate Mr. David Pratt for the chair position.

[English]

    The Clerk: Are there any other nominations for chair? The nomination is now closed. The motion before the committee is that Mr. David Pratt be elected chair of the committee.

    (Motion agreed to)

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

    The Clerk: Now, we'll proceed to adoption of the vice-chairs.

    Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance): I nominate David Price as first vice-chair.

    The Clerk: Are there any other nominations for first vice-chair? The motion before the committee is that David Price be elected vice-chair of the committee.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Clerk: I will now receive motions for the second vice-chair.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): I move that Jay Hill be nominated for the position of second vice-chair.

    The Clerk: Are there any other nominations?

    Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): I nominate Elsie Wayne.

    The Clerk: Okay. Are there any other nominations?

    Under the new Standing Order 106, since we have more than one nomination for the position of vice-chair, we have to proceed to vote by secret ballot. I'll hand out ballot forms for all members.

    The motion is that Jay Hill or Elsie Wayne be elected second vice-chair of the committee.

Á  (1103)  

---

Á  (1107)  

    The Clerk: The votes have been counted, and the winner is Mr. Jay Hill.

    I'd invite the new chair care to take over.

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

    Yes, Mr. Hill.

    Mr. Jay Hill: I don't know whether all members of the committee are aware of this, but were you going to mention a moment of silence was in order?

    The Chair: Yes. For those of you who haven't heard any news broadcasts in the last hour or so, we've just received word that two Canadian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan today and three wounded. So perhaps, as members of the defence committee, we could observe a moment of silence in their memory and also perhaps say a prayer for those families that have been affected by this, both the families of the dead and the families of the wounded.

    [A moment of silence observed]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Let me begin by saying, colleagues, I appreciate the confidence that has been expressed in me as your chair. I will endeavour to continue to chair these meetings in an impartial and fair manner. As I've probably indicated in the past, I always appreciate feedback on these issues, so if there are any problems, by all means feel free to speak to me directly.

    Perhaps since we have the entire committee here, we could spend just a few moments talking about future business of the committee.

    There are a couple of items. We have some legislation coming before this committee, Bill C-27 and Bill C-50 from DND and Veterans Affairs respectively, and also supplementary estimates. My feeling was that we should probably get the legislative issues dealt with as quickly as possible, given the x factor we have hanging above us in terms of when the House might adjourn, recess, or prorogue. If there is concurrence around the committee table, perhaps we could pursue that in the agenda first, the legislation. Are there any comments from members that way?

    Cheryl.

Á  (1110)  

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: We do have a rather urgent situation with Goose Bay, and attached to our notice for today was the invitation extended... I believe Mr. O'Brien is generally a member of this committee.

    The Chair: I've actually had a conversation with Mr. O'Brien, and I agree that we should get out to Goose Bay. In fact, we've had some informal conversations around the subject of making a visit to the east coast generally. It's been some time since this committee has travelled, and I think it's absolutely critical that we get out to some of the bases, not just Goose Bay, but I was thinking of Halifax as well and perhaps Greenwood and some of the other bases on the east coast.

    Mr. O'Brien clearly has some concerns about the situation in Goose Bay. I think as a committee we would want to try to understand the situation better, so I hope we might be able to get out there before Christmas, if that's possible, if the committees are able to continue to travel.

    That's understanding as well that we have invested a significant amount of time thus far in the Canada-U.S. defence relations study and that we have to get that travel dealt with as a first priority. Then if we could manage something before Christmas for Goose Bay and the east coast, I think it would be very beneficial for us to do that. I think in particular that in Halifax we could get a good rundown on the state of the navy and perhaps have members visit one of the new submarines, probably the HMCS Corner Brook.

    So if that's satisfactory on that count, is there anything further on the legislative issues?

    Yes, Dominic.

    Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations on your re-election.

    I saw last week, when Bill C-37 came up, that there's obviously a very broad consensus that this is worthwhile legislation. This is the first time for me as parliamentary secretary to have a piece of legislation actually show up, though we had a minor one before. But as you said, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we could proceed as quickly as possible to hear witnesses on Bill C-37.

    Also, if you'll allow me, Mr. Chairman, at the last meeting you asked me to get information for the committee on two particular issues. One is whether we can have the minister come and spend some time before the committee on a number of issues. Colleagues had talked about the Afghanistan mission, I know Jay had talked about this $200 million reduction and addition, there was the whole issue of the budget, and there was also ballistic missile defence; people wanted an update on how it was going. The answer, Mr. Chairman, is obviously yes. The minister said he would be happy to come, and he said he would come for the full two-hour slot.

    I know there have been discussions in his office and in yours, and I am hoping that within a month, by very early November at the latest, they'll identify a time slot where he'll come. He asked if he could make a presentation at the beginning on a number of those issues—I think he has a deck he'd like to give us—and then be open to a whole range of questions. That can also be in the context of the supplementary estimates, which I think is the tradition.

    That was one thing. The other thing was, Mr. Chairman whether General Pennie can come; even though he's now head of the air force, can he come and talk about his time as the deputy NORAD commander? The answer was that he'd be happy to do so, but he'd talk about NORAD up to the day he left, in other words, on his experience in the Canada-U.S. context. He didn't feel comfortable talking about the NORAD since he left, though he only left a few weeks ago. He'd be happy to come, and I see you even have that notice.

    Thank you.

Á  (1115)  

    The Chair: Thank you for that update. I was going to ask you for that, so I'm glad you proffered it when you did.

    Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, there's one last thing. The minister may make a statement—and we don't know—on the tragedy in Afghanistan earlier today. He may be making a statement later on this morning or at noon in the House, which was the plan. For colleagues who want to go, he will be saying something. The plan was, as of a few minutes ago, for noon in the House today.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you for that.

    Claude.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): As far as legislative measures are concerned, I agree that we should begin our consideration of Bill C-37. However, I wouldn't move too quickly on Bill C-50, for the following reasons.

    Considerable opposition has been expressed over the fact that the whole question of veterans' widows has been given short shrift. We also share this view. Regulations have been brought in to determine entitlement to the Veteran's Assistance Program. The date selected was June 18, 2003. I read in this morning's newspaper that the current Prime Minister wanted to step in to rectify this situation.

    Therefore, I think we should start with C-37 and proceed slowly with C-50, to see if perhaps something can be done to ensure that all veterans' widows are treated equitably.

    I'm confident that some amendments can be made. However, we're dealing with regulations and I don't know if the committee can go so far as to effect changes to regulations that came into force on June 18, 2003. I don't know whether my colleagues agree with me or not, but I wouldn't move too quickly, so as to ensure that all widows are treated equitably.

[English]

    The Chair: Ivan.

    Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): I'm wondering about Bill C-50. I'm asking about witnesses; and I'm not asking when, I'm asking why. It's a bill that enhances veterans' benefits, and I'm wondering if we need to spend time on witnesses.

    The Chair: Typically in the past we have had witnesses or officials from the department here to answer technical questions that might come up in terms of just about anything. I think there's a general consensus that we pursue Bill C-37 as quickly as possible and then move on to Bill C-50, and maybe some things will become clearer to us in terms of where we should be going with that legislation.

    Bill, did you have a comment?

    Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Similarly, I think we should expedite these bills as quickly as we can. It probably makes sense to have the officials, but we could have the officials in and proceed all in the same day, if necessary.

    The Chair: Well, that's certainly what we've done in the past with some of the defence bills we've had.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: We have to meet anyway, so if we met to hear officials for technical questions and we were able to clear it and get it back to the House, the sooner the better.

    The Chair: If it's possible to get the officials next Tuesday—and I was speaking to Angela about this—perhaps we could schedule them in and then bump some of our other witnesses back, Bill.

    Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): On Bill C-50, we're not going to be in the House very much longer, and I think it's imperative we don't drag our feet on Bill C-50. Given what the Prime Minister said in his report yesterday after caucus, that he wants to extend the benefits to all widows of veterans, I think it's very important we do that before we lose the bill. I think we should get at it, do it, and get it back in the House as quickly as possible. Those people need the money. I think we convinced the Prime Minister of that yesterday, and we should proceed very expeditiously on Bill C-50.

Á  (1120)  

    The Chair: Well, if you leave the timing of this with me, what we can do is start on Bill C-37 next Tuesday, and perhaps...because the minister may want to appear himself. I don't know. We haven't been in touch with his office specifically in terms of the logistics of moving this forward. He may want to appear personally, and we'll have to see what's involved with his schedule. So again, if you leave that to me and the clerk, hopefully we can get both pieces of legislation here as quickly as possible.

    Jay.

    Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I think we're seeing consensus around the room that both of these are a priority, given the fact it's no great secret, as you say, that the House might rise fairly soon. We're unclear as to exactly what that means, because we don't know whether there will be prorogation or just an adjournment.

    What will happen to the legislation, to committee travel, all of this appears to be up in the air at the moment.

    I guess my question is whether we can have general consensus, at least on Bill C-37. Our critic for Bill C-50, Mr. Bailey, is not present today, but if we could say there's general support for the legislation amongst all parties, any amendments that I or the other opposition parties, or indeed maybe government members, might want to bring forward could be done in the House, and the committee stage could proceed as rapidly as possible.

    I agree, they're both priorities. We want to handle them quickly. I think there's genuine support from all parties. There should be no logical reason to end up with a whole bunch of meetings and a whole bunch of witnesses, if we're in general agreement and there's just some disparity of opinion on amendments or something.

    The Chair: I think we're all on the same wavelength that way, in terms of wanting to expedite this, and as I say, in the past we have done these as quickly as in one meeting.

    Janko.

    Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I would suggest we deal as soon as possible with Bill C-37, and immediately, even if we have to go day after day, start working on Bill C-50. This is very urgent, because we don't know how long we're going to sit, and those people need money. We've been receiving phone calls. We have people who need to be funded.

    Let's deal with that, even if we have to sit day after day on Bill C-50.

    The Chair: I'm sorry, I'm not catching your comments.

    Mr. Janko Peric: Let's deal with Bill C-50 as soon as possible, so it's completed before November 11.

    The Chair: I think we're all on the same page on this, so let's just proceed. We'll provide notice in terms of these meetings as quickly as we can organize them.

    We have the minister coming within the next month on the supplementary estimates as well, so there's wide open questioning on that.

    The only other item of business I can think of is perhaps a motion to establish the subcommittee on veterans affairs that we had last year. Is there a desire to move that forward?

    Mr. Jay Hill: What work do they have to do? I'm not apprised of what that subcommittee would be considering.

    The Chair: They've been in charge of their own agenda, essentially, so it's up to them.

    Mr. Jay Hill: I don't see a problem with having them, and if they don't have any reason to meet, then they don't meet. I'd certainly support that.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Unless anybody has any extra business or additional items... yes, Jay.

    Mr. Jay Hill: There's just one further item, which deals with the ongoing efforts on the study of the Canada-U.S. joint cooperation on defence matters and continental security. I was wondering, Mr. Chairman, if any additional work has been done following our meeting of a week or so ago in regard to a potential agenda, if we were to travel to Washington, D.C., amongst other places in the U.S. Have there been contacts made?

    Obviously, for the same reasons already outlined, connected with the legislation, Bills C-37 and C-50, and my colleague Cheryl's concern for the Goose Bay trip as well...I mean, we're getting really crunched for time here. I was just wondering if we'd made any progress, recognizing of course what you said at that meeting, that it's sort of a chicken-and-egg thing, because if we get too far along and then one or more members stall any potential for the visit, once we've made commitments to the Americans.... You can be the boy who cried wolf only so many times. Pretty soon they'll tell us exactly where to stick our visit.

    I recognize we're playing with that kind of difficulty, and we all addressed it in that last meeting, but has any progress been made?

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: We do have the third week of November identified as a potential travel week. I'm glad you raised that, because there is a housekeeping item attached to that, which is simply having the clerk prepare a budget for that travel. We could do that at this meeting, I think, presuming there's unanimous consent around the table.

    Is there any difficulty with that?

    A voice: Unanimous consent around what, preparing a budget?

    The Chair:To prepare a budget. Otherwise, it would require a notice of motion.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): If the House prorogues, is the trip off?

    The Chair: If the House prorogues, yes. But I think what we'll try to do if there's an adjournment is to seek consent to travel during the adjournment and to conduct other committee business as well, if we can. Depending on how things go with the potential adjournment, we may want, for instance, to schedule an all-day meeting in terms of dealing with a report or dealing with witnesses, depending on how many people we want to hear at that point. But that's something we can put off, at least for a little while.

    Jay.

    Mr. Jay Hill: Just one final point, Mr. Chairman, to reiterate what I raised at the last meeting—and Mr. Blaikie raised it as well—which was that at the same time we have to recognize we can't buy a pig in a poke, and until we have an agenda nailed down and an assurance that it's going to be something very worthwhile and not just a sightseeing trip, it makes it pretty hard for us to give our full approval of it. I think we have to take some incremental steps and move the ball down the field a little bit.

    The Chair: On that point, you've just recently come to this committee, and we've had fairly detailed discussions in the past as to what precisely we would see. One of the places we wanted to visit was Colorado Springs to see Cheyenne Mountain and the NORAD operation there. We were talking about going to the war college as well. I think it's in Pennsylvania. Also, we were going to visit with representatives from the Pentagon and to speak to some of our own officials in Washington and possibly to visit Norfolk, Virginia, to see and speak to the people in charge of STANAVFORLANT. And there was the possibility of a trip to San Diego to see the Pacific Fleet in the U.S. as well.

    Mr. Jay Hill: That's a pretty ambitious schedule.

    The Chair: Yes, it was an ambitious schedule, and San Diego was an option that we wanted to hold open. Now I think we'll have to see. We'll get into some detailed planning once we have a budget prepared and we can talk about the specifics of who we want to see.

    The Canadian embassy in Washington had prepared a fairly detailed agenda for us, but for a variety of reasons last spring that trip just was not possible.

    We're in an accelerated mode here in terms of trying to get these details finalized, so as soon as we have a budget prepared we can nail down dates firmly and nail down an agenda. We'll be back to the committee with that information just as soon as we possibly can, because I think there's a general consensus that we want to wind up this study and get it done as quickly as possible. We've heard from an awful lot of witnesses and we have a tremendous amount of information to draw from.

    Is there any other business from committee members?

    Seeing no further business, ladies and gentlemen, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.