Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 2 - Evidence for November 2, 2006
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 2, 2006
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:31 a.m., in public, to consider the matter raised in the Senate by the Honourable Senator Stratton concerning the alleged contempt of Parliament and the misuse of funds by the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence; and administrative and other matters, in camera.
Senator George J. Furey (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order.
This morning, the first part of our meeting will be held in public. It pertains to issues that the Honourable Senator Stratton wishes to raise concerning the expenditure of funding by the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.
We propose this morning, with the concurrence of the committee, to allow Senator Stratton some time to explain to the committee his concerns. This will be followed by a short period of time for questions for Senator Stratton. As all members are aware, Senator Kenny is the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence and also a member of this committee. Senator Kenny has agreed to make a presentation on behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. That will be followed by a period of questions.
Following that, we will go in camera to deliberate both on the issues and concerns that are raised as well as anything arising from any of the questions asked.
Senator Stratton: First, I should like to correct what I perceive as an apparent error in the agenda. It concerns the alleged contempt of Parliament. I tabled a question of privilege in the chamber, but later withdrew it. I realized that was not the appropriate way to proceed, the appropriate way being through the committee this morning.
I want to thank all for agreeing to that, including Senator Kenny.
If that is agreeable, I should like to have struck from the agenda the words ``alleged contempt of Parliament.''
The Chairman: Senator Kenny, did you want to wait until Senator Stratton makes his presentation?
Senator Kenny: He has asked that the words be struck. Is there a motion before us?
Senator Stratton: I am simply asking that it be struck. There is no motion.
Senator Kenny: I wanted to point out that the matter on the agenda went forward and was ruled upon by the Speaker. It happened.
The Chairman: I think Senator Stratton is saying to the committee that he did not think that was the right way to proceed and thus wishes to withdraw that part of the concern that was raised in the agenda.
Is that not correct, Senator Stratton?
Senator Stratton: That is correct. It was withdrawn in the chamber, too.
Senator Kenny: I understand, but I thought the Speaker said, notwithstanding the fact it was withdrawn, it was still before the Senate and therefore he had to deal with it.
Senator Robichaud: There was a point of order. The Speaker ruled on the point of order, but Senator Stratton had withdrawn his question of privilege at the time. That is how I understand it.
Senator Stratton: As a member of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and chair of the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets, I carry a responsibility, like all of us, for scrutiny of the committee budgets. Ultimately, the Senate approves or denies budgets; and ultimately, all senators rely on the work done by the Internal Economy committee to protect public funds from misuse.
For some time, I have expressed concern over the very large budgets approved for the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, year over year. Recent revelations over decisions made by the chair, Senator Kenny, did little to alleviate my concerns and have raised the attention not only of this committee but of all Canadians.
It appears that funds spent by this committee on its recent trip to various destinations in Europe and then to Dubai in the Middle East were used for purposes other than those approved by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the Senate.
It is my submission that the Senate, as a House of Parliament, and senators' reputations, by affiliation, are being damaged by the apparent poor judgment exercised by the chair when he made decisions to spend money in ways not approved by the Internal Economy Committee or the Senate.
Honourable senators, the maintenance of public confidence in the institution of Parliament and the Senate is and should be a matter of daily concern to all of us. It must guide all our decisions and actions.
I should like to go through a little chronology now, if I may.
For some years, honourable senators, I have expressed my concern regarding the size of the budgets for the National Security and Defence Committee. On three separate occasions, I expressed reservations over activities of the committee and the need for more controls over the money that Senator Kenny has requested. I expressed concerns in the approval of the last budget for the National Security and Defence, both at this committee's subcommittee on budgets and in the Senate Chamber itself, by suggesting, quite pointedly, that the National Security and Defence Committee not travel into Kandahar at this time.
On June 22, I reported to the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee the work of the subcommittee that was reviewing committee budgets. At that meeting, I once again expressed concern over the committee's decision to travel to Afghanistan, the second such trip in as many years. I said of our subcommittee:
. . . the Defence Committee . . . had a large budget. We did not feel comfortable with them going to Afghanistan and I still do not feel comfortable about it. . . . The issue should be debated by the Internal Economy Committee and by the Senate.
In the committee's submission, the chair sought spending authority to travel to Afghanistan and contained a provision for two days only in Dubai. Honourable senators, we were then informed by the media that the senator spent six nights in Dubai because the senators said they could not get into Afghanistan.
To review the timeline of events — the critical aspects of this whole issue — on Friday, September 1, 2006, Department of National Defence officials attempted numerous times to contact Senator Kenny and the committee clerks. The clerks were contacted by government officials while at the airport informing them that the Afghanistan portion of the trip was cancelled.
On Saturday, September 2, 2006, the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, LGen. Natynczyk and representatives of the Strategic Joint Staff met with Senator Kenny in his office here in Ottawa to inform him that his Afghanistan trip was cancelled. Senator Kenny then departed for London.
Tuesday, September 5, 2006: Senator Kenny and his committee started its official trip in London, staying at the Marriott Hotel Grosvenor Square.
Wednesday, September 6, 2006: Senator Kenny, apparently not wanting to take no for an answer, went above the head of the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff and called the Chief of the Defence Staff. Senator Kenny asked that officials be flown to Dubai but the Chief of the Defence Staff said no because the military were fully engaged in operations. At that time, the operations were substantial, as will become apparent later. Senator Kenny also asked whether the committee could just fly into the base on a sustainment flight, but the Chief of the Defence Staff once again said no. Senator Kenny, apparently still not wanting to take no for an answer, then asked whether there was any hope the committee could get in if the situation improved. The Chief of the Defence Staff replied, ``The situation is getting worse,'' and again said no. This was on Wednesday, September 6, 2006 — the same day Senator Kenny and his crew spent a great deal of money on a lunch — which kind of rankles you.
September 7, 2006: The committee arrives in Rotterdam and checks into the Carlton Ambassador Hotel.
September 9, 2006: The committee arrived in Dubai.
September 10, 2006: One late-date meeting, starting at 4 p.m., with Canada's ambassador.
September 11, 2006: According to the itinerary, breakfast and committee time in the suite to write the report, and a three-hour afternoon meeting at Dubai Ports World, ending at 4 p.m.
Saturday, September 16, 2006: Depart for Canada.
I am not trying to dispute the importance of the work done by this committee. It does important work. It does excellent work.
What is clear, and bothers us, is that the chair of the committee knew on September 2 — before the chair departed Canada — that the trip into Afghanistan was cancelled. Very senior military officials cited for the senators that the military was engaged in Operation Medusa at the time.
Operation Medusa, as perhaps all of you know here but others may not, was a major Canadian-led offensive that combined international forces with the Afghan National Army, beginning on September 2, 2006, to establish government control over an area of the Kandahar province. There were 200 Taliban fighters killed. In this major battle, sadly, four Canadian soldiers lost their lives while nine others were wounded.
It was because of this operation that senior military officials briefed Senator Kenny before he left for Europe to inform him that he could not go into Kandahar. However, Senator Kenny apparently would not take no for an answer. Rather than accept the decision rendered by the Chief of the Defence Staff before September 2, Senator Kenny put forth a series of counterproposals on September 6, hoping to convince the CDS, but the answer remained the same — no.
If Senator Kenny had acted on September 2 — or, at worst, on September 6 — he would have had nine or five days respectively to cancel his Dubai appointments and rescheduled them for when they rescheduled their trip to Afghanistan. This nine- and/or five-day decision period would have been ample notice to explain to our ambassador and to Dubai Ports World the reason the committee could not come to Dubai.
Additionally, flights — and this is the important part — could have been arranged out of Europe and returned to Canada, as opposed to the Middle East.
The decision by military officials to cancel the Afghanistan portion of the trip was not negotiable. Senator Kenny and Senator Banks would have you believe the situation, as they say, was in flux; but the Chief of the Defence Staff made it clear that the situation was getting worse, not better. Why? The reason was that Canadian soldiers were leading the largest offensive undertaken by Canadians since the Second World War.
Senators, despite repeated and clear information by the military, it appears that Senator Kenny nevertheless told the Vice Chair of the Defence Staff that the trip to Dubai would continue as planned.
Saying ``I am coming anyway,'' demanding that the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff change his mind and then going around him directly to the Chief of the Defence Staff is questionable. The matter before this committee, while having financial implications, also has social and trust implications for the Senate as an institution. That is something I shall go into later.
On matter of finances, funds that were specifically designated for the trip to Afghanistan were used for an extended stay in Dubai, apparently, as quoted in the media by both Senator Kenny and Senator Banks, for writing a report.
The only funding approved by the Senate was for a two-day stopover in Dubai specifically in relation to Afghanistan and nothing more. If Senator Kenny managed to squeeze a meeting into those two days for added value, good for him; but there is no added value when the original reason for going disappears. The optics of staying in Dubai for five or six days is really the concern. Senators and Canadians have a right to expect that, when public funds are lawfully dedicated to one purpose, they are not to be reallocated willy-nilly to another purpose without at least talking to somebody about it.
I do not raise this lightly. The fact that this matter has to be raised has really bothered me, but I think the manner in which Senator Kenny proceeded is really inappropriate. It would appear that Senator Kenny knew the committee had no reason to go to Dubai, because they could not get into Afghanistan. Going to Dubai only served, by their mere presence, to get some attention paid to them by the defence officials by having the defence officials fly out from Kandahar, or arrange to have the committee fly into Kandahar.
If it is found that Senator Kenny did not spend this money inappropriately — this is the real case — then it would appear that he spent money recklessly, with disregard for the public's perception of how funds are spent. How do you tell the average citizen that you stayed in Dubai for five or six days to write a report and the cost for that stay in a high- end resort area is $30,000? That is the real problem.
In an era of tougher scrutiny — the proposed federal accountability act is before this chamber and we are approaching the one-year anniversary of the Gomery report — you would think we would be aware that more is expected of us.
This apparent disregard of the rules requiring Senate authorization shows an unacceptable disregard for the taxpayer, as I have said; it gives credence to the belief that politicians are in a different world — the sense of entitlement to stay in Dubai for five or six days to write a report. In the eyes of Canadians, that is unacceptable, in my view.
I should like to review the budget and the evidence, honourable senators.
I have here before me the budget requested and approved by the Internal Economy Committee for the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. It clearly states there will be two days in Dubai in transit to Afghanistan and nothing more.
As I indicated earlier, Canadian military officials at the highest level made it clear to Senator Kenny that the committee's entry into Afghanistan was cancelled.
I shall read into the record two letters from the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, written to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The first letter is from the Vice-Chief of Defence Staff, dated October 19, to the office of the Honourable Marjory LeBreton, Leader of the Government in the Senate. I quote:
This letter is to inform you of Canadian Forces actions regarding the proposed Senate Standing Committee on National Defence and Security visit to Kandahar between September 12-15, 2006.
High ranking officials from the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces including myself and a representative from the Strategic Joint Staff met with the Honourable Senator C. Kenny in his office at 14:30 on Saturday, September 2, 2006. During the meeting Canadian Forces officials provided an operational update explaining that for reasons of personal safety, the committee would no longer be able to travel to Kandahar as planned between September 12 and 15.
Senator Kenny made an additional request by phone to the Chief of Defence Staff on September 6, asking for a briefing from representative of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Dubai. The CDS explained that military representatives would not be able to fly to Dubai for such briefings but that the Canadian Forces could facilitate transportation of DFAIT and CIDA officials if they could be released for travel.
Subsequently, DFAIT informed the committee that as a result of current operations in southern Afghanistan, all non-essential travel of PRT staff was restricted so they could not be released to travel to Dubai during the time period requested.
Sincerely,
W.J. Natynczyk
Lieutenant-General
The Chairman: Senator Stratton, for the record, could you read the date of the letter?
Senator Stratton: The letter is dated October 19.
Senator Moore: What year?
Senator Stratton: This year. The second letter I want to read is from the Vice-Chief of Defence Staff dated November 1, 2006, to the Honourable Marjory LeBreton, Leader of the Government in the Senate. I quote:
This letter is to expand on information I provided to you in my letter of 19 October 2006. Subsequent to sending the letter I became aware of additional detail that was discussed between Senator Kenny and the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) in their 6 September 2006 phone call.
In my letter I made mention that Senator Kenny had asked for briefings in Dubai from members of the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT). I omitted in my response that RCMP officials were also discussed in addition to the DFAIT and CIDA officials. The CDS response to the request remains unchanged in that if those departments would release their personnel for travel then the Canadian Forces could facilitate their transportation. I confirm that the CDS explained that the military representatives would not be able to fly to Dubai as they were fully engaged in operations. Senator Kenny asked two other questions that I was not aware of at the time. The first was could the committee travel into Kandahar on Canadian Forces sustainment flights and meet inside the wire with members of the PRT? The CDS replied that they would be a distraction by their presence so that would not be permitted. The second question was could the committee travel if the situation were to get better? The CDS replied that the situation was getting worse, not better and thus it would not be possible for them to travel into theatre.
I hope this clarifies further the exchange between Senator Kenny and the CDS.
Yours sincerely,
W.J. Natynczyk
Lieutenant-General
Those letters confirm that Senator Kenny knew before leaving Canada that the trip to Afghanistan was cancelled. The second letter confirms that the Chief of the Defence Staff made it clear to Senator Kenny in London that the situation was getting worse and not in flux and that Afghanistan was not an option, period.
I shall read into the record a portion of a letter from Senator Kenny to Senator St. Germain confirming that this exchange took place. This letter is dated September 27, 2006, to the Honourable Senator Gerry St. Germain, who is a new member of the committee.
I quote:
I am writing to advise Senators about the recent developments of the Committee. As you are aware, Senators Kenny, Meighen, Banks, Moore and Campbell were scheduled to go to see operations in Kandahar, including time outside of the air field to meet with officials in the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT). This visit was planned to take place at the conclusion of a fact-finding trip to London, Rotterdam and Dubai.
For the record, I do not believe Senator Campbell went on that trip. Is that correct, Senator Campbell?
Senator Campbell: I was too busy on Bill C-2.
Senator Stratton: I shall continue reading from the letter:
Unfortunately, the trip to Kandahar was postponed for operational reasons at the very last minute. The purpose of this letter is to give you some background on this situation.
Briefing by CF Officials on Cancellation of VIP Visits to Kandahar
Shortly before our departure from Canada, Lieutenant-General W.J. Natynczyk, Vice-Chief of the defence staff, contacted me to ask for a face-to-face meeting to discuss the proposed trip. Accordingly, on Saturday afternoon, September 2, 2006, together with Barry Denofsky, I met with several Canadian Forces officials.
The Vice-Chief opened the discussion by advising that the Chief of the Defence Staff had recommended to the Government that all VIP visits to Afghanistan be cancelled for the present time. This recommendation was based on a major military offensive called Operation Medusa which targeted the Taliban in a region to the west of Kandahar.
CF officials provided briefings on the nature and extent of Operation Medusa. Military efforts against the Taliban had intensified resulting in the Taliban becoming more organized and focused in their efforts against the coalition forces. The Taliban were adjusting their methods to counter efforts by the CF with greater use of mortars as opposed to random shelling of military targets.
Using a number of maps, the officials indicated that the district under discussion was close to Kandahar Air Field. There are approximately 300 hard-core Taliban fighting in the area who are digging in and the fighting is not expected to end soon. The enemy would not be destroyed quickly but in the interim, the area was considered high risk.
I continue to read from Senator Kenny's letter:
The CF officials concluded by saying that the provision of logistical support, air, artillery, munitions, was of primary importance to the forces on the ground. With commanders focused on the war, VIP visits were seen as unnecessary impediments that should be avoided. It was only in the last few days that the magnitude of the operation came to light and it was this realization that caused the CDS to advise the Government to cancel all VIP visits to the region.
Response to CF Briefing
At the conclusion of this presentation, I expressed the disappointment of the Committee with this decision and noted that the visit of the Committee should have minimal impact on the CF in that the Committee was not asking for anything special or out of the ordinary. I noted further that the flight from Camp Mirage to Kandahar Air Field would be taking place as scheduled, all re-supply efforts would continue and convoys to the PRT would take place on a regular basis. I also pointed out that it was not the intention of the Committee to limit or impede in any way the work being done by the CF and that there was never any intention for the Committee to become involved in any operational activity.
I concluded by saying that the Committee's Steering Committee would not be pleased with the position taken by DND given the work that had been involved in preparing for this visit and the importance of gaining first hand exposure to what is happening on the ground. I stated that the Committee would be continuing with its travel plans, including travel to Dubai so there would still be time to sort things out. I asked the Vice-Chief to ask the CDS to reconsider his decision.
Committee Discussion in London
The first opportunity for the members of the delegation, including all three members of the Steering Committee to meet, was on Tuesday, September 5, 2006. After summarizing the briefing given in Ottawa, I reviewed the proposed program for the visit and showed that the visit would have minimal impact on persons directly involved in Operation Medusa. On Day 1 there would be one meeting scheduled with the commander or his designate. On Day 2 the delegation would be going to the PRT by convoy, a convoy that would be going with or without our delegation. On Day 3 there would be visits to static displays, a command centre and a hospital.
After much discussion about how to respond, the assembled Senators agreed that the Chair should speak by telephone with the CDS about the visit. The preferred option would be to continue the visit as scheduled, the second option would be to go to Kandahar Air Field and have the representatives from the PRT come to the airbase, and the third option would be for the PRT representatives to come to Dubai for meetings with the Senators.
All of this was at the height of Operation Medusa.
Telephone Call with General Hillier
Accordingly, at mid-day (London time) on Wednesday, September 6, 2006, my telephone conversation with General Hillier took place. After noting that the Committee recognized that any decision about travel into Kandahar is a decision of the CDS, I pointed out that parliamentarians have an obligation to stay in touch with both the problems and the successes of the CF. The Committee was traveling on an order from the Senate and the Senate had voted funds specifically enabling the Committee to do so. I also mentioned the good spirit of co- operation with CF officials in working with Committee staff, especially MGen Keith McDonald, on the specific objectives of the program.
Then, I reviewed the details of the three-day visit, noting that it should have minimal impact on operations. With respect to the meetings with officials from CIDA, Foreign Affairs, CSIS and the RCMP in the PRT, I mentioned the discouraging reports that the Committee had received about the effectiveness of the 3D approach and that the proposed visit had the potential for a good news story. I concluded by noting that the Committee had demonstrated its support for DND and the CF through its various reports and other activities.
Even though the CDS had himself recommended that the Committee visit Kandahar, he was not prepared to change his decision with respect to postponing VIP visits for the foreseeable future. He pointed out that everyone in the camp was going full out and consequently, there would be no one to talk to. He also noted that there were no longer daily convoys to the PRT as these were re-supply convoys operating on an as required basis.
The Committee's third option was to fly CSIS, RCMP, CIDA and Foreign Affairs PRT officials from Kandahar to Dubai. At first, the CDS was negative about the idea, but agreed to consider the matter.
Our conversation ended on a cordial note with the CDS suggesting that the Committee speak to him directly and not the Minister, about the timing of a future visit.
PRT Officials
Following my telephone conversation with the CDS, committee staff contacted the RCMP, CSIS, CIDA and Foreign Affairs, to make arrangements for PRT staff to come from Kandahar to Dubai by military aircraft. The results of these inquiries were not available until after the Committee had arrived in Dubai. Regrettably, none of the officials were able to travel due to ``operational requirements.''
Again, Operation Medusa.
The letter goes on for another couple of pages, dealing with matters such as the third report of the defence policy review, meetings in London, Rotterdam and Dubai, a committee reception that took place, upcoming staff changes, and a work plan. I shall table this letter as well.
Honourable senators, committee budgets, as approved by the Senate, are not funds to be used in any way that the committee or the chair decides. If the committee wanted to travel to Dubai for six days, proper authority should have been sought from Internal Economy and the Senate, or at least a phone call to someone to inform of the intention. This is a change in the budget, a substantial change.
The Chairman: Senator Stratton, did I hear you correctly; is it your intention to table those letters?
Senator Stratton: Yes, the two letters from the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff and the letter from Senator Kenny to Senator St. Germain.
The Chairman: Could we have them copied for members of the committee?
Senator Moore: Can you read both of the addresses of those letters, or are the addresses blacked out?
Senator Stratton: There was nothing blacked out. It is addressed to Senator LeBreton.
Senator Moore: Good, thank you.
Senator Stratton: Given the effort to phone the Chief of the Defence Staff, then surely the chair of this committee could have been contacted, in order to inform him of what the committee was up to, because there was a substantial variance from the budget approval. However, that did not happen, which undermines the authority of this committee as well as the Senate itself.
What is clear, as I indicated by the letters I read into the record, is that before the committee departed Canada — and this is critical — the chair, Senator Kenny, knew they were not travelling to Afghanistan. Senator Kenny knew that. Surely to goodness, why would the committee go into Dubai, knowing full well they could not get into Afghanistan?
Senator Banks: That is precisely the question.
Senator Stratton: As evidence, honourable senators, on June 27, when the National Security and Defence budget was discussed in the Senate, Senator Kenny stated — and I quote:
We are doing this because it makes economic sense on the way to Afghanistan. . . .
In other words, the trips to London, Rotterdam and Dubai were incidental to the trip to Afghanistan. It is appropriate if both can be covered, but if one is cut off, and it is impossible to enter Afghanistan, why not do something else?
Senator Kenny's statements in the chamber seemed to be completely the opposite of what he said in the media, when he said on television that the committee would have gone to Dubai notwithstanding Afghanistan.
When Senator Kenny chose to fight back on the allegations levied in the media that his Dubai trip was nothing more than an expensive junket, he produced a key-dates document that accompanied his October 20, 2006, news release,. In that document, he stated that on Wednesday, September 6, 2006, while the committee was still in London, General Hillier ``indicated that trip into Kandahar was not possible but agreed to consider third option.'' The third option was to fly witnesses from Kandahar to Dubai to meet with the committee.
Not only was this option never considered or approved by the Senate, it is clear that on September 6 the CDS clearly said no. Senator Kenny must realize that his committee is not a U.S.-style oversight committee that can go anywhere it wants, whenever it wants, at any stage of a war.
Senator Banks chimed in on CTV, on October 21, when he said that the matter was still up in the air when the committee was in London and ``We did not know, so we had our preplanned visit to London, Rotterdam and then to Dubai, hoping we would get in. We had heard we might not be able to get in, but we had not heard that definitely.''
Yet again, those comments contradict the key dates of documents and most certainly contradict the letters from the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff. The issue at hand is this: Why did Senator Kenny leave Canada knowing full well the committee could not get into Kandahar? Why not change their plans? He could have cancelled everything after Rotterdam and come home. Senator Kenny knew that DND was planning a parliamentarian trip in November with the House of Commons — a trip that he was offered and refused to take. The committee could have rescheduled the Dubai meeting. They could have gone this month with the House of Commons committee.
Moreover, when the Chief of the Defence Staff met with Senator Kenny on September 2, he offered to work with the committee to schedule another trip to Afghanistan. Not only would this have saved a very large portion of the total cost of the trip but also it would have eliminated the added stress placed on senior military officials. Why was it not good enough for Senator Kenny to travel later with the House of Commons committee? A lot of money could have been saved for the Canadian taxpayer by having a joint visit.
Senator Kenny and Senator Banks assert that they actually saved the taxpayers money because they spent less than the total amount budgeted for the trip. In his press conference, Senator Kenny said that the budget was to cover every contingency, but he added, ``I am advised by our clerks that we have come in close to $88,000 under that budget.'' In argument to that, budgets are not for every contingency, especially when there was a specific contingency fund in their budget. Second, fewer senators went on the trip than was originally budgeted for. Since the committee stated that it intends to return to Afghanistan this fiscal year, I would ask: With what money and under what authorization? Where are the so-called savings, if the committee is scheduling to go back to Afghanistan?
In the October 20 news release, Senator Kenny asserts that — and I quote:
The allegation is that committee members had been told by military authorities that there was very little chance of getting into Kandahar, and that it was foolish of them to set forth in an attempt to do so.
If the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff are saying no, I would think it would be taken seriously. While Senator Kenny's news release tries to deflect the attention given to the incidental side trips to London and Rotterdam as being the primary reason for going, that would appear to be not the case. The Senate approved, with expressed concerns I might add, the London, Rotterdam and Dubai portions because the committee was going to Afghanistan. When I looked at the transportation budget for the committee for this trip, it included 12 people — seven senators at $18,000 and five staff at $6,500. The total was $158,500 for flights. The budget also contained $10,000 for miscellaneous contingency. I note that Senator Banks said in public and in the media: ``We had to look at whether it was cheaper to stay in that hotel or buy new airplane tickets to leave Dubai, which we couldn't unless we spent many hundreds of dollars per person, and in some cases, thousands of dollars per person, more than staying in a hotel.''
Then Senator Kenny said: ``From Monday on, our people tried to change our reservations. They could not, without incurring additional expenses, which, in fact, would have been more than the cost of the hotel rooms. In fact, in some cases, there were just no seats available, period.''
He went on to say that they had actually managed to get out a day earlier than originally planned. Senator Kenny's news release said:
At this point the staff commenced efforts to rebook the committee for an immediate return to Canada.
Try as they might, this was not immediately possible, due to fully occupied flights or incurring additional costs which would have been greater than the cost of the hotel rooms.
The point is that, knowing they could not get into Kandahar, why would they go to Dubai in the first place? Why would they not come back to Europe and reschedule the trip to Dubai and Afghanistan for a later date, with the House of Commons committee or separately. The Chief of the Defence Staff offered both. The real issue is that they knew they could not get into Afghanistan. Why did they not called the Dubai Ports World one week ahead and apologize, postpone and reschedule the meeting, and rebook flights home from Europe? Why could they not have done that? That becomes the issue.
It would appear that Dubai was a corollary to the Afghanistan trip and nothing more, and to suggest otherwise is truly misleading. If Afghanistan were out, so too should Dubai have been out, at the very least.
Senator Downe: Point of order. Senator Stratton's remarks are interesting, but we are not in the House of Commons. We are the upper chamber, where we tend to avoid attacks on individuals. Senator Stratton just made an allegation against an individual that was misleading. I think he is in violation of rule 51 of the Rules of the Senate.
Senator Stratton: I apologize for that. Again, I apologize.
The point is that the trip to Dubai should not have taken place. They should have come home. We have accusations of the government undermining the committee. On a further matter, the news release contains what I would describe as a partisan attack on the government, where it says — I am quoting Senator Kenny here — that the committee has ``clearly irritated the powers that be'' and, further in the new release, where he says that there may be ``a concentrated effort to discredit both the committee — which has been critical of both this government and the last government — and the Senate.''
First, it was the government that offered Senator Kenny a chance to go to Afghanistan in November with the House of Commons committee. The committee chose not to go. Even in the Senate committee, Senator Kenny made his displeasure known to the Minister of Defence, saying that he was not going to Afghanistan with members from the House. Second, it was the government's position that offered to provide soldiers and the cost of flights into Afghanistan at a later date after Operation Medusa was over. Honourable senators must realize that the cost of flying from Dubai to Afghanistan and of the stay in Afghanistan is not reflected in the budget. They say that it is paid for by the government but it is still a substantial cost. It should have been noted in the budget, so that this cost, although not identified in specific terms, was nevertheless in the budget.
It was also the government that went to extraordinary steps to brief the senator beyond normal briefings, to explain the decision rendered by the Department of National Defence. The government has been an ardent and open supporter of our troops in Afghanistan. To hear accusations that the government is spending its time orchestrating something against this committee is not accurate.
We have to wonder why the committee spent this time in Dubai knowing full well that they could not get into Afghanistan. To claim that there is a broader conspiracy is not only insulting but, I think, is really inappropriate.
I would move that the Subcommittee on the Review of Committee Budgets of the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee be given the responsibility to review the events of the trip by the National Security and Defence Committee, including the calling of witnesses and reporting back to this committee.
The Chairman: I shall take note of your request for a motion, Senator Stratton, but I shall not ask for a vote on it until we have heard from Senator Kenny and until the full committee has had time to deliberate in camera on the presentations that are made.
Senator Banks: Senator Stratton, much of the essence of what you have said, including the recitation of the events up to and including September 6, is exactly correct, and I am grateful for you having put it into the record before this committee.
The principle difficulty with what you say, and the misimpression under which you operate, is what you described as the original reason for going to Dubai, that is, that it happens to be geographically in transit to Kandahar — in other words, that the reasons we were going to Dubai rely upon that geographical proximity. That is a misimpression that was given in the beginning in respect of this question, and which is wrong.
To suppose that the reason we were going to Dubai was simply that it happens to be on the way to Afghanistan is wrong on two counts. First, one cannot fly from Dubai to Afghanistan; one flies from a place that we cannot name to Afghanistan. The cost thereof is not findable, because we would be, in effect, hitchhiking on a flight that leaves daily from that place that we cannot name to Kandahar. There was no cost because that airplane flies there and back every day and continues to do so.
However, I will leave the arithmetic part of this to others, with one exception. Senator Stratton said that I said we saved money because we were returning money to the Senate budget. I have never said such a thing. I said that we saved money because the difference between staying in Dubai, which we did not want to do — and I can give you specific reasons why I did not want to do so, and others as well — was significantly less expensive than leaving Dubai, than saying, ``I want to go home now regardless of the cost and regardless of the fact that it will cost a great deal more than staying here.'' However, I shall leave it to others to do the arithmetic.
Senator Stratton, you have said that there are implications other than budgetary ones in the question you have raised, and that is correct. I want to recount that my impression of what you said is correct, that the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence devised and approved a plan and a budget for its year, which included this committee travel to Europe and the Middle East in April of 2006. Between then and June 26, 2006, I believe it was, the committee presented that work plan and that budget to the subcommittee on budgets, of which you are the chair, which unanimously approved those plans as they were originally set out, which then came before this committee, which unanimously approved those plans and budgets as they were originally set out, and then went to the floor of the Senate in public debate and discussion, which then unanimously approved that plan and budget as it was then set out.
When this question was first raised by CTV, I think it was, on October 17, in those early news reports, CTV mentioned that they had come upon this as a result of a leak, notwithstanding that all of this information was publicly available. Do you have any idea what the source of that leak might have been?
Senator Stratton: You have asked a series of questions, so I will respond to them.
Senator Banks: Just that one.
Senator Stratton: I should like to respond to the others, as well. You noted that the costs for flying into Kandahar could not be noted, and that is true. However, they are substantial and it should have at least have been flagged because it is really an omission. While you could not identify the costs, I believe the costs should have been identified by saying the flight from Dubai into Kandahar, not mentioning the other place, would be picked up by the Department of National Defence. That is full disclosure.
Second, regarding the quote — this is a quote from you and I will quote it again: ``We had to look at whether it was cheaper to stay in that hotel or buy new airplane tickets to leave Dubai, which we couldn't unless we spent many hundreds of dollars per person, and in some cases, thousands of dollars per person, more than staying in a hotel.'' I quote that again just that so we both understand what that is about.
Then you said the budget was approved unanimously three times — at the subcommittee, at this committee and in the Senate. What you have omitted was that, in each case, I expressed strong reservations — at the subcommittee, at this committee and in the Senate — about travelling to Kandahar at this time. We did not have time to appropriately review the budget because we were threatened with closing down virtually on that day or the next day; we did not have time to go through the detailed budget of the committee. Senator Kenny is aware of that. That was explained to him and he got rather upset that we did not have time. We were trying at the time — and Senator Downe can verify this — to treat each committee budget equally, knowing full well we were under threat of the Senate closing down for the summer. That is why, because we felt that it would be inappropriate at that time. However, I did express my reservations on three occasions.
Senator Banks: Because of danger to the committee.
Senator Stratton: Just what was going on — I was really concerned about what was going on in Afghanistan. To fly in there and take away from the operations — I felt that, for a committee that size, it was really kind of questionable.
As for the leak, if there was one, I have no idea; honestly, I have no idea.
Senator Banks: I take your word on that.
With respect to Dubai, I want to point out a fact that seems to be ignored in what you say. Dubai Ports World purchased the worldwide port terminal operations of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company — P&O, as it is commonly known all over the world. This fact was sufficiently important in the United States that, notwithstanding the direct support of the administration in the United States, the Congress of the United States, in light of and in full view of that purchase having been made, disallowed Dubai Ports International from operating six major northeastern seaboard ports. They regarded the question of operation of ports in North America by a firm that is owned by an Arabic emirate as being sufficiently important that they actually stopped it from happening.
We have a completely different attitude in this country. Dubai Ports World now operates, and has for the last six weeks, a terminal at the Port of Vancouver; and, as Senator Moore has pointed out, it has expressed interest in other ports in Canada. We considered it sufficiently important — you may not — to determine, as we have with every other port operator in this country of any port of significance, the nature of how efficiently that company, which now operates in this country, operates, particularly with respect to port security and examination of containers and the like.
You may not think that is important. You may think the reason we went to Dubai is that it happens to be on the way to Afghanistan — it is conveniently economic to travel to both places at the same time. However, the thing I want to disabuse you, the committee and anyone else of is that the reason we went to Dubai was that it happens to be on the way to the place that we cannot name, which happens to be the means of getting to Kandahar. That is simply not true. I can tell you — because the steering committee and then the entire committee that was there decided upon this — that the committee would have travelled to Dubai for that specific purpose, regardless of whether it had planned to go to Kandahar.
The letter you have referred earlier from the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff found its way in a redacted form — that is to say, the signature on the letter and the address on the letter — into wide distribution in the media, print, electronic and, in fact, on the Internet, with remarkable speed. The letter is dated October 19, and it showed up on the Internet October 20.
The letter I am referring to of course is the letter from the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Do you have any idea how that letter found its way into the hands of the media, how it got into the hands of whomever it was that put it on the Internet? Can you tell us how that happened?
Senator Stratton: I do know — and I have checked this with Senator LeBreton — that the letter was distributed in our Senate caucus. I honestly do not know what happened after that. I do not go there. You should know me by now.
I want to make a point about Dubai. The issue is simply this: I realize it was important to travel to Dubai — I am not disputing that; I would not dispute that. However, if you knew that you could not get into Kandahar at the time you visited but that you could have entered in November with the House of Commons — you could have completed the Dubai-Kandahar travel at that time.
As another option, as the Special Standing Committee on the Anti-terrorism Act did, you could accomplish things by video teleconference.
Senator Banks: You cannot be serious.
Senator Stratton: Why not? The Anti-terrorism Committee is utilizing it around the globe.
Senator Banks: I will tell you they are not doing it effectively, because if you want to look at the way people destuff containers in a port, you cannot do it by remote control on international television.
Can you tell me why the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff wrote the letter he did on October 19 to the Leader of the Government in the Senate? Did he do so on a whim, or was it solicited?
Senator Stratton: He felt the Department of National Defence had to defend itself as to the decisions made. Would it not be logical for the department to want to defence its position, when it was stated by Senator Kenny there was a chance or an opportunity when it was quite readily clear that on September 1 and 2 you were not going into Kandahar, period?
Senator Banks: You may think it was clear on September 2. I am telling you that it was not, because we appealed further, as you have said —
The Chairman: Senator Banks, I am going to interrupt for one second. I think Senator Robichaud has a supplementary.
Senator Robichaud: I do not have a supplementary, but I think we are getting into very fine details.
Senator Stratton has presented his position. I think the National Security and Defence Committee should present its position and then we, as a committee, could have a discussion. I am seeing things being thrown around, but I do not know if we are getting anywhere.
I am putting this forward to try to simplify this process. I should like to discuss what happened and why, and if this committee should not take a closer look at how things are being done.
I am only putting this forward so we do not get into finer details where arguments have been given along with interrogation and counter-interrogation. That is all I am saying.
Senator Banks: I appreciate that.
The Chairman: I am going to allow Senator Kenny to respond to that.
Senator Kenny: On this very point, the reason this is important, Senator Robichaud —
Senator Robichaud: I am not saying this is not important.
Senator Kenny: I understand your point. The reason this is important is that I spoke to Walter Natynczyk, the Vice- Chief of the Defence Staff, two days ago and asked him about the letter. He said he wrote the letter because he was asked by a representative of an Assistant Deputy Minister on behalf of the Minister of Defence to write the letter and send it to Senator LeBreton.
The letter was written because the Minister of Defence asked the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff to do so. The second letter that is being referred to by Senator Stratton was written because I asked General Natynczyk to clarify the letter. I told him it surprised me that he would send a letter about me and not even copy me on something that is entirely about me. His response was: ``Senator, I had no control over the distribution list; they took the letter from me and they distributed it as they would.''
He also responded by saying: ``I did not have a chance to talk to the Chief of the Defence Staff about what actually went on in the conversations. I will gladly go back and get the accurate information,'' which he has done, and the letter was sent.
We were not aware of any of this because all that was available was something posted on the Canadian Taxpayers Federation website that had blanked out the name of the addressee and the signature.
It was only when I spoke to Walter Natynczyk that we found out that it was organized by the Minister of Defence and by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I think it is reasonable for Senator Banks to pursue this line of questioning.
Senator Robichaud: I am not saying that is not reasonable. I am suggesting that the committee present their arguments or counter-arguments to what was presented. From there —
Senator Banks: I appreciate the admonition, and I will be more concise and brief. I am very nearly finished. Others who are better equipped than I to answer the specific arithmetical questions will be able to do that.
Senator Robichaud: I think the other side should have a chance to present.
Senator Banks: Of course.
The Chairman: What we had proposed to do from the beginning is exactly that, Senator Robichaud. We are taking time now to address questions that have legitimately arisen from the presentation of Senator Stratton.
I would like senators to be as concise as possible, so that we can then move to Senator Kenny's presentation and still have some time left at the end for questioning, either of further issues that arose from Senator Stratton's presentation or from Senator Kenny's presentation.
I have a list of four or five senators who want to ask questions now. I ask you to keep those questions as brief as possible.
Senator Banks: The answer with respect to the distribution of the first letter, October 19, from General Natynczyk is that, ``We do not know how it got to the media. It was distributed to the Conservative caucus in the Senate.'' Is that correct?
Senator Stratton: Yes, to my understanding.
Senator Banks: Therefore, that might be a leak of some kind.
There is also a fax of a hotel bill that has found its way into wide distribution in the media. The fax is dated in October, nearly a month after the committee left Dubai. Have you any idea where that hotel bill came from?
Senator Stratton: No, I do not.
Senator Banks: Do you know a man named Mr. Kroeker?
Senator Stratton: Yes.
Senator Banks: What do you know about him?
Senator Stratton: He is an assistant to Senator LeBreton.
Senator Banks: The reason this hotel bill exists in Canada is because Mr. Kroeker telephoned the hotel in Dubai and asked that it be sent. I have copies of correspondence between him and the hotel in which he thanks the hotel for having sent the bill and asks for more details.
Do you think it is appropriate that a government employee operating under the direction of the Leader of the Government in the Senate should be, in effect, spying surreptitiously on the activities of senators, when a question across the floor, during Question Period, out behind the barn, to Senate finance or to the clerks of the Senate could have produced the same answer and could have gotten the actual copy of the hotel bill instead of a copy a month later? Do you think that is appropriate use of time?
Senator Stratton: Numbers were thrown around in the media and rebutted by Senator Kenny with respect to the cost of the trip. The numbers put out in the media were $30,000. It was rebutted by Senator Kenny as not being that high and I believe, but I am not certain, Senator Banks, by you as well.
Senator Banks: That is appropriate.
Senator Stratton: I am surmising the reason is verification of the accurate of those numbers. I think that would be the reason.
Second, you have to realize that if the letter was requested from the Department of National Defence officials, because here the government was being accused of political interference, the government, I believe, wanted to make certain that it was the Department of National Defence officials that refused admission into Kandahar, not the Minister of Defence. The Department of National Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff, refused.
Senator Banks: You said you wanted to make that certain.
Senator Stratton: That is what I would put on the record. If a letter was written, it was to confirm that it was the Chief of Defence Staff and the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, those individuals, the Department of Defence, making that decision, and not the Minister of Defence.
Senator Banks: Exactly as was recited in Senator Kenny's letter, which you have read into the record.
On October 19, in respect of the motion that you subsequently withdrew that referred to contempt of Parliament, on that day, I was being interviewed, as you can imagine, by several reporters, and four of them on that day asked me to comment on the subject matter of your motion. I said I had no idea what the subject matter of the motion because it was not, in the initial introduction in the Senate, made known to anybody. The reporters were all surprised that I did not know because they all knew. I know this it is probably not entirely out of order, but do you think it is appropriate that everybody in the media knew the subject matter of your motion but that no one in the Senate knew the subject matter?
Senator Stratton: I have no idea. I do not think it is appropriate at all. As a matter of fact, the reason for my withdrawal, I think I have stated — you have to understand that with a question of privilege you have little time to react. You have to file your question by 10:30 the next morning. On the advice of the deputy clerk, who believed we had a reasonable case, I put the question. On reconsideration, I withdrew it because I felt that this committee was a more appropriate way of dealing with the issue.
Senator Banks: I appreciate that. Senator, you know Senator Kenny, and you know Senator Moore, and you know Senator Meighen, and you even know me.
Senator Stratton: I think so.
Senator Banks: Do you actually believe that any of us, let alone all of us together, would condone, let alone contrive to do, the kind of thing of which you have accused us?
Senator Stratton: Look, it is the Canadian public that we are talking about here. It is the Canadian public.
Senator Moore: Are we ever —
Senator Stratton: You have to realize that we are spending Canadian taxpayers' dollars.
Senator Banks: That is my question.
Senator Stratton: It is called the smell test. The smell test is this: What would the Canadian public think of you spending that time in Dubai? That is a serious concern for the average guy on the street. There is an accountability that has to be looked at here. I am not questioning your integrity. What I am questioning here is a judgment.
Senator Moore: It's a little late, isn't it?
Senator Stratton: I am questioning judgment on the part, if I may, of the chair to make the trip.
Senator Banks: The chair did not make that decision.
The Chairman: We still have a list of senators who want to ask questions. I suggest that we go to Senator Kenny and keep the list intact.
Senator Kenny: Finish the list.
The Chairman: You want to finish the list?
Senator Kenny: Yes.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I would again ask you to keep your questions short. It is important, especially for the committee's sake, that all questions are aired and properly answered, but I would ask you to try to keep them a little shorter so we can get to everybody before the day is out.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: I thank Senator Stratton for having summarized the events. I have two or three questions to ask in order to better understand the issue and to stick to the facts.
You say that when the committee met with your subcommittee, you had recommended or commented on the budget at the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee; you had reservations.
Perhaps my memory does not serve me well, or perhaps I was not at the committee meeting, but did you express your reservations when the budget was tabled at the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee? Did you make any recommendations as to the approval of the defence committee's budget at the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee?
[English]
Senator Stratton: Yes, I will go back in history on this. In each case, as I said earlier, the Senate was making the decision during that week as to whether it would shut down. The normal course of events for review of budgets would take place over a period of time. We simply did not have that time, as Senator Downe can verify. We felt we could not, in all honesty, go into the detail of the budget in each and every instance because there simply was not the time. We went on record as approving the budget, as we did with all, because we wanted all to be treated equally, but I expressed a specific concern at the subcommittee on budgets and in the chamber with respect to my reservations for travelling to Kandahar.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: In the comments on the budget, it mentions two days in Dubai at $85 per day for the per diem. Were we aware, when the budget was tabled, that this was to visit the port? What was the specific purpose of that part of the budget?
[English]
Senator Stratton: Yes, I was aware of two days in Dubai and the purpose for the two days in Dubai.
Senator Massicotte: Was it to visit the port and examine security measures?
Senator Stratton: That is correct.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: I do not know if there is a policy. In your interpretation of our policies at the internal economy committee, when we approve a budget, as for the September 2006 travel of $238,300, what is the custom of the Senate as far as the days are concerned?
Can we take one day and transfer it to another part of the budget at our discretion? Is it your feeling that we can go to Dubai for two days and stay for four while reducing the time in Rotterdam by the same number of days? Do we have to follow the budget to the letter as far as the number of days is concerned?
[English]
Senator Stratton: The purpose is that we have expressed concerns with other committees that have come to the subcommittee about travel. A great deal of money is involved, and it is important not to vary exceptionally from the numbers that have been submitted. If they do, and we have had two occurrences recently where there has been variation to that, they have come back to the subcommittee to inform the subcommittee of the changes, because they were not substantial. As a matter of fact, in each case they were less expensive or equal.
When you are to make such a change, the concern that I have, especially when you knew that you could not get into Afghanistan, is that you could find another more appropriate way to travel to Dubai. You could have rescheduled the trip to go with the House of Commons in November, or take a separate trip, after Operation Medusa, and do the European portion, and then go to Dubai and Afghanistan at a later date. That was offered by the Chief of the Defence Staff. Why would you not do that? That is where the question of judgment comes in.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: I am trying to separate the issues of judgment from the political ones. In other words, is it your understanding of our policies, of our experiences, that there is nevertheless some flexibility in the details of a budget, if we respect the budget overall? I believe you are saying that yes, generally that is acceptable but you were saying that, in this specific case, that was a lack of judgement. Have I clearly understood the facts?
[English]
Senator Stratton: I do not like words being put in my mouth —
Senator Moore: Neither do we.
Senator Stratton: — such as you are now doing.
I am saying that if there were a substantial change — and this indeed was a substantial change — and if the committee chair could pick up the phone to talk to the Chief of the Defence Staff, then he could also talk to the chair of the Internal Economy Committee, to inform him of what was taking place.
Senator Kenny: I have a question of fact here —
The Chairman: Senator Kenny, unless it is a point of order, I will put you on the list, and I do have a long list.
Senator Kenny: There are facts that are not correct here.
The Chairman: When your turn comes around, you can correct them, okay?
Senator Kenny: It does Senator Massicotte a disservice if he does not have the facts.
The Chairman: You will have your turn to straighten out the facts, Senator Kenny. Unless it is a point of order, you will take your turn like everybody else.
Senator Comeau is next and then Senator Campbell.
Senator Comeau: I will not get into the details of motivation or leaks or anything else. My question is about the budget process and follows up somewhat on Senator Massicotte's questions. My understanding is that the trip was to Western Europe, Dubai and Afghanistan. The process by which the budget approvals came into being was first at the subcommittee on budgets, then at the Internal Economy Committee and finally in the Senate.
Senator Banks: That was in June.
Senator Comeau: Yes, in June, if I remember correctly.
The provisions under which we were asked to approve or disapprove the budget were for Western Europe, Dubai and Afghanistan. I had been under the impression that, if there were a substantial or major change to such a trip — for example, the dropping of the Afghanistan portion of the trip — such a major or material change would have kicked in a kind of provision that the committee would come back to either the subcommittee on budgets or the full committee itself or the Senate to make this known. There had been a substantial change to the vote under which we approved the budget.
What seems to have happened is that a substantial portion of the trip that had been approved by these three processes was deleted from the plan.
Senator Banks: That was on September 2.
Senator Comeau: Correct, on September 2.
Senator Moore: Are you asking this of the committee?
Senator Comeau: I am asking a question of Senator Stratton.
Senator Moore: I was not clear.
Senator Comeau: I am not debating whether you should have gone; rather, I am referring to a substantial change in the planned trip. My understanding is that there is a kick-in provision, such that when a substantial change occurs to an approved budget, it should be reported back to one of the authorities that approved the budget. Am I led to believe now, Senator Stratton, that there is no such provision in the Rules of the Senate? If that is the case, should the committee seek a kind of provision such that, when a substantial change takes place, the onus would be on the chairman of the committee to come back to the Internal Economy Committee with that information to seek approval for such a change? Is there a kick-in provision?
Senator Stratton: To my knowledge, no, and that is the unfortunate part that has led to this. I have talked to the chair of the Internal Economy Committee and to Senator Downe in respect of this issue. The Senate should not allow this to continue without taking a look at the way in which budgets are approved. In the past, this has been the case. The process needs to be examined.
Senator Comeau: That leads to my second question. I read somewhere that the subcommittee on budgets, the Internal Economy Committee and the Senate had approved the plan and, therefore, we should not raise any concerns. This is my point: I was not given the opportunity to approve the substantial change. I did not have a chance to say, ``No, I do not think this is a good idea because,'' there has been a substantial and major change.
If nothing else, it might be a good idea for the Internal Economy Committee to examine the lack of such a provision, if that is the case.
The Chairman: I should point out that there are some aspects of a budget that can be changed and there are other aspects that cannot be changed. When the committee goes in camera to discuss the presentations and the questions, we will have a look at that policy. We will have the committee clerk outline it for us.
Senator Comeau: I will be interested in knowing more about that area.
Senator Campbell: In a previous career, I spent a lot of time interviewing and talking to people. There are four catches that come out that should raise your collective antenna as to the veracity of statements. They are: ``honestly,'' ``to be truthful,'' ``to tell you the truth,'' or ``believe me.'' Senator Stratton has used two out of the four. I realize that you are not under oath, Senator Stratton, and you could be less than truthful, but I have to ask: Was it you who took the story to the media? Was it you who leaked it to CTV and all these others?
Senator Stratton: No.
Senator Campbell: My second question is: Will you step down as chair of the subcommittee on budgets should your motion pass, because you are clearly biased and acting for less than honourable purposes here?
Senator Stratton: I do not believe I am acting —
Senator Campbell: I do not care what you believe. I am asking if you will step down.
Senator Stratton: Let me answer, and I will come to that answer shortly.
I am putting forward a proposal. If the Internal Economy Committee decides that I am prejudiced in this case, I would accept that. A subcommittee similar to the subcommittee struck for the investigation into the actions of Senator Lavigne should be struck. That subcommittee would call witnesses and hear testimony from the Department of National Defence officials and from the members of the committee and others. That would be the other alternative to take.
This committee striking the subcommittee into the investigation of Senator Lavigne was a very positive move. It led to a resolution of the issue with Senator Lavigne efficiently and effectively. I do not disagree. It could be a subcommittee and I am willing to stand aside.
Senator Downe: I was astounded by what Senator Banks indicated in his questioning and by Senator Stratton's response. It was the first I had heard that there was a staffer for the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator LeBreton, who was inquiring as to what the senators were doing and asking for copies of their hotel bills. I asked Senator Banks for the documents; he passed them to me a few moments ago and I have been reading them.
Senator Moore: Read them into the record.
Senator Downe: This person, Jeffrey Kroeker, received the first response from the hotel. He then wrote back, according to this email, asking specifically — and I quote:
. . . could you please send me the invoice for Senator Colin Kenny, his name was not included on the invoice and I believe it might be under a separate invoice.
Second — if possible, can I get detailed breakdowns for each room?
This person is in violation of the Privacy Act. These hotel bills have on them what people were doing. If Senator Kenny or Senator Banks called Mr. Richardson of CTV, for example — which they did not, but if they did — the Leader of the Government in the Senate would now be aware of this.
This begs the bigger question, chair, how long has this been going on? Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator LeBreton, been getting copies of every bill for every senator from all parties on every trip, domestically or internationally, we have been on?
This person has committed a serious violation of the rights of parliamentarians, and this committee should pursue it with some vigour. I will recommend that at the end of this meeting.
That was my statement.
My question is this: Given Senator Stratton's concern of expenditure of public funds, does he share my concern that the CIDA minister went into Afghanistan shortly after this committee was denied permission, did not leave the compound, did not see any of the so-called reconstruction projects, distributed seven school bags to children, because it was in the middle of a religious holiday, and then left? Does the senator share my concern about that expenditure of public funds?
Senator Stratton: In this instance, it was not a question of public funds, because remember, the subcommittee, this committee and the Senate approved the expenditure of the funds. It was the timing.
The difference is very simple. Operation Medusa, the largest operation conducted by Canadian troops since the Korean War, was under way at the time of the visit of the National Security and Defence Committee. That is why they were denied access on September 2 — as we agree and as I read into the record. The minister went in after Operation Medusa.
Senator Moore: I should like to finish up reading into the record — and I will table this, if you wish — the request by email that Senator Downe was referring to. As he said, ``Second — if possible . . . .'' This is the email from Jeffrey Kroeker to Amjad Khan, the events executive at the Renaissance Dubai Hotel.
Second — if possible, can I get detailed breakdowns for each room?
Third — if possible, I note that no lunches or other costs were included on the invoice. Were those included in room charges? If not, would you be able to track down any and all sundry costs association [sic] with the stay?
Talk about an improper use of Senate resources — having a staff person spying on senators. When this committee deliberates in camera, I want you to consider that.
Senator Stratton: Am I allowed to respond?
The Chairman: Senator Moore, are you raising that as a question for Senator Stratton to respond to?
Senator Moore: No, I want to complete the record here.
Senator Stratton, I do have another question. You said that the Commons, I guess committee, is going into Afghanistan in November 2006. Do you have evidence of that?
Senator Stratton: That is my understanding.
Senator Moore: Do you have evidence of that?
Senator Stratton: That is my understanding from the Department of National Defence.
Senator Moore: Do you have evidence of that?
Senator Stratton: Can I respond, sir? Thank you. That is why I believe this committee should strike the subcommittee to investigate the matter, and by calling into evidence such items.
Senator Moore: Who told you the Commons committee was going? Do you have communications on that?
Senator Stratton: I am suggesting to you, sir, that it was told to us by the Department of National Defence officials. What I was going to ask you to do was —
Senator Moore: The minister?
Senator Stratton: I am doing things second-hand here.
Senator Moore: You are just part of the team.
Senator Stratton: Like you. You are defending your position as you should, and I am defending my position as I should.
Senator Moore: I want to reiterate what Senator Banks said — by the way, going into Dubai was not on the way to Afghanistan. Dubai was a very important place for us to visit, particularly for me. I am from the poor province of Nova Scotia, and there was an opportunity there for us to meet with one of the foremost port operators in the world and, hopefully, to encourage them to come to Canada. In my case, I want them to come to Halifax.
You said that we spent recklessly with regard to the perception of the public and taxpayers' dollars. If you want to come to Nova Scotia with me and try to make the case in any town square that I was recklessly spending taxpayers' dollars, I triple dare you.
Senator Stratton: Providing you would come out West with me.
Senator Moore: I would love that — anywhere, particularly Vancouver.
Senator Stratton: Try Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon and Winnipeg.
Senator Moore: I know you have all the resources, sure. You have lots of ports.
Senator Stratton: This is not about ports, senator. This is about public perception of spending money.
The Chairman: Could we have a question, please?
Senator Moore: On October 3, Senator Tkachuk asked Senator Kenny in the chamber about the committee — about trips, who went, who decided and so on — and you, in your stage whisper, said, ``Why do you not ask about the five nights in Dubai?'' I heard you say that.
My question to you is this: Why did you not ask Senator Kenny at that time, or any one of us on the committee at that time, or come to this committee at that time? Why did you take the course of action you did?
Senator Stratton: Senator Tkachuk was curious as to what took place.
Senator Moore: I am asking you why you took the course of action you did with respect to this matter.
Senator Stratton: The answer I gave, I stand by. Senator Tkachuk was curious as to what took place. I think an appropriate response at that time was to pose that question.
Senator Moore: You could have then asked Senator Kenny in the chamber about the committee's trip and the work we did. You could have then asked this committee. You could have asked any member of the committee who went with him. You did not do that; why not?
Senator Stratton: Was that before or after it became public?
Senator Moore: You are the guy that made it public, so you tell me.
Senator Stratton: No, I did not make it public, sorry. I deny that.
Senator Moore: Why did you not pursue a normal course of action?
Senator Stratton: Was it before or after it became public?
Senator Moore: All I know is that, on October 3, you made that statement in the Senate. You obviously had some idea in your mind that you were going to pursue something.
Senator Stratton: The question I am asking is this: Was that before or after the matter became public?
Senator Banks: After it became known to you.
Senator Kenny: The trip became public when we went, when we approved the budget.
Senator Moore: What is your answer to my question: Why did you ask the question in the chamber? When you said, ``Why do you not ask about the five nights in Dubai?'' that was not a kindly statement; it was an accusatory statement. You had something in your mind then. Why did you not pursue a normal course of action at that time and ask the question like any other senator would have done?
Senator Stratton: I was awaiting, I would hope, a justification by Senator Kenny.
Senator Moore: He gave an account of the trip. The next day, Senator Kenny tabled a full sheet outlining all the details, but you never asked then. You did not say, ``Okay, what about this trip?'' You did not even do that.
Senator Stratton: Was I present in the chamber when that was tabled?
Senator Moore: I do not know. You were pursuing it. I do not know what you were doing, but weeks passed.
Senator Stratton: You should realize that at that time we were also dealing with Bill C-2. I may not have even been in the chamber because I am on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and was absent from the chamber quite a bit because of those hearings, which were driven by you, with 151 witnesses.
Senator Moore: Yes, I know, and there were many good amendments. One of them deals with a matter you have been speaking about in the Senate — whistle-blowing. It is interesting that you should raise this, because — I am sitting here with my other committee members, and they can speak for themselves — given what has transpired here and the manner in which it has transpired, I feel like I am an innocent victim of a zealous whistle-blower. What you have done is a disservice to our committee and a disservice to us as individuals. You have hurt the chamber. I want to know what you are going to do to fix it. How do you put my reputation back and those of my committee members? How are you going to do that today? People say, ``You were on a junket.'' I call tell you that I was not on any junket. I was fully authorized to go. How are you going to make good our reputations in the Senate, and will you apologize to our chamber and to us?
Senator Stratton: No, I will not apologize.
Senator Moore: You should think about resigning. You really should.
Senator Stratton: I will not apologize.
Senator Moore: You will not apologize?
Senator Stratton: No.
Senator Moore: I wish to say something before I finish up here. I am upset about this. I will not sit by and have some guy attack my integrity. I am not up here playing games. I am working hard, like everyone else around here. I will not sit by and have someone take cheap political shots at me.
Our committee was doing a very good job. I do not think people wanted us to go in to Afghanistan. I do not think anything was going on in the reconstruction, and I do not think people wanted us to see that. It was clear from the evidence that the minister gave before our committee. I think there probably was a conspiracy to keep us out — to derail us so we could not complete our work.
Senator Stratton: Senator, you have accused me of being political, as has Senator Downe, and I think you are just reciprocating now. You attacked Senator LeBreton, and you got political about that. Yet, when I make one comment, you immediately get your backs up. I think if we want to keep this at the level it should be, take it for what it is. It is in the media.
Senator Campbell: Because you leaked it.
Senator Moore: You went at it the wrong way.
Senator Stratton: Again, you are accusing me of something I did not do. I think it needs to be dealt with by this committee. It is in the media, folks.
The Chairman: Colleagues, we will move on.
Senator Kenny: There were some questions of fact that I wanted to correct.
First, in terms of the time in Dubai, there has been reference to two days in the budget. Those of you who have copies of the budget, page 5 of the committee's budget, will notice that there are two days in Dubai, and beneath that there is Camp Mirage, which makes it a third day, so it is three days, not two days.
The second point is that Senator Stratton has repeatedly referred to the House of Commons trip. There was no House of Commons trip. I met with Gordon O'Connor, the Minister of Defence, together with the chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence, and the chair of the House of Commons committee said that the Commons committee had no interest in visiting Dubai. As a consequence, the minister included the chair of the House committee and his parliamentary secretary as part of the Senate group going in on this visit. The first suggestion that the Commons might go to Kandahar was a motion that was passed in the House of Commons about a week ago authorizing their committee to go. However, at the time this trip was planned and at the time we left, there was no question at all of the Commons going in. In fact, the Minister of Defence had included his parliamentary secretary and the chair of the House of Commons committee with the Senate delegation because there was to be no House of Commons trip.
Third, Senator Stratton has referred a number of times to some concept of a committee, when it is travelling and runs into difficulties in the course of the trip, calling back to Canada to get authorization from some committee or some person to vary the trip. Well, there is no such principle. There never has been. The whole concept is totally impractical. Look at the dates we were travelling. The Senate was not even sitting. Lord knows where Senator Stratton was. How was he going to convene a meeting of the subcommittee to consider an issue that took place in Asia? How was he going to deal with the time differences? How was he going to get back? How would he have all of the facts? He suggested that I could have called General Hillier. Yes, General Hillier was working. He was available.
In terms of an approved budget that has had some variation — that, in that event, a committee meets — in this case, the committee met and arrived at a decision, and as chair, I carried it out. In my 21 years in the Senate, I have never heard of the suggestion that, when something changes on a trip, the committee should call back to someone here in Ottawa. It is perfectly appropriate to justify decisions when a committee returns; it is perfectly appropriate to ask questions when a committee return. However, the concept of calling back to Ottawa is a new one; it is foreign to me.
Those are my observations, and that was what I wanted to correct as a matter of fact.
Senator Atkins: I want to follow along on a comment made by Senator Kenny made. If a committee finds itself in a situation similar to that of the committee in Dubai — they find that after two days they have to consider their options — Senator Stratton is suggesting that there should be a call back to the chair of the Internal Economy Committee. My question to Senator Stratton is this: What is the chair of Internal Economy to do in that situation? As Senator Kenny commented, neither the Senate nor the committees were sitting. What does the chair of the Internal Economy Committee do?
Senator Stratton: If I may, with respect, repeat the phrase — the fundamental message to all of this: Do not go in the first place. You knew before you went that you would not get into Kandahar. The Chief of the Defence Staff offered to reschedule the trip, offered to make the trip in November.
As to the question of what the chair of the Internal Economy Committee could do? Perhaps he could have talked to the subcommittee on budgets. A telephone conference call could have been made, at least to inform him of the decision.
That is what could be done.
Senator Atkins: The first part of your answer does not fly because they were going to Dubai anyway.
Senator Stratton: I am not denying that you should have gone to Dubai; the issue was not to go in the first place because Operation Medusa was going on. Go in November, go in December, or go in January. That was the point.
Senator Campbell: Dubai and Afghanistan are totally disassociated with each other.
Senator Atkins: Is this whole exercise not an attempt to discredit the chair of the National Security and Defence Committee and, in doing so, all the members of that committee?
Senator Stratton: My concern is the discredit to the Senate as a whole. That is really the concern. The average guy on the street may have a problem listening to you try to justify spending the public's money in Dubai. Whether you view it as right or wrong, the average guy on the street has a bit of a problem with that.
Senator Campbell: Not when you explain it to him properly.
Senator Atkins: It eliminates the notion that this is a committee that has done outstanding work.
Senator Stratton: The committee has done outstanding work. I believe every member of the Senate would agree with that. That is not in dispute; the committee has done excellent work.
Senator Jaffer: Senator Stratton, you are a very senior respected member of the Senate. I am at a loss as to why — given that we have a precedent with respect to the process — we would not follow that process. It will be a very long time before the Senate and senators recover from the damage that has been done to our institution. When you damage the institution, you damage Canadians. That is what has happened.
I would like you to explain to me why you did not follow the process, so that I can understand because, up until recently, we had that process.
In listening to you, I found myself becoming very annoyed with Senator Kenny. A very pivotal part of what you were saying concerned a House of Commons November trip and why Senator Kenny and his committee did not go with them. I now find out that you heard that second-hand; someone told you they may go. The foundations of what you have set out now worry me. What do we believe and what do we not believe? You repeated second-hand information in the chamber and here. What part of it do we believe?
Senator Stratton: The process used for Senator Lavigne was the appropriate way to go.
When a matter becomes public, it has to be dealt with. When the matter became public, it was an insult to the institution at first blush, and that became the issue. That is why when you have less than 24 hours to respond, you respond, and then on second thought, as we sometimes do here, reconsider.
My thought then was to bring it to this committee with the full intention that a subcommittee, either the subcommittee on budgets or another subcommittee, examine the process. That is exactly what we did, so as to take statements placed by me, statements made by Senator Kenny, and bring the matter into focus through the subcommittee's examination. We will then find out if indeed there was a trip planned to Kandahar or Afghanistan by the house committee. We will find out. That is not under oath, that is hearsay testimony. All of this is.
Senator Campbell: The whole thing is hearsay, senator.
Senator Stratton: By having the subcommittee examine, we will get to the bottom of it.
Senator Jaffer: The unfortunate thing is that the headline has been made, the statements have been made in the media, and by the time our subcommittee meets the damage to the institution will have been tremendous.
Senator Stratton: If I may, senator. With Senator Lavigne, it became public and then we dealt with it.
The point is this: This matter is public. If we are going to shoot at each other as to somebody said this, somebody said that, the media will have a field day with us today. I think that becomes the issue, and it should be referred to a subcommittee.
Senator Jaffer: Senator, what makes me very upset is that the members of the National Security and Defence Committee work the hardest in the Senate, and to spoil their reputations, I feel, spoils all our reputations. We have all seen a very bad day, a very bad month in this institution, in which the reputations of very hard-working senators are destroyed.
The Chairman: Senator Stratton, with respect to the documents that have been tabled, in particular the letters, the hotel bills and the hotel exchanges, do you have any idea who posted those on the Internet, who caused them to be posted or how they got there?
Senator Stratton: No.
Senator Kenny: Before I commence, I am again required to correct questions of fact. Senator Stratton said that the Chief of the Defence Staff offered us a trip in November to Kandahar. This is not true. In fact, we wrote to the Chief of the Defence Staff about when we could visit Afghanistan again and the committee has not received a reply to that letter. We also made inquiries of the minister, and we have not received a reply from the minister as to when it would be convenient for the committee to travel. So that simply is not true, Senator Stratton, and you have no evidence to suggest that it is.
Second, what I had to say about the House of Commons travelling to Kandahar is not hearsay testimony. I was in the room; I was talking to the minister. The chair of the House of Commons committee was the person speaking. I heard it with my own ears. That is not hearsay testimony. That is testimony of what actually happened.
With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I will try to do three things.
First, I will establish that the trip was properly funded. I do that because Senator Stratton in the house referred to a misuse of funds allocated by the Senate to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.
Second, I will demonstrate that Dubai is an appropriate place to go in itself.
Third, I will demonstrate that we were unable to leave Dubai any earlier than we did, and we used the time we had there as constructively as we could.
On Saturday, September 2, 2006, I received a phone call from the office of the Minister of Defence asking if I could meet with LGen. Walt Natynczyk and BGen. Howard that day to discuss an operational matter.
At that time, several members of the committee were already en route; in fact, some members were in the United Kingdom. I was due to leave for the United Kingdom at five o'clock that day.
We met in my office together with a member of the committee staff at 1:30 in the afternoon. The Defence officials advised us that they had told the government that it was not safe for civilian or VIP travel to Kandahar and that as such the committee would not be allowed to travel there. They pointed out that Operation Medusa was under way. They provided me with an extensive briefing on it, and they indicated the situation was very much in flux, changing on a daily basis.
I asked if that was their final position. I asked that because, as recently as the day before, Senator Banks had met with the Chief of the Defence Staff and he made no mention of Operation Medusa and no mention of there being any problem with the committee going on the trip.
The day before that, Major-General McDonald, the military advisor to the committee, had been meeting with officials from the Department of National Defence and there was no indication about Operation Medusa or that there was going to be any change in the security status in Afghanistan.
The Department of National Defence on Saturday, September 2, indicated that that was their position at the moment but that, because it was a military operation, they would have to see how it unfolded.
I asked if the officials could go back to General Hillier, who was the officer that made the recommendation to the government, and gave them a number of options they might pursue so that the committee could continue its work.
I then contacted the members of the steering committee by phone and gave them a brief update of the status of the meeting. I should point out that, at the time, the Senate was not sitting; it was a break period. Senators were spread out across the country. Some senators were already travelling. Some staff members were already there on their own dime. They were already in Europe.
The first meeting in which all members of the committee were present was on the morning of Tuesday, September 5, 2006, and we met to discuss the situation.
Throughout this time, Senator Stratton has described committee events as ``Colin Kenny said this, Colin Kenny said that, Colin Kenny decided the following.'' I am sorry to disabuse you, Senator Stratton, but I work for the committee; I am the servant of the committee. As chair, I carry out the committee's instructions. The committee members are independent. They speak up regularly. They frequently disagree with what I have to say. We as a committee collectively decide on things, and then I, as spokesman, present the committee's position. From time to time, the position I present is not the position I had going in. In this case, it was. However, committee members will attest to the fact that my job, and I think I carry it out faithfully, is to represent the views of the committee and not the views of Colin Kenny.
In this case, the committee went through a discussion of the briefing that I had received, together with Barry Denofsky. Once the committee was brought up to speed with all facts — and this happened in London on September 5 — the committee was still almost a week away from arriving in Dubai.
The committee instructed me to go back to General Hillier and to put three proposals to him. The first was to inquire whether the conditions in Kandahar had improved and, if they had, could the committee go forward, since we still had meetings in London, Rotterdam and Dubai.
Second, if appropriate, could we go and visit with the RCMP, CSIS, DFAIT and CIDA officials in Kaf, which is the location of the base in Kandahar. I was instructed to make the point that the flights were going in regardless of whether we were on them or not. The flights had to be secured, whether we were on them or not. The camp at the airport was to be secured, whether we were there or not, and it was not to incur any additional security because of the presence of the committee.
Third, if options one and two did not work, would it be possible to have representatives from the provincial reconstruction team — including the RCMP, CSIS, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and CIDA — come out on one of the daily flights and brief us in Dubai. Inasmuch as the flights go back and forth in any event, no additional cost would be incurred. Inasmuch as Operation Medusa was under way, these people were not leaving camp and not leaving from behind the wire.
I reached General Hillier the following day, and his response to me was that the situation was getting worse, not better and that, therefore, the possibility of going in and visiting the PRT's locations or looking at issues relating to development was not possible.
Second, even though we would not be taking up commanders' time, the committee could be a distraction. Therefore, he did not authorize the committee to go to the camp.
Third, he would endeavour to facilitate officials flying out from Kaf to Dubai if it were operationally feasible. He advised me at that time that it would not be operationally feasible for any soldiers to fly out. The question remained regarding CSIS, RCMP and CIDA coming out. We had made our own arrangements with those organizations and we proceeded to contact them and DFAIT.
On Wednesday, September 6, we carried on with our meetings with MI5, Metropolitan London Police, a special branch of Scotland Yard, British Transport Police and the Cabinet Office. The purpose of those meetings was to look into the bombings that took place in the tube and to discuss questions relating to home-grown terrorism. The meetings were productive and useful and will manifest themselves in future reports of the committee.
On Thursday, September 7, and Friday, September 8, we went on to the Netherlands, to Rotterdam, one of the world's largest ports, which has a reputation of being one of the best policed ports in the world. We first met with embassy officials and with an officer from CSIS over there, to get their insights on what we should look for in particular. We then had meetings with the port authority, customs, police and representatives of the Netherlands Coast Guard. The committee came away with a substantial amount of information that will be of direct benefit to our next report in respect of security in ports.
On Saturday, September 9, we travelled to Dubai. We landed shortly before midnight. Incidentally, this is something that has not come out in any of the discussions so far: Flights going into Dubai, at least coming out of Frankfurt, tend to land at 10:45 p.m. or 11:45 p.m. and they tend to depart at some time between 1 a.m. and 2 a.m. That is also true of flights from Camp Mirage into Afghanistan. When you are kitting up to go into Afghanistan, you are told to report to Camp Mirage at 1 a.m. for a flight that will take off at 6 a.m.
Senator Stratton: Senator Kenny, if I may, I have a suggestion. We understand what you are getting at, but I thought we were not supposed to talk about Camp Mirage?
Senator Kenny: I did not say where it was.
Senator Stratton: — by implication —
Senator Kenny: Not only am I allowed to talk about Camp Mirage but also it is in the budget submission that was accepted and adopted by the committee. Please do not lecture me about Camp Mirage.
Senator Stratton: I am not lecturing; it is a suggestion.
Senator Kenny: — and not a good one.
The point I was trying to make is that people land in or leave Dubai late at night or very early in the morning, which accounts for additional days. If you land at 11 p.m. on a Saturday, you pay a Saturday bill. If you leave at 2 a.m. on a Tuesday, you pay for that extra day.
We had a long-standing commitment to meet with Dubai Ports World, a commitment that commenced back in March. We have had a description of what happened with Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company — P&O — the attempted blocking by Congress of the Dubai Ports World terminals from P&O. It was of concern to us because we were aware of P&O and the Dubai Ports World terminal in Vancouver. We had had experience with Dubai and the security apparatus on a separate visit with the then Speaker of the Senate. We had had meetings there and had discussed security issues on a previous visit. I had an opportunity to review some of the security steps that were being undertaken in the state. We were of the view that it was important to get on the record, particularly if there was a possibility of an expansion of a terminal into Halifax, that we not have a repetition of what happened in the United States with Dubai Ports World.
On Sunday, September 10, we received a briefing from embassy officials. On Monday, September 11, we met with Mr. Mohammed Sharaf, CEO of Dubai Ports World. We also met with Dubai police, emirate customs officials, coast guard, intelligence and navy, representatives from all of them, and we had a substantial visit of the terminal.
We had already received information about the number of port nights, over 540, the United States had in the Port of Dubai. That is where they keep their warships. Thus far, the Americans are very satisfied with the security they have had. We then went to a different location and met with Mr. Sultan bin Sulayem, Chairman of the Board of Dubai Ports World. He had just returned from Vancouver. It was on this day that we finally received word that no one from CSIS, DFAIT, the RCMP or CIDA could come out of Afghanistan, because of operational requirements.
As soon as we received the word that this was the case, the clerks of the committee, who are exceptional clerks with great integrity, went to work trying to find alternative methods for the committee to leave. One of the difficulties they encountered was that there is no Air Canada office in Dubai. There were also language problems involved in dealing with travel people in Dubai. They found themselves calling back to Canada to get assistance from people in Canada, but, again, the time difference between Dubai and Ottawa is significant. At the end of the day, the best estimate they were able to come back with was that there would be an additional cost in the area of $5,000 for alternate tickets. The committee discussed this as a committee; it was not an ad hoc discussion between the clerks and me. The clerks came and reported to all senators present and reviewed the different options. Senator Banks made some initiatives on his own and found that he had the same problems in terms of being able to get ticket changes that the clerks had reported back to us.
The press reports that came from CTV — and God knows where or how they got information that was so inaccurate — suggested that we were staying in U.S. $500-per-night rooms, but we were not. The room bills that your leader's staff seemed to successfully get demonstrate that the cost of the rooms was closer to Can. $311, not U.S. $500. While the clerks were continuing to try to get us out of Dubai, the committee decided to puts its time to good use.
I can tell this committee that I did not leave the hotel once after we finished with the Dubai Ports World examination. I spent all of my time working on the report.
The committee met for a total of 42 hours during the period that we were there. We finally got out at varying times on Saturday, September 16, at one or two in the morning, depending on which flight and in which direction people were going.
The committee is accused of misusing funds allocated by the Senate. Let me review the allocation. We first went to a committee that you chaired, Senator Stratton; Senators Downe and Stollery were on that committee also. There was a very full presentation made. It is on page 5, where we listed the number of senators who we estimated would be going, and which parts. Some, for example, could not make the Europe part but were coming for Dubai. We listed the clerks that were travelling, the consultants and the researcher, the number of days, the number of nights. The air transportation was detailed out and the ground transportation was detailed out. London was listed for two days, Rotterdam for two days, Dubai for two days, Camp Mirage — the location classified — for two days, and Kandahar for three days. It was all broken out and you approved that, sir.
You not only approved it but you carried that report through to this committee here. There was a discussion of it before this committee, and this committee approved it.
Senator Stratton: With reservation.
Senator Kenny: I am sorry; there were no reservations in the approval that went forward. It was a —
Senator Stratton: Check the record.
Senator Kenny: It was a clean report to the Senate. The report to the Senate that was made by Senator Furey on behalf of this committee made no reference to reservations, period.
When I moved the motion in the chamber, there was some debate and some questioning. You raised the question about whether it was safe for us to go. You raised the question about whether senators or parliamentarians should be visiting the troops when they are overseas and in harm's way. We pointed out that that is exactly when parliamentarians should be there. We pointed out that General Hillier, the Chief of the Defence Staff, had specifically said he wanted us there then. We pointed out that General Hillier, when we were in Kabul the year before, had said he wanted us to come back and see how different it will be in Kandahar.
We had said to General Hillier that we were very concerned that the program of Triple-D — defence, development and diplomacy — was not working. We had had the experience in Kabul where the commander of the camp had never met the ambassador, Chris Alexander. The commander of the military who was there during our visit had never even been to the embassy. In fact, before we went, he had to send out a recce to find out how to get there.
We organized the first meeting of the field grade officers with the ambassador when we were in Kabul. I reported this back to General Hillier at his request when we came back. He said, tell me how it worked, and we told him that it is not working very well. There are about 25 Canadians who are verifying other people's training, but they are not training. They are unhappy. There is a recce squadron there working with the Germans. That seems to be functioning. However, as for Triple-D, the soldiers do not know what the diplomats are doing, and we could not find people from CIDA.
We had people looking at CIDA for over four months and we could find no indication of aid going into Kandahar. We called the minister before the committee. She testified for an hour and a half but she was unable to tell us of aid going into Kandahar. We said to her, ``If it is a problem, why do you not write us? We do not want to catch you off guard. Send us a letter.''
We included the letter in our last report. The letter said that they did not have aid going on. We were hoping to talk to somebody there who had aid.
We also knew that General Fraser had a budget of about $2 million. We hoped that he was spending it, even if CIDA was not. This money was defence money, not CIDA money, but we thought it was important for the safety of the troops that the indigenous people see some improvement in their lives and not just soldiers running around in combat.
We went back the second time at the Chief of the Defence Staff's invitation, at his request, and his comment was: ``It is very important to the troops to know that representatives of the Parliament of Canada are supporting them and care enough to come and see them.''
Some members of the committee went up to Petawawa prior to the trip. We met with members of the RCR who were going over. We asked them about their equipment; we asked them about their training. We met with their wives and spouses. We told the members of the RCR that we would look forward to meeting them in Kandahar and asking them the same questions: Was the equipment right? Was their training working well? That was the point of us going on the visit.
Your comment about whether we should go given that a war was going on, Senator Stratton, did not make any sense to us. When the motion was put in the chamber, it was adopted without a single dissenting voice.
You, senator, had an opportunity to say, ``On division,'' and you did not. You did not express your opportunity that you disagreed with it. Three times over, you supported this trip and supported the funding for it. The record is clear that we travelled with the authority of the Senate to Afghanistan.
The only place where we are at variance with the budget that was approved is in Dubai. We were authorized to go to Dubai, and we had good reason to go to Dubai. When we were in Dubai, we found that we could not leave. Ramadan was about to begin, and flights were not readily available.
We are all aware of how the load factor on airplanes has been moving up right across the world. No one is flying empty planes these days. Despite the best efforts of two clerks and Senator Banks, we could not get out a day sooner than we did without incurring significant additional costs.
Frankly, it was not much different from finding yourself caught in a snowstorm in Saskatchewan and having to be put up for a number of extra nights because of weather problems.
We did not have alternative ways of getting out of Dubai without incurring extra costs.
You have suggested that we should have called back and asked for advice. I am sorry, but no amount of advice coming from you, sir, would have assisted us in getting a seat out of Dubai. It would not have happened. We went to Dubai as we were authorized to by the Senate. The fact that we could not get into Kandahar is not relevant to this.
The approval to go to Kandahar was not conditional on any other part of the trip. It was a convenient way to kill two birds with one stone. It made sense to try and do both, but the committee, as you have heard from both Senator Banks and Senator Moore, would have gone to Dubai for the Dubai ports issue alone. That was sufficient reason for us to go there.
Finally, all I can say, chair, is that while we were there, unlike the press reports that showed pictures of a suite that we never saw and of rooms that we were never in, there were suggestions that we were living lavishly, that the lifestyle we were experiencing was something unusual; however, that was not the case. We were in a standard meeting room that had a regular boardroom table that sat about a dozen people. The committee spent 42 hours there going through the report that we recently released, line by line, paragraph by paragraph, and we made the best use of the time we could while the clerks were still endeavouring to get us out sooner.
That summarizes what I have to say.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Kenny. Before going to Senator Stratton, I have one question for you.
On reflection, Senator Kenny, given the information your committee had leading up to September 9, do you now feel and believe that the committee used good judgment by going to Dubai?
Senator Kenny: I have absolutely no reservations about that at all. The committee did exactly what it should have done. They met collectively and discussed it. There was no dissent. Every member of the committee was of the view that we should go, and I have no reservations about that decision whatsoever.
Senator Stratton: Senator Kenny, you have no reservations whatsoever despite the fact of knowing full well you could not get into Afghanistan because of Operation Medusa, the largest engagement the Canadian Forces have had since the Korean War. Despite that, you went to Dubai on the expectation that you still had an opportunity to go into Dubai or have officials come from Afghanistan to visit with you?
Senator Kenny: When I landed in Dubai, I had absolutely no expectation of going to Afghanistan whatsoever. I had been told earlier by General Hillier that that was not going on. When we inquired if the situation had improved, he said it had gotten worse.
You know that now, because I spoke to Walt Natynczyk and asked him to please write an accurate letter. The initial letter was not accurate, which is why you have the second letter that was sent to Senator LeBreton.
When we landed in Dubai, I knew two things for sure: One, we were to have meetings with a number of officials that were to provide the committee with information it needed about the port of Dubai and the security situation with Dubai Ports World. Two, there was still a possibility while we were there that some people might come out of Kandahar.
I did not know there was no way of getting out of Dubai until we inquired on Monday, and that was when it became apparent that we could not just grab a flight and leave. It is not like the Toronto-Montreal-Ottawa shuttle where there is a plane going every hour. That came as a surprise to the committee, because I think we all expected that it would be possible to leave.
Senator Stratton: I guess my question goes back to the fact of the anticipation of people who were fully engaged in Operation Medusa coming out to meet with the officials of your committee.
Senator Kenny: They were not fully engaged. The people from the PRT were not able to do PRT work. The CSIS people could not be spoken for by General Hillier. He does not command them. He does not command the DFAIT people, the CIDA people or the RCMP. He did not offer an opinion on that. He said he would move them if he could, but we were to find out for ourselves if they could come out.
Senator Stratton: Recognizing that at that time there were no regular flights in and out of Afghanistan, that they had cancelled them, were only using them for operational purposes.
Senator Kenny: That is wrong.
Senator Stratton: That is my understanding. There is disagreement. That is why I think this should be carried to an additional step.
Senator Kenny: There were supply flights going in. That is how you go in, Senator Stratton. The flights were going, and that was how we were going in.
Senator Stratton: You have stated, for the record, that I approved and did not put a dissenting voice in the vote for approval of this budget at any of the three stages. It was because I believed in what you were doing.
Senator Kenny: We believed in what we were doing as well.
Senator Stratton: I think the Senate believed in what you were doing, and still believes in what you did.
I expressed at each step along the way, and I reiterate again, to the subcommittee on budgets, to this committee and in the Senate chamber the appropriateness of travelling into a war zone. You responded to me at each stage. I still had concerns even when it was debated in the Senate. That is for the record.
Senator Kenny: For the record, Senator Stratton, you did not vote against it.
Senator Stratton: That is what I just finished saying.
Senator Kenny: You clearly did not believe in it strongly enough to say, ``I object to this.''
When the time came in which you became aware that we were stuck in Dubai, you could have asked a member of your caucus what was going on and why we spent such a long time in Dubai.
In the Senate, as you know, chairs of committees can be asked questions. You could have risen in your place and asked me, ``Why did you spend this extra time in Dubai?'' You did not do that. Instead, you brought in a motion that talked about misuse of funds. You talked about contempt of Parliament. You brought a huge amount of embarrassment on the Senate, with all sorts of negative press coverage as a result. You do not throw around words like ``misuse of funds'' or ``contempt of Parliament'' unless you have something to support them with. Surely, amongst an institution like this, the least you could have done was ask one of us what went on. Surely you have enough respect for someone on the committee, insomuch as you could have said, ``There must be some explanation as to why you would spend this extra time.'' You chose not to do that. Instead you played ``gotcha'' and came in with a hugely damaging motion that has hurt a whole lot of people and caused a whole lot of grief and wasted hours and hours of time responding to something that you could have resolved with a simple conversation over a cup of coffee.
Senator Stratton: Senator, with respect, I disagree.
Senator Comeau: I will stick with the question of the votes that were taken at three stages — at the subcommittee, at the Internal Economy Committee and in the Senate. My understanding was that there was a trip to Western Europe and Dubai on the way to Afghanistan.
Senator Kenny: I did not say that.
Senator Comeau: Let me refer to a statement made in the Senate on June 27:
We are doing this —
— travelling to London, Rotterdam and Dubai —
— because it makes economic sense on the way to Afghanistan to take advantage of the flight across the Atlantic. If the committee is to go that distance, it seems opportune to spend three extra days to pick up this information.
What I understand from this is that London, Rotterdam, Dubai, three days, makes sense on the way to Afghanistan. If I am wrong, you can correct me.
Senator Banks: The three days were in Afghanistan.
Senator Comeau: Senator Kenny said, ``on the way to Afghanistan.'' That leads me to believe that, when we were asked in the Senate to vote on whether we approved the trip, Western Europe, Dubai was on the way to Afghanistan. You said earlier in your comments that you would have gone to Dubai anyway, whether you went to Afghanistan or not. Correct me if I am wrong, but in my view that is a material change or a substantial change from what was said in the Senate and that which I just quoted. If I am wrong, just correct me, but to me, it is a substantial change. It will be up to this committee to decide whether it is a substantial change or not.
Senator Kenny: If I may, Senator Comeau, the document is here and the document is clear. The objection from your colleague sitting beside you was not about us going to London and was not about us going to Rotterdam and was not about us going to Dubai. The only place he was objecting to was Afghanistan.
Senator Comeau: That is not my question.
Senator Kenny: It is my answer.
Senator Comeau: We were told in the Senate that Afghanistan was the ultimate destination.
Senator Kenny: It was the final destination, correct.
Senator Comeau: You were taking advantage of the trip to Afghanistan and making it economical by stopping in Rotterdam and London and Dubai on the way to Afghanistan.
Senator Kenny: That is correct.
Senator Comeau: That being correct, you were told that the Afghanistan portion of the trip was cancelled. Judging from the letters that were read into the record, you were told that the Afghanistan part of the mission was over, done with, not operational, and it was a no go. At that point, is it up to your committee to decide that you would go ahead anyway, or should the committee not report back to the Senate where we voted? We voted on you going to Afghanistan. That is what we voted on.
Senator Kenny: You voted on London, Rotterdam, Dubai, Mirage, Kandahar.
Senator Comeau: On the way to Afghanistan.
Senator Kenny: Nowhere are the words ``on the way to Afghanistan.''
Senator Comeau: Mr. Chairman, I will end it there. We are in disagreement on what was voted on. Senator Kenny is saying we did not vote on that. When I voted on this, I was under the impression that the committee was to go to Afghanistan, along with other spots. Senator Kenny is saying, no, that Afghanistan was kind of irrelevant.
Senator Kenny: I did not say ``irrelevant.''
Senator Comeau: I take that back.
Senator Moore: Lob out stuff. We do not care; just lob it out.
Senator Kenny: It is in writing.
Senator Comeau: It is in writing.
Senator Kenny: The budget was adopted, as written.
Senator Comeau: That is right. Once it was determined that the Afghanistan part of the mission was a no go, I am suggesting that, at that point, there should be a mechanism by which the committee should report back to an authority and say, ``Is it okay if we continue anyway? Part of our mission, we found out from the Chief of the Defence Staff, is no longer applicable.'' Should there not be a mechanism by which that eventuality is reported back to an authority? It is the spending of money. I am not suggesting that the answer would have been no, but maybe you could have asked for further authority from us, because it is substantially changing our vote on the plan. I leave it up to the committee to decide.
Senator Kenny: I will respond. First, there is no such measure. That would be point one. Point two is that part of the trip could not be accomplished, and that was clear. The parts that we went on were the parts that were already authorized. The committee went to the parts that were authorized, properly, three different times — four different times, because the committee adopted it unanimously itself.
You also are not taking into account that the committee was travelling. The committee was not together. The committee did not all get together on a single flight and leave from Ottawa. People were leaving from Calgary. People were leaving from Halifax.
Senator Banks: Edmonton.
Senator Kenny: I apologize. People were leaving from Toronto. Some people were already there. The committee had a properly authorized trip, part of which could not be accommodated.
The Chairman: One other senator wants to raise a question, following which we will go in camera.
Senator Massicotte: Senator Kenny, you were chairman of the Internal Economy Committee several years ago. What is your understanding of our experience and policy orientation to approval of budgets, specifically relevant to your September 2006 budget? We approved a budget of $238,300. In that budget approval, there is an allocation of components between different cities. In your mind, what discretion remains with the committee to alter or change that over a period of time? To what degree does that committee have that discretion?
Senator Kenny: It is a very limited discretion, Senator Massicotte. For example, the committee, in my view, could not decide to substitute going to Manchester instead of London, unless it encountered something very compelling. If, for example, the witnesses moved to Manchester but you did not know that until you were en route, then I think the committee could justify going to Manchester — assuming the costs were roughly the same, that might be a possibility.
Generally speaking, however, if the Senate has said, ``These are the cities you can go to; you better stick to those cities'' — if you deviate from that, you should be prepared to come back and make an appearance before this committee and say, ``We did not do that, and here is why, and let us put the case before you.''
Senator Massicotte: After the fact or before the fact?
Senator Kenny: After the fact.
Senator Massicotte: In your mind, there is discretion at the time of occurrence. One is always accountable for all their expenses, but you think there is discretion to the committee to alternate cities or days, with full accountability subsequently?
Senator Kenny: I think there is a reasonableness test here that should apply. When it comes to a question of cancellation, when something is just falling off, I do not think you have to ask anybody. If you cannot go some place — if the bridge is down or if you cannot go into some place — I do not think you would have to tell that to anybody; you just could not do it.
If someone asks, yes, you would get up and explain it. However, I do not think on your first occasion coming back to the chamber you would say, ``This part of the trip was cancelled.''
The fact that we could not get out was of some consequence. I think if we could have gotten out, the committee would have been derelict not to leave Dubai at the earliest opportunity. In other words, as soon as the Dubai Ports World portion was complete, I think the committee had a duty to leave or exercise its very best efforts to leave. I am suggesting to this committee and to you that we exercised our very best efforts to leave, and that it was more rational to spend the time in the hotel — where, in fact, we were working — than to incur the additional costs of flying out.
Senator Massicotte: I know members of your committee — and possibly yourself, because you had a comment earlier — are suggesting that the motivation for all this issue is political. In fact, Senator Moore also suggested that the motivation is not only political but also that it is actually by the people in defence to have less transparency — to be polite — than we would have wished as parliamentarians. Do you share that view?
Senator Kenny: I do not share the latter part of that view. I do not believe that General Hillier or General Natynzchuk gave political advice; I believe they gave military advice. I believe it was their best military judgement that they gave to the government that civilian visitors were inappropriate. I have no difficulty with that at all. I believe they are both men of integrity and I believe they called it as they saw it. I think the government accepted their advice in good faith. I have no difficulty there.
Senator Massicotte: But there was no motivation to hide a lack of effectiveness of taxpayers' money being spent in that country and so on?
Senator Kenny: I think that is a matter of great concern at the political level. I think General Hillier wishes that there was more development going on there; but I do not believe he tried to stop us from going to Afghanistan because something was not going on. I think he is doing his best to make things happen there.
Senator Moore: I want to clarify that, Senator Massicotte. The way this has evolved — the timing of things, the nature of it, the mean-spirited way this thing has evolved — it looks to me like someone is trying to sidetrack or derail our committee and our work.
I am not pointing fingers at generals. We have had a good relationship with them. They have been before the committee and they are doing their job; but I think, on the political level, something was up.
Senator Kenny: What shocked us were the allegations that we were doing something frivolous, that we were in presidential suites and spending $500 a day, that we were cavorting. All the off-the-top media stuff that CTV was coming out with was bizarre. It was distressing because, frankly, it was a tough trip; it was a hard trip to do. If you want to know the truth, the very idea of going into Afghanistan is not something I relish.
Senator Massicotte: Do you not think it is the media's normal motivation to get something controversial to sell their interests? Do you think it is more than that?
Senator Kenny: Usually, they need someone to give them a nudge, okay. Normally, a trip that our committee takes does not attract a lot of attention from Ottawa media — local media, yes, Ottawa media, no. I think some members of the committee got the distinct impression — particularly as we find staff of the Leader of the Government in the Senate sending emails back to the hotel, particularly when we find that the VCDS is being used by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and by the Minister of National Defence to send letters over here. That is when we start wondering what is going on.
As far as the going-in part, I think the military were straight up about it. They had a big operation on their hands; the last thing they needed was a committee of parliamentarians doing it. Our military advisers said to us, look, when I was a commander, I did not want to see politicians ever.
The Chairman: We have to wrap up.
Senator Banks: I have to make one clarification, because it has been referred to. No one on this committee minds the assiduous efforts of the press — electronic and print — to do their job, part of which is to get readers. If there is a story, there is a story. However, I can tell you that, after having spent years in the media, there is a modicum of expectation that any reporter will double-check a source or a fact before printing rumours in the guise of news.
What was presented here was presented as news, without any verification whatever of the facts that were presented as news.
One more thing, with respect to the point that Senator Kenny made about our trying to find out, this committee has been trying to find out for years — because the same thing was true of the previous government — exactly how that important development pillar is being applied in Afghanistan. The conventional wisdom that we all understand is that if we only go there and shoot guys and do not change the facts of life for people in Afghanistan on the ground, there is no such thing as victory.
The last correspondence that we had from the minister contained the following statement, which I will read into the record. We had asked what the proportion of the $100 million that Canada is budgeted to spend in Afghanistan every year goes to Kandahar province, which is where Canadians have specific responsibilities. The minister said: ``Some of these programs are active in Kandahar province. However, at this stage, we cannot give specific figures as to how much of Canadian money in support of these programs goes to Kandahar province.''
We have been getting that answer for months and months from all governments. It is our job to go there and find out. We are over 21 years old, and I am grateful for Senator Stratton's concern about our safety, but we volunteered to go there to find out the answer to this question. We are spending $100 million in Afghanistan and we want to know how much of it is being spent to do the third leg of the job that Canada is purportedly there doing. No one can tell us, so we have to go there and find out.
The Chairman: Thank you. We will have to wrap up, but there are three senators who have indicated they have short questions.
Before I go to them, Senator Banks, you referred to some documentation earlier — specifically, a letter that had names blanked out and invoices that were on the Internet. Is it your intention to table those documents?
Senator Banks: I will happily table them.
Senator Jaffer: I do not have the budget in front of me. What was the amount in your budget of the flight to Afghanistan from Dubai?
Senator Kenny: There was no portion —
Senator Jaffer: There were no costs?
Senator Kenny: That is not quite true. There were three days at $55 per day times seven. Sotto voce, again, Senator Stratton just stated ``plus the flight.'' The flight was going in any event to bring supplies in and out. Civilians get bumped from the flight if there are military supplies that need to go.
Senator Jaffer: In hindsight, do you think before the committee departed for Dubai you should have called the subcommittee and had something cleared, given that you have so much experience?
Senator Kenny: In my 21 years of experience, this has never happened on a trip. There is no mechanism in the Senate for it. There is no precedent for it.
It was also during our summer break. The Senate was not sitting. It was during a period of time when the staff were taking vacations. I had no idea where Senator Stratton was. Even if I did, I would not have called him. It is not part of procedure. You cannot point to any rule, regulation or guidance to chairs that they should consult back. That is not the manner in which we have conducted things.
Senator Jaffer: Since the minister has returned, has she provided you with information as to what kind of development work we are doing in Kandahar?
Senator Kenny: No, we have not received anything further from the minister. We would be pleased to receive more information from her with respect to that, but we have not.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I have only one question. Was all of the information you received, that is as to whether or not you could go to Kandahar, was all of that information sent at least to your subcommittee on agenda and procedure as well as to all of the senators who would accompany you on this mission? Were all of the senators aware of this information?
[English]
Senator Kenny: Yes, they were. Initially, I phoned and provided a thumbnail sketch because people were rushing. They were en route.
At the first opportunity we had to sit down, we went through it in much detail, exactly who said what and what the briefings were. I had some documents and maps. We had taken careful notes of what General Howard and General Natynczyk told us. The committee spent an hour to an hour and a half discussing the report we obtained from the military.
Senator Poulin: Senator Kenny, I am sorry to have you repeat yourself, but there has been so much said during this meeting that I want to come back to the bottom line for the record.
You being chair, what was the total budget approved by Internal Economy for this particular mission of your committee?
Senator Kenny: The figure approved by Internal and by the Senate was $238,300.
Senator Poulin: What was the actual cost at the end of the day, now that you have returned?
Senator Kenny: We do not know exactly, because the numbers keep coming in. The first estimate I gave was $50,000 less than what was approved, but I am now told that it is approximately $90,000 less than that. Accounts take a period of time to clear. For example, with respect to estimates that we have, it depends on the day, to get the exact exchange rate right. However, $90,000 is roughly what we think it is, less than what was authorized.
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: In other words, you did not believe you were over the budget allocated by the Senate for this mission?
[English]
Senator Kenny: There is no possibility that we exceeded the budget.
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: The specific changes during the mission, for example the number of days in a given city, were approved by your subcommittee on agenda and procedure, by the steering committee and by the committee of the whole.
[English]
Senator Kenny: They were approved by every member of the Senate who was on the trip.
Senator Banks: That includes all members of the steering committee.
The Chairman: I thank you very much for your patience, honourable senators, and for your interest this morning. I thank Senator Stratton and Senator Kenny for their presentations.
Senator Stratton: We have just received from the Chief of the Defence Staff a letter dated July 6, 2006, to the minister regarding a parliamentary visit to Afghanistan. The letter reads as follows:
Please find attached for your signature letters to the respective chairs of the House and Senate defence committees indicating your willingness to support a parliamentary visit to Afghanistan.
Given the current rotation schedule, a need to minimize the impact on operations, and the parliamentary calendar, we recommend that the Canadian Forces support a single combined parliamentary visit of no more than 10 persons (plus military and police escorts) during the week of 9 October. The attached briefing note provides further details.
The letter is signed by R.J. Hillier, General, Chief of the Defence Staff, and by W.P.D. Elcock, Deputy Minister. As well, the letter indicates that three enclosures, which I do not have. For the record, this is from the Chief of the Defence Staff.
Senator Kenny: This is typical of Senator Stratton. He receives a letter and he thinks he is making a point.
There is a continuum of information that comes out during these discussions. The process of preparing a trip like this involves discussions running over a six- to eight-week period. He may well have a letter like that. If he had a full set of documentation, he would find there would be a different position a couple of weeks later.
It culminated in a meeting that took place in the minister's office between the minister, the chair of the House committee, and I, where Mr. O'Connor asked the chair of the House committee whether his committee wanted to travel to Afghanistan. The chair of the House committee said the members do not seem to have any interest in it. That ended that discussion.
The following week, we received a call from the minister's staff saying the minister wanted to piggyback the chair of the committee onto our group, as well as his parliamentary secretary. I called up the minister and asked him why he wanted to put members of the Commons on a Senate committee. I told him that the program has been tailored to our needs. Mr. O'Connor was going in the week before us. I suggested he should take his parliamentary secretary with him. He responded by saying they would like to have more Conservatives going in.
The Chairman: There are a number of documents that have been tabled. It is a public meeting, so these documents will be public. We will have copies of them made after our meeting.
Senator Downe: I seek your advice. I intend to move a motion — should I do that now or in camera — calling before this committee the staff of Senator LeBreton to inquire why they were conducting these investigations on Liberal senators.
The Chairman: I think we will do that in camera. We now ask members of the public to leave. All senators are entitled to stay. I should like members of the committee to remain because there are at least two items we must deal with.
The committee continued in camera.