Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of March 2, 2009
OTTAWA, Monday, March 2, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 4:07 p.m., pursuant to rule 88 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Shaila Anwar, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as clerk of your committee it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair. I am ready to receive nominations to that effect.
Are there any nominations?
Senator Tkachuk: I move the nomination of Senator Colin Kenny.
Ms. Anwar: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Tkachuk that the Honourable Senator Kenny do take the chair of this committee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Anwar: I declare the motion carried and I invite Senator Kenny to take the chair.
Senator Kenny: Is there not some deal about being dragged up to the chair?
An Hon. Senator: It would not apply to you!
Senator Colin Kenny (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Honourable senators, thank you very much and thank you, Senator Tkachuk, for nominating me.
The next item is the election of a deputy chair. The floor is open for nominations.
Senator Banks: I nominate the Honourable Senator Pamela Wallin as deputy chair.
The Chair: Are there any other nominations? All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Now that nominations have ceased, I declare that we have elected Senator Wallin as deputy chair.
The next item is the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. Normally, there are consultations. In fact, I have been told by my leader that those consultations have taken place. I am assuming that the name of Senator Banks has been brought forward. Is that correct?
Senator Day: Are you okay with that?
Senator Wallin: Yes, we are okay with that. We did not receive formal notification.
The Chair: I do not think they formally notify.
Senator Meighen: It is the same as in the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. I got what they gave me.
The Chair: Could I have a motion, please?
Senator Moore: I so move.
The Chair: Those in favour?
Senator Banks: I do not want to be picky but you need this motion as it is written in the record. You need to say this.
The Chair: All right.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Moore:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chair, the deputy chair, and one other member of the committee, to be designated after the usual consultation; and
That the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses, and to schedule hearings.
Senator Moore: Question?
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Tkachuk:
That the committee print its proceedings; and
That the chair be authorized to set the number to meet demand.
Those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Carried.
Next is number 5.
Senator Meighen: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Meighen:
That pursuant to rule 89, the chair be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the printing of the evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that a member of the committee from both the government and the opposition be present.
Those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Carried.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Wallin that the committee adopt the draft first report prepared in accordance with rule 104 — a copy of which should be in your file. Does everyone have such a copy?
Those in favour of adopting this report?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Carried.
Is there also a motion for me to table it?
Ms. Anwar: It is not required.
The Chair: I am advised I do not need a motion to table it.
The Chair: It is moved by Honourable Senator Tkachuk:
That the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign analysts to the committee;
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the committee; and
That the chair, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries, and draft reports.
Question? Those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Carried.
We are now down to number 8, authority to commit funds and certify accounts.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Zimmer:
That, pursuant to section 7, Chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority to commit funds be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee;
That, pursuant to section 8, Chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee; and
That, notwithstanding the foregoing, in cases related to consultants and personnel services, the authority to commit funds and certify accounts be conferred jointly on the chair and deputy chair.
Senator Meighen: It means that both the chair and the deputy chair have to sign off; is that correct?
The Chair: That is correct.
Senator Banks: I have said this on other committees; this is a new provision. I want to call our attention to the fact that it almost precisely contrary to the first two paragraphs. This committee and others have had difficulty with this provision when it comes to situations in which monies are owed to persons who provided contracted services and the chair and deputy chair, for whatever reason, are not available. On occasion, that situation has caused late payments of monies otherwise due and in the case of this and other committees, has placed that late payment where the Senate, became susceptible to penalties because the contracts have specified payment times by which they must be made. I expect we will pass this, as it has been passed by other committees, but I opposed it when it was first introduced and I oppose it now.
Senator Wallin: I am not familiar with the old rules and do not have any trouble with this rule. Any of us who serve on boards receive documents at any given hour of any given day to sign and fax back or return by email. Even though we may be on break, I think we can be found and we can be responsive in some timely manner.
Senator Day: Maybe the clerk can help us with this, but the first two paragraphs refer to sections of Chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, which are rules that have been studied and adopted by the Senate as a whole. The last paragraph makes no reference to anything other than it abrogates the provisions of the first two — or at least, restricts them.
Is this a recommendation from the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament and, if so, why is it not part of the Senate Administrative Rules? Why are we in this committee deciding to restrict something that has been generated by the Senate as a whole under the Senate Administrative Rules?
The Chair: The best advice I can give is that it was considered and adopted by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration in May, 2008. This committee has the capacity to pass any rules that it wants to pass. This is an election and, frankly, the tendency has been to pass whatever the clerk puts in front of us. However, if you noticed, when someone calls "question,'' I ask for those in favour and then I ask for those opposed. That is the only answer I have for you, Senator Day.
Senator Wallin: I am not sure I see the contradiction. Again, I am new to this. However, it does seem we will work together and the three parties have authority on these matters but every once in a while, we will have to deal with matters that might be difficult or the timing might not be right, et cetera. The chair and deputy chair must deal with these things.
Senator Banks: This might be an egregious example that probably will not happen but we are passing rules. Here is a contradiction: A senator can commit the committee to contracts for services provided. Senator Kenny could withhold approval of the payment for those things to which you have committed. That is a contradiction.
Senator Wallin: It is my understanding that if there is a huge difference of opinion, it would go to Internal Economy.
Senator Banks: No.
Senator Day: It turns to the full committee.
Senator Wallin: It turns to the full committee first and then, if it is still not resolved, to Internal Economy?
Senator Tkachuk: That is correct.
Senator Banks: That is right. I am seeing a bogeyman under the bed but we are passing rules.
Senator Moore: No, you are not quite right, Senator Banks. Last year, we had a situation where we had a contract that both the chair and the deputy chair had agreed to. However, when it came time to pay the person the chair and the deputy chair would not or could not agree on the payment. The entire committee had to come back here to do a vote.
Senator Tkachuk: When did that happen?
Senator Moore: Last summer.
Senator Tkachuk: No, we did not come back to work on that.
Senator Moore: Yes, we did.
Senator Tkachuk: Not as far as I know.
Senator Moore: We were there with a young lady who did not get paid.
Senator Mitchell: We discussed it here.
Sen. Tkachuk: We discussed it but we were here on another matter.
Senator Banks: In any case, when there is such a matter, it is resolved by the committee.
Senator Tkachuk: Senator Banks, I think this puts the responsibility on the chair and the deputy chair to ensure that the work in the contract that was agreed to was actually done. If there is a disagreement, then there is a disagreement and it should be brought to the whole committee.
I think it is a good thing that both parties must agree that the work that the contractor was assigned to do was actually done.
Senator Banks: That is the question.
Senator Tkachuk: That is not only the question — that is the fact of this particular addition.
The Chair: Are there other comments?
Senator Day: I do not disagree with the merits but my point was that the first two paragraphs deal with the Senate Administrative Rules, which seem to be a higher level of authority than this final paragraph which is just this committee saying that we will change the rules. If we think and if we believe that there is merit in this, then should not this be incorporated into the Senate Administrative Rules, as well?
Senator Tkachuk: You might want to make that recommendation. You could make it here.
Senator Day: I am making the recommendation now that in adopting this, we ask that this be considered in light of the Senate Administrative Rules.
Senator Meighen: However, it does establish a higher standard of care.
Senator Day: Yes.
Senator Meighen: We are not loosening the control over the expenditure of funds; we are making it tighter in this particular instance. I see your point — it probably should be in the Senate Administrative Rules. Assuming it is not now, I feel quite at ease with the fact that we are making the procedure more rigorous rather than doing the opposite.
Senator Day: We could not do the opposite, right.
The Chair: Are there any other comments?
Senator Wallin: I wish to comment that I could not agree more. Maybe we should put it forward as a committee that we think that others should be subject to the same kind of scrutiny. I think it is good.
Senator Day: It certainly should be studied by the Senate and by the Rules Committee.
Could I suggest that, Mr. Chair? Here we are passing something that changes Chapters 7 and 8 of the Senate Administrative Rules. Some people believe this is for the better. It should be looked into.
Senator Tkachuk: That would be considered new business, Senator Day. Perhaps we could deal with this and then, if the senator wants to raise another issue under other business, Senator Day could do so now.
The Chair: I think he is in order talking about it now.
Senator Wallin: As a committee that has taken this extra step and extra precaution, we should recommend that other committees follow our lead.
The Chair: You misunderstand, Senator Wallin. Every committee has this provision.
Senator Wallin: Every committee has this provision?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Wallin: That is great.
Senator Tkachuk: Let us pass it.
The Chair: There are varying views on that.
Senator Nolin: Why do we not adopt it and ask the steering committee to ask to appear in front of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration to argue the case?
The Chair: That is a good solution.
Senator Nolin: If other committees have the same concern, then the appropriate place to raise it is in Internal Economy.
The Chair: Yes, I do, too.
Are there any other comments?
Senator Tkachuk: Question?
The Chair: Could I read a note here, first? I will be right with you.
Senator Tkachuk: Thank you. I called the question.
The Chair: That is fine and I will deal with it in just a second.
The clerk's note was relevant. It said whether or not the committee adopts it, we are still bound by Internal Economy's ruling.
The question being called, could I have those in favour, please?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Those opposed?
Senator Day: Have abstentions been recorded?
The Chair: Abstentions: Senators Day and Banks.
Could I have a mover for number 9?
Senator Banks: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Banks:
That the committee empower the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure to designate, as required, one or more members of the committee and/or such staff as may be necessary to travel on assignment on behalf of the committee.
All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? It is carried.
Could I have a mover for number 10, please?
Senator Meighen: So moved.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Meighen:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to:
1) determine whether any member of the committee is on "official business'' for the purpose of paragraph 8(3)(a) of the Senators Attendance Policy published in the Journals of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 1998; and
2) consider any member of the committee to be on "official business'' if that member is: (a) attending an event or meeting related to the work of the committee; or (b) making a presentation related to the work of the committee; and
That the subcommittee report at the earliest opportunity any decisions taken with respect to the designation of members of the committee travelling on committee business.
All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Abstentions?
Carried.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Moore:
That pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witness expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for one witness from any one organization and payment will take place upon application, but that the chair be authorized to approve expenses for a second witness should there be exceptional circumstances.
All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Abstentions?
Carried.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Day:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to allow coverage by electronic media of the committee's public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings and at its discretion.
All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Abstentions?
Carried.
The Chair: I do not think we have any other motions before us.
Moving to other business, I draw your attention to the presence here today of Ms. Maureen Shields, who has been an outstanding employee of the Library of Parliament working on behalf of the committee for close to two years, I believe.
Maureen Shields, Researcher, Library of Parliament: It has been about a year and a half.
The Chair: Seems like a lifetime. Ms. Shields is moving to the Department of National Defence. When we last spoke, it was yet to be determined but it seems that DND is the lucky one and we are the unlucky one. I suspect that it also reflects on the budget of the Library of Parliament, which needs to be enhanced substantially because it costs us too many good researchers. Ms. Shields will leave at the end of this week. We will miss not only her work but also her very positive attitude that she brought to it.
Ms. Shields, everyone who has been in touch with you or has dealt with you considers you a friend and a most helpful person. On behalf of the committee, Ms. Shields, I thank you very much for your work, and we are grateful for all that you have done. Thank you so much.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
The Chair: Senators, I bring to your attention the order of reference that the committee has had in previous years so that we might have a discussion as to whether it meets our needs. Perhaps people would like a moment to review it.
Senator Meighen: Is this what we had before?
The Chair: To my understanding, it is word-for-word.
Senator Moore: Is this from the past session?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Banks: Can the clerk confirm that this is identical to the order of reference, with the one exception of the date of reporting?
The Chair: It is the same except for the date of reporting.
Senator Banks: The clerk nodded.
The Chair: Let the record show that the clerk nodded up and down.
Senator Moore: The last paragraph says that the committee report to the Senate no later than June 15, 2010 and so on. I assume that refers to reporting on any study that we have done. Is that correct? We might do two or three studies or we might do only one.
The Chair: In my experience, the committee has never done a final report.
Ms. Anwar: This is for the final report of the committee. The committee may table interim reports up to that date.
Senator Moore: Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments about the order of reference?
Senator Banks: I move the adoption of the proposed order of reference.
Senator Tkachuk: Does the order of reference commit us to any one line or particular area of study as long as it falls within this order of reference?
The Chair: Correct. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Abstentions?
Carried.
I would like to make a couple of observations that might be of some assistance.
Senator Banks: I am sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Chair, but I have a question for the clerk. Is it automatic, as you said before, that this be taken to the Senate for approval or do you need a separate motion?
The Chair: The clerk just advised me that I do not need a motion. Rather, I simply advise the committee that I will give notice of motion to table and then two days later it is moved.
Senator Moore: Would that take place this week?
The Chair: I will give a one-day notice tomorrow and then move the motion for adoption on Wednesday.
Senator Moore: Thank you.
Senator Day: That is our short day.
The Chair: You are telling me that you will give a speech.
Senator Tkachuk: It will likely be done on Wednesday or Thursday.
The Chair: With your permission, I will commence a discussion on two or three topics simultaneously: First, topics of study; second, what travel locations might be involved with those studies; and third, the costs of those studies. I will bring you up to date on some informal consultations I have had with various people that might influence your thinking.
As I look at the calendar, I see that we have roughly 10 days of meetings between now and when Parliament is likely to rise, which is subject to being reduced if the committee is away from Ottawa travelling. We have 10 days at most. That will be the rate-limiting step in terms of how much can be accomplished before the Senate rises for the summer, which I anticipate will be the second or third week in June. It is fair to say that anyone's guess on that is of equal value because minority governments can have an election at any time.
Everyone is looking at me so seriously.
Are we agreed that we have roughly 10 working days to go?
Senator Meighen: Yes.
The Chair: One of the questions worth considering is how much time the committee wants to spend on those 10 days. A motion has gone through the Senate that restricts three of those days, because they fall on a Monday after a break week for the Senate. That restricts us to a 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. time period. The remaining days are without time restrictions, other than the meetings are on Monday. That motion was passed last week. Senator Comeau moved it, and it was adopted the next day, I believe.
Senator Day: It was adopted on division.
The Chair: My first point is that we have relatively little time.
Second, I would like to suggest some topics of study for consideration. The deputy chair and I have talked informally about these topics. I will not say we are putting them forward together, but there has been a measure of consultation.
The first topic is the status of the army, navy and air force, particularly as Afghanistan draws to a close. Inasmuch as there are some new members on the committee, hearing from the commanders of the three environments would not be unreasonable.
The second topic is the Canada Border Services Agency and the border. It is my view, and I think it is the view of some other members of the committee, that the border will be one of our most important topics. It will drive jobs and have an impact on the new administration, and should be of interest to us.
The third topic is CSIS. Committee members have been meeting with CSIS officials across the country. Among the nine of us, we have been to virtually every CSIS office. We have also met with CSIS officers in Dubai, Afghanistan, Berlin and London. I had a very positive meeting with Mr. Judd prior to Christmas. I asked him what his views were on a study. He welcomed it, saying there had not been a parliamentary review of their work. He said he would be prepared to cooperate in facilitating that study.
On RCMP transformation, the Brown report has been out for almost two years. Senator Wallin and I had the benefit of a briefing by Assistant Commissioner Keith Clark, who spoke to us for about two and one half hours. There are significant problems within the RCMP that will, in turn, impact on the border. The RCMP is struggling to deal with the changes the government has mandated them to come forward with post-Zaccardelli.
The last item I have is the completion of the ports study, which has gone on for at least three years. We have covered off a number of ports. We have put out three reports on ports, but we have not gone further.
The committee's practice has been to pick three topics. The rationale has been that one cannot always get witnesses on one topic, and rather than miss a day's work it is better to have other topics to go to.
Because it costs about $100,000 for the committee to travel to Vancouver for five days, it makes sense to meet with the admiral in Esquimalt, look at the airport, look at the port, and talk to CSIS and emergency measures people during one trip. In that way, we can get a lot done on one trip rather than taking many trips.
I will deviate for a moment. I have had lengthy meetings with Mr. Mulroney, the deputy minister responsible for the Afghanistan Task Force, who indicated that if the committee were interested, he would welcome a visit in May. He said that he and the government would find it useful if the committee went to Washington prior to visiting Afghanistan.
I asked Mr. Mulroney what he had in mind. I told him that I was concerned in particular about police training and visiting troops, and the fact that although the Americans are now using the same rules of engagement, their interpretation of those rules is different from our interpretation. I said that I was concerned about the status of our signature project. Those are issues that were on my mind, and he said they were very close to the issues that were on his mind, particularly what can be done to leave the country with a robust police force.
I asked him what sort of trip he would envision. He thought the trip could start in Kabul on the Monday of the first week of May and that we could visit General Eikenberry, the ambassador awaiting confirmation from the United States; then General McKiernan, who is the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan; UN representative Kai Eide; and Afghan Interior Minister Hanif Atmar, who is responsible for police there. He suggested that it would be useful for the committee to visit CSTC-Alpha, which is the training school in Kabul; and also the POMLT and a civilian training program in Kandahar.
I asked him what he thought was appropriate for a visit to Washington, and he thought it would be useful for the committee to meet with Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, United States Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan; congressional committees, Senate and House; and DOD General Jones, who is the National Security Adviser. He also recommended Mike O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute and Seth Jones of RAND Corporation. He suggested that doing that a couple of weeks before going to Afghanistan would be very useful.
If the committee would like to do that, given the dates in Kabul, our visit to Washington would probably be sometime during the week of April 19.
I set that aside as something that the committee might want to consider, and I will go back to topics of study.
Under the status of the army, navy and air force, I have made private inquiries and I have been informed that the three commanders are in town next Monday. If the committee were to put in a request I think they would be available to appear before the committee and address those matters.
I believe that once the committee is satisfied it has at least touched on the military it should line up witnesses from the Canada Border Services Agency. I think the arguments are self-evident for the value of hearing from that agency.
I believe that we might fit in CSIS and the RCMP as we go along, depending on the length of this session.
Let me just throw those out to you. I should remind the committee that last year we had agreed to visit bases in Kingston, Petawawa, Trenton and Borden on one trip and bases in Charlottetown, Halifax, Greenwood and Gagetown on another trip. If the committee decides that it wants to do Afghanistan in the spring, those trips would have to be in the summer or the fall, assuming there was not an election in the meanwhile.
Senator Moore: Mr. Chair, looking at the Senate calendar again. You mentioned Washington, as suggested by Mr. Mulroney. What is his title?
The Chair: I believe he is Deputy Minister, Afghanistan.
Senator Wallin: The Afghan file overall; multidepartment.
Senator Moore: He has suggested that before the committee goes to Afghanistan it should go to Washington. You mentioned April 19 or 20 for Washington and you suggest Afghanistan after that. Did you suggest a time for the visit to Kabul?
The Chair: No. I said that the committee had had bad luck suggesting times for Afghanistan, and things worked better when they told us when they could accommodate us. He was concerned about the Karzai election. I believe the date they are aiming for is May 22. He wants us out of the country before that election.
Senator Wallin: It might be sooner, in April, if he calls a snap election.
Senator Moore: Sometime in the first half of May is the possible date.
The Chair: That is correct; he gave me that date, I did not give him any dates.
Senator Wallin: I would like to make a few comments. This is a very interesting list, and all a part of exactly what we should be doing. The way I approach this is that the narrower our focus, the more useful we will be in terms of collecting the information. I think that as we begin to morph our role in Afghanistan, it would be useful to hear from the three commanders. Their words will give us some guidance and direction in terms of how we might narrow the focus of our activities. It might be policing on the ground or it might turn out to be policing there and some other issues we can deal with here in Ottawa and still take testimony on.
Again, on issues like the border, it is so expansive and the topic is so huge that we should be looking for ways to narrow that down a little bit so that we might be really constructive. Certainly one of the issues that is of interest to many of the members is the whole question of perimeter and whether or not we should be looking again at that question with a new group in Washington these days.
There was certainly interest, amongst our members here, on the question of the RCMP and following up on the Brown report. It is an extensive and detailed report, and maybe what we could be useful in doing is conducting an assessment, from our point of view, of that report. With that basic work complete, we could look at it and pull out what we want to highlight.
There was also general interest on CSIS, and of course, the ongoing interest that we have in how we are dealing with our veteran's — young and old — in this country.
Back to point one: maybe, in speaking to the three commanders, we might also want to look more specifically, over the next few months, at the question of the navy.
There is certainly lots of shared interest here in what the topics and our task should be. The toughest task, as the chair laid out, is that we essentially have 10 working days, and if we go to Washington and Afghanistan, we have many fewer. Really we should wrestle some of these issues in terms of what we can reasonably do in the time frame.
Senator Tkachuk: The document you circulated indicates that we have only 10 days, but in reality, we have until March 30, 2010.
The Chair: That is true.
Senator Tkachuk: We should be looking at this as a year-long study. It is just consequential that it happens to be between now and June, but it is really between now and March. That expanded time will include many meeting days during which time we may decide on our topics and our points of interest.
I think that the border study is a topic that we could focus on. It is something that both the President and the Prime Minister raised at their meetings. It is a good time for us. There is a better feeling amongst Canadians since the Obama election for us to talk about common border security. It would be nice for us to catch up on previous committee work to see where we are and at least to analyze where we can go next, with some confidence that we will not be seen as being too "cozy'' with the Americans.
I support spending the spring looking at this issue. If we have the 10 meeting days, we would be able to cover a lot of territory between now and the end of June and deliver a really good report into the chamber before we leave in the middle of June.
Senator Meighen: I agree with Senator Tkachuk. You and I had a brief discussion, though perhaps neither of us expressed ourselves very clearly. I am not convinced that a trip to Afghanistan — which is a time-consuming and expensive operation, as we all know — is required this spring, as opposed to the fall. As I recall, we went once in September. It is a bit hotter.
I think the border — with the Obama administration coming in — is something of real import and urgency.
As far as the Brown report is concerned, I am missing something. I think the whole question of the RCMP morale, pay and resources, is important. The Brown report — and I confess I have not read it — studies the pension and insurance plan, and allegations concerning the RCMP administration.
While very important — you are shaking your head.
The Chair: It is far more comprehensive than that.
Senator Meighen: I am reading from a matter of transfer report of the independent investigator in a matter relating to RCMP pension and insurance plans. While I am quite prepared to believe it has an important effect on morale and retention and everything else, I am just raising the flag that I would need to be convinced that we should get into a study of the fallout from the pension plan allegations in the financial sense.
The Chair: Senator, allow me to provide you with a copy of the Brown report.
Senator Meighen: I have it. I will read it tonight and withhold any further comment.
I do not want to get into a financial study, but I am happy to get into a study on the status of the RCMP and the discharging of its responsibilities and role.
The Chair: For the record, the Brown report is a comprehensive report on virtually every aspect of policing in the RCMP, running from how families are treated, to back-up policies, to their ability to provide support at the border, to the resources they have to undertake the responsibilities provided to them.
The pension plan is, perhaps, 30 per cent of the report and 60 per cent has far more to do with how police personnel live, function, and deal with the public. I think everyone should have a copy of it and if they do not we can undertake to obtain copies.
There are copies here and if we could distribute that it would be a useful exercise.
Senator Nolin: I have two comments. Concerning Afghanistan concerning I think there is a lot in the air because of the new administration. That is probably why Mr. Mulroney recommended going to Washington before doing anything else and I think that is very good advice. It is likely that Washington does not know what to ask when representatives are in Strasbourg next month.
I agree that we should begin with our study in Washington and then the committee should reflect before planning a trip to Afghanistan. The Strasbourg meeting will be so short that all G20 countries will come out of it unhappy. Nothing will be resolved in Strasbourg in April and I agree that a visit to Washington is an important beginning. We should be well organized in our meetings in Washington and after that we should revisit the rest. I am not sure the commander of ISAF is even aware of what he will do in six months.
Next, on CSIS; I am hearing that the leadership wants to recreate the Special Senate Committee on the Anti- terrorism Act. I sat on that committee and I would have liked them to resolve the relationship between this committee and the Special Senate Committee on the Anti-terrorism Act. I do not think they have resolved that issue. I see Senator Day, who sat with me on that committee. Until we see the nature and the mandate of that committee, why do you not hold on to the CSIS study?
The Chair: My understanding from the leadership is that the committee will be shut down after it finishes this piece of legislation.
Senator Nolin: I do not know. We will see in the future what they want to do. I thought that, too, but I had a discussion with Senator Smith.
The Chair: Senator Smith wants the committee to function.
Senator Cowan wants to shut it down. Senator Cowan is the leader, not Senator Smith.
Senator Nolin: I am just raising that point.
Senator Mitchell: I would like to argue for the Afghanistan study and trip. As Senator Tkachuk appropriately said in justification of his border study, it was a topic of discussion, between President Obama and Prime Minister Harper. If it supports the one argument it certainly supports the other.
Second, the U.S. has made quite a strong commitment to increase the number of military forces and in some senses that makes it easier to stay. It makes it easier to go and it certainly makes it easier for us to shift our focus from front line, more aggressive action, to more support for development elsewhere. That quite dramatically shifts the parameters within which we might evaluate what we are doing there.
Third, in something that was almost startling to me in a statement either last night or the night before, the Prime Minister actually shifted the Afghanistan initiative by saying that we cannot win there. That raises serious and important questions about what we are doing there and how we are doing it if he is to change his opinion so fundamentally.
I argue for those reasons that there is urgency about studying Afghanistan. Of all the things we are doing in this committee and of all the issues that would fall under our parameters, surely Afghanistan is the most significant and the most urgent.
Senator Wallin: Just in fairness, on the point about whether or not we can win in Afghanistan.
Senator Mitchell: I am not finished yet.
Second, for the record — and of course I will not win these two but I would like to put them on the record and begin the process of thinking about them. One is women in the forces, their condition and numbers. A subset of that is the application of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 through our forces, which is, of course, the United Nations resolution that concerns women in conflict and women in the process after conflict, which is very significant. Second is Afghanistan women and third is climate change as an emerging defence and security risk and an issue in the world which might begin to require us to focus on that issue.
Senator Wallin: Can I just clarify the record?
The Chair: I have Senator Atkins next.
Senator Wallin: Well then this is a point of order then.
The Chair: It is not a point of order here.
Senator Wallin: We cannot leave on the record that the Prime Minister has changed the ground totally by saying we cannot win.
The Chair: Why not? The world does not come to a stop if it does. You can correct that any time you like, Senator Wallin.
Senator Atkins: I am not a member of the committee but I have a question and a comment.
Why has no one dealt with the idea of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs?
The Chair: We have not dealt with that subcommittee because the clerk asked that it be delayed until we get this business out of the way. In the past the subcommittee has not been stood up at this meeting; it is only stood up in a subsequent one.
Senator Atkins: But it is not being forgotten?
The Chair: It definitely is not being forgotten.
Senator Atkins: The only comment I will make is that I think your first item with regard to the strength of the army and air force and navy is fundamental to many things that this committee will address.
The fact of the matter is that the military is being stretched to its limit and even a little bit beyond. They are probably finding that out just dealing with the security of the Olympics, let alone anything else. Having watched television interviews with senior officers and people talking about the military, they refer to the fact that if the military were to be asked to do anything else they would be in a difficult situation.
As you know, one of our committee reports goes back several years. We went back to the fundamentals because of our concern for the military and how thinly they are being stretched. I argue that the committee should make this issue a priority.
Senator Wallin: In terms of the parameters of the Afghanistan discussion, I agree with Senator Nolin that we should take the advice of the three commanders if we are lucky enough to meet with them next Monday. We should hear their views as we look at the thinking from the ground view. It would also be helpful to talk to others here on the ground.
I agree that the trip to Washington would be helpful in terms of making the decision. I do not think we have a new topic based on the Prime Minister's remarks. No NATO leader, prime minister or president has said there would be any kind of win as we tend to see those things in terms of black hats, white hats and victory day parades. We have also looked at this whole activity on the ground as preparing the Afghans to take control of their own security and governance.
There is no demarcation that he stated what I think is fairly obvious — that you never bring an insurgency to an end. The question is: Are you bringing the Afghan forces, government and individuals up to speed?
I want to get off a topic that I do not think is a fair assessment of what was said or what anyone has intended regarding their assessment of the situation that, somehow, we will not win and so that changes the game. I think he was very specific in his comments.
Senator Nolin: Senator Mitchell was correct to mention climate change as a security concern. Many of us are raising that issue at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. This idea is a new strategic concept in NATO and this committee should look at it. I do not expect the government to seek Parliament's thinking on the new strategic concept, but it is definitely an important discussion in many parliaments within the NATO alliance.
We should probably put our heads together for the very reason that we are involved in the North and are affected by climate change. That will become a huge security question. It is leading the thinking of more southern countries as a concern. Maybe we should have a closer look at what we want to see as Canadians in the new NATO strategic concept.
The Chair: Are there any other comments at the moment?
Senator Banks: Did I understand you to say that Deputy Minister Mulroney wants the committee to go to Afghanistan in May or did he choose those dates as a result of questions asked of him?
The Chair: No, I invited him over for coffee and we talked about Afghanistan. In the course of the meeting, I asked him if the committee was interested in going to Afghanistan, when would be a good time. He said that May would be a good time as he has a gap then. Otherwise, he is limiting access to the area. I replied that although I could not know how the committee would decide, why not pencil us in for May and we will get back to you after our first meeting.
However, I am in a conundrum because the conversation about Washington was entirely within the context of visiting Afghanistan and he used that rationale for us to go to Washington. I am not sure he would have the same view otherwise. My experience with arranging visits in Washington is that you do not see Richard Holbrooke or James Jones when you go unless someone like Mr. Mulroney makes a phone call and says, "I want you to see these guys.'' We have not seen a national security adviser in six years and we have not seen someone who bats in Holbrooke's league in that time either.
I have been visualizing the conversation with Mr. Mulroney tomorrow where I would say that the committee is lukewarm about going to Afghanistan in May, but perhaps some other time in the year. My guess is that he will say: "Then let us schedule Washington, if and when, you decide you want to go to Afghanistan.''
I know he had a purpose in mind and it had to do with an impact he thought we would have. A lot of it was based on what we had done on our last trip. That proved to be a useful document for the government and that was why he suggested it. It is the first time I have had a senior official suggest we should go to Washington in a specific way like this.
Senator Wallin: Perhaps we could ask David Mulroney to come next Monday. I do not know if we will get all three chiefs of staff and if we can work everything into the agenda. However, it would be useful to set aside 10 minutes or 15 minutes and have him come to tell us a bit about it. I am not sure the word "lukewarm'' is correct. I think we are strategically trying to figure out what is most useful for us to do and whether we can make a contribution in the debate going forward. Perhaps Mr. Mulroney could come and have that conversation in a larger group to make the case.
The Chair: I do not think there is the possibility of a 15 minute anything. I do not think meetings like that exist. He and I spent 90 minutes together and I still had 20 things I wanted to bring up. From what I know of committee members, they have even more questions than I have. If you want to have Mr. Mulroney come, we should have at least a 90-minute session.
Senator Wallin: That is great.
The Chair: I am happy to arrange that. On the other hand, there may be ways to see Mr. Mulroney before next Monday. In my experience, it is extraordinarily unusual to find the chiefs of land, air and naval staff all available on the same day and prepared to come and talk to us. It does not happen very often.
Senator Meighen: Would it be useful if the steering committee — and anyone else you may desire who is able to join — were to try to see Mr. Mulroney between now and next Monday?
Senator Wallin: That would be great.
Senator Meighen: I agree with you, for the three chiefs to be available is quite unusual. You will wait a long time to do that again.
Senator Wallin: That is a great suggestion.
Senator Nolin: Did I hear you talking about the Afghan presidential election in May? Officially, it is still set for May, but, unofficially, everyone is talking about August and September now.
Senator Moore: No, it is the other way around.
Senator Meighen: It is supposed to be in August and he wants to move it up.
The Chair: His mandate ends now and that is his excuse for moving it forward.
Senator Nolin: So it will not happen in May?
The Chair: We all hope not, but that is a question that has not been worked through yet.
Senator Nolin: That is why I do not think it will be in May.
The Chair: What is relevant is Mr. Mulroney has adopted a policy of allowing only one group a month. Anything more than that, he feels, stresses or distracts the people there from doing their work. Frankly, when you take a look at the people he is talking about lining us up with, if it was not him talking, I would have said, "What are you smoking?''
Senator Nolin: Do you know the answer?
The Chair: Camel Lights.
Senator Meighen: I would be interested in your reaction to my suggestion. I do not know if it is feasible to have the steering committee with others. That is the first question.
Observation number 2 is — and you will forgive me because I still bear the scars — if we were to go to Afghanistan, I would like us to think carefully about how we do it. We cannot expose ourselves to criticism in this difficult time for a great many people of unnecessarily spending — sometimes, as you well know, the accusations are totally ill founded — but of spending a great deal of taxpayers dollars on something that was not essential. That is something that must be watched very carefully.
The Chair: The answer to your first question is I am chair of the committee and I would certainly undertake to arrange a meeting of the steering committee and others who wanted to join. I should caution you that the more people join, the more time it takes; it takes an hour or an hour and a half if you are to get into the subjects because we talk a lot and he talks a lot and you are only part way through the issue.
Senator Meighen: I am quite content for the steering committee to go alone.
Senator Nolin: I like the idea of the steering committee, too.
The Chair: I think there is a package element between the two of them. I think his reason for calling Mr. Holbrooke or Mr. Jones is saying, "They are going over there and I think you should talk to them because they will come back and they will write a report and we would like their report to look right.''
Senator Wallin: To comment on that, again, so there is no misunderstanding, I think if there is a decision of the committee that we, for some reason, should not go to Afghanistan or if it turns out that circumstances prevent us from going, I think all we are saying is that the Washington trip also stands alone. It may be more difficult, I agree, for Mr. Mulroney to guarantee the guest list, but I think it is useful for us in the context to keep that on the agenda. I think everyone agrees totally that, from Mr. Mulroney's point of view, these two trips were linked for a reason.
The Chair: The committee holds it own in Congress and we have never had problems meeting with our congressional opposite numbers. The administrations in the past have been very different stories. Frankly, the embassy in Washington has tended to save its face cards for ministers and we have not had good experiences with them. What we have here is the ADM in charge of the files telling me he wants to play a few of his ace cards for the committee.
Senator Moore: We should seize the opportunity.
The Chair: However, I think it is in the context of a report coming out on Afghanistan. All I am saying is that I did not sit down and plot this out; it was thrust my way and as it came my way, I just kept grabbing at it — that is all.
Senator Wallin: Absolutely agreed.
The Chair: I need some guidance. Am I going to go back to the deputy and say that the committee has not made up its mind on Afghanistan but members would like you to proceed with Washington, or suggest to him to come to speak with us and convince us that a visit to Afghanistan is a good idea.
Senator Wallin: I do not think any of it is mutually exclusive. Could we not agree that the steering committee meet quickly with Mr. Mulroney, maybe next Monday in the hour leading up to this committee or some other time, that we have him continue to put Afghanistan on hold, as you say, to save the spot until we have had that conversation with him — but that is a week; and also the same for Washington, that we can just proceed with plans but let us have some general conversation with him.
The Chair: If we were to go ahead on Monday, it would mean seeing Leslie at 1:30; Watt at —
Senator Meighen: Is that the time they are available?
The Chair: No, I am trying to find a time when we can get it done when there could be both media and so that we do not go all day. I am trying to get it as late in the day as I can that still includes media. It would mean the last witness coming on — my times are off. They are all typos; I have to correct it. It is roughly 1 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Senator Wallin: Regarding the point that has been brought to our attention — and I am very sorry about this — we are discussing dates, times and places in a meeting that is not in camera. I think that is not prudent behaviour in terms of timing.
The Chair: We have the capacity to go in camera and come out of camera again if we want to go on to things like budgets. I would entertain a motion to go in camera right now if you chose.
Senator Moore: I so move.
The Chair: Before we vote on it, I would ask the reporter to stay and continue to keep a transcript. We should talk aloud so everyone will know the deal.
Senator Wallin: Can you be helpful? My concern is that we just had this conversation.
The Chair: The clerk suggests that we have a motion that we keep it in the clerk's office and then destroy it at the end of the session. I say let us just not keep a transcript and have a meeting in camera and recommence the meeting. This could settle things among ourselves anyway.
We will need a motion in public if we need a budget. I ask the staff to stay in the area and expect us to have a 20- or 30-minute conversation on the subject, if the committee is agreeable.
Senator Wallin: For the record, before we go in camera, I wish to say that all the dates that we discussed are all subject to change in terms of our travel and that nothing has been agreed to. It is just a precaution.
The Chair: Actually, more than that, the dates are not clear about anything to do with Afghanistan because we probably would have stops on the way and on the way back.
Senator Mitchell: With respect to the argument that Senator Wallin makes about not being too specific about the agenda or what we would do in Washington at this time, as I understand it from what you are saying, we will lose leverage if we do not make a commitment to go to Afghanistan before we have those discussions.
The Chair: Can we continue this in camera?
Senator Wallin: Yes. Thank you.
The Chair: There is a motion on the floor that we go in camera and ask the staff to remain available because we expect to go back on the record shortly thereafter.
Those in favour?
Senator Moore: Are the remaining staff committee staff?
The Chair: The committee clerk.
Senator Moore: Not Senate staff?
The Chair: No.
Senator Moore: They should leave the room?
The Chair: Yes. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Carried.
(The committee continued in camera.)