Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 10 - Evidence - October 26, 2009
OTTAWA, Monday, October 26, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 3:05 p.m. to consider a draft report on the national security policy of Canada.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I would like to call the meeting to order.
Senator Banks: Honourable senators, I move:
That the committee proceed in camera, pursuant to rule 92(2)(f), for the consideration of a draft report; and
That senators' staff be permitted to remain in the room during the in camera portions of today's meeting; and
That the committee allow the transcription of this in camera meeting and that only one copy of the unedited transcript be kept for consultation by committee members in the committee clerk's office and that the transcript be destroyed by the clerk at the end of this parliamentary session.
This is the normal motion.
The Chair: Comments?
Senator Wallin: Obviously, at some point we will go in camera. I sent a note to all members of the committee. I want to say for the public record that we are trying to approach this whole discussion on a more cooperative basis. We felt we had made progress in that regard last week. Then, we have more unilateral decisions taken by the chair in terms of timing that makes it extremely difficult for committee members to get here. I had to try and get on another plane from Toronto when the time was changed. It seems unnecessary that we are treated this way.
I would please ask in future that meetings be kept to the time we have agreed upon as a committee. Committee members, including myself, come from afar. We have to adhere to some schedule so that we can be effective in this committee. I would like to ask the chair that he not make these unilateral decisions.
I know you have changed the nature of the steering committee so that you do not need to have any Conservative involvement at all, if you want — or do not want. However, as a basic human show of respect, I wish we did not have to proceed this way.
The Chair: If you are asking me, I would be happy to talk further. The change in the size of the steering committee was a result of you not coming to the meetings.
Senator Wallin: No, that is not the case.
The Chair: I am sorry. I did not interrupt you —
Senator Wallin: That is not the case, and I will not have you say it over and over again. It is simply not true.
The Chair: Senator Wallin, you are out of order.
Senator Tkachuk: You are out of order.
Senator Wallin: I do not care if you want to rule that way, but you cannot repeatedly say things which are patently false, on the record. You simply cannot.
The Chair: Senator Wallin, I am sorry. I happen to disagree with you as to the truth.
Senator Tkachuk: Where is the evidence?
I am tired of him whining, Joe.
The Chair: May I finish my statement?
Senator Tkachuk: Finish.
The Chair: I will.
Senator Tkachuk: Finish.
The Chair: I will do that in my own time as I will allow you your own time.
I simply want to point out that Senator Wallin came to the door of a meeting and then left. Senator Wallin was also not prepared to meet on any number of other occasions —
Senator Wallin: No. You schedule meetings at 4:30 when you know full well, as I have informed you on repeated occasions, that I have a committee meeting. When I came to the door of that meeting that you referred to —
The Chair: This is not a debating society, Senator Wallin.
Senator Tkachuk: It is.
Senator Wallin: — no meeting had been constituted.
Senator Tkachuk: It is a debating society.
Senator Wallin: You have used this example on repeated occasions. It is inaccurate. It is wrong. It is untruthful. It is a lie. Let us not go there.
The Chair: No matter how often you say it —
Senator Wallin: No matter how often you say it does not make it true, either. Therefore, we will just keep fighting about it until you stop using it as the example.
The Chair: No, I am sorry — until you stop bringing it up. Every time you bring it up, you know that I will point out that you are not telling the truth.
Senator Wallin: No, I want you to take that statement back.
Senator Banks: It is true.
Senator Wallin: No, it is not true. He asked for meetings to be scheduled when I was on duty in the chamber. He scheduled meetings at 4:30 when I was due to be in the Foreign Affairs Committee, a committee I already sit on. I do not have the luxury of only sitting on one committee, so I have to make my schedule work. When I went to the door of that meeting, which had not yet been constituted, I asked what was up for discussion because we already had a discussion about the content.
Senator Banks: Then what happened?
Senator Wallin: I did not walk away from a meeting.
Senator Banks: Oh, somebody did, and there were only two people left in the room.
Senator Wallin: Is that a reason? Somebody disagrees with you so you should then take all Conservative voices off the committee and just have a meeting amongst yourselves and decide on everything?
The Chair: That is not what happened, Senator Wallin.
Senator Wallin: That is what you voted for.
The Chair: You added a Conservative voice to the committee. We have not taken any Conservative voices off the committee.
Senator Wallin: The numbers mean the Liberals can make any decision they want without a Conservative voice. You know that full well, so do not try and make this —
The Chair: Only if the Conservatives choose not to come the meeting.
Senator Wallin: No, only if you choose to hold a vote, which you do, and which you will win by numbers. We all know how the game is played. We are trying to see if we cannot have some adult behaviour on this committee.
Senator Banks: Point of order, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Yes, Senator Banks?
Senator Banks: Has the steering committee to which Senator Wallin now refers, and in the form to which Senator Wallin now refers, ever had a meeting and ever taken a vote?
Senator Wallin: We would not know.
The Chair: Then why do you make accusations?
Senator Banks: To my recollection, it has not. To my recollection, that has never happened.
Senator Wallin: Was today a unilateral decision, then, by the chair?
Senator Banks: Correct. Chairs of committees of the Senate call meetings of the committees of the Senate without reference to steering committees.
The Chair: Senator Tkachuk, did you want the floor?
Senator Tkachuk: I do not know what the point of order was. What was the point of order? Was it the fact that we have never had a meeting of the new steering committee?
Senator Banks: Yes.
Senator Tkachuk: Well, we did. I was at it.
Senator Banks: I mean one in the form in which no Conservative senator was present.
Senator Tkachuk: I have no idea.
Senator Wallin: We do not know about those meetings. That is the point.
Senator Banks: There have not been any.
The Chair: Senator Banks has a motion on the floor. Are there any further comments?
Senator Tkachuk: No, he does not have a motion.
The Chair: Yes, he does.
Senator Tkachuk: I have some points I would like to make about the fact that you called this meeting unilaterally. You called it at 3:00 on Thursday afternoon. The practice has been to get agreement of the whips to meet outside regular meeting hours. There was no such agreement in this case, nor was agreement sought, from what I understand. Also, from what I understand, everything was done to avoid such an agreement.
This type of behaviour sets a bad precedent, not only for this committee, but for all committees that need to operate according to a mutually agreed-upon practice in the absence of specific rules. Proper notice of the meeting was not given. While technically the notice arrived on time, it showed contempt for the work of the senators by being sent out at the last minute on the last day of the week, and there is no justification for this.
Meeting notices for the previous two meetings were sent at 11:00 in the morning. There were no last-minute witnesses we were waiting to hear from that could account for the delay in sending out the notice. You could have told us about this meeting on Tuesday. You could have talked to the deputy chair on Wednesday. You could have talked to her after the meeting on Monday, after our previous meeting. However, at no time did you make the effort to call the deputy chair of the committee to consult on whether this would be agreeable for all members here.
Therefore, I raise great objection to this meeting even taking place at this time. It should take place at 4:00. As usual, we are going through a little bit of a "pig fight'' here, which will probably take us until 4:00 anyway. We will waste all the time arguing because of your behaviour, Mr. Chair. That is simply not the way to conduct business.
We have been through this before on many, many occasions. You make promises that you will consult the deputy chair, as you did in the past, and then you do not do it.
Therefore I object not only to the meeting, but I object to the fact that we will be in camera.
The Chair: Are there other comments?
Senator Banks: It is merely a comment. Since this committee was formed, it has never been the practice to consult with whips to determine meeting times. I get up at five o'clock in the morning to get here on this day, and I know other senators do something similar. I come here to work, not to argue about whether we should be working.
Senator Tkachuk: You know, Senator Banks —
The Chair: Senator Tkachuk, would you like the floor?
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, I would.
The Chair: You have the floor.
Senator Tkachuk: First of all, Senator Banks, maybe you have no other work to do than this committee, but I do and I have other meetings. As a matter of fact, I have one at 3:30, which the chair and you were well aware of. That is why I object to this meeting. It is not because I do not want to work — and I hate that inference, Senator Banks — but the meeting was supposed to take place from 4:00 until 7:00.
That does not mean we cannot make extra time. All the chair had to do was call our deputy chair. I think after the good meeting we had last Monday, we probably would have given an extension in the time. We may have even suggested that we go to 8:30 rather than meet at 3:00, but that is not what happened, Senator Banks, because the chair does not care about our schedule. That is the point.
Senator Banks: I do not think that is true.
Senator Wallin: He has a meeting at 3:30.
Senator Tkachuk: It is true.
Senator Wallin: It is a fact.
The Chair: I am sorry, but just because you say it is true does not make it true.
Senator Tkachuk: What are you talking about?
Senator Wallin: He does not have a meeting?
Senator Tkachuk: Are you saying I am lying?
The Chair: It is easy to say that. I am not talking about that in the least.
Senator Wallin: Every week.
Senator Tkachuk: Every Monday at 3:30.
The Chair: I understand that, and if you want to go out and politic —
Senator Wallin: If you understand it, why do you keep calling meetings?
The Chair: Will you keep quiet please, chair?
Senator Wallin: No, you are the chair — supposedly.
The Chair: Why do you not recognize it?
Senator Tkachuk: Why do you not recognize it and perhaps we would?
The Chair: Okay.
Now, we asked to go longer last time. You did not want to. You said —
Senator Tkachuk: That is not —
The Chair: You keep making up the fact that —
Senator Tkachuk: That is not true. We did sit longer than 7:00 last time.
The Chair: We did and we asked to continue further and you said no.
Senator Tkachuk: That is right.
Senator Wallin: We were all in agreement.
The Chair: You pretend that the whips have something to do with when we sit, but they do not. The Speaker has ruled on that matter. I sent a letter to you and others. On November 3, 2003, the Speaker ruled that the whips do not — and he does not — have anything to do with the times that we sit outside of when the Senate is sitting. You keep making up this myth that they have something to do with it, and they do not.
Senator Tkachuk: Mr. Chair, that is true. In the legal sense, they do not because there are no rules that govern this. There are only rules of gentlemen and gentle-ladies. That is the only rule we have, because if we all took your attitude, there would be chaos; no one would be able to sit at any time for any meeting.
The Chair: No, that is —
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, that is true, Mr. Chair. Most people adhere to this rule so that there can be some order in this place and so that we can our lives, our schedules, our time and other legislative business that we have to do. That is why we have that rule.
If you continue to abuse this rule, we will have a rule in the Senate that will tell you exactly what time to meet. That is what is going to happen because you cannot obey gentlemen's rules.
The Chair: I am sorry, but you are making judgments that, again, are not correct.
Senator Tkachuk: It is a debatable point, I think. It is not a factual point, but it is definitely a debatable point, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: When you smile, you are very charming, Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: I try to be.
The Chair: Having said that —
Senator Tkachuk: I am doing my best here.
The Chair: From time to time you are successful at it. The point I am simply making is that you regularly tell us when —
If you are looking for the floor, Senator Wallin, I am the person that gives the floor.
Senator Wallin: Well, you were talking, so I just want it noted.
The Chair: You regularly tell us that it is the whips that decide these things, and the whips do not decide these things. The whips have never decided these things, by direction of the Senate.
Senator Tkachuk: They will soon.
The Chair: They may well, but you have been pretending for a long time that they do —
Senator Tkachuk: I have never pretended.
The Chair: — and they do not. You have said, "Well, I am sorry, but the whip says we have to go at 7:00 or we cannot start before 3:00.'' I simply took the trouble to do the research to ensure just what the rules are. This is a rules- based institution.
Senator Wallin thinks that what you say is correct. She turns to you, quite reasonably, because you have been around for awhile, and she believes that this is something that the rules require. I have an email from Senator Wallin that says because the whips have not agreed to this time, it is an illegal meeting. Well, it is not.
Senator Tkachuk: The two party leaders agreed to this, so it is fine.
The Chair: I am sorry, but it is not a rule of the Senate.
Senator Tkachuk: I did not say it was.
The Chair: The whips do not have the authority that you are suggesting they do. I have it in writing from Senator Wallin that she thinks that it is illegal to do this, and it is not. For you to suggest that I have been behaving improperly is not true.
Senator Tkachuk: Fine.
The Chair: I have not been a party to any agreement about what time this committee should sit.
Senator Tkachuk: That is fine, Mr. Chair. Call it whenever you want.
The Chair: I appreciate that. Let the record show that —
Senator Tkachuk: Call it whenever you want, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Let the record show that Senator Tkachuk says I should call it whenever I want.
Senator Tkachuk: Call it whenever you want.
The Chair: Fine.
The Chair: We have a motion on the floor from Senator Banks.
Senator Wallin: Actually, I have a comment to make.
The Chair: Would you like the floor, Senator Wallin?
Senator Wallin: Yes, I would; I do not want you to take me out of context.
Yes, there are rules that govern certain things, and then there is, as my colleague suggested, the basic rule of decent and respectful behaviour among colleagues. That is what we are asking for.
You simply decide to change meetings unilaterally, we are told now, not even in consultation with the members of your own steering committee. That just decide to do it and you just do it is precisely what we are talking about.
People have other commitments and responsibilities here at the Senate. It is not, as Senator Banks would imply, that somehow we do not want to come to work. We are all working very hard, and we need schedules that are respected and predictable so that we can accomplish all of the things that we set out to accomplish here.
I am asking for a little show of respect to other times, to other work commitments that we all have as senators. That is what we are asking for. We would like to hear from you that, in the future, you will show us that respect by, at the very least, consulting.
Senator Banks: May I ask a question of Senator Wallin?
The Chair: Senator Wallin, may Senator Banks ask you a question?
Senator Wallin: Sure.
Senator Banks: Just so we know where we are going here with respect to meeting times, do you think, as I do, that this committee ought to be able to meet for no less time during a week than any other committee of the Senate meets, given the importance of the matters with which this committee deals, in other words, no less than four hours?
Senator Wallin: I cannot answer that question. Committees meet at different times for different reasons. Given that the National Security and Defence Committee is a new committee, relatively speaking, I gather that it was allotted Mondays so as not to conflict with other days; but it does conflict with other activities that are Senate related.
The committee needs to meet for the length of time it needs to meet to accomplish its objectives. That should be done in consultation and with some respect for other people's commitments and obligations. That is all I am saying.
Senator Banks: As you say, the committee is relatively new. It is nine years old. For more than eight of those years, the committee, as a matter of course when the committee agreed, used to meet for sometimes six or seven and sometimes three hours on those Mondays.
My question to you was: Given the importance of the work and the purview of this committee, do you generally think that the committee probably ought to meet in a week at least as many hours as any other committee meets?
Senator Wallin: I generally think that the committee should meet within the hours prescribed so that all honourable senators can conduct their business and attend to other matters of the Senate in a coherent way.
When I arrived at the Senate and signed up for the Defence Committee, I was told when it met. I was able to take on the duties of the Defence Committee, not only because I think this work is incredibly important and the substance of the issues that we deal with are fundamental to our country, but I took it on with a prescribed set of, roughly, the timing and the rules and a time slot so that I could make that work with the two other committees that I sit on and other commitments that I have related to Senate activities.
The Chair: Senator Banks, this is becoming a debate.
Senator Banks: Thank you.
The Chair: Could we have the question, please; would you like to reread the motion?
Senator Banks: Yes. The motion, which is the normal one that every committee deals with when it goes in camera to discuss a report, is the following:
That the committee proceed in camera, pursuant to rule 92(2)(f) for the consideration of the draft report; and
That senators' staff be permitted to remain in the room during the in camera portions of today's meeting; and
That the committee allow the transcription of this in camera meeting and that only one copy of the unedited transcript be kept for consultation by committee members in the committee clerk's office and that that transcript be destroyed by the clerk at the end of this parliamentary session.
The Chair: Those in favour? Opposed?
Senator Moore: Mr. Chair, I raised my hand. I wanted to make an amendment.
The Chair: I am sorry, Senator Moore.
Senator Moore: I concur with what Senator Banks has said, but I want to add to it that people who remain in the room shall have their electronic devices turned off.
Senator Tkachuk: Including senators?
Senator Moore: Sure, if you want.
Senator Banks: Mainly senators.
The Chair: Dealing with the amendment first, those in favour of the amendment — I have asked for an exception for the clerk.
Senator Moore: Fine.
Senator Tkachuk: I am fine.
The Chair: — That amendment will read that all members, with the exception of the clerk, turn off their electronic equipment. Those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Now for the main motion, as amended. Those in favour of it? Opposed? Carried.
I am just waiting for a moment to turn off my machine.
Senator Tkachuk: Did you vote?
The Chair: I did not have to. It was carried.
Senator Tkachuk: I do not think so. If you did not vote, it was a tie. Did you vote?
The Chair: No, I did not vote.
Senator Tkachuk: Then, it was a tie.
Shaila Anwar, Clerk of the Committee: You declared the motion carried in both cases.
The Chair: I did declare it carried, I am told.
Senator Tkachuk: I know, but it was a tie. It was 4 to 4.
The Chair: It is up to the chair to determine the result of the vote. I think it was carried.
(The committee continued in camera.)
OTTAWA, Monday, November 16, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 1:41 p.m., in public and in camera, for the consideration of a draft report on the national security policy of Canada.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, Senator Banks will be late; he will be here in 15 minutes. I am told Senator Zimmer is in the building, but I am in favour of getting on with our meeting. If you are agreeable, I will call the meeting to order.
Senator Tkachuk: I wanted —
Senator Wallin: I want to report as well.
Senator Tkachuk: On the Tuesday prior to the break week, there was a motion passed in the Senate regarding our steering committee. I understand from the clerk that it does not require a motion in committee to recognize the Senate motion. I simply wanted to report on that and get the agreement of all senators that what happened in the Senate is what will happen in the committee. The committee will follow the instructions of the Senate motion as far as the steering committee is concerned.
The Chair: That goes without saying.
Senator Tkachuk: I know, but I only wanted it on the record that we recognize the motion.
Senator Wallin: I want to report to the committee that, pursuant to the decision agreed to at the committee meeting held May 25, 2009, to split funds in the budgetary category for promotion of reports, meetings, other matters related to committee business, et cetera, between both parties, approximately $4,000 was expended by the deputy chair on a trip to Regina from October 29 to November 1 to visit RCMP Depot, and that the amount be certified as payable from the committee's budget.
Second, pursuant to the same specification I just said, approximately $17,000 in funds was expended by the deputy chair for a trip to Afghanistan from November 9 to November 14 for the purpose of visiting troops on Remembrance Day, and that the amount be certified as payable from the committee's budget.
The Chair: I think that is a report to the steering committee, but this is fine.
Senator Wallin: Just do it here. Is there anything else I need to do, clerk, based on that? Okay.
Senator Tkachuk: To be clear, my understanding was that when it is reported that either the chair or the deputy chair goes somewhere, it is to be reported to the committee. Are there instructions that it is to be reported to the steering committee, or are we only assuming that?
The Chair: The instructions were to report it to the steering committee. I have no problems having it reported to the full committee.
Senator Tkachuk: If I remember correctly, you reported it to the steering committee meeting we had at 170 or 168.
The Chair: Right.
Senator Tkachuk: It was a steering committee meeting, not a committee meeting?
The Chair: Correct.
Senator Tkachuk: During that steering committee meeting, are the reasons for the trip also to be reported? If I remember correctly, I asked you about that and you did not wish to answer that question.
The Chair: Correct.
Senator Tkachuk: I think that is important.
The Chair: I will be reporting to the steering committee today, which is the prescribed procedure. I am indicating in general terms what I am doing as, Senator Wallin has — generically where I have gone and with whom I met.
Senator Tkachuk: If I remember correctly, in the last steering committee meeting, you reported the costs of your trip.
The Chair: Correct.
Senator Tkachuk: I enquired about the purpose the trip and you said it was none of my business.
The Chair: Correct.
Senator Tkachuk: Will that be the tenor of future reports to the steering committee?
The Chair: No. What I did was to look up how ministers were declaring publicly and followed that.
Senator Tkachuk: We are not ministers.
The Chair: I understand that, but that is the model I am using, and it is as detailed as what Senator Wallin has provided to us.
Senator Tkachuk: I think Senator Wallin is willing to answer questions.
Senator Wallin: Yes, that is the next thing I wanted to address after Senator Tkachuk's speech.
Particularly in the case of the trip to Depot, it is obviously relevant in terms of discussions we are having on an ongoing basis. Second, I would be happy to answer any questions from anyone about what I saw, heard and learned in Afghanistan, either for anyone's personal interest or because it is relevant to decisions we might make here.
The Chair: With respect, if we could keep those to the end of meeting.
Senator Wallin: I will not be here at the end of meeting.
The Chair: With respect, if we could keep them to the next meeting.
Senator Tkachuk: Could we ask a question on Depot? What were your impressions from the tour you had there? That is relevant to what we will be discussing.
Senator Wallin: I will try to be brief. I understand the chair's concern.
I found it most interesting. I had a complete tour of the facility, and I had not been there before. We had a complete run-through of their training program, including going to the locations they have on site where they do real training — a drug house, a store, a back alley, et cetera — to look at how they have revamped the entire training process there. It is an ongoing work in progress. I found that most interesting, because I think they really have started to figure out the complexities of today's world, and they are trying to teach that in the best possible way they can. Most of it is hands- on.
I guess I was really quite taken aback by the level of recruiting and the nature of the recruits. I met two women recruits, in particular, whom I thought were fascinating. One is a young woman who is probably in her mid-twenties and who has a four-year degree in criminology. She said she walked into her temple to see an RCMP recruiting poster. As she described, it "the penny dropped,'' and she said, "This is what I want to do.'' She went home to her East Indian family, and she laughed and said, "You can imagine how that went over'' in the cultural context of her family. Her folks and her family were there. They now think it is terrific. She is being posted to Northern Canada and has become a beacon, even in her own community.
The second startling one was a middle-aged woman with three grown children. She had secretly done all her initial contacts with the RCMP, and when she was accepted, she sat down and talked to her husband, who said, "This is fabulous. Why did you not tell me? I am with you; we will move wherever you need to go.''
You really see a lot of the things we heard in testimony about a very different kind of recruit and the difference it makes when recruits come to the table with years of real-life experience as opposed to coming in at 18 or 19. You really see the changing face. I talked to them specifically about the recruitment of women. They think it is proceeding very well and pointed out that you actually cannot force women to join; those who do join are joining willingly and becoming serious role models. The East Indian woman talked about that, particularly.
It was good to see how this put the meat on the bones for a lot of stuff we have been hearing about: the changing mentality, the changing teaching and learning experience, what they get in six months, the changing recruitment, and the changing nature of recruits. There may be things that I would like to see based on some of that reflected in our report and our discussion here, because I think some of the issues go right to point on that.
Those were my overall impressions. You see quite a wide variety of creeds and colours in the young recruits. I spoke to a graduating class. You have everything from Asian males who are four feet nine inches to white middle-aged females who are five feet ten. The kind of formalized standards have changed, so I think you really have a force there that is reflecting a lot of the reality of this country, and I think that is a very positive thing.
As we get to points of discussion on that, I may just make some comments at that point.
The Chair: I would prefer it if you did. I, too, have spent two days at Depot and came to very different conclusions.
Senator Wallin: When were you there?
The Chair: About a month ago.
Senator Wallin: What did you not see?
The Chair: I did not see minorities, and I did not see women.
Senator Wallin: You did not see minorities and women?
The Chair: That is right, and I have the figures to support it. It was a white-bread operation.
Senator Wallin: Was this a graduating class?
The Chair: Yes, I spoke to the graduating class and the whole nine yards. I spend two full days there.
Senator Wallin: And you did not see any minorities?
The Chair: Very few, and they are reflected by the figures that Depot has given us here, which are very low. We will have a discussion of it when we get to that point of the report.
Senator Wallin: I was quite astounded by what I saw.
The Chair: My troop was Troop 49. I saw all of the students — every one of them — parading. They gave me the picture of me inspecting, as they gave you.
Senator Wallin: I am astounded.
The Chair: You are astounded that I should go to Depot?
Senator Wallin: No, that you did not see minorities. I cannot believe that I was the only one who saw them. I saw beyond the class, as well.
The Chair: The figures we have contradict that there are a whole lot of minorities there. There are not. The same is true with the number of women.
Senator Wallin: I think 20 per cent women is pretty impressive. The women will tell you themselves that the thought that we might somehow get to 51 per cent because women want to sign up for the RCMP in the same ratio men do is just not a reality.
The Chair: That is your opinion.
Senator Wallin: It is the opinion of women who say that will not likely be reality in the short term. That is not a first choice.
The Chair: I hope you can support it.
Senator Tkachuk: Just as easily as the other opinion.
The Chair: It was being put to me as a fact.
If we could, perhaps we can go ahead with Chapter 3 of the report, page 31. I will point out that this has not been changed. It has typos and misspellings in it and things like that, and we agreed not to change the report. It has not been changed since September 25.
Senator Wallin: I think everybody has had a chance to look at the revised first 10 pages that we sent away for a rewrite. I think some of the things we agreed to as a committee are not reflected in the rewrite.
The Chair: When we get to go through the rewrite, it would be a good time to comment on it. We agreed today to go ahead and finish going through the remaining chapters.
Senator Wallin: I think the issue is that a lot of these things were agreed to by both sides, and when we send things back for a rewrite that we have agreed to — both parties, all sides — and they are not reflected, then it is hard to go ahead with the next stage.
The Chair: Senator Wallin, you are talking about something that has not been circulated and has not been translated. I do not know where —
Senator Wallin: You sent it back out.
The Chair: What you got was the introduction only of the first version.
Senator Wallin: The first 10 pages. You brought that back and gave it to the committee.
The Chair: Right.
Senator Wallin: It does not reflect the discussions we had as a committee, so I am a bit concerned about moving ahead and agreeing to certain changes when we do not see them reflected when they are sent back with that kind of instruction.
The Chair: The committee will decide that, I guess, as we go through it.
Senator Tkachuk: What is the point of us going through the report if the stuff that we have already gone through has not been taken into consideration? You have not taken the consideration of the committee for the first 10 pages. What would be the point of continuing this charade? We will either make changes that are reflected in the rewrite, or there is no point in continuing.
The Chair: I think we have made changes.
Senator Tkachuk: When the committee agrees to something, it agrees to something. It does not agree to something and then you get to change it back.
The Chair: With respect, there were —
Senator Tkachuk: I am trying to argue a point.
The Chair: With respect, in many cases, we did not come up with the exact words. We said we will leave that to the author to work out.
Senator Wallin: We agree with that, but let us take the Mr. Palango thing, which is a specific example that was not just about rewriting and leaving that to the drafters. As I recall, it was agreed by both sides that he would be removed in references. Now it has moved from page 10-11 of the original to page 4 of the first draft. He is being referenced again in this document as an expert on the RCMP.
The Chair: My recollection is that he is not in the report at all.
Senator Wallin: I know we agreed, but the draft we got back —
The Chair: Fine. I do not know anything about Mr. Palango's being in it.
Senator Wallin: But you distributed the document.
The Chair: I am sorry. I do not know what document you got, but I had Palango taken out of the report, and I do not know what you were looking at.
Senator Wallin: The redraft of the first 10 pages that we discussed was sent back and I believe at our last meeting, which would have been two weeks ago, was distributed. I think it was October 26, but I do not remember.
The Chair: All I can say is that you must have received the wrong piece of paper. I do not know where Palango is.
Senator Meighen: It is on page 4.
Senator Moore: Clear this up so we can get moving on here, would you?
Dan Turner, writer/editor: If I could be of assistance, a couple of redrafts was the process. The first redraft moved Palango to just a reference in passing. It was then made clear to me that the committee did not want Palango in at all. Palango has been removed and there is no Palango. This is a Palango-free report as of now. I am sorry if something got distributed that was in the process of being redrafted, because in the final draft, there is no Palango.
The Chair: I said take it out.
Senator Wallin: Okay, fine.
Senator Tkachuk: Where is that report, then?
Mr. Turner: A copy has been sent to the clerk. My understanding was that the redraft of the introduction in the first chapter was going to be considered by the committee after you went through Chapters 2, 3, 4 — but that is not up to me.
The Chair: What happened was that the notes that were done up went back; Mr. Turner did a redraft; I went through it and said "No, that is not what the committee said,'' and that was taken out.
Senator Tkachuk: Here is the problem though, Mr. Chair. We get this. This comes to us by email. We do not know what is going on in your head or in Mr. Turner's head, so we do not know that mistakes were made and that you gave him instructions and that there is a new copy. We do not know that. We are working off this copy, which now you tell us, 10 days later, is not the right copy.
The Chair: Right. All I can do is apologize.
Senator Tkachuk: All the work we did was for nothing.
The Chair: I am sorry; I apologize. I do not know how or why this got out without that change.
Senator Moore: We should not be doing piecemeal revisions and then sending them out. Let us go through this thing like we always do, and then we will have the redraft presented to us and we will go through that. We have our notes from the first go-through. We will get the redraft, whatever it is.
I do not want these things coming at me; every day or two, we are getting a little piece of this and a piece of that. I want to sit down at the committee, look at the whole thing, look at our notes on things we agreed to and then be done with it.
Senator Tkachuk: Senator Moore, I agree with you. My point is that we received this. The email came to us as a redraft. We then looked at it and said this does not reflect the intentions of the committee.
Senator Moore: Okay, we have heard that. I do not have it.
Senator Wallin: No, it was handed out at a committee meeting.
Senator Tkachuk: It was handed out at a committee meeting. We think this is the redraft, so we are working from this redraft, and now we are told that it was not the redraft, that there were intentions and mistakes made and it was redone again, but we have not received a copy of the redraft. We will see it today for the first time.
The Chair: No, you will not see it today, Senator Tkachuk, because we have not gone through these three chapters.
Senator Tkachuk: Okay.
The Chair: Okay?
Senator Wallin: You just want to move on.
Senator Tkachuk: As far as this is concerned, this is just garbage, right?
The Chair: Yes, and I apologize. When you said that Palango is still in, I was as surprised as anyone.
Senator Moore: Me, too.
Senator Wallin: It is really hard when we are given these documents to work from. There are not enough hours in the day as it is, and we go back —
The Chair: I do not know how many times I have to say I am sorry, but I have said it twice.
Senator Moore: Let us not rehash this. Let us get going here.
Senator Mitchell: Not to belabour this, but I absolutely appreciate the members' concerns if they felt that something untoward had occurred. However, I want to reassure them that this is not a conspiracy. I am a member of this committee; the Liberal members of this committee will not tolerate a draft that comes back that does not reflect what this committee agreed to. I assure you that we feel the same way about that as you do.
My concern would be that if we could just accept that we are in this together and we are not going to be manipulated by anyone. I do not think that is a factor at all in any event, but it will be what we agreed to. I would just like to get through it, so that we can get the second full draft and go back through that and not fight this each step of the way. I appreciate your concerns, but let me reassure you that you are not in this alone.
Senator Wallin: Part of the concern was — and I have tried to raise this at a couple of our previous meetings. I understand your point, too, and Senator Moore's point about kind of let us go through it and then come back to it, but the concern we have had right from the beginning is that we are uncomfortable with the tone of the entire report. Everyone and their dog are studying some aspect of the RCMP or its behaviour or its future; and the most recent report, as we know, was the latest one from the McAusland group.
It feels like we are the last ones at the table, and there is not a whole lot that we are saying in this document that is new or different or revelatory or instructive. It is, in general, a rehash which, as I say, has been done by many other groups.
We are starting from a faulty premise, which is what gives us some discomfort in addition to things like this happening, which I know the chair has apologized for. However, I think we have to wrestle with this basic issue about tenor and tone, because it is kind of fundamental to the report, the reason for the report, what the notion is. Is it supposed to be prescriptive? Is it just descriptive? Are we just looking at all the bad things that used to happen? Are we trying to move it forward? Is there any place for the reflection of the changes that have occurred and are in train right now?
Can we just go back for a moment, because some of us were not in on the initial discussion about what this report would look like. I think it happened at the East Coast base trip. If we could just have a basic understanding of what we are trying to do here, that would help, because rehashing this stuff is not getting us anywhere.
The Chair: I am sorry, but you are asking us to rehash and we have not hashed Chapter 3 on.
Senator Wallin: No, but I am not talking about Chapter 3 on; I am talking about the report.
The Chair: Just a minute, Senator Wallin. I am, too. Last time, we were thrown badly off base with the figures you presented to us, suggesting that everyone thought that the RCMP was running smoothly. In fact, —
Senator Wallin: What figures?
The Chair: You came forward with a report and you talked about 98 per cent of Canadians being happy with —
Senator Wallin: Well, there was a poll and there was certainly testimony taken by this committee.
The Chair: Right, and the testimony was very self-serving.
Senator Wallin: But that is your view.
The Chair: Just —
Senator Wallin: If there is not testimony to counter it.
The Chair: If you want the floor, Senator Wallin, go ahead.
Senator Wallin: What I am trying to raise here as an issue is that I do not think it meets the standard to simply say, "We took testimony, but we do not agree with it.'' If you do not agree with it and if you think for some reason that they are misrepresenting the changes or that the polls are inaccurate or that they lied in testimony or did not say, then you should present something to us, whether additional testimony or additional facts, that counters it. You and I cannot just sit here and say, "I think this and therefore it is going in the report,'' or you say "I think this and I think those people did not tell the truth so I will not put that in the report.'' We have to have a better standard than that for the information that makes the cut and goes into a document.
Senator Moore: Mr. Chair, look, we will get to that.
The Chair: Order.
Senator Moore: Let us get through this draft report, okay? Every editorial in the country talks about the lack of trust in the RCMP. We are going to try to write a paper here that will give some direction toward restoring that trust. That is what we are up to.
The Chair: That is correct. If I may have my turn now, Senator Wallin?
Senator Wallin: Sure.
The Chair: We have produced surveys that do not agree with your surveys, and we did produce surveys that showed that members of the RCMP did not agree with the process and they had very little confidence that the process that was being undertaken would move forward. The percentages were alarmingly high, 49 per cent, if I recall correctly.
I think Senator Moore is correct. By going back, if you do not like the tone, as we move through, you have opportunities to comment on it. You made several comments, adjusting the tone as we went through during the first part of it. You changed a whole lot of parts of the report, and if the committee agrees, we will incorporate those into the report.
Again, I am sorry that a document was circulated in error, but the correction, the fundamental correction, is in the existing copy. I do not know whether it has been translated or it is going to translation, but it is in the process.
Senator Wallin: What stage is it at?
Senator Moore: It does not matter.
Ms. Anwar: I have one version with the introduction and chapter 1 revised and translated.
Senator Wallin: You have that now?
Ms. Anwar: I received the translation this morning.
The Chair: We have chapter 3 in front of us. We have a translation of it and all the other chapters. I believe we should go ahead and move on with the report. We will take careful note of any concerns that you have.
Senator Moore: Do you want a motion to go in camera?
The Chair: If we could, please.
Senator Moore: I move that the committee proceed in camera pursuant to rule 92(2)(f), for the consideration of a draft report; that the senators' staff be permitted to remain in the room during the in camera portions of today's meeting, subject to all electronic instruments, except that of the Clerk of the Committee, being turned off; that the committee allow the transcription of this in camera meeting and that only one copy of the unedited transcript be kept for consultation by committee members in the committee clerk's office; and that the transcript be destroyed by the clerk at the end of this parliamentary session.
The Chair: Comments? Questions? Those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
(The committee continued in camera.)