Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of March 15, 2010
OTTAWA, Monday, March 15, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 4:03 p.m., pursuant to rule 88 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Kevin Pittman, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair.
[Translation]
I am ready to receive a motion to that effect. Are there any nominations?
[English]
Are there any nominations?
Senator Banks: Has someone nominated the chair?
Senator Dallaire: I nominate Senator Pamela Wallin as chair.
Mr. Pittman: Are there any other nominations?
Senator Day: Nominations have ceased.
Mr. Pittman: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Dallaire that the Honourable Senator Wallin do take chair of this committee.
[Translation]
Is it your pleasure, honourable Senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
[English]
Mr. Pittman: I declare the motion carried. I invite the Honourable Senator Wallin to take the chair.
Senator Pamela Wallin (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. I am thrilled and honoured. As my first act, I move that Senator Roméo Dallaire be nominated as the deputy chair of this committee.
Senator Manning: I second the motion.
Senator Lang: I move that nominations cease.
The Chair: Good work.
Senator Day: This is a matter of form before we vote on this motion. Is there any rule — and I think it is fine if there is not — that prohibits the chair from making a motion?
Mr. Pittman: No.
The Chair: I have been advised that there is no such prohibition.
Senator Day: We would not want this to be an imperfect nomination.
Senator Meighen: It is a perfect candidate.
Senator Dallaire: I hope we are talking about process and not the individual.
Senator Day: I think we bridged the gap with a perfect individual.
The Chair: I think we did. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Seeing none, the motion is carried.
Welcome. I look forward to our shared duties.
Senator Dallaire: I sit humbly amongst you in that capacity. Thank you very much.
The Chair: We will proceed through all the regular items on the agenda. Then, I hope we will have time for discussion.
On page 2 of our agenda, we will start with Item 3. We will try to move through some of these items. Will someone move the motion for the subcommittee on agenda and procedure?
Senator Lang: So moved.
The Chair: So moved. Would you like me to read this motion aloud?
Some Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Any opposed? Carried.
Senator Day: Has there been the usual consultation and may we name the person now?
The Chair: I believe it has been agreed to by the leadership of all parties that Senator Fabian Manning be the third person. We welcome Senator Manning to his role on the steering committee of the subcommittee.
Senator Day: Good luck to you.
Senator Manning: A new era.
The Chair: They put the newbies in charge. It is scary.
Item 4 is the motion to publicize the committee's proceedings.
Senator Manning: So moved.
The Chair: Would you like me to read this motion aloud?
Some Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Any opposed? Carried.
Item 5 is authorization to hold meetings and to receive evidence when quorum is not present.
Senator Pépin: I so move.
The Chair: Senator Pépin has moved the motion. Are we all agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Any opposed? Carried.
Item 6 regards the financial report.
Senator Meighen: I so move.
The Chair: Are we all agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Any opposed?
Senator Day: May we have a copy of it?
The Chair: Yes, it is coming now.
Senator Day: It is nice to see it before we vote on it.
The Chair: I think it is beyond our control.
Senator Banks: It has already happened.
The Chair: This budget is money spent. It obviously will be tabled in the chamber.
Senator Day: Good.
Senator Banks: Agreed.
Senator Dallaire: Is it correct that this includes all expenses to the end of the last session?
The Chair: Yes, I think it is all complete with everything included.
Senator Dallaire: It is not for the fiscal year; it is to the end of the last session.
Senator Banks: It ends with the prorogation.
Senator Day: Prorogation to prorogation.
The Chair: Yes, that is correct. I am counting on one in about three or four weeks. I do not know about the rest of you.
Is everyone agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Thank you very much.
Item 7 is research staff. I think our research staff is here somewhere. There they are. Can we have a motion regarding the analysts who have been assigned?
I will have them stand. I am sure you remember them from our last session, but for those of you who are new, Holly Porteous and Martin Auger are analysts with the Library of Parliament. I want to say we are indeed lucky; these analysts are two well-informed, intense, hard-working researchers. Furthermore, they actually care about this subject. I am grateful that they are here with us. Welcome.
Do we have a motion?
Senator Dallaire: I have a question. The Veterans Affairs Subcommittee has its own research staff, right?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Dallaire: That has not changed, has it?
The Chair: I do not think so. We will come to that later under "other business.''
Senator Dallaire: Okay.
The Chair: Thank you, Holly and Martin. Welcome. We are glad you are here. They can now join us at the table, I think, but we have to vote on this motion.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Any opposed? Join us, please.
Moving on, Item 8 is authority to commit funds and certify accounts. Would you like me to read this motion?
Senator Day: Dispense.
Senator Lang: So moved.
The Chair: Any discussion, comments or questions? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? There are none — it is carried.
Next item is travel.
Senator Pépin: So moved.
The Chair: Any discussion or comments?
Senator Lang: Dispense.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Any opposed? Thank you all. That motion is carried.
Item 10 is the designation of members travelling on committee business. This language is standard for every committee, by the way.
Senator Pépin: So moved.
The Chair: Are there comments or questions? Do members want the motion read aloud?
Senator Lang: Dispense.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Any opposed? Carried.
Item 11 is traveling and living expenses.
Senator Manning: So moved.
The Chair: Any comments or questions?
Senator Lang: Dispense?
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Any opposed? Carried.
Communications is Item 12.
Senator Lang: So moved.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Nolin: Have we been assigned an agent?
The Chair: There is one in house. Can you introduce yourself?
Tracie Leblanc, Communications Officer: My name is Tracie Leblanc. I am fairly new to the Senate, but I am excited to join your committee.
The Chair: That is wonderful. The answer is yes, someone has been assigned.
Did someone move the motion?
Senator Lang: I moved.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Any opposed? Carried.
The time slot for regular meetings is any time between 4 p.m. and 8 p.m. on Mondays in this location, and again downstairs. Our "home room'' is the Aboriginal Committee room, but it is too big for us unless we have huge numbers of people. I think we will continue to use the room we have downstairs.
Senator Meighen: I want to be clear on the times. Before, the hours were four to seven, as I understand it. Is this extra hour an escape valve?
The Chair: I think it is. There were so many requests for extended time, they built it in, but we do not have to meet for four solid hours; if we do not need to, we do not have to. However, the time is there. This time was agreed to by the leaderships, and it was presented.
There is no vote on that item, I gather. It is only a statement of fact. There it is, Item 13.
Next is Item 14. It is my preference, as our first order of business, to establish the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee. We have a document on this item. Should we read it aloud? It is coming around, so we will wait a moment.
Senator Day: While we are waiting for the document, the steering committee has not had a chance to meet to talk about the future of this committee, but there is a special reason why we had the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee in the past. I guess that reason should be a discussion for all of us. As I understand the rules, each committee can choose its own subcommittee or subcommittees, if that is desirable. Will we have any discussion on what we anticipate the subcommittee to do and not the main committee?
The Chair: We have had informal discussions about that matter. The discussion of the Veterans Charter was well underway, but not anywhere near conclusion.
Senator Day: I think that discussion is an ongoing one.
The Chair: Yes; there was discussion about putting in a veterans committee some of the issues that the military and the veterans are dealing with; specifically, for example, posttraumatic stress disorder, PTSD, and other things like that. They would naturally find a home in that committee. However, I think that is up to the chair and others to determine.
I am happy to have some discussion about it. I think maybe we should.
Senator Dallaire: I wrote a couple of letters to the different agencies who were looking at the review of committees and so on in the last session. I spoke also in the chamber about how essential it is that the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee become a full-fledged committee. I never really received an answer, except that it is being reviewed under Senator Oliver's whatever-it-is.
As you are presenting this item now, are we thinking that process is still ongoing or will be reviewed and, in the interim, we might as well set up our subcommittee?
The Chair: My understanding, and someone correct me if I am wrong, is that committee was in the midst of drafting its big report and that work ceased with prorogation. It happened there as it did everywhere. It is up to the newly constituted committee to pick up the report where they left off or to re-invent the wheel.
Senator Meighen: Does the committee have to be reconstituted to pick up its work?
The Chair: That is right. They are in the process of that reconstitution. In fact, it may have been done last week. We are at the tail end of this process, because we meet on Mondays.
Senator Dallaire: I have not heard that it has been reconstituted. Has that reconstitution happened? Do you know that?
The Chair: I do not know.
I have been advised that it has not yet been reconstituted but there is every intention that it will be. I think it is a timing issue.
Senator Dallaire: May I then ask that, as we move forward with the subcommittee, depending on what that subcommittee looks at, that the subject of creating a committee be brought forward to this committee as a whole to be discussed?
I was never able to come to this committee and say why I think veterans affairs should have its own committee. It is not absolutely necessary to do that, but it is an option I would like to entertain.
The Chair: I think it is perfectly reasonable that we would have a discussion. It is only that we have no say over it, which is how it ended up the last time. In the end, we can discuss it every day of the week if we want, but it has to go to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament to be discussed. We do not make the decision. We decide whether we will have a subcommittee, but not whether the committee is a stand-alone committee.
Senator Dallaire: The discussion is more to provide impetus for their consideration in making veterans affairs a full- fledged committee.
Senator Day: I think Senator Banks was ahead of me.
Senator Banks: This committee has made a motion to the effect that it is in favour of, and urges, the creation of a committee. However, as the chair has said, we do not decide those things. The practical fact is, the wheels for that kind of decision grind particularly slowly, and if we want to pay any attention at all to matters relating to veterans affairs, and serving members that fall under the purview of the subcommittee, we have to form the subcommittee because we are the only game in town at the moment.
It is worth noting — and I want to talk about the able chairmanship of that subcommittee that Senator Meighen has provided — that under his chairmanship, the purview was expanded. The synergies that now exist between the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada in respect of some people in the services have widened the purview of that subcommittee to include not only veterans, in certain circumstances, but serving members of the Canadian Forces. At least, whether we widened the purview formally, the fact is that we did it. Am I remembering that correctly?
Senator Meighen: I think we did. I do not recall the formalization of it, but my memory is suspect.
Senator Banks: That issue is worth looking at when we look at the mandate of the subcommittee. As we found, there used to be a great gulf between what happens to a serving member in DND and when they come under the services of VAC. To everyone's credit, that gulf has been narrowed but not closed.
One of the most significant manifestations of that change is that when someone has been injured in the service, they are no longer unceremoniously booted out. DND tries to keep them in the forces and functioning in some way; there is more interaction between the two departments. That change is important.
Senator Dallaire: If I can follow up on that point, the debate on the definition of "veteran: evolved to the extent where it was agreed that a member of the Canadian Armed Forces who serves one year in the forces and is honourably discharged is considered a veteran. That definition is floating somewhere between the old definition of a veteran, if I can use the term "old,'' and the new generation veterans, and ultimately encompassing all people in the Armed Forces. If they have one year in and they are serving their duty, they then fall under the purview of veteran.
It is worthy of that subcommittee to bring that issue to the fore because in the forces those members are considered veterans now — those who have served overseas and so on, even though still serving — and there is no doubt that subcommittee is entering into the entrails of the personnel world of the Canadian Forces more and more. It might be something to ensure that the subcommittee covers all those angles.
Senator Meighen: I agree that is the way it is being dealt with, but are you satisfied that there has been a formal or informal agreement by both DND and Veterans Affairs Canada on that definition?
Senator Dallaire: That question is worthy of bringing to the fore because in both cases when I query it, I receive different answers. In Charlottetown, they still say a veteran is a veteran of the Korean War or Second World War. We say that definition does not correspond to what was politically decided, and I do not know how it has made its way down yet.
The Chair: In most of the testimony we took last session on all those joint personnel issues, there was a clear indication, as Senator Banks said, that the time frame is so crunched that the demarcation is much less.
Senator Meighen: I agree. What if you did not go overseas but were in a training accident 11 months and 29 days after you joined up?
Senator Dallaire: They continue to be hung up on the special duty area, if you remember. They were moving new generation veterans to special duty area. Then that practice was queried and expanded because of those who are training — ergo, do they fall under it? The issue is worth bringing to the fore and possibly moving something to legislation.
Senator Meighen: We have to remind the chair, whoever that may be.
The Chair: Of that subcommittee? Shall we move to that item? I do not think at this point — and I will take advice on this — that they will change a title of a committee. We cannot do that today.
Senator Banks: You can do whatever you want.
Senator Meighen: You do not need to. A veteran is a veteran.
Senator Dallaire: I think it covers it until we discover that we are being curtailed by it, and then we can bring it back to this committee.
The Chair: Yes, it might be best to do that.
Senator Day: Rather than going through a pro forma creation of a subcommittee, I hoped we would have a bit of a discussion on this issue. Several of us have served on Senator Meighen's subcommittee over the past several years and we know that one hour — it works out to about an hour — is not enough time. You can see from the discussion we have had how much can be put into that particular subcommittee. The work of that subcommittee, with the increased number of veterans and service personnel returning from deployment with serious long-term problems, will get worse rather than better.
I think it was my motion, as I recall — I strongly supported it and I presented it in the chamber — that there should be a separate committee, as the House of Commons has done. The House of Commons moved from a subcommittee to a separate stand-alone committee, and the Prime Minister, in one of the election campaigns, was supportive of that move. I think we should move on that issue because an hour is not long enough to deal with this work. There is another area that we do not touch on.
[Translation]
It concerns the families of soldiers, of veterans.
[English]
That area is another one that is extremely important. The wife of the Chief of the Defence Staff is leading a significant movement in that regard, which is much broader than some of the traditional areas we have looked into. She is looking into areas like employment insurance benefits and that kind of thing, to make sure that spouses and children of Canadian Forces personnel, when they are required to serve offshore, do not lose out on their seniority and other rights that Canadians have.
All those things are important for us to look into. I am afraid that they are falling by the wayside because of the fact that we have a committee that we try to throw everything into called the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee. It meets for one hour, God knows when, because our meeting time is 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. We will have to create another time for that committee, which is usually Wednesday at noon.
Senator Meighen: I think it probably still is. If the chair likes, I will be happy to take up the matter with our leadership. Maybe those on the other side can join me in that effort and take it up with their membership.
Senator Lang: Madam Chair, the discussion is an interesting one for someone who is new to the committee. I can see there are many issues to deal with in relation to veterans.
To get on with the business, I recommend two things: first, that we go ahead and create the veterans subcommittee; and second, that both sides discuss with leadership and with Senator Oliver in respect to the changes that he is looking at bringing forward to see whether we can accommodate what has been said here. We can get on with the business at hand without losing sight of what Senator Dallaire has brought forward.
The Chair: And perhaps not lose time. One of the reasons I wanted to pass this motion today is so the subcommittee will be constituted.
Senator Dallaire: It will be reconstituted and its chair will be elected by its members at the next meeting; is that it?
The Chair: I think we can do that today, can we not? The subcommittee will be struck today, and then the formal organization will take place on Wednesday, if we pass this motion today. It is our understanding that Senator Banks will chair this subcommittee.
Senator Dallaire: We have options. We had a fine chair also, so those who become members might want to have a talk together.
The Chair: A talk about that, okay.
Senator Banks: I move that we establish a subcommittee on veterans affairs, that the chair and deputy chair discuss its membership and that it have a properly constituted organizational meeting at the first opportunity. Is that in order?
Senator Day: Do you want to put the time slot in too, Senator Banks, because it is not here?
The Chair: I think we cannot assign duties to people who have not yet been selected. You are asking the chair and the deputy chair. We have to create the committee.
Senator Banks: I move that we create a committee and that the chair and deputy chair name —
[Translation]
Senator Day: Is it possible to give the committee a mandate?
[English]
Senator Banks: — the members of the committee.
The Chair: The chair and deputy chair cannot make that decision because the committee members elect the chair and deputy chair.
Senator Banks: No, I said that the committee be established and that the chair and deputy chair of this committee name the members of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs —
The Chair: You mean this committee, okay.
Senator Banks: — and that the committee hold an organizational meeting on Wednesday.
The Chair: Is there further discussion?
Senator Day: Senator Banks suggested they meet on Wednesday at the time slot of 12:15 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., which is designated for this subcommittee.
The Chair: I believe that is the case. It is not designated but there is no change from the last session. We have to establish the subcommittee before a time is assigned. We have to do things in order. That is all. That is our assumption.
Senator Nolin: Do we read this motion through?
The Chair: Do you want this motion to be read aloud? This motion is titled "Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence: Creation of subcommittees.''
Senator Banks: Before we leave this discussion, I remind everyone that there can be five members of the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee. Is that correct?
The Chair: Right; does everyone have this document? This motion is like the others. Are you suggesting we designate the members now?
Mr. Pittman: Yes.
The Chair: If we leave the question of the chair, in terms of membership required under our order, who do you propose for your two members? Apparently, we should designate the membership and three of that group shall constitute a quorum. Do you have this document?
Senator Banks: Yes, I have it. I will be perfectly happy to retract my motion, which was that the chair and deputy chair meet and name members of the subcommittee.
The Chair: Shall we do that separately? I am receiving advice on this matter, but if we do something other than the obvious, then we cannot have a meeting on Wednesday.
Senator Nolin: Let us do everything now.
The Chair: Can we go back to the original motion?
Senator Nolin: Senator Banks, what do you propose?
Senator Banks: I move this motion in front of us.
The Chair: Does everyone agree?
Senator Nolin: We should add the name of the chair of the subcommittee.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Nolin: I propose Senator Dallaire.
The Chair: You can then change it later.
Senator Dallaire: We can do so, once we sit.
The Chair: Let us name the members and then the members will choose the chair. It is my understanding that some of these things have been discussed and negotiated, but I will put forward the names of Senator Meighen, Senator Manning and Senator Wallin, as three members of the committee.
Senator Dallaire: Yes.
The Chair: Do you put forward the names of Senator Banks and Senator Dallaire?
Senator Dallaire: Yes.
Senator Pépin: I am supposed to be on that committee.
The Chair: But there are only two members.
Senator Nolin: It is expandable. Senator Pépin can be there.
The Chair: You can be there, but not in terms of voting.
Senator Pépin: I am supposed to be there.
Senator Banks: Maybe we should go back to my motion.
Senator Day: Maybe we should create two subcommittees.
The Chair: I do not think we need to do that.
Senator Nolin: Why do we not stay with five members?
The Chair: Can you let us know if it changes?
Senator Nolin: Let us start with the five members that we have.
The Chair: Yes; if there are any changes, let us know.
Senator Banks: My question is to the clerk: By definition, and as a matter of practice, are the chair and deputy chair of this committee considered as members ex officio of the subcommittee?
Mr. Pittman: No.
Senator Banks: Okay; five is the magic number.
The Chair: The answer is no. If we do this then on Wednesday, there can be a decision.
Senator Banks: We will sort it out.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Any opposed? Carried.
Is a room available for the meeting?
Mr. Pittman: I believe it is room 172, East Block.
The Chair: Will the Aboriginal committee room be available, room 160-S?
Mr. Pittman: It is room 172-E.
The Chair: That is a different room — the little room.
Senator Day: It is the usual little room. Have we not met upstairs before in the East Block? It is not a bad room, although it is harder to reach.
The Chair: This room is downstairs in the East Block.
Mr. Pittman: Yes.
Senator Day: You can reach this room faster but the other room is nicer.
The Chair: We do not need television, yet. Let us say room 172-E at the standard time. The whips have yet to agree but they will agree.
Senator Banks: Everyone leaves the caucus meeting at that time so the closer this meeting is, the better it will be.
The Chair: Let us move on to other business. Do we have to deal with the subcommittee motions individually?
Mr. Pittman: You can go through them all and dispense.
The Chair: We already had a vote on this motion.
Senator Banks: My intention, if everyone agrees and if it is in order, was to move these motions en masse.
The Chair: That is what we did. This motion has been moved and voted on. Is that everyone's understanding? Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Day: Is there a need for an organization meeting for the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs now that we have passed this motion? It will take only two minutes.
The Chair: That will be on Wednesday.
Senator Day: Should we do business? Of course, I am not on the committee. What am I talking about? It is the first time in ten years that I am not on the committee.
The Chair: You are welcome to be there.
It is my intention that the committee stay in public for the rest of today's discussions, including what we have covered. We are in public on the record. Are there concerns with that?
We should pass the motion to allow staff to remain for the rest of the discussion.
Senator Banks: I so move.
The Chair: Agreed. We will ask the clerk to work on the budgets. In the absence of any finely honed plans, after a discussion of the subcommittee, we will put together some notions of travel for the budget so that we are prepared when we arrive at that stage. If members are agreed, then staff can proceed with the drafting.
I have prepared a draft of the order of reference. Has this draft been translated?
Mr. Pittman: Yes.
The Chair: Good; we will hand out copies. I have proposed a change that I ask everyone to look at so that we might discuss it.
Senator Banks: This is different.
The Chair: Do you mean different from last year's committee?
Senator Banks: Yes.
The Chair: Yes; every year the orders of reference are topic-specific.
Senator Day: Usually, we have a kind of basket clause.
The Chair: I have tried to be as general as possible so as not to eliminate things. However, I propose one change on item (b), because I think I have inadvertently made things too limited:
(b) the role of our Forces in Afghanistan in post 2011, including but not limited to the relationship with NATO and our allies, . . . .
I do not want the discussion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to be limited to troops in Afghanistan. I propose making a (c), and (b) would now say: "the role of our Forces in Afghanistan post 2011.'' Then the new (c) would be to look at the role of NATO, NORAD, the role and use of reservists, the effectiveness of humanitarian efforts such as Haiti and the Canada First Defence Strategy.
Senator Dallaire: I would like to see the UN added to that list.
The Chair: Is there any discussion? I am not opposed. The UN is such a large question. I suppose it does not hurt if we add it.
Senator Meighen: We do not have to do it.
The Chair: Right; it would allow us to look at the UN role if we chose to.
Senator Banks: It would be appropriate because Afghanistan is a United Nations undertaking, so it is a good idea to have the UN there if we want to go there.
The Chair: Are there any other comments on anything people see? Again, I have tried to be as broad as I can on clauses (c), (d), and (e) for whatever comes up. We have things emerging like the new oversight body for the new RCMP. We have biometric passports. There are some things like that we may want to look at or, in some cases, it may come to us in legislative form.
Senator Day: Clerk, do you have the rules here? Does the general mandate of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence include all this intelligence information?
Senator Meighen: I hope so, because we have studied it.
The Chair: We have a lot of work sitting on the books. This work is part of what I am trying to capture. Last year, we made border trips, trips to bases and trips to airports. A lot of that work did not emerge; that research still sits there.
Senator Day: Exactly.
The Chair: We want to have access to it and use it if we so choose.
The Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, composed of nine members, four of whom shall constitute a quorum, to which may be referred, as the Senate may decide, bills, messages, petitions, inquiries papers and other matters relating to national defence and security generally, including veterans affairs.
Senator Day: I did not hear the word "intelligence.''
The Chair: It is certainly part of security.
Senator Day: That is the point, senator. We are using it in defining what we want to do, but it is not part of our overall mandate, unless we work it in somehow or ask for an amendment to the mandate in the rules.
The Chair: Clause (c) says "various agencies involved in intelligence gathering, security, protection and defence.''
Senator Day: In this wording, intelligence gathering is something separate from security, and we do not have intelligence gathering as part of our overall mandate.
The Chair: I imagine the book was written before the reality of the world post-9/11 has set in.
Senator Day: I do not suggest we should not include it. I am only trying to be precise here.
The Chair: Do you have any concern that this subject falls outside the mandate?
Mr. Pittman: Security, I think, is a word that can be implied.
Senator Dallaire: I think by specifically identifying the intelligence gathering function, you subdivide the overall concept of security. Security has within it, in its construct, components of which there are intelligence organizations, as well as those who apply the use of force in establishing security. I see that definition in the widest possible perspective versus a limited one.
The Chair: I think in earlier orders of reference it has been as specific as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS. I think this wording is not as specific and therefore more helpful. I am advised that it does not infringe, but I think everyone would agree that in 2010, intelligence gathering is part of the broadly defined security of a nation.
Senator Dallaire: I go back to my background and say that it has always been a component of security.
The Chair: Right.
Senator Dallaire: That you have created different agencies is fine, but intelligence gathering has never been separate from the concept of security.
The Chair: As I mentioned a moment ago, it has been laid out as recently as last session. We met with CSIS. We did all these things. I think we have precedent in terms of security encompassing that definition.
Senator Banks: Every committee has the mandate that is set out in the rules, which talks about the kinds of things that the Senate may wish to refer to the committee. That language is used in the rules. Then in each session, each committee comes up with this kind of order, which says in effect, here is what we want to work on this time out. We want to include these things. There is a danger, when making a list, of not including things that we might want to study. I am hopeful we can broaden this order. The best idea is to have a mandate approved so we can do everything but operate a railway and a bank. I am not sure where in this order precisely, if I were looking, I find the capacity of this committee, under this mandate, to look at first responders: to look at a fire department; to look at the capacity to respond to hazardous materials; and even to look at the RCMP. As soon as we make a list, we have to be sure that we can justify putting whatever we look at clearly into that list.
The Chair: I do not know how we can be more general than "various agencies.''
Senator Banks: I am not sure if the RCMP is an agency, but a good word to use, in my view, is "matters'' that deal with questions, and then a broad definition. When looking particularly at intelligence, there is intelligence gathering, there is intelligence processing, and then there is applying intelligence. When we look at those things, and I hope we will, and when we look at the capacity of first responders in a hazmat situation or in a pandemic situation, it leads to places we want to be able to go without having to say, we did not put that in the orders of reference. I hope we will find a way to broaden this order to be multi-inclusive.
The Chair: Yes; I cannot be much broader than "various agencies.'' It includes almost anyone. I do not know that we would want to talk to a local fire department, but I suppose it is possible.
Senator Banks: If you do not, you do not know how they are going to do.
Senator Meighen: You used it elsewhere. Why not use the usual lawyers' weasel words up top in particular, "without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the committee shall be authorized?'' Is that right, Counsellor Day?
Senator Day: You are getting closer. When I talked about a basket clause at the beginning of this debate, that is what that clause is for; everything else that we are allowed to look into according to our mandate.
Senator Dallaire: That is so we are not limited to what we are saying here: We are looking at this subject but we are not limited to it, should other priorities come to our attention.
The Chair: There are other things that may well fall on our lap that we do not have discretion over and, as you all know, the chamber is the final arbiter of this matter anyway.
What I am trying to accomplish here is that we do not have the world at our feet. I hoped to have some constraints so we could have discussion in that context. If we want language that is not limited, do we have to use that phrase? Is there something that is English or French, as opposed to legalese?
Senator Meighen: Speak to my counsel, Senator Day.
Senator Day: How about a Latin term; we must have a Latin term.
Senator Banks: Inter alia.
Senator Day: Inter alia; that is it.
Senator Meighen: You used it somewhere else. I saw it somewhere else.
The Chair: Can we say, "authorized to, but not limited to, examine and report,'' in the second paragraph?
Senator Meighen: We can say, "without limiting the generality of the foregoing.''
Senator Banks: It is immediately after or immediately before "In particular.''
The Chair: We add "but not limited to'' examine and report.
Senator Day: "It shall be authorized to examine inter alia.''
The Chair: I do not want phrases like that, if we can possibly help it. I want someone to be able to read it.
Senator Day: Amongst other things.
The Chair: I am happy with that wording.
Senator Dallaire: Are we using the terminology?
Senator Meighen: Maybe the clerk can tell us what we are now using.
The Chair: He is writing here, which is to "be authorized to examine but not limited to.''
Senator Banks: No, that is not the right place. It goes in the second sentence, either immediately before or immediately after "In particular.''
Senator Meighen: "In particular, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing.''
The Chair: "In particular, but not limited to.''
Senator Banks: It is not a good English sentence.
The Chair: "In particular, the committee shall be authorized to'' — we could put it there — "authorized but not limited to examine'' (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f).
Senator Banks: You can fix the language later.
The Chair: If the general intent is there, yes.
Are there any other points?
Senator Meighen: My usual rates for this are much higher.
The Chair: Do not send us the bill.
Are there any other comments?
Do we agree to leave this matter in the hands of the clerk so that we might move forward and have this translated?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Lang: Will that motion be tabled tomorrow in the Senate?
The Chair: I will seek leave tomorrow.
Everyone is happy with splitting off, for lack of a better phrase, (b) and (c), so that "NORAD, the UN'' is added, and in clause (c) we will say "and related matters''?
Senator Meighen: And the UN.
The Chair: That is in the other one. That is in existing clause (b) that will become (c).
Senator Banks: I am sorry, chair, to do this, but this is a perfect example. If we say NATO, NORAD and the UN, we cannot examine whatever else we may have. Therefore, it would be good to add language talking about Canada's international obligations in these regards or something like that, because we might want to become involved with the question of Camp Mirage, which has nothing to do with NATO, the United Nations or NORAD. That subject is coming up.
The Chair: I think we need to have a focal point and we will prioritize. We can say "NATO, NORAD, UN and other organizations.''
Senator Dallaire: I think Senator Banks raises a good point. We have what is called the ABCA — Australia, Britain, Canada and the U.S. That significant body has a lot of information and activity. It will not fit any of those categories. The addition of the term will be helpful to give us that room to manoeuvre. I forget the term Senator Banks used. I was going to say "alliances.''
Senator Banks: "Canada's international obligations.''
Senator Nolin: I would add "interests'' to obligations, because we may not have an obligation.
The Chair: What do you mean?
Senator Banks: We do not have a formal obligation to 4 Eyes. If you are talking about security and intelligence, that is how we cover it.
The Chair: We are talking about the paragraph above. We are not talking about the paragraph below.
Senator Day: "Interest'' is a good term.
Senator Lang: I thought we had covered ourselves off at the beginning in not limiting ourselves to the following, but looking at this order of reference as a rough agenda that to start with, but we can move into other things if we want to.
The Chair: I think that is a good point.
Senator Lang: I think we are covered from the point of view of Senator Banks's point. If something else comes up in another area, we have the ability, if the majority of the committee members decide, to go in that direction.
The Chair: I would be happier with that approach; otherwise, this order of reference will be four pages. Are people happy with the amount of scope we have given ourselves with the wording, "but not limited to''? We will refer the wording back to the committee. I am keen to move on this motion, because if we do not, there will not be a veterans meeting or any of the above. It is in the general rules.
Senator Day: The mandate for the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee must be a mandate given to this overall committee.
The Chair: That is in the other place. I have been through about eight years of these proceedings, so it has been kept separate.
Senator Day: That is fine, but we have not seen it separate.
The Chair: It is there. It is in the general description of the committee.
Senator Day: You mean in the rules, in our general mandate.
The Chair: Yes; Can we go ahead then to approve this motion, subject to the writing skills?
Senator Banks: So moved.
The Chair: All agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I think we have almost concluded the business here. I will throw it open to see if anyone has any other issues.
Senator Banks: You, Madam Chair, among others of us, have done considerable work on the question of borders, and I suspect that Holly Porteous and Martin Auger have compiled much information. Do we want to consider dealing with some alacrity with the possibility of a borders report? There are members on this committee who were not there and who did not make those trips, but the information is nonetheless there.
The Chair: If you will bear with me a moment, I think we will try to build into a rough outline. I think we will get to that work, but I want to give the researchers time to do this work. A whole lot of information has been collected that has no particular form to it. As a committee, I think we need to create some context for looking at that information, because there are border trips and trips to bases that are a year old. I think we need to take a look at what we want to discuss. We have access to this information in general any time we want it, but rather than preparing a report, I think we need to discuss what we want to report on and therefore how that information might be of use.
Senator Banks: I thought you were asking in the general discussion about what we should do. I am wondering about dealing with the border matter, in whatever way we want to deal with it.
The Chair: I will lay it out, if you will give me a moment. I have prepared a rough agenda on our time but it is not formal or official so I have not translated it. It is my understanding that we will not have a meeting on April 5 or May 24, and we probably will not have one on May 17, although I am not sure that has been decided yet. There is a week break in there, but I do not know whether that break is confirmed.
Separate from today, we have 12 sessions taking us to June 28, which we probably will not make, so I would say 11 sessions.
Senator Banks: A few years ago we sat until August.
The Chair: Some of you have mentioned this situation before, because of the timeliness of it. There is a huge meeting on Arctic sovereignty at the end of March here, where the nations are coming together. I have had informal discussions with people about this meeting, and I think I may have raised it with you, Senator Dallaire.
It was suggested to me that since an issue like Arctic sovereignty crosses over with the Fisheries, Energy and Foreign Affairs Committees, we might want to ask those Senate committees to dedicate one or two days of their committee hearing time to the issue. We might even contemplate some kind of joint report where each committee makes its contribution from its own vantage point. This committee cannot really look at energy issues, and it is not even clear that we can ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs to come and talk to us because it may be in someone else's bailiwick.
With your permission, I will talk to other committee chairs about this issue. I mentioned it briefly to Senator Munson; he seemed keen that it may be a good message to send. I want to test the waters to see if there is any interest from colleagues on other committees. Does anyone have any concern or comments?
Senator Banks: That is a good idea. When the Fisheries Committee and the Energy Committee were both planning to go to the Arctic last year or the year before, we decided to bifurcate. The Fisheries Committee went to the eastern Arctic; the Energy Committee went to the Western Arctic. Both of those reports comment somewhat obliquely on the issues of sovereignty with which each committee was concerned.
That is a good idea, madam Chair.
The Chair: I will try to do that.
Senator Lang: To follow up on that comment, I think there are issues of which Senator Banks is aware, including the question of the continental shelf and the significant amount of money Canadians are putting into mapping the continental shelf. How does that mapping relate to the energy possibilities for our country and also to the demarcation of our borders? It would be interesting to have an update from the Energy Committee in that particular area.
Sovereignty, from our point of view, is security, the issue of rangers, what we do in the North, and whether we proceed with some of the ports. These issues are important to Canadians and these types of forums can bring that information forward in testimony.
Senator Dallaire: The Arctic is not a frontier as we still tend to think sometimes. It is becoming, and should be perceived as, a border like the one we have in the south. The Arctic calls for rethinking in different committees. For example, in the Fisheries Committee, I support encouraging other committees to consolidate synergy of the information. That committee discussed extensively the Canadian Coast Guard, arming of the Canadian Coast Guard, the new ships the navy wants to obtain and how they are to work together with the rangers, search and rescue and so on.
These issues cross different departments. Surprisingly, the departments themselves do not seem to be well versed in cross initiatives. Cross initiatives would be rather innovative. However, they must be done properly, and not as shots in the dark.
The Chair: I think we need to have everyone sign on, sit down and draw the lines so that everyone is clear. If we try to do it in a short time frame, we need something with all perspectives involved.
I will undertake to do that. I would appreciate any discussion you may have with your own colleagues in that regard.
Senator Meighen: I understood Senator Dallaire to say that we cannot let it drift without a deadline. I am thinking of the end of June. I do not know what other committees have on their agendas. If they can commit to do their part by the end of June as we suggest for ourselves, we can get our hands around something and produce a report.
The Chair: The timing is interesting. If we are realistic about reports, they do not have to be large to be effective. They can be specific and targeted. We can do more that way.
I will undertake to do that and try to report back by the next meeting if possible.
Senator Dallaire: The steering committee may be able to assist you in this work if that is helpful.
The Chair: Yes.
I have been going through the committee meeting dates and roughly assigning topics. I have assigned four days to discuss Afghanistan broadly to include related issues. To let you know the thinking behind that number, we might choose to look at specific issues such as troop withdrawal plans, impact of the recent budget on acquisitions and necessity for a training surge in Afghanistan — which some of our allies have put on the table. We may also address new missions like Haiti and our assessment of Canada's role there. We should come to a point soon where we can see whether we performed well in that mission logistically. The role of NATO is also included. An issue that has landed on my desk repeatedly is the question of reservists. It has been highlighted by Afghanistan. Senator Nolin and I talked about this issue briefly, but it is a larger issue than simply the role in Afghanistan.
With those topics, we have a lot on our plate for four sessions. We are simply trying to touch base on many issues we might want to deal with by June so we can start collecting the work.
Two days are set aside to address border security to look at existing research and perhaps testimony from witnesses. The timely issue again is biometric passports because they are supposed to be coming forth again. We will include NATO and NORAD, and a couple of sessions if possible on the Canada First Defence Strategy: Where is it, what is its focus and what are the budget implications?
That agenda will take us to the end of June in terms of hitting the highlights only and gathering enough information for the researchers to do their work.
Senator Dallaire: Chair, you raised different subject matters such as involvement in Afghanistan, post-Afghanistan and so on. You even included events like Haiti — my son is deployed there currently.
A dominant theme in Haiti and how well we are performing is our ability to function with the UN and its authority, and whether we should have taken over the mission when it was literally decapitated. Canada could have rejuvenated that mission.
The UN must be considered in every arena because it is ultimately the multilateral authority with which we will find ourselves engaged.
The Chair: I agree. I am saying that I want our focus to be from the Canadian vantage point as opposed to having a study on the UN. We should look at our relationship with them.
Senator Dallaire: We simply include the UN as part of that analysis?
The Chair: Yes; our work is always through our eyes. We will leave this issue in the hands of the steering committee. Do senators have any comments on this plan in general?
Senator Meighen: It is a good plan. Have you allocated any time for consideration of an interim report.
The Chair: No; there are a few days where we could do that. That allocation is dependent on what our colleagues say. That would be where we focus our attention.
Senator Meighen: Please do not forget that step. We have to take a day or more.
The Chair: We will come back anyway, even when we are on holidays underaking our constituency work. We will refer these general discussions to the steering committee. If you have the names of witnesses, a book or anything that is helpful, send it to the steering committee and we can consider them.
Senator Day: You are not contemplating any travel between now and the summer, are you? We will not go back to Newfoundland or Vancouver to visit the Seaforth Highlanders for their 100th anniversary, will we?
Senator Manning: It is not a priority, but we can take it into consideration.
The Chair: I want to focus on content. We have only two break weeks. Then it becomes a question of who can go and when. We spent a lot of time on logistics, and I would rather replace that focus in the short term with a focus on content. If we use the room downstairs — I guess I have my own biases in that I spent 30 years on television — we can bring people in who are far flung. Even with the Manley report, we brought in people with video hook up and it was effective.
Senator Day: My view is we gain tremendous stature, nationwide, with the many visits we have made. We have held town hall meetings and all sorts of activities that have raised the stature of this committee. With all due respect, you do not get that same long-term value with television.
The Chair: I can see an argument for that view. If we are engaged in issues that are timely and we share that information regularly, I think there are ways for this committee to disseminate the information it collects without always having to wait for some big report or event. If we concentrate on the substance of the information and disseminate it regularly, or in focused ways, we will receive attention. I think people will see this information as a source of ongoing constructive criticism — small "c,'' small "c'' — of what is happening in our country.
It is a slightly different way to approach the work, and I do not think the approaches are mutually exclusive. It is a matter of looking at the time frame here, which is limited.
Senator Lang: Chair, I have a couple of things to say. From the perspective of the committee, I like the idea of a number of reports, not one report only. As we look at particular issues, we come out with a report, perhaps. Maybe it is a new method or new way of looking at things, and more site-specific, depending on what the steering committee decides.
Travel is the other issue. I do not think anybody has said no to travel, but I think it was made clear by the government that travel will be somewhat limited. At the same time, with the motion that will be put forward, I think there is the ability to travel if something comes up in the future and there is a necessity for it. However, we will be locked in because of the house and the fact that there are few breaks; we will be limited by that time frame to some degree, anyway.
The Chair: When you sit down with the calendar, the first break is April 5. That is pretty far removed.
Senator Lang: One thing I think the steering committee should pay attention to is public relations. You touched on it, and I am on the Energy Committee. Tracie Leblanc is our communications officer on the Energy Committee and we are looking at public relations in particular to deliver our message and how we can deliver our message, whether it be through the World Wide Web, TV or website — all those various vehicles.
In this age of technology, we should look at that issue with the whole concept of raising the stature of the Senate and the Senate committees. The more people we can reach the better. The idea is not to limit travel, necessarily, but to pay attention to the information we are provided with, and to disseminate that information.
I strongly recommend that the steering committee look at that issue, especially given your background, chair.
The Chair: That point is a good one, thank you.
Senator Dallaire: I think it will be imperative that we consider looking at the reserves. That will probably require talking to a few of the troops and not only headquarters staff, senior officers and staff officers.
I contend that the reservists coming out of 18 months of high-intensity training back into units where they may have a day a month back in the unit, and sitting out in Matane alone will become a strong source of social problems, as they do not easily readjust to normal life, unlike those in the regular force who are on bases and so on.
I believe a bit of a time bomb is being created there. When we look at committee work, it would be interesting to go to one or two of the more isolated militia units that have had people in the field and ask exactly what they are doing with those troops and how the troops are faring. I am receiving information about people being thrown in jail and other things.
The other issue regarding reservists is talking only to staff officers and headquarters. Too much filtering is happening there.
The second item is the RCMP and the chair of the national police services advisory board that oversees all police services across the country. A lot of work done has been done there. A document was sent out, and I simply indicate to you that people will read that. We might want to think of what to do with the work that has been done because, if there is a force out there that is hurting big time, it is the RCMP, in my humble opinion, from what I have been able to discern. That might be a point that we would want to talk about together.
The Chair: I think something will be coming forward on the review committee and the new structure that will take over from Paul Kennedy.
Senator Dallaire: That is exactly why.
The Chair: That may even come to us in legislative form, so we will look at it for sure, if it happens that way. I think "the sooner, the better'' is the RCMP's view at this point; they want to get on with that new body. That is the other kind of thing that will intervene in any schedule because we do not control that part of it. If legislation comes forward, then we will deal with it.
Senator Dallaire: Pre-empting it a bit might not be a bad idea.
Senator Banks: I want to back up what Senator Day said. I think everyone here wants to examine things that affect public policy; we want to improve public policy. I presume that is why everyone is here. It is not possible to say that the way to do that is this or that. We have to do all of the above. In the past, one thing that has been effective when Senate committees wish to change public policy is their profile. It creates constituent pressure.
When a Senate committee goes to North Bay, Charlottetown or Edmonton, it is a big deal. The committee is able to create more of an effect on public policy and make its points, whatever they are, by virtue of that constituency. I want to remind us that we can hold hearings anywhere in Canada. We do not all have to be in Ottawa on Mondays. We can be someplace else on Mondays. We can be in Gagetown on Monday. That comment is only an aside.
The second thing is a question for the clerk. A subcommittee may not have more members than half the main committee. I am looking here at whether the membership of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs can be made six instead of five.
Ex officio members include the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Government and the opposition, making four in all. Is it "or'' rather than "and''?
Mr. Pittman: Yes, it is "or.''
Senator Banks: The number is 12 then, not 14, or whatever it is.
The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments? Thank you all very much. I am looking forward to a new day and a turning of the page. I look forward to all your insights. To all of us who are still new, I know there is a lot of history around here and we will take advantage of it. Thank you all very much and we will see you next Monday, except for the steering committee, which may take a few moments now to meet.
(The committee adjourned.)