Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of June 20, 2011
OTTAWA, Monday, June 20, 2011
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]
Josée Thérien, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, we have a quorum.
As clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of a chair. I am ready to receive a motion to that effect.
Senator Lang: I move that Senator Pamela Wallin take the chair.
Ms. Thérien: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Lang that the Honourable Senator Wallin be chair of this committee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Thérien: I invite Senator Wallin to take the chair.
Senator Pamela Wallin (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I appreciate the honour and the privilege.
This is the organizational meeting for the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. I think the membership is well known to both sides, those who have been assigned, including our ex officio members who can attend when they so choose.
Our next order of business is the election of deputy chair and Senator Plett has asked to do this.
Senator Plett: I would be honoured to move the nomination of Senator Dallaire for deputy chair.
The Chair: Do we have a seconder?
Senator Day: You do not need a seconder.
The Chair: It is done then.
Senator Day: That side of the table has taken away both of these. Usually you allow us to make one of the motions.
The Chair: Would you like to do it?
Senator Day: It is too late.
The Chair: He wanted to do it and I thought it was a nice gesture.
Welcome, Senator Dallaire.
On to Motion No. 3, then, and the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chair, the deputy chair, and one other member of the committee, to be designated after the usual consultation;
That each member of the subcommittee be authorized to designate for substitution, from time to time, another member on the subcommittee;
That the clerk be informed of any such substitution in writing; and —
That the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses, and to schedule hearings.
I need a mover.
Senator Nolin: I so move.
Senator Day: Has the "usual consultation" taken place with respect to the first paragraph?
The Chair: Yes, the usual consultation has taken place.
Senator Dallaire: I think raising the issue of procedures is worthwhile because it keeps the protocol going and we know how things are. I was going to say "in a gentleman's milieu," but I am not sure about "gentlemen and lady."
The Chair: In a senatorial manner.
Senator Dallaire: I propose Senator Lang as the third member of the steering committee.
The Chair: Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Motion No. 4 concerns publishing the committee's proceedings. All agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Motion No. 5 is the authorization to hold meetings and receive evidence when quorum is not present. It reads:
That, pursuant to rule 89, the chair be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the publication of the evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that a member of the committee from both the government and the opposition be present.
Would anyone like to move that?
Senator Dallaire: Senator Segal, are you replacing someone?
Senator Segal: I am replacing Senator Manning today. I am not a formal member of the committee. I have daily status today.
The Chair: All agreed then?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Number 6, financial report:
That the committee adopt the draft first report, prepared in accordance with rule 104.
We have copies available here. Have they been distributed?
Ms. Thérien: Yes, they have been distributed.
The Chair: Do I have someone to move this motion? Yes, okay.
Then we will of course table that in the chamber.
Number 7, research staff:
That the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign analysts to the committee;
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of experts as may be required by the work of the committee; and
That the chair, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in preparation of studies, analyses, summaries, and draft reports.
Could I have a mover, please, on Motion No. 7? Thank you, Senator Peterson.
Senator Mitchell: Can we hire outside experts if we decide to do that?
The Chair: That depends on the budget. It does not really have anything to do with it. Internal Economy decides the budget.
Senator Lang: To answer your question about having to go outside the Senate, that is covered by the second paragraph, which says "services of experts as may be required."
The Chair: All agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Number 8, authority to commit funds and certify accounts:
That, pursuant to section 7, chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority be commit funds be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and clerk of the committee;
That, pursuant to section 8, chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee; and
That, notwithstanding the foregoing, in cases related to consultants and personnel services, the authority to commit funds and certify accounts be conferred jointly on the chair and deputy chair.
Do I have someone to move that?
Senator Nolin: I so move.
Senator Day: I am voting in favour of this.
The Chair: All agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Day: However, I wonder if our clerk can tell us about committing funds pursuant to section 7, chapter 3:06 of Senate Administrative Rules. Presumably there are funds that have already been approved in a budget that has been approved by the Senate chamber. I would assume that to be the case.
Ms. Thérien: Exactly; that is the case.
Senator Day: It cannot commit funds just willy-nilly.
Ms. Thérien: Once a budget is adopted by the chamber, it gives authority to the chair, the deputy chair and the clerk to commit funds.
Senator Day: Within the parameters of that budget?
Ms. Thérien: Exactly.
Senator Day: That is what I thought and that is what that section provides.
Ms. Thérien: Exactly.
The Chair: Number 9, travel:
That the committee empower the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure to designate, as required, one or more members of the committee and/or such staff as may be necessary to travel on assignment on behalf of the committee.
Do I have someone to move that motion? Thank you.
Senator Dallaire: When I see terms like "may be necessary," in the parlance of government that means it is not essential. I have been trying to understand the lexicon of the Senate compared to government departments. The argument would be — and I do not think we can change it here — that the committee needs staff when it travels. A committee without staff would be most onerous indeed. "Necessary" means we could end up with no staff. Can the committee really do its work without staff when it is mobile? I raise that as a point of terminology.
The Chair: I do not think that it reads that way at all. It says, ". . . the committee and/or such staff as may be necessary to travel on assignment. . . ."
Senator Lang: For clarification, the way I read it is that we have to give authorization for staff to travel. In other words, those decisions are taken on a case-by-case situation. It is not whether staff is travelling with the committee; it is about how many staff members the committee actually needs.
Senator Dallaire: It was more the necessity of staff being with us when we travel to be able to do our job. I hope the way this is written does not preclude us from doing that.
The Chair: This is committee staff we are talking about.
Senator Dallaire: I am talking about committee staff, not personal staff.
The Chair: Do we have a mover?
Senator Segal: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you. Is there agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Number 10, designation of members travelling on committee business:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to:
1) determine whether any member of the committee is on "official business" for the purposes of paragraph 8(3)(a) of the Senators Attendance Policy, published in the Journals of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 1998; and
2) consider any member of the committee be on "official business" if that member is: (a) attending an event or meeting related to the work of the committee; or (b) making a presentation related to the work of the committee; and
That the subcommittee report at the earliest opportunity any decisions taken with respect to the designation of members of the committee travelling on committee business.
Do I have a mover?
Senator Plett: So moved.
The Chair: Thank you. Is there agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Number 11, travelling and living expenses of witnesses:
That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witness expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for one witness from any one organization and payment will take place upon application, but that the chair be authorized to approve the expenses for a second witness should there be exceptional circumstances.
Is there a mover?
Senator Nolin: So moved.
The Chair: Thank you. Is there agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Communications, number 12:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to direct communications officer(s) assigned to the committee in the development of communications plans where appropriate and to request the services of the Senate Communications Directorate for the purposes of their development and implementation;
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to allow coverage by electronic media of the public proceedings of the committee with the least possible disruption of its hearings at its discretion.
Do I have a mover? Thank you. Is there agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Number 13 relates to the time slot for our regular meetings, which will be Mondays from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. That is just for information purposes.
Senator Mitchell: I will move that.
The Chair: It does not require a motion because the whips have already agreed. There is no option.
Senator Dallaire: Madam Chair, I would like to confirm our modus operandi.
The Chair: I will discuss those issues later when we go in camera, but please go ahead.
Senator Dallaire: We can do it in camera then.
Before we move on to other business, will we also touch upon our work plan when we come back?
The Chair: In a general way, absolutely.
Senator Day: Madam Chair, 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. is a long time for our support staff and the interpreters to be working without a break. Even though the time slot is designated as 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., some discretion has to be exercised by this committee with respect to those four hours of continuous meetings.
The Chair: I think it is the same everywhere in the system. There are rotations for interpreters. They shift off during the four hours.
Senator Day: Do they?
The Chair: People come and go.
Senator Day: I have never had them do that in any other committee, but I have never, of course, met four hours straight in other committees. If the meetings are two hours in length, it is the same group that is there all the time. If we designate that we will meet four hours straight, Ms. Thérien, as the clerk, will look after making sure there is a proper rotation of support staff.
The Chair: It is a rule, I think.
Ms. Thérien: It is not my job to — I just send the notice and all these services organize themselves. It is normally their policy that there is a rotation, especially for interpretation. They do little bits and then they rotate.
Senator Day: Good. I just want to make sure they are properly looked after. Thank you.
The Chair: Number 14 relates to other business and the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs:
That a Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs be established to study matters which may be referred to it by the committee.
Do we have a mover on that first part?
Senator Dallaire: So moved.
The Chair: Thank you.
On membership:
That the membership of the subcommittee be as follows:
Do you have that information available?
Senator Dallaire: Yes. Senator Day and Senator Dallaire.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Lang: Senator Plett and Senator Nolin.
The Chair: And Senator Wallin.
Senator Lang: Senator Wallin.
The Chair: We are carrying on.
That, pursuant to rule 89, the committee's authority to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the printing of the evidence when a quorum is not present be conferred on the subcommittee;
That, pursuant to rule 90, the committee's authority to send for persons, papers and records, whenever required, and to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, be conferred on the subcommittee;
That the committee's authority to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical, and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of the committee's examination and consideration of such bills, subject-matters of bills and estimates as are referred to it, be conferred on the subcommittee;
That, pursuant to section 7, chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, the committee's authority to commit funds be conferred on the subcommittee;
That, pursuant to section 8, chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, the committee's authority of certifying accounts payable be conferred on the subcommittee;
That the committee's authority, pursuant to paragraph 8(3)(a) of the Senators Attendance Policy, be conferred on the subcommittee;
That the committee's power to permit coverage by electronic media of its public hearings be conferred on the subcommittee; and
That, pursuant to Senate guidelines for witness expenses, the authority of the committee to reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for witnesses be conferred on the subcommittee.
Senator Dallaire: I was querying the clerk's staff on how to get the subcommittee cranked up in this time frame.
The Chair: We are doing that today.
Senator Dallaire: Unless it is added somewhere. What I am talking about is —
The Chair: You just have to hold your organizational meeting, which is planned for Wednesday.
Senator Dallaire: I was hoping that we could start to get work done at the organizational meeting, too. The way this is worded, we would simply have an organizational meeting on Wednesday.
Senator Plett: Absolutely.
The Chair: I think that is what we have to do, yes.
Ms. Thérien: The subcommittee does not have an order of reference right now, just as the committee does not have an order of reference.
Senator Dallaire: The subcommittee cannot get an order of reference until the committee gets an order of reference.
Ms. Thérien: Right.
Senator Dallaire: I was trying to work with that in order to get the subcommittee cranked up.
The Chair: I think we are going as fast as we can this week. We will be doing this tomorrow.
Do we have agreement to — oh, we did not move that one. I thought it was right back to Senator Dallaire. We need another mover. Thank you.
Number 15 is a point of information that the time slot for regular meetings of subcommittee be Wednesdays from noon to 1:20 p.m.
Ms. Thérien: I do not think you have the latest version.
The Chair: Number 15. It is just a point of information. There is no provision on the agenda for a mover.
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: When did you receive it?
[English]
Ms. Thérien: I just brought it to the meeting.
[Translation]
Senator Day: Has the time changed?
[English]
Senator Dallaire: It is in the pile of papers given to us. It is so difficult to be able to do pre-planning in the Senate.
[Translation]
Senator Day: Section 15.
Senator Dallaire: Are we at section 15?
Senator Day: Yes, that is right. In the document, it says that it is from noon to 1:20 p.m.
Senator Dallaire: That is correct.
Senator Day: Is that right?
[English]
The Chair: There is agreement, then.
Number 16 relates to other business and an order of reference. It reads:
That the chair be authorized to seek authority of the Senate for the following order of reference:
That the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be authorized to examine and report on Canada's national security and defence policies, practices, circumstances and capabilities; and
That the papers and evidence received and taken and the work accomplished by the committee on this subject since the beginning of the Third Session of the Fortieth Parliament be referred to the committee.
Do I have a mover?
Senator Plett: So moved.
The Chair: Thank you. Is there agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Number 17 reads:
That the chair be authorized to seek authority of the Senate for the following order of reference:
That the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be authorized to study:
(a) services and benefits provided to —
This is the standing definition.
— members of the Canadian Forces; to veterans who have served honourably in Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces in the past; to members and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and its antecedents; and all of their families;
(b) commemorative activities undertaken by the Department of Veterans Affairs Canada, to keep alive for all Canadians the memory of Canadian veterans' achievements and sacrifices; and
(c) continuing the implementation of the New Veterans Charter;
That the papers and evidence received and taken and the work accomplished by the committee on this subject during the Fortieth Parliament be referred to the committee; and
That the committee report to the Senate no later than June 17, 2012, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings until 90 days after the tabling of the final report.
Do I have a mover? Thank you.
Senator Day: Is there a reason why the papers and evidence referred to the overall committee are from the beginning of the Third Session of the Fortieth Parliament, whereas there is no reference to the third session with respect to the subcommittee?
The Chair: Given that the work on the veterans report has taken four years, covering more than one session, it has to be brought forward. I think that work started three or four years ago.
Senator Day: Normally we would not go back beyond the most recent session of the last Parliament, but I understand now.
Senator Mitchell: Perhaps I do not fully follow. Are we authorizing something that has to be done no later than three days before today, June 17?
The Chair: 2012.
Senator Mitchell: Thanks.
The Chair: Do not make us any older than we already are, please. I do not want to lose a year — and I think there was some incentive.
We will move on to the budget. We put forward our budget before the government was brought down because we wanted to be first on the list, but now we have to start again. We need to approve our budget.
I think you have a document in front of you so that we can go again to the Internal Economy Committee and get ourselves back on that list for consideration. This is the same budget in principle that we put forward. You will see that some of the costs have actually been reduced. The reason for that is because we have proposed that these trips, particularly on the West Coast and East Coast, be fact finding rather than formal hearings.
It was our experience in Edmonton, and I am sure others have had different experiences, that the informal way of approaching this seems to bring us a lot more information and provide more insight into what is really going on. It has the benefit of being a little less expensive, which I hope will serve us well when we appear before Internal Economy.
There is a Washington trip as well, and I hope all will agree. Senator Peterson attended that as well even though he was not a member of the committee at that point.
We have plans to visit a West Coast naval base and an East Coast naval base. As we all know, there will be a lot of emphasis on naval operations.
We are also hoping at some point in the not-too-distant future to go to Kabul via London in order to look at the new training operation that is there.
It is the budget we previously agreed to, with savings that come from reductions.
Senator Day: Madam Chair, this looks fine. We have seen this before, but it was based on a plan. Usually the budget supports a plan for the coming year. Now we are talking about a budget without talking about a plan. Are we just adopting the previous plan for future business?
The Chair: No. Unless you have reason to disagree, our overall mandate as spelled out would encompass this. The specifics that will be discussed in part in camera and in part by the steering committee are encompassed by that standing order.
Senator Day: I agree that we are not outside our standing order with respect to any one of these items, but there are priorities as to what we might want to do over the next year. Going to Kabul and to Washington and visiting naval bases as opposed to air force bases, are these the priorities? I just think it takes some discussion before we agree to adopt this budget.
The Chair: We can go in camera and have that discussion, but if you want a week-by-week agenda, I do not think we will be signing off on that today. Much of that will be discussed in detail at the steering committee. My concern is with moving forward so that we keep our place in the queue during the budget period.
Senator Mitchell: Did you just come up with the idea of the two naval bases?
The Chair: We agreed to this as a committee the last time around.
Senator Segal: Procedurally, if this budget is submitted to the Internal Economy Committee and agreed to, and if the steering committee in its wisdom wants to rearrange the priorities within the parameters of the budget, that is something that is allowed.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Segal: I understand that to be the case and want to make sure that that is the case. I am asking the question.
Senator Day: I believe if the Subcommittee on Budgets decides to allocate money to go to Washington and then we decide we do not have to go to Washington, we cannot move that somewhere else. Having served on that subcommittee, my understanding is that we have to go back to the subcommittee.
The Chair: As the clerk has spelled out in detail, without an order of reference, which I assume will be approved by the chamber, we cannot actually have a formal budget. We wanted to agree to a budget in principle today so that the steering committee could move forward with haste and get ourselves in the line-up.
Senator Dallaire: We discussed this informally because we did not have a steering committee, although before the election we did talk about the trips. I remember the discussion.
Will the trips of the Veterans Subcommittee be presented as part of a separate budget?
The Chair: My understanding is that it has to go forward separately.
Ms. Thérien: The subcommittee will adopt its plan and budget, but then it needs to be adopted by the main committee and then go to Internal Economy. Everything needs to go through the main committee.
Senator Dallaire: If we do not have a meeting next week, then the budget of the Veterans Subcommittee will not go through until the fall.
The Chair: I think that is correct. I think the Internal Economy Committee will be meeting over the summer, but I think the priority of the Veterans Subcommittee is to deal with the report.
Senator Dallaire: Do they need a draft like this? I thought we had put something together, but I will check on that and get back to you.
Senator Nolin: The committee should be reminded that if there is a need for funds, the chair and the steering committee can ask for emergency funding through Internal Economy. They can allocate up to $10,000 without causing any major trouble.
The Chair: Yes, while we are waiting for them to go through all the procedures.
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: Madam Chair, I had taken for granted that it was our generic plan. Some legislative measures may require us to travel. This draft has not been approved. We are studying it and it will be approved when we return in September. The national Finance Committee has a draft. I will make sure that you also have a copy of the veterans' affairs committee draft, and then I will make sure that it was done.
[English]
The Chair: Do we have agreement in principle, then, on this document?
Senator Lang: So moved.
Senator Mitchell: Can we debate it?
Senator Lang: Sure.
Senator Mitchell: At one point last year the chair had one of her staff members write a report. Is that still your intention?
The Chair: We do not have a budget yet, so I am hoping we will be able to use all our resources. We have Library of Parliament staff. In addition, if there is any other money approved in the budget, there might be circumstances where we have a person to do a final draft if we are in the middle of two things.
Senator Mitchell: Do we have other money in the budget to do that?
The Chair: We do not know.
Senator Mitchell: You are asking for $25,000.
The Chair: That is correct.
Senator Mitchell: That is for editing and revision. That is not writing. There is no money in here for a writer, or am I mistaken?
The Chair: It would be a writer working off a document prepared by some combination of people, most particularly senators. We might give it to that person for a final write, which would be editing and revision. I do not think people would start from scratch.
Senator Mitchell: That is not what happened on the report that your staffer did. Did he not just write it from scratch?
The Chair: Based on testimony.
Senator Mitchell: He was a writer, not an editor.
The Chair: Right.
Senator Mitchell: I am saying that if you wanted to hire a writer, you would either use your staff member or —
The Chair: There is no money in the budget. My sense is that Internal Economy has not radically changed its views on this, but you might know better from your members whether there was a change.
Senator Mitchell: We might want to use some of that $25,000 to get someone to write.
The Chair: That is writing. That is what editing and revision services are. I do not think anyone would write a report based on another topic that did not come from information generated by the committee. Call it what you will, but I do not think a writer would write a report that would just then appear.
Senator Dallaire: We went through the exercise last year where the staff from the Library of Parliament wrote a report and then, if you remember, your staff wrote a separate one.
The Chair: Using the first one as a basis.
Senator Dallaire: That is right. We agreed that we would never do that again. We would have the one from the parliamentary staff. If we were not satisfied with that report, we would beat it up and play with it. We would do that.
The Chair: I do not think we agreed that nothing like that would ever happen. I think we agreed that if we had a document that needed rewriting, we would use whatever resources we had available to get it to a different stage, or to include other testimony that had not been included. I do not think we want to say we would never, at any point, take Library of Parliament research and not do another draft on it. We may well do that.
Senator Dallaire: Maybe I am losing something in the English translation.
[Translation]
Basically, it was decided that we would not create a brand new report, to be written by outside staff. So based on that report, if we were not satisfied with it, or if there was still work to be done, we would turn to other resources, and those could include the people who work for us.
[English]
The Chair: The distinction in my mind is that in earlier days of this committee we have seen reports from writers that were not based on testimony. What we are talking about here is the work that Mark did in my office, which was based on testimony and research compiled by Library of Parliament researchers. It was just put together in a different form. It was not some report that came from outside the framework of the committee.
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: To be ethical in this situation, we will take the report which your colleagues will produce, and if that report does not meet our needs, it will be changed. The content can literally be rewritten. However, we will not initiate a report which was not first drafted by our staff.
[English]
The Chair: Am I missing something here? What I do not ever want to see is a report by a third party, outside the process, that is written not based on testimony. Anything and everything that was presented in whatever form to this committee last year was, first, based on testimony and, second, had initially been compiled by Library of Parliament researchers, and then may have had another hand on it — mine, yours, Mark's, other people, some collection of the general. That is the process of a draft report or a draft document — looking at it and taking it to something we would all sign our names to.
Senator Dallaire: We know the history of the committee.
Madam Chair, in relation to your own ability to be transparent to the whole committee, we said that the library staff would produce either a compendium or a report, using whatever methodology we wanted, on the work that we had been doing. If we wanted to adjust it, change it, have rewrites done — and they could be significant — we would do that, but we would not initiate a report from your staff, my staff, or anyone else's staff.
The Chair: No report was initiated that way. I do not know what you are talking about in terms of transparency. Is there a case in point? I do not know what you were referring to.
Senator Dallaire: What was the subject?
The Chair: I do not know. We studied Arctic sovereignty, and it was based on research that was —
Senator Dallaire: I have no problem with the research. What I am questioning is the writing of the report. Is it not the duty of library staff to produce the first draft?
The Chair: Yes, which is what was done. That is what I am puzzled about. That is where the document came from. Mark then took that document, rearranged it and put it in a different order. It was work that had been compiled by our Library of Parliament researchers.
Senator Dallaire: Then that is excellent, because we were left to believe that Mark produced the reports separate from that one.
The Chair: No.
Senator Dallaire: Well, remember the debate we had at the time.
The Chair: I do not.
Senator Dallaire: We ended up with two reports.
The Chair: I do not remember the debate because it was nothing. Nothing came that was —
Senator Segal: The chair and deputy chair are in violent agreement on the way ahead.
The Chair: That is what I think, too.
Senator Dallaire: Listen, what I am trying to get at is that no outside initiatives are being created by whomever.
The Chair: That is exactly right. We wanted to go ahead this way because that had been the history, which I wanted to stop.
Senator Dallaire: We will leave it at that. Thank you very much.
Senator Day: Madam Chair, I heard you indicate that we may be discussing this further in camera, which is perhaps the place to do that.
However, there is an amount of $38,000 in this draft budget for professional and other outside services: consulting services, communications consultants, et cetera. We should make a policy decision as to whether we want to go to Internal Economy and ask them to approve $38,000 for outside consultants.
The Chair: But that is what it says in the budget.
Senator Day: I also notice transportation under Activity 4. Items 3 and 5 relate to Dubai. I suspect that we will be going to Dubai because of Camp Mirage.
The Chair: What page are you on?
Senator Day: Activity 4, page 6. There are a number of points in this draft budget that are questionable.
The Chair: The clerk said that she was working with last year's document.
Senator Day: I would be very hesitant to adopt this particular budget, whether in principle or otherwise. If the intent is to pass a budget that will be sent to Internal Economy, I do not think it is in proper shape to do that.
The Chair: The clerk says that Dubai may be a stop anyway, regardless of whether or not Camp Mirage still exists. It happens to be a hub in the area.
I think there are two different versions.
Senator Mitchell: The English and French documents are different.
Senator Dallaire: I have only the French one.
Senator Mitchell: The French one has $2,000.
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: Once more.
Senator Day: For the anglophones, it is $38,000.
Senator Dallaire: The anglophones have the right numbers; the francophones have to get organized!
[English]
The Chair: Is there a way to tell the documents apart? Does everyone have the one with the word "Draft" on it? Is everyone operating from that?
Ms. Thérien: If they have another version, I do not know where it came from.
The Chair: It has the word "Draft" on it. Is everyone operating from that?
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: The English version is the one we are studying.
[English]
The Chair: Yes. Have you noted the changes subject to that?
Ms. Thérien: Yes.
Senator Peterson: You are going to approve this in principle; here is what we would like to do and here is how much we want.
The Chair: Right.
Senator Peterson: Is that it? They say, "Okay, it is fixed," and that is what you do?
The Chair: Subject to the other discussion. If we decide or if the military decides, for example, that no one can travel to Kabul, or whatever it may be, then we might want to redirect those funds. We would have to go back and say that no trips are ever allowable to X.
Senator Peterson: You can do that?
The Chair: Yes, you can.
Senator Nolin: Through the steering committee.
Senator Mitchell: This is all good. I am happy with the trips that are being indicated, but I am concerned about Dubai. You need to have a specific reason why that is in there if you are going to sell this at all. If I was on the Internal Economy Committee and was presented with, "Well, we are going through Dubai because it may be a centre," there has to be a reason.
Senator Nolin: The commercial flight that goes to Kabul starts in Dubai.
Senator Mitchell: We are staying there for two nights. Are we staying there both coming and going?
Senator Nolin: Coming and going.
The Chair: If you land at midnight, which I did once, I got to my room at 2 a.m.
Senator Mitchell: We will be flying in on non-military aircraft?
The Chair: We cannot predict those things.
Senator Lang: The other side of the coin is that if we are, then obviously we do not have to account for those expenses. What we are doing is putting an estimate in here saying that there is a strong possibility that may happen. If we do not have to go Dubai and go elsewhere, and still make the same commitment to the trip, then in principle we are doing the same trip. If we can save some money, we will.
Senator Mitchell: I am saying that we are not going on a military aircraft.
The Chair: From where?
Senator Mitchell: Like we did last time, we went through Mirage.
The Chair: We obviously will not be doing that. It does not exist.
Senator Mitchell: That is my point. My very point is that someone has not thought this out to a point where —
The Chair: That is why we have all these options in the budget.
Senator Mitchell: Okay.
The Chair: Are there any other comments? Can I have someone move this motion?
Senator Plett: I think the motion came half an hour ago from Senator Lang.
The Chair: I think you are right. Do we need a seconder? We do not.
Senator Plett: I will second it.
The Chair: All in favour to the budget in principle to be forwarded to the —
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Day: No. I would like my name recorded. I do not think this is a proper procedure.
Senator Mitchell: I agree.
The Chair: I suggest that we adjourn this portion of the meeting and continue in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)