Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 4 - Evidence - April 20, 2009
OTTAWA, Monday, April 20, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 4:05 p.m. to examine and report on the national security policy of Canada; and for discussion on veterans affairs.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we have a draft agenda available for you.
Senator Tkachuk: Where is the draft agenda?
The Chair: It is in my stack of papers if you do not have one.
Senator Tkachuk: Is that the one that was circulated to us?
The Chair: Yes: Do you have it now, Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, I have it.
The Chair: Item 1 is a discussion on veterans affairs. Senator Day asked for the floor.
Senator Day: Honourable senators, you will recall that at the last meeting, I presented a more abbreviated form of a motion with the intent of creating a standing committee on veterans affairs. I listened to the discussion we had at that meeting. I came back and I have had discussions with some of you. However, more importantly, I have had discussions with Charles Robert and Mark Audcent about the best way to achieve what I am trying to achieve.
I believe there is a motion to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament to review the structure of all committees. I also have in mind the expressed — and I think unanimous — agreement by everyone that it is important to address veterans affairs at this time with so many soldiers returning injured from deployment. We need to recognize the importance of this subject matter including the families of these veterans who provide support. I include that subject as part of the veterans issues.
I have two motions. At the bottom of the first motion, there are two paragraphs beginning "Now therefore . . . .'' Number that motion number 1 and the second motion, with only one paragraph at the bottom beginning "Now therefore . . .,'' number 2. I will speak to those motions in that order.
Motion 1 is a wordier expression of the motion that I put to the committee for discussion purposes last week but includes in the "whereas'' clauses some of the points that were made in argument at that time. In the motion, I ask that the veterans affairs aspects of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be removed from the Defence Committee and that a new permanent standing committee be established and dedicated to veterans affairs matters.
My understanding in talking to Charles Robert and Mark Audcent is that, in all likelihood, the Senate will refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, especially since that committee is conducting a study at this time on that matter. If the Senate refers this matter to the committee, the committee is "to examine and report on the amendments to the Rules of the Senate required to establish a separate standing committee dedicated to matters related to veterans affairs, having regard to the urgency of such matters, such report'' from this subcommittee "shall be made to the Senate at its earliest convenience.''
I do not want to dictate to another committee how quickly it should act but I point out the importance of moving on this issue.
In the meantime, what do we do? This study could drag on for some considerable period of time. Having first-hand knowledge of subcommittees, I believe that a subcommittee cannot have more than four members under our rules. A subcommittee cannot be greater than half the overall committee, and the membership of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence is small. Therefore, the subcommittee can have only four people. The subcommittee derives its budget and mandate from this committee.
I believe we should reflect in our activities the same recognition by the House of Commons of the stand-alone importance of veterans affairs. In the second motion, the recitals, the "whereas'' portions, are all the same. However, in the last paragraph, I suggest:
Now therefore the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence does hereby authorize and direct the chair of the committee to move a motion in the Senate to initiate the amendment to the Rules of the Senate to transfer matters relating to veterans affairs from the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence to a special committee to be established and dedicated to those matters.
My view is that this special committee can be created without the necessity of this matter being referred to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. There is precedent for that view. The standing committee would be an interim standing committee so we can get on with this —
Senator Banks: Do you mean the special committee?
Senator Day: Yes, thank you: The special committee will be an interim matter so that we can proceed with these issues and form a full-blown committee of whatever can be worked out between the leadership in terms of the numbers. However, the committee will be its own committee — a special committee — not unlike the Aging Committee or the Anti-terrorism Committee. It will have a defined mandate and exist until the work of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament can get its act together and refer back.
My long-term plan and hope is that we will have a Standing Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs at the end of the work of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament work. In the meantime, we can have a working committee. That plan is the reason for the two different motions.
Senator Zimmer: If we proceed on this basis and go through the Rules Committee, how soon can this work be done? The concern is that there will be a delay in putting this plan into motion. Also, the issues must be dealt with for the veterans. Can this work be done this week?
Senator Day: Upon reflection and hearing this discussion at the last meeting, I prepared this second motion to put this second committee in place. That committee can be in place as soon as the Senate wishes to act. There is not a tradition of sending special committees to the Rules Committee. That committee can happen within days — tomorrow, if everyone agrees.
Senator Nolin: The Rules Committee meets tomorrow. The item on the agenda is the committee structure.
Senator Day: Excellent.
Senator Nolin: Also, a letter was sent by the Conservative members of the committee to Senator Oliver, Chair of the Rules Committee, to look into having a stand-alone standing committee on veterans affairs.
Senator Day: Wonderful; I think that is great.
The Chair: Is it possible to have a copy of that letter?
Senator Tkachuk: We do not have it in both official languages yet.
Senator Nolin: I have it in English.
The Chair: I always have to wait for my French version.
Senator Nolin: I also have a question regarding a special committee. I have heard that the leadership is spoken to before a special committee is created.
Senator Comeau: That is right.
Senator Nolin: Can we have some kind of information? What kind of dialogue do we have between the two sides of the chamber?
Senator Day: Absolutely.
Senator Nolin: Perhaps we can ask Senator Comeau.
Senator Day: There would have to be dialogue, obviously.
Senator Comeau: I think it would be incumbent upon Senator Day to advise us as to the kinds of discussions he has had with the leadership. Nobody has approached me about this matter. This is the first time I have heard about it.
Generally speaking, when a committee is proposed, in the past, the leadership has been approached as a courtesy. I do not think my leader has been approached, though possibly you have approached yours. I have not heard about it.
Senator Day: Thank you, Senator Comeau. You will appreciate that I want to find out what this committee feels, first. If you look at the motion, you will see that the motion directs our chair. Our committee is asking our chair to do just that; namely, to have the consultation and then to put the motion in the chamber. I know that our chair would never put a motion in the chamber without prior consultation. It would be premature for me to talk on behalf of this committee until I understand the mood of this committee.
Senator Comeau: Why are they taking this approach? I cannot understand why the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence cannot continue with a Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs until such time as the Rules Committee has looked at all committees?
My understanding is that the committee will address this matter but it will still take time. Rather than going through the circuitous route of a special committee under the auspices of the Defence Committee, the good work of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs can continue without reducing the value we all attach to the work of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, with the possibility of having a full committee down the road along with all the other committees.
I assume other people will ask for special committees or new standing committees. They will all be put into the hopper and this request will not receive separate treatment from all the new standing committees that will be proposed or the standing committees that will be eliminated.
Senator Banks: The work of the Veterans Affairs Committee has been superlatively good and has achieved great things under its expert and experienced chair. Over the years, I have been a member of the committee only a few times but Senator Meighen has done a sterling job and no one would have any reservation about Senator Meighen chairing either a special committee or a standing committee.
In answer to the question, Senator Comeau, even if Canada were not involved in Afghanistan, the valuable work by that committee has been the tip of the iceberg in terms of what ought to be done. The reason is that the subcommittee meets technically for an hour and a half on Wednesdays at noon. When the bells ring at 1:30 p.m., mid-sentence, the business stops.
The amount of work achieved by that committee has been Herculean, given the amount to be done, and is a fraction of what needs to be done, even if we were not facing the Afghanistan injuries referred to here, including post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. It is fair to say that the committee is unable to deal with the body of work that needs to be done, which has been recognized in the House of Commons by the establishment of a full standing committee.
In a few years, we may not need such a standing committee but, currently, the idea of a committee of four people meeting for an hour and a quarter each week is not physically up to the task. It is not possible mechanically to do the work. It needs a special committee. If the leadership and the Senate were to agree with the suggestion as proposed by this committee, we could have a special committee, a kind of interim committee, to deal with these matters forthwith until the establishment of a permanent, full standing committee, which would be subject to the study undertaken by the Rules Committee.
Senator Tkachuk: I have a couple of questions, Senator Day. I have no problem discussing this issue. However, if you want to bring up a resolution on how the committees function, you could have done it in a number of ways. For one, you could have moved a motion in the house to establish a committee or a special committee. A special committee requires resources, payment of chair, deputy chair, clerk and researchers, which we already have because right now, we supply those things in this committee.
For clarification, Senator Wallin sent a letter to the Rules Committee, which is looking at committees as mandated by the Senate. You could have gone to the Rules Committee, Senator Day, to make the point. I am sure they would have taken your advice, or other members could have come forward to talk about this matter instead of us having this discussion. You are asking the Rules Committee to have a discussion and we are having this discussion, whereas you simply could have gone to Rules.
The Chair: Senator Wallin specifically asked that this issue be on today's agenda.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, she did ask. At the end of her letter, she explicitly says that while Rules is studying this matter, the subcommittee should go forward. She did not ask that this motion be discussed but rather that the subcommittee be established, which is our task in respect of our present mandate; yet, we are trying to transfer the issue to somebody else. She wanted the subcommittee to be established, which we discussed on the Wednesday before the break.
How do you see this plan working? A special committee would require all kinds of new resources that we already command as part of the responsibility and budget of the Defence Committee. Senator Day, do you envision part of this committee's resources and budget being moved to Veterans Affairs as part of our responsibility?
The Chair: With respect, there is a separate budget for Veterans Affairs, which is always prepared.
Senator Tkachuk: I understand that but the subcommittee has use of our resources as well.
The Chair: No, they have a different researcher.
Senator Tkachuk: I do not know. Do they ever use any of the resources of this committee?
Senator Meighen: Jim Cox from the Library has been helpful.
Senator Tkachuk: We are charged with the task. Since it will take a while for the new committee to be established, what is wrong with the subcommittee existing until the Rules Committee reports to the Senate and the Senate determines how the committee structure should work?
Senator Day: Do you want me to reply, Mr. chair?
Senator Tkachuk: You owe it to reply to me.
The Chair: Everyone here speaks in turn. I have Senator Mitchell and then Senator Day may want to reply.
Senator Mitchell: I have two points to address. In response to a point made by Senator Tkachuk concerning his proposal that we circumvent this committee and go directly to the Rules Committee or move a motion in the house, it is important that we respect this committee and solicit input from this committee. On the flip side, we would be highly susceptible to criticism if we simply advance something without the effort to build a consensus. I understand the rule to say that we cannot have more than half the full committee on a subcommittee. When there are nine members on a full committee, five of them cannot be on the subcommittee. Four is the limit. Tell me of any committee in the Senate that has ever had an equal number of members and, if you find one, tell me how it ever operated. It is simply not possible for that committee to operate.
The Chair: There have always been five members. The rule says half plus one, which is how they have five members.
Senator Tkachuk: What is wrong with five? Do not say four.
The Chair: I did not say four. I said five. I have been advised that the rule is 50 per cent plus one. That is why the committee, in the past, has had five members. I am trying to keep everyone on the same page.
Senator Day: That was my fault because the set of rules I had said that a subcommittee cannot have more than half.
Shaila Anwar, Clerk of the Committee: That rule relates to the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. The steering committee always has three members.
Senator Day: We are talking about a subcommittee of the standing committee. I have the rule number. If you have a copy of the Rules of the Senate I will find it for you.
The Chair: Senator Day, you have the floor at this time.
Senator Day: The only other aspect is that perhaps I misread the rules. The subcommittee is comprised of four or five who must be members of the standing committee.
I made the point at the last meeting that many members of the Senate are interested in veterans affairs, who are not members of this committee and who would like to be chosen to serve on the Veterans Affairs Committee. I can name two or three for you right now, including Senator Dallaire, Senator Downe and Senator Atkins. They came to many meetings of the Veterans Affairs Committee even though they were not members, but they could not go on any of our trips.
I think trips are important; to visit the hospitals and the veterans affairs sites, which we have done well in the past.
Senator Banks: And the Veterans Affairs Department in Prince Edward Island.
Senator Day: You are right, Senator Tkachuk, I could have made this proposal as an individual senator, but I wanted to show respect for a committee that has dealt with this matter in the past. Also, I wanted the weight of the committee that dealt with this matter in the past to recommend to the Senate that the time had come to create a separate stand-alone committee. For that reason, I elected to proceed this way as a member of this committee.
The Chair: I have Senator Nolin next on the list, but I can read the rule first. It is rule 96(5) on page 95 of the Rules of the Senate:
Subcommittees shall be composed of not more than half the number of members of a select committee, three of whom shall constitute a quorum.
I am advised that the members of the last committee were Senator Banks, Senator Meighen, Senator Nancy Ruth, Senator Day and me, which is five; and the practice of the Senate, when there is half a person, is to round up. You were right, Senator Day and you were right, Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Meighen: And you were right, too.
The Chair: Thank you, but I think the number is five in this case.
Senator Day: Can I confirm that they all must be from the parent committee?
The Chair: That is true.
Senator Nolin: Reading Senator Day's motion, the longer one, I support that motion, but I still do not understand why we cannot have both. Let us have that plan as the long-term objective, and the leadership can have a discussion on a special committee. In the meantime, however, why can we not organize a subcommittee? We can have both right away.
The Chair: The options I see are that we can have a subcommittee right away and we can go ahead with a proposal through the Rules Committee for a full standing committee. The other option proposed by Senator Day is a special committee, which, by agreement, can be put into effect this week, and that Rules study the proposal for a standing committee.
Senator Meighen: That is by agreement of the leadership, which we do not have.
The Chair: That is absolutely true; none of this works without a consensus. If there is no consensus, things obviously will not pass in the chamber.
Senator Meighen: We can do the first thing here.
The Chair: Potentially we can.
Senator Meighen: That is the only thing we can do.
Senator Nolin: It is not "or.'' I think we can have the three. We can go for the long-term solution, which is a full- fledged committee, organize the subcommittee now and if the leadership on both sides agrees to a special committee, we can go for it. Step-by-step, I think we can have the three, but it is important to have something as soon as possible.
The fact that the three of you travelled to a local hospital recently is evidence that this committee is greatly needed and soon — the sooner the better.
Senator Day: There is another option with respect, Mr. chair. The mandate to deal with veterans affairs issues in the rules is a mandate of this committee. The decision to hive off that mandate and give it to a subgroup of this group is a decision of this committee. One other option, therefore, would be for this committee to handle its mandate of veterans affairs, and not necessarily delegate it to four or five people of a subcommittee.
The Chair: I hate to tell you this, but on the one issue alone — and Senator Meighen can attest to it — you are talking about an onerous workload. What you are saying is correct, but I ask the members of the committee to think carefully about how broad the mandate of this committee is now.
Senator Banks: I have a question to Senator Nolin in respect to what he proposed — the three things at once.
Will that take the wind out of the urgency sails of the proposal that the Senate establish now a special committee? Will the Senate be less likely to react to the relative urgency of the situation if they can say that they do not need to address this proposal now because we have the subcommittee?
I revert to my argument that the subcommittee, given its time slot and its limited resources, has a tough time dealing with this matter. Until Rules comes down with a decision about whether to have a standing committee or not, the matter will receive short shrift in the meantime. Is my concern ill founded?
Senator Nolin: I think the concern is valid but three bodies need to answer to that concern. First, if the urgency is the leitmotif of the solution, we can move right away with the subcommittee.
For the Rules Committee, I think we need a longer solution; maybe the more permanent but definitely the longer. This proposal is not the only one and I think the pressure is to shrink the number of committees. Contrary to increasing the numbers, I think the spin is to have fewer committees.
On the other option, the special committee, I think only the leadership can tell us, and we will listen to them. If the leadership on both sides comes to the conclusion that they want a special committee, such a nod from the leadership can be dealt with rapidly. We do not have all the answers, but at least we have one. If we think the work is urgent, let us create the subcommittee.
The Chair: Colleagues, we have ventilated the issue thoroughly. Do people have other comments they want to make? Do you have a motion, Senator Day?
Senator Day: I have two motions, which have been circulated, chair. Do you want me to read them?
Senator Comeau: Before Senator Day moves the motion, the word "consensus'' has been brought in by a number of people sitting around the table. Consensus does not necessarily equate to a majority and minority vote on it. Do we want consensus or a vote? A vote may not necessarily arrive at a consensus, which is the word that I believe Senator Banks used. I think Senator Nolin used the word as well. The two are different. A vote it is one thing, but a consensus is something else.
Senator Banks: In answer to Senator Comeau's concern and the proposal raised by Senator Nolin, my understanding is that the passage of these motions does not preclude the other option. The options are not either-or; they are not mutually exclusive.
Senator Comeau: You were not listening. The word "consensus'' versus the word "vote:'' one side winning by one vote or losing by one vote does not equate to consensus.
Consensus means that members sitting around this table arrive at an agreement and our leadership is told that every last member on this committee sided with this proposal brought to leadership. Consensus has more weight.
I suggest that rather than risking not having consensus, you might want to consider it further, rather than proceeding to a vote.
Senator Day: If I can reflect on that point, the reason we have two motions now as opposed to the one that I proposed in last meeting was for that purpose. I thought the motions reflected a solution that everyone can support; I listened. I have strong feelings that creating a subcommittee is not the right thing to do. I tried to meet all the requirements that were expressed at the last meeting by preparing these motions. That is why I have two.
Senator Comeau: I would feel extremely uncomfortable if we left the room this afternoon without a subcommittee on veterans affairs, and with the hope that leadership on both sides will create a special committee — down the road somewhere, still to be negotiated — and in the longer term, the Rules Committee will create a stand-alone veterans affairs committee.
If we go in the direction that you propose, we would leave this room without a subcommittee on veterans affairs, and who knows how long it will take before one is created.
I think it is more important to go at least with what has been working up to now, with the hope that this other group will arrive at a more optimal solution. At least we would leave this room with a veterans affairs committee, given the importance of the work to be done.
If time slots are a problem, generally speaking if the whips are approached, they might be able to address the problem that Senator Banks pointed out: the issue of not enough time and the gavel coming down after one hour. There may be ways of solving that problem. Given we are looking at this plan for the long term, there may be an interim solution.
Senator Banks: Senator Comeau, you said "down the road somewhere'' when you talked about the possible establishment of a special committee. The motion contemplates that the proposal would be dealt with immediately by the Senate, or not. You are a member of the leadership. We know that two or three weeks ago, with the agreement of the leadership, a special committee was formed with no debate on a vote, in one day in the Senate.
You are the only member of the leadership who is here. Is it possible that situation could happen with this committee?
Senator Comeau: I cannot talk in any way for the leadership. I have seen this proposal only this afternoon. I have no clue how long it will take. I cannot give any kind of commitment as to what the leadership would even contemplate in looking at this proposal. It would involve our leaders on both sides discussing the pros, cons and alternatives.
Senator Banks: "Down the road'' might be considerably down the road.
Senator Comeau: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Tkachuk: Senator Day, so it is clear, the second part of your motion, in no way, reflects what the members on our side felt. No one in our group thought about a special committee. In that Wednesday meeting, we all wanted a subcommittee of veterans affairs to be established forthwith. That subcommittee could have been established that Wednesday, but it was not. I want to make clear that the deduction you took from that meeting was not correct. The motion may reflect how your members felt, but a special committee was never mentioned at the meeting.
You did not phone me to see what I thought about this plan, and I do not know if others were phoned. I do not know how you arrived at this consensus. You said you tried to arrive at an understanding of compromise, but without asking our members to see whether we agreed to the compromise, there is no compromise.
Senator Day: That is why we are here.
Senator Tkachuk: That is correct. I must go further and say that we will support establishing a subcommittee today and deleting this section on the special committee. We do not need to have a resolution on a special committee here. You can bring forward that proposal in the Senate, or have your leadership take it to our leadership, and a special committee could be created to handle these matters.
However, right now I want to make it clear that veterans affairs are the charge of this committee. If there are pressing problems that must be dealt with, we should deal with them today.
Senator Day: We should deal with them in this committee, and not delegate them to four other people.
Senator Tkachuk: We can deal them in one of two ways: here or establish a special task group, which is a subcommittee of certain members who may want to deal with them on Wednesdays at noon. If the subcommittee thinks the work is too onerous, they can come back to this committee and we can deal with it as a larger group.
It is our charge and our responsibility to deal with veterans affairs. It is not our responsibility to say there is too much work; let us hive off some of the work and let someone else deal with it. We are trying to do that here; that is what this motion says. I strongly disagree with that plan. Veterans affairs are important, and it is important that they remain here.
If the Rules Committee — which has charge of overseeing this matter right now upon agreement from both leaders — wants to establish a special committee on veterans affairs, then they can darned well do so after studying the matter.
Senator Meighen: I have listened carefully to everything said back and forth, knowing that things generally take longer in the Senate than one would like, by the nature of the beast, and I would feel remiss if we, as a committee, did not set up our subcommittee. I recognize, as much as Senator Day or anyone else, the challenges faced by the committee in terms of time slot. I have tried for three years to obtain a better slot and never succeeded. I agree with Senator Day that the workload is increasing and we are overtasked already.
However, half a loaf in this instance is better than no loaf, and I am not persuaded that establishing a subcommittee will prejudice the case for a special committee or for a stand-alone standing committee.
I would prefer a motion that says, let us set up the subcommittee, but let us urge the leadership of both parties in the Senate to recognize the challenges faced in the subcommittee on veterans affairs and to act expeditiously to deal with them. The motion could say that going forward we cannot do a proper job on the basis of a subcommittee, but we can do some part of the job. If we do not set up a subcommittee, we risk not doing any part of the job.
Senator Mitchell: I want to emphasize Senator Day's point about compromise and consensus in answer to Senator Tkachuk's concern in that regard. Last time, Senator Day brought a motion on this side that said we wanted a standing committee. Clearly, the others on the committee who were here said they wanted a subcommittee. The special committee is a compromise. Compromise is how we build consensus. I believe we are building consensus here, and we both gain something in that process.
The second issue is to address Senator Meighen's point that he has tried for three years to obtain extra time for the subcommittee. If the subcommittee cannot obtain an extra hour a week over three years, how long will it take to create a special committee or standing committee? If leadership cannot address — and I think you mentioned your whip — that issue, then anything more significant would be even harder to address.
The upshot is this idea is that we would quickly have, rather than five, a full contingent of senators to deal with this difficult, important and urgent issue — particularly urgent because of what our soldiers who become veterans in one state of health or another — are demanding, and to do so quickly.
I think that the argument that it is important and the argument that it will be dealt with quickly will not stand if we do not deal with it now. The argument that the matter is important mitigates against referring or delegating it to a small contingent of people, which would be four or five, depending on how we interpret the rule. If the matter is important, it needs more than four people.
The worst that can happen if we take these motions to the Senate this week — we can present them unanimously on Tuesday or Wednesday — is that they are defeated. If they are defeated, we meet again one week from now and we can establish the subcommittee. I do not see the fairness between the trade-off of one week or, in Senator Meighen's case, three years to restructure these committees. I think we create the special committee now and throw it open to the Senate. If the proposal does not pass, then we amend that problem a week from now.
Senator Nolin: I want to make one small comment on the numbers. I think the numbers argument is not a good argument. I have chaired a committee of five. Senator Kenny and Senator Banks were with me on the committee, and we produced a 1,000-page report. A lot of colleagues wanted to sit on this committee. The interest was there and they came to the committee, so the number is not a good argument. The real issue is urgency. We want to do something and we want to do it fast. We have the authority to create a subcommittee now, so let us create the subcommittee and the rest as well.
The Chair: In fairness, the good turnout at your committee was because you were offering samples.
Senator Nolin: I did not even mention the subject matter of the committee.
Senator Tkachuk: If we are too busy, we do not have enough time and we do not want to establish a subcommittee, then why not have a full discussion on the fact that we are too busy? Maybe the discussion should be about defence and veterans affairs, which makes sense, and give up the "security'' part. Let it be a special committee, which would make a lot of sense, dealing with police matters and borders. We can run defence and veterans affairs together. I think those aspects are important. If we are too busy to handle veterans affairs, why do we not have a full discussion on this suggestion?
Senator Meighen: And antiterrorism?
Senator Tkachuk: And antiterrorism: Let us throw the whole thing open and say we are so busy and have so much on our plate, we cannot handle it now, so let us have a full discussion of what we want to keep on the plate and dismiss what we do not want. I take it no one is interested in that conversation?
Senator Banks: I am.
Senator Tkachuk: I want to hear it.
Senator Nolin: It is not the responsibility of this committee to decide its mandate.
Senator Tkachuk: That is what we are doing here.
Senator Nolin: No, no, no: The mandate of the committee is established by the Senate. and the Rules Committee is asked to review that mandate, period.
Senator Tkachuk: That is what we are doing.
Senator Nolin: I understand the point.
Senator Banks: The question that Senator Tkachuk raises is already the subject of a motion that has sent the whole question of committee memberships and mandates, et cetera, to the Rules Committee.
What Senator Day has undertaken here with respect to his motion relating to a special committee is to seek, not present, a consensus. I ask the question: By the way, he brought it to this committee so that, as he said, the proposal would have the weight of the committee behind it, as opposed to a proposal from an individual senator.
Is there a senator present who does not think that the establishment of a special committee on veterans affairs is a good idea?
Senator Tkachuk: I think we are charged with the mandate, so I think we should have a subcommittee. I am opposed to a special committee.
Senator Banks: That is fine.
The Chair: Let me work my way through where we are at. I stand to be corrected, but my impression is that everyone in the room and everyone on the committee are in favour of a standing committee. Am I correct? I am looking down the line. Is that fair?
Senator Meighen: Yes.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, I think so.
The Chair: I see everyone in the room nodding, namely that we have a consensus on a standing committee.
The question then is this: Given that we know standing committees take time to go through the system and come back out of it, what do we do in the meanwhile? The two options appear to be creating a subcommittee, which we have had in the past and which we have the capacity to create now, today; or, creating a special committee that will require consensus in the Senate to move ahead with expeditiously. I think we all agree that if there was a consensus, the Senate could create a special committee this week. I am saying "could''. I did not say "would.''
As I see it, the difference between the positions we are looking at now is that if there is no consensus in the Senate, then there will not be a special committee; if there is consensus, it could happen in 48 hours.
If people think I have not described the situation properly, now is the time to say so.
Senator Day: The third option is for this committee not to create a subcommittee but to exercise its mandate with respect to veterans affairs.
There are three options: Create a subcommittee; recommend the creation of a special committee; or carry on like we are now but include veterans affairs work. You make your point about how busy we are, but I think that option is there.
The Chair: If someone will please canvass this side of the table, I am not in favour of that option.
Senator Day: No, I understand that. That option is not my first, either, but you are putting all the options on the table.
The Chair: I thought I was putting the viable options on the table.
Senator Tkachuk: We are charged with veterans affairs. Whether we undertake the work ourselves or through a subcommittee, it does not matter.
The Chair: I think we all understand what the rules are, but that understanding does not alter the ability of this committee to express itself on this subject. We are talking about expressing ourselves.
Senator Nolin: To read into Senator Day's last comment, we already have the responsibility of looking into veterans affairs. If we vote "no'' to the creation of a subcommittee, that means we have the responsibility.
Senator Day: That is right.
Senator Nolin: Therefore, it is not one or the other. If we do not move on the subcommittee, we keep the responsibility we already have. If we create a subcommittee, we are not washing our hands of that responsibility; we still have it. We are asking for a group to look into it. However, the responsibility still lies around this table.
The Chair: That is correct, but there is no motion before us right now to do away with the subcommittee; it does not exist.
Senator Nolin: I know.
The Chair: The motions before us now are to do something else.
Senator Nolin: Yes, but I wanted to be sure that what Senator Day had mentioned was not one or the other. It is one but the first option is still there.
The Chair: There is a consensus on the standing committee, but the lack of consensus appears to be about either a subcommittee or a special committee. The difference seems to turn principally on timing and the confidence that the Senate will move rapidly if the special committee is put forward, versus the certainty that, if this committee chose to have a subcommittee now, this committee has the capacity to create that subcommittee today. Have I described the differences?
Senator Day: Yes, I think so.
Senator Banks: One factor has not been directly described, and that is what Senator Nolin proposed, which was that none of these options is mutually exclusive.
Senator Nolin: Exactly.
Senator Banks: That point was brought up, so it also needs to be included.
The Chair: Colleagues, I am trying to see how much consensus we have, and I can see consensus only for the full committee.
Senator Tkachuk: Are your members opposed to a subcommittee?
Senator Nolin: I will make the motion in two minutes, if you want. I am only waiting.
The Chair: I think we have to deal with one motion at a time.
Senator Nolin: I am waiting for that motion.
The Chair: Are you waving at me Senator Banks? I hope not, but if you are, I will acknowledge you.
Senator Banks: No, but go to the motions, chair.
The Chair: We have motion 1 with the final paragraph beginning with the words "And that.''
Senator Banks: Do you think it is a good idea to read it into the record?
The Chair: That would be considered routine.
Senator Nolin: In both official languages?
The Chair: We will start in French.
[Translation]
Shaila Anwar, Committee Clerk: Moved by the Honourable Senator Joseph Day:
That:
Whereas the Prime Minister has supported the creation of a free-standing committee on veterans affairs in the House of Commons to replace a subcommittee on veterans affairs;
And whereas a standing committee on veterans affairs has been created inthat place;
And whereas it is the desire, expressed by some honourable senators, to likewise create a standing committee on veterans affairs in the Senate of Canada;
And whereas a standing committee would have its own budget and meeting times for the deliberation of matters relating to its mandate;
And whereas the growing importance of veterans affairs issues calls out for a standing committee dedicated to such issues in the Senate of Canada;
And whereas such a committee on veterans affairs is needed to deal with the growing and critical issues of support for the physical and mental health of returning military and civilian personnel from battle zone deployment and support for the families of those so injured;
Now, therefore, the Standing Senate Committee on National Security andDefence does hereby authorize and direct the chair of the committee to move a motion in the Senate to initiate an amendment to the Rules of the Senate to transfer matters relating to veterans affairs from the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence to a special committee to be established and dedicated to those matters.
And should the Senate decide to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament to examine and report on amendments that will have to be made to the Rules of the Senate in order for a separate standing committee dedicated to veterans affairs to be established, any such report is to be tabled in the Senate no later than two weeks following the reference.
[English]
Senator Banks: Point of order: I would move to dispense reading the English version of that motion except that in the English translation I heard, in the penultimate paragraph the translator said: "to transfer matters relating to veterans affairs from the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence to a special committee.'' That is not the intent of this motion.
Senator Nolin: It was done in French.
Senator Banks: If it is a separate, new standing committee, then we are okay.
Senator Day: I agree that we should be able to dispense with the English translation, but I noticed that my amendment to the English was not transformed to the French. In the French, it said "in two weeks,'' and I had changed that in the English motion to "at the earliest convenience'' because I thought asking for the report in two weeks might be a little cheeky.
The Chair: Does the committee want to hear the motion in English now?
Senator Banks: I move that we dispense with the English version.
The Chair: Those in favour of the motion, please?
Senator Zimmer: Point of clarification: Can these motions run concurrently, at the same time?
The Chair: Yes, the motions will be dealt with in order. We have motion 1 from Senator Day; we have motion 2 from Senator Day, and we may have motion 3 from Senator Nolin. It is up to you to decide what works and what does not work.
Senator Zimmer: Thank you.
The Chair: Those in favour of the motion please raise their hand. Those opposed? Abstentions? Carried.
Let us move to motion 2, please.
Senator Tkachuk: I move a motion that this committee establish a subcommittee on —
Senator Day: No, no: We have the motion.
The Chair: I have called for motion 2.
Senator Tkachuk: Do we have a priority list or something?
The Chair: Yes, we do. The motions are in the order in which they come to our attention.
Senator Nolin: What other motion do you have?
The Chair: We have motion 2 that Senator Day brought forward.
Senator Nolin: No, it is included in motion 1.
Senator Day: No.
The Chair: No, it is not.
Senator Tkachuk: There are so many pieces of paper we are not sure which is which.
Senator Day: Let me help you.
Senator Tkachuk: Why do you not, Senator Day.
Senator Day: I thought I had. If you look at the documents I passed out sometime ago, there are two documents. Let us look at the two English ones at the bottom. One is "Now therefore'' as the last paragraph and one is "Now therefore'' as the second last paragraph, and "And that'' as the last paragraph. The long one was motion 1. The shorter one, which purports to create a special committee for the interim basis, is motion 2. That motion is the one with no second paragraph.
The Chair: Will you read your motion, Senator Day?
Senator Day: I move the following motion:
Whereas the Prime Minister has supported the creation of a free-standing committee on veterans affairs in the House of Commons to replace a subcommittee on veterans affairs;
And whereas a standing committee on veterans affairs has been created in that place;
And whereas it is the desire, expressed by some honourable senators, to likewise create a standing committee on veterans affairs in the Senate of Canada;
And whereas a standing committee would have its own budget and meeting times for the deliberation of matters relating to its mandate;
And whereas the growing importance of veterans affairs issues calls out for a standing committee dedicated to such issues in the Senate of Canada;
And whereas such a committee on veterans affairs is needed to deal with the growing and critical issues of support for the physical and mental health of returning military and civilian personnel from battle zone deployment and support for the families of those so injured;
Now, therefore the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence does hereby authorize and direct the chair of the committee to move a motion in the Senate to initiate an amendment to the Rules of the Senate to transfer matters relating to veterans affairs from the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence to a special committee to be established and dedicated to those matters.
Senator Nolin: The French version of motion 2 does not say exactly what you said in English. Look at the last paragraph.
[Translation]
Now, therefore, the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence does hereby authorize and direct the chair of the committee to move a motion in the Senate to initiate an amendment to the Rules of the Senate to transfer matters relating to veterans affairs from the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence to a new standing committee to be established and dedicated to those matters.
[English]
The Chair: The issue is in the second last line. How should it read?
[Translation]
Senator Day: A new special committee.
[English]
Senator Nolin: Motion 2 is included in motion 1. The last paragraph in motion 1 is exactly what I read in French.
Senator Day: You are absolutely right.
The Chair: I think Senator Day wants to correct the French version to match the English version.
Senator Day: With your permission.
The Chair: Do you want to read the French version as it should be, Senator Day?
Senator Day: It is only that one change in the second to last line, which states:
[Translation]
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence to a new special committee.
Senator Meighan: Are we saying "special'' instead of "standing''?
[English]
Take out the word "permanent.''
[Translation]
The committee would be dedicated to those matters.
[English]
Senator Banks: To make it clear, and to use the word that was used earlier, with which Senator Day agreed, the philosophical concept behind the establishment of the special committee is that it is an interim committee to take care of this business until the Rules Committee deals with the question of whether to establish a permanent standing committee. Do I have that right?
Senator Day: Absolutely: There is no mention of referring it to the Rules Committee in this second motion. I am told by our advisers that it is not necessary to do so.
Senator Nolin: I think the best interim solution is to create a subcommittee.
Senator Day: Yes.
The Chair: We have a motion on the floor. Those in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chair: Opposed?
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
Senator Tkachuk: I want a recorded vote.
The Chair: By all means.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Banks?
Senator Banks: Yea.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Kenny?
Senator Kenny: Yea.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Meighen?
Senator Meighen: Nay.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Mitchell?
Senator Mitchell: Yea.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Nolin?
Senator Nolin: Nay.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Day?
Senator Day: Yea.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: Nay.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Zimmer?
Senator Zimmer: Yea.
Ms. Anwar: Five yeas, four nays.
The Chair: I do not follow your math.
Ms. Anwar: I am sorry: Five yeas, three nays.
The Chair: Thank you.
The motion is carried.
Senator Nolin: I will now move for the creation of a subcommittee.
[Translation]
That a subcommittee of veterans affairs be established to examine matters that may be referred to it by the committee.
[English]
The Chair: All those in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chair: All those opposed?
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Senator Tkachuk: I want a recorded vote on that motion as well.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Banks?
Senator Banks: Nay.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Kenny?
Senator Kenny: Nay.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Martin?
Senator Martin: Yea.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Meighen?
Senator Meighen: Yea.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Mitchell?
Senator Mitchell: Nay.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Nolin?
Senator Nolin: Yea.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Day?
Senator Day: Nay.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: Yea.
Ms. Anwar: Honourable Senator Zimmer?
Senator Zimmer: Nay.
Ms. Anwar: Four yeas, five nays.
The Chair: Thank you.
The motion is defeated.
I think that vote puts the other document in abeyance, Senator Nolin.
The Chair: Colleagues, can I have a motion to proceed to other items? We have preparation for a draft work plan and the draft budget.
Senator Nolin: Chair, you said that you want to work on a draft work plan and a draft budget. First, I have not received from the clerk of the committee any details relating to either of those subjects. I would want the steering committee to have a discussion on the work plan first and then tell us what strategy and objectives they want to pursue. We would then submit a budget to achieve those objectives.
Senator Banks: I voted against the last motion for the reason I raised earlier about the question of urgency of the second motion. We would likely have a different result on a vote on that motion if the Senate decided, in its wisdom, not to form a special committee on veterans affairs, which I hope it will not do.
Second, with respect to what Senator Nolin said, the subcommittee has discussed the question of work plans and budgets and has not arrived at a consensus, but the tradition in this committee has always been that matters of work plans and budgets are discussed in the whole committee. Since this committee was established, to my knowledge it has never been the case that the steering committee brought forward a draft plan of work or a draft budget. To my knowledge, those matters have always been dealt with by the committee as a whole. I believe that senators who have been members of this committee for a long time will agree.
My third point is that I will make a motion that we deal with those matters and if we are to deal with those matters, until we vote on them, we should discuss them in camera because we will discuss persons as well as other matters. I want to make that motion if we decide to go that route.
Senator Nolin: How can we discuss the budget? We started discussing the work plan at the first meeting but it was left wide open. We had a long discussion on Afghanistan, yes or no, and an interesting discussion on Washington, yes or no, but that was it.
I was waiting for an important subject, namely, the North. I want the North to be front and centre of our preoccupation, but we need to have a discussion on the work plan and then adopt a budget that will fit the reach of those objectives. Do you agree?
Senator Banks: Yes, that is exactly what is proposed for the meeting now.
Senator Tkachuk: How would we know that?
The Chair: Well, you would know that because we had that discussion at previous meetings. A draft budget and a draft work plan were circulated earlier. "Other agenda items to follow'' is precisely what it says. You are allowed to bring other agenda items forward.
Senator Tkachuk: It said other agenda items were to follow and nothing followed.
The Chair: The committee is its own master and if the committee makes a motion to discuss these things, it may do that.
Senator Mitchell: This is an interesting irony for me, Mr. chair. On the one hand, some honourable members have made the point: one, there is a huge rush to set up the subcommittee; and two, we take money and give it to the subcommittee to be set up. Had we passed the subcommittee motion today, members would have been driven to debate the budget today under those circumstances. Otherwise, the committee could not start immediately, which was their argument. They would argue it has to start immediately, so how is that now we cannot discuss the budget? It makes no sense.
Senator Nolin: I am saying only, chair, that we should discuss a budget after identifying a priority. If we had created a subcommittee, we would have manifested our interest and prioritized veterans affairs, and we would have voted for a budget for that priority.
The Chair: In fact, that process has not been followed in the past. In the past, the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, when it was established, determined its budget and then brought it to the committee. It was different from that process.
Senator Banks: I move that the committee now discuss its priorities, its potential work plan and what other business might then arise.
The Chair: All those in favour? Opposed? Motion is carried.
Senator Tkachuk: We are opposed on the basis that no notice was given on the agenda as to what agenda items are to follow. Surely, we can expect of colleagues a document on the agenda and a document on the work plan, or at least an indication on the budget that we are discussing a work plan. There is nothing on this agenda, and it says "Other agenda items to follow,'' and nothing has followed. We are starting from scratch, unless you have copies of the new budget that is supposed to be brought forward.
Senator Day: We would have copies as soon as we stop this talking and pass them out.
Senator Tkachuk: This is not a good way to approach it, chair.
The Chair: You could have mentioned that last year because we did it this way last year.
Senator Tkachuk: I did mention it last year, chair, and I raised a lot of objection to it.
The Chair: You did not receive any support.
Senator Tkachuk: Not from your side; that is a fact.
The Chair: That is, yes.
Senator Banks: Do I understand that you prefer that we do not now deal with matters of the committee's priorities, that we do not now discuss those things and that we can go home now?
Senator Nolin: Can we have a document, even if only one page, listing the priorities that the subcommittee thinks is important? Then we will look at the document, reflect on it and have a discussion.
The Chair: The policy of this committee thus far, for the last six years, has been that the full committee talks about what its priorities are. That has always been the case each year.
Senator Tkachuk: Sure.
Senator Banks: That was my motion.
Senator Tkachuk: Do we need a motion to do that?
The Chair: Yes, you do need a motion, and it was moved and adopted. Will you pass around the draft work plan, please?
Senator Tkachuk: Do you mean there is a draft work plan?
The Chair: There is a draft work plan.
Senator Tkachuk: That was not available for us to read ahead of time. Chair, this is highly unusual.
The Chair: Senator Tkachuk, this business of a steering committee running things —
Senator Tkachuk: This is the way you run a committee. This gives —
The Chair: This is not the way you want it run, but —
Senator Tkachuk: That is exactly right. It is exactly not the way I want it run.
The Chair: That is too bad. This way gives everyone on the committee an equal opportunity. It is not your committee, Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: It is not yours either.
The Chair: It is everybody's committee, and this approach gives everyone an opportunity to discuss whether they like that or not. They may like that and they will change it; or they may like it and they may adopt it. This approach gives everyone an equal opportunity. It is not a small group of three people in a room somewhere figuring out what you should do and what I should do.
Senator Tkachuk: Senator Nolin brought forward the question of the North, and we are not restricted to the work plan, so why not talk about that question?
The Chair: The purpose is to deal with the proposal we have here. I am happy to put the North on the list and, once we run through this list, I am happy to talk about the North. We will note it for the list, as we will every other proposal senators have.
Senator Banks: I propose that we add to the list the question of Canadian reaction to piracy, about which we might become better informed than we are.
The Chair: The Blackbeard motion; thank you.
Colleagues, if I may have your indulgence for a few minutes, I will run through the document that is before you. It suggests that the objectives for the spring of 2009 are "To undertake a general review of the areas of responsibility within the committee's mandate,'' and those areas include national defence, public safety, RCMP, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, and Canada Services Border Agency, CBSA. The work plan also suggests that there is an opportunity to come forward with a brief report on the transition that the RCMP is undergoing currently and to have an update on the status of the Canadian Forces after seven years.
The steering committee has discussed the length of reports and there is a consensus on the steering committee that short reports of 20 pages or so are preferable to some of the longer reports we have put out in the past.
To prosecute these objectives, there is a suggested schedule of meetings, topics and potential witnesses. Again, I stress these are suggestions and it is a draft, but a meeting is suggested next week with Commissioner Bill Elliott to give an overview of the RCMP, followed by a second panel with Senior Deputy Commissioner William Sweeny and Assistant Commissioner Keith Clark, who is head of the change management team, to provide an update on the changes that have taken place as a result of the Brown report and various other reports that have had an impact on the RCMP.
This meeting would be followed on May 4 with a comment on the Brown report from David Brown, the independent investigator into the RCMP pension and insurance matters; with the Commissioner of Public Complaints against the RCMP, Paul Kennedy; and with other public witnesses to be proposed by the committee.
The week of May 11, the proposal is a continuation of the review of the land, maritime and air staff, which we started three weeks ago with the chiefs of these three environments. A list of potential witnesses is included that is open to additions, subtractions or adjustments.
During the week of May 24 to May 28, there is a proposal to visit Maritime bases. The committee proposed and adopted this same trip last year. It included a visit to P.E.I. for Veterans Affairs Canada, Halifax naval command, CFB Greenwood and CFB Gagetown. That trip would cover all three services.
On June 1, a CSIS overview is suggested with the former director, Jack Hooper, and other CSIS witnesses to be determined. The remaining time will used for a consideration of the Canadian forces and RCMP transition updates.
Regarding May 5, as a reflection of the earlier discussion, there was agreement to place emphasis on the border, particularly because of its impact on trade with the United States. The first panel suggested was senior CBSA management; the second panel, CBSA union representatives; and the third panel, RCMP officers responsible for border integrity.
On June 15, there will be consideration of a draft report.
Earlier, there was an asterisk beside Mr. Hooper. That asterisk was a reminder that Jim Judd, the outgoing director of CSIS, has invited the committee to lunch at CSIS headquarters at a date to be determined.
We also talked about fact-finding trips to various border crossings by smaller groups comprised of two senators — one Liberal and one Conservative — and one staff member, at dates to be determined. A proposed template for these visits is available. These trips are a departure from normal committee procedure where the whole committee travels to every event. Given the number of border crossings and the size of the border, this approach with two members representing both sides can adduce evidence. It is a way to cover the country in a reasonably rapid and efficient way.
The proposal is to cover a common template of issues that would constitute perhaps two-thirds of the questions. The remaining third would be for unique aspects of given regions. This format would make it possible to produce a comprehensive view of how the border is covered. I do not know if the draft template is self-explanatory or if anyone wants me to give an example.
I do not propose an argument for any particular stop but I note, for example, that in Ontario, no one from the committee has gone to the Buffalo-Niagara crossing. The committee has gone to Windsor. Toronto is hard to miss. There are opportunities to visit airports and mail facilities, which are a critical part of the border, and to meet with CSIS representatives and first responders' organizations during the course of these meetings. In Windsor, the twinning of the Ambassador Bridge obviously is important.
That plan lays out how work could be accomplished subject to further adjustments and amendments.
I pointed out earlier that first responders, which are part of our mandate, can also be addressed at these stops. The fall would be devoted to the trip to Ontario bases that we discussed that includes Kingston, Petawawa, Trenton and Borden. There is no proposal here for anything more detailed in the fall. The suggestion is to look at that subject later in the spring.
That is my brief overview of the work plan. The floor is open for comment.
Senator Banks: Am I correct in that these dates include all the dates on which we might meet between now and the supposed rising for the summer break?
The Chair: They do. They include all the Mondays. The assumption is that the last Monday is June 15, but we could be here until the end of June.
Senator Banks: On page two of the work plan for April, May and June, I want to add General Tim Grant to the list of potential witnesses. He has retired recently from the Canadian Forces. He was in command in Afghanistan and is in a job now that is not related to any defence contractors or the government. He is therefore able to speak with some freedom.
My other suggestion is in regard to the meeting of June 8 on page three. We might consider reversing the order of panels one and two. It would be useful for us to hear from the union representatives before senior management. As we have learned from the past, they can point out to us problems we might want to bring up with senior management about which we might not otherwise be informed.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: With regard to the meetings on April 27 and May 4 dealing with the RCMP, I think that it would be appropriate for the committee to seriously look at a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that recently found section 96 of the RCMP Regulations unconstitutional, as it prevented RCMP members from bargaining collectively. I think we should look at the possibility of a discussion.
By the dates of those meetings, the federal government will have decided if it wishes to appeal the decision. This is very likely because the government would like to buy time. But the clock is ticking; the case law discussion started with the Delisle v. Canada (Deputy Attorney General) decision in 1999. The Supreme Court was just evolving its thinking on the meaning of freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. The members of the RCMP stepped into that process.
Our committee would be well advised to look seriously at this issue because, in his report, Mr. Brown and his colleagues cleverly avoided doing so, clearly in order not to influence the case that was before the court in Ontario. Now that the decision has been handed down, I think it would be appropriate to give some serious thought to the matter.
[English]
The Chair: I think that suggestion is a positive one, Senator Nolin. I assume that —
Senator Nolin: I can bring a list of witnesses if you want.
The Chair: I assume the subject will come up with both Mr. Elliott and Mr. Brown but, if you have additional names, that will be helpful.
Senator Nolin: I will have them. It is important that we understand not only the labour relation question but also the legal angle. That needs to be understood by everybody before we move into hearing from Commissioner Elliot, Mr. Brown and everyone.
It is a huge dimension that has been swept under the carpet for too many years now. We have the ruling from the Superior Court of Ontario. Ontario changes the name of its court too many times. For now it is "superior'' but two years ago it was "supreme.'' Maybe it is the Supreme Superior Court of Ontario. It is the first level.
Senator Day: It is the high court of justice.
Senator Nolin: That is another dimension.
Senator Day: Chair, I do not disagree but the case may be, and likely is, under appeal, as Senator Nolin pointed out. Is it appropriate for us to delve into this subject while it is under appeal?
The Chair: Not if it is under appeal.
Senator Nolin: The Brown report will not be put on ice because an appeal is taking place. The government will seek decisions from Parliament using the Brown report as a cornerstone of their argument and it is valid to hear, at least, what arguments were presented to the court and the meaning of the decision of the Superior Court of Ontario. Then it will be up to Parliament.
The Chair: Senator Wallin and I had the benefit of a two-hour briefing from Assistant Commissioner Clark on the extent that the Brown report has been implemented to date and the progress they believe they are making. Both of us came away impressed with the challenge, though not necessarily with the outcomes. However, they are clearly moving ahead on a number of different fronts.
Senator Nolin: That is exactly the reason. They are moving ahead. I can understand why — they have their marching orders from Treasury Board and the government. They have great pressure from them for obvious reasons now that we have a decision. They want to take steps and go forward.
However, we ought to look at that situation closely. We are talking about 20,000 members of the RCMP and that segment of our mandate is important.
Senator Day: A letter to the editor today in The Globe and Mail argues against the court decision.
The Chair: In fairness, I thought he suggested that —
Senator Day: They are better off without it.
The Chair: That is what he said: There would be no uptake from the ranks. However, it is one man's opinion.
Senator Nolin: That is a poor understanding of the labour law in Canada. No laws decide who should have a union: The members decide.
The Chair: He did not say they should not have a union. He argued that, when they look at benefits, they were better off with the representative system they have.
Senator Nolin: I do not think they argued that. Even in court, they mentioned it was not a pay question, and the judge wrote it in his decision.
The Chair: We are receiving arguments about pay problems; problems in fairness at Depot, where the pay is only $500 a month. There are also problems with pay vis-à-vis some of the other forces — the OPP and Metro Toronto, for example — that receive significantly higher pay but do not travel around the country and are not posted to difficult places.
Senator Nolin: Chair, all our discussions are convincing the committee that the subject is important and we should give that subject a thorough examination. We should start our examination during those two meetings and then we will see.
Senator Tkachuk: Is it the intention to complete the overview of the RCMP on April 27 and May 4 because I do not see any other meetings on that matter.
The Chair: The discussions that the steering committee has had to date on these matters are that, rather than biting off big chunks of issues, it is better to take smaller ones. The purpose of this plan is to give an overview of the menu, as it were, because there are new members on this committee. After that overview, the committee can say they have had an update. They have a sense of what the issues are, what some of the pros and cons are and, if they want to continue something in more detail, they can.
Even some of the members of the committee who have been here since its founding have not been to Camp Borden in six years and a lot has changed there. We have not had a review with the RCMP. Actually, it has been seven years since we were at Borden, not six. The same is true with a number of other areas where —
Senator Nolin: Do you know how many ships went through the Northwest Passage over the last year? It was more than 200. Many things have changed over the past six years.
The Chair: The intention was to use the springtime to refresh memories and to acquaint people who have been to some of the places before with what they are like and with the outstanding issues there.
Senator Meighen: Even in matters pertaining to veterans.
The Chair: In fairness, that item was at your request. It was requested and it seemed that we should be faithful to that request.
Senator Meighen: It was kind of you. Thank you.
The Chair: Are there other comments and questions?
Senator Tkachuk: After these two meetings, there will be one more meeting in June? Is that what we are saying? I am not sure.
The Chair: Which two are you referring to?
Senator Tkachuk: To go to the RCMP, we have the April 27 and May 4 meetings. Then we have a meeting on June 8. That meeting is on a different topic. However, what is the situation on the RCMP topic?
The Chair: Regarding the RCMP, there will be an opportunity on June 1 and again on June 15.
Senator Tkachuk: We have a CSIS overview on June 1.
The Chair: Just one panel.
Senator Tkachuk: Just one panel: In other words, will we have discussion on May 4 after these two meetings as to where we want to go next? Is that the idea or has that all been pre-determined?
The Chair: Nothing has been pre-determined, including this document. This work plan is simply a proposal and a concept to see whether it makes sense to members of the committee.
Senator Tkachuk: I understand that. However, you said that, because of the new members, we would have an overview of the RCMP and update. Then we would have a discussion as to where we wanted to go next. I am using your words. I am a little confused because all the topics seemed to be picked here.
The Chair: The topics are an effort to go across the mandate of the committee. In terms of product, there seems to be an opportunity to produce two products: One on the RCMP and the other on the status of the Canadian Forces after seven years of combat. These topics are fairly broad. Given the limited amount of time we have, that sort of discussion would give people the big picture, as opposed to boring down into detailed problems.
Senator Tkachuk: I am trying to understand your words. You said that you had agreement with the deputy chair to focus on narrow areas rather than on the big picture, and that we would look at a big picture first to give everyone an introduction, and then establish a couple of narrow areas of interest to follow up.
I ask for clarification, considering that the summer is almost gone and we already have all the items picked. Are you saying that there will not be a general discussion or that we will have a general discussion after the second meeting and then pick what we want to discuss on the eighth and on the first? Am I overreaching?
The Chair: It is a bit of overreach. In preparing a document like this one there is a great deal of uncertainty with availability of witnesses for the dates for which want them to come. That is why there is a list of 15 names on page 2 to comment on the land, maritime and air staff. Hopefully, we will end up with a more manageable number because we cannot deal with 15 people coming to talk to us. Given that we do not know who is available and who is prepared to come on those dates, there must be some measure of flexibility moving forward.
I cannot tell you that the CBSA management are available on June 8. I can say only that we will ask. I cannot tell you that we will be in a position to come forward with a report after hearing from the panels listed here on the RCMP. If we say, here is the impression we have from the RCMP reporting back to us, it will be the first time they have reported publicly on it. We might have only enough views to say, here is 20 pages worth of our general impression of where they are going.
Undertaking a detailed examination of any particular issue before people have had an overview would be to move backwards.
Senator Tkachuk: I understand that, and I am not arguing with you. I want to clarify what you mean by saying that we want to present a broad overview so that new members of the committee can be educated. I agree that you and the deputy chair would focus on a few narrow issues rather than on the broad strokes.
I want to know whether there will be an opportunity after the meeting on May 4 to sit as a committee to determine an area of study to carry into the month of June, followed by presentation of a report?
The Chair: The answer to your question is no, there will not be an opportunity to decide what is happening in the month of June because we are talking about making appointments for people to appear before the committee in the month of June, for which they require advance notice. There will be an opportunity to talk about what the committee wants to examine in the fall. It is not possible to ask witnesses to come unless they have significant advance notice, which is three weeks to one month. Often, we shift a set of hearings from one day to another because people are not available to appear.
Senator Banks: I understand this but I want it confirmed. Am I right in saying that the fifth meeting, on June 8 as noted at page 3, will deal with border issues, including the RCMP panel?
The Chair: That is correct. It will deal only with border issues.
Senator Banks: That subject is a separate envelope, although it might have umbilical connections. That day is devoted to border issues and CBSA, et cetera.
The Chair: It is intended to connect to item 2 under "Other Activities'' on that page, where a Conservative, a Liberal and a staffer would go to five different points and use roughly the template that we have laid out.
Senator Banks: In that way, we will be better informed when we go there.
The Chair: That is correct.
Senator Banks: Is the overview on April 27 for the purpose of bringing members up-to-date and refreshing all our memories?
The Chair: That is correct. Some members of the committee are not familiar with various things, such as the break- out between contract policing and other policing, the range of work undertaken by the RCMP and the general list of problems that they must address, et cetera. This meeting will provide an opportunity to deal broadly with that topic. The last time a commissioner appeared before the committee was two years ago, when he talked more specifically about organized criminal groups.
Senator Banks: I want to ensure that I understand correctly what senator Tkachuk was asking.
The proposal before us is that beginning on May 4, we will zero in on the condition of the RCMP transition and that it will be the nature of the report to be considered on June 1 and on June 15.
The Chair: That is correct.
Senator Banks: The basis is that the transition is arguably the most important thing facing the RCMP right now — they either transform or die.
Senator Tkachuk: That will be our discussion on April 27.
The Chair: Not die but be transformed.
Senator Nolin: "Die'' means "end-of-life,'' so it is not dying. Rather, it will be a major change in the life of the RCMP if it does not transform.
The Chair: Yes, I overstated the issue.
Senator Tkachuk: That will be on April 27.
Senator Banks: The overview will be on that day.
The Chair: April 27 will be the overview; and May 4 will be the critique or discussion on how are they doing.
Senator Tkachuk: We have independent pension insurance matters and public complaints. Will we be examining transition?
Senator Banks: That is transition.
The Chair: Copies of the Brown report were distributed to every member of the committee at meetings.
Senator Tkachuk: I have the report.
The Chair: You will find that it contains 54 or so recommendations for change throughout the report. It is not simply a report about pension and insurance matters, which the independent investigator looked at. He also looked at many other matters at the same time.
Senator Tkachuk: We will look at many different things, not only pension and insurance matters.
The Chair: I expect the pension and insurance matters to constitute 2 per cent of the hearing.
Senator Tkachuk: What about the matter of public complaints against the RCMP?
The Chair: The individual is highly knowledgeable about the irritants that Canadians have in respect of the RCMP. The purpose of the transformation is first, to make the RCMP more effective; and, second, to eliminate the irritants that many Canadians perceive in the current functioning of the RCMP.
Senator Tkachuk: Are both meetings scheduled from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m.?
The Chair: That was the plan. I should not say 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. — it is whatever the hour and a half time is and the break for dinner and the pre-discussion for an oral briefing.
Senator Meighen: Under "Other Cctivities,'' I think that breaking up into smaller bodies is the only way to see these various border crossings. I notice the plan says spring-summer. Is it your hope that visits will take place during the summer?
The Chair: I propose that we ask people what works for whomever; then we pair them up and they pick a date that works for them and the location they are visiting. In some cases, they might be happy visiting in June; in other cases, they might be happier going at a later date.
Senator Meighen: However, you hope it will be completed then?
The Chair: I hope it will be completed by the fall. We will use the reports that come back from these visits. That is why there is some hope of creating a template — be sure to check off this question — so there is some commonality of each visit. The reports can be put together, fused and perhaps form the product of a report in the fall.
Senator Tkachuk: The Brown report on page 23 says:
These issues have led us to a number of conclusions. First, the RCMP's operating model is not sustainable. Demands on the RCMP to provide an expanding range of policing services, combined with mounting administrative requirements, have left the Force increasingly unable to satisfy its obligations. Second, the pressure on the RCMP to continue to meet its obligations, notwithstanding its lack of resources, has put untenable pressure on its members. Third, the workplace issues at the RCMP that have existed for some time must be addressed by a management team that is fully in control of the organization's agenda. Fourth, that same fully equipped management team must acquire the ability to develop the potential of the RCMP personnel who have committed to a career in the Force. Finally, the RCMP must learn to stand tall in its interaction with its stakeholders. It must take pride in its accomplishments. . . .
I read that quote because a focus of our study would be these areas of the Brown report that the author has laid out as issues that have a pressing need to be discussed and decisions to be made for the RCMP to remain a police force that we all desire it to be.
I am trying to figure out how we can look at those issues over the time that we have, and maybe discuss some of the witnesses to come to the committee to study them.
The Chair: I see two possibilities, Senator Tkachuk. One is during the period with the commissioner and the period with the senior deputy commissioner. That time would give us a pretty good sense of their interpretation of the demands that have been made of them by the government and by the Brown report, and how they intend to fulfil those demands.
A good example was when Senator Wallin and I met with Assistant Commissioner Clark, we raised the question of independent employer status, which is one of the key recommendations in the Brown report. We put the question to him: How soon do you expect to have independent employer status? The answer was: We are not sure we will. We find, after examining other organizations that have independent employer status — for example, CSIS and the Canada Revenue Agency — a number of problems are associated with that status. It may be better for us not to take that step.
However, it was clear that they had not made up their mind. It would be incumbent on the committee to see if their position was still the same a month from now as it was two months ago, and then hear what the comments were from Mr. Brown or Mr. Kennedy about what measures they were taking and whether they were moving at an appropriate pace. Does Mr. Brown, in light of the RCMP studying it for a year, still think an independent employer status is a good way to go?
After the hearings from these two days, the committee can say, we are only checking in and things seem to be progressing well, or not progrressing well. Alternatively, the committee can say, we have not heard enough; we will come back to this matter in the fall and we will make this our major project in the fall.
I cannot predict which way the committee wants to proceed, but I know they cannot make the choice until they see the different areas available to them for study. This plan has been structured in a way to give the committee those choices.
Senator Tkachuk: I thought this report laid out succinctly the key issues that require immediate attention — not long-term attention but immediate attention — and that it would give us a real focus for these two meetings on the April 27 and May 4. I thought it also would provide guidance to the clerk and to our members to suggest witnesses that would help in establishing information that we could act on.
I do not want to put words into the commissioner's mouth; he will have his own point of view, as will the deputy. Underneath that view, there will be lots of points of view. It would be good for us to hear some of the differing arguments. It might provide great debate for us in the committee.
The Chair: As I said earlier, the committee will have to make tradeoffs. We can have panels. For example, we do not have to ask Paul Kennedy by himself; we can have him appear with three other people. Then we have a smaller dose of each of them. Alternatively, we can go ahead with what is here and say we have heard enough and that we at least have a preliminary opinion; or we have not heard enough and we want to look into this issue in depth when we come back in September.
I cannot prejudge how members will react. They will make clear what their wishes are.
Senator Tkachuk: If we have a preliminary opinion, we will produce an interim report. If we have no preliminary opinion, we will not do anything until the fall because we do not know enough. Is that correct?
The Chair: Right, we do not have enough information on this issue.
Senator Tkachuk: Is it a good idea to break up this study? Can we not continue and finish it? We have so much on our plate here.
The Chair: The committee has undertaken a lot of work in a number of areas that are active from time to time. I did not expect to spend three weeks on airports. All of a sudden, airports came up and I found myself involved in airports. I think that all of us deserve an opportunity to refresh our memories and reconnect with areas that are within the committee's mandate.
Senator Martin: My apologies for arriving late; I flew in late. I am substituting for Senator Manning. I need to go to my own committee so I will leave right after this question.
As a new senator and new to Senate committees, I suspect this question is one Senator Manning might ask; in a way it echoes what Senator Tkachuk asked.
This draft of a work plan is thoughtful, compared to some of the other proposals that I have seen where we have had a timeline, but they were not as detailed in terms of specific names of witnesses. Whoever contributed to this plan or had part in this process has done a lot of preliminary work, chair.
The Chair: In fairness, it was a group effort. We have a clerk and staff.
Senator Martin: I echo Senator Tkachuk's question. If Senator Manning or others new to the committee, or even those who are not new, upon examining this draft, had more names or even another topic that would be fitting and, perhaps, had been left out, is the process to discuss the names or topic with the whole committee?
The Chair: Yes, the process is to discuss it with the whole committee.
Senator Martin: At the next sitting?
The Chair: We can discuss it at any time. I am welcome to letters or proposals. Senator Mitchell sends them in all the time and we say no regularly.
Senator Mitchell: I submitted piracy. I won that one.
The Chair: The role of the chair is to serve the committee. If the committee wants to go in other directions, we will do so. We will go where the committee wants to go.
Senator Martin: This work plan is in draft format this time, but will it be finalized potentially at the next meeting?
The Chair: It could be, or it could be finalized today. The committee decides how comfortable they are with what they are seeing for the first couple of weeks. I cannot tell you with any certainty that Mr. Elliott is in the country on April 27.
Senator Martin: I was asking that question only for clarification, but I need to leave at this time. I wish you the best in coming to a decision on these things.
The Chair: Thank you for coming.
We were discussing the draft work plan. Are there other questions or points people want to make?
Senator Nolin: On page 3 under "fact-finding,'' how many trips do you have in mind?
The Chair: Five.
Senator Nolin: Is that between now and the end of June?
The Chair: No, it includes spring and summer, and the intention was you would go on one trip with Senator Zimmer, and that sort of thing. The intention is not to have someone go on five trips.
Senator Nolin: You have five trips composed of various members?
The Chair: The trips will be composed of people who are available and interested. The Maritime bases trip will include the whole committee.
Senator Zimmer: Mr. Chair, the intent is to have a boilerplate question section whereby it could be consistent and then we come back and share notes?
The Chair: When you look at the template, the hope is that, for example, the people visiting airports and talking to airport customs officers would have a set of questions that are the same at each airport. Committee members would have room to ask other questions unique to that airport or whatever else they felt like asking but they would ask at least the first 10 questions to have a commonality to compare across the country. The same would apply for people visiting mail facilities or land crossings, because they have a unique form of work that is different. For those working in a customs mail facility, their work is totally different than if they are working on the Stanstead-Newport crossing.
Senator Day: Today is the first time I have seen these two documents, and I have been studying them. Unfortunately, I know I will be away for part of the first trip, the trip to the Maritimes, so I am hopeful you will start where you are indicating here and put it in that order. I know you cannot satisfy everyone's calendar so I do not suggest anything should be changed.
Senator Meighen: I am in the same position as Senator Day. I have to be back for Wednesday afternoon.
Senator Day: I am available Wednesday onwards.
I am looking, chair, at the other document where at page 4 you have the Maritime trip, and I think Senator Meighen and I would agree on this point as well: I suggest that we travel to Saint John and go to the crossing at St. Stephen. The second day you said travel to Fredericton by air. I would say, travel to Saint John by air, overnight in Saint John, and then travel to St. Stephen.
The Chair: Is that a consensus?
Senator Day: There is a new crossing there. It could be interesting for us to talk to both sides. I tried to convince them to combine — remember the joint facility — but they said they would not do that where water separates the two countries, so they did not do it. It would be interesting to talk to them about what things they were looking for in building new border crossings and that kind of thing.
Senator Meighen: It is extremely busy as well.
The Chair: Just by chance, are you aware if there is an Integrated Border Enforcement Team, IBET, station there? Where is the New Brunswick IBET?
Senator Day: We will bring them to St. Stephen. It is the fifth busiest crossing in Canada-U.S. They will meet us.
The Chair: It is important for the land crossings,to have the IBET come and talk as well. The ratings that I have for the Stanstead one are two years old, but the Stanstead crossing was one of the most robust in the country and others were still working on developing cooperative arrangements with the folks on the other side.
Senator Day: I cannot answer that question on the IBETs, but I think it would be interesting to find out. That would be the right crossing to go to.
The Chair: We have made a note.
Senator Day: Good, thank you.
Senator Meighen: Stanstead is not Lacolle, is it?
The Chair: No, it is not.
Senator Meighen: I am interested in why you chose Stanstead. Do you like the opera house? It straddles the border?
The Chair: Yes, the audience is on one side with the actors on the other, and I also like the library where the books are on one side and people pay the fines on the other side. I knew Stanstead as a child. I was invited to go there was why I actually went. I was pleased to go to a place I knew and the significant problem there is communications. The area around Memphremagog is so hilly that cell phones do not function because there is not enough demand for the service and there are unique problems where if people drive on the right-hand side of the road they are in Canada and on the left-hand side of the road they are in the United States, with only a yellow line to separate them.
Senator Meighen: Near Stanstead, there are also border crossings that are not staffed.
The Chair: They will show them to people. It was remarkable. I will digress for a moment on the trip. They had a camera planted over one of the unmanned illegal border crossings, and people had to pass through a piece of wood, about from that clock to that clock, to go from the road in Canada to the road in the United States, and they had a stationary television camera there. They showed me the live tape of a car coming at night, stopping, literally pushing out some Indian nationals, and they were dressed as they would be in India. These folks became lost in the snow and the police had to recover them. While we were still there, as we were driving off, a car came along with Florida licence plates, and two South Americans in it as tourists. They had a camera and were taking pictures. They later confessed that they were looking for crossing places. It was remarkable. I felt like they put it on just for me. Are there any other points to be raised on this item?
Senator Tkachuk: With these visits to the border crossing, what are the overall questions we will ask and the answers we need? We should all focus on the same thing as we go.
The Chair: The proposal is to lay out two thirds of the questions and everyone will agree that yes, we think those questions are important to ask at a place like this. How often, for example, was the border crashed in the past year? How often do they encounter people bringing in weapons? Describe the nature of the illicit traffic that they have stopped at the border.
I think we can come up with a list that the committee will agree is a useful list. Then, questions will occur to people when they are there and they will ask those questions. Those questions may well be the most interesting ones to ask. However, the objective is for the committee to satisfy itself that we have sufficient resources on the border and that we will ensure Canada is protected. I think that is objective one. Objective two is to ensure that our relations with the Americans will be preserved by working in a cooperative way on the border. The philosophy that most countries have adopted is one of cooperation and I think that the committee should be able to pronounce on that; whether they think that policy is working well or not.
I think we will find other issues like Shiprider and IBETS that we may have to look at, especially in the fall before we can come out with a report. There are other questions, like the number of machines available. In previous reports, the committee has been concerned that the machines of the Vehicle and Cargo Inspection Systems, VACIS, have been insufficient. In Vancouver, for example, there was one at the port and it was driven to the land crossing two days each week. In Windsor, we were concerned that the VACIS machine operated only eight hours a day, but trucks crossed the Windsor-Detroit line 24 hours a day, and it was easy to figure out when a VACIS machine was not functioning.
We have reported all these things. The CBSA has made a whole lot of progress on a number of them. We were concerned about, for example, single-person ports of entry and that number is decreasing every year. We were concerned about the lack of fuse data at the primary inspection line and that area is improving. I think it will be up to the committee to determine whether security is improving fast enough or well enough.
Senator Tkachuk: Will we have some benchmarks on June 8? Will we be able to ask senior management of border security as far as our recommendations are concerned, what they have implemented, what they still have outstanding and what the government is undertaking?
The Chair: That is correct. We also have what benchmarks they had when we put out the security guide a year ago April, where they reported back as to what progress they had made then. We have our initial report, then the security guide report and now we will look at progress again a year later.
Senator Nolin: I was looking through all the details of that work plan. It is good. I am not sure we will achieve all that work before the fifteenth but let us try.
[Translation]
I am still of the same mind about the Arctic, northern defence and Canadian sovereignty.
[English]
I presume we will have a similar discussion sometime in August or September to discuss the future work plan of the committee.
The Chair: My suggestion is that we try to have that discussion in June because if we wait until September, it is hard to organize the work. If we have it in June, staff has the summer to prepare things, and people can come back and review the plan then.
Senator Meighen: Mr. Chair, you may have mentioned this point earlier and I apologize if you did and I missed it. At what point do you think it will be incumbent upon us to decide whether we want to prepare a so-called quick and dirty report before the summer break, or alternatively, there seems to be a lot of questions here, let us say, with regard to the RCMP. For that reason, we may say there is too much to do a quick and dirty so let us now focus our attention to some significant degree on the RCMP and therefore not produce anything until the fall?
The Chair: I do not think they are mutually exclusive. I think we can prepare a draft report for the committee to consider. If the committee thinks it is sufficient for the moment but it wants to go into a number of areas in greater detail, it can do that. The committee can say, here is a preliminary view but enough here concerns us that we intend to study it further.
Senator Meighen: Will that be on June 15?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Banks: It would be considered first on June 1, if a report is ready at that time to be considered, and then again on June 15, et cetera.
The Chair: I think we are in a position where we can circulate drafts for people to comment on.
Senator Meighen: This question is extraneous to that one, but the lunch with Jim Judd, for example, will you try to fit that in but not necessarily in the committee's hearing?
The Chair: Thursday struck me as a possible time, but banking sits late on Thursdays, does it not?
Senator Meighen: You might be able to fit into a Veterans Affairs Committee slot on Wednesday, chair.
The Chair: I am in your hands and his hands.
Senator Day: He is being facetious.
The Chair: I did not know that.
Senator Banks: You do not want to be with Jim Judd for an hour and 15 minutes.
Senator Meighen: We can deal with the Canadian army in an hour and 15 minutes but not with Jim Judd.
Senator Banks: Right.
The Chair: Are there other comments?
Senator Zimmer: Mr. Chair, in this agenda, if along the way when we meet with some of the witnesses we stumble across something we find highly interesting and if we wait and delay we will lose the opportunity, are there opportunities to adjust the schedule?
The Chair: The committee is its own master. The process is simple. If someone says this issue is really important and it is worth scrubbing the last set of witnesses and we want to do that, then the committee can.
Senator Banks: I think I am right — Senator Meighen would know — in saying that when we discuss these draft work plans at the beginning of a session, they never work out exactly this way because something always comes up and we change our mind along the way. It has always happened. Am I right, chair?
The Chair: Much to my frustration, you are right.
Senator Tkachuk: I think we have talked up those items pretty well, although others may have questions.
I want to talk about May 11, which is the continuing review of land, maritime and —
The Chair: I am sorry, I am on the wrong piece of paper.
Senator Tkachuk: It is land, maritime and air staff in our draft work plan. Do we have an objective for this meeting? We had a good meeting, I think, with the three elements at the first one. Is there anything from that meeting that we want to focus on? Since we have three panels and only three hours, we might want to pick up on things. The witnesses raised a number of items that were interesting, namely, the purchasing of the tanks. I am sure they will have things to say.
In one hour, we cannot accomplish a lot unless we are focused. If we are all over the map, we will not obtain any answers to our questions, or at least any satisfaction that we at least gave an honest shot to obtaining an answer to a question. Inviting a minister might be a possibility. A minister may have a few things to say about this subject or a few things to say about what has transpired. I think we should invite a minister.
We have three witnesses listed here and we do not seem to have included any of the politicians that are responsible for these people.
Senator Nolin: I did not think of that. When we met with the three heads of the elements, the question of the Leopard 2 was picked up rapidly by the media and I am not sure if I know now where we stand on that issue or where we are going.
I am not even convinced of the total number of Leopard 2s that were bought. I think 40 were missing in the calculations. There are 40 in Montreal and 20 will remain in Germany to be shipped to Afghanistan but what about the others?
I think Treasury Board had something to say about that item. Maybe it would be interesting to hear more on the situation of those Leopard 2s. I know the minister was detailed in his answers but I am not sure the answer was complete on the situation.
The Chair: The people we have not heard from — and probably should before we hear from the minister — are people like the deputy minister, the assistant deputy minister, materiel, and the assistant deputy minister, policy, who have a significant impact. The ADM, policy, writes all documents that go out of the department, even for purchases. It might be more productive to invite those three witnesses rather than the collage that we have listed here. We can save them for a later day.
Senator Nolin: Let us imagine for a moment that the chapter on the Leopard 2 is about not only a military matter but also about a good international relationship for Canada. Who can answer those questions? I am sure the minister can but who can provide direct and positive answers to those questions? Is it the Privy Council Office or the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade?
The Chair: The ADM, Policy effectively speaks for PCO and, in many cases, she is the liaison with the Privy Council Office. Her job is to ensure that the department conforms to the government's policies.
Senator Nolin: She cannot explain those policies. The minister explains the rationale.
The Chair: The minister is ultimately accountable.
Senator Nolin: He is accountable for the fact that we have decided to keep 20 of those Leopard 2s in Europe and provide the work in Germany instead of in Canada. There is probably a political answer to that question.
The Chair: I think there is probably a dollar-and-cents answer but I do not know.
Senator Nolin: There is a question of propriety rights in those pieces of equipment. We have received mail and emails from RheinMetall saying that they also have proprietary rights on those pieces of equipment.
It is important to dig into that issue unless I am the only one concerned. RheinMetall in Saint John is concerned about it.
The Chair: "To bell the cat,'' if I can use that expression, if we invite a panel that includes the deputy minister, the assistant deputy minister, materiel, and the assistant deputy minister, policy, they cannot say the responsibility belongs is somebody else.
Senator Nolin: The answer is around the panel. It is up to us to do a good job.
The Chair: The same applies to the off-road vehicles that we heard about; the startling number of vehicles that are not functioning or available for service. The same applies to the frigates in need of —
Senator Nolin: We received emails too on the answer we received on the lack of qualified personnel saying, "It is not black and white; we can retain people if we need them.'' That area —
The Chair: It is also a moving target. Pilots were leaving like mad in the spring and, a year later, they are happy to have a job.
Senator Meighen: In following up on Senator Nolin's question, when would you envisage trying to fit that topic in?
The Chair: We should set aside points 1 to 15 here and address the civilian side of the house. We have examined the military side. We ought to examine the civilian side and see where we are at that point. That would be my advice.
Senator Tkachuk: I noted that on June 15, one topic is the condition of the Canadian Forces, consideration of a draft report. We had a few problems with this item last year, if I remember correctly.
Perhaps if we complete the panels on May 11, and include the minister with the group in that meeting, or perhaps shortly thereafter, we might be able to prepare the report a lot sooner than June 15. By waiting until June 15, for all I know, Parliament will rise on June 16 or 17 and we will not have time to present the report. Last year, we did have time to present the report. I am concerned that we deal with this issue. There is no reason why we cannot have a little more time than only the last meeting.
The Chair: There is more time. One place where there is more time is on the committee trip on May 24 to 28. I expect that a draft will be available for people to review on the trip to the Maritime bases. There is also time in the June 1 meeting, after the CSIS overview, where it says "condition of the CF'' and "condition of the RCMP transition.'' There will be time to review reports before the end of the session. I hope that time addresses your concern, Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: Do you suggest that we draft the report during our visit to the Maritime bases between May 24 and 28.
The Chair: Correct: We have worked on reports a number of times when we have travelled and that approach has worked well.
Senator Tkachuk: We can have meetings only in Canada, so the meetings in Dubai did not take place. We cannot meet outside the country. We can meet but it has no weight. All I am saying is that meetings outside the country do not matter much.
The Chair: They matter in terms of developing a consensus about a draft and when the draft is adopted. It can be adopted wherever committee members like.
Senator Tkachuk: That is not true.
The Chair: Wherever we like, is what I am saying, Senator Tkachuk. If the discussions happen in the Maritimes, it is perfectly legitimate for —
Senator Tkachuk: Of course it is. I did not say it was not. I was only entering the debate on the question of Dubai brought up by Senator Banks; I could not wait to jump in and follow it up.
Senator Banks: A group of senators met in Dubai.
Senator Day: Mr. Chair, this exercise has been great. I move the adoption of this work plan in principle. In saying "in principle,'' I leaving the door open to the steering committee, along with the clerk, to tweak the report.
Senator Tkachuk: So we are specific here, what you suggest is that in principle, we agree to the three overall topics: an overview of the RCMP; continuation of land, maritime and air staff; and what is the next one? Is it CSIS? What are we doing after that?
The Chair: We were hoping to come up with borders, but that would be in the fall.
Senator Day: I am contemplating two draft reports: the condition of the Canadian Forces and the condition of the RCMP in transition. That is what is contemplated by this work plan. If you decide to do something else, I think you will come back to us.
The Chair: I do not think there is enough time to do more work than that.
Senator Day: That was my motion.
Senator Tkachuk: If you have narrowed down the topics to those — I am not sure what your motion is, but perhaps you will repeat it.
Senator Day: The preamble was that this discussion has been helpful and I now move that this committee accept in principle the draft work plan for April, May and June, 2009, with authority being given to the steering committee to tweak and work on the details.
The Chair: Those in favour?
Senator Tkachuk: I think we are all in favour.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? The motion is carried. Thank you very much.
Senator Tkachuk: Seeing that it is 7 p.m., I move the adjournment.
Senator Day: No, we have this other item.
The Chair: If we can, I want to spend a few minutes on the budget.
Senator Tkachuk: We are out of time, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: We do not have a time limit here.
Senator Tkachuk: As far as I am concerned, we do. It was made clear by both our whips in the Senate chamber that unless you have permission from both whips, at 7 p.m. this meeting is over.
Senator Banks: What?
The Chair: The matter was taken up by Senator Comeau, who asked for a Speaker's ruling, and he did not obtain one.
Senator Banks: Was there an agreement between the whips that this meeting is over at 7 p.m.?
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, there is an agreement among our leadership that the meeting is over at 7 p.m.
The Chair: This committee can meet whenever it chooses.
Senator Tkachuk: It cannot meet whenever it chooses. That is not true and you know it. We cannot meet tomorrow. We can meet only today between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. unless agreed to by the whips.
The Chair: No, that is not the case.
Senator Tkachuk: People have other commitments — other meetings and other arrangements to make, because that is what is prescribed. You cannot go outside of that requirement, Mr. Chair. You have tried it before. That is not reasonable and not acceptable.
The Chair: It is not a question of trying it before. The committee has decided before to meet all day.
Senator Tkachuk: I moved the motion of adjournment so you need a vote. There is no discussion.
The Chair: I hear that. If you give me an opportunity, I will ask for a vote.
There is a motion before us to adjourn. Those in favour, please say "yea.''
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chair: Those opposed, please say "nay.''
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
Senator Tkachuk: I want a recorded vote.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Banks?
Senator Banks: Nay.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Kenny?
Senator Kenny: Nay.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Meighen?
Senator Meighen: I support the motion to adjourn.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Nolin?
Senator Nolin: Oui.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Mitchell?
Senator Mitchell: Nay.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Day.
Senator Day: We have more work to do. We are all here and willing to do it. I vote against adjournment at this time.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: I support the motion of adjournment.
Ms. Anwar: The Honourable Senator Zimmer.
Senator Zimmer: Nay.
Ms. Anwar: Three yeas, five nays.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Senator Tkachuk: You can have your meeting, Mr. Chair, but this side will not be in attendance.
The Chair: Senator Day, do you have a motion?
Senator Tkachuk: Good luck to you.
Senator Day: Mr. Chair, I have a motion that we now look at the draft budget.
Senator Banks: Do we have a draft budget?
The Chair: One is available for circulation.
Senator Day: It has not been circulated.
The Chair: Can I have a motion to move in camera, please?
Senator Banks: I move that we continue in camera. I further move, since I note that there are individuals talked about in this budget, that we ask staff, excepting the clerk, to vacate the room while we consider this item.
The Chair: And all others?
Senator Banks: Yes; this meeting will be senators only.
Senator Day: Because we are dealing with personalities and personnel — or may — is that right?
The Chair: That is correct. Do you want a transcript or not?
Ms. Anwar: One copy will be kept in the office.
Senator Banks: You will keep one copy. We should have one copy of a transcript of these proceedings, kept in the clerk's office until the end of this parliamentary session.
Senator Day: At which time it will self-destruct?
Senator Banks: At which time, the chair will eat it.
Ms. Anwar: There is a motion to continue in camera. What about library staff?
The Chair: Out.
Ms. Anwar: Can my assistant stay?
The Chair: Only the clerk can stay; you are the only person here.
Senator Day: Are we ready to proceed?
(The committee continued in camera.)