National Defence Committee on Oct. 4th, 2006

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Stuff is happening every day, but it's not evolving like the Gulf War was.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

A comment here....

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I understand that there will be no classified briefings.

I believe the government made a commitment to Parliament that they would report to Parliament on a regular basis with respect to this war, and they have not made one report to Parliament, as a government, in the House or outside the House. I believethat to rectify that you need to hear from DND, at least, in this committee.

There are several privy councillors on this committee. I think one can trust the privy councillors to keep what's confidential confidential and what is not confidential to share that with the public, because it's going to be shared regardless.

I'm not asking that we be given information that might leak out and jeopardize the safety and security of our troops, and that's the ultimate question. I believe we need to have a report to Parliament. And since we're not getting any reports to Parliament by government, this, in a way, becomes a report to Parliament, by DND, at least through the committee. Therefore I support the biweekly meetings where we'd be briefed. I think it's very, very important.

I'd much rather hear from DND about what is changing and what is not changing, about what's taking place on the ground, rather than hearing it in the newspapers three days later. At least I think it's important that we be given that degree of respect, in terms of the kinds of responsibilities all of us can carry and be responsible for.

So I fully support the amendment to make it biweekly in terms of the original motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you.

Do you have a comment?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, would appreciate getting some briefings on this. I don't think we need to get one every week. Given the fact that we've been spending every committee meeting studying the mission in Afghanistan, I think as a committee we are as well briefed as anybody, from non-government organization officials, from other government officials, to Department of National Defence people.

We have been parading out the top brass here, and we have the Minister of National Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff coming in the near future, if I remember correctly.

Given the fact that we are going to be producing a report on this sometime, and I don't think we've even clarified when that's going to be, I am just wondering if the intent of this is to add more information to our study. Or is this just a briefing? Is this briefing material going to be included in the study? And if so, doesn't that alter our ability as a committee to finalize a report and table it in the House of Commons, if we're going to keep on talking about this and receiving briefings? Is that the intent, to have these briefings included in the report? Or is this something extraneous to that?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

As parliamentarians, we're not really bound by the terms of reference of a study that we might be engaged in. We're parliamentarians. We are not limited by our own resolutions that we may have had.

What we're saying is that as parliamentarians, we are owed a certain degree of information from DND on behalf of Parliament. Since the government hasn't seen fit to go to Parliament to report on a regular basis, as they promised, this in fact becomes the next-best thing. I think it's fairly important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I would assume, and this is my opinion as chair, that this would be beyond the scope or the mandate of what we're studying and wouldn't be part of the report.

Go ahead, Russ.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I just want to clarify that I don't think anybody at this point is suggesting that we not get reports from the department. I think that's fairly clear. I think we're simply trying to achieve a consensus as to what would be a reasonable frequency of those reports.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I get that feeling too, that we're all in favour of being briefed. We're just dealing with some of the timing details here.

Mr. Cannis and then Mr. Bachand.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I fully agree with the comment you just made, and I'd just like to put it on the table to all colleagues here.

This isn't necessarily studying the mission, but being informed of what is happening to our men and women, hearing from the people. I believe the information that is going to be presented to us will be information that is available to all, as Mr. Hawn pointed out. We will not be privy to sensitive classified information, but the media has a way of presenting a story, and I think we would like to hear it, if I may use it in a good way, from the horse's mouth directly, because we have an obligation to our constituents. It would certainly make us look silly as parliamentarians that we are not informed and we cannot respond to our constituents in a half-decent, intelligent way, as opposed to picking up the paper one day and reading something, and really they did not tell the whole story.

I believe, as an obligation to our constituents, and some members have bases in their ridings, it would only be appropriate that they hear it directly from the source and we put out the information as accurately as it is presented to us.

I don't want to compare that we're going to hear it from the media anyway, because I think it's two different scenarios altogether, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Bachand.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I trust the judgment of my colleagues around this table in terms of wanting to ask questions about confidential matters as part of a briefing.

We know what it's like to be told by a department that they cannot disclose this or that piece of information. In such a case, nothing is preventing parliamentarians from using the various means at their disposal, such as filing an access to information request or challenging the need to keep the information confidential. Personally, I have faith in our Committee colleagues' insight and intelligence.

As regards the frequency of these briefings, I have heard people argue on a number of occasions that the poor Department of National Defence is already very busy, particularly with the submarine file. We were told that the French translation would be much too costly, and that it was terrible for people in the Department, and that they didn't have the time. I simply don't accept those excuses. The Committee has certain rights and it can exercise those rights.

No one is going to tell me that the Minister of Defence is not briefed on a daily basis on what is going on in Afghanistan. I certainly hope he is. I would like him to have access to more information, because he probably has a much higher security clearance than we do, meaning that he is entitled to access it. In fact, I hope he has the highest possible clearance. That is probably also the case for the Parliamentary Secretary.

But it is up to the Committee to determine how relevant the Department's arguments are and whether it believes that confidentiality is justified.

I don't think it is too much for the Defence Committee to request a briefing every two weeks on what is going on in Afghanistan, unless we are told that our role is to do nothing more than hear from a whole series of witnesses, prepare a brief report, and then move on to something else.

At the present time, Afghanistan is the fundamental problem in terms of our international policy. This Committee has every right to make such demands. We will table a report one day. In fact, I think we'll be talking about that shortly. Mention was made of a Steering Committee meeting. I simply want to remind you that the motion, as currently worded, provides for the Committee to continue to be briefed every two weeks, until further notice. When the Committee feels its has had enough, or when the conflict is over, it could put an end to these briefings. They could continue even after the report has been tabled, but it would be up to the Committee to make that decision.

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, the wording of this motion is perfectly appropriate and the amendment provides an interesting contribution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you.

We'll close off. The question has been called.

I understand that the way to do this is to deal with the subamendment proposed by Mr. Hiebert first, that we substitute the word “regularly” for “biweekly”, which we have not voted on yet.

So the motion is to use the word “regularly”: “That the Department of National Defence be requested to report regularly to the House of Commons Standing Commitee....”

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

And then, if I could ask the clerk, we go back to the....

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We go back to the original amendment.

All those in favour of “regularly”?

(Subamendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We will move on to the amendment. The amendment would replace the word “weekly” with “biweekly”: "That the Department of National Defence be requested to report biweekly to the House of Commons Standing Commitee....”

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Now we have to vote on the amended motion. On the amended motion, it states:

That the Department of National Defence be requested to report biweekly to the House of Commons Standing Commitee on National Defence on the status and progress of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan until further notice.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

The meeting is suspended.

[Proceedings continue in camera].