National Defence Committee on May 16th, 2006

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

If we're going to discuss the state of the personnel and materiel, we should discuss Canada's other international obligations as well.

[An hon. member]

Why?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Because Canada has such obligations and we will have to make some decisions down the road. We need to know how many soldiers are available, how many will be deployed on the Afghan mission and how many will be available for other missions abroad. That's the gist here of the reference to discussions about the state of the personnel.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

My question is, which other international obligations are you thinking about specifically? We don't have any large international obligations at the moment, other than Afghanistan. At the end of the day, we'll have the Afghanistan commitment. Then a logical question is, what do we have left over to do whatever? There are no other identified international obligations here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I think the point Mr. Hawn is trying to make here is the fact that our obligations could change next week. Something else could happen in the world, so how do we quantify in exact terms exactly what those other obligations are? If we have 2,000 or 3,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan and another situation arises where we're called upon for a large engagement, maybe we will not be able to meet that. But if it's a small technical type of thing, we possibly can. I think he is seeking clarification on exactly what that part of the motion means.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

You're providing a partial clarification right now, Mr. Chairman. You're saying that we're not involved in any other mission. We have troops in Haiti and we've discussed other possible deployments. We have peacekeeping forces, UN forces and so forth. We'll discuss all of these matters at the same time in order to ascertain our troop availability.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Khan.

[Wajid Khan, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

I think what Mr. Hawn is saying is correct and valid here as well, but when we discuss the outstretch of the mission, of the rotation in general, that would cover most of the concern, because, as you say, there's no specific mission right now. What are we going to need, 200 troops? Do we need a battalion? Do we need a battle group? We have really no idea, but through the discussions I'm sure it will come up, the rotation of how many troops we have, what is available as a general rule or generality, such as Darfur. If we want to send troops there, what can we send? Can we adjust internally, as it was believed and we were told they could possibly do something?

I don't think we'll ever get a specific number. It will vary from mission to mission and when and how the commitments are at that time. That's a very difficult situation to comment upon, but we'll have a general idea as to what will happen down the road.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I was going to ask a couple of questions about the capacity.

[Wajid Khan, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

About the capacity, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Calkins, I believe I had you on the list here.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

It seems to me that in the context of this committee we're obviously going to be discussing military operations, but Canada has many international obligations. For the sake of clarification, perhaps we should be saying “Canada's other international military obligations”, just for that clarification.

From a realistic point of view, I think anything that we could potentially engage in, whether it's a military obligation, whether there is a peacekeeping role in Haiti, whether there is a role for us in Darfur, is going to come into the context of the discussion as it comes up anyway. So I'm not so sure we need to actually spell this out in the motion. If it's an issue of the day that involves the military of the Canadian Armed Forces, it will be brought to the table, whether we're discussing Afghanistan or anything else at the same time.

For me, the last line probably doesn't need to be part of the motion; it goes without saying.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Ms. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Based on what Mr. Khan has said, it might be useful for the committee, as it usually does at the beginning of a parliamentary session, to consider going to NDHQ. What they will do there is give us a briefing on what our troop commitments are, what the missions are, and it would be very informative.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

That would be an overall briefing of what's--

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

It would be an overall briefing, and it would better prepare us for this debate as well as the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We can try to do that.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Chair, I'm assuming that's part of what we'll be doing. One of the first things we'll be doing is calling people from the department to inform us about what we're engaged in, how many troops are available for the future, or whatever.

I'm not sure if we need to quantify down to the last soldier what Canada might or might not need. As part of the debate--and I think the past and present governments have committed to additional troops--are those additional troops sufficient, given the rotation, present obligations, or possible future obligations, whether it's Darfur or whatever? That has to be part of the discussion. Do we have the military personnel and equipment, and how many personnel and how much equipment do we need to take on additional missions?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Was there anyone else?

We're dealing with the amended motion, and we're going to vote on that. If there's no further discussion, we'll get on with that.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

So we've dealt with your motion.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

You're welcome.

We'll go back into a committee of the whole to deal with the rest of the agenda, so I'll adjourn this portion of the meeting.

[Proceedings continue in camera]