National Defence Committee on April 26th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I call the meeting to order.

We have a number of new faces around the table this morning--I welcome you all--filling in, I guess, for people who are otherwise busy.

We have two items on the agenda today. One is some committee business--a notice of motion from the Honourable Joe McGuire--and then moving into an in camera session to deal with our Afghanistan report. I'd like to start, if we can, on the notice of motion.

Mr. McGuire, I'll give you an opportunity to outline what you have in your mind here.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion, as you know, deals with the invitation to General Raymond Henault to appear in front of the committee. I think it was an oversight that he wasn't invited before this, seeing that he is a Canadian and he's been the chair of the top military committee in NATO for the past two years, ever since he was replaced by General Hillier. He was elected to that spot by other NATO members, so he's in a position, really, to give us a tremendous insight from the NATO point of view about how well we're doing, how well NATO is doing in Afghanistan, or not doing, whatever.

I think he would really help the report, in that he could give a point of view from a broader perspective than some of the other witnesses we have had. This is a NATO operation. We are an integral part of the military operation, the military side there. I think his testimony would be invaluable to our committee, so I move that we invite him and incur the necessary expenses in so doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Okay. Does anyone else have any comment?

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I would support that. I know General Henault personally. I've known him for a very long time. He's very articulate and thoughtful. He has seen a broad perspective of what's going on over various iterations, so I think it would be worthwhile.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Is there anyone else?

Okay, Mr. Bachand.

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

Mr. Chair, I wonder if my colleague would consider a broadening of the mandate so we could have other witnesses to appear, and other ways for them to appear before the committee. I was thinking about the chairman of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, but I would like to have new procedures so these appearances are not too costly for the Treasury. We could have video conferences instead of having these people come over from Europe or Afghanistan. We often forget about video conferencing. With this technology, we could discuss with witnesses as efficiently as if they were here.

First, I would like to ask my colleague, Mr. McGuire, whether he would accept this amendment. If not, I could simply present another motion the next time. But I would like the clerk to look into the possibility of video conferences. We could save public money and at the same time have a better access to people who are not in Canada or near Ottawa. Mr. Hénault would probably have to travel from Brussels. And if we invite the chairman of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, Mr. Noorzai, who is in Afghanistan, it would be even more complicated.

I wonder what is Mr. McGuire's reaction is to my suggestion to invite Mr. Noorzai. If he does not agree, let him say so quite freely, and if my other colleagues are opposed, it would not be a problem. We could eventually have a separate motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Tonks.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I'm not on this committee, obviously, but I am interested, on behalf of Canadians who have a concern, based on my perception on reading the media and so on. The concern that has come through the media and through pronouncements that have been made is that the countries of NATO are not pulling their weight and the heavy-lifting is being left to the British and the Canadians.

I don't know the details, but when we were in England a few months ago this was the prevailing sentiment that was expressed by all parties we met with on the foreign affairs committee. It was indicated in top-level pronouncements with respect to reminding the NATO countries under the articles of engagement in Afghanistan that the spirit was not being maintained. The all-party sentiment that I inferred from what was said was that they would look forward to very strong statements coming from Canada.

I wonder, if I am right on that particular perception, whether this motion could be expanded a little. I don't know who it was who said that wars are too important simply to be left to generals. There are political decisions that generals act on. If that is an accurate perception, and I do believe it is one that is felt by Canadians, would it not then be an opportunity, at some point, to expand the terms of reference of this motion?

I'm sorry if I'm overstepping my knowledge barrier, but to have those who give the political direction, from whom the NATO command takes its direction.... Somehow, somewhere, someone has to put pressure on with respect to whether the spirit of engagement and principles are still valid in Afghanistan. I believe they are. I believe we have to take leadership to make sure that it's very clear in terms of what our understanding is of how and why we went in there. It has to be made very clear that everyone else is operating under the same assumption.

My suggestion would be that somehow, whether through this motion or another motion or at another time, if you haven't done this already, that you do it, perhaps in the context of your report. I suggest that the committee take that particular view.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you.

Mr. Hiebert.

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

I thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm wondering if Mr. McGuire could give us some idea as to whether or not he would want this testimony to be part of the current Afghanistan report that we're discussing. I wasn't sure if that was part of his intention.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

That would be the intention, to have his testimony incorporated into this report.

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

Okay.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

I don't know how far adrift we can get from the motion here. I guess it's up to the committee to decide, but we could keep taking in witnesses forever. I felt and members felt that General Henault would give invaluable information on the report.

Whether or not that can be done by video conferencing is something the clerk could investigate--what his schedule is and how soon he could appear. We're going to be sitting for the next three weeks, so we do have time. Whether it's possible to set up a video conference, and then on Claude's suggestion, whether it's both General Henault and Mr. Noorzai, whether that is possible or not.... It's always better to have somebody in person, but if it's impossible to get General Henault here in person, I think that's a good alternative.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Video conferencing is something we can look into.

Mr. Hiebert, you weren't quite finished your comments, and then I have Hawn and Gallant.

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

I also want to say that I don't think it's necessarily appropriate or even wise for this committee to start opening up the report, since we've now started to go through it step by step. This could really muddle the waters in terms of the conclusions we've come to and the progress we've made. If we start introducing new testimony, there might be no limit to what could be introduced and to how long this is going to take.

I have no problem hearing the testimony from the general, but I think it should be in addition to, or above and beyond what we've currently concluded. I would actually prefer to see us wrap up the work we've started. The sense I was getting from the members of this committee, even at the last meeting, was that this is taking too long. So let's continue to make progress on this and get it behind us.

In terms of introducing new testimony that might start this process all over again, I'm not really that interested. In terms of video conferencing, I have no problem with that. I think it's a good suggestion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

It certainly may make the possibility of having him as a witness a bit easier.

Claude.

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

I am going—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Oh, sorry, Claude, I have a list here. I apologize.

Mr. Hawn, Ms. Gallant, and then Mr. Bachand.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I have just a short point to follow up with Mr. Tonks. Even though he's called the chairman of the NATO Military Committee, his job is essentially political. He's more politician than general, so he would cover—

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Good.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

—the political aspect of it quite well.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thanks.

Mrs. Gallant.

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

Mr. Chairman, my comment is directed towards Mr. Tonks as well.

While we were in Afghanistan, we did have the privilege of speaking to General van Loon. He addressed our committee when we visited, so we have had input from NATO.

Further to your concern, NATO plays a role in our continental defence, so perhaps in our overall study of continental defence--which is our next project once we're complete here--we could bring these witnesses in and have these discussions within that context, so we can finish up the work we've started and have been working on for months.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Bachand.