Evidence of meeting #49 for National Defence in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal John Cannis
We have quorum. I'll call the meeting to order.
Good morning, colleagues. Our esteemed chair, Mr. Casson, sends his greetings. Unfortunately he's mining for stones. He is going through a very unfortunate experience, one that I know I experienced myself, so we wish him good health and a speedy recovery.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal John Cannis
Poor guy.
We will deal with the motion from Mr. Hawn. Mr. Hawn, you have the floor, sir.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What I was asked to do is put together a list of topics that would make sense to discuss from the point of view of continental defence. There is obviously a great deal of spillover between pure defence and pure security. The two are interrelated.
There is obviously a great deal of cross-border activity, not just between Canada and the U.S., but now with Mexico as well. If we're talking continent, obviously we're talking the entire continent. And there are agreements, current and pending, with the three countries.
This was intended to be a list of topics. It wasn't necessarily, in my mind, intended to be the work plan per se, so we may want to focus it down to something that's, at least to begin with, more manageable in terms of the time. Again, I wasn't necessarily thinking of having everything done on this topic by the end of this session, because it can be a very broad topic with many links going out.
The real central part of it, I would suggest—and I'd be open to amendments or to make it in some format that makes sense to the committee—is perhaps starting with Canada COM, because continental defence, from the Canadian perspective, starts with Canada COM.
Canada COM and USNORTHCOM, of course, work together across the 49th parallel. Canada COM obviously works closely with PSEPC, which works closely with the Department of Homeland Security, which also, obviously, works with USNORTHCOM. So that may be the area we want to start with.
I would leave the motion out there just for the moment to say here's a list of areas, but again, we may want to put them in a different order of priority or narrow the focus, and then as we develop along that line, we can branch out to other things that will come up—more specific things such as NORAD. When people think of continental defence, they think of NORAD. Continental defence is much, much more than NORAD. NORAD is a very small but important part of that.
I put that out as a suggestion. The motion is very broad. We may want to focus it down or put it in a different order, or some kind of priority order. So I leave that open for discussion.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal John Cannis
Thank you, Mr. Hawn. Indeed you've given us, as you said, a very broad spectrum of various areas to engage in.
Are there any comments, colleagues? Monsieur Coderre.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Chair, although it is noble of my colleague to make this motion this morning, I do not think we had begun that task. It is premature to say that we are going to begin a study. We have to vote against this motion, because we want to finish with the report on Afghanistan. The situation there is getting more untenable by the minute, and has an impact on Canada's very reputation. I am talking about the Afghan detainees.
We have already come out in favour of a study on the question of Afghan detainees. This must come first. As regards procurement, we must clearly work with the recommendations. The agenda and the timelines set by the steering committee contain enough work to take us to the summer.
I understand the reasons why my colleague wants to deal with his motion, but doing it now does not work for us. So we are going to vote against the motion.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal John Cannis
We know it's the privilege of every member to bring forth their ideas, and we respect that.
Monsieur Bachand, s'il vous plaît.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I will start by saying that I appreciate my colleague's efforts. The only problem I see at the moment is that he has cast his net very wide. There are all kinds of questions, including environmental damage, industrial espionage, immigration, border services, policing, etc. Several of these questions are beyond our competency. I do not want to repeat what my colleague Mr. Coderre has already said. Our work is not finished. I feel that, if we want to do a study, this is not the way to proceed.
We should decide that our next study will be about continental defence, once we have finished what Mr. Coderre and I were discussing. Then we would establish the terms and parameters of the study. It is absolutely impossible for me to vote on this motion in this way.
In the future, the committee should indicate a preference for several smaller studies, and not a study like this, that could take a year or two because its scope is so broad. I do not want to reject my colleague's work out of hand, because I find it very honourable. But at the moment, I would like us to set this motion aside, and devote our energy to Afghanistan and to the procurements. Then we can discuss the larger file, and the topics that we would like to explore.
I have nothing against talking about continental defence, but how far would we go? In my opinion, we are going too far. I would like to see the committee get together again to establish parameters and terms for the study.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal John Cannis
By leaving it on the table, you're just saying that this will be addressed in future committee business.
NDP
Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
The Auditor General is addressing this issue today. I think it might be wise to see what comes out in her report today, before we adopt a frame of reference to go ahead. I'm not opposed to undertaking this issue; I think we need to. But I don't think we should vote today on this motion and lock ourselves into these terms of reference.
I agree with Claude that we need to push it ahead and complete some of the other work before we really adopt the frame of reference we want to follow.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm just wondering what other work the committee was speaking to, other than the current report we're working on.
NDP
Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
We have procurement. We have to come to some conclusion on procurement.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Mr. Chair, do you know if there's a report associated with our study on procurement? I don't think that was part of the motion.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal John Cannis
If I recall, with respect to your question, we discussed three or four topics or—I'll use Claude's comment, if I may quote him—short studies. Some of them, if you'll recall from committee business, were quality of life and detainees. Those were not necessarily studies, but we needed to have a committee meeting per se.
The next in-depth study was in the process of unravelling, given that we had the Afghanistan study before us. Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, we were moving at a bit of a slower pace than we were hoping to. So the thrust was to get this over and done with. If you recall, colleagues, it was suggested to us by the chair to come forth, in our spare time, with specifics within that report on wording and so on. I hope we're at that stage today.
Go ahead, Mr. Hiebert.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Thank you.
I was under the impression, with the prospect of our wrapping up our study on Afghanistan, that the steering committee had requested that a motion be brought forward along these lines. So I think what Mr. Hawn has tried to do here is simply fulfill the request of the steering committee.
NDP
Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
You're right. I think the steering committee did request more information. I don't think they asked for a motion, but they did ask for a broadening of what the government was asking for on the study. I don't think they asked for it in the form of a motion.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal John Cannis
Yes. Having been at that meeting, there's no question—It's the privilege of every member to bring it forth as a motion at any time they wish. We cannot stop that. But in the next committee business, hopefully, all parties will be in a better position to put forth suggestions for future business.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal John Cannis
Voting against it or putting it on the shelf doesn't necessarily mean, Mr. Hawn, that we can't bring it back at the appropriate time.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
I'm wondering if we could have a brief discussion about whether it is too broad or touches on things that some members don't want to address. We could possibly bring those recommendations forward now and then revise the motion so that at our next meeting we could have an opportunity to consider it more fully.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Chair, I think that we all agree that files should be very closely examined. I have just come from the forum in Brussels. A problem is on the horizon, and it is becoming more serious. I am talking about intercontinental missile defence, and the opposition it is encountering in Europe. This is a very important matter, of course. We are not saying that motion is not valid, but when it comes to beginning a study on this topic when we still have work to do, I can only echo the words of my colleague Claude: we should work along the lines provided by the steering committee. We will come to a decision together, and we must discuss it, but it is perhaps not necessary to make a motion right now, although everyone has the right to do so.
The study on procurement is not finished, and we must discuss the recommendations. Whether we like it or not, there is also the question of the detainees. That is going to take much more than this one meeting. We have to get to the bottom of things, and perhaps even have a word with NATO. It would be good to invite General Henault to brief us on the situation. In short, we have a lot on our plate. We have not finished the Afghanistan file. I can tell you that if you are bound and determined to stick with this motion, we will not support it. That does not mean that we could not deal with the matter at the steering committee. Then we could establish an agenda and decide how we are going to proceed. After all, there certainly is not going to be an election this spring, and there will be work to do come autumn. This could be part of it. I think that we should proceed step by step. In one sense, we have put the cart before the horse.
