National Defence Committee on June 13th, 2006

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

I have the support of my opposition colleagues to continue asking questions.

I would like to reference the comments that you were making in your presentation.

You made the comment during your presentation that attempts to allow public opinion polls to govern government foreign policy are misguided. That is the impression that I got from your statement.

You've made reference to the declining opposition, in fact, or the increasing support for our presence in Afghanistan by pointing out that back in March 62% of Canadians were opposed to the mission, and in May that number had dropped to 54%, and in the most recent poll--June 8 is the date you refer to--it had dropped to 44%. So I actually see declining opposition, or increasing support for our presence in Afghanistan, which I find very encouraging.

How would you explain this level of volatility within the public in terms of their support for our mission in Afghanistan, and to what degree should that play a role in directing government foreign policy?

[Justin Massie]

We must not be influenced by an increase or decrease in public support for the mission. If some Canadian soldiers were to die a tragic death next week, public support for the mission will probably go down. So political decisions must not be based on public opinion or media coverage.

If I addressed that aspect in my presentation, it was more to show the confusion that exists about the mission than to show a lack of public support. There may be differences of opinion as to the role, but when there is confusion as to the relevance or the very nature of a mission, that is dangerous politically speaking. We must work twice hard to obtain a consensus. If we clearly explain the stakes and the merit of a mission to the people and the people continue to oppose it, that must be taken into account in the long term, unless it is not considered important.

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

I have a question.

Last week there was a NATO meeting in Brussels where members of the NATO gathered and expressed an interest in doubling the number of troops to Afghanistan. I was wondering if you have any comment in terms of why they would wish to do that.

Does it reflect the fact that they didn't have enough troops there to begin with, or is it an effort to expedite the process, perhaps thinking we've had enough troops, but by increasing or doubling the forces we'll be able to shorten the length of time we have to be in Afghanistan? How would you explain their interest in the doubling of the troops to Afghanistan?

[Marc André Boivin]

This doubling of effort was actually agreed upon a long time ago and did not wait for last week. It's part of a gradual extension counter-clockwise of the ISAF mission to Afghanistan in general. ISAF was originally created by the UN, but only to provide security in Kabul. Following a Security Council resolution, they decided to extend ISAF's mandate to the whole of Afghanistan, but in order to do this, they needed to take gradual steps. They started with the PRT you mentioned in the north, which was one of the more stable regions. Then they went to the west to Herat, which was another rather stable region. Now they've taken a bold step in the south.

All in all, I wouldn't characterize this effort as quick. This extension was agreed upon in 2003, and we're in 2006 now, and we still haven't covered the last eastern regions with ISAF missions. I would think this is perhaps related to the difficulties in coming to terms as between the Enduring Freedom mission and the ISAF mission.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you. That just about does it. We have two spots left in the third round. One is for the Liberals and they're done.

Ms. Black, this is where you get back into the picture, if you want to use your time for this or for your other issues.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

I have two motions, and we have six minutes left.

So thank you very much for coming. I appreciate your presentations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you, gentlemen. You did very well. I thought you answered the questions as directly as you could, and we appreciate it very much.

As time is short, let's move on.

We have two motions presented by Ms. Black. I would like to deal with one, a routine motion that the chair accept no dilatory motions while the committee is hearing witnesses.

Ms. Black, would you like to comment on that, as the presenter?

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Yes. I was shocked when I was called in Vancouver on Friday to hear that the meeting had been adjourned when witnesses were here prepared to participate and to take questions from the government side, and that the government side had chosen to shut down the meeting. I found it really shocking, particularly when we understand that CARE Canada was involved and the Canadian Council for International Cooperation was involved. These are the people who are leading projects to make poverty history.

I would present this motion in the hope that people would not in the future use a dilatory motion to adjourn the debate and pre-empt information coming to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Is there any other comment concerning dilatory motions?

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

In reviewing this motion, it came to mind that one of the consequences of accepting a motion like this might be that it closes the door on this committee's future operations. There's no telling what the consequences might be if we adopt this motion, in the sense that there might be a time when it is appropriate that we leave this kind of freedom to the committee to decide for itself at a moment's notice whether or not it wants to proceed along those lines.

I would suggest that all members consider that there are all kinds of unintended consequences that might occur if we were to adopt this motion.

Further to that, according to the procedures governing the House of Commons, this kind of motion requires unanimous consent. I suggest, Mr. Chair, that you will not find that kind of unanimous consent around this table for this particular motion.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Well, if there's not unanimous consent, I'm happy to withdraw the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Well, if it's your wish to withdraw it, then it's up to you.

The motion has been withdrawn by the presenter.

The next motion to deal with is Ms. Black's.

I believe it is presented by you yourself. Do you have any comment?

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Speaking again on the debate last Thursday, when we as a whole committee had invited particular people from Canadian society to come to make presentations to this committee about their views, their expertise, and the positions of Canadian people on the topic we're studying, the mission in Afghanistan, having that meeting adjourn before the time was up, without consideration that these people had been asked—actually at the last minute—to come to make presentations because we weren't able to get other witnesses to appear was, I think, the height of arrogance and rudeness. I was just appalled to get the phone call on Thursday when I landed in Vancouver and to hear that this had happened.

That's the basis of this motion, to ask that this committee apologize to these particular witnesses. And with that, I would like to put the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Is there further discussion?

Do you have a comment, Mr. Bachand?

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

No, I just wanted to put the question.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, it would seem to me that, with all due respect--and I say this sincerely to Ms. Black--if there is anybody who should be apologizing to the groups that were present at this committee last Thursday, it would be she herself and her party for being the ones to ask these groups to attend and then not giving them the courtesy of actually being at this particular meeting. On that point, perhaps you have a good explanation that you can share with the committee as to why you were absent after you invited these groups.

Further--

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

No, we're not going to get into that.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

My political party was not absent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

You'll have to direct everything through the chair, if we're going to start that stuff.

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

It seems quite apparent that these kinds of motions are simply playing political games and distracting us from our primary objectives. If it's truly the case that she was really concerned about these presentations, then perhaps she could have worked with her opposition colleagues to ensure that there was the support needed to make sure the presentations could continue. But this was not in fact the case. Perhaps she's looking in the wrong direction and she should be looking to her side of these tables.

Finally, Mr. Chair, if you consulted the rules that govern committees, you would find that according to Marleau and Montpetit this motion is out of order, as there is, and I quote from Marleau and Montpetit, “the well-established rule which holds that a question”-- and I'm referring to the question in terms of the one to end a committee session last Thursday--“once put and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again.”

I think the motion is out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Are there any other comments while we sort this out?

Ms. Black, do you have any further comment? There has been a question raised as to whether this is indeed in order.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

While he's looking that up, I would just state that the New Democratic Party was here for the full tenure of the meeting, right until the end. My party has only one member on this committee, and a member of the NDP was here for the entire committee meeting. We were not absent, as Mr. Hiebert indicated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

In addressing Mr. Hiebert's comments, the clerk has researched this previous to this meeting and just comments to me now that there is a difference between the actual treatment and the question. That's how he referred to it. In his view the motion is in order.

We have a contrary view that the motion is not in order. I'm not sure if it's up to me to decide if it's in order or not.

Okay, it is up to me to decide if the motion is in order or not, and I guess that's why they pay us the big bucks.

It came out of the rules under which the House operates, and of course, the House operations and the committee operations are somewhat separate. I am going to rule that this motion is out of order. This leaves some avenues here. I will rule that and allow us to get to the vote. If you have discussion--

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

Mr. Chairman, if the motion is ruled out of order, how is there a vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

That is to allow us to leave to get to the vote.

I've made that ruling, and the time has expired and we have to get to the House.

So this meeting is adjourned.