Speaking to the amendment on the floor by Mr. Gerretsen, I'm not opposed to the idea of it just being briefings, but the reason we put the word “study” in there is to give us the option. If we aren't satisfied in this committee with what we hear, and we think there needs to be a report written and recommendations made, then we should reserve that right.
As Ms. Gallant just said, I think we should do this as quickly as possible and do it before the House reconvenes. Of course, we have our NATO trip taking place the first week that the House is back sitting. My thought is that we could do this in one day, have a number of different panels come to Ottawa, and hear from those experts. I still think that defence experts or other academic sources are fine, but we want to hear from the Canadian Armed Forces itself on what planning they're doing.
I will also say that we'd give them the option of having it in camera, with the exception of having the minister and the chief of the defence staff here, whom we might want to have in public. I expect that most of the expert witnesses would want to do it in a public setting, but if the commander of CJOC or the deputy commander of NORAD wanted to have in camera meetings, I'd definitely be co-operative with having that happen to make sure that nothing is leaked that might be a concern from a national security perspective. But there is a responsibility that government has and that we as parliamentarians have to share as much information as possible with Canadians so that they understand what precautionary steps are being taken.