National Defence Committee on Feb. 1st, 2018

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

That's all we have for questions. Thank you very much for appearing. If there's any misunderstanding or any clarity you need on items that the committee has asked you to provide, please make sure we've sorted that out before you depart. Thank you again for coming. I'm going to suspend, and we'll resume in a public meeting to deal with Mr. Bezan's motions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Welcome back, everybody.

As discussed earlier, I'm going to give the floor over to Mr. Bezan to move several motions that he's tabled.

Mr. Bezan, you have the floor.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity. I don't intend to talk out the clock or anything like that. I'll just move the motions and have a bit of debate on them.

The first motion I want to put on the table reads:

That the committee invite the Minister of National Defence to appear before the committee in order to update Canadians on the current status of Operation IMPACT and elaborate further on his comments regarding the future of Operation IMPACT and the supplying of weapons to the Kurdish Peshmerga; and that a meeting to this effect take place within 30 days from adoption of this motion and that this meeting be televised.

To speak to that, it's been some time since we've had any briefings as a committee on what we're doing with Operation Impact. Of course, that has changed significantly with the turmoil in the Kurdistan regional area, with Iraqi security forces moving into Kirkuk and other communities. The minister was referring to a remake of Operation Impact going forward because of that instability, and as we know, weapons that were supposed to be provided to the Kurdish peshmerga, bought by the Government of Canada, are sitting in storage in Montreal.

I think we should get an update on what's happening, what's going to happen with those weapons, and how we will support the Kurdistan regional government and the peshmerga going forward. I think we need to have that detail and have the minister here, along with department officials, to give us a thorough briefing. I think it's been close to 12 months since the last time we had any discussions on Operation Impact at this level.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I'll open the floor to debate.

Go ahead, Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank Mr. Bezan for moving this motion.

I have concerns about the pacing of work in this committee and the finishing of reports. Generally I would say that something that says “within 30 days” I would probably oppose. However, in order to be consistent, I have a motion that I'm going to bring forward regarding the Phoenix pay system. It's asking the minister to come and talk about its effects on operations in DND. It's in translation right now, and since it has the phrase “within 30 days” in it, I'm going to be forced to support this motion.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Well, thank you.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I do think it's important for this committee, in its oversight role, to hear regular discussions of important operations like Operation Impact. However, I have to say today that I'm concerned about the pacing of our NATO report. The two witnesses we had today certainly could have been a panel that was done with a second panel following them. We would have been able to ask the critical questions. I have become concerned about how long it's taking us to do the NATO report. It's so that we have time to do these other reports. Of course, I'm going to remind all of you that the committee agreed to do one on peacekeeping, which has now been put off for almost a year.

I think we need to have some general consideration as a committee about how we're working, in particular with regard to the pacing of the NATO report, so as to allow time for other studies like this. However, I will be supporting the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I wasn't paying attention. Was there anybody over here?

Before I go to Sven, just to keep everybody in the loop, an order in council came out yesterday. I know this committee is often interested in those , so I'll just throw that on the group of things that we have to consider. Supplementary estimates (C) are going to come. Keep all those things in mind when you are deliberating on what you want to take on and for how long you want to take it on.

I'm going to go to Mr. Spengemann and then I'm going to go over to Mr. Bezan.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, thank you.

I'd like to thank Mr. Bezan for bringing this motion. Operation Impact is of course a very important operation.

Mr. Bezan, I wonder if you'd be open to an amendment to have the chief of the defence staff appear instead of the minister. He would be in a position to provide much more detail with respect to the operation on the ground.

The second is in respect to placing this at the right time, not only with respect to existing work that the committee is facing but also with respect to the fluidity of developments on the ground, to not tie ourselves to a 30-day time requirement.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Are you saying we add the chief of the defence staff?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

No, I'm suggesting we replace the Minister of National Defence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Now we're talking about an amendment, just to make sure everyone is on the same page here.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Did you put forward an amendment?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I've asked him if he'd be open to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

We're still in discussion mode.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I think we should have the minister here. He's always free to bring officials with him, such as the chief of the defence staff. It's the minister that commented to CBC that there was going to be a remake of Operation Impact. I'd like to drill down on it. He's been to the region many times and he knows what we're doing there. Really what's going to come forward is at the policy level rather than the operational level. I think we need to have the minister here to talk about that policy side of it, along with the CDS, who can talk about operations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Is there any discussion?

Go ahead, Mr. Gerretsen.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I'm definitely opposed to the idea of putting a timeline on this. We're doing a study on NATO now. Considering the list of witnesses that we have, it's still going to go on for quite some time. For what purpose are we asking the minister to come here? Is it so we can then give him recommendations, or are we asking him to come here just for the purpose of entertaining our own individual curiosities? We're in the middle of a study right now, and I hate the idea of diverting away from it, even just for one meeting. I want to get this study done, so I'm inclined not to support it, primarily based on the fact that it's being demanded to happen within the next month.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I'm going to go over to Mr. Bezan and then back to Mr. Spengemann.

I sat down with the clerk and the analyst and went through a detailed timeline just on the study itself, based on the witnesses. I take your comment, Mr. Gerretsen, on managing individual meetings, but some of that is driven by when people can appear, so I have some limitations on what I can drive in terms of agenda.

If nothing changes and we don't add any more work to what we're doing, we will start to impact on getting this done before we rise in June, and that's not taking into consideration the order in council I mentioned, which you guys may be interested in talking about, and certainly there are the supplementary estimates (C), which are our responsibility. I'm just putting it out there for thought.

Mr. Spengemann is next, and then Mr. Bezan.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Just to circle back, the real value would be with the chief of the defence staff, especially since the minister is going to appear for supplementaries, so we're going to have an opportunity to have him in front of us.

With respect to the timeline, I'm not even sure this is the right time to now ask for an update. The update may well be in the summer with respect to substance and the fluidity on the ground.

Again, our work plan is paramount. We need to get through the NATO study. I would once again ask for support, or at least encourage Mr. Bezan to consider that amendment for the chief of the defence staff, and no timeline.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Sorry; is there an amendment now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

No, we're still in discussion.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

There are two things. If you want to move an amendment to remove the date, I'm okay with that. I believe the minister needs to be here, since this is a policy discussion more than a discussion on the operational side. CDS can be here to talk about the operation, how it's changed, and where the training in advise and assist has gone in the last number of months.

As to the workload the committee is facing, I encourage you, Mr. Chair, to have a steering committee meeting so that we can look at how things are drawn up. I know that in January we received a list of all the different panels that are potentially available to us to look at in the NATO study. If you look at that, there are over 30 different panels to do. It will take us forever to get through them if they're all available. I don't know if we need to do each and every one of those panels.

At the same time, we want to make sure that.... Having one main witness here today for a two-hour meeting was maybe not necessary. We should have had two or three main witnesses for a two-hour meeting, or just two one-hour meetings. Those are the things we need to discuss as a steering committee to better orchestrate the workload and deal with some of the.... The peacekeeping motion has to get dealt with here sooner rather than later, because time has moved on.

I'm okay with you taking out the 30 days, but this is a policy discussion more than an operational discussion. It's the future of the mission, and it is the minister's responsibility to provide those briefings.

Also, we haven't had a briefing on this, either as critics or as a committee, for almost a year. Leaving it until June or the summertime.... You in the Liberal Party may be privy to what's happening, but we and Canadians and the opposition don't know what those operational plans are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I'll let Mr. Spengemann go ahead.