Evidence of meeting #107 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was capabilities.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Really quickly in response to Christine, the briefing Mr. Bezan is proposing will inform us so we are able to make better and more meaningful use of the DPU study we have. The two are intimately related; one informs the other. That's why it's being proposed.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
I tend to agree with Madame Normandin on this. I don't disagree with this motion either. I think doing it in the fall and staying on course with what we have planned will probably work out better in relation to what we're dealing with now and how the summer activity will shape what we go into with this briefing.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
The DPU came out because the threat environment has changed. If we're going to do a proper job of studying the DPU, we'd better make sure we're aware of all the current challenges the Canadian Armed Forces is facing, which Canada as a whole needs to consider. That includes going to the NATO summit in Washington.
I think this is more than relevant, as it impacts all of those discussions and allows us to have a better focus when we start the DPU study. This should come first, and the DPU should come right after it. Hopefully, everybody sees the value of this, because it is important to our overall ability as a committee to do our work.
Liberal
Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS
Thanks, Chair.
Yes, I completely agree. I think I speak for my colleagues when I say we agree with you on the importance of what you're trying to uncover here. However, for the same reasons that we've deferred the additional meetings on the space study until the fall, it's important that we be consistent. There are other things on the committee's agenda between now and when we rise in three very short weeks that also require our urgent attention.
I'd like to move an amendment to the motion that simply eliminates the timeline and eliminates specifically the words “prior to the summer recess”.
Liberal
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Quite frankly, as to waiting until the fall, a lot has happened since our last briefing. Ideally, we should be getting a briefing every week. That's how significant the changes that are happening are. If the military doesn't want to come, the different departments at GAC could. We could get briefings from GAC on Taiwan and the Baltic region and everything in between.
I would note that when the NATO Parliamentary Assembly travels, prior to each of its meetings, it gets full briefings. It gets more than we're getting in this committee.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Bezan mentioned that this study was also part of the defence policy update.
Couldn't some witnesses do double duty and tell us both about the state of the threats and how an updated defence policy would address those threats?
That way, we'd kill two birds with one stone. If these two issues are supposed to be so intertwined, perhaps some people know them equally well.
Do we have any idea of the kind of witness who could talk about both issues at the same time?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Let me speak as chair before I call on the amendment.
When the motion was originally proposed by Mr. Bezan, the idea in the back of my head was that we would use part or all of our first DPU update to, I'll say, refresh our understanding of the threat, because the two go together—the policy and the threat. I hadn't articulated this to anyone, but we've set three meetings on the DPU. If you made the DPU or threat analysis your number one meeting and added one more after that on the DPU, you'd basically accomplish the same thing. Whether it's done before we rise is another question, but things are happening very quickly indeed.
The other concern I have is that there's likely going to be elevated kinetic risk to our own people, particularly in Europe, over the course of the summer months, because that's when the bulk of the fighting occurs. Optimally we'd have an abundance of time, but here we have to make choices.
Are there any other comments?
Go ahead, Christine.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
In that case, could we follow the predetermined agenda, including the defence policy update, but specifically invite witnesses to the initial meeting who will also be able to provide us with a risk analysis? That way, we could combine both parts of the proposal.
If that's possible, I think it would be the best compromise.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I can link the two, but I can't do it within the confines of the motion.
Mr. Clerk, give me some guidance here. Can we take the motion as amended? Would it still accommodate us doing the threat analysis in the first meeting?
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
If you want to split the first meeting, you kill two birds with one stone. You satisfy the motion and kick off with the threat analysis as it applies to the DPU. That would be fine.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I don't know. I'm not even sure I trust myself with any prerogatives.
Where we're at is that we have an amendment on the floor. We have to vote on the amendment first, and then we vote on the main motion. The amendment on the floor removes “prior to the summer recess”.
All those in favour of removing that?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Motion as amended agreed to)
Subject to the chair's prerogative, we might still try to get it in.
With that, we've covered off our motions. I always enjoy the opportunity to subvert committee will.
We're going to suspend while we go in camera. Hopefully we'll move through what we have to do in camera expeditiously and therefore have time freed up magically.
[Proceedings continue in camera]