Evidence of meeting #113 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 nato.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Removing what seemed to be almost the minister's modus operandi concerning the evacuation makes me uncomfortable. What we understand from The Globe and Mail article is that a specific community was prioritized for evacuation to the detriment of other communities. That is what led to Canadians and Afghan allies being left behind. I think an attempt is being made to cloud the issue a bit. I would be curious to hear from the Conservatives on why they want to specifically remove what seemed to be the minister's motivation at the time of the events.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I say that it's redundant since you're referring to the article, in the first part of the preamble, from The Globe and Mail's story, and that was an order that was given by the Minister of National Defence at the time, Harjit Sajjan. That is covered in the motion because of the article in The Globe and Mail.
I don't think we need to reiterate that in the motion, and I also want to put in there that we have a report that was already done on that evacuation through the Special Committee on Afghanistan's report. Based on that story from The Globe and Mail, that is the new information that has come to light and that needs to be looked at, but we also want to know if the government has implemented those recommendations.
They responded to the report, but have they gone forward and implemented all those recommendations?
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I reiterate my comments with an addition.
The Conservatives, generally speaking, are not known for being very timid about redundancy, on the one hand; on the other hand, they are not shy about quoting entire sections of newspaper articles in their motions, sometimes in a rather scathing way. I find them particularly timid, oddly enough, when it comes to this motion.
As I was saying, the crux of the problem is that it was known that one group was being evacuated as a priority over another, which was on the list of priorities. This is really at the heart of the matter. I believe that this group must be named in the motion if we really want to solve the problem and avoid giving priority to certain groups in the future for the wrong reasons. It was known that another list already existed.
I don't see how we can dismiss this by saying that, in any case, it was alluded to in an article.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there further debate?
The first vote would be on the amendment, for want of a better term, the Bezan amendment or the Conservative amendment.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Who is in favour of the original motion as presented?
Do you want to debate that?
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
I hope it's not a debate. I would just like to again propose a small change to Madame Normandin's motion.
We propose to delete point a., which seeks to invite the Minister of National Defence, Bill Blair, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mélanie Joly, and officials for a minimum of two hours, as those ministers were not in office when the events reported by The Globe and Mail occurred. I would like my colleague to take that into consideration.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I would be willing to accept the proposal as a friendly amendment, as long as point d. is kept—the one proposing to invite all the other witnesses the committee deems necessary. We may get additional information as we hear from other witnesses who may be considered more appropriate.
As for Minister Blair, as I mentioned, as the current minister, he can enlighten us on how orders are conveyed to the special forces in the context of an operation, for example, or on how he considers them to be perceived. However, these are questions that I will be able to ask him when he appears before the committee at another time.
As for Global Affairs Canada, perhaps we will ultimately consider it more important to hear from officials from that department, or officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, but we will know that as we hear testimony.
So as long as point d. remains, so that we can invite other witnesses during the study, I am prepared to drop point a.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Are we fine with that?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This motion was recently moved by my colleague Ms. Mathyssen. I think we should have time to dispose of it, since it's not very controversial. This motion is for a study on current and legacy contamination sites and their impact on the health of members of the armed forces and Department of National Defence staff.
I can read it again, if necessary. This important topic is of concern to many veterans. It's about their health. We're talking about chemicals and carcinogens found in a number of places. It is important that this committee examine the issue and shed light on it.
The motion proposes six meetings for this study and a list of witnesses who could be invited, including veterans who currently have cancer. It's worth hearing from these people.
Liberal
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
No, I have a quick comment on it.
We support the motion, but I just don't know if we can afford six meetings in the time that's left. Our committee has a big workload in front of us. I would suggest, based upon the draft reports that are still to come back and have to be tabled, based upon Bill C-66 coming here, based upon the estimates and everything else we have to deal with, the DPU study as well, which we've started, and the space study, this needs to be punted down the road until we get those wrapped up before we start another study.
This is an issue. This is a concern, especially for those at National Defence who are firefighters and veterans who were exposed. We do need to dive into this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
You're suggesting that this government will last right through all its agenda? I just want to—
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
—the way you guys are voting around the table here.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
My comment is quite similar.
We already have a number of motions proposing very interesting substantive studies. It's a matter of timing. As I mentioned yesterday in the House, we have a lot more work to do than we have time to get it done. In that context, it would be a good idea for a subcommittee to manage the schedule.