NDDN Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
CANADA
Standing Committee on National Defence
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
[English]
We will reconvene. We're in open session now; we came out of in camera.
Mr. Hawn is proposing a.... Go ahead, Mr. Hawn. I'll let you explain what you're doing.
I'll just read it. It's fairly self-explanatory and not very long:
Pursuant to standing order 108(1)(a), that the committee meet jointly at its first opportunity with the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs...to discuss the Manley Report, and that the chairmanship of the joint proceedings alternate between the respective chairs of the two standing committees;
and that the committee call the Hon. John Manley and all members of the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan, the ministers of National Defence, Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, with the option of adding further witnesses to provide their perspectives on this report;
that the joint proceedings occur during the ordinary scheduled time of this committee, on Tuesdays and Thursdays between 3:30pm and 5:30pm, commencing at the scheduled meeting immediately following the adoption of this motion and continuing until the conclusion of the meeting on February 28, 2008;
that the committee table a record of the evidence;
that pursuant—
It should still say “copy”. Okay. So it would read:
that the committee table a copy of the evidence;
that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report;
—which I believe they are doing—
and that these meetings be televised.
We can deal with the motion now, with unanimous consent, or we can leave it as a notice of motion for Thursday.
They talk about un procès. Ce n'est pas un procès.
I just wanted to let you know. We're not going to court.
That's a notice of motion. We'll have it properly distributed to the committee.
Mr. Cannis on another issue.
It parallels this one, Mr. Chairman, as well. There's no discussion on this one until it comes back.
One comment I would have, should we pursue this, is this. Seeing that we're having two committees, I would ask you, Mr. Chair, to work with the other chair of the foreign affairs committee. I have found it very frustrating, having participated in some of these joint committees. So much time goes by—two hours or an hour and a half to two hours—and we don't have the opportunity as members to participate, to ask questions. I see my colleagues across the way nodding their heads; I think they empathize with what I'm saying. For me, Mr. Chair, it would be a waste of time. I think we would look silly to the nation on television if each member isn't given an opportunity on this most serious subject, which has been discussed in every kitchen and every restaurant, etc. Those are my comments on that, and we'll elaborate at the next meeting.
There is another thing I would like you, Mr. Chairman, to ask the clerk and your staff. We have all worked very hard for months, and we've heard from so many witnesses: academics, former military people, current military people, and different organizations. We were compiling information on our study on our mission in Afghanistan. Correct me if I'm wrong. We did put a report together. I would like to ask, because people have been asking me, what happened to that report? What happened to those 13 or 14 recommendations? It goes hand in hand with what we have. What we're trying to do here is get the best of all the ideas so that as representatives we can do the right thing. We've always had good cooperation in this committee, from my understanding. Nothing has changed today. We might differ on some minor points.
I would ask for somebody to tell me—it's your work, my work, everybody's work—what happened to that report? What happened to those recommendations? I have all the respect for this new committee, the Manley committee, and whatever work they did, and we're going to draw comparisons at some point in time. But I owe it to my constituents, my taxpayers, as I'm sure every one of us does here, to respond to the questions they put to me.
What happened to that report? Can you now compare report A and report B? What are the common denominators? What are we doing? What are they suggesting to do that we have not been doing?
I know, Mr. Cannis, that there was a response that came forward from the government—I believe there was—on each one of those recommendations. Am I not right on that?
We'll have a look at that. To be fair, we need to have a look at how the government has responded to those recommendations.
We tabled it last spring, in June, so the response is available. It has been provided by the government. Whether you agree with the response would be something you would have to....
This is in response to Mr. Cannis' comment.
John made a really valid point. We all work really hard, spend hours preparing, and then a chosen few, and sometimes even substitutes, go in and ask all the questions. I would ask, if it's agreed that we go ahead, that we consider going to maybe four-hour meetings, and not necessarily just during our allotted time. We don't want to be here until 7:30 at night. But we could arrange it in such a way that there is some continuity.