HAFF 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.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 26, 2002

1530

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.))

Mr. Jim Judd (Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence)

The Chair

1535

Mr. Toews

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Toews

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Toews

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Toews

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Toews

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Toews

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Toews

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Toews

1540

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Toews

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Toews

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Toews

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Toews

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Toews

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Toews

The Chair

Mr. Toews

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Toews

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Toews

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Toews

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Toews

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Toews

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Toews

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Toews

Mr. Jim Judd

1545

Mr. Toews

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Toews

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Toews

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Toews

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.)

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Jim Judd

1550

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Regan

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ)

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. Jim Judd

1555

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. Jim Judd

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. Jim Judd

The Chair

M. Price

1600

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Price

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Price

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Price

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Price

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Price

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Price

Mr. Jim Judd

1605

Mr. Price

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Price

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Price

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. David Price

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst, NDP)

1610

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jim Judd

1615

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Jim Judd

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds--Grenville, Lib.)

Mr. Jim Judd

1620

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jim Judd

1625

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George--Peace River, PC/DR)

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

1630

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

1635

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jim Judd

The Chair

Mr. Jim Judd

The Chair

Mr. Jim Judd

The Chair

Mr. Jim Judd

1640

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Jim Judd

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Jim Judd

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Jim Judd

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Jim Judd

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Jim Judd

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Jim Judd

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Jim Judd

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

1645

Mr. Jim Judd

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Jim Judd

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans, BQ)

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Michel Guimond

1650

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jim Judd

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Yvon Godin

1655

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jim Judd

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

1700

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

The Chair

Mr. Benoit

Mr. Jim Judd

1705

Mr. Benoit

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Benoit

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Benoit

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Benoit

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Benoit

The Chair

M. Bélanger

Mr. Godin

The Chair

Mrs. Gallant

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

1710

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Jim Judd

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Jim Judd

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Jim Judd

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jim Judd

1715

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Pierre Brien

The Chair

Mr. Jim Judd

1720

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. Jim Judd

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

1725

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jim Judd

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Hill

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

1730

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Ms. Phinney

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

NUMBER 048

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 26, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1530)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, we are here for our 48th meeting, believe it or not, although not on this topic. Pursuant to the Order of Reference from the House of Thursday, February 7, we are considering the question of privilege raised on January 31 of this year by the member for Portage-Lisgar concerning the charge against the Minister of National Defence of making misleading statements in the House.

Our witness today is Jim Judd, Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence.

I would remind you all that our next meeting is this evening at 7:30, when our witness will be the Chief of the Defence Staff.

Also, I've been advised that there will be bells at 5:15 for a vote at 5:30, and I think we should all remember that in our deliberations. Of course, we can come back and continue with this meeting, but I think if we keep it in our minds, it may be nearer that time that we can wind the thing up.

Mr. Judd, we welcome you here today. We do appreciate your being here. My understanding is that you don't have a statement, that you are willing for us to proceed directly into the questions.

Mr. Jim Judd (Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence): That's correct, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I appreciate that.

Can I explain to you, then, as I've done in the previous meetings, that the arrangements under which these hearings are being conducted include a round of questions in which each party gets 10 minutes. It starts with the official opposition, and then it moves to each side of the committee. The parties can use the whole 10 minutes for one questioner or more than one questioner, but I will cut them off. Your answer is a part of the member's time. You should feel free to answer as fully as you can, but from time to time, if I'm watching the member, I will give the member the benefit of the doubt, if that's the right expression, because it is his or her time.

I'd also say to you that with this particular case, we do understand that there are situations in which some of our witnesses feel they cannot answer a question for security reasons or whatever. You're a deputy minister, and you know that. I will try to follow the questioning as well as I can, but if you are at all concerned, you should express that concern to the committee.

The questioning begins with the Canadian Alliance, Vic Toews.

¹ (1535)

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, today we've heard from Vice-Admiral Greg Maddison that he briefed the minister on a number of occasions regarding the capture of Afghani detainees by Canadians. It's clear from the testimony of the vice-admiral that at least on January 21, 25, and 29, he provided the following information to the minister. I'm generalizing here, but I think these are the statements he made clear: that the troops were safe; that the mission was successful; that the mission was in accordance with the rules of engagement and other government policy; that Canadians were involved in the taking of these detainees; that Canadians turned these detainees over to the Americans. Other than certain sensitive information, which the vice-admiral could not disclose, certainly not evidence relevant to our discussion here today, he testified that no additional significant information was provided to the minister by the military relevant to the detainees subsequent to the briefing on January 21 on this matter.

So when did you first know about the involvement of the Canadians with the Afghani detainees?

Mr. Jim Judd: That would be on January 22.

Mr. Vic Toews: Who advised you, sir?

Mr. Jim Judd: Admiral Maddison.

Mr. Vic Toews: I've summarized what Admiral Maddison told this committee. Would that be a fair summary of what he also told you in respect of these detainees?

Mr. Jim Judd: Admiral Maddison informed me on January 22, in relation to the photograph in the newspaper, that he suspected the soldiers depicted in the newspaper may have been Canadian. He confirmed that with me later that same day. I asked him whether there had been any problems with the operation, any casualties of any sort, whether it had been done in accordance with the government's policy and the rules of engagement for the force. I also asked whether the minister had been briefed on the operation, because we have a specific procedure for JTF-2 operations that is different from that for regular Canadian Forces operations. At the time, my first question was, how did the picture get taken, if this was a covert operation?

Mr. Vic Toews: Let's back up a moment here. You asked him whether the minister had been briefed. What was his response?

Mr. Jim Judd: Yes.

Mr. Vic Toews: So he told you the minister had been briefed on January 21 in Mexico City?

Mr. Jim Judd: Yes.

Mr. Vic Toews: All right. Then you had a discussion about the photograph on January 22?

Mr. Jim Judd: A very brief conversation. As I've said, and I think as Admiral Maddison has indicated, we have a two-part process for reporting on Canadian Forces operations, part of which, for JTF-2, is very specific.

Mr. Vic Toews: We've heard that.

I don't mean to rush you, and please correct me if I in any way truncate your evidence. Your testimony is, I heard, that on January 22 Vice-Admiral Maddison came back to you and confirmed that those were Canadians in that photo.

Mr. Jim Judd: Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Vic Toews: So on the same day he thought those individuals might be Canadian, he confirmed they were in fact Canadian.

¹ (1540)

Mr. Jim Judd: Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Vic Toews: I understand there was another briefing on January 25 involving the minister and Vice-Admiral Maddison.

Mr. Jim Judd: That is what I understand, but to help clarify this perhaps, I was not privy to the conversations on January 21 between the admiral and the minister or on January 25, when I was probably in Toronto.

Mr. Vic Toews: Were you involved in preparing the minister's briefing notes for the January 28 take note debate in the House?

Mr. Jim Judd: They would have probably come through me.

Mr. Vic Toews: Did those briefing notes include any information on the taking of the detainees by the Canadians?

Mr. Jim Judd: I don't believe so.

Mr. Vic Toews: Would there be any reason, with something the minister would have been briefed about at least on January 21 and on January 25 in some detail, in the sense of its taking up a good part of that briefing session, the department would not consider that information significant, given the nature of the topic that was being discussed in the debate?

Mr. Jim Judd: There are two kinds of answers to your question. One is that we had a separate and distinct procedure for managing information about JTF-2 operations in Afghanistan, which had the information being passed from the Chief of the Defence Staff or his substitute, in his absence, to the minister to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Vic Toews: I appreciate that. Do you have copies of those briefing notes? Are you prepared to give those to this committee?

Mr. Jim Judd: I do not have copies with me. I would have to take that under advisement. It relates to an issue of advice to ministers, and I would have to seek counsel on that.

Mr. Vic Toews: I'm requesting that you produce that information for this committee, through you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Jim, when a member makes such a request, if you're going to provide them, provide them to the committee, and if you're not, provide the explanation to the committee.

Mr. Vic Toews: I appreciate that clarification, Mr. Chair.

On January 25 Mr. Young, the executive assistant to the minister, advised the minister that this issue would be on the January 29 cabinet agenda. Who put this issue of the detainees on the January 29 cabinet agenda?

Mr. Jim Judd: Cabinet agendas are set by the Privy Council Office.

Mr. Vic Toews: So the deputy minister of the Department of National Defence has no input into cabinet agenda?

Mr. Jim Judd: They're determined by the Privy Council Office. How that comes about may be the subject of discussions they have with other government officials, but it's their prerogative.

Mr. Vic Toews: You, as the deputy minister, did not have any role in that issue's going to cabinet on January 29?

Mr. Jim Judd: No.

Mr. Vic Toews: Who prepared the cabinet material?

Mr. Jim Judd: It would have been prepared by officials in our department.

Mr. Vic Toews: And would it have been prepared under your direction?

Mr. Jim Judd: I am responsible for what my officials do.

Mr. Vic Toews: When else were you involved in this particular issue in any briefing, other than the dates I have mentioned, January 21, January 25, and perhaps January 29?

Mr. Jim Judd: To the best of my recollection, I was not involved in any of the briefings on those dates. They were between the minister and his military staff.

Mr. Vic Toews: So the minister didn't request any information of you in respect of this issue that you can recall?

Mr. Jim Judd: The issue of--

Mr. Vic Toews: The detainees.

Mr. Jim Judd: The issue of the detainees who had been taken by Canadian forces?

¹ (1545)

Mr. Vic Toews: That's correct.

Mr. Jim Judd: No.

Mr. Vic Toews: So that would have all come through the military.

Mr. Jim Judd: Yes.

Mr. Vic Toews: So the most reliable witness to this would be the vice-admiral, who was, in fact, the individual who briefed the minister directly and orally, as we've heard.

Mr. Jim Judd: It's difficult for me to comment, having not been present.

Mr. Vic Toews: I appreciate that. I just wondered if you had any specific response, and I think your response has been very satisfactory.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Geoff Regan, Pierre Brien, David Price, then Yvon Godin.

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, through you, welcome Mr. Judd.

I want to first bring your attention to the date of January 29, and ask you to tell us what you can about a meeting that took place after question period that day. Did you watch question period that day, do you recall?

Mr. Jim Judd: January 29?

Mr. Geoff Regan: January 29 was the Tuesday when the minister said in the House, in answer to a question, that he first learned that Canadians had taken prisoners on January 25.

Mr. Jim Judd: I don't believe I watched question period that day.

Mr. Geoff Regan: The chair is not amused.

Mr. Chairman, through you again, the next question is, were you present at a meeting later that day, after question period, when the minister and the deputy chief of defence staff were both present, and the deputy chief of defence staff corrected the minister's recollection?

Mr. Jim Judd: I do not believe I was.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Okay.

What is the reporting procedure for the activities of the JTF-2, and how does it differ from the reporting procedures of the Princess Pats, for example?

Mr. Jim Judd: Historically, JTF-2 operations have been treated with a very high degree of security, and that is done for a variety of reasons. First, it's a very small organization. Second, it is an organization that has, on occasion, operated outside the country and inside the country, which is something that differentiates it from most analogous forces in other western jurisdictions. So generally speaking, JTF-2 operations are dealt with on a very close-hold basis. For the purposes of the campaign in Afghanistan, as I think has already been indicated, there was a very specific procedure put in with respect to any reporting of JTF-2 activities in the theatre, which had it going from the Chief of Defence Staff or his substitute to the minister and, should he so decide, to the Prime Minister. That is different from how regular military operations are dealt with, internally and with the rest of the government. Regular military operations are reported on daily, both orally and in writing, but that is not the principle that applies to JTF-2 operations.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Thank you.

Let me take you, Mr. Judd, to the day of the 22nd again. You indicated earlier that then you first learned that Canadians had taken prisoners, because of the photograph and your discussions with Vice Admiral Madison about the photograph. Once you learned this fact, whom, if anyone, did you inform that Canadian troops had taken prisoners?

Mr. Jim Judd: No one, to my recollection.

Mr. Geoff Regan: That would apply to what period, the next few days, or since then to today?

Mr. Jim Judd: To the best of my recollection, I discussed it only after it had become public knowledge.

Mr. Geoff Regan: And it became public knowledge on the 29th. If I recall correctly, at noon on the 29th the minister was in a news conference in--

Mr. Jim Judd: I believe it was in the immediate aftermath of the cabinet meeting.

¹ (1550)

Mr. Geoff Regan: You mean you didn't have any discussions with the Minister of Defence about this?

Mr. Jim Judd: Sorry?

Mr. Geoff Regan: Did you have discussions with the minister himself after the 22nd about this question?

Mr. Jim Judd: No.

Mr. Geoff Regan: So on the 25th, when he was briefed by Vice-Admiral Maddison, were you present?

Mr. Jim Judd: No.

Mr. Geoff Regan: I see.

That's all I have for now, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: It's Pierre Brien, David Price, Yvon Godin, Joe Jordan, then Jay Hill.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Good afternoon.

When he was here, the Minister of National Defence clearly stated that this wasn't the first time Canadian soldiers had been involved in the capture of prisoners. When were you informed that Canadian soldiers had also been involved in the capture of prisoners in Afghanistan?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: Mr. Chair, I first learned of this on January 22, when I was informed about the photograph and deduced from it that Canadians had taken captives.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: The Minister informed us that Canadian soldiers had been involved on one other occasion in the capture of prisoners, but that at the time, they were acting as part of a multinational force. Can you tell us when you were informed that Canada had been involved in the capture of other prisoners prior to January 21?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: Mr. Chair, I'm not, as a matter of course, briefed on JTF-2 operations. I think the first I learned of the second incident was in the course of the minister's testimony before this committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: What was the date of the first Cabinet meeting attended by the Minister of National Defence after January 21? Was it the Cabinet meeting of January 25?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: There was a cabinet retreat on the 25th.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Was the Minister's case on the agenda for that day's meeting?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: We are treading into an area of cabinet confidence here. Let me go so far as to say that I do not recall that the minister was on the agenda. A retreat is different, I think, from a regular cabinet meeting, which has a different structure or agenda.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I see.

The Prime Minister made a statement to the effect that Canadian soldiers had not taken any prisoners. He told the media that they would be informed when that happened. Therefore, we have to assume that the Prime Minister made the statement without full knowledge of the facts. When did you learn of the Prime Minister's statement?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: I believe it was on the following day. I had not seen the statement at the time the Prime Minister made it, and I didn't learn of it, I don't think, until the following day.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: When you read the statement early the next day - I would imagine that would be on the 29th -, did you contact anyone in the Prime Minister's Office to let them know the statement was inaccurate?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: I don't recall when precisely I learned of the Prime Minister's comment. I don't think it was the day he made it. I don't think it was until the day after. I can't recall when on the following day I learned of it, but I had not called anyone in the Prime Minister's office about the issue.

¹ (1555)

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: What about the Privy Council Office? You didn't contact anyone in the Privy Council Office either to point out that the Prime Minister's statement was inaccurate. Is that correct?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: That is correct. I did not call anybody in the Privy Council Office.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I see.

During the week of January 21 or in the days following January 21, did you contact anyone at Foreign Affairs about the fact that Canadian soldiers had taken some prisoners?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: No.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Were you present at any time when the Minister of National Defence discussed the transport to Cuba of the prisoners captured in Afghanistan? Were you present at any time when the status of the detainees was discussed?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: During that week I had no discussion with a minister of any kind that I can recall. The issue of the treatment of detainees in Cuba was something we were dealing with in the department and elsewhere, but we had received assurances, I believe, from American authorities on January 22 or 23 that the treatment being accorded the detainees was consistent with the Geneva Convention, or that they were committed to being consistent with the Geneva Convention. I believe the international committee of the Red Cross essentially confirmed that.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Who gave you these assurances on January 22 or 23? You said you were given assurances on the 22nd or 23rd of the month that the treatment accorded to the detainees would be consistent with the Geneva Convention. Who gave you these assurances?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: The assurances came from American authorities through the people in our organization who were dealing with American authorities and others at that time, including the Judge Advocate General's Office lawyers and other people in our organization.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: You say you can't recall discussing the status of detainees with the Minister that week. That is what you said. Prior to January 21, when was the last time you discussed the status of detainees and this whole issue with the Minister?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: Before January 21, I honestly can't recall having a discussion with the minister about the status or the treatment of the detainees. It may have happened. I would have to go back and check my records, but off the top of my head, I can't recall. I'm sorry.

[Translation]

The Chair: You have two minutes remaining, Pierre.

Mr. Pierre Brien: I see. I want to be sure I have the facts.

When a Minister makes a statement that is inaccurate, is it standard procedure not to subsequently contact either the Privy Council Office or the Prime Minister's Office to advise them that the statement is inaccurate? Is this standard procedure or was this oversight merely an isolated incident?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: I can only speak for myself in this instance. As I've said, I don't know that I became aware of the Prime Minister's statement until the day after he had made it, and possibly not until after the issue had become public. To the best of my personal knowledge at the time, given the reporting procedure on JTF-2 operations, in deference to that procedure, I had not notified anybody in the Privy Council Office, Foreign Affairs, or the Prime Minister's office of the detainees.

The Chair: David Price, and then Yvon Godin, Joe Jordan, Jay Hill.

[Translation]

Mr. David Price (Compton--Stanstead, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Judd, I'd like to clarify the sequence of events. We have learned that Admiral Maddison received information on the 20th and conveyed it to General Henault. Following a briefing the next day, Admiral Maddison passed the information along to Mr. Eggleton in Mexico. He then passed it along to you. Aside from these individuals, was anyone else notified, before the information was passed on to you?

º (1600)

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: Not that I'm aware of. When Admiral Maddison spoke to me, it was in my office, one-on-one, on January 22, as I say, on two occasions during that day, with respect to the photograph. We did not discuss any of the details of the operation. I just asked the questions I've already indicated I asked, and that was all.

Mr. David Price: As a deputy minister, you'd be very close to everything that goes on with the minister, basically his right hand. From that point on, who would be the next person you would have talked to about it, you would have passed the information to, and at what point?

Mr. Jim Judd: This is going to sound awfully bureaucratic, but for the purposes of the Afghanistan campaign, there was a very circumscribed reporting procedure with respect to JTF-2, from the Chief of Defence Staff or his alternate to the minister and, if he chose so, to the Prime Minister. Having learned of the operation by happenstance, if you will, I chose to respect the procedure, knowing the minister had been informed.

Mr. David Price: So it didn't go any further until after the 29th, when it became public.

Mr. Jim Judd: No.

Mr. David Price: So--through you, Mr. Chair--it would have been the minister's arm itself that would have been responsible to carry it on the next step.

Mr. Jim Judd: That's correct.

Mr. David Price: Let's go to the 25th, the briefing by Admiral Maddison to the minister and explanations of the pictures and so on, and the minster wanting to get at more information. You mentioned yourself the Judge Advocate General. Were you aware then that the minister would have asked for information from the Judge Advocate General, information about where prisoners were being kept and how? You also mentioned the Red Cross. What was the information circle he was looking for at that point, I imagine, before he did inform cabinet?

Mr. Jim Judd: I honestly can't say anything useful on that, because I wasn't there on January 25. That was a matter between him and his military staff.

Mr. David Price: But if he had been seeking additional information, I imagine you would have heard it coming down through. You mentioned the Red Cross. I didn't hear the exact answer to the question, but there again, I know the minister had an interest in whether the Red Cross was looking at these prisoners.

Mr. Jim Judd: As I said, during that week we had had assurances from the American authorities that they were treating the detainees in a manner consistent with the Geneva Convention, and I think separately, the international committee of the Red Cross had undertaken its own investigations, both in Afghanistan and Cuba, and essentially confirmed that the Geneva Conventions were being respected. That advice may have been reflected in briefings that were done for the minister for any subsequent discussion in cabinet.

Mr. David Price: So you're not really aware of any details of the briefings the minister had asked for before he did speak to cabinet.

Mr. Jim Judd: Not in respect of the detainees that had been taken by Canadian forces. Obviously, he was prepared for the discussion in cabinet on the general question of detainees, but in keeping with our procedures with respect to JTF-2, that would not have been covered.

º (1605)

Mr. David Price: Would you be aware if the minister had asked whether these prisoners had been transferred or were going to be transferred to Cuba?

Mr. Jim Judd: We had discussions about the status of the specific prisoners that had been taken by the Canadian forces after the news had become public, but not prior to that.

Mr. David Price: Could you get an idea of discussions around DND as to what the priority was at that point, in the minister's mind? Was it the prisoners, or was there a lot of talk also about our soldiers who had been involved in the incident?

Mr. Jim Judd: I think the preoccupation of the organization that and the following week had been on the then prospective deployment of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and all that was attendant on that, the arrangements for their departure--the minister and the Chief of Defence Staff, I think, went out to Edmonton to say farewell at some point--and the overall conduct of the campaign. The reality of the campaign, if I can put it in its broader perspective, is that leaving aside JTF-2 for the moment, the minister and I and others are briefed on a daily basis on a whole range of activities and operations relating to the Afghanistan campaign, what each of the individual navy vessels is doing, what the aircraft are doing, what the personnel on the ground, other than JTF-2, are doing, and all of that, in addition to regular updates on what the forces are doing everywhere else in the world, and what they're doing domestically, if there's a set of issues. Then, of course, there are a whole series of budgetary issues and other things that are essentially non-military that come across our table as well.

Mr. David Price: So it was an item, but it definitely wasn't a high priority, because at that point the PPLs were really top of the list, I can well imagine.

Mr. Jim Judd: Again, to try to give you the context of our organization, we are the largest public sector organization in this country. We operate in every province and territory of Canada. We have military personnel deployed overseas in some fashion or another in about 30 to 40 countries at any given time. It is a large organization, with a large set of issues all the time.With the information flow, the military have an expression that is quite appropriate: it's like drinking out of a firehose.

Mr. David Price: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: It's Yvon Godin, Joe Jordan, then Jay Hill.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to thank Mr. Judd for agreeing to be here today.

We've learned that the Minister was briefed by Admiral Maddison on January 21. You stated that you were also briefed on the 22nd. In fact, there were two separate briefings as a result of the photograph. Did you contact Admiral Maddison for information concerning the photograph or was it Admiral Maddison who contacted your office to supply this information?

º (1610)

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: If the truth be told, when I saw the photograph myself in the newspaper, I was skeptical that they were in fact American military personnel, because of the uniforms. As you may recall, the soldiers in the photograph had fairly distinctive uniforms, and when I saw the photograph, it occurred to me that they might not be Americans, but forces of another country. Admiral Maddison came to see me, as I recall, that morning with the news that he had seen the photograph, he had looked at it, and he had the same doubts I did as to whether the soldiers in the photograph were American. He said they would try to confirm that. He returned to my office later in the day and said they had confirmed that they were not American and were, in fact, Canadian.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Getting back to my question, did Admiral Maddison come to your office at your request, or did he show up on his own because he was concerned and wanted to either give you some information or ask you questions about the photograph?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: I believe it was at his initiative that he came to discuss the photograph.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: After discussing the photograph with Admiral Maddison twice in the same day, when did you first discuss the photograph with Defence Minister Eggleton?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: The first time I discussed the taking of detainees by Canadian forces with the minister was after the cabinet meeting of the 29th, I believe it was.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, there's something I'd like the Deputy Minister to tell me, given that he is the Minister's right-hand man. Or is he the Minister's left-hand man? It's one or the other.

In any case, he received information on the 22nd. This morning, Admiral Maddison told us that when he saw the photograph, he took the matter seriously and went to the Deputy Minister to inform him that Canadians were possibly involved. You were sufficiently concerned to meet a second time that same day to discuss the photograph.

Now you're telling us that yours truly, the deputy minister, did not discuss the photograph at all with the Minister at the time, knowing full well that Canadian soldiers were involved and that it was possible Canadians or Parliament might learn fairly shortly thereafter that Canadian soldiers were involved?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: That's correct, and I could give you three explanations. First, the operation had been carried out in accordance with the government's policy with respect to the forces in Afghanistan. It had been compliant with their rules of engagement. The JTF-2 had been deployed to Afghanistan with a view to aiding in covert operations with respect to terrorist elements, and rightly or wrongly, at the time I assumed that because nothing had gone wrong, no one had been injured, there had been no casualties, it was a normal operation in accordance with government policy and that there was therefore no requirement to raise the flag. If there had been casualties or if the forces had captured a high-level individual of some sort, I probably would have reacted differently.

Second, as I tried to explain earlier, at the time, on January 22 or January 23, in our view, the issue of American treatment of detainees was subsiding, given what we had learned from the Americans and from the international committee of the Red Cross.

Third, with respect to the reporting procedure on this, I would say again that there was a very deliberately constrained reporting procedure with respect to JTF-2, which I understood to have been discharged by the military, they having informed the minister on the previous day.

That was my view in the circumstances. With 20/20 hindsight, I suppose this is going to be a question I'll ask myself for the rest of my life, whether I should have done something differently.

º (1615)

Mr. Yvon Godin: If I were you, I'd do the same thing.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, I have another question for the witness. Did you know that on January 17, several Liberals questioned the Minister about the detainees during a parliamentary committee meeting? They inquired as to the fate of the detainees. I believe that was on January 17.

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: I was aware of the minister's appearance before the committee and that the issue of policy on detainees had arisen. My recollection, though, is that it was triggered by the pictures of the transfer of detainees, and as I tried to explain earlier, to my mind, the following week that issue had been largely resolved, through the receipt of assurances from the Americans that they were applying the Geneva Conventions, or that the detainees were being treated in a manner consistent with the Geneva Conventions, and the international committee of the Red Cross had essentially verified that.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, the witness said he was aware of the meeting on January 17. On January 22, he was questioned twice about the circumstances surrounding the photograph. After the Prime Minister made his statement on the weekend, he realized he was unaware of the fact that Canadian soldiers had taken prisoners. He also said he did not contact the Prime Minister's Office in the wake of these incidents.

Would you not agree at this time that you should have contacted the Prime Minister and that it made no sense not to do so?

[English]

The Chair: You have about 30 seconds, Jim.

Mr. Jim Judd: As I tried to say in my response to your last question, in the circumstances, I did what I thought appropriate. With the benefit of hindsight, which is inevitably 20/20, I'm not so sure, and as I say, it's a question I'll probably be asking myself until I pass away.

The Chair: Joe Jordan, then Jay Hill.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds--Grenville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Judd, to go back to that point, the knowledge you obtained on the 22nd from Vice-Admiral Maddison, this issue has been referred to--and I'm quoting the member-- as a serious issue. It certainly wasn't a serious issue that prisoners were captured and turned over to the Americans, because such were the agreed upon terms of engagement, were they not?

Mr. Jim Judd: It was our understanding that they were operating within government policy at the time. They had been sent to Afghanistan to help on a particular set of jobs with other coalition forces. They had discharged that job effectively without casualties, in keeping with our policy. As I tried to explain earlier, that's why I reacted to it as a normal operation that went well. If I reported on every normal operation that went well, I'd be on the phone a lot.

º (1620)

Mr. Joe Jordan: So what prompted the contact from Vice-Admiral Maddison to you on the 22nd was not that prisoners were taken and transferred to the Americans, but that there was a picture of Canadian JTF-2 with prisoners in their custody on the front page of the Globe and Mail. Is that what was serious?

Mr. Jim Judd: I must say, when Admiral Maddison confirmed it to me, my first reaction was, how did the photograph get taken? It didn't seem to me to be in keeping with how one would conduct covert operations, and I asked how the photograph had come to be taken, and what had been done with the photographer, and whether steps were being taken to ensure that there would be no repeat of this. So that was, I guess, my mindset at the time, a concern about the security of the people

Mr. Joe Jordan: So Vice-Admiral Maddison started this conversation, because up until that point you didn't know prisoners had been taken by Canadian JTF-2, is that correct?

Mr. Jim Judd: That's correct.

Mr. Joe Jordan: So he must have prefaced that with “we've taken prisoners, we've transferred them to the Americans, and there's a picture about it in the Globe and Mail”. Is that the sequence?

Mr. Jim Judd: I'd reverse it. I'd say it was, “Holy cow, there's a picture on the front page of the Globe and Mail, and we suspect they're not as portrayed, they're not Americans, and they may be Canadians”, and he subsequently confirmed that. As I say, my initial reaction was concern for the security of our people there.

Mr. Joe Jordan: That's understandable. I guess that reflects the military's position, as the secrecy would have been the issue with them, because, in their view, they were just doing what they were sent over there to do, and they did it well.

So you're now in possession of this information, as you said, by happenstance. Did Vice-Admiral Maddison tell you he had briefed the minister the day before on this?

Mr. Jim Judd: Yes.

Mr. Joe Jordan: And was there any statement that the minister made publicly from the 22nd up to the 29th that would have led you to believe there was any misunderstanding or lack of communication between Vice-Admiral Maddison and the minister?

Mr. Jim Judd: No.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Then I would suggest to you that you needn't beat yourself up over this.You weren't confronted with any dilemma, you were presented with some information. In the absence of anything to the contrary, in your view, the minister had been briefed, and everything was working the way it should have. Is that correct?

Mr. Jim Judd: I would say everything went as it was supposed to have gone with the procedure, but speaking personally, as a deputy minister, I feel less than happy about the end result.

Mr. Joe Jordan: With JTF-2 and the reporting structure, generally, you're not in that loop, is that correct? The only reason you were brought in this time was the photograph in the Globe and Mail.

Mr. Jim Judd: That's correct.

Mr. Joe Jordan: When the minister is briefed on JTF-2, if the minister decides to put that information in the public domain, is that the minister's decision alone? He gets briefed, he absorbs this information--as you say, the drinking from a firehose. Does he then make that decision on his own? I don't want to lead you, but does he then perhaps go back to the Chief of Defence Staff and talk about the issue of making something public? Do you know?

Mr. Jim Judd: With respect to JTF-2, that would be an issue between him and his military advisers.

Mr. Joe Jordan: He would go back to them. Or are you saying they would know whether he goes back to them?

Mr. Jim Judd: I would assume so.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Which one?

Mr. Jim Judd: If there were questions, he would go back to them.

Mr. Joe Jordan: He would go back to them. Okay.

Mr. Chair, I'm interested in the minister's reason for being in Mexico. Were you party to his schedule and the rationale for that trip? What exactly was he doing there?

Mr. Jim Judd: The minister was in Mexico, I think the first time ever for a Canadian defence minister, to meet with his Mexican counterpart and other officials of the Mexican administration, principally, I think, making contact with the Mexicans, given our broader relationship with Mexico through NAFTA and so on, and also to discuss with his Mexican counterpart and others post-September 11 circumstances there and internationally.

º (1625)

Mr. Joe Jordan: So would you characterize that as an important trip?

Mr. Jim Judd: I think I would characterize Mexico as an important partner of Canada, and therefore the trip was important, particularly given that it was the first time for a Canadian defence minister.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Jay Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George--Peace River, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Judd, for appearing this afternoon.

You've stated that you found out that Canadians, specially JTF-2, were involved in taking prisoners on the 22nd, when Vice-Admiral Maddison came to you and discussed the photograph. You didn't discuss it with your minister until the 29th, that's correct?

Mr. Jim Judd: I believe that's correct, yes.

Mr. Jay Hill: You've also said it's normal procedure--that's one of the reasons you didn't think it was out of the ordinary--to alert the minister, to ensure that he knew, and yet would it be normal for JTF-2 to appear on the front page of a newspaper?

Mr. Jim Judd: No. I believe that's why Admiral Maddison drew it to my attention.

Mr. Jay Hill: But if it's not normal for it to be on the front page of a newspaper, why wouldn't something have gone off in your brain and said, I'd better make sure the minister is aware of this, because it's not normal?

Mr. Jim Judd: Well, the minister was out of the country at the time. He had been briefed on the operation. I didn't know whether he had seen the photograph via fax copy or not. As it turns out, I don't think he had. The fact of the matter, though, is that the photograph in the newspaper identified the soldiers as American soldiers. The reality that they were not American soldiers was known to our military folks in the chain of command and to myself, but I didn't react. At the time my concern was about the security of the personnel.

Mr. Jay Hill: But later on that same day, the 22nd, you said it was confirmed to you by Admiral Maddison that they were indeed Canadians, and yet you didn't find that sufficiently out of the ordinary to advise your minister for a week, not until the 29th. Is that correct?

Mr. Jim Judd: Well, the photograph was the photograph. The minister had been briefed on the operation, and I guess I treated them in my mind as two different things. But you're correct, I did not speak to the minister about it.

Mr. Jay Hill: Why do you suppose Vice-Admiral Maddison would tell you about the photograph and wouldn't tell the minister on the 22nd?

Mr. Jim Judd: I can only imagine that having briefed the minister, the admiral believed he had discharged his responsibilities. He informed me about the photograph in a somewhat different context, if you will.

Mr. Jay Hill: Did you ask Vice-Admiral Maddison if he had actually raised this issue with the minister at any point?

Mr. Jim Judd: The photograph?

º (1630)

Mr. Jay Hill: Yes.

Mr. Jim Judd: No, I did not ask him.

Mr. Jay Hill: So that's normal procedure, that he would bring something like that to your attention, but not to the minister's? Would he rely on you to do that? What is the chain of command, the information flow?

Mr. Jim Judd: The normal chain of command with respect to JTF-2 operations is as I outlined to you, except in this instance, given the photograph in the Globe and Mail. The admiral brought it to my attention. There was not a briefing on the operation per se, except in respect of a few questions I posed to Admiral Maddison.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay, we'll just leave the issue of the photograph and whether it was normal or abnormal.

The minister stated in his testimony that on the weekend he wanted further clarification in preparation for the cabinet meeting. You were not present at any briefings over the weekend to prepare the minister for that cabinet meeting, is that correct?

Mr. Jim Judd: Our normal practice with preparation of the minister for cabinet meetings is to do it in the form of written briefings. We rarely sit down in person with him on issues in advance of cabinet meetings.

Mr. Jay Hill: So you're not aware of any briefing where he sat down with people over the weekend?

Mr. Jim Judd: No, I'm not.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay.

Who was travelling with the minister in Mexico?

Mr. Jim Judd: I don't know.

Mr. Jay Hill: You're the deputy minister, and you don't know who was with your minister on that Mexican trip?

Mr. Jim Judd: I can get you a list, but I can't tell you off the top of my head who was travelling with him.

Mr. Jay Hill: So you wouldn't know if someone was present when he took the briefing phone call on the 21st, because you don't even know off the top of your head who was there.

Mr. Jim Judd: No, I wouldn't.

Mr. Jay Hill: Did you at any time advise the minister, following his statements of the 28th, to return to the House? Did he even seek your advice as to whether he should return to the House to correct his statements of the 28th?

Mr. Jim Judd: I can't honestly answer the question. I'm just not sure in my own mind.

Mr. Jay Hill: You're not sure whether he asked you for advice or you freely gave some advice as to the fact that you noticed on the 28th, either at question period or during the take note debate, that he'd made erroneous statements and you thought it wise for him to return to the House and correct them?

Mr. Jim Judd: We may well have had a discussion about that, but at the moment I can't recall whether we did.

Mr. Jay Hill: After being briefed by Vice-Admiral Maddison regarding the photograph on the 22nd, if you'd been asked at any time between the 22nd and the 29th, based on that, if Canadian forces had been involved with taking prisoners, how would you have responded? Would you have remembered? Was it important enough information in your mind that you would have remembered, had you been asked?

Mr. Jim Judd: We treated the JTF-2 operations in a very particular fashion, for a variety of security reasons. The military had reported to the minister on it. I found out about it by happenstance, because of the photograph, and at this juncture I'm not sure how to answer your question.

Mr. Jay Hill: Maybe we can clear up a couple of other things.

Is it true that deputy ministers of all the security ministries gather in the Privy Council Office once a week to discuss security issues with the Clerk of the Privy Council?

Mr. Jim Judd: Not so far as I know. If they do, they don't invite me.

Mr. Jay Hill: If that's true, Mr. Judd--through you, Mr. Chairman--how would the Clerk of the Privy Council be sufficiently knowledgeable about all issues to draft the agenda for the cabinet meeting? You were saying it's only through the Clerk of the Privy Council that things get on the agenda for the cabinet meetings.

º (1635)

Mr. Jim Judd: I would defer to them. I've had the privilege of working with the Privy Council Office myself, but never in relation to cabinet per se. I presume they try to ensure that issues come up at cabinet as required, based on their judgment.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you.

The Chair: Jim, the government side has waived its last 10 minutes, so we're going to go to the five-minute round of questions now. I'm going to begin with myself, and then I'm going to go through the opposition parties. The names I have are Cheryl Gallant, Michel Guimond, Yvon Godin, Jay Hill, and then Leon Benoit.

Jim, you mentioned the scale of the Department of National Defence. It's a bit like a trivial pursuit question. Which is the biggest department in this respect? Which is the biggest department in that respect? For example, the largest budget is HRDC. You said this is the largest public service department, and I'm conscious of the fact that you operate from alert on Baffin Island, right through to the southernmost tip of Ontario, in all three oceans, and 30 or 40 different countries, as you said and I think I knew, in very diverse operations, ranging from Afghanistan, land, sea, and air at the moment, to tiny operations in various parts. This is an extraordinary thing.

What's your own background in the public service, if I might ask? Which way did you come through the system to become Deputy Minister of National Defence?

Mr. Jim Judd: I will have been a public servant for 29 years in about a month from now. I originally joined the foreign service in what used to be called the Department of External Affairs. I worked with the Department of External Affairs, both in Canada and abroad, for a number of years. I've also had secondments outside the foreign affairs department for an inquiry into competitiveness in the oil industry in Canada.

The Chair: That's fine. I asked because I wondered, for someone like you, what it's like being in this huge bureaucracy, in which I would imagine--I'll ask you in a moment roughly what the percentages are--a very large percentage of the people wear uniforms and have got all sorts of structures of their own, with stars on their shoulders and this kind of thing. You're a public servant representing us in this uniformed system, which is unusually highly organized, I would suspect, unusually structured. What's it like for a non-uniformed public servant to be working in such a department, particularly as deputy minister? What percentage of your people don't wear a uniform?

Mr. Jim Judd: We have about a 19,000 civilian workforce, 80% of which is outside of Ottawa. The majority of those are blue collar workers. The remainder in Ottawa do a variety of tasks. The regular military staff--

The Chair: I don't want to interrupt you , but non-uniformed professionals, for want of a better word, are a very small percentage.

Mr. Jim Judd: Yes. There are approximately 60,000 regular Canadian Forces personnel and approximately 20,000 reserve personnel, army, navy, and air force. We may be the second or third largest employer in the country at large.

The Chair: I'm interested in what you say, we all are. We're dealing with the armed forces here. It must be an unusually complex environment for a public servant.

Mr. Jim Judd: If I could, Mr. Chairman, I would describe that as an understatement. It is enormously challenging. It is enormously complex, because of the size and the scope of the organization, and also by virtue of the fact that there are two systems that co-exist, one military and one civilian. In fact, many of the pieces are, to some extent, intertwined. There are military personnel occasionally working for civilian personnel, and vice versa.

º (1640)

The Chair: That's fine. Thank you very much for that.

Cheryl Gallant, Michel Guimond, Yvon Godin.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, we found the witness's testimony very interesting, since the minister testified that he was the only civilian who received briefings on JTF-2. There was a report in the Ottawa Citizen last week that indicated that the reporting practice with regard to JTF-2 had recently changed. When did that change occur?

Mr. Jim Judd: Generally speaking, JTF-2 operations of any kind are dealt with on a close-hold basis. For the operations in Afghanistan, there was a specific policy or procedure put in place last fall, which restricted the passage of information on JTF-2 from the Chief of Defence Staff or his alternate to the minister and, if need be, to the Prime Minister.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: What was the practice before this change occurred?

Mr. Jim Judd: I believe JTF-2 operations were still dealt with on a close-hold, circumscribed basis. As a rule, I would be aware that they had been deployed somewhere, but I would not be briefed on the day-to-day activities. The practice we follow with JTF-2 is very much analogous to what other western governments do with those kinds of forces, which is to limit the information flow principally through the military chain to the minister or secretary of defence.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: How was that different before? What is different between previous practice and what it is now?

Mr. Jim Judd: I'm not sure there is a significant difference, but we were much more conscious of the security dimensions with the operations in Afghanistan, just because of the fact that this kind of operation was new, and because the JTF-2 was going into an operation that was different for them.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you.

Was the change done pursuant to a directive from the minister, and did you sign that directive or document as well?

Mr. Jim Judd: I don't mean to appear equivocating, but I have to be conscious of my responsibilities with respect to the security of information policy and cabinet confidence on that. I would say that the advice on this issue was rendered by both military and civilian personnel.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Okay. Why was the practice changed?

Mr. Jim Judd: As I say, I'm not sure the practice was changed, but I think we were more conscious, because of the circumstances in Afghanistan, of ensuring that it was clarified.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: With respect to the memo that was leaked, is there an investigation under way to determine how that information, which came from a confidential document, was leaked and who leaked it?

Mr. Jim Judd: We are looking into that now.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Are there any circumstances where information might be provided, either verbally or in writing, to people outside the Department of National Defence? What about Mr. Laverdure, the foreign policy adviser and assistant secretary to cabinet?

Mr. Jim Judd: As a normal practice, we brief the Privy Council Office, or arrange to have it briefed, on military operations in Afghanistan, but those briefings, orally and in writing, do not cover JTF-2.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: So what the briefings consisted of, in part, was the fact that the JTF-2 mission had been performed in accordance with foreign policy. Claude Laverdure is the foreign policy adviser. Would he not have been consulted to determine whether or not it was within foreign policy?

º (1645)

Mr. Jim Judd: The operation in Afghanistan was conducted in keeping with the policy on the deployment of the JTF-2 and their rules of engagement, so we might have reported something, if there had been a deviation from the policy or the rules of engagement.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: At what point in time would Claude Laverdure, the policy adviser, be advised of the JTF-2 situation, their operations?

Mr. Jim Judd: I assume he would have learned of it after it became public.

[Translation]

The Chair: Michel Guimond, Yvon Godin and Jay Hill, in that order.

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first comments are directed to the chair. You had the witness acknowledge earlier that this was a complex department with a staff of 19,000 and facilities in Alert, in Canada's North and across Canada. However, you did not get the witness to acknowledge that there is but one deputy minister who is responsible for keeping one minister apprised of the situation.

Mr. Judd, have you read the Minister's testimony to the committee?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: Yes, I did.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Judd, regarding the agenda of the January 29 Cabinet meeting, I believe you stated earlier that the agenda is drawn up by the Privy Council Office. Is that correct?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: That's correct.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Who exactly in the Privy Council Office is responsible for drawing up the agenda for Cabinet meetings? Is it the Clerk himself? You mentioned that you once worked in the Privy Council Office. Do you know if this is the Clerk's responsibility? Or, is this task handled by the Deputy Clerk, or perhaps by a secretary?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: There is a part of the PCO that deals with cabinet agendas and cabinet issues. It is a group of people who work for the clerk.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: When a minister, in this instance, the Minister of National Defence, wishes to have an item placed on the agenda, it's standard procedure for him to contact someone in the Privy Council Office. Is that correct?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: I'm not sure I understand the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Let me repeat the question for you. When the Minister of National Defence wants to place an item on the agenda for the Cabinet meeting, what's the procedure? Must he inform someone in the Privy Council Office? Is that what he must do?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: Generally speaking, the agendas for cabinet are set by the Privy Council Office. Should a minister wish to have something in particular raised at cabinet, he or she could mention it directly to the clerk or to his deputy and ask his deputy or some other official to convey that to the Privy Council Office, but at the end of the day, it is the Privy Council Office's determination as to what is or what is not on the agenda.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Since the status of detainees was not a formal item on the agenda for the January 29 Cabinet meeting, this item was added at the request of the Defence Minister. Is that correct?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: Not to my knowledge.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Moving on to another matter, Mr. Judd, in response to a question from my colleague Mr. Hill, you said you could not recall whether you had spoken to the Minister of National Defence about the inaccurate statement he had made and about the need to clarify matters in the House. You said you had no recollection of doing so. Do you still maintain this position?

º (1650)

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: I may have discussed it. I just wanted to say that I can't confirm to you with 100% accuracy that I did so.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Judd, I will choose my words very carefully. Given the controversy surrounding this affair, namely the questions raised in the House, the Minister's statement, the question of privilege raised by Mr. Pallister and the motion leading up to today's meeting to review the situation, would you have me believe that you cannot recall today, February 25, a statement made less than a month ago on January 29? You're the Deputy Minister of one of the most important federal government departments. You have a very selective, very short memory. We're talking about something that occurred less than one month ago. I'm not asking you to recall an event that transpired three years ago at 7 a.m. on July 27, 1998. It was less than a month ago. Is it possible you have no recollection of this incident? Could you possibly be mocking us?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I'm not laughing at anyone in this regard. I want to be as clear as I can be with respect to your question, sir. I may well have discussed this with the minister following its becoming public, including the issue of what he said in the House of Commons. It's just that with the rush of events around all this, I can't categorically state the case. I suspect I did. I'm just not certain.

[Translation]

The Chair: Yvon Godin, Jay Hill, Leon Benoit and Mauril Bélanger, in that order.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Following your January 22 briefing - even though, as my Canadian Alliance colleague pointed out, the Minister claims to have been the only person briefed on this matter - you stated clearly that Claude Laverdure, the Prime Minister's foreign policy adviser and deputy secretary to the Cabinet for foreign affairs, had never discussed with you the photograph in the newspaper.

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: I had no discussions with anybody in the Privy Council Office regarding this issue until after it became public.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: You were briefed twice on the 22nd. Between the 22nd and the 29th, did you have any discussions with other officials in your office? After all, you don't work in isolation. You must have assistants. Did you discuss this matter with anyone else in your office?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: Not that I recall.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, the witness is telling us that when he saw Admiral Maddison on the morning of Tuesday the 22nd, he was concerned about the photograph. When he next saw him that afternoon, the Admiral confirmed that these were in fact Canadian soldiers. The witness maintains that throughout this whole time, he did not discuss this matter with anyone in his office.

º (1655)

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: Mr. Chairman, if I could, again, there was a very specific, restricted procedure in place for reporting on JTF-2 operations, for security reasons. Even having learned of it through the photograph, I did not speak to anyone else, in deference to the security concerns with the procedure.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, is it possible the witness spoke to no one because he didn't want anyone in Canada to find out about the photograph and to start asking questions? So then, you and Admiral Maddison were the only ones aware of the identity of the soldiers in the photograph.

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: Mr. Chairman, the identity of those in the photograph, it seems to me, did not become manifest to anybody in the country until the minister made it public.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: My question is directed to Mr. Judd, as well as to the Chair. I don't dispute the facts, as they relate to you, but I do wonder about something, because this is important. Admiral Maddison comes to your office twice in the same day to speak to you about a photograph that appeared in the newspaper. As Deputy Minister, you mention this to no one. Perhaps you mentioned it to no one because you wanted no one to find out about this, aside from yourself and Admiral Maddison. Could that be possible?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: The appropriate reporting on the JTF-2 detainees had been done by my military colleagues to the minister, which was the appropriate procedure for dealing with those things. As I said earlier, I reacted to the photograph more out of concern for the possible breach of security and what that represented to our personnel, potentially. All that said, the fact of the matter is that I did not react by calling the Privy Council Office or anybody else.

The Chair: Jay Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Judd, you've stated, I think, on at least one occasion today, maybe two or three, that at no time between January 22 and January 28, not until after it became public, did you have a conversation with anyone from the PCO about Canadians taking prisoners, the photograph, or the fact that the photograph was of Canadians. Is that correct?

Mr. Jim Judd: That's correct.

Mr. Jay Hill: What about the PMO specifically? Anyone from the PMO?

Mr. Jim Judd: No, no one from the PMO.

Mr. Jay Hill: So you didn't have any conversation with anyone from the PCO or PMO until after it became public on January 29?

Mr. Jim Judd: That is correct.

Mr. Jay Hill: We're led to believe that this new process is not really a new process, or at least not much has changed, as I think you characterized it. This process is, by design, highly secretive. Why then would the minister make it known--because he's the one who did--that the photo was of Canadians, if this group is supposed to be highly secretive and the reporting process is only oral and only goes to the minister, never to the Prime Minister, never to you? Why would the minister do that?

Mr. Jim Judd: I wouldn't venture to speak on my minister's behalf in that respect.

Mr. Jay Hill: So you have no idea why he would go out in front of a camera and say, this photo is actually of Canadians?

» (1700)

Mr. Jim Judd: No, sir.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you.

An earlier question by Mr. Toews of the Alliance brought up the issue of briefing notes. I think you answered his question with “I don't believe so”, because I wrote that down: you don't believe the briefing notes the minister would have had available for question period on January 28 or January 29, either of those days, contained any reference to the JTF-2 taking prisoners. Is that correct?

Mr. Jim Judd: I am certain that would be the case.

Mr. Jay Hill: That they did not contain any reference?

Mr. Jim Judd: That they did not contain any reference.

Mr. Jay Hill: And that goes for the briefing book as well? The ministers each have a briefing binder to alert them to issues important in their portfolio.

Mr. Jim Judd: I would say the same applies, sir.

Mr. Jay Hill: Why would that be? This issue was on the front page of a paper and, by your own recognition, was of concern to you, certainly of great concern to Vice-Admiral Maddison, because he actually came to your office and raised his concern with you. Why would that not find its way into the briefing book? You had known for a week, and so had Vice-Admiral Maddison. Are you involved in putting together the briefing books?

Mr. Jim Judd: Personally, no.

Mr. Jay Hill: I'm assuming it's your staff. Who puts it together for the minister?

Mr. Jim Judd: It is done by our parliamentary affairs staff, who solicit the material from throughout the organization.

Mr. Jay Hill: An issue this important, about the photograph and the fact that our soldiers were taking prisoners and turning them over to the Americans, with all the controversy swirling around whether the Americans could be mistreating them and not following the Geneva Convention, that issue did not make it into the briefing book for the 28th and 29th? Why would that be?

Mr. Jim Judd: The issue of the detention by JTF-2 of the prisoners would not have made it into the briefing book, because, as I've tried to explain, there is a highly segregated procedure for dealing with JTF-2 information. Similarly, the controversy about the treatment of detainees had, in our opinion, dissipated by the time. It reappeared in a different fashion over the weekend, I think because of the apparent difference in views between Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Powell. The briefing book would have dealt with the general issue of policy with respect to--

Mr. Jay Hill: Would you say, Mr. Judd, this is a serious flaw in this reporting procedure, that the Minister of Defence, in this particular case, being the minister responsible for JTF-2, did not have adequate briefing notes put into his manual to refresh his memory?

Mr. Jim Judd: As I say, we significantly differentiate between material related to JTF-2 and anything else. Information related to JTF-2 is normally conveyed orally from military commander to the minister, not elsewhere in the organization.

The Chair: Leon Benoit, and then Mauril Bélanger and Cheryl Gallant.

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Judd.

I'd like to start by following up on a question from Mr. Hill. That question has to do with the reporting procedure for the JTF-2. The minister said in the House on February 4: “Significant incident reports are not filed with respect to the JTF-2. The reports are given entirely on an oral basis”. The minister has subsequently said that this practice was put in place for Afghanistan. He specifically said that. That's the minister that you work for, Mr. Judd. Do you know when this policy was changed and who changed it?

Mr. Jim Judd: As I say, we've traditionally distinguished between regular military operations and JTF-2 operations in our organization. JTF-2 operations have always been dealt with in a separate fashion. As to the degree to which the policy changed or didn't, I'm not sure, but when the forces were thought of as being deployed to Afghanistan, the specific procedure in respect of reporting on JTF-2 was certainly made apparent in the policy guidelines.

» (1705)

Mr. Leon Benoit: You're saying you're not really sure of how they changed, that something might have changed, although earlier you said there was no real change in the reporting policy, even though the minister said there was. I'm just trying to find out what the story is here. Was a change made as a result of our troops going to Afghanistan or sometime before in the way the JTF-2 is reported on, or was there not a change? I really haven't heard a clear answer on that.

Mr. Jim Judd: I think the Chief of the Defence Staff is probably better placed to answer this than I, but as we went into Afghanistan, it was specifically made manifest that there would be a very restricted reporting procedure for JTF-2 that involved the Chief of the Defence Staff or his substitute, the minister, and if required, the Prime Minister. It was done, I suspect, because of the nature of the operation and the risks associated with the operation. I need to remind people that this was being treated as a very special--

Mr. Leon Benoit: Who would have decided on making that change? The minister?

Mr. Jim Judd: The advice in this respect was rendered by both civilian and military personnel to the government.

Mr. Leon Benoit: And you would have been involved in that?

Mr. Jim Judd: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So there was a change made, you're saying now.

Mr. Jim Judd: As I say, we certainly made it very explicit in the policy that there was to be a very restricted passage of information with respect to JTF-2.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay.

The Chair: Mauril Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have two comments, no questions.

First, after listening to testimony today, I think we have some reason to be concerned about the flow of information and how that is administered. If nothing else comes from these meetings, that perhaps will help the Department of National Defence in revising its operating procedures.

[Translation]

Secondly, I would have to say that we are straying considerably from the subject matter of these meetings. If I'm not mistaken, the question before the committee is whether or not the Minister of National Defence deliberately misled the House. I've observed that most of today's questions have very little to do with this issue.

I've noted that in his questions to Mr. Judd, Mr. Guimond even twice used the wording: “the Minister erroneously stated”. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I wish to remind members to confine themselves in their questioning and deliberations to the subject matter of the orders of reference to the House.

Mr. Yvon Godin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Just a moment. Let me try to explain what I'm going to try to do. I've been trying to accommodate members now, rather than going through the parties, and I have Cheryl Gallant next, and then Yvon Godin. Then I have Pierre Brien, and then I have Jay Hill.

Cheryl, are you going to proceed now?

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Yes.

The Chair: So it goes Cheryl, Yvon... If you want to insist on the normal party order, I can change this, but these are the people I put on the list when they asked me.

Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I simply wish to rise on a point of order at this time.

» (1710)

[English]

It was just a point of order. It was not to go before the order that was established. And the point of order that I wanted to make--

The Chair: I'm sure it is a point of order, but what is it you want to raise?

Mr. Yvon Godin: My point of order was just to make it clear, regarding the statement we just received from Mr. Bélanger, that we already discussed that here with the clerk, and we are here to do what we feel is right in this committee.

The Chair: That's not a point of order.

Cheryl Gallant, go ahead.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Okay.

On January 22 it was important enough for the vice-admiral to come to you, the deputy minister, and make it known that there was a breach of security with respect to the release of the photograph. So did the vice-admiral mention that he himself would be speaking to the minister about the photo?

Mr. Jim Judd: No, he did not.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Why did the vice-admiral brief you on the photo and not the minister?

Mr. Jim Judd: I assume he was concerned about the appearance of the photograph, which we initially didn't know involved Canadian troops. I think he was just shocked by its appearance and concerned about the security dimension for the troops. We discussed what the normal procedures and security there were, what had happened, and what steps had been taken to deal with the security issue.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: The reason we've asked all these questions about process is that there seems to be some deviation from normal routine, and we're just trying to understand why the normal procedures would have changed. What is happening here? What are people trying to cover up?

Mr. Jim Judd: I don't believe anyone is trying to cover up anything. If you go back to when the policy with respect to JTF-2 was made explicit in the general policy guidance related to the operation in Afghanistan, it was done within a matter of two months of the September 11 tragedies. We were sending Canadian forces off to a very difficult mission. We were dealing with an adversary whose capacity I'm not sure we fully understood at the time, or even do today, in respect of this international terrorist network. We went the extra step, if you will, to try to ensure that there was the closest possible hold on information related to JTF-2, given the kinds of operations they would be undertaking and the threat and risk they faced in the field.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you, Mr. Chairman

The Chair: Yvon Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You say after January 22 you spoke to the minister. Could you tell us again when was the first time, because the department, as the chair pointed out, is a very big one? In your responsibility as the deputy minister, when is the first time after January 22 you spoke to the minister for any reason?

Mr. Jim Judd: It was probably on the following Monday.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Then is there somebody else in your department, perhaps the assistant deputy minister, who could have spoken to the minister?

Mr. Jim Judd: The minister has a deputy minister, and he has a chief of defence staff who is responsible, in law, for the conduct and operation of the military. There are times when the minister will deal with me only on an issue, there are times when he will deal only with the military on an issue. In respect of the JTF-2 operation, he was very conscious, and still is very conscious, I think, of the distinction between the two principals who report to him, and that one does military operations and the other one is not involved in the military chain of command per se, not normally knowing, in my case, what JFT-2 is doing in the Afghanistan campaign.

» (1715)

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: However, Mr. Chairman, even taking into account this distinction with respect to the JFT-2, I'm talking about something else here. You're the Deputy Minister. Is it unusual for the Deputy Minister not to confer with his Minister for six or seven days?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: The deputy ministers do not just communicate orally. In that period there was a fairly considerable flow of paper to the minister. He and I have worked together now for nearly four years, and our practice is that he gets a lot of information from me or the organization in writing, and should he have questions on it, he raises them with me or others.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, can the witness tell us, since he is often in written communication with the MInister, if in this particular instance, he notified the Minister in writing of this situation, namely that photographs had been published by Canadian Press and that he had been so informed by Admiral Maddison? If so, when did he inform the Minister?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: No. To the extent that there were written communications to the minister subsequent to January 22, they would have been on a whole variety of issues, but not on the issue of the photograph or the JTF-2 taking of detainees.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Fine then. I have nothing further.

[English]

The Chair: It's Pierre Brien, and then Jay Hill.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Before I put my question to the witness, let me just say to Mr. Bélanger that we appreciate his being here. However, the point of this meeting is not to determine if the Minister made erroneous statements. The fact that his statements in the House were contradictory is undisputed. We're starting at a different point. Given the context, our questions are much broader ranging than that.

Earlier, the witness confirmed to us that he had been in contact on February 22 and 23 with US authorities who maintained that the terms of the Geneva Convention were being upheld. Later, in response to another question, you alluded to a public controversy that began to brew in the US over the weekend, that is around the 27th, 28th or 29th. Did your department contact US authorities at that time to ascertain if the information received earlier in the week was still accurate?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: As I said, I did not speak to the minister from January 22, I think, until the following Monday, but there had been a flow of written correspondence to him on a whole range of issues, though not in respect of the JTF-2 taking of prisoners or the photograph.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Yes, but that wasn't my question.

When you realized that US presidential advisers, Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Powell, were somewhat at odds over this issue—you alluded to this yourself earlier—when did Defence department officials next contact US authorities to clarify their position?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: At what time did the minister have contact?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: No, departmental officials.

[English]

The Chair: The department.

Mr. Jim Judd: Yes.

The issue was being dealt with by people in the organization with American authorities and with theDepartment of Foreign Affairs and International Trade here during that week. During that week we, as I said earlier, had assurances from the American authorities to the effect that their treatment of detainees was consistent with the Geneva Conventions, and separately, there was information from the international committee of the Red Cross that we took to substantiate that. The issue that subsequently arose, I think, arose more the week after, following the cabinet meeting of January 29, which had to do with a different set of issues on the question of detainees, the status of determination question.

» (1720)

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I see. I have one last question, Mr. Chairman.

You stated that you first learned of Canada's involvement in the capture of prisoners on another occasion when the Minister made this revelation to us. In the interim, I would imagine that you have clarified the facts with the Minister. When did the capture of these other prisoners take place in Afghanistan?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: I'm sorry, I don't know that there has been more than one instance where prisoners were taken. My recollection is that the minister may have referred to another JTF-2 operation in Afghanistan, where they were part of a broader effort, but did not themselves detain prisoners.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: And when did this other multinational operation take place?

[English]

Mr. Jim Judd: I think at about the time the minister said it before this committee.

The Chair: Jay Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The question came up earlier about this so-called secret document or memo or whatever that's been in the news quite a bit. Does it exist? Is there a memo or a document that lays out the JTF-2 reporting procedure?

Mr. Jim Judd: Yes.

Mr. Jay Hill: Were you involved in the drafting of that document?

Mr. Jim Judd: We're treading into advice to ministers territory, cabinet confidence territory here, but as I've said before, the document relates to the operations in Afghanistan. It is a Government of Canada document. It was developed on the basis of military and civilian staff advice to the government.

Mr. Jay Hill: I've noticed in several responses connected with the reporting procedure for JTF-2 that you used the expression “in Afghanistan”. I'm led to believe that there was a major change in the reporting process with this document prior to their deployment to Afghanistan from the way you've answered the questions. Were you always excluded from any information about what JTF-2 was up to prior to their going to Afghanistan, prior to this document?

Mr. Jim Judd: Generally speaking, I am not privy to operational information relating to JTF-2, which is normally dealt with by the military chain of command to the minister. There are obviously instances where I am aware, as I was in the case of Afghanistan, which was public knowledge at the time, that elements of JTF-2 are being deployed, and there are instances where they are involved in support domestically of the RCMP or whatever where I will be aware of that.

Mr. Jay Hill: My understanding, Mr. Judd, is that when the Minister of National Defence isn't available, for whatever reason, you fill that role, for example, if the Prime Minister needed to know something and the defence minister wasn't available. You're leading me to believe that you have to rely on happenstance--this was your term--to know what our military is up to, specifically JTF-2, and yet my understanding is that you're the number two man.

» (1725)

Mr. Jim Judd: That's correct. Again, the practice in Afghanistan was made more explicit because of security concerns and the risk to our personnel. I would also say that to the best of my knowledge, the procedures we have in place for dealing with JTF-2 are very similar to, if not identical with, those in most western governments that have forces like JTF-2.

Mr. Jay Hill: Prior to this document, prior to JTF-2's being deployed to Afghanistan, in normal circumstances, you were excluded from knowing what JTF-2 was up to. Is that also the case for the Prime Minister? Do you believe that was a significant change, if indeed it was a change? The Prime Minister deploys these troops, and then has to totally rely on the Minister of National Defence as to what is important to tell him. Was it a change prior to their leaving or prior to this document? Did the Prime Minister know before the document what JTF-2 was up to? Was he part of that reporting process?

Mr. Jim Judd: Not that I am aware. Again, we had a very specific procedure made explicit for Afghanistan, which was arrived at on the basis of advice from military and civilian personnel to the government, which the government accepted, and our practice in this regard is very much in keeping with what all our allies do with respect to those kinds of operations.

The Chair: Colleagues, I would like to draw this to a close. I think you know that when we have only one witness, the witness is involved constantly, and we're a bit like a relay team running against him. I think in a minute or so there will be bells for the two deferred votes on Bill C-27, the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act.

Mr. Jay Hill: On a point of order perhaps--

The Chair: Yes, a point of order, but can I--

Mr. Jay Hill: No, before you dismiss the meeting, because it concerns his testimony, Mr. Chair.

First, one of these issues is what changes, if any, were contained in the new reporting procedure for the JTF-2. I wonder if, given sufficient time, we could be provided with that. Second, as to my questions the witness didn't know the answer to as to who was travelling with the minister and whether they were privy to the conversation of the briefing of the 21st, I would ask that the witness get that information to the committee as well.

The Chair: Are there any objections in committee to that? That's fine.

Mr. Judd, Vic Toews is not here, but there was also the question of the briefing notes, either your response to that or what was involved in those briefing notes. We can give you the information on what that was. It was in the very first round of questions earlier on. The committee would be grateful for your responses, and you respond to me, wherever the questions came from.

I would like to thank you very much for spending this time with us.

I have another fake point of order here.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I move that Mr. Claude Laverdure, foreign policy adviser to the Prime Minister and assistant secretary to the Cabinet for foreign affairs, be called to give testimony before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, that's a motion. Colleagues, you should know that is a debatable motion, and I'm quite willing to proceed until the bells ring, and then until the vote. I am also quite willing to come back after the vote, but I don't think it's something we should continue into our next meeting, because at 7:30 we have General Henault here, and I think we should devote our time to him. So I'm in your hands.

Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: If I can offer a suggestion, it is that the issue of additional witnesses might be better brought up after we hear from the witness we agreed on from the PCO. It's hard to decide now.

» (1730)

The Chair: Yvon, we're in your hands. Either we proceed now, because you're perfectly entitled to move that motion, or you withdraw or suspend it until after the PCO witnesses tomorrow.

Mr. Yvon Godin: If it's agreeable to the committee that we table my motion and wait, with my motion still in the book for debate at a later time, I would agree to that.

The Chair: Essentially, colleagues, we have notice of motion for tomorrow, the next day, or whenever it is.

Beth Phinney.

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): It was suggested that the witness give his answers to the people who asked the questions. I think they have to go to the clerk.

The Chair: I made the point, Beth, that they come to the committee, which is me.

Colleagues, I'm going to adjourn this meeting. We resume again in this room at 7:30 this evening. Our witness then is General Raymond Henault, Chief of the Defence Staff. And to remind you all, the two meetings we have scheduled tomorrow, 3:30 and 7:30, are when we deal with the witnesses from the PCO.

The meeting's adjourned until 7:30 this evening.