National Defence Committee on May 30th, 2006

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

I've had a lot of interest and questions about the detainee transfer agreement with Afghanistan. Has NATO concluded a detainee transfer agreement with Afghanistan, and when will that agreement be made public? I would assume that it will be, if indeed there is an agreement with NATO, and that it would govern Canadian transfers once NATO assumes control through ISAF in the south.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

I don't know that, ma'am. I'm going to have to ask Mr. Rigby.

Is there such a thing as a NATO agreement for detainees?

[Vincent Rigby, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister (Policy), Department of National Defence]

We're certainly working on that right now, Ms. Black, in a NATO context. Certainly Canada is very involved in Brussels in helping draft that document, but it's not finished yet. I'm not aware of exactly how.... One of the issues is how it will relate to the Canadian detainee arrangement and the other detainee arrangements that NATO allies have right now, so it's still a work in progress; we still have a little ways to go.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Will it be made public?

[Vincent Rigby]

That I'm not aware of, at this point.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

The prisoner transfer agreement we currently have indicates that Canada and Afghanistan “will treat detainees in accordance with the standards set out in the Third Geneva Convention.” The Geneva Convention is a large agreement with different provisions, but because the Geneva Convention has two different sets of standards, it's not clear which one of those the arrangements pledge to uphold.

Here are the two options I've been thinking about and looking at. Are Canadian Forces engaged in “armed conflict not of an international character”--those words are used in article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention--or are Canadian Forces detaining persons who “having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy” may be prisoners of war? Those words are used in articles 5 of the Third Geneva Convention.

Essentially, are Canadian soldiers instructed to give minimal protections because this is not an international conflict, or do we give the full prisoner-of-war protections, such as preventing prisoners from being humiliated or being put as public curiosities and photographed?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

My understanding is the latter--that we maintain the highest standards.

I'll ask Mr. Rigby to confirm that.

[Vincent Rigby]

That's my understanding as well, but certainly we can get more comprehensive answers for you, and we'll talk to our lawyers in terms of all the specifics and the details with respect to the specific articles.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

I would really appreciate that.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

You may remember a recent incident in which ten Taliban were captured, and there was some dispute at the time over whether photos were shown. One can interpret why we did that or not, but I can tell you on the ground that what they were doing was because they were worried they would be in contravention of the Geneva Convention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

You have two minutes left.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Okay, I'll move on to another topic then.

I'm wondering what has happened to the election promise of three armed, heavy icebreakers for the Canadian Forces in the north.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Minister, that's quite a ways from Afghanistan, but if you choose to—

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

If you want to stay on the topic, that's fine.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

I'll give a quick answer.

There is an article in the paper where somebody is speculating. Our commitments to the north are unchanged. But what I said is that I'll look at all options. I think I was quoted in Nova Scotia as saying I will look at all the options up to heavy armed icebreakers. So I'm willing to look at all the options. But nothing has changed; we're still committed. For me, the centrepiece of our defence policy is sovereignty in the north; I'm not giving up on that and I'm committed to doing it.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

General Hillier was quoted in news reports as saying that Canada would have to be in Afghanistan for at least ten years to get the job done. I wonder if you would comment on that sort of timetable.

In my community I have a reserve unit, and I know that some of the people there will be in the next rotation. So I'm also curious about how many reservists are currently serving in Afghanistan, and whether the expansion of the reserve forces by 5,000 means that there will be a large expansion of the number of reservists who will be sent to Afghanistan.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

With respect to how many years we're going to be in Afghanistan, from a military point of view, we are committed to February 2009. Before that date, based on our observations of whether we're succeeding or not—and I expect we will be succeeding—the government will make a subsequent decision on what it is going to do. As I said before, the choices are increase your force, decrease your force, maintain the same, or withdraw. So those decisions will be made out there.

People are speculating about 10, 15, or 20 years. That's just speculation. Right now, our military commitment—I can't speak for diplomacy or aid—is to February 2009.

With respect to the reserves, my understanding is that about 15% of the strength over there is reserves, and I think it will always be so wherever we go, because many of our reservists are excellent soldiers, sailors and airmen, and they volunteer to do full time for a while. We train them up to operational standards, the same standards as regular forces. As I said again in Aldershot last week, there is not a hill of beans between them, once you train them up to the same standard.

Yes, we're going to expand. Our plan is to expand the reserves by about 10,000. It doesn't mean that there will be more people in Afghanistan if we don't change the numbers, but the proportion will probably stay the same. But it means that out in the future, as we increase the regulars and the reserves, it's going to give us more capability to take on more ventures, if they come up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you. That was just absolutely right on time. Good job.

Starting over here, Mr. Calkins, for ten minutes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll share my time. I don't think I'm going to take up the whole ten minutes.

Mr. Minister, thank you for being here today.

I had an opportunity during the break last week to participate in the Canadian Forces parliamentary program. I chose the air force program, and spent two nights and three days touring the NORAD headquarters, the air force headquarters, and 17 Wing and 4 Wing of the Canadian Armed Forces. I was very impressed with the level of expertise and professionalism that were shown to me. I slept a little bit better when I went home, knowing that our airspace is safe. I'm looking forward to hearing more good things as we increase our NORAD commitments into maritime operations and make sure that our shorelines are just as safe as our airspace is.

While I was impressed with the exercise, I'd also like to be sure that the training and equipment available to our troops in Afghanistan is up to par and the best possible equipment we can provide our soldiers. In the news, most Canadians are aware of the G-Wagon, which is a fairly new piece of equipment that we have, and the LAV III, the light armoured vehicles. But it has been brought to my attention that the department has purchased the Nyala armoured patrol vehicles, and I believe they're now in use in Afghanistan.

I'll just ask a few quick questions dealing with that, and wait for your response. What are the differences in layman's terms between the Nyalas, the G-Wagon, and the LAV III?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

From which point of view?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

From an armour perspective. Are they troop transport vehicles? Are they attack vehicles? What can we expect to hear? I don't know anything about this Nyala.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

The LAV III, of course, is an eight-wheeled armoured personnel carrier, and for the threat in Afghanistan it's well armoured. The Taliban have fired a number of their small rockets at the LAVs to no effect. Once in a while some of our people get injured because they happen to be out of the turret and a piece of shrapnel hits them or something like that. Recently the Taliban fired four rounds at one of these LAVs to no effect. From an armour protection point of view and for the threat they're in, they're quite good.

They also have dealt quite well with mines, because the Taliban put these mines in the road. They're able to take a hit of multiple mines and basically our soldiers survive inside them. They may be shaken up, because the thing gets lifted, but usually wheels get blown off and things like that.

Recently the Taliban blew up a mine or mines around one of our LAVs and we had to abandon it because it caught on fire. There was fuel or ammo around and it caught on fire, so we destroyed it. The Taliban themselves didn't destroy it; it was a consequence of a fire.

With respect to the Nyala, the Nyala is a vehicle that was developed in South Africa. I'm trying to remember, but I think it has four wheels. It's very high off the ground and the bottom of it is wedged--armour plate in a wedge--so that when you have an explosion, it diffuses the force. It's built so that if it goes under an explosion, the wheels, the engine, etc. blow off. I've seen a picture of a Nyala after it went under a very heavy mine blast and the soldiers inside survived with minor injuries. The main vessel itself was untouched, but the wheels and the engine were blown off. They are quite effective against mines. They're also effective against small arms and things like that.

The G-Wagon in simple terms is a Mercedes jeep. It's a very good vehicle too for moving people around. They have limited armour protection. My understanding--and if I'm wrong here, Admiral, you tell me--is that in future we're going to limit nearly all the G-wagons to inside the camp to move supplies around and things like that. There may be an exception here and there of putting a few G-wagons out beyond the camp, but essentially our ground forces will be moving in either Nyalas or LAVs when they go out on missions because for the threat they're dealing with, they're pretty effective. You can't protect against everything. You can make an explosive big enough to move a tank, but right now these vehicles are very good for the forces.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you. That clarifies it and helps me with my next question.

Are the Nyalas in operation right now in Afghanistan? I know that as we acquire new equipment, the forces personnel have to go through training with that equipment. They have to be familiar with the equipment. If these are new pieces of equipment that we're acquiring, how much more can we expect? If they're not training with them here before they're being deployed over there, are there training operations going on in Afghanistan right now for this piece of equipment?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

My memory is that we ordered about 50 originally. There are about seven inside the training establishment in Canada; 43 have been committed to the Kandahar province. For a while we had 25, but I think the other 18 have arrived or are about to arrive. We've also ordered 25 more Nyalas, most of which will end up in Afghanistan. We could be getting to the point of 60 to 65 Nyalas there in addition to all our LAVs to make sure our forces get the maximum protection they can.

When it comes to spending money, I'll spend any amount of money to save the lives of our soldiers.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thanks.

You can move on to somebody else.