Debates of May 27th, 2010

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that the hon. parliamentary secretary must have been quite good at rote because I hear this same answer every single time.

I would say to him that we welcome foreign investment. We always have. However, when we welcome foreign investment, it must be on Canada's terms, and it must satisfy the interests of our country and the interests of our workers.

I say to the member that 3,000 people in Sudbury, hundreds in Port Colborne, and hundreds in Labrador are on strike, some now for nearly a year. How is that a net benefit to Canada? How does the government go about holding a company like Vale to account when it does not comply with the Investment Canada Act?

Can the member give us one specific concrete example of what the federal government has done to try to end these strikes, particularly in Labrador and in northern Ontario?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked in the first part and in the second part what the government has done for the workers at Vale. We have created an economic climate in this country that has resulted in the net job creation of 285,000 new jobs. That has made Canada the envy of the industrialized world.

That means that, once the company and the union are able to work together and once they have been able to resolve this dispute, the company will be operating in the strongest economic climate in the entire world. That, of course, will not only be to the benefit of the company but it will be to the great benefit of the workers at Vale as well.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn and the House will now resolve itself into committee of the whole to study all votes under National Defence in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2011.

I do now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of the whole.

(Consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under National Defence in the main estimates, Mr. Andrew Scheer in the chair)

National Defence—Main Estimates, 2010-11

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Tonight's debate is a general one on all of the votes under National Defence. Each member will be allocated 15 minutes. The first round will begin with the official opposition followed by the government, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. After that, we will follow the usual proportional rotation.

As provided in the motion adopted on Tuesday, May 25, 2010, parties may use each 15-minute slot for speeches or for questions and answers by one or more of their members.

In the case of speeches, members of the party to which the period is allotted may speak one after the other. The Chair would appreciate it if the first member speaking in each slot would indicate how the time will be used, particularly if it is to be shared.

When the time is to be used for questions and answers, the Chair will expect that the minister's response will reflect approximately the time taken by the question, since this time will be counted in the time originally allotted to the party.

I will just make a reference to that. Sometimes questions are posed that are very short in nature and may take only five or six seconds to put. We might allow the minister a bit more time to answer, given the fact that a five-second question may elicit a longer answer. However, the Chair will do its best to ensure that the opposition's question and its time is respected.

I would remind hon. members that, according to Tuesday's motion, during this evening's debate, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be entertained.

We may now begin this evening's session.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, all of the Liberal members will simply be asking questions and making no speeches. I have very short questions on two or three different issues. I will put them without any prefaces to make things simpler.

Which senior officials from DND, if any, received the 2006 Afghan human rights report, written by embassy officials in Kabul and delivered in either December 2006 or January 2007, which repeatedly used the word “torture” to describe the treatment of Afghan detainees?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, these reports, as all members would know, are received by the department. They would certainly have been seen by the deputy minister and those within the Chief of the Defence Staff's immediate circle. These are reports that reference, in general terms, the situation inside Afghan prisons. They do not, however, refer in any way specifically to Canadian-transferred prisoners.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, who from DND attended the March 2007 inter-agency meeting attended in person by Richard Colvin, where he says a CEFCOM note taker stopped taking notes with regard to Afghan detainees? Was he or she ordered to do so, and by whom?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I was not the Minister of National Defence during that particular time and I was certainly not present at that meeting. I would not be able to say who stopped taking notes or how that particular scenario unfolded.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, in cases where the minister is unable to give me the information, I would ask that he look for that information, and if he finds it, forward it to me at his earliest convenience.

Richard Colvin mentions that according to good sources, at least three Canadian-transferred detainees were sent to NDS black sites.

Will the government confirm this? How often did Canada transfer detainees to these sites, where human rights monitors are not permitted?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, again, I am not aware of the so-called black sites as referred to by the hon. member. If any information is available within the department, it will be provided.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, why did the government not accept the proposal of Canadian embassy officials to have all detainees flown to Kabul for transfer to prisons where they could be properly monitored? Was it only because the detainees took up significant space on military aircraft?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, when we took office and shortly thereafter, we put in place a new transfer arrangement that improved upon the arrangement that was clearly inadequate, the arrangement that was put in place by the hon. member's government, that he, quite frankly, seemed to endorse.

Upon putting this new arrangement in place, it gave us a much greater ability to have eyes on within the prison system. It allowed us, of course, to inject a greater degree of accountability. We then embarked upon further efforts to improve the prison system with the individuals who were working there, by way of mentoring them, making investments within the infrastructure itself, and improving generally upon the overall human rights situation in Afghanistan. That is what we were there to do.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, the minister has been quoted in November 2009 as saying:

When Afghans are not living up to their expectations, we pause transfers. When they started to allow that access again, the transfers then began again.

There were multiple occasions before 2009, when Afghan authorities were not living up to their obligations, for instance. There were at least eight different complaints of abuse mentioned in the Federal Court decision of Anne Mactavish in February 2009. There were complaints between May 3 and November 5, 2007, at least eight complaints, that were before the court in terms of evidence.

Why were transfers only stopped in the three instances?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, since May of 2007, the supplementary transfer arrangement was, as members know, then implemented. Canada has temporarily paused transferring detainees once in November 2007, and on three occasions in 2009.

The first two pauses in 2009 were related to allegations of mistreatment. The last pause was related to access to facilities. Transfers resumed when the commander on the ground felt confident that transfers could be made in accordance with their obligations under international law.

That is in fact how the process works. It is the commander's decision on the ground. It is taken in consultation with other departments, such as the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is also often done in consultation with other agencies, including the Afghanistan government.

We continue to make improvements in this regard. The level of communication and consultation that goes into these decisions remains very rigorous. With the new transfer arrangement in place, I would suggest we have a much greater information source to make that judgment call.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, was there any particular reason why there was no public acknowledgement of the halting or the stoppage of the transfers at those times, at least the three times that the minister has mentioned?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, as with much of what occurs in Afghanistan, as I have already indicated, the commander on the ground made a judgment call based on available information. Very often information such as this is based on operational detail. For a variety of reasons, on occasions, if operational detail might in any way imperil troops on the ground, might in any way impinge on our operations or those of our allies, then that information is held closed.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a very general question for the minister about the detainee and torture issue. When did the minister first become aware of the general allegations of torture and abuse in Afghan prisons? When did he first become specifically aware of any Canadian transferred detainees being tortured, or at least a complaint being made in that regard?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I am not aware of any confirmed evidence that a Canadian transferred detainee was in fact abused. This is an allegation that the hon. member has made repeatedly.

With respect to information available to me, I would refer him to the testimony of the hon. Bill Graham who held both the post of foreign minister as well as minister of National Defence, my predecessor in this regard, and who was in fact, as was the hon. member, a member of the previous government when the mission began and when the inadequate transfer arrangement was put in place.

With respect to information made known to me, his colleague, Mr. Graham, said, “My experience as a minister was that in two ministries--”.

He was referring to National Defence and Foreign Affairs.

--that had very large, very competent people, there was always a diversity of views. Within that group of officials, one works out what is the appropriate approach. That's worked out at the level of those officials. As a minister, you get the result of that. You don't go downstairs to the bottom of the foreign affairs department and walk around the halls and knock on doors and say, “What do you think about this?” You have a deputy minister who comes to you and says, “This is the view of the department.

I relied on the advice of both military and civilian officials--

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am going to stop the minister there to try to keep the responses in about the same length of time as the questions.

The hon. member for Vancouver South.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, I do not believe that was a response to my question. I asked when the minister first became aware of the general allegations of torture and abuse in Afghan jails and when was any complaint relating to Canadians being tortured brought to his attention.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, how this works is that he asks the questions and I answer them. He does not get to tell me what my answers are. However, I will quote him. The Liberal defence critic, in speaking to this issue, said, “we need to continue to make sure our forces in Afghanistan have the best available equipment until they leave, and that we have appropriate plans for a significant role in Afghanistan afterwards”.

I agree with him. What I continue to do is ensure that we are working in unison in the department to support the men and women who are there at this very moment carrying out this important task. When information comes to my attention, which very often comes through the chain of command, or through the deputy minister and officials within the department, we make decisions based on that important information.

With respect to general allegations, general references to abuse of Taliban prisoners, that information has been available for some time. We express concern and when we get specific information we act. That is how it works.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, obviously the minister quoted Bill Graham favourably. Bill Graham also indicated to the media that there ought to be a public inquiry. Perhaps that should be considered.

My questions will now move to post-2011 and they will be very short and specific questions. I know there is lack of clarity on this issue. The government has at some point said that we would engage in military and other training at other times. The Prime Minister and others have said that Canada would not have any troops in Afghanistan other than perhaps what might be stationed at the embassy itself.

First, will Canada have any Canadian Forces military personnel in the country following the end of the combat mission in 2011, other than those who might be attached to the embassy?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, we have been very clear in stating that the Government of Canada will respect the parliamentary motion that was passed in this chamber. This motion states very clearly that Canada's combat mission will end in July 2011 and that troops will leave Kandahar province in December of that same year.

I think everyone understands that we are in Afghanistan doing many things, one of them being fighting for democracy and another being helping to establish the ongoing stability there, but we cannot be in Afghanistan espousing and promoting democracy and not respect our own. So we will respect the parliamentary motion of which the hon. member I believe supported.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, that really does not tell me whether there would be any troops in areas other than Kandahar and the minister specifically referred to Kandahar in terms of the answer.

The question that I really have is this. Will any of our military personnel be participating in the training of Afghan national army personnel after 2011?