Thank you, sir. With your permission, I will answer in English because I am rather tired. I was in Wainwright and in Kandahar a few days ago.
With regard to privatization of certain activities within the military, when it makes sense to do so and it's only a function of money, then I am absolutely in favour of it, so that we can free up soldiers to do the soldier activities for which they're trained.
Let me use the example of the mechanics who are currently working at CFB Valcartier. As you know, the outstanding soldiers of the
The 22nd Regiment are preparing to deploy next August. Mechanics from Valcartier will leave with their buddies.
Does it make sense to insist that they continue to work on vehicles that are not directly related to getting the soldiers ready to go out the door and then to having them go with those vehicles overseas, or do we turn that maintenance contract over to some great folk downtown who can fix the school buses, the non-deployable trucks, the transport vehicles, etc.?
With regard to security patrols for overseas missions—in other words, with the blurring or the potential blurring of having civilians doing military-like activities overseas—I will offer you a personal opinion. I am absolutely against it. My reasoning, based on my own academic work, is that the rule of law for military soldiers is very clear. We work for you. We follow your laws and we reflect your ethos, your ethics. When you have military contractors carrying weapons in hostile areas, the possibility of tragedy and the blurring of distinctions becomes acute.
For those nations that decide to do so, that is their business. But as far as I know, the Government of Canada and, indeed, the armed forces of Canada have no intention of employing military contractors in such a capacity.
I know that was not your question.