National Defence Committee on June 6th, 2006

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

Good.

When the Minister of Defence was here last week, he said he believed that prisoners were being treated consistently with respect to articles 4 and 5 of the Geneva Convention.

I want to ask you, Minister, do you believe that the people who are being captured in Afghanistan are prisoners of war?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I believe that those involved in armed conflict have been described in various forms--as legal combatants, as terrorists. I'm not going to pretend to be a military expert as to how that description should attach. What I can tell you, and I think what you are more concerned about--what we're all concerned about--is the treatment of those individuals and the future treatment, after they have been handed over.

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

I have another question.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

And to that extent, we do bear responsibility for the prisoners we capture.

We make our views known very strongly, both privately and publicly, that the Geneva Convention should be respected both to the law and the spirit. We want to ensure as well that there is demonstrative justice supplied after the fact; that is to say, they are treated humanely and they are held in such a fashion that is in keeping with international standards. And let's not forget that the Afghanistan government and its armed forces have given that commitment and signed on to that international pact.

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

But we know that.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

So there's an expectation that they'll do the right thing.

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

We know that. Their own human rights spokesperson has said that up to 30% of the detainees are tortured or are improperly treated in the Afghan prisons. I know that the arrangement General Hillier signed with Afghanistan states that it applies in the event of a transfer. So when it says “in the event of a transfer”, does that mean we intend to transfer all detainees to the Afghan authorities, or would Canada retain custody of some detainees and transfer them to recipients other than Afghan?

Further to that, in terms of the detainees we've taken, has the Government of Canada, or have our military personnel, inquired with the Afghan government as to the condition of those detainees, and have we inquired as to the prisoners we've handed over, even though there is no provision for that in our agreement?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

It's my understanding that inquiries are made regularly and instructions are given when the turnover happens. That is the practice, as I understand it.

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

The follow-up?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Well, the follow-up, presumably through both diplomatic means and the military communication that goes on regularly between Canada and all of the allies with the Afghan army, is just that--they should be following international conventions and the Geneva Convention with regard to the treatment.

The other question you had is with respect to transfers. I'm led to believe that for all detainees who are transferred there is a notice requirement and there is advice given to the ICRC of all transfers that happen.

With regard to Canada following those detainees, if you will, whether the Afghans then in turn transfer them to another member of ISAF, as it currently is, or the UN mission when it comes fully into force, that is an operational detail I'm not familiar with, to be honest. I think that the Minister of Defence has answered that question, and I wouldn't contradict him because I don't have that information in front of me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you, Minister.

Thanks, Mrs. Black.

Moving on, Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be sharing my time with the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for being here today. I appreciate your presence.

My question has to do with the activity of terrorists both in Canada and in Afghanistan. Of course, Canadians have heard a lot in recent days about the arrest of suspected terrorists in Canada, and I was wondering if you could explain how these recent arrests are related to the work that we are doing in Afghanistan.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you for that question. It is very timely, and I know that you have done a great deal of work on this committee, and in previous committees, on the subject of terrorism and military involvement in this global effort.

The recent events in Toronto and Mississauga, first of all, exemplify the fact that Canada is not immune from the type of attacks that we've seen both in New York and Madrid and in countries that are similarly engaged in the effort internationally. And more to the point, it demonstrates that those who take part in terrorism and extremism and violence, I don't believe, differentiate between countries and international borders. I think they have a distinct disdain for countries that practise open societies and that are involved in what I would describe as democratic, peace-loving capacity building within their own countries and elsewhere.

So the linkage is not with current missions; the linkage is with what we share as Canadian values, what we consider to be important human rights: equality, respect for the rule of law, and the fact that Canada is a country that welcomes people from all corners of the earth. That, I think, is our most attractive feature, but it also makes us vulnerable because of the openness of our society.

What I would also share, as I'm sure you are aware as members of this committee, is the incredible work that was done by our security forces in preventing such an attack. It is laudable that we are able to act decisively through peaceful means, and forcefully at times, to prevent an attack on innocent people in our own country. I think the communities themselves have been very forthright in applauding the efforts that took place just a few days ago in prevention of an attack and in the protection of Canadian citizens.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'll be reverting the remainder of my time to my colleague.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Okay.

Go ahead, Mrs. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's my understanding that our soldiers do not have helicopters in Afghanistan and that our troops depend on other militaries for heavy lift. To what extent has the last decade's neglect in providing the necessary equipment limited Canada's ability to fulfill our foreign affairs policies?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

We did have a discussion on this earlier.

I don't want to personalize this, but I have a couple of friends who flew Sea King helicopters out of Halifax, and I recall on numerous occasions over the last number of years their great concern not only for their own well-being, but notably also over the ability to do their job, whether it was in Afghanistan or in going out over the cold North Atlantic on rescue operations. I had friends who were on the ship when a helicopter crashed into the deck and had to turn back to Halifax harbour.

So there's no question that the impact of politicizing procurement, whether it be helicopters, whether it be heavy tactical lift, can have a very detrimental effect. And that's a responsibility that everyone shares. I know we're going to hear a question shortly from another distinguished member of the military, who will perhaps enlighten us even further.

Look, there can be no doubt that being cheap with equipment for our military, delaying the procurement and the purchase of military equipment, whether it be trucks, helicopters, or heavy lift, has a profound life-and-death effect on our military personnel and those whom we're trying to assist and help in many cases.

Thank you for the question.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you.

In the interests of time, I would share my time with Mr. Hawn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Hawn, you have exactly five minutes.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Minister.

I want to get back to equipment and airlift. Given that we have 13 C-130H models and seven later 130E models, and given that the Hercules has no capability to carry outsized cargo—when it does carry anything outsized, the cargo has to be dismantled and the plane's range is extremely limited—and given that aircraft such as the C-17 can carry outsized cargo for long distances and operate out of the same airfields most of the time that a C-130 can operate out of, do you think the military's reconsideration at the staff and most senior levels about priorities for airlift replacement, emphasizing strategic airlift ahead of tactical airlift, is prudent?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Well, I would turn it around and ask you the same question, because you'd be in a much better position, having flown some of those aircraft and having been in them.

I was in the C-130 Hercules only once, and that was on the way to Afghanistan just about a month ago. I was told by the pilot that the plane we were in, which was involved in making some very precarious defensive manoeuvres as we flew into Afghanistan and Kabul, was 40 years old. That aircraft had been literally replaced part by part over the past number of years.

As far as the decision-making around procurement is concerned and what the priorities of the military are, I put great faith in the men and women of the armed forces to make those decisions in their interests and make representations, then, to the Minister of Defence. The Chief of the Defence Staff is, of course, obviously involved in that procurement.

We have responsibilities, clearly, beyond our own well-being, and when we look at the equipment of some of our allies, it is very stark and very apparent that we have been lagging behind. We might as well be frank about it: we've neglected some of those equipment needs.

We are, as a government now, attempting to deal with that. By “deal with it”, I mean we've already made acquisitions, and to be quite frank, the previous government was involved in the procurement of new heavy armed patrol vehicles, which I saw on the ground in Afghanistan; the lightweight artillery vehicles, which are, of course, important for the patrol that takes place; and the G wagons. The uninhabited aerial vehicles now are becoming increasingly important for patrol over large land masses, including our Arctic. The advance surveillance and communication systems, as well as all-terrain vehicles, are all important and specific to the challenges we have right now.

Again, I turn to people like you for your expertise, because you've been there and you've done that, as the saying goes. I think in many cases civilians shouldn't fool themselves by thinking that the politicians have some special wisdom. It comes from those who know best, and those are military officers like you.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Let me ask you a hypothetical question that follows on from that, then, and you'll understand why it's hypothetical.

If we were to buy a strategic airlift aircraft such as the C-17, and if there were a logistics and support capability that was already established and was used by other people who have bought that aircraft, and that already involves many Canadian companies in fulfilling that, which obviously supplies jobs and industrial benefit to Canada, would it make good sense to simply become part of that system, rather than trying to generate an orphan system of our own at great expense, for which we have no money and no manpower?

That's not a leading question, is it?

You don't have to take long to answer it, Minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

You have only a minute anyway, Mr. Minister.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Again, I defer to experts like you, but it seems to me common sense that you don't buy outdated equipment. You don't buy equipment, whether it be aircraft, whether it be seagoing vessels, whether it be the armoured vehicles that we're using, that are difficult to supply, that are difficult to get support and parts for, that are in some cases not well suited for the task at hand.

That was one of the biggest complaints about the interference, the political football that the Sea King helicopter became. The cancellation was for political reasons, not tactical lift reasons, not anything to do with the capacity of the EH-101.

So it's all of this overall information about the utility, the costs associated with it, the openness of the process of procurement. But most importantly, and first and foremost, as you know as an ex-military person, will it do the job? Will it stand up to the test? Will it protect the individuals who are operating this equipment? I think that, first and foremost, is always in the minds of the Canadian Forces when they're making these important decisions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you, Mr. Hawn, and thank you, Mr. Minister.

Committee, we have a bit of a dilemma here. We have a guest who has come a long way to speak to us, and I understand we have a bell that's going to go at 5:15 for a 5:30 vote. So in order to facilitate the proper amount of time for our guest from Germany, I wonder if you would allow me just a couple of quick questions to the minister to wrap up. I know you all have more, but I think we're going to have to cut it short here.

Mr. Minister, there are four aspects of the motion that we're dealing with here. One was duration of the mission, and I think we've dealt with that to some degree in the House. Two others were the state of the personnel and materiel--I think you and the other witnesses have indicated that--and the relationship between the mission's combat operations and its reconstruction operations. But the final one was the criteria for measuring effectiveness.

You indicated numerous things to us and it appeared things were moving ahead, but you also said there was a list of 40 criteria. Maybe some others on the committee have seen that, but I haven't.