National Defence Committee on June 6th, 2006

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

That's your opinion, Mr. Dosanjh. I've already told you that we are making an assessment right now in conjunction with General Hillier, in conjunction with, obviously, military personnel, our defence minister, who has a fair bit of military experience himself, having served over 30 years in the Canadian armed forces and having attained a high rank. I put a lot of faith and a lot of confidence in the decision that they will jointly make on behalf of the Canadian government for the betterment of our armed forces and for their protection in Afghanistan and in other missions.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Let me move on to the next issue. I understand that the Minister of Defence has just announced, or made it known, that he's not attending the NATO conference in Brussels. I'm assuming the conference is still proceeding.

Obviously, at such a crucial time, when you have Canada's relationship with NATO being extremely important, and in fact recent news that NATO is going to be doubling its strength in southern Afghanistan, I am wondering whether you could tell me why, number one, there's the cancellation of the visit of the Minister of National Defence, and whether or not you knew that this doubling of the strength of the NATO troops in Afghanistan is going to take place, and when did you know that?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I believe the doubling is scheduled to take place in early August. That is the most recent information I have. That is based on the ability of both Great Britain and the Dutch to deploy their forces there, their readiness, essentially, based on their assessment of the situation in the south. The NATO mission is, of course, the transition that's taking place, a critical exercise of which Canada is very much a part.

As for the decision of the defence minister to attend the conference, I'm not briefed on all of the detail of that decision.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

When did you know that there would be a doubling of the troops in southern Afghanistan?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

You know that we don't discuss operational details. I did have discussions with the Dutch foreign minister when I was in Afghanistan. We spoke at that time about their commitment as well as the commitment of the British forces. As far as the numbers and the deployment are concerned, we're not at liberty to discuss those.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

No, I'm not suggesting you tell me. It's publicly known they're going to double the strength of the troops in southern Afghanistan. I'm asking you, when did you know about that? There's no big secret about that. When did you first know about that?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I knew about it through briefings we received.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

When? Did you know about it before the parliamentary debate on the extension?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I can't say. I would have to check my notes. I've received a number of briefings on Afghanistan. If you want to know, I'll give you the exact date when I first received the word of the doubling.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I would like to know because I believe it would be relevant as to whether or not you then informed the House properly, in a very important debate, that the strength might be going up in terms of numbers in southern Afghanistan, which is where we are doing a significant portion of the battles.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

You have two minutes.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Let me ask you a question about the Geneva Conventions. You are familiar with the debate that's gone on in the newspapers, with the military saying something on the ground and the minister in the House appearing to say something different. The military said these insurgents have the prisoner of war treatment, but not the prisoner of war status. I'd like you to tell me what the difference is between those two things, and why we can't afford them the status.

Second, I would like to know whether or not Canada, as a state, is making the effort it's obliged to do under the Geneva Conventions. There is a provision there that says “despite the fact that all of the conditions may not apply”, meaning in terms of the insignia people wear, uniforms they wear, whether they have a structured command, those kinds of requirements, because those conventions were drafted at a different time in history, for different kinds of armies fighting. We don't have those kinds of armies fighting, obviously, right now.

Are we making the effort with respect to that provision, which says that despite the fact that the combatants might not fit the profiles, implicit or explicit, in the conventions, we are to endeavour to apply all the provisions of the Geneva Conventions?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Dosanjh, that is exactly what Canada is doing. We are certainly endeavouring to see that the Afghan army will comply with the conventions to the greatest extent possible for us to do so. During all international operations, including Afghanistan, it's the Canadian Forces' policy to comply with the law of armed conflict, which includes the Geneva Convention, and we want to see the spirit of that convention is applied, if not applied in a strictly legal sense, to the greatest degree possible.

The conflict in Afghanistan, as you know and as you pointed out quite rightly, is a very complex situation that does not fit the normal model for which the Geneva Convention was originally intended. It involves a range of operations there, as you're familiar, including armed conflict operations. To that extent, in that very complex environment, the conflict itself is not one between states, and the vast majority of individuals and those affected should have the Geneva Convention applied.

That is Canada's intent, but it does not apply as a matter of treaty law in that context. So at a minimum, Canada will certainly honour article 3 of the Geneva Convention, which applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and is applicable to the conflict in Afghanistan. It provides the minimum standard for the humane treatment of detainees and specifically prohibits cruel and inhumane treatment or torture.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you. That concludes your time.

Mr. Bachand, for 20 minutes.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, Minister, I want to thank you for being here.

I had the opportunity to go to Afghanistan last week, at the invitation of NATO. It wasn't the first time, during my NATO visits, that I learned information that, rightly or wrongly, is not necessarily disclosed by the Canadian government. I'd like to raise two questions which, I think, are new in the debate. Before going to Afghanistan and receiving the briefings I had, I was not aware of these two problems.

First, I met General Richards, who is currently in charge of the NATO forces for the north and east. This summer, he'll be in charge of the south, that is of the provinces of Kandahar and Hellman. Canadian soldiers' current mission in Kandahar province is undeniably a tough one, because hunting the Taliban is a major challenge. Perhaps it's not for no reason that we've lost so many people. We know there's very violent fighting there. During General Richards' briefing, I learned that, when NATO takes control of the south, the idea will be to change Canadian soldiers' mission so that they do a little less Taliban hunting and get involved instead in an operation to conquer the hearts and minds of the inhabitants. That would be quite a major change, I think, and I imagine that, when it takes control of the south, NATO will ask the Canadians what they think of it and tell them that it thinks they're too focused on hunting the Taliban and that they now have to focus on conquering hearts and minds, which means being much more present in the communities, working on building schools, health services, infrastructure and so on.

I'd like to know whether any negotiations are underway to make a fairly significant change to the present mission of Canadian Forces in Kandahar.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much for your question. It's important. I clearly understand the challenge that the soldiers and everyone doing humanitarian work in the field are facing in Afghanistan.

I'm not aware of the particular briefing in which you've been given information in NATO, but I can tell you that Canada's engagement there is very much, as I said in my presentation, threefold. It's not purely of a military nature. It is very much about democracy building, and the work being done there by our ambassador is exemplary. It's also very much about the humanitarian effort, which includes the provincial reconstruction team, which includes working with some NGOs who are there, including the Red Cross.

It's also, to give a specific example that you've referred to, about helping to build schools. I visited one of those schools in Kabul and I saw the work that was being done to help young children, particularly those who were orphaned, who were living on the street prior to Canada's involvement there along with the allies. They are now being given an opportunity to learn trades, to learn basic sanitation and engagement with one another, basic reading and writing and educational skills that were never available to them before.

I saw young women, young girls, there for the very first time, permitted to go to school, where previously they were barred from attending any form of educational institution. The numbers are staggering. Somewhere in the range of 4 million to 5 million kids are now in school as a result of the work that's being done. I consider that very much about not only supporting and elevating the lives of people of Afghanistan, but I also witnessed the warmth of the embrace that the Afghan people extended to not only soldiers, but aid workers, individuals who were there to genuinely try to help them.

So it's all part and parcel of the mission, if I can put it this way. It's not a change in position. It's not a strategic shift. It's not about being reassigned or redeployed. It's very much part of the overall intent to bring stability to that region, to see that the difference that we make is lasting, that it isn't going to simply evaporate when the allies eventually do leave the country. So there has been no change in operations that I'm aware of.

These operations, as you know, in terms of the military responsibilities will change with the transition that's going on into the NATO operation. That will in fact change. Leadership positions will change. The work that is being done currently in Kandahar and Kabul will, from time to time, involve a change in the leadership role, and a rotation that occurs on a regular basis is part of that overall exercise.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

From what I understood of General Richards' briefing, Canadians would be doing less Taliban hunting and would be a little more active in development. You seem to agree on that.

I also met General Jones, who's in charge of Operation Enduring Freedom. As we speak, he is still in charge of operations in the south and east. I also learned information on anti-insurrection and anti-terrorist efforts. I learned that the Americans and NATO want NATO soldiers to handle the anti-insurrection work and U.S. soldiers to handle everything relating to anti-terrorism.

Second, there were bombings in Azizi. I don't believe the Americans informed NATO that they intended to bomb Azizi. From my standpoint, there's a command and control problem. When soldiers are in the field, are they facing insurrection or terrorists? It's possible the Americans decided it's terrorism and therefore that it's their responsibility. In those cases, situations like the one in which four Canadian soldiers were killed by friendly fire might occur.

I want your opinion, and I'd like you to use your influence and to direct General Fraser to ensure that there are two lines of command and that there's no confusion so as to prevent Canadian soldiers from getting killed or Americans from deciding to bomb without warning.

I'd like you to sort out this matter because our soldiers may misunderstand the rules of engagement. When you're facing an adversary, you don't know whether it's a terrorist or an insurrection. But we're not going to call up the Americans and ask them to come and see what it is. We don't have the time to determine that. So there's a danger of confusion.

I'd like to have your opinion, and I'd also like you to give me assurances that you'll speak with General Fraser to ensure the soldiers' safety and the success of the operation.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I can assure you, from what I saw of General Fraser and the work he's doing there with our forces and in cooperation with other forces that are currently in the base at Kandahar, that he is very much in the loop as far as the communication is concerned. He is very much an individual, I think with incredible experience, who understands his responsibility.

As Minister of Foreign Affairs, I don't need to tell him how to do his job. I have great confidence that he and General Hillier and those involved in the mission from the very beginning are, in conjunction with him, making proper decisions. They're not being left out of NATO briefings. They're not being deprived of information, regardless of what you may have been told or what has been suggested to you.

But I'm not at liberty to describe, nor will I be drawn into a discussion about, operational details of how certain activities may play out on the ground. I know, as we all know, that Canada was not involved in the fatal bombing to which you've referred, but that doesn't mean we weren't aware it was going to happen. I would suggest to you it would be naive beyond belief to suggest that we didn't know certain operations were happening in a region in which we have command, and that is in the south.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

So you were aware of the bombing in Azizi before it—

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Please.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Please what?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

You're not suggesting that as Minister of Foreign Affairs I would be personally briefed about a bombing that was going to take place.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

You're telling me you weren't aware?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

That's correct. I'm telling you I was not made aware—

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

That's the danger, Mr. Chairman. The Americans may act unilaterally, and we'll have a problem.