National Defence Committee on Oct. 8th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

We don't have enough time--maybe within 10 seconds.

[Dan Ross, Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), Department of National Defence]

There are three pieces of work being done in Canada: the 42 tanks being repaired and overhauled—not necessarily in Montreal, but it's a competitive process—plus building 18 armoured engineer vehicles, and armoured recovery vehicles, which are very expensive, and that's very high-quality work. All of that will be done in Canada as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

Now I will give the floor to Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We appear to be in a bit of a time warp, so I hope the same time warp applies to the answers to my questions.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for coming. We're glad to have you here. I'm pleased also to note that your elbow is better, and for that reason I'm glad I have two gentlemen between you and me today.

First of all, let me say I want to commend your department and the Canadian Forces for its work on the mental health issue, particularly PTSD, and in particular your announced campaign to ensure that at all levels of the military culture, from bottom to top, there's an awareness of mental health issues as being as important a type of injury as physical ones. I'm sure you will agree with me that this is not a one-off deal. There's much work to be done, but you have been doing this work, as we've been doing our committee work, in raising the attention to these issues, and also in response to our report. So I hope that continues as an ongoing project of the Canadian Forces.

I do have, though, four specific questions for you, Mr. Minister, that I would like to ask, and I'd like to ask them first, so that you can then respond to them all.

Mr. Minister, first, you're on record as saying—and you said this in the House the other day—that there's not a scintilla of evidence to support claims of government attempting to delay or diminish the ability of the Military Police Complaints Commission to get to the bottom of allegations of your government's knowledge of torture of Canadian detainees in Afghanistan. So why are you objecting to Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin's evidence about this topic? Why does the government fear what Mr. Colvin has to say? Because, after all, he's the man who knows. And I would remind you that it was the government that invoked section 38 of the Evidence Act, and they did so after Colvin made it clear that he would cooperate fully with the commission.

Second, according to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons in January of 2008, you met with then Kandahar Governor Asadullah Khalid in the fall of 2007 and discussed with him issues of torture of Canadian detainees. Were you ever made aware of torture allegations against him personally, and if so, when?

Third, were you made aware, and if so, when, that at the senior levels of the military, including at meetings at National Defence Headquarters, there was knowledge of allegations of the sexual abuse of young boys by Afghan security forces at Canadian bases in Afghanistan, and in addition, charges that Canadian Military Police were told by commanders and trainers not to interfere in incidents where Afghan forces were having sex with children?

And fourth—and this is related to the third—despite the fact that in June of this year you said in the House that the Canadian Forces were still investigating the issues of sexual abuse of young boys, the board of inquiry that was set up in October of 2008 had already filed its report in May. Five months later it's still not released, and it indicated in May that it was sitting with the military leadership. Have you seen this report, and will you make it public immediately?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Harris, for your questions.

With respect to personal involvement in the direction of witnesses, I have none. We obviously give basic instructions to counsel. There's a clear indication that we do not, the government does not, and the minister does not conduct day-to-day operations in an arm's-length quasi-judicial hearing, whether it be the board of inquiry, the National Investigation Service, or the Military Police Complaints Commission. All these are under the auspices of my department, but I do not delve into the details, and I certainly do not participate in the day-to-day decisions made at those hearings.

Mr. Harris, I know you're familiar with proceedings in court. You're obviously familiar with the fact that the commissioner himself, Mr. Tinsley, and this is a recent development, I'm told--it was yesterday--is seeking leave to appeal the decision of the Federal Court with respect to the parameters that were reasserted by the Federal Court when it comes to the mandate of the Military Police Complaints Commission. That appeal, or the seeking leave to appeal, really precludes me from discussing further details of the case itself. I would say that counsel for both Mr. Colvin and the government, and now in this instance Mr. Tinsley, are bound by the rules of evidence in the Canada Evidence Act. They are bound by the National Defence Act, which set up the Military Police Complaints Commission. And they are bound by precedent. To that extent, I would underscore, despite your assertions in the House, Mr. Harris, that I am not directing, the government is not directing, and we are not involved in the day-to-day process. And I would suggest to you, sir, that you would be appalled if the case were otherwise.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

It is the government that invoked section 38, not the lawyers. They had to be given direction.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Section 38, as you know, is part of the Canada Evidence Act. It was put in place to protect national security. It was put in place, in fact, to put a process and parameters in place to ensure that issues that affect and impact national defence and national security are given protection. There is a process that is to be followed with respect to the examination of evidence under section 38.

You asked a question about meeting with then Governor of Kandahar Khalid. Yes, I did meet with him. As far as any specific allegations about Mr. Khalid, the governor, being involved in the sexual abuse of Afghan children--

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

No, no, it was torture.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

--the torture of Afghan children, to the best of my recollection, I do not recall any specific allegations being levelled against the governor. I do have a vague recollection that there were rumours circulating at that time. I could not attribute those to anyone in particular. I could not pinpoint when or where these rumours would have been brought to my attention.

You then referenced, I believe in your next question, military policing and whether.... Was it a question on transfers?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

No. I'll repeat it. In 2007-08 there were discussions within the senior levels of the military, including at NDHQ, regarding the allegations of sexual abuse of young boys and how to handle them PR-wise, and so on. My question was whether you were informed of that as the minister responsible. I would have thought that you would have been made aware, and if not, that you would have been very upset that you weren't. So tell us more about that.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I believe the first time I heard any allegations of Afghan abuse of other Afghans, it came around the time that one of the members of the Canadian Forces had made public statements and then later appeared before this committee or before the Afghanistan committee. That has now, as you know, also become the subject of investigation. But if you're asking me if I personally have firsthand knowledge or if I heard, even directly, hearsay from other individuals, no. I was simply privy to the same rumours and newspaper articles that emerged around that time in 2007. I have not seen specific reporting on this issue.

I did at that time meet with the Chief of the Defence Staff and make certain inquiries as to what instructions were there, what soldiers were expected to do on the ground if it was brought to their attention. I was advised quite pointedly that they were given instructions to report it to the chain of command. Since that time, as you know, this discussion has been in the public. It has been a subject of questions. I will repeat that there is every expectation that a Canadian soldier, upon witnessing abuse of a child of any nature, would prevent that, that they would intervene. We're there to protect people. We're not there to turn a blind eye. At the same time, we are not there to assume the role of the police or the Afghans themselves. We are there to help them build their capacity. That includes, by the way—and you can appreciate this more than most—the building of a justice system. If we have policing capability and nothing to plug the justice system into, their domestic justice system is going to suffer.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I appreciate that, but what we're talking about here is that even before the allegations were made public, there was knowledge of this within the senior levels of the department and the military, the Canadian Forces. What were you told about this? The complaints were that in fact the military police were given instructions contrary to what you're saying. I agree with you, that's the way it should be. But there were known to be allegations to the contrary. Not only that, these complaints were being discussed. Were you made aware of that then, or was it only in 2008 when these complaints became public? That's the question.

Then the follow-up, of course, was on the BOI, which was done and needs to be made public.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Minister, 10 seconds please.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I have never heard that the military police were instructed or given any instruction along the lines that they were not to report or not to do their job. The answer is no.

With respect to the report itself, it has been filed. It is being examined, and we have every intention of eventually releasing it, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

Now I will have to give the floor to Mr. Hawn for 10 minutes.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister and the defence team, for being with us today.

Could you comment briefly on the significance of General McChrystal's strategy that he proposed to President Obama with respect to what the Canadian Forces in fact have been doing for the last several months in Afghanistan?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Well, thank you, Mr. Hawn, and thank you for the work you do as parliamentary secretary. You assume a very important role.

Like everyone, I'm anxiously awaiting what the President's decision will be in response to the recommendations of General McChrystal. With respect to that report and how it reflects on the Canadian Forces, one of the bright spots—if I can call it that, because it was a very stark and in some cases even startling report that painted a picture of a deteriorating security situation—is that General McChrystal does note that the approach that appears to be most effective is the model Canadians have been following. That is a whole-of-government approach that encompasses the work of other departments, like CIDA, the Department of Foreign Affairs, and the Department of Public Safety, working in unison.

He also quite clearly recognizes that the village-by-village approach...that is soldiers working with Afghans, and most often Afghan soldiers in the lead, going into a village, clearing the village of insurgency, setting up a perimeter of security, then holding that particular village or that piece of territory and building their capacity, identifying what the local population's needs are—do they need water and irrigation, do they need roads built, is there a school, a mosque, or a project of importance to that village—and working at a very cooperative, on-the-ground level with the local population. This, at the crux of that report, appears to be the recommended approach General McChrystal is making to the President, in addition to clearly more broad security implications and having the force to do that.

So to that extent, without saying so, it is a tacit approval of the whole-of-government approach that the Canadian Forces and the Canadian government have been following in Afghanistan in Kandahar province.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you.

I'd actually like to turn to the ADM of Materiel for a question.

Mr. Ross, can you explain the relationship between acquisition programs for equipment built in Canada in small fleets versus acquisition of equipment built either outside Canada or in Canada under licence with larger fleets of worldwide...whatever it is, and the long-term industrial benefits to Canada?

[Dan Ross]

I'll try to be brief. Obviously, that is a question under the mandate of Industry Canada. We're extensively involved in that. We look at the potential of leveraging major defence procurements to get opportunities for Canadian industry to a global fleet--for example, landing gear for all Hercules worldwide, all EO/FLIR systems, electro-optical systems for surveillance aircraft. That's the kind of strategic priority we have, and we work closely with Industry Canada to try to achieve that.

On the other hand, when you buy very small quantities, perhaps from a Canadian firm, you don't have that same leverage to access multinational worldwide components on their fleet, and not for a long period of time.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Could I add to that, Mr. Hawn? The industrial regional benefits package or approach policy that has been pursued by this government and previous governments requires, mandates, that there is dollar-for-dollar spent in Canada. So if a contract is awarded to Lockheed Martin or Raytheon or a company that has its corporate headquarters outside of Canada, they are required by law, if it's a $200 million contract, to spend $200 million in Canada. There is a number of ways of doing that: they can partner with a university; they can do research and development; they can contract with a local supplier. But Canadians are the primary and sole beneficiaries, dollar for dollar, under that regional benefit package.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you.

Back to you, Mr. Minister.

The implications of the awards that the Canadian Forces and the department received last night with respect to the long-term health of the Canadian Forces, and quoting, I think, General Semianiw, that occasionally we drop the ball, but we pick it up on the first bounce--

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Hawn, you're obviously very familiar...as a former member of the Canadian Forces, and now in your work as parliamentary secretary, you know this has been an enormous priority for the Canadian Forces, how we take care of men and women in uniform who are returning, in many cases, pretty banged up. They've suffered some physical and in many cases some psychological injury as a result of their service. We owe it to them to respond appropriately, to put the resources in place. We're building that capacity through the joint personal support units, through programs, through changing attitudes, which are the most difficult, in some cases, to bring about quickly.

The Chief of the Defence Staff has taken a lead role in this, with the “Be the Difference” campaign. General Walt Semianiw has been really at the sharp end of the stick and the primary implementer of this movement to assist persons suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder. We have doubled the number of mental health care professionals within the employment of the Department of National Defence. We have intentions to hire more.

To be very frank with you, Mr. Hawn, the big challenge is that those health care professionals are not always available. We need more psychologists and psychiatrists, and that's true generally within the health care system. Last night's recognition from the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health was an indication that we've made progress, but you're absolutely right, there are further strides that have to be taken. We're committed to that. It's budgeted. We're very, very cognizant of the long-term responsibility. To come back to Mr. Harris' earlier comment, this is not an issue that will go away. Quite frankly, when you compare it to how Korean veterans and First World War veterans returned, we've made enormous steps forward.

Having said that, there is a growing awareness in the country that we have veterans who are now in their 20s and 30s. They're going to be with us. They're valued citizens. We owe them the respect and the support and the necessary enablers for them to transition back to civilian life. In many cases, I'm proud to say, we've made it much more available and accessible for them to continue a career in the Canadian Forces should they so choose.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you.

This is a quick question for the Chief of the Air Staff.

Is it fair to say that from an operational commander's point of view, in the decision where to base assets the primary consideration would be the ability to do the job?

[LGen J.P.A. Deschamps]

Absolutely. As we look at our ability to generate, we always have to keep resources in mind, the finite quantity of personnel and money. When we look at where to locate our capabilities, we have to balance those two: effectiveness and efficiency. It always plays an important role in our advice to government.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Finally, here is a quick one for the minister.

Mr. Minister, to go back to mental health for a second, which is such a thing that we'll never get it 100% right, is it fair to say—and we've heard it in this committee from others who have had experience with other militaries with other programs—that we're not perfect, but that in relationship to other countries we are simply the best at it so far?