National Defence Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2009

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, if I might, Mr. Dosanjh, in fairness, wasn't given a chance to continue his line of questioning or the subject matter. What I did hear him say was that it was in reference to testimony given yesterday before the other committee. I was in the House for the balance of that testimony. I did not hear all of the specifics. I did of course see some of the reporting of that this morning.

Ms. Garwood, as I would expect all of you to know, was a member of a different department, not even the Department of National Defence. She was at that time, I believe, a member of Public Safety or Correctional Service Canada and gave testimony, yes, over a relevant period of time.

But if these are questions with respect to what she said yesterday with respect to e-mails that she sent or received or was privy to, if the member wants to pose that question and I have any information on that, I'd be glad to share it with you, but again within those parameters. She did not work for a department for which I was responsible. Yes, the general subject matter of Taliban prisoners, understandably, was the subject. I'm here to respond to questions, Mr. Chair, but I also respect your ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Mr. Dosanjh, do you have another question concerning this—

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I'm sorry, you've actually prevented me from asking the question. If I ask the question, it's going to be based on the evidence that we heard yesterday and you will rule me out of order. Therefore, I will not ask the question.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Minister, there appears to be a realization with regard to the Department of National Defence, in terms of its capabilities, that you've identified in your budget and your Canada First defence strategy, which is that they can't be achieved within the 20-year plan given the funding envelope that's available. Could you respond to that and, as well, respond to the issue of the pressures that you have in terms of the core responsibilities, coupled with ongoing challenges in terms of overseas deployments? This is obviously going to create more pressure on the defence department, and on your budget and your ability to respond.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Wilfert.

There is no question that the Department of National Defence is a high-tempo department, particularly the deployment in Afghanistan and other missions that we are currently participating in. There is a current and continued demand for Canadian soldiers because of their capabilities and professionalism.

Clearly deployability is an expensive item. The decision to purchase four C-17 aircraft, for example, allows us to not only deploy soldiers for the purposes of participating in combat missions but also respond to humanitarian missions, such as we saw in the Caribbean, such as we have seen on other occasions where Canadian Forces, along with aid workers, deploy for the purposes of humanitarian relief and assistance in times of natural and sometimes man-made disasters.

We have seen, certainly in recent years, the necessity to purchase specific types of equipment that have great utility. For example, there is the use now by most countries, including Canada, of unmanned aerial vehicles, which are a very high-tech capability that allows us to have vision both day and night. So 24-hour vision on the ground in a theatre of operations like Afghanistan has incredible preventative capability to allow us to detect, for example, the planting of IEDs in the road. It allows us, when combined with other capabilities such as signals intelligence, to interrupt and very often pre-empt those bombs from killing Canadians soldiers or civilians or to detect where they're being made or, in some cases, where the materials are being gathered to allow those insurgents to use that type of explosive device. So that is an example.

Tanks we spoke about earlier. Because of the force of the blast of some of these IEDs, going to a main battle tank...and you can ask General Natynczyk in particular about this. As a former tanker, this is something he's very familiar with—yes, still a tanker.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

But these Leopard 2 tanks, which we were able to procure through a very innovative process from the Dutch, gave us a new capability that we hadn't been in possession of for some years.

Other modern land craft are equipped with body armour that again is designed specifically to protect the soldiers who are operating that equipment. Even the body armour itself, which is of a lighter composition that allows for greater mobility, the type of weaponry that is being used in theatre, M-777s, and the type of protective capabilities that we now provide our soldiers were important investments and, as you indicated, came about as a result of the experience in Afghanistan.

But to your question, when those pressures arrive they can clearly cause a change in the type of investment required. Over 20 years, to be frank with you, sir, I expect that there will be other changes and other innovations that may put pressure on the budget of the Department of National Defence. But this Parliament and, I would suspect, all members of this committee would agree that we can't send people into harm's way without proper equipment, without proper protection in particular, and without giving them the best capability to perform this important work that they do for us both at home and abroad.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Maybe, Mr. Chairman, I can come back to this in the next round.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, and thank you, Minister.

Now I will give the floor to the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Bachand, I know that you will ask a question regarding the Supplementary Estimates.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, if I could, I have one qualification in response to Mr. Wilfert's comments about the cost here.

There were incremental costs in addition to the Canada First defence strategy. So included in the regular line items of the budget, when it came to Afghanistan, this Parliament also afforded additional funds, and in particular you will recall the independent panel recommendations that Parliament endorsed. That included incremental costs. So all of those items related to the Afghanistan mission specifically named were incremental costs, and then we have things for search and rescue, base improvements, and personnel improvements that I mentioned earlier in my remarks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Bachand, you have 10 minutes.

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

I will share my time with my colleague, who will also want to ask a question.

First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate you and your clerk because you arrived at this morning's meeting well prepared. I was very impressed to see that you referred directly to the relevant provision of the Standing Orders. I believe this should be pointed out. Congratulations for being so efficient! Members of Parliament also do their homework. I expected what happened to happen, especially after what you said at the beginning.

I discovered a supplementary estimate of $721,000 for the Military Police Complaints Commission. I would like the minister to explain to me why the commission, although it is unable to do the work it should be doing now regarding the prisoner issue, will receive an additional amount of $721,000. I would like the minister to respond briefly, because I have other questions on this subject.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

First of all, I have to correct the honourable member. The MPCC is currently not sitting, at the call of the chair. The chairman decided that the committee did not accept the ruling of the Federal Court with respect to their mandated jurisdiction, which was to deal with issues specific to the Military Police Complaints Commission's mandate. As a result of a ruling from the Federal Court that affirmed the legislated mandate, the chair decided to appeal that and subsequently cancelled all ongoing committee hearings until such time as the appeal was heard. That was not a decision of the government; it was a decision of the chair.

With respect to the specific question on budget, I would defer to officials with respect to the budgetary increase for the Military Police Complaints Commission.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear the answer to that question later on, once I have asked all of my questions. Then, if the minister or his officials do not have time to answer, they can always do so in writing.

Mr. Minister, to begin, I cannot share your opinion. When witnesses are prevented from giving their testimony, and when redacted documents are tabled with the Complaints Commission, I believe this means that the commission cannot do its work. That is basically what happened.

Can you tell me whether you think that a parliamentary committee should therefore do the work of the commission because the issue is so serious? Do you acknowledge that it is important for a parliamentary committee to look into the detainee file? That is the work the Complaints Commission should have been focusing on in the previous months. So do you believe that parliamentarians have an important role to play in trying to find out exactly what happened?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I would certainly agree that Parliament plays a very important function with respect to the examination of all items that Parliament chooses to examine. But as far as the Military Police Complaints Commission is concerned, there is a legislated mandate; that is to say, there is set out specifically in legislation the mandate of that body, in the National Defence Act.

I want to come back to a reference that was made by my friend with respect to additional funding. My understanding is that the additional funding came as a result of the decision of the chair to pursue this issue through a public hearing. The public hearing required travel and required committee support, and that was the basis of the additional funding request, and Parliament was asked to approve it.

Concerning the reference to documents and witnesses, again these decisions are made by the arm's-length independent body, the Military Police Complaints Commission. Rulings with respect to what documents they access and what testimony they could give were made by that body and then affirmed by the court, in some cases. These are not made by the political branch of government.

Similarly, decisions about documents that are redacted or documents that would be limited for release are made essentially within departments after review by officials, usually with legal training, and then affirmed by and ultimately decided by a special department within the Department of Justice or of the Attorney General. This again is not a decision made by ministers or by political staff; it is made by professional public servants, with legal advice from the Department of Justice. And it is made, as you know...and this has been a subject of public debate recently. These decisions are made to protect, in many instances, issues that relate to national security, issues that relate to confidential information received from international partners and allies or information from other agencies who specifically request confidentiality, such as the Red Cross, or international bodies, or confidential sources.

So there's a whole array of considerations that go into making those decisions about release of information as it pertains to national security. It's also important to note that the information can, of course, endanger both civilians and soldiers operating outside the country if it is disclosed.

Those are some of the considerations that go into the decisions around the release or the inclusion of documents from a hearing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Please go ahead, Mr. Bachand.

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

I would not want to ask a two-minute question, only to have the minister respond for eight minutes, which would not leave me any more time to ask further questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Do go ahead, you still have some time left.

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

The minister says he has a great deal of respect for the work of parliamentarians. He continues to insist that the commission decided to stop working on this matter of its own free will, and another committee studying the situation of detainees is also being shut down. What he says is true, because there were probably matters of national security at stake.

Mr. Chairman, this does not help us do our job. If they want to help us and if they recognize that we have an important job to do, they have to acknowledge our rights under parliamentary law, but they also have to give us the means to properly do our job. When we receive redacted documents, Mr. Minister, it doesn't take long to translate them into French. In fact, it only took a couple of seconds. It's no different here. We have received a lot of documents, but we cannot get to the bottom of things. The commission cannot operate even if it receives additional money. On top of that, our rights as parliamentarians are being curtailed.

But there's worse, Mr. Minister. How dare you claim that opposition members are friends of the Taliban? You did indeed say that. You compared us to the Taliban! Didn't you also say that we are against the Canadian Forces? In my opinion, the purpose of such tactics is to shut up the opposition. The government is hiding behind the wall of national security and we cannot even find out whether it is giving us valid reasons for doing so. Could you, once and for all, acknowledge that the opposition has a very important role to play and that it must be listened to? If committees are to work, you have to let them do their job. It is not so hard for you to shut down a commission, but it is harder to shut down a parliamentary committee.

I apologize for raising my voice, but I would like you to address this matter.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I have just a few corrections for the record, Mr. Chair.

I've never personally stifled the committee. I've certainly never ever referred to members of the opposition, including my friend, as a friend of the Taliban. That is simply factually incorrect, as were much of the references throughout his speech.

Parliament, of course, is extremely important in this process of examination of issues such as this. Having spent eight years in opposition, I fully respect our parliamentary process. I fully respect members opposite who have to take part in the sometimes very challenging, very onerous task of examination.

I want to come back to the Military Police Complaints Commission, because the record will clearly show the complaints commission had access to hundreds, if not thousands, of documents that were provided by the government. They were also given access to the witnesses. But of course, any witness from the public service has certain professional obligations and when it comes to disclosure of information in their possession, the Canada Evidence Act applies, the rules of that particular complaints commission apply. So the proceedings are operating within the parameters prescribed by law. That is the case with the MPCC. That is the case with the parliamentary committee. We will continue to cooperate. We will continue to provide evidence that is legally permissible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Okay, I will give the floor to Monsieur Bouchard.

Mr. Bouchard, you still have a minute and a half remaining.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to ask the minister a question.

Good morning, Minister. In your opening statement you referred to the Chinook helicopter fleet. On several occasions, you told me that you were as yet undecided as to where the new fleet of helicopters would be based. Your brief states that delivery of these helicopters is scheduled for 2014. As I'm sure you're aware, these helicopters require infrastructure support, which cannot simply be thrown together a few months before the 2014 deadline. It needs to be set up a few years ahead of the deadline. Minister, when are you going to make your final decision as to where the new Chinook helicopters will be based?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

We have nearly made our decision, Mr. Bouchard. I know that this is a subject of great importance for you and your constituents. I would like to assure you that it is of equal importance to the Department of National Defence. With regard to the Chinooks, you are absolutely right; we will require infrastructure support to protect this new acquisition. The Chinook is a very sophisticated helicopter, particularly the new model F type.

As you know, we have undertaken a very extensive examination of the existing infrastructure found on various bases throughout the country, including Petawawa and the Bagotville facility, which I know you're very interested in. We're going to make a decision based not only on that infrastructure but also on the proximity, meaning the availability to deploy that particular aircraft as needed.

We'll make that decision, I would suggest to you, in the very near future. All of these things are worked up through the department. We have expertise within the department to help us make that decision at a policy level, as is the case with most, if not all, decisions at the Department of National Defence. I rely very heavily on the experts within the department, people like Mr. Ross in terms of procurement and people like General Natynczyk and others in terms of deciding what will optimize our capability and what will optimize the availability of an important piece of equipment like the Chinook. You will hear about this decision very soon, I assure you.

Thank you. Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Minister.

Now we'll give the floor to the Nouveau Parti démocratique du Canada. Go ahead, Mr. Harris.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to our committee, Minister, Generals, and officials of the department. First of all, I agree wholeheartedly with the opening comment with respect to the courage and dedication of our troops, and I think we all share your admiration for the work they do and the risk they take at the request of their country. That should be said first.

I can't help but say that I was rather disturbed by statements made by you in the House, Minister, a couple of days ago, suggesting that someone questioning a general was somehow unpatriotic. That seems to be not part of the Canadian tradition. Obviously we respect the military, but we have the right to ask questions and make comments about them. Again, that's not to suggest anything else.

I do want to ask a question concerning the role of the Military Police Complaints Commission. I am following up on your response to Mr. Bachand and your statement that numerous documents were made available to the MPCC. I have here a three-page memorandum that was made available to the MPCC and also to the committee of this House. It is dated December 6, 2006. It's a three-page memorandum, which--