Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 9 - Evidence, January 31, 2005 - Evening meeting
SAINT JOHN, Monday, January 31, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 7 p.m. to examine and report on the national security policy for Canada (Town Hall Meeting).
Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I would like to welcome everyone here. It is certainly a pleasure for the committee to be here in Saint John, and it is my pleasure to welcome you to a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.
Earlier today the committee heard testimony in Saint John from some academics and military witnesses, and tonight we are looking forward to hearing your views. It is an opportunity for us to listen and to learn and is an important part of the exercise.
I would like to briefly introduce the members of the committee to you. On my immediate right is the distinguished senator from Nova Scotia, Michael Forestall. He has served the constituents of Dartmouth for 37 years, first as a Member of the House of Commons, then as their Senator. While in the House of Commons he served as the official opposition defence critic from 1966 to 1976. He also served as a member of our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.
On my immediate right is Senator Tommy Banks from Alberta. He is Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, which recently released a report entitled ``The One-Tonne Challenge.'' He is well known to Canadians as a versatile musician and entertainer. He provided musical direction for the ceremonies at the 1988 Olympic Winter Games. He's an officer of the Order of Canada, and he has received a Juno Award.
Sitting beside him is Senator Jane Cordy from Nova Scotia. She is an accomplished educator with an extensive record of community involvement, including serving as Vice-Chair of the Halifax/Dartmouth Port Development Commission, and she is Chair of the Canada NATO Parliamentary Association, and a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
In the middle is Senator Norman Atkins from Ontario. He came to the Senate with 27 years of experience in the field of communications. He served as a senior advisor to Robert Stanfield, to Premier William Davis of Ontario, and to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. He is also a member of our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.
On my right is Senator Joe Day, who is known to many people in this room, I am sure. Joe is from New Brunswick. He is the Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, and also of our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. He is a member of the Bar of New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec, and a Fellow of the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada. He is also the former President and CEO of the New Brunswick Forest Products Association.
Beside Senator Day is Senator Pierre Claude Nolin from Quebec. He chaired the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs that issued a comprehensive report calling for legalization and regulation of cannabis in Canada. He currently is the Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Internationally, Senator Nolin is the Vice-President of the NATO Parliamentary Association.
At the far end of the table is Senator Michael Meighen from Ontario. A lawyer by profession, he is the Chancellor of the University of King's College, and the Past Chair of the Stratford Festival. Currently he is the Chair of our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, and he is also a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce.
Our committee is the first Senate committee mandated to examine security and defence. The Senate asked our committee to examine the need for a national security policy. We began our review in 2002 with three reports, entitled Canadian Security and Military Preparedness, in February; the Defence of North America: a Canadian Responsibility, in September, and an Update on Canada's Military Crisis: A Review From the Bottom Up, in November. In 2003, the committee published two additional reports: The Myth of Security at Canada's Airports, in January, and Canada's Coastlines: The Longest Under-defended Borders in the World, in October. In 2004 we tabled two additional reports, National Emergencies: Canada's Fragile Frontlines in March, and recently, The Canadian Security Guide Book 2005 Edition.
Our committee is currently reviewing Canada's defence policy. During the next few months the committee will hold hearings in every province, and engage with Canadians to determine their national interest, what they see as Canada's principal threats, and how they would like the government to respond to those threats. The committee will attempt to generate debate on national security in Canada, and forge a consensus on the need and type of military Canadians want.
We are very pleased to be in Saint John today, in a city with such a proud military tradition. Saint John is the home of HMCS Brunswicker, 31 Service Battalion, 3rd Field Regiment, 1 Company of the Royal New Brunswick Regiment, andthe 722nd Communications Squadron of which the committee's own Senator Day is the Honorary Lieutenant- Colonel. Thousands of young men and women from this region served in the two world wars and in Korea, and young people from this region have continued to serve in peacekeeping missions ever since.
Our committee is pleased to be holding this town hall meeting this evening. It is an opportunity for us to hear you, and to hear your ideas. Our moderator this evening is Mr. Bernard Cormier. Mr. Cormier, who was born, raised, educated in Saint John, is now the Cultural Affairs Officer for the City of Saint John, and has held this position for close to 17 years. He is the first Vice-President of the Royal United Services Institute of New Brunswick, RUSI, which was organized to represent former members of the army, navy, air force and RCMP. He was a former member of the air force reserve, and retains a membership in 250 Wing in Saint John.
Welcome, Mr. Cormier. Thank you for your assistance this evening. I would ask you, if you would, please, to advise the audience of the ground rules for the evening.
Mr. Bernard Cormier, Moderator: Thank you, Senator Kenny. Thank you all for attending this evening's meeting.
As to ground rules, first, if you have cell phones please turn them off or put them on vibrator mode. Secondly, you will notice that there are two microphones, numbered 1 and 2, in the hall at the front of the room. If you wish to comment or make a presentation, line up in front of one of those microphones. You will not be asking questions. You will be making a presentation that will not exceed three minutes. A clock, which is just here to my right, will show you your remaining time. The yellow light will go on when there is one minute left in your presentation. When the red light goes on, your time is up. One member of the Senate committee may then ask a question of you to clarify your comments. You will then have up to one and a half minutes to respond. The committee requires the speakers to identify themselves for the record. This is so that they can create an accurate record of the evening, and a follow-up, if necessary, with you. Since this is a parliamentary proceeding, you will understand that an accurate record is needed.
On the way into the meeting you were given a registration card. Please make sure that you hand your card to the clerk once you arrive at the microphone. If you did not get one, there are more available at the back of the room. This meeting is being interpreted in both official languages. Transceivers are available at the registration desk.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cormier. We would now welcome people to line up at either mike, and I will recognize them in order. We will begin with Ms. Elsie Wayne.
Ms. Wayne, it is good to see you; your three minutes commence now.
Ms. Elsie Wayne, As an Individual: Thank you very much, Senator Kenny.
I am formerly a Member of Parliament but speaking tonight as an individual; I am here tonight because I feel very strongly about this matter. As you know, I sat on the committee for 11 years in Ottawa. I will say this for our committee: the members did not play politics with this. They did what they honestly believed was right for the military, and that is why I am here tonight.
Honourable senators, I have to tell you that, as never before, we have to make the military number one. I have been listening as to what is going to happen. The House opened today. I thought the military would be number one, and the budget for the military.
Senator Kenny, when the government was buying the used submarines, I got two calls from London, England, asking me to do interviews with them. In London, England, on the call-in show, people were telling me that we should not buy those used submarines. Here were the people in London telling us not to buy them, and yet the government went ahead and bought them. You do not buy used submarines! We have shipbuilders in this country that can build submarines. We have to be involved in building our own vessels, just as we are going to have to upgrade our frigates.
We also have to replace our Sea Kings; we should have removed the Sea Kings that we have. A man lost his life just outside Saint John, New Brunswick in one of those Sea Kings. I will tell you this right now: we want to give our men and women the tools to do the job.
I got a call in Ottawa from the United States on 9/11. They said, ``Elsie you have to come. There were 28 people who made reservations to fly out of here to Washington, but they never came; they never got their tickets.'' I said, ``What?'' And they said, ``Yes, Elsie. We have to meet with you.'' So I came home and I met with them. I met with the person who set up all of these reservations for them, and I met with the lawyer. I took everything back to Ottawa to the RCMP.
Let me tell you this, senators: we are the closest city to the U.S. border, and that in itself can have an impact. There was also an occasion when a man went out of here to Toronto with false ID. When he got to Toronto he had a false passport, false everything, and they called us.
Yes, we need to put money in the budget, but it is also necessary to follow through on the recommendations that have already been made. I have a report here, and I am sure you all have copies of it, that has 23 recommendations. We should be making sure that the government lives up to those recommendations. I ask you to make sure that the government lives up to them because it would mean replacing all of the aircraft and the submarines, and giving the military the tools to do the job.
I think some of you, honourable senators, will recall that once, when you were flying home in a military plane, the soldiers were asked to take their boots off on the plane, and when they said, ``Take our boots off? What for?'' they were told, ``Because we do not have any boots to give to those who are going to replace you.'' I am sure you nearly died because you were so ashamed.
Senator Meighen: Elsie, you worked long and hard in Ottawa to try to keep alive a viable shipbuilding industry. Obviously, it is impossible to have a shipbuilding industry if it is stop and go, stop and go, stop and go.
Ms. Wayne: That is right.
Senator Meighen: There has to be some coordinated approach. In your research did you ascertain what the practice was in other countries in terms of maintaining a domestic shipbuilding industry? Have we gone too far down the line in Canada to revive it?
Ms. Wayne: In foreign countries shipbuilding becomes a major issue. They continue to get contracts. I have been told that they are looking at our country, you know, going to foreign countries. The best shipbuilders in the world are right in Canada — and they are right here. When you look at our frigates, they are the best that you could find anywhere. Shipbuilders from Quebec and New Brunswick built them. That building should never have stopped, and it is why I say we should be building new submarines. It is necessary to upgrade all the frigates now. Where are you going to take them? I suppose to Halifax, more than likely; but not here, where it should have been. Well, some of it could be done in Halifax.
At every one of our ports, whether on the West Coast, in Nova Scotia, in New Brunswick or in Montreal or Quebec, we have the capability of building all the ships that the military needs. We can do it right here in Canada, and we should be doing it.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Captain Ralph Wood, as an individual: I am also just speaking as an individual. I would like, first of all, to thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to you tonight.
In the last while our Armed Forces have performed admirably under some very difficult and trying circumstances, and are to be applauded for their achievements.
I will now comment on each service separately. I will begin with the army. I think this force is where the largest increase in numbers can be most effective, bearing in mind our traditional roles and the needs we are liable to face in the future. Specifically, I would like to see the JTF expanded considerably, and the capabilities enhanced. These highly trained and motivated forces can punch much higher than their weight, so we get a bigger bang for our buck.
I would like to see formed a rapid-reaction force of all arms, modelled on the lines of the new U.K. force. This must be equipped with all the necessary equipment, including heavy armour, artillery and offensive air support, along with the logistical requirements. I think the newly ordered Stryker units are a good buy, but they are no replacement for the heavy armour element, as without add-on or reactive armour they are not even capable of withstanding an RPG7 attack, as the Americans have so recently learned. I sincerely hope that their weight and dimensional problems have been resolved so that they are now compatible with C-130 aircraft.
We need to upgrade our 155 millimetre artillery to give them increased range, and possibly add some MRLS, which could be mounted on the existing re-engineered M113 chassis. We should look to the purchase of either Challenger or M1A1 tanks to replace the leopards, but not on a one-for-one basis.
I would like to see some of the existing Griffin helicopters given at least a limited offensive capability, other than dormant mounted machine guns, if the dedicated AT Helicopters are out of the question.
I would like to see more M113 units, as they are reconditioned and fitted with toes and some with star-streak or stinger AA missiles. These would be used with the proposed rapid-reaction force.
With respect to the air force, I would like to see a continuation of the avionics and armament upgrade of CF-18 aircraft. We should form an additional squadron from units in storage, optimized for offensive operations in conjunction with the rapid-reaction force. I would also like to see further funding put up for the U.S.JTF aircraft with the intention of eventually replacing the CF-18's. We should also place an order for some A400M transport aircraft.
Mr. Cormier: Your time is up, captain.
The Chairman: I notice you have a document there, sir.
Captain Wood: I will submit it.
The Chairman: We would accept that gladly.
Senator Nolin: What about new boots on the ground? I believe you refer to that in the last paragraph.
Captain Wood: I state in here, sir, that I endorse the government's announced decision to spend more on our armed forces for an increase in both personnel and equipment.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, sir. If you could give the clerk the document we will see that it is included.
Mr. Les Halloway, as an individual: My name is Les Holloway, of the Canadian Auto Worker's Union; I am the national representative for the shipyard workers, predominantly throughout Atlantic Canada.
First, I want to say that our union would like very much to have been able to make a formal presentation, because this issue, as we see it, in dealing with the infrastructure that is necessary to make a marine defence in this nation, is very contingent on our ensuring a strong and viable shipbuilding industry. I think this comes to the senator's question. It is not too late to turn the situation around, but putting $55 million into closing down one of the most advanced shipyards in North America is heading in the wrong direction. That is not just our view; that is the industry's view in this country.
As well, senators at this hearing are probably very aware of Peter Haydon's report, and I presented a copy of our document. We do have it translated, but I do not have the French copies with us. We can forward those on to you.
These quotes are in that document. Peter Haydon writes, ``The capacity to build modern ships has to be restored in Canada if a phased program of modernization and new construction is to be undertaken. Despite the musings of some politicians, a sovereign state cannot be dependant upon another state to provide its national security resources.'' Referring to Canada's naval forces, the study further suggests that some version of a phased modernization program is necessary, with some interim in provision to retain key capabilities while new ships are being built, but the naval capability mix problem will not be resolved without first reversing the politically directed demise of the national shipbuilding program.
We cannot have it both ways. There is a real cost to being a nation, and being a nation with one of the largest coastlines — and I would argue the largest coastline — in the world requires that we have a strong marine defence. We require that marine defence for our sovereignty as a nation, for issues such as drug importation on our coasts, for all the fishing off of our waters, to ensure that we maintain our sovereignty and maintain our capability without the need to go to Russia to get vessels to move our equipment around. We have to have those resources and that ability here. We could make those differences if we ensured a viable commercial shipbuilding industry which would then ensure that we had the ability and the capability to meet our procurement needs well into the future.
Right now the navy is thinking largely of going outside the country because it has concerns over whether we have the capacity, and this is at the same time as the government has reduced the capacity. I use the example of the Saint John dry dock, where $55 million dollars was used to shut that yard down. They shut it down, but then, as a nation, how do we meet our procurement needs into the future? I say it is not too late to change that, and we should change that.
The presentation I am making cannot be nearly as in-depth as I would like it to be, but, in closing, I want to thank you for the opportunity to make this very short presentation. I spoke to Buzz Hargrove a little earlier today and on behalf of our union we would at some point like to make a formal presentation on this very important issue.
Senator Day: Mr. Halloway, if you have a written presentation we would be pleased to receive that. We will also try to make some time available, certainly not on this trip, but we will try to make some time available to hear your representation.
We had open hearings all day today and one of the issues that came up, when Professor Milner from UNB was speaking, was the very subject that you are talking about, a national shipbuilding policy. He pointed out that the Canadian patrol frigates are halfway through their life, and that the coastal defence vessels are not performing the job that they should be performing.
My question to you is, assuming that the Saint John shipbuilding yard is not going to be re-opened, do we have the facilities now to do the work and build the ships that you are talking about, and do the repair work on the patrol frigates?
Mr. Halloway: I would answer it this way. I would say it is not too late to turn the situation around. Peter Haydon states that we have to reverse the demise of the shipbuilding industry in this country. Otherwise, we cannot have a naval defence. A ship is not a plane that you can buy in France and bring over here. A ship is a very large construction project that needs regular maintenance. We have to ensure that we have not only the capability to build the vessels that we require but also the ability to maintain those vessels. The decision to close the Saint John dry dock was one thing, but if a presentation was made by the Government of Canada to Irving to open that dry dock and to maintain the facility to meet our procurement needs into the future, that could be accomplished. There could be $55 million to start with that could go towards that. What happens if we do not do that? We had the Davey Shipyard; that is in receivership, in bankruptcy protection. We have the West Coast, but that is in a dismal position right now. We have capacity in this country, but it is very diminished. There has been no support. The way that has to be accomplished is with more commercial work, and this is the part that makes it difficult in such a short time frame. We have to find ways to do as the Americans have done. When the Cold War, ended the Americans had to move in their country in a way that would ensure that they could gain more commercial work for the shipyards so that they would have that infrastructure there when they needed it for their naval work.
Mr. Cormier: Thank you very much.
Mr. Halloway: That is what they did: they restructured. They did that and we have to do that here.
The Chairman: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Habib Kilisli, as an individual: As you see with my dress code, my accent and hair colour, I was not born and did not grow up here. However, I have been a Canadian for 21 years. Perhaps I do have, more than anyone in this room, things to be proud of in being Canadian. First I am alive, and then I owe my two beautiful children to being in Canada.
The military has two aspects: one is national defence; the other is offence. I am a victim of militarism. My grandfather died in the war. We never knew where, when or how he died. My father had seven children who grew as orphans. My father went to the military; he had to go with the draft. He served for three and a half years and became a cripple. We grew up as orphans. I grew up with no proper education. I do not have a university degree. So I have always my head down, and I am ashamed, but it is not my guilt.
I urge you to take the high moral ground and think that we need national defence. However, we do not the need military might.
This story I can bring to you one by one by one. Prior to the 19th century, the late 18th century, many Filipinos were killed; the problem was not solved. In Vietnam more than 2 million people were killed; the problem was not solved. Since the fall of the Shah in Iran, who was an imperialist puppet, it is recorded that 2.5 million people have been killed between Iran and Iraq; the problem was not solved. In this age of computer technology no nation is safe on the face of the earth. The only safety is the high moral ground. We need to protect our borders from every adversary, from every enemy, but I urge you to take the high moral ground for the ones which I mentioned here as the real victims, or the real victims to be. Do not take measures to create militarism, to fight wars abroad. Protect our border with whatever it takes from foreign and domestics. I urge you to use your age, your knowledge, and your proper dignity to stand up against militaristic adventure, and stay away from American imperialistic adventure.
Senator Forrestall: I want to echo the obvious sentiment in the audience, who have shown a lot of appreciation for your remarks. May I be so bold as to ask you to respond to this: we may not be capable of it, but should Canada accept morally and mentally the concept of self-defence, that we need not any longer rely on the United States for our overall fundamental basic defence for the protection of our freedoms? preservation of our rights? Would you find some merit in that as a new Canadian?
Mr. Kilisli: Yes, probably so. America, whether we like it or not, is part of the problem, not the solution. I am not a bigot, I am not racist, but I am 56 years old. This is my union tie by the way. This is only the second time I have ever worn it in Canada. I wore it proudly when I received my Canadian citizenship, and this is my second highest standing in, as a Canadian.
The United States is part of the problem, not part of the solution. I urge any and every one of you, if you can get the book called Peter Mansfield: The Arabs, you should read it. In the last 100 years every single Arab country has been invaded and destroyed. Whether al Qaeda exists or not, whether they have attacked the United States or not, we do not know, honestly, because we have only one witness, one statement and that is the American statement. However, even if we take them at their word, 3,000 people have been killed since the fall of Saddam to now or, according to the Arab televisions, more than 150,000 have died after the war. Those are the people living with their morals. If somebody kills your whole family, you are not going to like that. You will come back.
Senator Forrestall: You will make a great Canadian, sir.
Mr. Kilisli: Thank you. I salute your honour.
Mr. Ralph Forté, as an individual: I am just a citizen of Canada, and a proud one.
Under successive governments, the Canadian forces have continued to lose their effectiveness. If our country is threatened by some enemy, and that threat is coast to coast to coast, a serious threat to our freedoms, our values, our infrastructure, I say we will not be able to defend ourselves. Very simply, we have had the inability to even transport our troops lately. For a country this size, that is wrong. In my opinion, a country as great as ours deserves a great defence force, one that is fierce, respected, well equipped and well paid. There are those who say we do not need that. We are a nation of peacekeepers. To be a nation of peacekeepers we need to be a nation of peacemakers. We have not given our armed forces the ability to be peacemakers, nor do we have the stomach to make the tough but right decisions as to when to exercise that skill, even if we had had it. Look at the bouncer in a bar. He may be a peacekeeper, but let me tell you he is effective as a peacekeeper only if is perceived as a peacemaker by those whom he oversees. That fact is indisputable, and it applies to our peacekeeping forces. It is about time that we treated our defence forces like they matter to the well-being of the country. It is time we let them be as fierce as these guys were, and as those guys back there want to be. So let's talk about managing the defence forces in a serious way and not with some of the games that we play with them. Let's talk about not managing it like it is someone's social engineering sandbox.
Now I know we are not allowed to ask questions, but I have questions that are not for answers, but are just points for you to ponder. The term ``military viability,'' that is to say the capacity to execute competently the military tasks which are demanded of the forces and required to protect that which we Canadians hold dear for the long term, should remain the essential criterion for judging the operations of the armed forces. If you say that you are in total agreement with that, then you are in total agreement with the 1982 Senate Subcommittee on National Defence, which said just that.
Now, let me give you a couple of quotes. General Baril, a recent Chief of Defence Staff, made this statement:
For the fiscal year 1998-1999, Land Force Command has a recruiting target of 1,000 people, of which 25 per cent are to be women. In addition, the recruiting target for women —
I see the yellow light so I have to move. He says the CF has to establish additional targets. Then it says again that there are some more quotas like that.
That is not the problem, but here is the problem: Major-General Leech issued an order which signalled the reduction of physical standards in order to get into certain parts of the forces. Doctrines or practices that are incompatible with the unrestricted participation of designated groups will be changed. That is the problem.
So I ask you, should the Armed Forces be involved in these things? Should we have a reduction in physical standards to accommodate those who do not have the ability to conform? Is this good in a battlefield environment to have personnel in place who may not have met the standards that were originally set?
Senator Banks: Are you a soldier, by any chance?
Mr. Forté: I am not a soldier, no.
Senator Banks: The reason I ask the question is that soldiers do not often talk about ferocity. I know what you are getting at, though. Ferocity is a good thing when it comes, as you say, to peacemaking, and there is no doubt that peacekeepers have to be able to be peacemakers. Soldiers have to be able to fight, as we have heard from several witnesses here today. You need to have the top capacity, and then you can always do less, but if you have a lesser capacity you cannot do more. So, in the main I think it is fair to say that our committee agrees with you.
I am going to ask you a question that we are asked often, because we have been urging that more money needs to be spent. That is what it boils down to for the Canadian Forces, in order that they can do the jobs that we ask them to do. It raises the mug's game question. Shall we spend less money on health care or education, or all of the above, in order to spend more money on the military, or shall we raise taxes?
Mr. Forté: I am not really sure, but I will say this, that I love this country, and I love everything it stands for. I question our ability to defend it, not because the will of our soldiers is not there, but because the backing of those of us who support them is not always visible to them. You need to talk to them.
I do not know the tax structure. I do not know much about healthcare, but I do know that a country with values like ours needs to be protected, and we had better get on the stick and do it right. We have forces that can do it if we let them do it, if we train them to do it and we pay them well enough to do it.
Colonel James H. Turnbull, as an individual: Senator Kenny, senators, the Honorary Colonel of 3 Field Artillery Regiment, the Loyal Company, and the oldest artillery regiment in Canada, founded on May 4, 1793.
Before proceeding with my remarks, I would like to bring it to the attention of the committee that earlier today there was a gentleman who was very concerned about the lack of bands in Canada, and specifically mentioned the doing- away with of the RCR Band in Base Gagetown. I agree with him wholeheartedly that there should be a band there, but I just wanted to, for the record, mention that the 3rd Regiment has a terrific band, and certainly I know because it has cost me and the honorary lieutenant-colonel a few dollars to make sure.
I have soldiered since 1936; my pay in those days was sixty cents a day, and I had to buy my own boots. I was on duty with my regiment, which was attending summer training, on the coast defence guns in the Halifax area in August of 1939, and I was on McNabb's Island when World War II started. When the regiment returned to Saint John in late September I was immediately discharged because I was underage. After graduating from high school and a few months in the service, I spent some 33 months in the United Kingdom, Italy and Northwest Europe. When I returned to Canada, I re-joined my regiment in October of 1946. With but a few breaks in my service, I have over 60 years of service. I was for many years active in the Royal Canadian Artillery Association, and later the Conference of Defence Association, being the national chairman for two years. I do not intend that this be a litany of my time in the service, but rather to indicate my interest in military affairs.
My concern is with the general public's lack of interest and responsibility in refusing to face the fact that peace can only be safeguarded by foresight and strength. The performance of our fighting forces in two world wars contributed more to the development and international recognition of Canadian nationhood than to any other single factor. Yet, of all the traditions Canada has inherited in the military field none is more persistent than public neglect of, and indifference to, national defence until faced with an emergency.
Senator Atkins: Colonel, thank you for your comments. This committee has been facing the question you raised. The apathy is there. Someone said today, the military we have is the one that the public seems to want these days. I guess the point is that leadership is the issue, and unless the government leads the parade I do not think it is going to change. What is your comment?
Mr. Turnbull: I am inclined to believe you. I remember Barney Danson, a former defence minister, when as the minister he was asked the question, ``Do you believe in spending for defence or social issues?'' He said, ``Yes,'' and the person said, ``Yes, which?'' That is the problem today; it is sort of ``guns or butter.'' It is not quite that bad, but I think people have to realize that the armed forces are an insurance policy, and surely to heaven we can pay the premium.
The Chairman: Thank you, colonel. If you would leave your document there we would be happy to see it.
Mr. Greg Cook, as an individual: Mr. Chairman, senators, I am a Canadian child of the war dead. I thank you for this opportunity to speak to you on behalf of the Saint John People for Peace.
Saint John People for Peace is an activist movement of citizens that arose more than two years ago from a perceived need on behalf of peace-loving citizens who oppose the invasion of Iraq and any involvement whatsoever of Canada in that, or in any other contravention of international law.
People of Peace asks your committee: first, to call for adequate pay in housing for Canadian soldiers; second, to provide proper equipment for Canadian military to conduct its civil defence and peacekeeping duties; third, to provide appropriate peacekeeping training for our military forces. We also ask you, on behalf of the 2,000 or more who will have signed our petition to the House of Commons before this week is out, and the majority of Canadians, to recognize that human security does not depend on sophisticated and self-destructing technology. Rather, human security depends on issues of poverty, such as housing, education, health and a clean environment.
We seek Canada's withdrawal from any discussion of, or participation in, missile defence and the weaponization of space. We are convinced that the U.S. ballistic missile defence will inevitably lead to exactly that, and we wish Canada to have no complicity in the current politics of fear infecting Washington's foreign policy, which began with George W. Bush's first term, and his abrogation of the 1972 anti-ballistic missile defence treaty in 2001. Indeed, we see no benefits in Canada's being at the table on BMD. We have no reason to believe that Canada's position on defence will have any bearing whatsoever on trade policies, for example. These issues are determined and influenced by distinct bodies and groups within the U.S., and are unlikely to be easily linked. Furthermore, we see the projected expenditure of anywhere from $800 billion to $1.2 trillion as an obscene budget before the system is proved operational, which is projected to be in 2015. We have heard that it will cost nothing, but I am afraid that before the talks are done there will be an expenditure which will only rob us of our role in keeping peace at home and abroad. The honourable tradition of Canada is in saying ``no'' to nuclear weapons, thank you; ``no'' to the isolation of Cuba; ``no'' to war in Vietnam, and ``no'' to the invasion of Iraq. We must say ``no'' to adopting this disguise for putting weapons into space. In fact, we find it difficult to use the language of ``shield'' to describe a very large bullet.
Senator Cordy: Before I ask questions, I would like to take the opportunity to thank each and every one of you for coming out this evening. To see numbers like this coming out to present to us makes our job that much easier, because we can only make policy decisions when we listen to the people. It is a delight to be here. As a Nova Scotian it is a delight to be listening to the people of Atlantic Canada.
Thank you very much, Mr. Cook, and the Saint John People for Peace. This is certainly a very noble ideal, and it is one that you should continue to strive for. I know that you oppose the invasion of Iraq, and I for one am certainly delighted that the Prime Minister at the time made the decision that Canada would not be part of that.
You talked about housing and poverty and health as all being issues in countries such as Iraq that certainly one would say are issues that we have to deal with if we are looking for a peaceful world. I am just wondering how you feel about Canada's going into rebuilding countries such as Iraq? The Americans are talking about rebuilding, but there is certainly war still going on. How do you feel about Canada's being part of going into countries such as Iraq, but other countries as well, and taking part in re-building, providing housing for people, and those types of things?
Mr. Cook: My first reaction, senator, would be that Canada would be responsible diplomatically to look around the world and see where there are a great deal of problems to be addressed, besides cleaning up after somebody else's mess.
Mr. Dennis Driscoll, as an individual: Good evening, members of the Senate committee. I am the Provincial President of the Royal Canadian Legion. On behalf of the Royal Canadian Legion, we express our appreciation to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence for the opportunity to express our opinion regarding what kind of a military Canada should have.
The legion's position has been expressed to various government committees over the years, and our position has not changed. We need a military that has personnel capability and presence, a military that is property trained for the missions that our country sends them on, and a military that can sustain itself.
There are currently many problems in projecting our forces across the world. Take, for example, a recent deployment of the Canadian Forces Disaster Assistance Response Team, DART, to Asia to aid the victims of the tsunami disaster. The DART is the best and primary tool available to the Canadian Forces to deal with disasters of this magnitude, but is this what was really needed, or could the funds have been better spent by channelling them through non-governmental organizations?
At present, our military has difficulty in projecting itself across Canada, let alone projecting itself across the world, as we do not have the strategic lift capacity that is necessary to move personnel and equipment. Sooner or later we are going to completely fly the wings off our Hercules aircraft, and then we will not have any airlift capability whatsoever. We need more aircraft and more pilots to sustain operations of this nature.
Our navy does a great job, but soon it will not have any modern sea replenishment capability to support operations. Let us not get into the submarine issue, but that part of the naval service too is most important in protecting our sovereignty. There are also problems in sustaining personnel in the navy to keep our ships operational.
The army also has a variety of problems, and we are all quite aware of what those problems are: everything from canvas to clothing to manpower reductions in both active and reserve categories. It was said long ago that we must be able to fight alongside the best. Can we do that with our current capability? We would say no. The bottom line is that our military needs professional, substantial, and renewable resources to carry out the operations they are tasked to do. This includes equipment and personnel.
We need a clear mandate on how are armed forces are to be used. The question arises: Do we have to participate in every U.N. mission? It would be nice to have the capability to do so, but owing to the lack of resources we have not been able to do this in the recent past.
The Chairman: Mr. Driscoll, Senator Meighen, who has a great deal of experience with the legion in his role as Chair of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, has a question for you.
Senator Meighen: Mr. Driscoll, I think I will come back to the question that Senator Atkins was putting to Mr. Turnbull.
This committee has come out with seven or eight reports, most of which I think would have pleased you very much in terms of our calls for improvements in Canada's military forces. We see it as necessary to further Canada's national interests both at home and abroad. If we do not contribute to a stable world, as we see it, then we imperil the citizens of Canada, and the government of Canada has as its number one responsibility the protection of its citizens.
That being said, we seem, as Senator Atkins suggested to Mr. Turnbull, to have the military that we want. In your view, and you are involved with the legion and have tentacles into every community in this country, why is it that, with some notable exceptions, and Saint John is a city that is at the top of the list, why is it that people do not seem to care? They do not seem to appreciate the good that can come from having well-trained, well-equipped, highly mobile armed forces to make peace and to preserve peace. Why?
Mr. Driscoll: In one word, it is complacency. We have forgotten. The legion's primary roles in this country are, one, unity, and, two, remembrance, or whichever order you would like to put them in, honourable senators. Too many years have gone by. All of a sudden we experience a 9/11 in a foreign country. Eventually Canada is going to receive its own 9/11 in some form. It may be domestic, it may be from a foreign atrocity.
We ask the military to support the government and the people of Canada, but do those institutions in turn support our military? That answers part of your question. Yes, this committee may turn things round, and rightfully so in your comments, senator, you have supported the military in the past, and it is clear that it must be a viable presence, but it has a long way to go. All of a sudden you get these close shaves that happen, and we get involved in something that we are politically or morally, we feel, bound to get involved in, and we do not have the resources or the technical expertise to carry out the task. As a result, those people, who as you say are on top, may be aware, but the general everyday Canadian is complacent.
Mr. Pat Hanratty, as an individual: I would like to thank the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence for holding these town hall meetings and allowing me to speak tonight.
The Canadian military is well respected by the majority of Canadians and, indeed, by most of the world. I understand and support the notion that our military must be equipped with safe, up-to-date equipment. This also extends to decent housing, decent wages, and working conditions. Since the mid-1980s, the Canadian government has not given the military the support necessary to replace aging equipment and infrastructure. This has greatly hampered our forces in taking part in some missions and has been an embarrassment to our country, as we were not able to contribute to peacekeeping efforts in ways that Canadians would have liked to.
The question that your committee has posed, ``What kind of military should Canada have?'' is a very important one. I believe that the vast majority of Canadians look upon our country as a peaceful nation. We are not interested in gaining control of or domination over foreign territories. We are indeed blessed with all the resources we need to grow and prosper. If Canada continues to concentrate on peacekeeping missions, humanitarian aid, and protecting our sovereignty at home, we will not be seen as a threat by rogue nations or paramilitary groups in lands on the other side of the globe. It is vital to our security and sovereignty as a nation that we do not blindly support the United States on every military initiative that they choose to undertake. To do so could put us in great harm and peril, as we would be seen by outside aggressors as part and parcel of the American military machine. We would then be more apt to become part of the same targeting by these groups.
Canada has a non-aggressive role to play on the world scene with its military forces. This role involves being a protector of human rights, not just with our words, but also by our actions.
In closing, I strongly urge you to suggest that we do not participate in the U.S. missile defence program. It is an ill- conceived initiative, and supporting it will not do justice to our reputation as a peaceful nation.
Senator Nolin: Mr. Hanratty, I hear what you say about the U.S., but one of the matters we have to struggle with is the defence of our continent, and we share that continent with the Americans. How do you see that collaboration? How do you see that progressing positively for Canadians?
Mr. Hanratty: Well, with the recent security measures that have been taken, I get the sense that it is more of a unilateral move by the U.S., and, while Canada is consulted, it is sort of told, ``This is the way it is going to be done in the United States and, in order to make it uniform, Canada will do it the same way.'' I think we have to step up to the plate a little closer and say that maybe, for some of these measures, we are not prepared to go that far. It is not that we do not have a responsibility to protect the continent and the coastline, but some of the measures taken might not be necessary.
Senator Nolin: We need to be more affirmative?
Mr. Hanratty: Yes.
Mr. Judson Corey, as an individual: I represent a local organization, KIROS, Ecumenical Justice; we also collaborate with People for Peace, represented by Mr. Cook. I also represent a national organization, Veterans against Nuclear Arms.
I address the question, ``What vulnerabilities does Canada face, and what role should the military have in addressing them?'' One very crucial vulnerability Canada faces is the loss of our sovereignty. One of the strongest threats to our sovereignty is the Ballistic Missile Defence program, BMD, which the U.S.A. has designed as a defence shield over North America. The BMD directly violates a treaty that has been in place since 1972, which was designed to stop missiles from being developed in the first place. That treaty is the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, or the ABM treaty. It forbids a nationwide missile defence system. The ABM treaty is an essential part of nuclear arms control. It bans military missile flight tests.
Senator Douglas Roach said that the government of Canada is opposed to ballistic missile defence. In 1995 Canada opposed abrogating or weakening the ABM, saying it was ``absolutely essential for the maintenance of international nuclear security.'' In 1996 the government added, ``Canada remains firmly committed to the 1972 ABM treaty.'' The Canadian Peace Alliance has warned us that the ballistic missile defence will provoke nuclear proliferation.
The U.S. missile defence program responds to the danger of weapons by making more weapons. This will incite other countries to build up their arsenals.
Senator Roach also asserted that the government of China has warned that a new nuclear arms race will break out in Asia. Senator Roach has warned us further that the U.S. is extending its military capacity in order to be the militarily dominant nation of the 21st century.
Missile defence is designed to support the doctrine of preventive strike, a dangerous notion of violating sovereign nations. How can Canada's military help? It can do so by continuing its well-recognized role of peacekeeper. That is much preferable to being in any way associated with the aggressive policies of the U.S.A.
Senator Day: Mr. Corey, does your group Ecumenical Justice believe in having armed forces that can participate with our international allies in activities that are more than peacekeeping?
Mr. Corey: We believe in an armed force that in one way is similar to a police force; but it should not be used for invading sovereign nations as in Iraq or Iran, or any of those recent missions.
Senator Day: Well, in effect, then, you think our armed forces should be restricted to a role much like that of international policemen. Is that what your position is?
Mr. Corey: Well, that is not a full-fledged analogy, but the armed force certainly should not be aggressively involved in invading other nations.
Ms. Leticia Adair, as an individual: Good evening. I am with a local chapter of the Council of Canadians.
Mr. Chairman, senators, we appreciate the opportunity to have this hearing. Two weeks ago we actually held a similar citizens' inquiry on the theme of security and defence in the context of a Canada-U.S. relations; so it is quite interesting that we are here before you again. I appreciate, as I said, the opportunity for this.
We are very concerned that the present government seems to be siding with the kind of corporate community that is anxious to more closely integrate the Canadian and U.S. economies, and to have greater military and security cooperation. We are being asked, more and more, to join, under one command, our specialty interests; but we want resources to go to special programs like health and education.
We support the development in Canada of an alternative defence policy. We support the traditional peacekeeping role of the Canadian forces. For our military, in its actions in the world, we should support the traditional image of peacekeepers that other nations have of us, and of which we are justly very proud. This should not take away the need for the military of having ongoing cultural awareness and sensitivity training in dealing with people of other cultures, as well as with our own Aboriginal peoples.
Our defence and foreign policies need to be reviewed publicly, and this meeting is part of the process. More critical thinking and discussion needs to take place regarding our role in relation to the U.S., and what this means to our foreign and military policies.
During the hearings that we had a couple of weeks ago we heard from professor Jefferson of the University of New Brunswick in Saint John. She challenged us with this statement:
Do not miss this historic opportunity to sit back and think, ourselves, what kind of world order we would like to see, and against which we can judge our policy decisions — a new vision that Canadians themselves, as well as Americans and people around the world, are demanding.
We need a Canadian government interested in maintaining good relations with the rest of the world, and defending its sovereignty, or its economy and resources. We also oppose, as have the other speakers, having Canada join the U.S.A. in its ballistic missile defence initiative.
Senator Forrestall: Ms. Adair, I would need to think for a full day about what you have said before I could have a firm question in the back of my mind, but I am persuaded to suggest to you that it has been my limited experience in this world that peace does not happen. It must be pursued, sometimes with vigour, and sometimes we must cross lines to maintain peace that are otherwise very offensive to us and to people generally.
In your support of your goals, do you go so far as to deny that?
Ms. Adair: I could not deny that people have to be protected. My work also involves refugees, and I believe that those Canadians do support and protect people in peacekeeping roles. That is what we are supporting. If that is what you are asking me, if that is what our role should be, yes.
We also could sit back and propose an agenda for the world so that rights could be protected and the human necessities of clean water, education and health could be given to people; then that would prevent the difficulties and the encounters that people face that bring them to our borders or that create conflicts.
Lieutenant-Colonel E. Neil McKelvey, As an individual: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am the Honorary Lieutenant-Colonel of the 3rd Field Artillery Regiment, and I am making this presentation on behalf of my regiment, and the 31st Service Battalion, both of Saint John.
We have three points: First, a description of the nature of the militia, which we think is not fully understood; second, comments on the measures to encourage employers to give militia soldiers time off to train; third, the danger of overdoing the training for the militia for emergency preparedness.
The personnel of the militia are largely made up of students, who are available for call-out only during the summers, and soldiers, who are family and career-oriented and who are only readily available for courses of a short duration. We believe that the limitation on long-term call-outs of soldiers in the militia is not fully understood by the defence establishment.
On the second point, any proposal to encourage employers to permit soldiers time off to train should be based on the idea of using a carrot approach, not a stick approach. Incentives should be developed to encourage employers to give employees time off, or, for example, they could be given tax credits or something else, rather than having compulsory legislation. We understand that the legislative approach has been adopted in the United States, and it has not worked very well because employers are reluctant to employ members of the reserve forces, making it difficult for those members to find employment. That is not appropriate for Canada.
Our third point is that we agree with the initiatives to increase the capacity of the militia to expand in national emergencies, as described in Problem 4 of Chapter 8 of your recent guide book, but care should be taken not to overdo it. Emergency training should not be undertaken at the expense of training for general purpose combat capability. The militia must be combat-effective, to fulfill combat functions where necessary, and general purpose combat capability can and has been readily adapted to provide assistance in domestic emergencies.
Finally, we applaud the committee's recommendation to increase funding for the forces, which is obviously necessary. Like every other unit, our unit cannot do the job it is expected to do without the necessary funding and resources.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I have filed with the clerk of the committee a comprehensive paper by Lieutenant-Colonel Foote, Commanding Officer of the 3rd Field Artillery Regiment, elaborating on my points and giving recommendations to make the militia more effective, and I encourage you to read that.
Senator Banks: Mr. McKelvey, I think that it is safe to say that, in the main, most of the members of this committee of my acquaintance agree with practically everything you have said.
Mr. McKelvey: I am glad to hear that.
Senator Banks: It is easy to say, because you were agreeing with everything that we said. Would you please expand on the point that you brought up about the length of call-out, which you said was not fully understood by the military establishment? Tell us exactly what you mean by that at length.
Mr. McKelvey: Well, we have a feeling that the regular force, which can impose training conditions on everybody, because they control everybody, is unreasonable in trying to impose certain conditions on the militia, for instance, telling people they have to take a six-week course to get a promotion, or something like that. It cannot be done, except for students in the summer or people who are willing to jeopardize their civilian career by taking long-term call-outs.
Senator Banks: But if it takes six weeks to get a good gunner in shape, should we have a four-week course which produces a less capable gunner?
Mr. McKelvey: Well, you do it in several stages. You might have a two-week course, then another two, and two more, or whatever.
Mr. John Steeves, as an individual: For most of my adult life I was a journalist. I did not plan to speak, so I will try to keep it short.
So many people have spoken about equipment and manpower needs that I think that it is hard to disagree with any of this, but one thing that I thought that might be of interest is to remind people that, whether conservative or liberal governments are in power, it is likely that the Canadian military will be Canada's ambassadors in many parts of the world, particularly the troubled parts, even more than prime ministers or members of Parliament. Now, if we are to recognize that fact, I think it is incumbent on Canada to send a truly representative group of people. More than 40 years ago, the armed forces were primarily an English-only institution. It was around that time that les militaires royaux was set up to encourage the nature of the Canada of the time to represent all that is good in our society. Since then we have become a global society. In many of our cities we have primarily immigrant or very close to primarily immigrant populations. Many of these people have come from nations to escape the military, where in many areas the military are to be feared, which is not the way it is in Canada. I think that it would be incumbent on the military not to spend an awful lot of money, but to try to encourage more Sikhs, more Punjabis, more Blacks, more Jamaicans, and so on, to join them, to try to encourage them that the military is an honourable calling in this country. In that way we could perhaps even protect ourselves by representing a truly global Canada when we send our military, instead of what is primarily right now a White-only force.
Senator Atkins: I think your point is well taken, and think it applies not only to the military, but also to the police forces and other protective organizations. For some reason, and I think you made the point, people come to this country to get away from being in the military and doing those kinds of jobs. I guess the question is, in terms of recruiting, how do you think these organizations can make the kind of appeal that will result in larger recruitment?
Mr. Steeves: I suspect that in the 1950s or the early 1960s, whenever today's militaire royaux was set up, there were the same types of problems: How to recruit after the Second World War? How to recruit francophones into positions of trust in the military?
Senator Day and I both spent a year at les militaires royaux. It was starting to work and now we have people like Roméo D'Allaire who is so well known for his experiences in Rwanda. Without lowering standards or making things proactive, I think the profession has to be enhanced to include immigrants, whether first or second generation immigrants. I think you people know better than I how to go about doing it, but it should be looked at because it could be significant if we sent troops from a multicultural society into some place like Darfur — well, not Darfur, but into Serbia or into Ceylon. Right now I think a White-only force is not truly demonstrating the greatness of this country.
Mr. Roy Hobson, as an individual: I have been a resident of the Maritimes since I was two, which is a long time ago.
I want to start with the UN. Soon the UN will not make just humanitarian decisions internationally, because the majority of nations within the UN now are dictatorships that have very strong opposition to democracy and social equity. Therefore, the world needs international policemen. That is the way it is and it will be that way until Christ comes back, I am afraid.
That having been said, Canada needs a strong military, not only for our own borders, but to assist with international policing as well as international peacekeeping. That is the way it is. The world is a more violent place now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. With today's technology, it is more difficult to defend ourselves.
Transportation capability has been mentioned a number of times. Right now we cannot even move our military efficiently within our own borders. How can we be useful in defending our borders, or do anything useful internationally?
The state of our ships has been mentioned. Purchase orders are necessary for replacement ships for the existing destroyer escorts. Those ships are now well past their maximum lifespan, their refit lifespan; they are now beyond the end of their last refit, and are now living on borrowed time. Those orders have to be placed within one to two years, if we are going to have anything in the water when those ships hit the dirt, or hit the bottom.
Strikers appear to me to be a waste of time and money. There are well-publicized flaws, and the chassis is way too light for the gun that was put in them. Purchasing them is ridiculous. It is a misappropriation of funds by the federal cabinet, rather than allowing military professionals to make sound decisions on equipment acquisition. The best use of military funds would be to let the government, through Parliament, set the amount of budget available, define the rules for Canadian content, and then back out and let the military leaders, our experts, make the best decisions on acquiring the equipment, manpower, et cetera, needed to accomplish the tasks which we give them.
Senator Cordy: We also believe that the military should have substantial additional funding for equipment, and we have said that in many of our reports. I believe your very first comments were to the effect that the world needs international policemen. Certainly, when you talk to Canadians some will say that we need a strong military offensive- defensive to help not only in protecting Canada, but also for international work; others will say that we should only be involved in a peacekeeping role.
Somebody earlier tonight spoke about the image of the peacekeeper, and I am just wondering if you could give me your definition of a peacekeeper? When we talk about Canada as a peacekeeping nation sending peacekeepers to other nations, what indeed should the role of the peacekeeper be, and how well-trained should a peacekeeper be?
Mr. Hobson: In terms of training, I believe our peacekeepers need to be thoroughly battle-trained military personnel, the equivalent of our JTF or the RCMP's emergency response teams. They need to be extremely well-prepared for the worst that the international community may throw at them.
We look at Iraq, where a significant minority says there is to be no democracy in their country, and they are blowing up people to defend that position. Our military have to be able to answer that, if they are in a situation where that is the kind of enemy they are dealing with. But in terms of what we need to be able to go out and do, ideally I would love to see Canadian military do peacekeeping. Until the UN redefines its Charter and takes as its primary reason for being the social welfare of humanity, and not of governments, that is not going to happen. We are going to have to be part of an international police force alongside others. Unfortunately, the realistic fact is that over the past several years NATO forces, not those of the UN, have been the peacekeepers because, as Ralph Forté said, they have to be peacemakers first.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Hobson: Sadly that is it.
Mr. Bernie Ritchie, as an individual: I am the Commodore of the Saint John Power Boat Club.
First, I would just like to welcome your distinguished panel to Saint John. Too bad it was not better boating weather; we could have made arrangements to have you enjoy our harbour. You will have to come back.
I am here, not to ask for anything, but on behalf of the Power Boat Club to offer something. We have been located in Marble Cove, which is just above the Reversing Falls, for approximately 100 years. Our centennial is actually coming up very shortly. Over the years we have offered services to the fire department, police department, navy, the coast guard and so on, assisting them with various things — everything from the recovery of bodies to helping find drug shipments coming in through the harbour. We currently have the ability to lift 20-tonne vessels with a travel-all crane. We can lift far greater vessels than that with our rail car.
As yet, we have not been contacted by anybody as to what role we might play in the harbour. We do form a part of the harbour. Although we are located directly above Reversing Falls, we are a point of entry for customs purposes. Vessels travelling from the United States and other various points beyond our borders do arrive at our boat club, and it is from there that there are check-ins and whatever.
We are now getting concerned that with the type of harbour we have, and so on, possibly some of the local security issues have not been addressed, and I guess I am here tonight to say that we would like to offer the services of our facilities, and our boat club, to the Government of Canada. We would certainly like to do anything we could to enhance the local security around here or assist in any way. We would be happy to work with any of the groups, such as the coast guard, the navy, the police and so on. We currently have facilities for launching boats as well.
To this point we have not communicated this to anyone else, and we would also like to suggest that there are probably other coastal boat clubs throughout Canada that would be very happy to donate their services and equipment.
Senator Meighen: Thank you very much, Mr. Ritchie. Not often do we get an offer of help.
Mr. Ritchie: We are here to try to defray the costs.
Senator Meighen: Free of charge, too. I like your price.
Senator Meighen: I think you have touched on a very important point. The point has been made by so many people that we cannot afford to do everything, but we can multiply our effectiveness by employing different elements of society, if you will. The regular forces can only do so much, but if you add to them the reserves then you magnify their ability to do their job, and if you added to that offers such as yours, and of other such organizations, I think it would have a further magnifying effect.
Our deputy chair, Senator Forrestall, has always been pointing out the importance of the Halifax Rifles with respect to patrolling the coast. In all seriousness, there is undoubtedly a large — no, I should not say large, but there is drug- smuggling activity taking place on our coasts, and obviously they are not generally going to land at Market Slip and announce their presence. They are more likely to come in to Dipper Harbour, or wherever. I think that for a relatively small expenditure of money we could indeed harness organizations such as yours.
Sir, you say you put this offer to authorities; to whom have you put it?
Mr. Ritchie: No, I have not. I am sorry if I misled you.
Senator Meighen: I misunderstood you, then. We will carry forward your offer.
My next question is: Why have others not thought of this before?
Mr. Ritchie: Actually, it was partly because I ran into Senator Joe Day today and discussed it a little bit with him that I made the offer.
Senator Meighen: Joe knows how to get things for free.
Mr. Ritchie: Yes. Well, in the past I have worked with Joe in other areas, and I am very aware of the work he is doing with the port authority and so on. As a representative of New Brunswick he is deeply respected and we stand behind him 100 per cent. We would offer anything that we could to help him out.
The Chairman: Sir, if you would, perhaps you could write to Joe and outline the proposal, and then we would have a document which would help us to move things forward.
Mr. Ritchie: Sure.
The Chairman: That would be very kind. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Ritchie: Thank you.
Ms. Gloria Paul, as an individual: Mr. Chairman, senators, thank you very much indeed for coming to our glorious province. I was a child under the London Blitz, in 1940. I am well aware of what bombs are. I am well aware of what enemies are. They are the two words that I hate most in the entire world. I think we really need to look at what we mean by an enemy, though, today. Recently, I was reading that 60,000 children in Dresden were killed under our bombs. We know how many were killed in the Second World War. In a Compass 2002 poll taken on Canadian taxes and spending, exactly why we are here today, only 7 per cent of the population felt that, ``in a violent world after September 11, 2001, the priority should go to defence and security against terrorism.'' Only 7 per cent. With Canada already in the top 10 per cent of military spenders worldwide, and a world that spends around $1 trillion a year on armed forces, insecurity is hardly due to lack of military capacity. I would like to see our military used for peacekeeping, which is now at only 5.8 per cent, I understand, rather than peacemaking, for both global and local reasons.
I have grave concerns that CFB-CTC Gagetown, which is directly between Saint John and Fredericton and is approximately 30 by 45 kilometres, not the largest in size — I believe that is Alberta — but the largest in combat exercises, might escalate in the future with its U.S. weapons testing, especially with the United States' preoccupation with mini-nuclear underground testing.
Forty per cent of New Brunswickers are on well water. Their effluence goes into the nearby Saint John River, eventually into the Bay of Fundy. The location of CFB Gagetown for its combat purposes — live bombs and Agent Orange tested there in the 1960s by the U.S., and multiple live bombs, class 2 and otherwise — seems inappropriately placed now in this 21st century, 50 years after its inception, between two major cities and the Saint John River.
We are now seeing an increase in brain cancer, leukemia, lymphoma, birth defects and general mysterious illnesses in this region. The annual spraying of thousands of litres of herbicides to destroy lush foliage each year, in order to see where to firebomb, et cetera, takes its toll. Tonnes of silt have run into formerly rich salmon rivers. Water tested from our wells does not include tests from bombing and chemical agents from live combat exercises. Herbal spray is always changing its ingredients making it impossible to assess. Burnings on the base almost devastated the Village of Gagetown in 1986, too close to civilian homes for massive U.S. exercises, Bagotville, et cetera.
And what of globalization? Does this mean anyone can use our land to test their chemical and nuclear fire-power here in New Brunswick?
Senator Douglas Roche has pointed out —
The Chairman: I am sorry, Ms. Paul, but your time is up. Perhaps you will have a chance to make your point when you are asked a question. Senator Nolin has a question for you.
Senator Nolin: Please give us your last sentence and I will follow up with a question.
Ms. Paul: Senator Doug Roche has pointed out that the U.S. spends $100 million a day to maintain a nuclear arsenal, to dominate a world that cries out for food, water, health and education. That is not the Canadian way.
Senator Nolin: I think that is important. You will agree with me that the environmental assessment process was not in place when all of the things that you have just mentioned occurred. I think it would be proper to say that things have changed since many of those events took place. That being said, do you see a defence role for Canada, internationally?
Ms. Paul: That is a question that cannot be answered in our three-minute span.
I do think that the arms trade needs to be looked into. If we are spending a million dollars on a fighter jet, and the U.S. is spending a billion dollars on some of its bomber planes, then we have to have a use for that. We have to create an enemy that makes it worthwhile to use the arms trade on. It is a whole industry, the defence industry, that is making massive amounts of money. I think that is what we need to look at first. Do we need all of these fighter jets? What is an enemy to Canada? Canada is loved throughout the world, currently, but if we go and bomb them, I am not sure how much longer Canada will be loved. Is the arms industry worth that?
Mr. William John Steeve-Smith, as an individual: At the outset, let me say that it is great to be in a public debate that does not involve the notwithstanding clause.
I studied philosophy under Senator Kinsella, and I worked for Brenda Robertson when she was Minister of Youth and Welfare in New Brunswick. My father served in the navy. My brother served as a peacekeeper in Cypress. He came back a mental and physical wreck. It was his life or someone else's.
I support the missile defence plan. I think it is fine that Canada supported something for a change. As I look around the room, I think that we would be hard-pressed to find five people under 25, and that bothers me greatly. When I was in high school, and to this day I always regret it, Canada did not offer to me and other people like me an opportunity in Grade 9 to continue my studies and be a part of the Canadian military. That is the first proposal that I present to you today. It is time that Canadian young people have that option to continue their studies from Grade 9 on through university, while being part of the military, and then, if they wish, they should have the option to continue their careers in the military. That is long overdue in this country.
Secondly, we could get rid of the Young Offender's Act in the country. When young people come up before a judge, regardless of the crime, their sentence could entail service in a special section of the military, in branches set up in, say, three portions of our country. These young people could be supervised by some of the toughest sergeants in our military. You have seen the movie The Dirty Dozen, starring Lee Marven, Telly Savalas, a few other great movie stars. Rather than having drug addicts and alcoholics and murderers and other criminals lying on their backs in jail for 12 hours, we could create a special base in the far north, and these people be sent there and trained the way that we trained our men and women in World War I and World War II.
We could save a lot of money in maintaining prisons, if we did that. We could save a lot of money in trying to rehabilitate young people on drugs and alcohol, by giving them discipline, by giving them training, by giving them an education, rather than just housing them, letting them watch TV and play video games, and so on and so forth. I doubt that that is ever going to come about, though, and that discourages me. I am discouraged that I did not have a chance to serve my country in the military. I wanted to.
Senator Day: Is it Mr. Smith?
Mr. Steeve-Smith: Steeve-Smith. My mother was a Steeve, my father is a Smith — Steeve-Smith.
Senator Day: Mr. Steeve-Smith, thank you for your comments. We had a discussion earlier today on the regrets that a number of us have that the Officer Training Program at the university level had been cut out. We had quite a discussion about that, and you are probably aware of that, but that is at the university level, and I am curious why you chose Grade 9. I am wondering if that is appropriate today, because most students have the opportunity to continue a paid education until graduation from high school, within Canada, I would say.
Mr. Steeve-Smith: Let me take you to Toronto, just before Christmas. A young man by the name of Andy Stewart was in a restaurant in east-end Toronto. He was with two young ladies. They were accosted by a group of 12 teens. They were after the girl. Mr. Stewart defended the girl. The argument went out on the street. Andy Stewart was knifed to death. That was the week before Christmas, in Toronto. From Friday to Monday, six young people were killed, murdered in Toronto. The Young Offender's Act comes into play. In Montreal, at Christmastime, an elderly lady on a walker, in front of her apartment building, was mugged by a group of at least four young offenders, as they are called. She barely came out of it with her life. Are we talking about grade 9? Some of these kids are not even out of Grade 6.
The Chairman: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Steeve-Smith: Where is the discipline going to come from, if the parents are not there to give it?
Mr. Mike Collins, as an individual: Good evening, senators. I am a soon-to-be naval officer. I wanted to just come before you today to speak to an aspect of the element I am going into, with, as another gentleman has pointed out, regard to the situation with our destroyers.
Currently, as they are falling into pieces at the moment, they are at the end of their lifespan. You have probably spoken with Ken Summers in the past, and you must have heard the story about the role our navy played in the 1990s during the Gulf War as a command and control navy. We were given command of the entire naval forces in the Gulf, and it was a proud role for Canada at the time. It was something that brought our country a lot of honour, and it gave a purpose to our military. That purpose could really be seen again in the future, if we worked towards developing vessels that are capable of handling command and control roles with NATO forces in training situations, as well as in situations such as when we deploy overseas, as we are right now, in the Persian Gulf.
A second issue I wanted to quickly point out is the issue of coastal defence. My father works for the coast guard so I hear a lot about it all the time and what the situation is. From what I can gather, just from talking to other people around the Maritimes and along the East Coast, our coastal shores are quite penetrable at this time. There is a lack of coordination among various organizations, and a lack of capability. I think we need to look at the option of giving the coast guard a role in actually guarding the coast, providing them with new low-draft vessels with weapons capabilities. They could actually patrol the coast and interface with the MCDVs that we have. MCDVs are manned primarily by the reserve forces, so they are not always capable of going out to sea. They are not as quick as some of the vessels that are on the market today for patrolling our coast.
With such a large and undefended coastline, and with our sovereignty at stake here, national defence becomes a serious issue, and it may not be long until have a 9/11 situation. We need to look at tightening our 200-mile economic zone and making it somewhat more impenetrable by doing random searches of vessels coming in. But we cannot have that capability unless we actually provide a full-time, armed, patrolling service for our coastline, one capable of actually going after anyone identified by on-shore radar operators or other individuals monitoring our coasts via radar. They need to be able to actually go after the boats that they see coming and going, rather than calling up the navy in Halifax to send out an MCDV to the Bay of Fundy to try to stop somebody, or trying to see if there is an RCMP boat anywhere in the area.
Those are the two issues that I think are important to raise today, the issues of our future role and of our coastal defence.
Senator Forrestall: Well, you could not come much closer to my heart. In Nova Scotia the Halifax Rifles were shut down because there was nothing for them to do. I would not want to talk about how old regiments are or anything like that. Some people are touchy about that. Certainly, there are, in each of the provinces of this country major water systems that would warrant such activity: the Great Lakes, the great rivers of the North, the Pacific Coast, the Arctic and the Atlantic.
Surely, something useful could be done — and I would appreciate your comment — in making significant changes in the appreciation of the Canadian Coast Guard, by taking away from it the role of a channel marking and buoy laying, and the other very useful and necessary ice-breaking chores that must be done, but which could be done by the Department of Transport, as it had been since way before my grandfather's time.
Would you see anything immediate standing in the way of a good, close look at combining a restructuring of the Canadian Coast Guard with the development of a series of cutters, which would be shallow draft, with modestly ice- reinforced hulls, of good size, capable of standing along the shore, but off the shore for extended periods of time, but not out into blue water. They could be manned with sea-going crews, but with members of reserve units in this country working on a revolving basis. Do you see any merit in that?
Mr. Collins: Yes, definitely. Actually, I think our cutter system, as it stands right now, covers virtually all of our waterways quite well. It covers our 200-mile economic zone. They have the capabilities to monitor and patrol the entire area; so I do not think it would be a far leap to kind of hump-back onto the cutter operation, by using their outports and their bases where they are located, to add to them the necessary, as you said, high-speed, low-draft vessels that could come out of those ports as well, and cover the exact same areas.
We know the areas already that need to be covered for security purposes, and we have the ports in place and the facilities in place; all we need is to add the different boat that can handle the different style of defence, and to change the role and the mandate of the coast guard to one that actually guards the coast.
Mr. Phil Blaney, As an individual: I am associated with KIROS and the Council of Canadians. I am just speaking for myself.
I believe we should put more money into our military. It should be supported to defend the constitution, the citizens of Canada, our territorial integrity and to help out where we are asked by the UN, or internationally, to meet international agreements and commitments we have already made. I do not think we should build up our military to support or prop up the fears that America has, or support its missile defence shield, which is folly. You do not have to take my word on it. There are 15 Nobel Prize winners who are against it. A professor from MIT, who was also a former senior scientific advisor to the U.S. Chief of Naval Staff, says it will not work. You can fool it; the problems of making it work are unsolvable. It cannot tell the difference between a warhead and a decoy. If any adversaries of the United States can launch an intercontinental missile, they can deploy a decoy which is just like a balloon in space. The uniform military in the States are against it, because they know it does not work. You do not deploy weapons that do not work. They are frightened that the expense will eat into the rest of the military budget. The driving force behind it is political and ideological.
Canada, on territorial integrity should be worried about protecting its Arctic waters. There have been submarines up there and several have been spotted by local residents. In Canada, I believe, we look at the world and see our future, whereas in America, they look at it and they see their demise. The whole thing is folly. I say we should protect our country and our citizens and help out when we are asked to by the rest of the world.
Here is a quote from Richard Pearle. ``History shows that once a weapon is developed, it is only a matter of time before it is used.'' So they say it will not be used for weapons from space, but eventually it will be used for weapons from space. He also says, ``If anyone is to dominate space from a military point of view, it should be the U.S. of A.'' He certainly cannot think of anyone he would rather have in the predominant position.
Senator Banks: Well, I am not a big fan of Richard Pearle, either. This committee has not yet taken a position on BMD, so I will ask you a rhetorical, or at least a devil's advocate, question.
Everybody knew airplanes would not work. I mean you cannot fly in a machine that is heavier than air. Everybody knows that. Everybody knew you would never have a cell phone. That was only in the Dick Tracey cartoons, or in somebody's imagination. Everybody knew the world was flat. Everybody knew you could not have a computer that would fit in your pocket. And everybody knows that ballistic missile defence will not work. There are some very smart people trying to make sure that it does work.
With respect to Canada's involvement in it, which is the question that we will be asking, we will not decide that, but we will take a position on it, perhaps. Right now the air defence and space defence of North America is handled by NORAD, which has been a pretty successful partnership, 50-50, between Canada and the United States for a long time. Canadian officers were in charge at NORAD on 9/11, and they were the people who were calling the shots on that day. The simple fact seems to be that BMD is going to go ahead; there is no doubt about that. If Canada says it does not want to do that, that does not mean the Americans are going to stop. So it is going to be controlled either by a thing called Northcom, in which we will have nothing to say, or by NORAD, in which we would at least have a say. The things are going to fall down on us anyway. Do you think we should just say we do not want to have anything to do with it?
Mr. Blaney: We will not have a say at all. The only responsibility of the President of the United States is to the citizens of the United States. If his choice is between the two people in Arizona or the people of Canada, Canada is going to get nuked. He is not going to let an American city, town or village be bombed to save Canada. If I have to choose between Mr. Poastal from MIT or George Bush, who believes that it will work, I prefer to choose Mr. Poastal. I would choose him rather than Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld, or President Bush.
It is folly. There is no point in tying ourselves to them; it will not work. All you have to do is put a balloon in space, and it cannot tell the difference between the balloon and the incoming missile. I mean maybe they can 200 years or 500 years from now, but right now it is a waste of money and we should be worried about our territorial integrity. The Americans are interested, if the north frees up, if North Saskatchewan frees up, economically, if, militarily, we do not protect it, somebody will take it and that is what you should be worrying about instead of wasting money on weapons like Star Wars, which will not work.
Captain Al Soppitt, as an individual: I am President and CEO of the Saint John Port Authority.
Mr. Chairman and panel, thank you for the opportunity to address you this evening. I was coming to talk about, and I thought it would be useful for you to know, the status of port security at the Port of Saint John. I realize that is a little bit off topic for this evening's discussions. However, I will give a brief overview of that but relate it to some of the military.
The port of Saint John is New Brunswick's largest port. In fact, with 26 million tonnes through a year, we are probably number three in Canada in total tonnage. Primarily though, that 26 million tonnes is made up of petroleum products, but other key products that we handle are potash, forest products containers, and some other miscellaneous cargos. So we do provide an essential service to New Brunswick industry.
With respect to port security, I can say that the Port of Saint John and its operators are compliant with the marine transportation security regulations and with the ISPS code. The Port Authority's responsibility and that of its operators is to provide access control of the port, the perimeter security of the port facilities, and to provide a security interface between the shore, the facility and the visiting ship.
The three key lead federal departments that deal with security are Transport Canada with whom we have a close relationship, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and the Department of National Defence.
Transport Canada is responsible for the security of the marine transportation system. Emergency preparedness has responsibility for enforcement and policing. I think there is a role for the Department of National Defence. To talk about the relationship between us and them, their role and I think that of the coast guard, as has been mentioned tonight earlier, is the defence or the protection of Canada's waters. They provide, I think, a valuable service in monitoring vessels transiting into Canada, and in providing surveillance duties there. So I think it is really important in providing security as critical to trade today, and we need to be able to be sure that we have a secure environment within which we are able to trade. So I think it is essential for us all to have an integrated approach to maximize use of available resources.
Some people have mentioned things tonight like coastal defence, and even utilizing the yacht clubs or boat clubs. I think the government will have to look at those types of things to maximize everything we can from the resources available.
Senator Atkins: Do you have any communication with Customs and Immigration?
Mr. Soppitt: Absolutely. We have a very good relationship with CBSA. They have what is called a partners-in- protection agreement, which we are party to. We have a very close liaison with them, obviously. Their role is the cargo control, screening of cargo and people, and we do work very closely with them. In particular there are two key areas in this port: containers and crews. We are not a big container port; we are just a small container port. We work very closely with them in those two sectors.
Mr. Patrick Donovan, as an individual: I wanted to thank this committee for its efforts on coastal security. I think it is a very important issue and I am grateful that you people are working so hard to try to make that come to pass.
I wanted to make two suggestions very quickly to this committee. The first is that I am a little bit concerned that the government of Canada has not, at least to this point, put a moratorium on disposing of marine assets that could become necessary when you start dealing with coastal defence. For example, the coast guard base in Saint John and the one in Charlottetown, P.E.I. are scheduled for closure. They may very well be needed in perhaps two or three more years for ships to come in. I really think it is important that a moratorium be placed on any of these closures.
The lighthouses on the West Coast right now are being de-staffed. The U.S. Coast Guard often uses these types of stations for small outposts and small stations, but if we close them up and tear them down they will not be available to us when we may need them in a few years. So I think it would be important for the government to hold off on any divestitures and make sure the money is there to maintain them until we find out whether or not we need them, and we may very well in a few years.
The second point that I wanted to make, something that Senator Day is aware of, is that we have a unique situation here in Saint John. The local naval reserve unit, HMCS Brunswicker, is also home to a Coast Guard Search and Rescue Station. These two groups work together very closely, and there is a wonderful relationship between them. It is beneficial to both parties and it would be very good to consider having this take place at other locations as well. I think it is really something to look at. It works out very well and there is a lot of mutual respect and a lot of help for one another.
Senator Cordy: It is hard to question two good suggestions like that. I actually raised the issue of disposing of marine assets with the Auditor General when she appeared before our committee, because I am from Dartmouth and we have lands at Shearwater and it is the same type of situation as you describe here. You cannot get the lands back in 20 years time if there are condos built on them. I agree with what you are saying.
I guess with the naval reserve and search and rescue it is good to see the way that this has come together. How, in fact, did you get it to work so well?
Mr. Donovan: I did not do it, senator.
Senator Cordy: Is it the personalities involved?
Mr. Donovan: It has worked very well. It is the working in close quarters. You know one helps the other, and it seems to work out very well. Sometimes the navy is out on exercises for harbour security so they ask the coast guard cutter to come along and to assist them as a command and control vessel or whatever. There have also been times when there has been some concern about a major incident in the harbour, where we know that the navy would be willing to help the coast guard as necessary. It is a very good close-working relationship. As a matter of fact, one of the coast guard commanding officers, on his own time, teaches navigation to the officer and cadets in the navy. So, it works out very well.
Senator Cordy: Maybe we should have them write a paper on it.
Mr. Donovan: I have a few more comments. Can I submit them in writing to the clerk after?
The Chairman: Yes, of course.
Senator Cordy: Your last words were good words.
Mr. Donovan: Thank you.
The Chairman: Before we close, we passed out questionnaires to people. Some of you who did not have an opportunity to speak, or chose not to speak, may leave your questionnaire with us. We would also welcome any submissions people have in writing afterwards.
I would like to start by thanking Bernard Cormier, who has been our moderator tonight. Thank you so much for assisting us.
On behalf of the committee I would like to thank all of you who have been so good to share your time with us this evening. Meetings like this are absolutely invaluable. This is a way for us to stay in touch with the people of New Brunswick, and with the people of Saint John, and we really cannot expect to have a good defence policy until we hear from people like you. You have rewarded us tonight in spades. You have come and given us a very good cross-section of views, and it has been a very positive discussion. We thank you very much and we are very grateful to you for coming out this evening.
The committee adjourned.