Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 16 - Evidence, March 7, 2005 - Evening meeting
EDMONTON, Monday, March 7, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 6:30 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: Good evening, and welcome to the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence.
Before we commence the meeting I would like to state, on behalf of the Committee, that we extend our thoughts and condolences to the families and victims of the recent tragic murders and to the larger RCMP community. Our thoughts are with them in this difficult time.
If I may, I would introduce the members of the Committee to you. On my immediate right is the distinguished senator from Nova Scotia, Michael Forrestall. He has served the constituents of Dartmouth for 37 years, first as their 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, and he is a member of our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.
Beside him is Senator Norman Atkins from Ontario. He came to the Senate with 27 years of experience in the field of communications. He has served as a senior advisor to former federal Conservative leader 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.
Beside him is Senator Michael Meighen. Senator Meighen is a lawyer and a member of the bars of Quebec and Ontario. He is Chancellor of the University of King's College and past chair of the Stratford Festival. He has honorary doctorates in civil law from Mount Allison University and the University of New Brunswick, and currently he is chair of our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs and he is also a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
We are expecting Senator Tommy Banks shortly. He chairs the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, which is currently holding hearings in Calgary, so he is coming up to join us for the town hall meeting tonight but has not made it in from the airport as yet.
On my left 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. She is chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association and a member of the Senate's Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
At the end of the table is Senator Jim Munson from Ontario. He was a trusted journalist and former director of communications for Prime Minister Chrétien before he was called to the Senate in 2003. Senator Munson has twice been nominated for Gemini Awards in recognition of excellence in journalism.
Ours is the first Senate committee mandated to examine security and defence. The Senate asked us to examine the need for a national security policy. We began our review in the year 2002 with three reports: Canadian Security and Military Preparedness, in February; Defence of North America: A Canadian Responsibility, in September; and Update on Canada's Military Financial Crisis: A View from the Bottom Up, in November.
In 2003 the Committee published two 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 more reports: National Emergencies: Canada's Fragile Front Lines, in March, and, most recently, the Canadian Security Guidebook, 2005 edition.
This committee is reviewing Canadian 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 to forge a consensus on the need and type of military Canadians want.
Our moderator this evening is Mr. Ron Wilson. He is the host of Edmonton AM, a daily news and current affairs program heard Monday through Friday on CBC Radio across central and northern Alberta. Included in the listening audience are two significant military bases, the Edmonton Garrison and CFB Cold Lake. Mr. Wilson has been a journalist for 25 years with CBC Radio, CBC Newsworld and CBC Television, Ottawa.
Sir, at this point we will turn the floor over to you, and if you could explain the ground rules, we would be most grateful.
Mr. Ron Wilson, Moderator: Thank you, senator, and to all of the members of the committee, welcome to Edmonton.
This evening's meeting will follow these ground rules: There are two microphones set up at the front of the room, as you can see in front of you. You will be asked to make a presentation, not to ask questions. Your presentation will not exceed three minutes. A clock will remind you of the time. When the red light goes on, your time is up.
One member of the committee may then ask a question of you to clarify your comments. You will have up to a minute and a half to respond to that Senator.
Speakers are required to identify themselves for the record so that the committee can create an accurate record of the evening and 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, and if you have not got a card, there are more available at the registration desk just outside the door.
The meeting is being interpreted in both official languages. Receivers are available at the registration desk.
The Chairman: The floor is now open.
Mr. Adil Pirbhai, as an individual: Senators, after 9/11 the Government of Canada introduced the anti-terrorism bill. In my opinion, as a member of a visible minority, I know it could be very tough for a Caucasian person to understand this. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the RCMP have targeted members of visible minorities every day, including in Edmonton. A friend of mine works for the Alberta government. At 1:30 in the afternoon CSIS showed up to talk to one of the girls in his office. They had picked her name from the Arabic telephone directory. They wanted to question her: where does she come from? Whom does she phone? With whom does she go out? They are spying in every Edmonton mosque.
I live in Edmonton. I go to Calgary. I go to Montreal, and I hear this non-stop. Every July since 9/11 I have gone to Calgary. I have gone to Montreal and Edmonton. People are afraid.
The 9/11 bill that was introduced, Bill C-36, specifically targets mostly the visible minorities.
Look what happened to Mahar Arar. Where does his voice begin? Story after story after story comes out in the inquiry that is being held in Ottawa. When the government released all the information about him, 95 per cent of it was blacked out. If the government, including any member of the Senate, has nothing to hide, if you believe that Mahar Arar is guilty, do not black out information. Just release it. Let the people of this country decide.
My second comment is this: just the other day the chief of my friend's staff said that Canada is facing a serious threat, the worst since the cold world war. Release the information. What is the threat this country is facing? Let Canadians decide.
Who are we taking our orders from, that we should have more military? Are we taking any orders from President Bush —
Mr. Wilson: Your time is up. Thank you.
Senator Munson: Senator Mobina Jaffer from Alberta has echoed many of your —
Mr. Pirbhai: No, she is from B.C.
Senator Munson: B.C., sorry. She has echoed many of your sentiments. What would you like to see done to Bill C- 36?
Mr. Pirbhai: Bill C-36 should be withdrawn. My associates are saying that there are approximately 800 Muslim people in Ottawa jails, in Ontario jails. You saw what happened to Adil — I do not know what his last name is. He was just released.
The government still believes they should have national security, just like those things used to happen in 1945 in the era of Germany's Adolf Hitler.
This government, I am very ashamed to say, is taking orders from the White House. It is pretty scary.
Mr. Dave Hubert, as an individual: I am with the Canadian Peace Foundation.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, thank you for this opportunity to make a presentation. I would like to make several brief points.
When talking about defence, we must evaluate potential threats to our future security. Who are our enemies? If we cannot identify who they might be, why are we spending huge amounts of money on submarines and CF-18s? It costs $37,000 an hour to operate a CF-18. Two hours of operating one of those airplanes would hire a police officer, a teacher, or a nurse for a year, or build a home for a family.
Looking at the geopolitical realities of Canada, we have a resource that is of growing interest to our continental neighbour, and that is water.
The present administration in Washington has amply demonstrated that it will not be constrained by the rule of law. Its action with regard to softwood lumber, the unilateral abrogation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and its invasion of Iraq have all been illegal. Its refusal to participate in the International Criminal Court likewise indicates a disregard for the rule of law, as does its treatment of the prisoners at Abugrabe and Guantanamo Bay.
If this attitude takes root in the American psyche, and if there is a continuing water crisis in the American southwest, eventually the Americans will come for our water. Even if we devote our entire gross national product to defence, we will not be able to withstand the might of the American military by military means. To preserve our freedoms and our sovereignty and to protect our democratic way of life, we will have to find some other way to defend ourselves against potential, and I stress ``potential,'' American hegemony.
The Canadian Peace Foundation has drawn up a plan of how Canada could be defended non-violently in a manner that is entirely consistent with the rule of law. That plan is contained in Canada @ Peace: Coactive Security. This book outlines how Canada could be defended by the same dynamics that were demonstrated everywhere from the actions of People Power in the Philippines to the people in Eastern Europe who brought down the Iron Curtain to the victory of the Orange Revolution in Kiev just recently. We will leave you a copy of the book and would be pleased to discuss it with you at greater length at your convenience.
Senator Cordy: You talked about potential threats and identifying our enemies, and you have left the book for us, which I will read, about how once we have found our enemies we can defend ourselves against them. Can you quickly give us some ways in which we can defend ourselves in a non-violent way if we have a bin Laden, for example?
Mr. Hubert: We have in Canada a huge resource of 800,000 Muslim people, and if we would recruit those people to be our allies, we would have a very great defence against the kind of terrorism you are talking about.
However, we are looking at defence, as my friend indicated, through secrecy and through clandestine ways, and that does not work. We have got to become a more open and democratic society.
Mr. Martin Katz, as an individual: Senators, I am a resident of St. Albert, Alberta and am retired.
I would like to see the Government of Canada spend more on peacekeeping and peacemaking in accordance with the ideals of the former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson and his conception of the UN's role for Canada to reinforce the positive image of Canada not only at home but abroad.
Senator Forrestall: Thank you very much, not for your brevity but for the clarity of your point.
Do you approve of the use of reserve forces in peacekeeping measures; if so, would you urge this committee to recommend to government that it take such a step?
Mr. Katz: Well, I have not really given much consideration to that, sir, but if I may speak off the top of my hat, I would like to see reserve forces used but only if absolutely necessary. I think that the Canadian Armed Forces should be a strictly voluntary active duty force, but in times of emergency, I think the reserves should be used. Yes, sir.
Mr. John Stables, as an individual: I am a member of the Canadian navy at one time and of the army for a heck of a long time.
Our forces go to countries that may or may not want them for various reasons, taking sides in a quarrel between different factions in the same country or different religious persuasions. Has anyone here ever gotten between a man and woman fighting? You know who they beat up? You. That is what happens to our poor peacekeepers, as they are called. There is no wonder they get shot in the back.
We could be invaded from inside as well as from outside our boundaries. Our forces must be able to resist any unwelcome force that would upset our country and our way of life.
I am at loss by the way the Prime Minister gave a flat refusal to President Bush regarding the missile affair. That shows a poor attitude. He should at least have obtained more information from Mr. Bush, and he should try to think in a more positive way. You get more by being positive than you do negative. I hope you go back and tell him that.
It is great to see some of our military here this evening, and I would like to recognize and commend the peacekeepers for a dangerous and sometimes thankless job between two adversaries. Thank you. The peacekeepers are caught between a rock and a hard place. You know what that would be like.
Senator Atkins: I see you are proudly wearing your Legion blazer tonight.
Mr. Stables: Well, thank you.
Senator Atkins: I should remind people in this room that this is the year of the veteran. We owe a great deal to our veterans, and I appreciate your taking the time to be here this evening.
Mr. Simon Beaumont, as an individual: I am from Sherwood Park.
When it comes to military defence we can always state the obvious, but my concern is how we as a country protect our citizens and residents — and visitors, for that matter — against attack at any time.
For any country in the world to think that it can manage okay on its own without support is not a good idea. Take a look at World War II; countries formed allies, and that was a vital ingredient to securing lasting, positive results and relationships.
We all know that the United States is a world superpower, and we may as well admit it whether we like it or not. In their search they are a powerful force for good, peacekeeping, and control against attack. President Bush and previous world leaders before him have shown a courageous stand against evil and terrorism which has resulted in the world being a safer place to move and exist in.
In other words, countries, just like people and families, need each other. Canada needs the U.S. for so many reasons that to snub them and suggest that we can do our own thing is absolute folly. We need their support, their help, their trade, their intelligence.
The U.S. has several air bases in Britain and they are completely run by the U.S. The British and the Americans work together in full support of each other to be always ready for attack when needed. That adds strength to the British armed forces and gives a backup support that is linked to a powerful force that could not be matched elsewhere, and all at no cost to Britain.
To suggest that we in Canada can manage without the U.S. or to not allow the U.S. to have missile bases here is absolute folly. Allowing it and fully supporting it would not only give Canada the force of the military power behind them but would also automatically increase our military defence and possibly at no cost to Canada.
Our two countries need each other, just as normal neighbours need each other. You would normally help your neighbour, especially in an hour of need. When will that be? We should be very thankful to have the U.S. as a neighbour. I am very disappointed with the stance that this country is taking with an apparent refusal to allow assistance to the U.S.
With regards to anti-missile defence, it also concerns me that we have a defence minister heading a vital government department who has no moral authority or right to force his own opinion and totally ignore the conscience of the people just to secure his own ends. This job is of high demand, integrity, and responsibility and needs to be in the hands of a right moral thinking Christian who fears God, to whom we are all accountable anyway, and respects the needs of his people and his country.
Matters of this nature involving the public —
Mr. Wilson: Time, please, sir.
Senator Meighen: You started off by emphasizing the advantages of multilateralism, as I understood you, and then in the latter part of your remarks you concentrated on the importance, in your view, of closer relations with the United States.
Do you see any conflict between the two? Can we be involved multilaterally through NATO, the UN, or whatever, and at the same time accomplish the objective that you espouse of a closer net relationship with the Americans?
Mr. Beaumont: I think you have asked a hard question, and I would be hard-pressed to answer it. I just feel that there is a vital need to work with our neighbours. I am sorry if I cannot answer your question properly.
Senator Meighen: Do you see any conflict between the two? Can you be a close friend to the United States and cooperate with them and at the same time participate in multilateral alliances?
Mr. Beaumont: Well, there seem to be differences between the two countries, especially in the media, which I do not think honestly reflect the people.
We had an interesting comment from the air force guys earlier today who said that they could not properly and effectively move a squadron to another location without the help of other people. They cited the U.S. especially as having transport planes available at the drop of a hat, and I was very impressed by that. I thought that kind of indicated where our needs are and where we need to help each other. I trust these words will be accepted and listened to and acted on in a positive way before it is too late. I would appreciate that.
Mr. Harlan Light, as an individual: I am from Smith, Alberta. I want to thank the committee for being here. This is a rare opportunity, and I want to take advantage of it as much as possible. And I hope that the policy that is established is a well-defined policy that determines our actions, that is not an ad hoc response to a situation.
We must have a well-defined policy, and behind that policy there must be a great deal of moral authority. I am afraid the United States has lost that moral authority, because they have contravened the international law, and we must recognize that fact. We must maintain a moral authority that is consistent with international law; otherwise, we end up with what we have currently — international anarchy.
That is a horrible situation. If the world does not do something multilaterally, we are headed for sure disaster, because we are in a state of anarchy now; we are not governed by law. I think that has to be taken into account in any policy development.
We have just come through a month of civil rights and honouring Martin Luther King, and his mainstay was that it is either non-violence or non-existence. We must adopt a culture of peace, non-violence, and reconciliation in our military. That is the paradigm we must focus on in this day and age.
Yes, we have a constabulatory military, but not one that enters into covert operations; it is above-board and determined by law.
If we live in anarchy, we will die by anarchy. If we are governed by fear and retribution and exploitation, sheer disaster is our future.
There are two things we can look at here as far as separation. It has often been stated, even by the president of Shell Oil, that our greatest danger is not terrorism: our greatest danger is global warming. Our military must be prepared to address environmental disasters. That is absolute. We are headed for environmental disasters unknown: sporadic, continuous, but disastrous. And our military must be prepared to address those and keep us together in times of environmental disaster.
As far as participating in separating warring nations, if we develop a culture of peace and non-violence and if we understand that principle thoroughly as taught to us by Dr. Martin Luther King —
Mr. Wilson: Time please, sir.
Senator Banks: I want to ask you about the first point that you made which had to do with the rule of law. Things change in history, and they get more complicated. It used to be really easy to abide by the rule of law; it has gotten harder.
For example, if we were sitting offshore of Sudan, with the problems going on in Darfur or in Rwanda, to use a better-known example, what should we do? Our Prime Minister has gone to the United Nations and put out the idea that we should have the right to protect, the right to go into a country where we see something awful going on and stop it. That contravenes a rule of the United Nations.
Mr. Light: I think genocide is a reason for intervening in a nation's affairs, if indeed a situation is determined to be genocide and is fully disclosed as genocide by the media resources that we have.
Senator Banks: Then it is okay to break the law?
Mr. Light: I think intervention in times of genocide is our moral authority. But we lose our moral authority if we attack a nation pre-emptively and if we attack primarily for their natural resources, senator.
Senator Banks: But sometimes it is okay to break the law?
Mr. Light: I would say yes. I think we must, and as long as we maintain our moral authority in the policy, we will not have a problem with that.
Senator Munson: I want to ask you what our military needs to fight environmental disasters.
Mr. Light: I am sorry, Senator Munson. I am not at all qualified to address logistics. Many other people could address logistics. However, I am sure that environmental disasters would involve traffic, evacuations, and all sorts of problems. I am simply stating that policy must consider that environmental disaster will be one of our greatest disasters.
Mr. Laurie Hawn, as an individual: Senators, I served 30 years in the air force, commanded a CF-18 squadron, was second in command at 4 Wing Cold Lake, and held several staff positions. I will confine my remarks primarily to sovereignty and the air force.
Like the army and the navy, the air force has some of the finest Canadians one could ever meet. As individually well- trained, courageous, and dedicated as they are, however, the steady decline in material support is rendering them less relevant and less effective by the day.
Canada is a country that was opened up by aviation, and sovereignty today demands a strong aerospace component. The strength of the air force has declined and the number of combat squadrons has continued to shrink. By late next year we will have two operational CF-18 squadrons.
Flying time has decreased to the point where training intensity and combat capability have been reduced to maintain safety. Pilots no longer train at low level, and only one-quarter of the force is in a deployable state of readiness at any one time. Very expensive simulators are being purchased, and no matter how the tale is spun by bean-counters, they are intended to replace flying time. No matter how sophisticated a simulator is, it simply cannot replace actual flying time and the training value of continuous life-and-death decision making.
Patrols by maritime patrol aircraft have also declined to a very small number every year. We have lost touch with our airspace and with the regions of our country that can best be monitored by air.
The most troubling aspect for me is the personnel attrition that the air force has suffered, which shows no signs of abating. Many very talented pilots, technicians, support personnel, and future leaders are leaving in or before their prime, and they are irreplaceable.
As we contribute less and less to our own aerospace sovereignty, whether through withholding even moral support for ballistic missile defence or through the emasculation of our fighter and maritime patrol forces, more and more of our sovereignty will be assumed by the United States because they will have no choice. The same people who decry military spending will be the first ones to protest the Americans exercising their responsibility for North American sovereignty over Canada.
The new budget holds no real promise for improvement, and the likelihood that the promises of funding five years in the future will happen is pure fantasy. The real truth is in the short term where trumpeted programs have already been announced several times, and about 40 per cent of announced extra funding over the next two years is already scheduled to be clawed back. The telling fact of the budget is that there is not a single dollar increase in the basic defence budget. It will be the same in 2010 as it is today.
The restoration of our military capability will happen only with a long-term and disciplined increase in the basic defence budget over a 20-year period until we reach approximately the NATO average. Even if we had the money in the short term, the realities of recruiting, training and equipping additional personnel will take many, many years.
Three minutes does not begin to allow more than the tiniest scratch on the tiniest surface of one of the almost innumerable problems with the military, but I thank you for the opportunity.
Senator Banks: Mr. Chair, I have to interrupt just for a second. We should know that Mr. Hawn had a distinguished career as a pilot in the air force and was a worthy candidate in the federal election for the House of Commons.
Mr. Hawn: But not worthy enough.
Senator Banks: Candidacy is quite enough.
Mr. Hawn: I know the problem.
The Chairman: I am sure everyone in the room knows that Senator Banks is Edmonton's Senator Banks.
Senator Cordy: Mr. Hawn, I think you must have been reading our reports, because we have already stated many of the things that you have commented on this evening. You referred specifically to the air force, but I think that it holds true across the board.
I am interested two things. First, simulators are probably here to stay; how can they be best used? You made the point that they should not entirely take the place of actual flying, but how can they best be used, because they are likely here to stay. Second, how do we get the public engaged to push the federal government for funding? Politicians react to pressure from the public. I really think that, in the past, governments have read the mood of the public and the public has not been committed to spending substantial amounts of money on the military.
Mr. Hawn: Simulators are a very valuable adjunct to training, but they are in addition to training. They make the training a pilot receives in the air more effective.
We can get by with fewer flying hours, but the justification for simulators is not effectiveness of training; it is to reduce flying hours, and ultimately we have got a CF-18 pilot flying 160 hours a year in a multi-role, very sophisticated airplane. That is just not enough. They do not train at low level anymore. They have abandoned some of the regimes where they have trained in the past.
With respect to your second question, governments have tended to do what is expedient and not what is right. Canadians need to be educated, truly educated on the requirements for national defence across the board and on sovereignty, because they do not understand it. They think that by standing up and saying no to the Americans we are somehow protecting our sovereignty when, in fact, we are giving it away by that very act.
Governments need to do what is right for the people and for the long-term vision of Canada, if we had one. We have never developed a long-term vision or national strategy in this country that says who we are in the world, where we fit with our allies, what organizations we should belong to in terms of foreign affairs, foreign aid, foreign trade, military alliances, and so on. We have to step back and develop a national vision before we can figure out what we have to do with the military to support that vision.
Mr. A. G. Dawrant, as an individual: I am a retired physician. As a young man I served in the British army, and that was a very positive experience. I favour Canada's continuing to have a strong, trained, military force. We are a large, sparsely populated country. Who is to say that one day other countries might not decide to take some of our territories? We need to have the resources to hold onto those territories.
Dependency comes with a price. For instance, the U.S. recently closed its borders to Canadian cattle. That is a perfect example of a put-down: Canada, weak, ineffectual. Canada will continue to be put down, and it is important that as a country we maintain a strong army, a strong military force. That is my point.
Senator Forrestall: Tomorrow is March 7. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Mr. Dawrant: Today is March 7.
Senator Forrestall: Today is?
Mr. Peter Opryshko, As an individual: No trucks ran.
Senator Forrestall: What happened? Did cattle move across the border?
Mr. Opryshko: No.
Senator Forrestall: That is a shame.
Doctor, that is a very good point. We take a lesson from that. Thank you.
Ms. Mary Anne Jablonski, as an individual: I am the elected MLA for Red Deer North. Although we have a significant population of retired Canadian Forces members in Red Deer, I am speaking as an individual.
I am also a founding member of OSSOMM, which is the Organizational Society of Spouses of Military Members, and I served 14 years as a military member's spouse.
Anyone who believes in democracy and freedom knows that freedom is not free. In order to be a sovereign nation we must have a well-equipped and well-trained military ready to defend us at a moment's notice, and we must be willing to pay for this.
It is thanks to General Brock, his well-trained troops, and Laura Secord that we are a sovereign nation today. Although I doubt that we could ever repeat this victory, we are the only nation in the world to have defeated the United States in a war. That was in 1812.
Mr. Opryshko: Vietnam.
Ms. Jablonski: That was never a declared war, sir.
Although the threat to democracy does not come from the United States, it does come from other directions. The world is less stable than it was ten years ago. We are not immune to terrorist threats. We must have a well-equipped and well-trained armed forces. Even now we are experiencing a threat, I believe, to our northern borders, and we do not have enough resources to properly monitor and defend this territory.
Part of having a well-trained military includes having homes and programs for military families. Thirty years ago the Canadian military expected a two-for-one salary deal; along with the military member came the spouse at no extra cost. Today spouses recognize that they are valuable members of all Canadian Forces communities and that they do have rights. My husband has always said, ``Happy wife, happy life.'' I think the military must pay attention to this principle. Families must be recognized as an important and contributing asset to military life, and this must be evident in the policies and practices of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Military members must also be valued so that when they suffer from illnesses such as post-traumatic stress disorder they are cared for and looked after. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces have sworn to defend Canadians and have proven that they would die for their country. I think that it is time for us to honour their commitment and dedication by increasing spending for the Canadian military without raising our taxes. I think that our government is well-trained and well-equipped, and they are capable of making this happen.
Thank you all for being here and for giving us this opportunity, and a special thanks to our military members and their families for the sacrifices they make for all Canadians.
Senator Atkins: Let me give you my congratulations. You are an MLA.
Ms. Jablonski: Thank you.
Senator Atkins: Anyone who contributes and runs for office deserves credit, in my opinion.
You will not get much of an argument from this committee with regard to anything you have said. This committee has recommended that the government increase its spending in military by $4 billion. In our last budget we did not get anything near that, and the total budget is somewhere between $13 billion and $14 billion. What do you think they should be spending?
Ms. Jablonski: I certainly do not know the logistics of it all. I know they are not spending enough and that they have to increase their spending. I cannot tell you by how much, but if you would like to put me on a committee, I could find out for you.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Peter Opryshko, as an individual: Since people are giving out their political credentials, I ran provincially four times and federally twice. I have always run for the NDP, and in Alberta that does not get you any points. I was never in the military, but I served two years with CUSO in Ethiopia before the famine. I have travelled extensively throughout Asia and throughout Africa in many of the countries that you cannot travel in anymore. I was in Afghanistan back in the days when you could put your pack on the back and drive all over Afghanistan, and it was peaceful before the West and the East started playing games with them.
I know military spending has gone up. I used to work in Athabasca. I drove by the Edmonton base on the Monday morning before 9/11, and there was a demonstration. The roads were being blocked because the military was having trouble paying its support staff. Since then there has never been a demonstration. The buildings that have gone up in Edmonton and on the base are enormous. It is all very quiet. It is off the road, but there has been a heck of a lot of money spent on the military. Anybody saying that money is not being spent is deluded.
Now, who is the enemy? The enemy is the IMF, the International Monetary Fund; people and corporations like Enron who are grabbing natural resources, energy resources and water throughout the world; and militarism led by the United States, things like the defence treaty and this missile situation. Those are the biggest scams to spend and waste money.
The biggest danger to the world is poverty. Canada has just been cited by the UN for being 18th or 19th out of 20 as far as our commitments to eradicate child poverty. That is where the danger is. That is where the terrorists are going to be raised.
We are defending North America to protect our wealth. What happened in the west of Edmonton was not about pot, was not about crime. It was to chase down a car, to seize a car or a truck for Kentwood Ford.
The military and the police are being used to protect wealth, and that money should be spent to eradicate poverty. So the enemy is the IMF and the industrial military complex.
How do we do it? Multilateralism is the answer, not alliances with the United States. We should not have gone to Afghanistan. It has never been demonstrated to this day who was guilty in 9/11, yet we went to war and heavily bombed Afghanistan.
Senator Meighen: Are you advocating an all-or-nothing position or a different allocation of resources? Are you saying that we should take all the money spent on the military and put it into —
Mr. Opryshko: No. We do have to have some form of military, but we have been increasing the spending. As I pointed out, there are no more demonstrations in front of the Edmonton —
Senator Meighen: Well, I do not disagree with you, but, of course, one area where the spending has been increased is in the pay for the members of the military forces. Their pay has gone up, which, in my view, is a good thing. However, we have not had much spending in the area of equipment, or as much as some of us think we should.
Mr. Opryshko: As a farmer I drive a 30-year-old combine.
Senator Meighen: Well, I hope you do not have to repair it too often.
Mr. Opryshko: I do, all the time. I am a victim of Massey Ferguson and John Deere.
Senator Meighen: But it sounds like you have a pretty good combine, anyway, if it has lasted 30 years.
Let me ask one other thing. We have raised this before. Darfur: do you think we should intervene?
Mr. Opryshko: What do you mean by ``we?'' The United Nations should.
Senator Meighen: The United Nations.
Mr. Opryshko: As part of the United Nations, yes, Canada should intervene, but not with adventurism, as we did in Kosovo or Afghanistan or as the Americans wanted to do in Iraq.
Senator Meighen: Let me leave you with this thought: It may be difficult to decide whether that is the right moral thing to do absent the request from a sovereign nation.
Mr. Opryshko: No. If you use the brains of a collective, the world, the United Nations rather than the interests of the energy people, it is not that difficult.
Senator Meighen: Some of them belong to the United Nations too.
Ms. Cassandra Van-Norstrand, as an individual: Senators, I am here with Mr. Ross Deacon.
This problem is tantamount to David and Goliath. We can never spend enough on the military. There never ever will be enough money spent on it.
Since the first day I was involved in the United Nations in the 1960s to our present involvement with Ross Deacon and UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, and particularly involvement with the Coalition for Peace, we have seen legions of changes in the Canadian military.
Ross is a member of the Canadian military. He is a former navy man who took the convoys over the ocean during the time of the world war, so he has a concept of peace and of militarization that perhaps some of us who are younger do not have. And he feels that there is just never going to be enough money to spend on the military.
We are at the point where, with the billions and trillions of dollars that the U.S. has spent, they are the mega force; but do we have to listen?
David fought Goliath not by virtue of military might, and I think we have to start thinking of peaceable forms of interaction with the world, peaceable solutions, and peaceable ultimate conclusions to things that are going to be based upon helping peace.
Most wars are fought because of famine, poverty, et cetera. Much to do with the current situation of terrorism has very large, tangled claws that we cannot get into tonight.
Ross is only 97, so he has a little bit of hearing loss —
Mr. Ross Deacon, As an individual: Ninety only.
Ms. Van-Norstrand: The problem is really a very significant one. We ourselves, hundreds of our friends, and many members of the groups that we are involved with have all written letters, including a 13-page letter, to Tommy Banks, which we never got a response to, and we have made many calls to his office and to many other senators' offices that this is not necessary.
I personally know a man who is a close friend of the helicopter pilot who shot down the former UN ambassador to Sweden who won the Nobel Prize, and all I can say is that war and the facts of war beget all of the dangers of war, which is death and loss of life.
Everything that we are going to do to try to balance it out has to be done in fairness to the people of Canada. MIT and all the experts on militarization have shown that no matter what is done with the militarization or the missile shield it will not be enough, it will not be right. There are too many objective findings that there will be problems with it.
They can shuttle into space so many objects of —
Mr. Wilson: Time, please, ma'am.
Ms. Van-Norstrand: Just let me finish the sentence, please.
The Chairman: Yes, finish your sentence, please.
Ms. Van-Norstrand: They can shuttle into space so many wrong objects that it will take the forcefulness off the true object, which is to get the missile, and therefore it will not be effective at all. So why bother?
The Chairman: Do not go away, please. First I would like to tell you that Tommy Banks is the hardest working senator I know. He commutes from here to Ottawa every week, and it is just incredible the schedule he keeps up. He was at a committee meeting in Calgary all day, and he flew up here just to be here tonight. By good fortune, he is the one who will ask you the question tonight.
Senator Banks: First of all, I want to thank Ross for your service. We all owe you and your colleagues a great deal, as I am sure you know, but I want you to know that we know it, too.
Cassandra, I do not recall ever having received a 13-page letter from anybody, so if you have a copy of it —
Ms. Van-Norstrand: We do.
Senator Banks: Well, send it to me again, please. I will look at it and tell you what I think about your letter.
You were going in so many directions tonight that I am not sure where to begin. I gather that you think we should not spend more money when you said that there will never be enough?
Ms. Van-Norstrand: Yes, because there will just never be enough. There is just no way to match the gigantic forces that have perpetuated the military might, especially those to south of us. There is no way. We could spend the entire budget and not even make a dimple, really.
Senator Banks: So should we be like Costa Rica and have no military?
Ms. Van-Norstrand: I do not know that no military is an answer. That to me is kind of a fighting statement, a ``Let's take it into a corner'' statement.
There are not either/or answers to anything. Should you not have a salary? Should you work for the ethics of the country, or should you have a little salary? Or should we just play you for your music?
Senator Banks: Thank you, Cassandra. Send me the letter.
Mr. David Maddess, as an individual: Good evening. My name is David Maddess. I would like to say hello to the chairman, senators, and ladies and gentlemen, current and former serving members, citizens of Canada.
I am a former serving member in the reserve forces. I served from 1976 into 1994.
I want to state unequivocally at the outset that the people in the Canadian Armed Forces today are amazing for their dedication to service, to their communities, and to the country that we all enjoy. Their spouses and families give them unconditional support, for which we truly should be grateful.
During the course of my military career I had the opportunity to serve on foreign missions for the United Nations and to travel abroad a great deal.
My concerns fall in two areas. The first is the inability of the forces as they are currently constituted to defend Canada from internal or external issues. We do not have adequate military personnel in the army, navy, or air force. That is a given. I do not believe most Canadians realize that.
When I started back in the 1970s there was the Cold War, and we probably had three or four brigade groups that were pretty flush; we probably had 20,000 people in the army. We had adequate airlift capacity to get them to whatever foreign mission or internal issue they needed to deal with. We had adequate resources to be able to supply our people.
We may not have the fanciest trucks. Those trucks were 30 years old when I got into them. In 1956 they did not have heaters. I guess Korea was not cold. However, that is not the point we are dealing with. The point is to ask what kind of armed forces we want to have in Canada.
We need to have sufficient troops that we can go on foreign missions. Senator Meighen talked about interfering in Darfur — or not interfering but going there. My questions would be ``how'' and ``with what?'' Since the late 1990s or mid-1990s, we have had to borrow air transport and military support. We have not been able to adequately staff the foreign missions to which we have committed. Also, we have not had a clear foreign policy that directs the Canadian military. We need to resolve those issues.
Now I would like to address some very specific issues that I have had to deal with. People talk about post-traumatic stress disorder. There are inadequate Veterans Affairs resources to deal with people with mental and physical injuries in Canada.
My father-in-law used to say that when he came back from the Second World War there was a sign that said, ``Soldiers and dogs stay off the lawn.'' We need to deal with the people who come back as physical and mental casualties. We do not want to download that to our provincial health care systems, and we need to ensure that an adequate number of personnel in the forces are able to rotate through so that we do not overstress the ones that we already have.
Senator Munson: As a foreign correspondent I covered a couple of pretty tough spots, and when you come back from that sort of thing, it stays in your head for a long time and it is very difficult to deal with.
The government is promising 5,000 new soldiers and 3,000 more reservists. Are those numbers good enough for you? The government also says that it will not be able to do this for five years.
Mr. Maddess: Thank you, Senator, but I do not believe that those numbers are adequate. If the current rate of attrition is somewhere in the order of 6,000 — and somebody correct me if I am wrong — they are woefully inadequate. We are going to have a shortfall of probably around 4,000 people, in my understanding.
The reservists need to be able to serve, and one of the issues that I had to deal with when I was a reservist was that there was nothing compelling my employer to allow me to serve. There could have been an Order-in-Council. Fortunately I had an employer that allowed me to quit or to take a layoff and then serve.
We need to have adequate numbers in both our reserves and the regular forces in order to meet those foreign missions wherever they may be.
Mr. Colin W. Reichle, as an individual: Ladies and gentlemen, I serve as President of the Edmonton United Services Institute. I have served 22 years in the Armed Forces, regular and reserve.
The EUSI held a major symposium on February 12 addressing the question of Canada's role in the war on terrorism, and I will table that for the committee. I will be specific in my comments.
Canada needs a credible navy, army, and air force to defend the sovereignty of this nation, including the Arctic. We do not have that with the military's present reduced strength and equipment.
World events have shown that Canada needs an expeditionary capability of at least a brigade with extended sustainability. We need the ability to deploy and supply our forces wherever they may be sent. The promised 5,000 new regular force members would barely bring our units up to strength. We need ships and planes. That they have managed so much with so little is a credit to our forces.
We need larger, stronger, and more credible reserves. Vital equipment has been cannibalized or withdrawn to support the regular force requirements. At present a commanding officer has 20 funded days per year for all training and activities. That is not enough, and we do a disservice to the reserves if we think it is.
We must face the reality that our interests are tied to our largest customer and neighbour and we must recognize that we need to have Canadian officers involved in American decision-making that affects Canada. We are losing that capability due to political action with no apparent recognition of the consequences.
We need a comprehensive foreign policy review that accurately articulates Canadian interests. That should be followed by a defence white paper that will adequately resource our military to achieve those Canadian interests.
The last budget, with very little money and now clawbacks in the first two years, does not recognize the ongoing operational debt imposed on our forces, nor does it demonstrate that the government comprehends the real requirement to meet the essential needs of the military. If the government does understand these requirements, then it is being wilfully negligent in its primary duty. You do not have to do the popular thing to do the right thing.
Senator Cordy: Your comment about our military doing so much with so little is certainly true; we have just met such outstanding individuals who are members of our Canadian Forces.
You talked about the budget and how it is not enough for what the military needs. If you were in charge and you had unlimited resources, what would be the first thing that you would do for the military?
Mr. Reichle: The first thing I would do is write off the operational debt and let them start tomorrow with a clean slate. And then, as General Hillier said, $500 million, if it is real money this year, gives us the planning time we need to start putting these things into effect. That is where I would start.
Mr. Jeff Bauer, as an individual: Senators, I am a private citizen. I think if I had to talk about all of the issues in regards to the military, it would take about three hours rather than three minutes. I would rather stay with specifics. I assume that this panel is here just to deal with the practicalities required to get our military operational and better served.
I want to make a quick statement here. I am a dual citizen. I am a U.S. citizen as well as a Canadian citizen, and I hear a lot from my friends in the United States. Many of them are Vietnam veterans. My father served in Vietnam in 1967 and 1968. There are a lot of misconceptions up here about Vietnam veterans and where they stand. The assumption up here is that many of them are converted peace activists, and that is not the case. Most of them are very right wing, and a lot of them are quite upset with how Canada has been conducting its military policies.
The overall opinion down there is that the U.S. taxpayer has been footing the bill for Canada's defence for the last 35 years, and I would have to agree with them. I have lived up here since 1970, and I have seen the decline in the military, and I have no other conclusion but to agree with them.
In dealing with the practicalities, I have noticed that Canada tends to buy all of its equipment from abroad, and it occurred to me that that is probably not the right way to go in the long term. I would suggest that the best thing to do is to start building our own ships, building our own submarines. We have the capability. We have excellent, excellent manufacturing facilities here.
Ontario is now the largest area in North America that builds automobiles. Why can we not build our jeeps? Why can we not build our transport trucks here?
We have several firearms manufacturers in Canada, none of which get contracts from the Canadian military. Para- Ordnance, for example, is an outstanding pistol manufacturer, basing their design on the 1911 Colt. Yet Canada's military is not buying. They buy everything overseas.
What can we do to start developing an infrastructure so that we are providing for our own, building for our own? Why can we not make a submarine instead of bringing one over from England? I am not referring directly to that particular situation, because of course the jury is not out on that yet, and submarines are not cheap. But at the same time I think that in the long run it would save us money, and it would provide more jobs in Canada.
Senator Forrestall: You make a couple of very interesting points. I am not quite sure how to come at my question.
First of all, I think Canada buys most of its equipment or has it built here in Canada. I am thinking of all of our naval vessels; in my experience, they were built in Canada, on one coast or the other.
Mr. Bauer: I stand corrected.
Senator Forrestall: There are a lot of myths that do exist back and forth over many of these questions. You have lived here now for quite some time. Are you saying to us that Canada should try a little bit harder to defend its own sovereignty?
Mr. Bauer: I think Canada should do its part, yes.
I stand corrected as far as some of the equipment being built in Canada, but a lot of it is not. Look at our Avro Arrow. That was 40 years ago, and the legacy still exists. Talk to any of the fly boys, including Laurie Hawn; it is a travesty.
We do not provide for our own small arms; we do not build our own small arms here. That is one of the biggest parts of the military. We do not build our tanks.
Senator Banks: We build our light armoured vehicles and sell them all over the world.
Mr. Bauer: Well, we do not have a tank. A light armoured vehicle is good for a crew transport carrier, but it is not good against heavy artillery.
Mr. John Simpson, as an individual: Good evening, senators. I am President of the Alberta Branch of the Defence Medical Association of Canada. I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here this evening. I truly appreciate it.
I have had the opportunity to watch your committee proceedings with interest as some of Canada's finest advisors on military affairs have made candid presentations to your committee. General MacKenzie is one of them, certainly, that I had quite an interest in, and I know that generals such as Roméo Dallaire are not shy about making known their feelings in regards to making advancements in the operational capabilities of the Canadian Forces. Undoubtedly their presentations carry a great deal of credibility, and I am not going to dare to try to do more in regards to operations.
However, as a Canadian taxpayer, and it is clear that that role is not going to change any time soon, I want you to know that I am very supportive of the role of the Canadian Forces both domestically and internationally. It is my perspective, however, that the Canadian government has failed in providing adequate resources needed for those dedicated personnel to carry out their roles as required by our government.
Without clear foreign policy, it becomes a crapshoot to try to ensure that an adequate supply of Canadian Armed Forces personnel is available for the various missions that we send them on. The administration has now adopted a policy of dangling the proverbial carrot of tax incentives and extra pay bonuses that people find difficult to turn down despite the increased demands on their families and their health.
Members who have still not fully recovered from missions are being asked to go again. A friend of mine home not even one week from Kabul was asked to sign a release so he could go again in six months.
In regards to health care, although the Canadian Forces Health Services provide first-class health care, their resources are limited. As it is often not possible to get medical specialists in the regular forces despite large incentives, frequently we rely upon reservists who are rarely able to commit to full rotations. That creates a staffing nightmare. In addition, Canada relies heavily on its allies for logistical support in regards to primary health care facilities and for the transportation and evacuation of the injured from the theatre of operations.
The other consideration that falls within my purview is how we are doing as a nation in support of our military when the injured come home. Are we providing all the support they need for their physical and their mental well-being? Do their families receive the support they need when they lose the abilities of the primary breadwinner? That type of help also goes a long way in support to the morale of the troops.
Historically, Canadian soldiers have come through for Canada despite all odds. Sadly, however, too often the government has failed to provide the funding and support the soldiers need until it is usually far too late and the demands are far too many for them to keep up with.
Overall I guess the most important advice I might offer is to get back to the basics. I do not think we need any more colonels or generals in Ottawa to do whatever it is they do. Provide the rank and file with the tools, the funding, and the resources that they need so they can be proud again to be Canadians abroad.
Senator Atkins: Are you a medical doctor?
Mr. Simpson: No, I am a civilian medic, and actually I have never served in the military.
Senator Atkins: I wonder if you would comment on how we might encourage the medical community to get more involved with the military community, because one of the problems that the military is facing today is the lack of doctors, especially specialists.
Mr. Simpson: We are seeing huge cash incentives now for specialists to come on board, and that is not enough in many cases. I think you need to look at compensating them for their time, not just monetarily, but also by ensuring that they feel that their time has value. Also, we have to provide incentives or compensation for the employers of those reservists. We have a shortage of doctors in Canada. It is not easy for employers to turn their physicians or their medics loose to go into rotations. We have to provide some considerations for those employers so that they are willing to participate.
Ms. Marina Masuarenhas, as an individual: Senators, I am a member of the Edmonton community. I have to say I am one of those who are not particularly into militarism. I highly commend our Prime Minister for declining to go along with the missile defence. However, I also feel that there is a role for the military, particularly in the North where due to global warming it is expected that the Arctic waterways may thaw, perhaps giving rise to a need for border security.
My purpose today is simply to keep everyone aware of the Official Secrets Act and the anti-terrorism laws and the atrocities against humanity that are permitted in the pretext of national security.
I would also like to ask, because I am not very familiar with the military, what exactly an attack might involve. Does it include only an aircraft coming or a bomb being dropped, or could an assault also involve other means such as a disease? Would it be the role of the military to take care of that? Would that be part of the mandate of the military, and does it fall then within the budget that the government spends on the military?
Senator Meighen: Well, if I understood your question correctly, the short answer is that yes, the military and our first responders — police, fire, and the reserves — would be responsible for dealing with any such thing, for example a dirty bomb that came into one of our ports on a container or any such threat of that order to Canada.
I did want to deal with the sign you have there. I am not sure that the Official Secrets Act is the one that you want to refer to; C-36 is the Anti-terrorism Act. The Official Secrets Act, in my understanding, is to prevent people in positions of authority from talking about confidential and sensitive information.
The Anti-terrorism Act is a controversial piece of legislation that was enacted after 9/11. Right now it is being examined by a committee of the House of Commons and a committee of the Senate to see if it is still necessary in all its forms.
Mr. Andrew Kuchta, as an individual: Mr. Chairman, I am a private citizen. I would like to make the case for some equipment requirements that I see in terms of policy the military should be following.
First off, regarding sovereignty, in order to defend the massive coastline that this country has, we need more coastal defence maritime vessels, whether under the Coast Guard or the navy. Perhaps it would be cheaper to provide those vessels through the Coast Guard; then they would not have the higher requirements of NATO for communications or combat control. In any case, more equipment is needed for coastal defence and interdiction.
Another policy line I see for the military is that of power projection, or perhaps some would call it showing the flag, and that involves things like sending the DART team to the far reaches of the planet. For that we would need a heavy lift capability for our aircraft, something along the lines of a Boeing C-17, so that we can send our troops under our own control and on own timetable to different parts of the world under emergency conditions.
Senator Banks: When you say maritime coastal defence vessels, I presume that you are not talking about the MCDVs that we now have, because they are ill-suited to interdiction and the kind of things that you are talking about, as we have found. But I am also assuming that you think that we need to have a more robust presence in the matter of guarding our coasts. Do you think that we should militarize the Coast Guard or at least give it a constabulary capacity, which is does not have at present?
Mr. Kuchta: If the Coast Guard had law enforcement capabilities and powers of arrest and seizure, that would go a long way towards stopping, say, a terrorist trying to smuggle some equipment or personnel into the country. Certainly the Coast Guard would be a good candidate for that, and if we have to beef up the legislation to give them that power, so be it.
Mr. J. P. Grebenc, as an individual: Senators, I live here in Edmonton, and for the past 15 years I have been involved within the regular and reserve force from the army side.
My understanding is that your committee is looking for suggestions from Canadians regarding the size, capabilities, equipment, and role of the military. I am going to speak about the role and then suggest a model for the Canadian military. I think that size, capabilities and equipment come out of what the role is going to be.
I suggest that there should be three main roles for the Canadian military: defence of Canada; defence of Canadian interests, which would cover peacekeeping overseas; and any additional powers, such as disaster relief, in Canada.
For a model, I suggest the Canadian military look to the style of the U.S. Marine Corps. From my experience within the military I would say that part of the problem is that while we may have 60,000 people in the military, we do not have 60,000 people rotating through overseas. As other presenters have mentioned, the same people go over and over. They are a small group of primarily combat arms, infantry, engineers, and so on.
In the U.S. Marine Corps, on the other hand, everyone is a soldier first, and then they are whatever else they are, be it cook or clerk, afterwards. Perhaps your committee might want to look at that model as a suggestion for how the Canadian military could be restructured to make it more capable of going overseas and doing the things that the government and people want it to do.
Senator Munson: Canadians do not seem to be saying, ``Yes, let us pour millions or billions more into the military.'' Every time a government asks the question, the response is child care or health care. There are other issues that Canadians want the money spent on. There have been strong points made, as you have made tonight, about a stronger, better, more efficient military, but it seems that if the question of where to spend money is asked across the country, there are three or four other priorities before the military.
Mr. Grebenc: Do you want my own opinion on that question, sir?
Senator Munson: Sure.
Mr. Grebenc: I think that it is really a question of salesmanship. When it comes right down to it, I believe in this country. This is a great country, and our freedom and our country deserve to be protected. I really cannot see how anyone would not support doing what it takes within reason to protect this country. I would say that it is up to the politicians in the country to come forward, take a position, and put that position forward to the people and convince them. I think it is as simple as that.
Most people in Canada do not know too much about the military. I think I am an exception. I know a fair amount, having been involved. But most people do not know. If you would explain it to them, I think most Canadians would come on board and be pro-military.
Mr. Bill Stollery, as an individual: Senators, I am a well-used Canadian citizen of 78 years. I had four brothers in the military during the war and one of them did not come back, so I have been myself in the peace community for 40 years trying to keep our world from blowing itself up. As you well know, it is getting closer and closer to doing that.
The popular thinking to which our government is responding today regarding security is the fear of global terrorism, although the fear of an attack by another country is always present.
Canada is considered by most of the world to be part of the western alliance of the U.S., Britain, Australia, and others. Our government tells us that our only defence is in our armed forces, and because we have neglected them in our drive to fiscal restraint, we must bolster their ability by financing the purchase of more of the latest technological equipment and by hiring greater numbers of personnel to operate it. They say that that will increase our ability to violently stop or kill terrorists or enemies.
Is it unreasonable to think that these so-called enemies are also increasing their military in order to kill for the same reason we are, that is, the fear of us, whom they describe as ``enemy?'' Is it not the same logic, or the same illogic, of the perpetual Arab/Israeli conflict? Does this make sense to any of you?
With the capability of mass destruction of today's weaponry, is it not time that someone tried to break this cycle of insanity? May I suggest one way we might do that?
I am not a polished speaker, as you can tell.
Some of us think that we are likely to be inviting attack by increasing our military capability. From my knowledge of history, there has only ever been one tactic which has solved violent conflict among humans, and that is a non- violent reaction to violence. Any military solution in history has always ended by sewing the seeds of future conflict. We think that with the weapons capability today we must change our tactics regarding security.
The prophets of old — Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, and others — told us and demonstrated that non-violence is the only safe path. Can Canada not follow the intelligence of the modern prophets — Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mandela, and Tutu — who used non-violence to solve their immediate problems sanely? A non-violent approach to the world's and Canadians' security predicament should be a logical choice.
The Chairman: We would appreciate it you would leave your paper with us.
Mr. Stollery: The clerk has it and I hope you will read it.
The Chairman: We will.
Mr. Stollery: I did not get to the punchline.
Senator Cordy: Perhaps part of my question can be to give the punch line, and I must say that you are indeed a very polished speaker. Considering the presentation that you gave us today, does Canada need a military?
Mr. Stollery: Yes, we do. We should discontinue the funding of 90 per cent of the military except for peacekeeping forces, which would go under the auspices of the United Nations, which is the only logical way of stopping combatants, in my humble opinion.
Senator Cordy: How should peacekeepers be trained?
Mr. Stollery: In police work. We do not need more people finding out how to kill each other. We have got enough of those now. Do you agree?
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Stollery: Do you agree?
Senator Cordy: I am sorry — your punchline. We are waiting for your punchline.
Mr. Stollery: Canada is the logical first major country to do this new and more sane approach, because we presently fear no enemy on our borders.
It would also do many other things. It would indicate to so-called enemies that Canada at least has no intention of harming them. It would encourage all other nations to follow suit. We would inspire other nations' peoples by our intelligence and courage to help break the mould of the world's present war culture. It would lift Canadians by our feeling that there is a purpose in our manifest destiny instead of us living our lives in the paranoia of massive weaponry.
Ms. Diane Newman, as an individual: I do not have a great deal to say. Like the other fellow, I am concerned about our environment and our health and concerned that we are having mini natural disasters. The tectonic plates are moving, the polar magnetism is moving, we have solar flares, et cetera. I believe we have enough natural disasters to keep our military very busy taking care of human beings first.
I am also very concerned about soldiers going overseas and coming back with post-traumatic stress disorder. We need to understand that it starts, I think, because we have put them in such an awareness of culture shock and awareness of how we have exploited other countries and how we have allowed frustration and anger to boil over. I am hoping that our foreign policy will match in with a much more humanitarian military.
The other concern I have is the issue of the malaria shots that were giving a lot of problems to some of the soldiers with hallucinations and other medical problems. I hope that the soldiers are all able to get a hold of their medical information and maintain their own medical files. I hope that no medical information is kept secret from them.
Senator Forrestall: Could you elaborate a little on the issue of files being kept from people?
Ms. Newman: I saw in an article or on TV that some soldiers' files went missing. I am concerned about ensuring that the soldiers have access to all their files.
The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. We are very grateful to you for setting aside some of your own time to come down and share your views with us tonight. It is very helpful for us to get a sense of how different people view the same issue. We have listened carefully and respectfully to what you had to say, and we will take it into account when we are preparing our report after this.
I would also very much like to thank Mr. Ron Wilson from Edmonton AM. We are grateful to you, sir, for assisting us this evening.
The committee adjourned.