Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 17 - Evidence, March 8, 2005 - Evening meeting
CALGARY, Tuesday, March 8, 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, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to call the meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence to order. Before we get started, folks, on behalf of the committee, we would like to extend our condolences to the families of the victims and to the RCMP family at large in the community. We would like to express that our thoughts are with them at this difficult time.
On that sad note, I would like to go ahead and introduce the members of the committee to you, briefly comment on the work that the committee is doing, and then move from there into hearing your comments.
We are here tonight not to give speeches like we normally do, or to tell anyone anything; we are here to listen, we are here to learn. We will have questions for people as they come forward, but first, let me introduce the members of the committee.
On my immediate right is the distinguished senator from Nova Scotia, Senator Michael Forrestall. He has served the constituents of Dartmouth for the past 37 years, first as their member of Parliament, then in the Senate. From 1966 to 1967, he was the opposition defence critic, and he is a member of our Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs.
Beside him is Senator Jim Munson from Ontario. He was a trusted journalist and former director of communications for Prime Minister Chrétien. He was called to the Senate in 2003. Senator Munson has twice been nominated for Gemini Awards in recognition of excellence in journalism.
Beside him is Senator Michael Meighen. Senator Meighen is a lawyer and a member of the bars of Ontario and Quebec. 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. Currently, he is the Chair of our Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs, and he is also a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce.
At the end of the table, we have Senator Nolin.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin is from Quebec. He is a lawyer and has been a senator since 1993.
He was the chairman of the Special Committee on Illicit Drugs. He is currently the vice-chair of the Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Senator Nolin has worked internationally since 1994. He is the Canadian Parliament's delegate for NATO's Parliamentary Assembly. Senator Nolin is the vice-chairman of that organization.
He is also the general spokesperson for the Committee on Science and Technology.
[English]
On my left is Senator Jane Cordy. Senator Cordy is from Nova Scotia. She is an accomplished educator with an extensive record in 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 Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
Beside her is Senator Norman Atkins, from Ontario. He came to the Senate with 27 years of experience in the field of communications. He served as senior adviser to former federal Conservative leader Robert Stanfield, Premier William Davis of Ontario and Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. He is also a member of the Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs.
My name is Colin Kenny and I chair the committee. 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. The first was Canadian Security and Military Preparedness, which was published in February of that year; then The Defence of North America: A Canadian Responsibility in September; and An Update on Canada's Military Crisis: a View From the Bottom Up, in November. In 2003, the committee published two reports: first, 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, last year, we tabled two more reports: National Emergencies: Canada's Fragile Front Lines, in March; and most recently, the Canadian Security Guide Book, 2005 Edition.
The committee is currently 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 forge a consensus on the needs and type of military Canadians want.
We are very fortunate this evening to have as our moderator, Dr. David Bercuson. He is the Director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies of the University of Calgary. He has published in academic and popular publications on a wide variety of topics, specializing in modern Canadian politics, Canadian defence and foreign policy and Canadian military history. He has written, co-authored or edited over 30 popular and academic books and does regular commentary for television and radio. His career was recently recognized and rewarded with one of the University of Calgary's highest honours: a university professorship. He is the Honorary Lieutenant-Colonel of the 33rd Field Engineer Squadron, a Land Force Reserve military engineering unit of the Canadian Forces. He is also an officer of the Order of Canada and a recent recipient of the Vimi Award.
Professor Bercuson, as our moderator, I am turning the floor over to you. Would you please explain the ground rules for the evening?
Mr. David Bercuson, Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary, Moderator: Thank you, Senator Kenny. Thank you all for attending this evening's meeting.
The ground rules are these: There are two microphones, as you can see, in the front of the hall. If you wish to make a comment, please line up behind one of those two microphones. You are not here to ask questions of the committee members. You are here to give your views. You will make your presentation, not to exceed three minutes. There is a clock here that will show you how much time you have left. When the three minutes are up, a red light goes on. Once your time is up, please end your statement. We then give the members of the committee an opportunity to ask you a question to clarify something you may have said in your comments. Then you have up to a minute and a half to respond.
The committee requires you to identify yourselves so that they can create an accurate record of the evening and follow up with you, if necessary.
This is a parliamentary proceeding, and therefore accuracy is required for the record. These cards are available at the front desk. I think you have all been given one, or given the opportunity to take one.
When you come up to the microphone, there are two clerks, a young lady here in white and a gentleman here in a blazer. Please give them your card before you begin your remarks. If you did not get a card, there are more available at the registration table.
The meeting is being interpreted in both official languages and transceivers are available at the registration desk.
Thank you for coming. Could I have the first speaker?
Mr. Garth Pritchard, as an individual: I am a documentary filmmaker/ journalist. Folks, you cannot expect people to talk about Canadians and what they have accomplished in terms of our security when they do not know. Just to give you my background: Route 00 in Somalia; I was in Kosovo, route 00; Bosnia for two years, route 02, route 03, route 05. I was in route 00 in Kandahar and route 00 in Kabul; and I just came back from Sri Lanka.
Now, guys, ladies, let us understand something here. Nobody in Canada knows what the Canadian military accomplished in Sri Lanka. They were set up to fail by Ottawa. I went with them. Here is what happened. You had ministers talking on television, talking about the wrong people in the wrong place — as I understand it, a paper tiger. As I understand it, they also said that antiquated equipment could not do the job. Forty days later, they are back. What does anybody in this room know about what the Canadians accomplished in Sri Lanka? How was it done? It was done in Ottawa. It was done by having press conferences. It was done by having Terry Pedwell, from CP, write a story; they called him a paper tiger. It was done by Steve Thorne, who should know better about what he did. In the end, they just did not cover it when they came home. How do we know that? Where have we seen that before?
We are the most misinformed public in the world about our defence and our security. You just all remember one thing right here in this room — thank your lucky stars the tsunami did not hit Canada, because if it had, this little committee would be wondering why Canadians are still asking ``Where is the help?'' As the Sri Lankans are today. You may want to ask, when you get back to Ottawa, where is the $80 million, because it did not show up either — not one penny. Where is the $40 million? Never mind the taxes and the people you represent, the $40 million that our children gave, the schools, the churches. Alberta gave $3 million. That is $40 million.
Would somebody here ask the Government of Canada where the money went, because it did not arrive in Sri Lanka? Your Canadians came home and told you it did not arrive and nobody listened, because they do not know.
Now, how is that accomplished? I am a documentary filmmaker. There is a $250-million slush fund, Telefilm, to tell Canadians about Canadians. I have never had a penny of it. The National Film Board, all of them, has a very little hook. You know what the hook is? If you roll a camera or you go without getting the government's permission, you get no funding, so we cannot tell Canadians what is being accomplished.
Senator Nolin: Mr. Pritchard, as a filmmaker, I am quite convinced that you are familiar with the ongoing intimacy between the Pentagon and Hollywood.
Mr. Pritchard: Yes.
Senator Nolin: What is your reaction to that — sometimes not respectful?
Mr. Pritchard: I agree. I can take any premise in the world and buy the footage and make it so Michael Moore. As a documentary filmmaker, I will give you any premise you want, I will write it down for you, and then I will make it happen by buying the footage. There is a difference here. It is called bearing witness. I cannot go and make up what 200 Canadians accomplished in Sri Lanka. If the government is closed to me to telling that story, then Canadians do not know. Now, there is nobody in this room, military or others, who has the background that I have. What do you know about Tora Bora? Canadians were there in big numbers. By the way, there are no caves in Tora Bora; right, sir?
The other thing that is true is the 200,000 that were killed in Kosovo. That did not happen either. I did a documentary. We cannot find 5,050 bodies. The RCMP should know that because they are the ones who are in The Hague right now saying it did not happen.
Senator Nolin: That was not exactly my question, but I appreciate your answer.
Mr. Pritchard: I answered it. I am not here to do Hollywood. I do not hire actors, sir.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Mulago Shamvu, as an individual: I am a Ph.D. candidate at the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies. My area of interest is peace and security issues in Africa.
I have the privilege of standing before you this evening to share with you my views on Canadian security and defence. In recent years, the National Defence has seen its budgets shrinking so much that the emphasis of all policies has been on reducing activities.
Today's international security environment is not at all conducive to the reduction of defence expenses. The last budget shows the government's desire to strengthen the Canadian Forces, with the largest increase in defence spending in the last 20 years.
This evening, I want to draw attention to the threat of failed and failing states around the world, and particularly in Africa. Since the birth of newly independent states in Africa in 1957, Canada has been a key partner in nation building. Here is not the place to recall all that has been done, all that is going on.
I just want to mention the G8 Africa action plan put together in Kananaskis here in Alberta in 2002. In response to this commitment, the government did set up the Canada Fund for Africa, with a budget of $500 million. One of the aims of the fund is to support the priorities of the new partnership for Africa's development.
The main challenges in Africa are peace and security, without which other initiatives are likely to fail. The Canadian initiative at Kananaskis has been so important that following G8 summits have had the African plan on the agenda. The coming summit is to take place at Gleneagles, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair is currently working with the stakeholders to ensure the success of the G8's commitment to Africa.
As mentioned, Africa's main challenges are peace and security. Canada is actively committed to that project through the ``projet de capacité en maintien de la paix,'' a project which is run through the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre. It has just received a financial boost of $20 million. Internationally, Canada is committed to the Standby High Readiness Brigade that is working closely with the African Union's Peace and Security Council. Canada is just a middle power, but wants to make a difference globally.
In regard to the current international environment, welfare states and defending states constitute a big threat to domestic and international security. Canada will not achieve its aim without a strong military. As we all know, the militaries are the first on the scene, before diplomats, and even traders eventually. The Canadian Forces need to be strengthened in human resources, financially and logistically.
Mr. Bercuson: Sir, your time is up.
Senator Meighen: I confess that after the Kananaskis agreement, I had rather lost track of where that promise of support had gone. You have brought me more up-to-date than I was before I arrived here this evening. You sound very optimistic that what we can do, presumably with other like-minded countries, will make a difference in Africa, given the magnitude of the problems there. Have I interpreted you correctly?
Mr. Mulago Shamvu: Yes, but I am here just to appeal for the strengthening of all those initiatives. I have experience at the peacekeeping centre, where I had the privilege of meeting with a number of high-ranking military officers from Africa. I am really convinced about the work that is being done there. It still needs to be strengthened, because recently, the threat was financial. Thank God it has just been resolved, but I am appealing to you to strengthen that initiative.
Senator Meighen: Well, you make an interesting point that we have not heard too often, that foreign aid goes hand- in-hand with a military capability to enforce social order.
Mr. Mulago Shamvu: Exactly, and in the Africa situation, again, because all the states are failing or have failed because of insurgencies in the military, you cannot just go in and respond to someone holding a gun without a gun, or even a more powerful gun.
Mr. Jeff Gilmour, as an individual: I am currently a lawyer by profession. I should keep that low key, I suppose. I served in the navy for 13 years, primarily on destroyers, and in the Bonaventure many years ago. I was one of the last attendees of the National Defence College back in 1989-90. I am currently involved with the Arctic Institute of North America here at U of C, the Naval Officers Association and the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies. I have a paper that I will be filing with the clerk, so I will make my comments brief.
It is anticipated that after three years of waiting, the federal government will soon be releasing its new defence policy. Hopefully the new paper will address the following areas: Many analysts in the past would argue that our defence policy has been out of synchronization with our foreign policy. Hopefully, this time, the government gets it right; the two policies must be inexorably linked.
Based on DND's budget and the size of our Armed Forces, the new defence budget should look at realistic goals and objectives, instead of, as in the past, attempting to meet every domestic and international contingency and commitments that were unachievable. It is suggested that like other businesses, the DND must develop a strategic plan for a specific term, describing its goals and objectives. In the past, it appeared that the department ordered equipment first and then attempted to rationalize the missions around the equipment. It often seems to the Canadian public that the primary reason for buying military hardware is to prop up regional defence contracts across the country, without considering whether the equipment is a priority of DND in the first place, or whether it was the best piece of equipment to meet the needs of the end user; i.e. the military.
In developing a new defence policy, and to stop the erosion and decline of our military units, I suggest the policy must address the following areas: What sort of military do Canadians expect? Do we want them to be confined to assisting with civil defence operations, such as fighting fires and floods, and snow removal? On the other hand, are we prepared to fund and equip our three services for wartime operations or, in the alternative, prepare our militaries to support international peacekeeping operations around the world? Do we want DND, as their first priority, to protect our shores from perceived threats and/or at the same time engage our forces in international humanitarian and peacekeeping missions?
I have to jump to this one quickly because this is one area that I think is important: Can DND more effectively strengthen our sovereignty and presence in the Arctic? Presently, we have no warships with the capability of operating year round in Arctic waters, and we conduct sovereignty overflights fairly infrequently.
Senator Munson: You hope the government gets it right. What are those particular goals, and do you feel that the announcement of the 5,000 and 3,000 personnel is a step towards those realistic goals; what did you really make of the budget?
Mr. Gilmour: I think it is a double-barrelled question. I suppose when I talk about a strategic plan, I am saying that I think you cannot be all seeing, all dancing, although the previous white papers have said we can do everything. Based on reduced resources and the budget, you have to ask, this time around, what can we do? I think that is the thrust of my answer. Also, as I enunciated earlier, foreign policy and defence policy have to be linked, and in the past they have not been. I think certainly DND has felt the effect of that. They have marched off to the beat of their own drum. I think that is extremely important.
Mr. Oscar Fech, as an individual: I study world history, and I know Professor David Bercuson. I have been going to his meetings quite a lot and have been a follower of Senate committees, listening to them, and House of Commons debate. I have studied world history and have travelled to over 50 countries. We were part of the Czar's family. They were assassinated. My grandparents were assassinated in Russia.
All I can say is we are spin-doctoring everything. The whole world is spin-doctored. Why are not we standing up for our rights? We must speak from the heart. We know what we all believe in. We should not create wars for economic reasons. Why are we doing it? We must educate the people to fight for truth, justice, fairness. Teach them and they will teach us.
The whole world is in such a mess right now. It is not if, it is just when we will implode ourselves because we have created these systems within systems and nothing makes sense any more — all for greed, money and power. Look at yourselves. I am not just saying you people, but us. Look at the children who are dying everywhere. Look at the hunger. Look everywhere — 9/11 was created also through the world hierarchy. That was just like the Tower of Babel. We create new eras. What are we doing? We have a mind. We have a soul. We have a body. Why do we not stand up?
You senators can make a change because you are the body in Canada that can implement these resolutions or rules and laws; the Parliament can do it. It seems like we are playing three-way ping-pong with the three governments. That is what the Romans did. Let us quit the shenanigans. Stand up and look at your kids, grandkids. I have kids, grandkids. I just told you, my parents were shot in Russia. The Czar was shot. We come from way back, from the Roman Empire. I am the only one in the family standing up because I believe in truth, fighting for true justice, fairness.
I hope you will take what I said to heart and start making these changes. That is all I can do. You people must implement it. I am trying, but I have been harassed in many different ways because I speak out, ask questions. I should not be harassed; they should help me, not try to destroy me.
Mr. Bercuson: Sir, you are out of time.
Senator Forrestall: I think, sir, that like most reasonable people, we try to train our intellect and to act prudently, and sometimes reflect a little wisdom. How would you have us deal with the reality of defence, defence of North America, defence of Canada, our sovereignty in the Arctic? How would you have us do that without preparing to do battle, not necessarily pursuing battle? To put it another way, do we not have an obligation to intervene when we see wrong?
Mr. Fech: You hit it right on, but we must educate, teach love, not war. This is what we have gotten away from. That is our problem. We use the UN, the World Bank and the Vatican as tools to manipulate the public, and that is wrong. We should fight from our hearts. That is where it starts. If you do not have that, it does not matter what you want to create, it will not work. You hit it right on. Wars are created partly for economic reasons, and it should not be so. Wars should be created only to protect the innocent, not the guilty. The courts should do the same. I find it interesting, where we are heading.
Ms. Tiffany Farion, as an individual: I am a masters' candidate, and while I do agree that the military needs to be brought into the forefront, there is also another issue that I believe is just as dire a need. It is Canada's role in the airport security. We have become a target for terrorist groups because of our close proximity to the United States. It includes our close economic, military and civilian relationships that have bound the two countries closer than most other international partnerships.
This relationship between Canada and the United States makes us increasing vulnerable to terrorist activities. Because terrorist activities aim to inflict fear upon a nation, they tend to seek out targets that remain relatively undefended. Canadian security and intelligence agencies subscribe to the misconception of ``It cannot happen here,'' which is actually a false statement because the Air India attack in June, 1985, produced the same casualty rate as the 9/ 11 massacre. Airport security was not an issue for the Canadian public because there were no other significant incidents of terrorism aboard commercial aircraft.
The initiatives announced on October 11, 2001, by the Government of Canada, budgeting $2 billion to be spent over a five-year period, do not begin to correct the problems that we see. Your standing Senate committee report in February, 2002, actually identified some of these problems, and the re-examination of the pass system, electronic versus the normal system, the passenger and baggage screening and the use of private security companies still remain issues. Electronic security cards have been lost, stolen or kept by employees who are no longer working for airports. These pose a great security risk because these passes are still in circulation and are easily obtainable by a terrorist group. There are also extensive screening procedures for explosives, which have been taken into consideration. Even though the security programs have been put in place, they are not nearly as effective as they need to be. Inspection varies from airport to airport, which is quite alarming. The training of aircraft personnel and the security of cockpit doors still remain issues because the behind-the-scenes areas have seen little or no progress. More than a full year after September 11, Air Canada's flight crew security training had not changed. Many policies from the 1970s were still in use.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation did an in-depth review on October 27, 2003, that revealed that many of these security initiatives that were planned to occur closely following the release of the Transport Canada report have still not been implemented. The list of initiatives that you have produced still has not been successfully executed approximately two years later.
Senator Cordy: Perhaps you should come along with us, because you certainly mentioned a lot of the issues in our reports. We have red-flagged the idea that there should be more security at the airports, and we visited a number of the major airports in Canada. Who should be in charge of security at the airports? Should it be the RCMP? Do you have any ideas on that? What, in your mind, is the most pressing issue that we should deal with in terms of airport security?
Ms. Farion: Well, in response to your first question, the RCMP are understaffed as it is, and underfunded, and they have tried to initiate regulations and legislation to put the RCMP into airport security; however, with the lack of training and lack of personnel, it is very difficult. The United States has allowed private security companies that are regulated for a minimum of three years, and then after that, if they meet the requirements, the airport is allowed to continue using that private security company. That may be an area. One of the problems I see is the behind-the-scenes security issues. My conclusion was that while we have done a lot upfront to assuage the public discontent with airport security, behind the scenes is much more important. Basically, you close the door, but all the windows are open.
Senator Cordy: Passengers are being screened, but not necessarily the people who are on the ground dealing with luggage?
Ms. Farion: That is correct. I know of an individual, whom you are looking at right now, who almost got on to a flight with a switchblade that had fallen into the lining of her purse, and this was two years ago. Security screening is not adequate, by any means.
Mr. Christoph Wuerscher, as an individual: I am a psychologist. I have no direct experience in the military, but I have some indirect experience in as much as a number of my clients are veterans or former peacekeepers. Also, I have worked alongside people who have served in the military, and they were not always aware that I was watching.
I would like to make two points. With regard to what kind of a military would I like to see, I would like to see a military that is known more for the quality of its humanitarian ideals than for the condition of its equipment. For example, such an ideal could be to actively prevent and intervene in situations where genocide is occurring and where there is a need for fast action, not just on a military front, but also on a diplomatic front and, as was mentioned before, involving other channels. We need a military that both civilians and soldiers can be proud of.
The second point is that we want a military that cares as much about helping soldiers become civilians again as it does about making civilians into soldiers. I think on that front, it has not been a particularly good record, but we must stop treating men and women who have sustained operational stress injuries as commodities that no longer have any value.
Senator Atkins: In your last point, you were referring to PTSD?
Mr. Wuerscher: Post-traumatic stress disorder, operational stress injury. Most people who have been in a military theatre have been impacted in some ways. Large corporations recognize that international assignments often take a toll and that it is difficult for their employees to become reintegrated into their homeland. This problem is compounded in the military, but there are no programs in place that seek to retrain soldiers in learning how to be civilians again. We have to prevent the situation where our soldiers cannot come home.
Senator Atkins: You are proposing a whole new approach to training, not only for people who are serving, but those who are getting out of the service?
Mr. Wuerscher: Absolutely, and if we begin to consider a military that will not necessarily compete with Star Wars capabilities, but will work actively in the field of peacekeeping and nation building, then the training both to become members of the military and the training that happens afterwards will probably be more seamless than it is currently.
Dr. Robert A. F. Burn, as an individual: I am a family physician here in Calgary. I know absolutely nothing about the military, and my comments are entirely those of a civilian responding to the question of what kind of military should we have.
With our long coastlines and borders, Canada is indefensible against serious attack. Our best defence is to be seen as the good guys, so we should have effective peacekeeping and humanitarian missions under UN auspices, rather than trying to defend ourselves in the way that more powerful countries do. Our army should be small, but professional and highly trained. It should be equipped to deal with developing world crises, and such a force could also deal appropriately with national emergencies. It should have its own air transport, and it should be capable of rapid deployment and fast movement.
At present, we have some of that, but we do not have the deployment capability. We cannot get the people there. Our navy would be a fast coastal patrol. It should have sufficient force and speed to deal with smugglers, illegal immigrants and fishery disputes. It should include vessels capable of maintaining patrols in Arctic waters throughout the year. Serious warships such as the recently purchased submarines are, in my opinion, quite redundant. Against what threat are they directed? The air force should be equipped to provide reconnaissance, search and rescue, transport and supply for ground forces, but I can see no realistic role for warplanes in our country.
Senator Nolin: I have heard your comments, but what about the defence of our continent? How should we tackle that challenge? I am sure you do not want us to make the Americans do it.
Dr. Burn: I see that we basically have no choice in the matter. We have to be realistic about that. The Americans have a vastly superior military. Our contribution to that will never be significant in any direct kind of way. The only way that we can help out would be, for example, to provide humanitarian and peacekeeping support. In Iraq, for example, after the bombing and the blitzkrieg, there was a good moment there where we could have helped, but we did not.
Senator Nolin: You are saying that the Americans should take care of the continent and we would take care of their mess?
Dr. Burn: Yes, that sums it up.
Mr. Ron Barnes, as an individual: I am appearing here tonight as an ordinary Canadian citizen. I have no experience in military matters. We are thankful for this opportunity to present.
My view of the question before the committee is, firstly, it is worthwhile to reiterate what the professors told us this morning in respect of the need to strengthen the ties between Canada and the U.S. in terms of defence. That involvement in the BMD was declined by the Canadian government last week, I believe is a concern for all Canadians and is clearly a concern for members of the Canadian government.
I could quote Jim Wright, Assistant Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: It is in our national and strategic interest to be involved in decisions concerning the defence of North America rather than being on the sidelines. By being credible partners with the U.S. in the defence of the continent, we ensure that we are consulted in decisions that affect Canada's national interest. I think the committee needs to put strong emphasis on rebuilding the bridge with the American military by supporting the ballistic missile defence program.
I further quote Mr. Paul Cellucci, U.S. Ambassador: We will defend North America. He said the people who lost here are the people of Canada, because they will not have a seat at the table.
Further, I believe, in the interests of security for Canadians, this committee has an opportunity to set aside political considerations in favour of continental security. It is noteworthy that many Canadians live within 200 or 300 kilometres of our border with the U.S. They are our foremost trade partner, and we enjoy a peacetime alliance that goes back to before Confederation. As we heard this morning, a large percentage of our economic strengths come from our trade relationships with the Americans.
In closing, I want to state that I am sympathetic to the challenges and goals facing this committee. I am in full agreement with maintaining the sovereign boundaries of this nation as God has set them. I would like to thank the honourable chairman and the senators for listening.
Senator Meighen: You know the decision on the BMD has been taken. I am sure you would find members of this committee who either support or oppose the decision, but our government has taken the decision. I notice that they did say ``at this time,'' so maybe sometime down the road there will be an opportunity to reconsider it, if that seems appropriate to the government of the day. You touched on the fact that this was, in your view, a mistake vis-à-vis our relationship with the Americans. Do you think we can repair that mistake, as you see it, by strengthening our military and deploying it in other fields in terms of the defence of North America, such as touched upon by the good doctor a moment ago?
Mr. Ron Barnes: Yes, that is a good question. I would think that the Canadian military has a role to play in engagements such as the situation in Iraq, particularly in the after-effects. I believe Canada needs to come to the table and be recognized in our bilateral relationship with the Americans as having something to contribute. I do not know if that answers your question.
Senator Meighen: That is very helpful, thank you.
Mr. John S. Ink, as an individual: I was in the military, flying fighter aircraft during the Cold War, the forgotten war. I have a few brief points.
I would ask the committee to do all in its power to ensure that the proposed addition of 5,000 regulars and 3,000 reservists be trained first as soldiers and not as social workers.
The second point is, let us call our military what it is: our Armed Forces. I cannot understand this expression ``Canadian Forces.'' Like the previous speaker, I am very apprehensive about the government's recent rejection of the BMD arrangement with our allies and trading partners to the south. Like most Canadians, I deplore the lack of support given to our Armed Forces over the past 35 years by all political parties and commend your efforts, sir, to bring this country back to its legitimate defence responsibilities with a number of your reports. Why you are not being listened to by the government of the day is absolutely beyond me.
Senator Munson: You certainly have the opportunity to speak further, and based on your experiences, perhaps you want to share with us a little more of what you would like to see when you talk about having the new 5,000 soldiers trained as soldiers. The government has told us that they cannot even accommodate these men and women for another five years. They cannot arrange the housing. Nothing is set up for them. It seems to me, it will take some time to train these men and women.
Mr. Ink: I agree with you, senator, that it certainly will, and my request is simply that you good senators be given time to influence the training and where these people will go.
Mr. Phil Kube, as an individual: I have a short presentation to make today. I am using this version instead of my long version. Members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to address the committee and to express my opinions regarding Canada's military. I am an economist and regulatory adviser. I work for one of the larger oil and gas companies located here in Calgary. I should also point out that I have no military training or formal education in Canada's military affairs.
One of the first issues that were indicated in the public notice for these proceedings was in regards to the appropriate size for Canada's military. The size of the military should be dictated by how much military capability could be purchased by the government when it spends the NATO average per cent of GDP on the Armed Forces. Currently this average is approximately 2.1 per cent of GDP. The 2.1 per cent would provide about $24 billion for the annual defence budget, up from about $13 billion or $14 billion today. These funds should be spent in a cost-effective manner. In the past, the military budget has been used for make-work projects in various parts of the country. The defence budget should be used to provide for the country's military capability, and by spending these funds effectively, this military capability is maximized. If political decisions are made that require spending for job creation, or to subsidize a business within the country, the funds should be explicitly included in the budget documents and not hidden within the procurement budget of National Defence.
Another issue that was raised in the public notice about today's meeting was the desired capability of the Canadian Armed Forces. First and foremost, it must be a front-line combat-capable force on land, air and sea. I disagree with those who say that the country's focus should be on peacekeeping and peacekeeping alone. I believe that the contribution that has been made by the CAR to peacekeeping missions around the world has been highly effective and well recognized by the international community. It is not sufficient for Canada to be able to contribute to NATO, NORAD, or other actions that might be authorized by the United Nations Security Council, so we have to have something greater than just a peacekeeping capability.
Lastly, I want to address the role that the military should be playing in Canada's future. The military has several roles that should not be hindered by turning it into a department through which make-work projects are propagated. The roles include front-line war-fighting capabilities, with substantial forces on land, air and sea; peacekeeping operations; search and rescue missions at home; keeping-the-peace missions at home; response to national disasters around the world by dedicated forces, especially in hostile environments.
The overall thrust of my presentation supports a substantial increase in Canadian military expenditures, but on a reasonable scale. The increase is not motivated by pride or patriotism, but by international responsibility.
Senator Forrestall: Do you see a northern role for the Canadian military, the reserves, similar to that of the rangers?
Mr. Kube: A northern role in the sense of?
Senator Forrestall: I am thinking in terms of national sovereignty, specifically the Northwest Passage, and the debate that is going as warming gives us more and more land up there.
Mr. Kube: I think this is very important, and that probably the size of the forces that I foresee would allow that kind of capability without detracting from other capabilities that the Canadian Forces should have. In the future, issues like the Northwest Passage — there may very well be others — will become increasingly important because of global warming, the possibility that additional traffic could travel through the passage.
Yes, being able to assert Canadian sovereignty and control — especially control, because who knows what standards might exist in other countries — over the North is very important.
Mr. John Melbourne, as an individual: I am with the Air Force Association of Canada, and I served in the Royal Canadian Air Force from 1953 to 1964. In my day, our air transport command was second to none, and the 426 Squadron outdid themselves on the Korean air lift, for example. Times have changed. We do not now have the capabilities of rapid deployment, and this was demonstrated recently, when sending the DART team overseas, by having to charter an Antonov 124 aircraft. We have an aging fleet of Hercules aircraft, which could not have done the job. It is very disappointing to an old trash hauler that we had to go out and rent someone else's aircraft.
Senator Cordy: Yesterday, when we were in Edmonton, I asked one of the officers how they got their vehicles, their tanks, so you have made your point about what it is like today. I wonder if you could just expand a little on what we should acquire in terms of air lift and how many should we have?
Mr. Melbourne: I would say four would do the job. I think C-17s have been batted around. When I was in Tucson, Arizona, about three weeks ago, I went down to what is referred to as the boneyard; there were four Starlifters belonging to the United States Air Force in cocoons, and we cannot put one big airplane in the air. I would say about four C-17s would do the job pretty nicely, Senator Cordy. Thank you.
Mr. Ray Szeto, as an individual: I am a recent graduate of the masters program at the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies. My areas of research have been Canadian defence policy and strategic planning and strategic vision, which is what I want to get into right now.
Recently, the new Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, outlined his vision for where he wants to see the Canadian Forces going, with a task force maple leaf, amphibious assault ships, a lift capability, rapid reaction forces, et cetera. As much as I applaud his strength of vision in standing up in front of a committee to outline what he wants, at the end of the day, it is all a matter of what the government wants to do in the long term, and where the Prime Minister wants to go.
That raised the question of where exactly is our Canadian strategy at this point. Where is our long-term Canadian vision for where we want to go? This overarches everything else, including budget, manpower, and even equipment, because our strategy outlines how much we need in each area.
It has been 10 years since the last defence policy, and I feel that we need more regularity in terms of the process so that our military is not caught behind the trend, so to speak. In many particular capability areas, in terms of procurement, we are behind the trend, for example, in sea lift and air lift of our European allies such as Britain. Even the United States, France, Germany, et cetera, did their defence reviews in 2000-01 and have come up with updates to reflect the changes in the international system. Therefore, to better adapt to the changing environment, I believe that we ought to be focusing on not only coming up with reviews, but also on a structure for having such reviews on a more regular and frequent basis, so that we understand, even if it requires restating, what exactly are our national interests and how we want to pursue them.
Senator Atkins: Would you agree that before we can implement any kind of reorganization of the military, we have to have a foreign policy paper in position?
Mr. Szeto: In my opinion, we need a directive straight from the Prime Minister's Office on what exactly is his vision for a 20-year plan on where we want to go. In this sense, it is more of an international policy paper than foreign policy, and then a defence policy as a separate entity. I would suggest more the broad lines of a grand strategy.
Ms. Corrie Adolph, as an individual: I am the President of Canadians for Military Preparedness. I do not have a military background. I am not an academic. I am the mother of three sons. I live here in Calgary, run a business, and am one of what I believe are millions of average Canadians who are very concerned about the state of our military.
I was concerned enough that I got actively involved in lobbying the government over the last four years to increase defence spending and review our defence policy. My experience has been, as I have spoken to Canadians — average, normal people — about the issues that face our military, that they are very concerned. They may not always understand the issues, but if given the opportunity to hear more and have things explained to them clearly, they are very concerned.
One of the main concerns that I hear from Canadians is about sovereignty. ``Sovereignty'' is defined as that territory which we can defend, and I think most Canadians fear that we cannot defend our northern border. They are all well aware of the shrinking Arctic ice cap and the fact that there could be traffic through there causing increased accidents and environmental issues. I think Canadians are feeling very let down that the government has not lived up to their number one responsibility, which is to protect the citizens of Canada. It is not just an issue that men and academics are talking about. When I go to my kids' school, moms, grandmas, everybody is talking about the state of our military, and they are concerned. I think moms, in particular, across the country worry about the issues that face our military because we have kids. This is about protecting our children, about protecting their freedom and their democracy.
I have three sons. My 16-year-old joined the army reserve immediately following the events of September 11 because he felt compelled to protect his country. Now I worry about whether or not he will be given the tools to do his job. My second son has just applied to Royal Military College. He wants to be a pilot. My stomach churns thinking about the old aircraft he has to fly.
I have an 11-year-old who wants to be just like his big brothers, and I worry about what condition the Canadian Forces will be in when he is old enough to decide he wants to serve his country, too.
I am proud of my boys and happy they want to serve their country. It is just so sad that the possible risks to their lives will likely be as a result of a lack of leadership, Canadian leadership, than of the evils of someone like Osama bin Laden.
Senator Nolin: The current Secretary General of NATO and his predecessor have both promoted the idea that the defence budget in all the member countries should be at a level of 2 per cent of their GDP. I assume that you support such a proposal. We are not there even with the increase that we had last week. What about legislating that 2 per cent — and maybe you would be in charge of selling the legislation to the people — how should the government tackle the effort?
Ms. Adolph: I think Canadians would buy into that if it was legislated. I do not think Canadians are afraid to pay for their protection. They all understand that peace comes at a cost. Whether or not it should be an actual percentage like 2 per cent, I am not sure. You might be better off to tie it to keeping up with the NATO average, because that may change and times may change, and you may not want to tie their hands too much. Maybe we need 4 per cent. It is just a thought.
Senator Nolin: Out of 26 countries, only two are over the 2 per cent, so that gives you the scope of the problem.
Mr. Luc Marchand, as an individual: I am a former member of the Armed Forces. I was a co-founder of a movement pushing to start this thesis.
One of the reasons I am happy that you people took up this issue is that right now National Defence is in really bad shape.
I have a brother who just left the military. He was a firefighter back in Moose Jaw, and it was so bad they had to go to a junkyard in Regina to get some parts. It is a true story.
One other issue is really important, too. When we give a raise to personnel, we have to make sure that we do not pick up the money on the side for the PMQ. We have to make sure the raise stays with the people.
Third, one important aspect of our national security is intelligence. We have to work with the CIA, the MI5, and exchange our talents back and forth. In my time, there were fist fights all the time.
Another issue that will be really important is to take care of the North, because in 1980, I made a report that if a plane crashes up North, we will not be able to go there. We will have to assume the Hercules crashed, and it was just a nightmare to go there. We have to make sure we are well prepared and well organized. Another thing that will be very important is smuggling and drugs. This will be really serious.
I hope what has been happening in Whitecourt is a wake-up call, because when I was there, it was just a nightmare, with the RCMP trying to expose the problem.
Senator Meighen: You addressed a lot of issues.
Mr. Marchand: I saw everything, the fight in the Parliament and the fight in National Defence. We have some secret meeting back in the bunker there; it would just be a nightmare, I swear.
Senator Meighen: You and the lady who preceded you raised some important problems, and you have also, in effect, advocated that we spend more money doing things that many of us on this committee think are essential to protect our sovereignty and the social fabric.
You talked about drugs. Why is it that the lady had been lobbying the Canadian government? Why is it that there does not seem to be a movement among politicians, let alone the general public, for more spending on the protection of our country?
Mr. Marchand: I will give you one example, senator. When I was working for WestJet, my brother was working as a firefighter back in Moose Jaw and I exposed to him the problem — you have to go to the junkyard to fix their trucks. He did nothing. When I reported back to my brothers and the firefighters in Moose Jaw, they were just furious. They cannot believe what is going on. It was the same thing with me. I make a top-secret report to the Parliament about the North; it was in the garbage can. This is over 25 years ago.
Senator Meighen: No publicity?
Mr. Marchand: No.
Senator Meighen: If there is no publicity, there is no knowledge. That explains it.
Mr. Mike Bakk, as an individual: I am a civilian, a Canadian and a father of three daughters, unlike the previous speaker. God bless her. Now, I did not make notes. I do not have a big presentation. I hope my views are simple and I hope I can get my message across.
My concerns are about NORAD and the missile defence. We know now that the missiles go out into the atmosphere and then into space, and then they break up into several pieces and come back into the atmosphere to hit their targets. These are what the new ones do. Therefore, we have to catch them as they are leaving the atmosphere. How do we do that? We have to intercept those missiles from the ships. We have to be able to do that. Canadians have to be out there on the water to make a judgment because, do not forget, those missiles are travelling likely over Canada to get to their targets. There is a big possibility of them failing, malfunctioning, and coming down in Canadian territory.
We know from the history, including in Afghanistan, with the 400 smart bombs, how accurate they are. We have to be able to catch them before they leave the atmosphere, and we have to be able to get them fast and to have a say in when to do it. Why? Because we are Canadians, and anything that falls short of its target could fall on us.
Senator Munson: We do not seem to have the technology today. Also, Canada has said no, at least at this time, to BMD. I am trying to understand what you are saying in terms of we should have the technology to do this, but where do we stand now in terms of protecting our own sovereignty as a result of the government's decision on BMD?
Mr. Bakk: Well, first of all, Canadians can build their own equipment. They have the technology, the knowledge. We have the money to build our own shipyards. We have this ability now also. What do we do for now until we get that? Well, we buy some, but then we build the plans to fix them. We cannot depend on buying parts elsewhere because our enemy could buy those parts. We may have to replace parts that do not normally get replaced — for example, a lug bolt or something that gets blown up, so we have to stockpile parts of our own. We have to build them ourselves, but we do have to start with buying some so that we have accountability for the equipment, so our government has the public voice to support them.
That is what I think our military needs: technology, and use the brains that we have.
Ms. Kim Warnke, as an individual: I am here to talk about a very informal survey taken in the pubs of Calgary. Obviously I am a young person, so I tend to talk to young people quite a lot more than the older folk. Whether or not the citizens seem to support the government's stance on the BMD, they all have seem to have come to a consensus that we as Canadians have fallen short in the last decades on military armaments, and that we are not in the running to compete with the countries that have put all their resources into that.
A lot of people agree that we need defence of our country and we need to assert our sovereignty; on the other hand, because we have fallen so short and we are so far behind, it would take an incredible amount of resources and monetary funds to bring us up-to-date in terms of the world levels of armaments. Everybody seems to agree, though, that this time has passed, and we do not really have a choice of whether to be on our own offensively any more.
We do not seem to have the resources. We do not have the stockpile of the armaments. It seems to be a group consensus that we need to focus on peacekeeping and on nation building, and our psychology professor, our friend over here at microphone 2, seemed to agree with that. The consensus seems to be that if we do our best to be the Canadian citizens that we are and approach the world on the understanding that we have gotten a leg up through our years of multiculturalism, that people would be much less likely to want to attack us; people will be much more willing to help us in the defence of our country. We will not have to beg for this because people will see Canadians are good people, and this is what the youth of Canada want; we want to be known as good people. We have a very decent record, but we want to continue that, and we want to ensure that we are not seen as an offensive country.
The deployment of the DART team, maybe it did not happen overnight, but we thought about it, we weighed all the options, and we applied what we thought we could do. In the end, we ended up doing a lot of good, and I applaud the government for that.
It just seems really important to anybody that I have talked to, whether or not they say yes, we should have gone with the Americans, or no, we should not have, that the time has passed when we can be our own offensively, and we need to focus on being the friend of everyone and the ones who take care of people. People reciprocate and take care of those who take care of their friends.
Senator Forrestall: May I ask you, since I did sense a very deep interest, where you acquired this interest?
Ms. Warnke: I started being very interested in our military and the foreign policies of many nations in grade 3. I saw a play in grade 3 on the thousand paper cranes and the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and was very upset. I wrote to our Prime Minister and got a letter back saying that he was glad that the youth were taking an interest.
Since then — and no offence to you folks, you have years of experience on us — I have seen that the government is getting better at listening to the youth, but they tend to still listen to people who have been in the system for a long time. While that is very valuable, and you people have a lot of knowledge that we just do not, it is hard to hold onto your ideals once you get into a system. I think that you need to listen to the youth to hear fresh ideas and then apply your knowledge to those ideas, because we will be left with the country that you give us.
Mr. David Burns, as an individual: I am from Calgary. I would like to begin by raising the conversation to something about vision, about a higher purpose for our military. I think it begins with our vision of our country. What does our country stand for and where are we going in the future?
I think the Canadian Forces need to be focused on the vision and the leadership of our country going forward in the world. I think the vision that people have of Canada across the globe is a leader in helping people, in being there in times of need. What we are about is development and helping others in need. I think that is where the force needs to go. The way we do that is through things like the DART force. We have some ideas ourselves about how that could be a deployment service in the world, and how we could work on sustainable development. We see equipping our men and women of the forces with technology, Canadian innovation, developed in Canada and put behind the forces that go out into the world and assist other nations. I think that is where we need to go. We need to have a vision, a higher purpose. We need to talk more about what Canada stands for. Who are we as a nation? It is not about defence. That is fear tactics; it is about being on the offensive. It is about taking leadership and making a difference in the world. That is Canada's role in the future, to be a global player, to be a global citizen and make sure that we take the ideals forward.
We cannot wait for a country like the U.S. to turn itself around and become a nation of helpers and people who assist others in the world. We are the ones who have fostered that seed. Lester Pearson is the grandfather of that idea. Many years ago we brought that forward. It is not about peacekeeping. It is about helping our neighbours and other citizens of the world. We can do that with a properly equipped force. We need to join forces with private enterprise in this country. We need to build partnerships to bring our innovation forward, equip our men and women to go out and do the things they need to do, within Canada and globally. I think it is about ``made in Canada.'' It is about tying the foreign policy into that. It is about humanitarian aid. It is about the proper use of our resources and our focus as a nation. It is about Canada.
Senator Cordy: When you travel outside Canada, in the European countries, Canadians are well respected, and I make sure that I always wear a Canadian flag lapel pin when I am over there. You raised some interesting points about our vision as Canadians, how we should be confident about who we are. You kept saying that we should be properly equipped, number one. I would like to know what exactly you mean by that.
Secondly, you talked about made-in-Canada equipment. Some people talked earlier about how we should not be making equipment necessarily in Canada simply because it provides an economic stimulus, so I am wondering if you could comment on those two areas.
Mr. Burns: In my company, we are working in the Southern Alberta region to develop some capacities around sustainable development technologies and innovations, so we are putting that vision together. We are putting those ideas together, and it is looking forward at what tools our forces will need. I am talking about equipment, about vehicles, but I am also talking about technologies around water, energy, development and community building. When our forces go into an area, they secure the area, they work with the tsunami victims, let us say, in this case, but we also come forward with development ideas. We come forward with innovation, equipment and ideas around how to rebuild those communities. That is what I am talking about. I am not talking about rifles and things like that. I am talking about equipment that makes a difference in the long run, makes a difference in the world. That is the equipment behind the force. We are not a combative nation. We need to talk like that. It is not about defence; it is about offence. It is about making a difference.
Mr. Nelson Barnes, as an individual: I would like, just in closing, to thank the senators, having been here all day and taken in how much work is going on in the committee to put forward a report to the government. I am very thankful for the undertones and the suggestions in the questions that have been asked that promote working more closely with the U.S. in the protection and defence of the North American continent. Although we have been told that BMD is not on for now, we have also been told that you have worked under four defence ministers. We look forward to a change in that, with, as you have mentioned, the NORAD issue coming to the table next year.
The other point has been the need for adequate funding to support the three military forces, not only as an offensive force, but, as we heard earlier in the day, an adequate Armed Forces lends itself to being heard, both on the North American continent and in the world in general. It moves into other areas of support.
I just want to thank you again for your efforts, all that you are doing to promote the security and protection of Canadian citizens.
Senator Atkins: I assume from what you said that you have been here all day?
Mr. Nelson Barnes: Yes, I have.
Senator Atkins: What impressed you the most about today?
Mr. Nelson Barnes: I think there are two things. I just scratched some notes down here because I was not sure that I would speak tonight, but there is the underlying need to be prepared to work along with the United States on the whole issue. We have talked about the security matters concerning the North. We have talked about issues related to terrorism within the continent. There is just so much we could do if we were just prepared to work with them. It will not harm our sovereignty. It will only enhance it and strengthen it in working to overcome the negative side of things.
The other was the advantage that we heard about both from those who have made a study of it at the university and those who are working in the forces. One thing that stood out in my mind was there was very little complaining about the lack of funding. They are just prepared to work with what they were given. We need to give them more.
Mr. Clive Elliott, as an individual: I am a biologist, ecologist, aircraft pilot, et cetera, who has done a lot of work in the Arctic. I helped establish Aulavik National Park. I was not aware of this seminar or conference until I heard a late news item, so I dashed here. I found years ago that some scientists, scientific projects, were indeed strongly encouraged by the Canadian government, financed partly by them, et cetera; and yet other scientific projects and scientists were strongly discouraged. I had one instance where I was simply ordered to falsify a major research report connected with the Arctic environment; and when I refused to do that, I was fired by the government agency I was working for then. I have since found out this has happened to several scientists I have talked to.
I am trying to say that a lot of Canadians are very nationalistic and want to improve their country, do the necessary work to make life better in the Arctic, et cetera. Try to get it through to all government agencies that when people want to work on some geological, biological issue, whatever, up there, by all means encourage them, because lots of people up there will maintain the Canadian identity and the Canadian ownership of the territory. If Canadians are strongly discouraged, or even forbidden to going into parts of it, is not that leaving it open to who knows what?
It is just a comment, but that is what I have seen, what I have experienced. The North belongs to every Canadian; therefore, encourage Canadians to make the best of it in ways that do no harm.
Senator Nolin: We have heard many witnesses today talk about the North. Taking into account that we have limited resources, should we make a deal with the Americans so they would take care of the North?
Mr. Elliott: If it is a cooperative deal, like NORAD is supposed to be, if they are saying, ``Hey, you people obviously cannot defend or even keep track of what goes on in your own North, therefore let us help you,'' then fine. If we can agree with them on some method by which they can help us, okay, but we had better not just hand it over to them and say, ``We cannot do anything, therefore you look after it,'' without knowing what on earth they are planning to do. As you probably know, they have indicated a desire previously to have access to parts of it without Canadian approval. They have tried to say that some of the big straits between the Arctic islands are actually international waterways. I fully agree that we should be working with them to defend North America. In my opinion, if the Prime Minister had indicated that we would go along with or even support this ballistic missile defence program on certain conditions that he could have laid out, then we would now have two feet in the door. We could have been at the table where any and all decisions connected with North American defence are made.
Mr. Bercuson: Sir, your time is up.
The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, that brings this evening to a conclusion. The committee is grateful to you for taking time out of your day to come and share your views with us. We find it very constructive to hear what people have to say, and we recognize that people have made a special effort to come and communicate with us. We have listened to you all carefully, and we will eventually have a transcript of what you have said tonight. We are grateful to you for participating and for caring about the future of Canada. On behalf of the committee, I want to tell you how pleased we are that you came.
Professor Bercuson, thank you very much for coming. We are grateful to you for acting as the moderator and for your presentation earlier today. It was constructive and useful. We also detected your fine hand in some of the presentations tonight.
Once again, thank you all.
The committed adjourned.