Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 18 - Evidence, March 9, 2005 - Evening meeting - Town Hall
REGINA, Wednesday, March 9, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 6:35 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: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.
Before we begin, I would like to take a moment on behalf of the committee to extend our thoughts and condolences to the families of the RCMP victims and to the larger RCMP community. We want them to know that our thoughts are with them. Members of the committee will be laying a wreath at the Cenotaph at the RCMP Depot tomorrow.
I will briefly introduce the members of the committee to you. To my right we have Senator Michael Forrestall from Nova Scotia. Beside him we have Senator Munson from Ontario. Beside him Senator Meighen from Ontario, and on my left we have Senator Atkins from Ontario. My name is Colin Kenny and I am the chair of the committee.
Our moderator this evening is retired Brigadier-General Cliff Walker. He had a distinguished 35-year career in the Canadian Forces and was First Deputy Commander of Land Force Western Area.
I will turn the floor over briefly to General Walker and ask that he advise us of the ground rules.
Brigadier-General (Ret'd) Cliff Walker, Moderator: Thank you, Senator Kenny. Senators, welcome to Regina. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Regina. As Senator Kenny said, I am Cliff Walker; I am a retired brigadier-general with the Canadian Forces.
I can think of no more important event than this meeting, given our nation's current status of security and defence. If I may, I will explain the ground rules to you. There are two microphones in the front of the hall. If you wish to make a comment, please line up in front of one of them.
I would ask you not to ask any questions. You will be making a presentation that will not exceed three minutes, and my distinguished colleague beside me will be the timer. A clock will show your remaining time; when the red light comes on would you please finish what you are saying and sit down. One of the senators may ask you a question to clarify your comments and you would then have up to one minute and 30 seconds to respond to the senator's question.
You are required to identify yourself for the record so that the committee will have an accurate record of the evening and be able to follow up with you if necessary. Since this is a parliamentary procedure, you will understand that an accurate record is necessary.
On the way in to the meeting you were given a registration card; please be sure to hand that card to the clerk when you are at the microphone. If you did not get one, there are more available at the registration desk.
The meeting is being interpreted into both official languages; receivers are available at the registration desk.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, general.
If you would like to approach the microphones now. You are first, sir. If you would be good enough to identify yourself, please.
Mr. Jamie Hopkins, as an individual: I am here today as a concerned citizen of Regina. I would like to thank this panel for coming to the Regina area. We care deeply about the military and in principle I support the military very much.
I would like to appeal personally to this panel to promote and foster cooperation between the Canadian and American military forces, both in attitude and in actions.
We are in the enviable position of sharing this continent with the United States of America. While we enjoy and share the resources of this resourceful continent we must also be prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with them in the defence of it. I mean by that that we should cooperate on initiatives such as the ballistic missile defence program.
The U.S. is offering, the U.S. has invited, and largely the U.S. is footing the bill. As we sat in the earlier hearings during the afternoon it sounded like dollars are difficult for National Defence and that things are tight. In spite of that, we have the government shutting the door on a hugely important initiative on this continent.
As Senator Munson said, ``Fire moves fast,'' and so do rogue missiles. I would use your words: it would be better to tell the U.S., ``Just go.''
I do not know how many people here have driven the grid roads along the southern edge of the province. When you do you cannot help but be impressed by an almost indiscernible border; it is just a simple strip of grass out in the middle of the prairies that declares our sovereign border. There are no fences, no razor wire and no armed checkpoints, just an acknowledgement between two friends of where the line is drawn. Let us not take that for granted.
Those that would harm our neighbours will not spare us; their enemies are our enemies and their defence can be our defence.
In closing, I would encourage all present to consider how an improved and increased attitude of cooperation with the U.S. will have a positive effect on national security with little or no cost to National Defence.
Senator Atkins: What do you think the trade-off should be if Canada was to change its position with regard to ballistic missile defence?
Mr. Hopkins: Could you clarify what you mean?
Senator Atkins: What do you think the trade-offs might be between Canada and the U.S. so that we would establish a better relationship?
Mr. Hopkins: For their cooperation?
Senator Atkins: Right. And our cooperation.
Mr. Hopkins: I am a young man, Senator Atkins, but I have not seen anything held out to them. I just see a huge offering on their side.
I feel I have to mention this to the panel. I am a young person. I have lived in this area all my life. If war broke out tonight — and this is a more real prospect than it might have been 10 years ago — the first thing I would think of is the B-52 bombers at the Minot Air Force Base and the missile launch pads that are not very far south of this border.
That is the first thing that comes to mind. Regrettably, I am not aware of anything that I can reference in the Canadian military that even comes close to equalling that. I sleep well knowing they are my neighbours.
Mr. Doug Lennox, as an individual: I am also a concerned Canadian citizen from Regina. I do not profess to be able to speak well publicly, but as a concerned Canadian citizen I feel it incumbent upon myself at this time to state my views.
What I have observed in the military in Canada and from the meeting this afternoon is that we are chronically under-funded, we have a shortage of manpower, we are using 40-year-old equipment. These are problems that must be addressed.
Canada has a proud history of taking a proactive role in the military. In World War I and World War II we were the first guys out there defending the truth and what is right against evil dictators. Unfortunately, that concept has become historical. We no longer, in my opinion, have a proactive role at all. We need to correct this and turn our view around.
There is a very real need currently to fight terrorism in the world. Our neighbours, as my colleague just mentioned, are taking a stand; we need to support them in their stand. We must acknowledge this country next to us as our big brother without whom we are in serious trouble. We cannot take any position other than that we depend on the U.S.
I do not wish to speak against our government, but they have snubbed the U.S.; they have refused to cooperate in the missile defence; they have refused to support them in the Iraq initiative. As a citizen of Regina, where I am raising my five children, I wonder what the future holds for my children. If we cannot learn to be cooperative and work with the United States, we are in serious trouble.
In conclusion, I would appeal to the committee to impress upon the government the need to foster improved U.S. relations and to channel whatever means that we do have.
Senator Forrestall: I would hope that I draw a conclusion that concurs with your comments and observations. I understand that you believe there would be no difficulty in Canada were the government to change its mind and say that, to the extent, financially and otherwise, that we are able to be supportive of the ballistic missile defence program, that would be the result here in Canada. In other words, no great harm would come to the Canadian government or the Armed Forces or the Canadian people; quite the opposite, we might get beef moving or the tariff off softwood lumber.
Mr. Lennox: I agree with what you have said. I do not think it would be necessary to provide money; I do not think they are asking for that. I would not say that I thoroughly understand the question; I am just an ordinary citizen, a businessman in Saskatchewan.
We have to show a spirit, at least, of cooperation with this nation. That is the point I would like to impress upon the committee. If we do not have the means to supply money, we can at least support them in spirit. That is where our current government is lacking, and I feel that that is a serious problem today in Canada.
Colonel (Ret'd) Charles Keple, as an individual: Good evening, senators.
I was with the Canadian Armed Forces for 38 years. I do not comment on the fact that there has been under-funding of the Canadian Forces or National Defence, although I do not disagree with that statement.
The more important of the two points I would like to raise today is that we have been calling for an open defence review for some considerable period of time, as you know. I did not see you there this year, but I have seen you at past meetings of the Conference of Defence Associations, senator. It appears that we are probably at most a month away from the new defence policy's being announced. There were just enough indicators of that in Ottawa last week. I understand the flag officers have already been briefed. I understand all the officers in the Ottawa area are being told what the new policy is.
That leaves me in the difficult situation of saying that it was not an open review. One hopes that whatever is about to be announced under the leadership of the new Chief of the Defence Staff will be acceptable, because most of us will be required to close ranks and say how much we agree, whatever the thresh lines were. That is difficult.
It was a good thing when David Pratt announced that there would be an international review, international development and the defence review in conjunction. It appears now that there will be a significant restructuring of the Canadian Forces and the review was not open. So be it. That is one of the many things that those of us who have been monitoring national security and defence for several decades have learned to tolerate.
A more significant point is that one reason Canada is in this situation is that it is what Canadian people want. They do not understand the implications of their own national security, they do not understand defence.
When I say the Canadian people I include parliamentarians. There are very, very few members of parliament who have any significant military experience and who bring it to their fellow citizens.
There is very little leadership from the government in telling the Canadian people the things they should know. I think most of the military spokespersons, myself included, use a form of jargon that most people do not understand. When we use expressions like ``combat capable'' or ``war winning'' they are not understood. So when we give advice directly to the Canadian people or through you, that advice is not received.
I think there should be a requirement within the Ottawa community to have a briefing package put together, an open briefing package, if I could call it that, for the use of all the parliamentarians. It could explain the ground rules of what is expected of a nation, what is the meaning of sovereignty, and what is the significance of national security and national defence.
Having straightened out all of that, what tiny role within that larger area do armed forces play? Then we can answer questions of whether our armed forces are appropriately structured or funded. However, since those other things must come first, it is very difficult to get to that question in Canada.
Senator Munson: I do not think we are as optimistic as you are that we will see that defence review soon. We are not receiving the same kind of feedback here that it will come as soon as you believe.
I am curious about your own background, the Conference of Defence Associations. What kind of dividends, in terms of contracts and that sort of thing, would have come to Canadians if Canada had signed on to the ballistic missile defence? Would there be an economic dividend for this country?
Mr. Keple: There would be an economic dividend, because it is realistic to assume that if we were participating in that program, radar and other developments could be contracted to Canadian industry. Far more importantly, we would have access to information. The officers sitting in the joint headquarters, as they are now in NORAD, are made aware of the technologies.
I have had the opportunity to study with the British Army in their defence technical services college, and we received all kinds of briefings that were specifically labelled ``No foreign officers.'' But because I was serving in a British position I did, in fact, get access. As a result, I know of technologies. I will not say what my security clearance was, but I know of things that otherwise no one in Canada would know about.
I sat in on security briefings when I was in the secretariat in NATO. If you are not in the room you do not hear that information; it is never broadcast, it is not shared. What you get is access to information.
No rogue nation could throw a missile at continental United States without crossing Canadian air space. The intercept cannot take place during launch, and you would be an idiot if you tried to intercept a missile as it is coming down. Therefore, the intercepts will take place over Canada.
Our Prime Minister stated about a week and a half ago that we do not want even to be informed. If there were to be a missile coming this way because the Olympics are on or because of something we believe in our country, such as same sex marriage or something that is viewed as a western perversion that should be destroyed, we will not even know that it is coming because we have said we are not interested in being informed.
Mr. Jan van Eijk, as an individual: I am also here as a concerned citizen. I would like to express my gratitude to the committee for making its time available to listen to our views. My wife and I are the parents of an officer cadet at Royal Military College who is to graduate this year, so we very much have a personal stake in what is being discussed tonight.
My observation, concern or suggestion is the fact that nowadays, of course, we do not fight wars in the way that we did during the First and Second World War. We are mainly fighting an invisible enemy who blends in with the civilian population, wears no distinguishable uniform, has no qualms about having its own population destroyed and has no respect for the rules of war.
I am concerned about how we will train our future troops to deal with this new kind of warfare. I believe that in many ways they need to be trained for police tasks more than for classical warfare. Among other things, they should have knowledge of the language, culture, religion and mores of the local population. For instance, as in Afghanistan, they could make it clear to the population that we are on their side and in that way deprive an invisible enemy such as al Qaeda of a breeding ground.
I am not an expert in military materiel, but I think we should put our money into things that we can use in those situations. I am concerned about buying submarines which are of very little use in the Afghani or Iraqi desert. On the other hand, fast gunboats would probably be better able to intercept certain military operations in, for example, the Persian Gulf.
Basically, that is my concern, that our troops need to be trained for what would appear to be more like police tasks and urban warfare duties in the future.
Senator Munson: You spoke of training. The government has pledged 5,000 new regular soldiers and 3,000 reservists, although they will not come on line for five years. What suggestions would you have for training these new men and women to deal with what you describe as an invisible war?
Mr. van Eijk: Certainly, if we are looking at war in the Middle East, make them very much aware of customs in that part of the world, particularly religious customs. Give them greater sensitivity. That will favourably impress the local population and will make it easier to win them over to our side.
Honorary Colonel R.V. Cade, as an individual: I represent Royal United Services Institute of Regina and the Honorary Colonels of Saskatchewan.
Tomorrow at five o'clock, gentlemen, in Winnipeg you will receive a paper from Lieutenant-General Crabbe on behalf of the Royal Military Institute of Manitoba. I wish to put on record that both the Honorary Colonels of Saskatchewan and the USI here support that paper. It is a 10-page paper that will be given to you tomorrow. That is why I am here, to get on the record our support of that. There is no sense all of us writing the same paper.
The second thing is that I would like to support what Colonel Keple said about the ballistic missile defence. It is ludicrous not to support it. From what I have read and heard in Minot Air Force Base, there would be no cost to the Canadian government. If we lose our place at that table we have just opted out of our sovereignty, as I see it. If we deem ourselves to be a sovereign nation we should be there.
Please attempt to persuade the Prime Minister to change his mind on that particular subject. We will also attempt to do that through letters and otherwise.
Senator Meighen: I happen to agree with you, but whatever one's personal opinion, the decision has been made. Those little words ``at this time'' were included in the statement, so perhaps there is some reason to believe that the door might be slightly ajar, but I doubt it.
Other than what you have already stated, what do you think the result will be of us not being at the table and, therefore, perhaps sacrificing some of our sovereignty? What impact do you think this decision will have in a military sense? Do you think it will impact NORAD?
Mr. Cade: I think it will have an impact not only militarily but also economically. We just had our borders closed to the cows. Is that an offshoot of the decision? Who knows? I cannot speak for President Bush and his group, but I definitely feel there will be an impact somewhere.
Senator Meighen: I limited my question to military implications. With NORAD coming up for renewal next year, do you think the Americans will take a different attitude towards NORAD?
Mr. Cade: Hopefully not. However, I would not put anything past the American government. I would not speak for them. I would not blame them if they did.
We have the number two man sitting in NORAD. We have number two people in Iraq as divisional second-in- command people. They will be gone if that is what the Bush administration wishes to do. I would not blame them one bit if they did, because of the way we have behaved to them.
They are our best resource, they are our best customers, they are our best friends.
Senator Meighen: Would you agree that it would not be necessary to say, ``Ready aye ready,'' every time they call, but that a lot resides in the way in which we explain why we do not feel able to join with them? For example, in Vietnam we did not join with them.
Mr. Cade: Absolutely. I think we have the right to do that. That is why we sent Mr. McKenna down there to be the ambassador, because he is very good at it. That is why we have diplomats, because they know how to play the game. No doubt about it.
Senator Meighen: Thank you, sir.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Walker: Senator Kenny, before this gentleman begins to speak, I wonder if I could introduce Wing Commander Yeomans.
He was shot down over Germany 61 years ago this past week. He was the only survivor out of his aircraft; the rest of his crew are buried near Munich, Germany. Wing Commander Yeomans was taken prisoner and escaped from the Nazis late in the war. Sir, I would like you and the rest of the committee to be aware of that. My speaking was unsolicited on his part, I can assure you.
The Chairman: I am please to know that. I wonder if you met my father, who was also shot down, and whether you served together in a prison camp; he was up in Stetin.
Wing Commander (Ret'd) John Yeomans, as an individual: No, I was not at Stetin. I was in a number of camps; I was in East Prussia and then Poland and then finally at the hell hole at Fallingbostel.
The Chairman: Okay. It was an off chance. You have a statement, sir, and the floor is yours.
Mr. Yeomans: Much of what I had to say has already been said by both Colonel Keple and also by Colonel Cade, but I thought it might be as well to come forward and emphasize some of those points.
As has just been said, I am a very much retired air force wing commander. I am a member of the Royal United Services Institute of Regina and also of 600 Wing Air Force Association, which is the City of Regina wing, as well. What I am about to say expresses my own opinions, but I have spoken to members of both those associations on these matters, and generally speaking their views are closely aligned with mine.
My first point is that Canada's role in the defence of North America needs to be more than lecturing to the United States on proper behaviour. Our support of NORAD is very much a positive measure which, incidentally, requires renewal next year, and I hope that we will still be a part of it then.
The Prime Minister recently declared that Canada will not take part in the proposed ballistic missile defence system. As far as I could discern, that statement was made without explanation, without analysis and, in my opinion, without justification. This will certainly weaken our relationship with the United States, which is unfortunate, as I believe it is vital for our survival that that relationship continue in a strong way.
The Prime Minister clearly heeded the Bloc and NDP warnings about Star Wars and the weaponization of space rather than listening to the rationale associated with the missile defence system.
At last weekend's convention, Michael Ignatieff told the Liberals, ``We do not want our decisions to fracture the command structure of North American defence. We must not walk away from the table.'' That is the same statement made by Colonel Cade a few minutes ago. Unfortunately, we have, I think, walked away from the table.
Pierre Pettigrew suggests that Canadian businesses' getting a slice of contract action surrounding the missile defence program might be our contribution to it. I do not know what you think about that.
We must remain in NORAD, in my opinion.
Senator Atkins: Do you have any suggestion as to how we can repair the damage done by the Prime Minister's announcement?
Mr. Yeomans: Yes. I would trust, as has already been suggested by the committee, that the decision is not irrevocable, that it will be re-examined in due course, not too far into the future, before such time as the renewal of the NORAD arrangement comes up. I think the missile defence program is an integral part of NORAD. I do not think it makes sense to continue to be part of NORAD unless missile defence is taken into consideration. I hope that the government will realize that and that wiser opinions will prevail than this shouting the odds about the weaponization of space and Star Wars, which makes no sense.
Senator Atkins: Would you allow radar warning systems to be deployed in this country?
Mr. Yeomans: I believe I would, with appropriate safeguards.
Mr. Keple: By way of comment, the fact is that we have had radar with North American Air Defence based on Canadian soil before. There is only a possibility of one additional new technology radar being installed as part of the ballistic missile defence system in the Goose Bay, Labrador, area that would increase the security of our great protectorate to the south. That is straightforward.
What constitutes sovereignty? It is like a teenager leaving home and trying to define himself as an adult. One of the choices available to a teenager is to decide to define himself in the role of the parent. If you happen to have an ideal parent, you do not have to do something deliberately different and less ideal just to establish your own autonomy.
Canada, as a sovereign nation, can decide to agree with the United States as opposed to deliberately taking a different tack. In the Canadian Arctic we are aware that several world powers — Russia, Britain, France and America — operate, but we are unable to operate there. We have given up; we have ceded our sovereignty under ice in the Arctic.
To do the same in our high air space is folly. At what stage does a nation assert its sovereignty? Sometimes you assert your sovereignty by walking up and saying, ``I agree with you,'' even when you do not. Just to walk away and leave the discussion altogether is such an ephemeral way of stating your sovereignty. As soon as you have made that statement you have lost your sovereignty in that area.
The Chairman: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Walker: Again, welcome to Regina. I am quite convinced that my good friend Jack Wiebe recommended that I sit at this desk so that I would not be standing at a microphone in front of you. However, if you would be so kind as to give me an opportunity to speak less than three minutes, I will.
At the staff college we used to ask young officers to come up with different solutions to problems that we posed to them and then at the end of the exercise we would present what we called the DS, or directing staff, solution. Gentleman, I think I have the directing staff solution to the question of the army reserve in Canada. The question will then be whether the political courage and the will are there to implement that solution.
It is a fairly straightforward solution, a three-step solution. Step one, Canada needs to decide what kind of army it wants to have and how it wants that army to be formed and structured. Step two, I think that the traditional militia units need to be restructured to be the base for mobilization. As honorary colonels across Canada have argued over and over and over again, that should be their raison d'être. Step three, the government should direct National Defence to form an army reserve, a brand-new army reserve that mirrors the regular force.
In my former area of expertise with Land Force Western Area, it would mean having a regular brigade, three infantry units, an artillery unit, an armoured unit, engineer resources, logistical unit, et cetera. Mirror that with a reserve army component, so that if we had one regular regiment of artillery in Western Canada we would have one reserve regiment of artillery in Canada. There could be movement between the regular and the reserve components and if, God forbid, this nation found itself in short order needing a large mobilized force, that reserve force could double the strength of the military, the army component.
Senator Forrestall: Is this somewhat in keeping with the new Chief of Defence Staff's wish to move towards a regional structural command, an integrated command? If so, does that not tend to address polarization of our human resource? Are we cutting the west off from the east? Will they never train together or intermingle?
Mr. Walker: Senator Forrestall, I do not think so. I cannot speak for General Hillier. General Hillier was an up- and-coming officer about the time that I retired, so it would be far from me to suppose what is in his mind.
I do not see a regionalization or a balkanization in Canada. I see making use of the resources that are available. I see a new focus. It would give a purpose to those people who are wearing the uniform.
Certainly, from 1991 onward, more and more, as you have heard on your cross-Canada tour, we have relied on the reserve forces to do the kinds of missions that Canada has called for.
The second last commander in Bosnia is a former commanding officer of the Royal Regina Rifles. A fellow in Kabul, Afghanistan, who was awarded the Bronze Star last week, is a former commanding officer of the Regina Rifles. Eddie Staniowski, former goaltender in the NHL, with the Canadian contingent, commander in Sierra Leone for the last six months, was a former commanding officer of the Royal Regina Rifles. Those people are out there serving this country, those great young Canadians. I think they would be much better able to do so if the forces were restructured. I speak now particularly of the army.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, general, not only for your comments but for coming and serving as moderator.
Mr. Walker: It has been my pleasure.
The Chairman: Jack has a way with reserves and he was always very good at reminding our committee to make sure we focussed on the reserves. We miss Jack a great deal, we were sorry to see him leave the Senate early. We consider him both a personal and professional friend.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you all very much for being here tonight. We know it is a burden to come out on a week night to talk about public policy matters. We do it for a living but you do it because you care. We are grateful that you did take the time. We benefit a great deal from hearing different viewpoints. We have listened carefully to what you have had to say. More than that we have made a transcript of what you have had to say and we will have an opportunity to review that as we are deliberating for our report.
I want you to know that we feel that tonight was a worthwhile occasion and we are grateful for the trouble and effort taken by those of you who shared your views with us. We find these meetings to be very valuable and we learn from every meeting we attend. On behalf of the committee, thank you very much.
The committee adjourned.