Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 21 - Evidence, May 5, 2005 - Townhall meeting
HALIFAX, Thursday, May 5, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 6:34 p.m. to examine and report on the national security policy for Canada (Town Hall meeting).
Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I call to order the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.
Before we commence the meeting, I would call on Senator Forrestall to speak to the group briefly.
Senator Forrestall: Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, before we begin our meeting, my colleagues and I would like to recognize an important event in our collective history: that is, victory in Europe. The celebrations in honour of VE day — the end of World War II in Europe — throughout Canada and around the world have taken place to mark our awareness of the great sacrifice of our brave men and women and to ensure that their contribution to world peace is not forgotten. I ask that you please join me and my fellow senators for a moment of silence to honour those who served during the Second World War to ensure our way of life. I will ask you to rise, please.
[Moment of silence]
Please be seated.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Forrestall.
I welcome everyone here tonight. My name is Colin Kenny. I chair the committee and we are very pleased to see everyone here. We have been travelling the country and we have had town meetings in virtually every province that we have visited, with a couple of exceptions. We have found it very useful to hear what people have to say, and it has been a sort of a reality check for the committee to have an evening such as this. We are very grateful to you for being here.
I would like to start by introducing the members of the committee to you so that you are aware of whom you are addressing.
On my immediate right is Senator Forrestall, who is from Nova Scotia — from Dartmouth, in fact. He has served the constituents of Dartmouth for the past 37 years, first as their member of the House of Commons then as their senator. While in the House of Commons. he served as the official opposition defence critic from 1966 to 1976. He is also a member of our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.
[Translation]
Quebec native Senator Pierre Claude Nolin is a lawyer and was appointed to the Senate in 1993. He chaired the Committee on Illegal Drugs and is currently serving as the Deputy Chair of the Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Internationally, Senator Nolin has been Canada's delegate to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly since 1994. He is currently the Vice-President of the Assembly and rapporteur for the Science and Technology Committee.
[English]
On his right is Senator Jim Munson from New Brunswick, although he was appointed from Ontario. Senator Munson was a trusted journalist and former director of communications for Prime Minister Chrétien before he was called to the Senate in 2003. Senator Munson has been twice nominated for Gemini awards in recognition of excellence in journalism.
To my left is Senator Jane Cordy from Nova Scotia. She is an accomplished educator with an extensive record of community involvement, including serving as Chair of the Halifax-Dartmouth Port Development Commission. She is Chair of the Canada-NATO Parliamentary Association and a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
Our committee has been mandated to examine security and defence by the Senate and to look at the need for a national security policy. We have produced the following reports since 2002: Canadian Security and Military Preparedness; Defence of North America: A Canadian Responsibility; Update on Canada's Military Crisis: A Review from the Bottom Up; The Myth of Security at Canada's Airports; Canada's Coastlines, the Longest Under-defended Borders in the World; National Emergencies: Canada's Fragile Front Lines, and, most recently, The Canadian Security Guidebook, 2005 Edition.
Our committee is in the midst of a detailed review of Canadian defence policy and we have been holding hearings, as I mentioned before, in every province, engaging 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. Canadians have been very forthright in expressing their views on national security in Canada. We will continue working on this review throughout the summer in order to forge a consensus on the type of military that Canadians envision in the future.
We are here tonight to listen, and we are here to learn. You will not hear any speeches from senators. We are here to hear from you, and that is the purpose of this evening's session.
We are fortunate this evening to have as our moderator Retired Commodore Eric Lerhe. He has had 36 years of service in the navy, and commanded two destroyers, HMCS Nipigon and HMCS Saguenay. Subsequently, during the 1990s, he was Director of NATO Policy, and Director of Naval Force Development. His last job was as Commander of the Canadian Fleet Pacific until 2003. Immediately after retirement, he began in a doctoral program in political science at Dalhousie University.
Commodore, the floor is yours.
Commodore (Ret'd) Eric Lerhe, Moderator: I have been given some extensive rules with which I intend to torment you all. There are two microphones at the front of the hall: 1 and 2. If you wish to make a comment, please line up behind one of those microphones. An important note is that you really should not be asking the senators a question. What you should be doing is giving them your views. However, you will have three minutes to do so, and right in front here, the time will be clicking down, and then a red light will come on. At that point I will automatically turn over the floor to the chairman, who will give one of the senators an opportunity to ask you a question on your views. You will have approximately a minute and a half to respond, and the timer will again be going. This is to ensure that everybody who has come here today who wants to address the committee will get the same amount of time as everybody else, and that nobody is left out because somebody else ran on too long in giving their views.
Your comments will be part of the official transcript of this meeting, so it is really important that we have your particulars when you give your views because they will be recorded, and we want your name on them. How is that done? There are registration cards available. Please fill them out if you wish to speak and, once you have lined up, just before you speak, please hand your card to either one of these ladies and they will ensure that your name is accurately transferred to the transcript of these meetings.
The meeting is being interpreted in both official languages and transceivers are available for those who wish to listen to the other official language. We await your views.
The Chairman: If people could proceed to either microphone, we will start.
Mr. David J. Bright, as an individual: First, I would like to thank the committee for taking the time to come to Halifax.
Senator Forrestall, I think the views that you express will be important. This is an apolitical group, if I could use that term. I am here because I am a lawyer and I specialize in military law. I have represented members of the military for close to 30 years. In fact, auspiciously, it was 45 years ago today that I joined the Royal Canadian Navy at the exalted rank of an ordinary seaman. Things have improved.
I am not in a position to tell you what I think you should have by way of weapons platforms or operational equipment or things of that nature. Rather, my view is that the best of equipment can only be properly utilized by men and women who are properly treated and respected, and that this committee should give consideration to the role of the troops, if I could use that term, with respect to the Canadian Forces. I say this as a private citizen, but I can tell you I am also Chair of the Military Law Section of the Canadian Bar. Although my views are individual today, they certainly have been canvassed with some other members of that committee.
It is my view, Mr. Chairman, that the military needs a significant administrative overhaul. Why do I say that? I say that because morale depends on the success of the administrative work of people behind the scenes. Part of the problem is this: If people are court-martialled, one of the penalties, of course, can be dismissal from the Armed Forces. If the military judge refuses to do that, then quite often what happens is that the administrators release the person under a different category. That person does not have the right, in my respectful view, to argue properly in the way they would before a panel. It is a paper process.
Credibility often is an issue, and yet it is not looked at, not effected, by those members of the committees who perform that function. There is no suggestion that the burden of proof is on the person making the application and the standard of proof is sometimes on a balance of probabilities.
In my respectful submission, what is needed and what should be established is an administrative tribunal that sits on a permanent basis in Ottawa. If people are being released from the Armed Forces, they should have the opportunity to appear before that tribunal. They should have the opportunity to be represented and they should know what it is they are facing. They should have the evidence that is to be used against them marshalled. In other words, servicemen should have the exact same rights as public servants who might be subject to dismissal, or members of the RCMP who have a service court and can argue before that court. I think it improper that members of the military do not have the same rights as anyone else in relation to that aspect of their service.
Mr. Lerhe: Mr. Bright, I have given you an extra 20 seconds of time.
Mr. Bright: I am sorry.
Senator Munson: I will make it easy for you, sir. I will ask you to continue with what you are talking about because we have not addressed the court martial issue.
My question will be very simple: Please give us your specific suggestions. If you have a bit more to say, please go ahead.
Mr. Bright: When you talk about the court martial issue, as a lawyer I am satisfied with the military justice system. I think it is fair and I think it reasonable. What transpires is what comes administratively after that. Thererfore, in my view, the military should set up some sort of system that permits representation of members who are being released, or members who are being released on a medical basis, which causes a problem because they do not seem to have the opportunity to have a second opinion.
There should also be, in my respectful view, a very significant liaison between the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Canadian Forces. It appears now that people are sort of out the main gate on a medical release. They are not properly briefed on how to go about getting their pension and making their application. I think the military, quite frankly, has an obligation and a duty to do that and should assist. There should be an extensive liaison between the two. There should not be a division between people seeking to provide pensions to veterans.
Finally, I would say that for very little money you could set up a pool of trained administrators to assist people who are being released. I think it is somewhat unfair that they have to spend their money to hire someone like me when there are people in the military quite capable of representing them, of being independent and doing a good job.
Mr. Paul Phillips, as an individual: I am President of the Royal United Services Institute, Nova Scotia Branch, and my background is that I joined the navy in the1950s, also as an ordinary seaman, and retired after 39 years of service. The mission of the Royal United Services Institute is to promote awareness and public understanding of the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. We have a general membership, primarily retired officers of the three services but we also have RCMP, Coast Guard, and civilian members. We have a very active strategic affairs committee which prepares papers on our behalf and acts as our formal spokesperson unit.
We were very pleased to see the release of the defence policy statement. It was long overdue but, nonetheless, it was welcomed. We are concerned about the current state of the Canadian Armed Forces. It has been stated by senior officers in all three services that we are rapidly approaching a rust-out condition and band-aid solutions. We are past band-aid solutions. We require long-term planning and long-term funding. The announced $12.8 billion is significant but will kick in far too late to do today's required work. In simple terms, the three arms of the service cannot do what the government has tasked them to do with what the government has given them to do it.
We do not believe the training cadre in the Armed Forces at this moment is capable of handling the proposed 5,000 influx. We closed a major training base some years ago but looking at Saint-Jean and the personnel involved, there is not enough of them.
We have no ice-capable ships to provide Arctic sovereignty. There is no plan nor is there a capability in Canada to build replacement vessels for the 280 class. These vessels, because of their command and control capability, are our admission slip to operations with the Americans.
We have too many paper units, such as DART, which has to be cobbled together from units from one end of the country to the other, and therefore the home units are left lacking.
Closer to home, we have no means of carrying out any sort of land-based coastal surveillance. We have no heavy airlift capability and we have no sealift capability for heavy equipment.
We need forces now, not forces in the future. At this moment we do not have them, and there will be no time for a buildup. We need people who can go today, not tomorrow. Our brother services, Coast Guard and Royal Canadian Mounted Police, they are all in desperate need of support from your committee and from the Government of Canada to carry out the roles that the government has assigned to them.
Senator Nolin: Mr. Phillips, we have travelled the country and find that Canadians have a definite penchant for the military, but they are not well-informed. Maybe an organization like yours should be more vocal because someone is definitely not doing his job in public relations for the military system in Canada. What advice can you give us on that lack of public relations to support the activities of the military in Canada?
Mr. Phillips: I just happen to have our public relations officer with me, sitting in the back row, in the person of Len Canfield.
Senator Nolin: Maybe he should line up with you there.
Mr. Phillips: Our program is to try and get as many pieces as possible into the newspapers, and to basically talk and write to the best of our ability. Unfortunately this is a localized effort and Halifax, all-in-all, is a military city and we are preaching to the converted. What we have to do is get the guy who lives in Oshawa or Regina or somewhere in that respect to listen to the problem. People are still fighting 1939-1945. There will be no build-up.
We need troops who can get on an aircraft — that we do not have — and get to point ``B'' to do the job that our government has told the UN we can do. How do you get that word across? We can do it locally, and we do our best to do it locally, but for the rest of the country we rely on gentlemen and ladies of your stature and your position to do it for us.
Mr. Jim Livingston, as an individual: My background is that I enlisted as a private in the Halifax Rifles in 1950, so I go back as far as all of the others. I understand from the television programming that I have watched that you have appointed Senator Forrestall as an Honorary Lieutenant-Colonel of the Halifax Rifles.
The Chairman: No. He has not missed a meeting yet where we have heard about the Halifax Rifles, but I think he is the Honorary General of the Regiment.
Mr. Livingstone: At any rate, I am here representing the Halifax Rifles Armouries Association. It has been in existence for well over 100 years now, I think. The unfortunate thing is that in 1965, 40 years ago, the government of the day, in its wisdom, transferred the unit to the Supplementary Order of Battle and it ceased to exist. The association has continued to function and it sponsors the Halifax Rifles Cadet Corps, which wears the Halifax Rifles badges and flashes. It provides two or three scholarships a year and is fighting a continuing battle to have the regiment reinstated in some form.
I am here for two reasons: One is to present a paper which has been distributed to all of you called, Coastline/ Shoreline Security in Nova Scotia. I know it is a subject that has been previously discussed in the committee. This paper was prepared by Brigadier-General (Ret'd) Ned Amy, who is a much-decorated soldier who fought in Italy, Northwest Europe, and Korea, and in Korea he received the Distinguished Service Order. He has been a long-time proponent of the reactivation of the Halifax Rifles. He had to be in Ottawa today and he asked me to present the paper on his behalf.
I will not go over the paper very much because I know you have already discussed the subject. His proposal is that a squadron company-sized unit be formed in the Halifax area to provide coastline-shoreline security in the reserve army, and it is a position that my association supports. We, of course, would like to see that unit constituted as a squadron of the Halifax Rifles.
I should emphasize here that I live on an isolated part of the shoreline of Nova Scotia. Within 50 miles of my home, in the past three or four years, illegal aliens have been caught coming ashore. There has been a major drug bust, a marijuana interception. Of course, we are all also aware of a shipload of refugees who came ashore and nobody knew they were there until they were on somebody's front lawn down on the South Shore.
Mr. Lerhe: Mr. Livingston, you have a major friend of the Halifax Rifles on the committee, but I have to call your time.
Senator Forrestall: Thank you for being here, and thank you for coming to speak for the Halifax Rifles. I am sorry that the brigadier could not be here because no more eloquent spokesman exists for a matter that concerns this committee, and that is finding a way of defending our coastlines. There is no better spokesman, really, for that cause. I know this has been a widely discussed subject. It is not the intent to play games with the Halifax Rifles but they are, and remain, to many of us old fogies on the supplementary list the most centrally located, the most easily supported, and the least costly to reactivate. We know from at least two defence ministers, and probably three, I guess, that defence measures can be reactivated with the stroke of a pen following a definitive challenge. Could you lend us your views on how you might see that challenge? How would you see them patrolling the coast?
Mr. Livingstone: It seems to me that it is a natural role for a reserve unit. Certainly, a reserve unit of that type here in Halifax could work very closely with the reserve naval unit and work out some ship-to-shore coordination so that the reserve army unit could work along the shoreline in concert with the ships of HMCS Scotian, for instance. It seems that with the Chief of the General Staff having a mandate to increase the reservesby 3,000 people, this would be an opportune time to reactivate the unit and establish a reconnaissance unit whose primary reserve aim is the monitoring of the coastline.
Mr. Brian Butler, as an individual: Senators, I reside in the community of Fall River within the Regional Municipality of Halifax. I do not belong to any defence association or any association whatsoever. I am just an average Canadian who pays for the military and all other federal departments.
I have followed the Canadian military and its history over the years, plus what is going on lately, and I try to keep up-to-date as best as I can. I believe that if we are to have the military that we want, now and in the future, we must have more cash infusion. I know that back when the present government introduced its budget about two to three months ago, it said that it intended to spend an extra $12.8 billion, I believe, on the Armed Rorces over the next five years. My problem with that is that I do not believe we will ever see that money, because that money for the Armed Forces is earmarked to be spent in the latter part of the five year mandate of this budget. I believe that if the government were really serious about infusing money into the Canadian Armed Forces, they would have put the majority of that money in over the next one or two years, not $500 million this year and $600 million in the next fiscal year.
Most governments that I am aware of, and I am no expert, but if they want to put money into something, they do not wait until the fifth or fourth year. They do it in the first couple of years and maybe into the third year. Therefore I am very suspicious as to whether or not that money will actually get to the Canadian Armed Forces. Over the last number of years, the members of the Canadian Armed Forces have heard each government say — and it does not matter sometimes what government is in power — that they intend to increase the amount of money that they spend. However, it always seems that after they are in power for two or three years, the Armed Forces do not get what they were promised in those budgets.
Perhaps about two years ago our Auditor General, someone who, although she does not belong directly to government, knows how the money is spent within government, said that the Canadian Armed Forces needed at least $2 billion of new money injected immediately because, as it is now, they are running behind in each of the services: army, navy, and air force on their own budgets. Basically, what they are doing — it operates much like a credit card: You run it up and then you get the money and you pay it off, but then you go back spending again. Therefore, if they are to get the money that is needed, they must get it ASAP. Only then will the Armed Forces believe that we are serious about doing something; give them the money that will buy them the equipment they need so that they can do their job, here and overseas.
Senator Cordy: I am wondering whether or not you have read all of our reports, because we have certainly indicated that the military is under-funded and under-staffed, and that the men and women in the military are doing wonderful jobs under the circumstances. The good news is that actually the past few budgets have shown increases — not enough increases, in our minds, but increases nonetheless.
What would be your priority? You have certainly discussed the issue of more money but if, in fact, we were given the amount of money, what is the very first priority that you think the money should be spent on?
Mr. Butler: What we could do — or should do, perhaps, in my opinion anyway, is to make sure that, since we do have a procurement policy, we get the equipment that we are allowed under that policy, and that goes for all three services. Right now, the air force is looking for GLIF capability. There is lots of talk about it but no money. That is what I am saying: Talk is cheap. Get the money flowing and the equipment that we need purchased so that we can transport our soldiers and move them to where they need to go; give the money to the navy for the acquisition of the ships that they are asking for. We do not have the capability to move our troops. We have to rent the ships to move them. We all saw what happened two years ago this past August when we rented ships. About 65 per cent of our armoury was floating around out there in the Atlantic and we had to send out a Tribal class destroyer plus a boarding party. That was extremely embarrassing.
Senator Cordy: We should not be hitch-hiking, is what you are saying?
Mr. Butler: We should not be hitch-hiking. We are old enough and big enough, I think, to look after ourselves.
Mr. Albert Tanguay, as an individual: Senators, I do not represent any organization. I am here as a citizen.
First of all, let me express my appreciation for the opportunity to attend this committee meeting and, in fact, the opportunity to address it. This sure beats CPAC.
My concern is with long-term defence planning and future force structure. I believe it applies more to the maritime forces than perhaps to the air force and the army. I witnessed an excellent exchange of ideas this afternoon between this committee and Professors Middlemiss and Stairs and Admiral King. There seems little doubt now in anyone's mind that for the past four years the focus on defence has been North America; more oriented toward that North American theatre because of one single event, 9/11, that can be attributed by some to a failure of the intelligence apparatus.
In the early 1980s, few predicted the demise of the number one enemy, which were the Warsaw Pact countries. Prior to 9/11, few gave terrorism such a high priority in defence.
I will get to my point now, my concern for the long term. Any decision taken now regarding doctrine, major acquisition and force make-up starts to have an impact in perhaps 10 years. With the unpredictability of the future, specifically what is the primary threat, and that, as you know is a competitive process in itself, I feel that our forces should remain as general purpose as possible, as much as the country can afford, as much as the state can afford. Otherwise, we risk being prepared, in fact, to fight the last war. Let us be careful, then, when we talk of restructuring to fight the current threat as opposed to the future one, when we really do not know what it will be.
Senator Munson: We have JTF2, the sort of undercover group that can be found in any part of the world. Are you talking about the expansion of a group like that to work more on a domestic level than in a foreign place?
Mr. Tanguay: No, I am specifically aiming my comments at maritime forces, which take so long to develop because of acquisition of specific platforms, and so on. My point is that Canada's navy should remain as general purpose as possible to meet any future requirement the government may impose upon it.
Senator Munson: With that in mind, some of the testimony we have been hearing is that the navy will be short- changed with the new 5,000 and the 3,000 reservists. Are you suggesting that at least here in Atlantic Canada we should take another look at having a more equal approach to forcing out these new people?
Mr. Tanguay: Yes, I am suggesting that if Canada is to defend itself, particularly when it applies to the maritime forces, perhaps defending ourselves in our own backyard is not the place to do it. We should always have the ability to deploy in other corners of the world and not focus just on North America. I fear that if we base our planning on the current threat or the current threat of the day, we might focus too much on North American defence.
Ms. Tamara Lorincz, as an individual: I am an MBA/Law alumnus from Dalhousie University. I am also a new mother and an active member of the Halifax Peace Coalition because I am very concerned about the direction of Canada's foreign and defence policy. I am also concerned about the bias in the Senate committee. Of the nine members on the committee there is only one woman. From the agenda posted on the website, this committee has only heard from military and pro-military academics. Professors Stairs and Middlemiss are academics from the Centre for Foreign Policy Studies at Dalhousie University. That centre is fully funded by the Department of National Defence. The Senate committee has not adequately heard from the female and peace perspectives.
Former U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower, in his farewell speech in 1961, warned about the undue influence of the military industrial complex. I am equally concerned about the influence of the military industrial complex on this Senate committee. It is unacceptable to me that the chairperson of this committee is meeting with Raytheon officials and that Senator William Rompkey is advocating for an X-span radar at Goose Bay, Labrador. I just want to remind the committee that Canadians reject participating in American missile defence. The senators are trying to override the will of the Canadian people. We do not want to be part of American ballistic missile defence. I would also like to remind the committee that the Canadian government, having listened to us, said no to American BMD in February, so please do not undermine our democratic process with backroom deals.
Canadians also reject deeper military integration with the United States. We reject the frighteningly dangerous andde-stabilizing policies and plans of the U.S. military. The U.S. has a brutal and bloody history of military and CIA interventions. Iraq is a perfect example. Canadians want a foreign policy independent from the United States and we want Canadian soldiers to be peacekeepers, not combatants. These views are substantiated by recent surveys and polls done by the Centre for Research and Information on Canada.
I would also like the committee to know that the Halifax Peace Coalition is opposed to Canada's involvement in the U.S.-led NATO. It is a Cold War relic and it is complicit in war crimes: that is, the use of depleted uranium in Kosovo.
We are also opposed to Canada's involvement in the illegal coup of democratically elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Canada's Joint Task Force 2 troops were guarding the airport so that U.S. Marines could kidnap Aristide, and Canada's RCMP are training the Haitian National Police, who are responsible for killing unarmed civilians. We are opposed to expansion of the JTF2 as outlined in the new foreign policy statement.
In addition, we reject an increase in the defence budget. There has been gross mismanagement of funds. The computer system and the flight program are examples of that. At $12 billion, we will never be able to compete with the United States' spending of $5 billion on its U.S. military.
In closing, this year marks the sixtieth anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This year also marks the midpoint of the United Nations decade to create a culture of peace and non-violence for the children of the world. Let us do that, please.
Senator Nolin: Ms. Lorincz, you have a point. With respect to gender imbalance on the committee, you are right. However, it is not the fault of the chair; it is just that the system works like that.
Ms. Lorincz: Yes, the system is problematic.
Senator Nolin: But we will be working on that.
I have another question about the threat to Canada. According to al Qaeda reports, and confirmed by various intelligence services around the world, six countries, including Canada, are on the list as primary targets. We do not know what happened exactly in Montreal two nights ago. There, some powder arrived from London. Let us assume it was not from al Qaeda. Canada is the only remaining country that has not been targeted so far. Do you think we should get organized to try to prevent a terrorist attack in Canada?
Ms. Lorincz: What is the source of your information?
Senator Nolin: There are various sources. Al Jazeera is one that is available to whomever wants to listen to it.
Ms. Lorincz: Can you repeat, succinctly, your question again?
Senator Nolin: Al Qaeda is reported to have identified six countries as primary targets. The only remaining one untouched on that list is Canada. Should we get organized to prevent such an attack?
Ms. Lorincz: What kind of attack are you referring to?
Senator Nolin: Well, there are various examples of terrorist attacks around the world.
Ms. Lorincz: Because I was...
Senator Nolin: Do you want Canada to get organized, so as not to have such attacks on our country?
Ms. Lorincz: I would like the Canadian military to prepare and plan for peace. We have ratified, you know, a number of treaties. We are part of the United Nations. The United Nations charter says ``Let us resolve conflict peacefully.'' I would like to see Canada instead direct its efforts towards increasing our foreign aid. We are abysmally behind in that. We are at only two per cent of GNP. We are supposed to be at 7 per cent. That is where I would like to see us focusing our efforts instead of some obscure, un-sourced claims of a possible terrorist attack.
Senator Nolin: No, no —
Ms. Lorincz: Let me also tell you that I was just down in the United States for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review over the last five days. I just got home the other day. Many people are saying, including Americans, that the biggest terrorist threat on the planet is, in fact, the United States. If anything, we should be doing the opposite of what the United States is doing. As I mentioned in my speech, Canadians have said repeatedly that we want our military to be peacekeepers. That is the direction in which we want our defence to be going.
Mr. Lerhe: Ms. Lorincz, you were precisely on time with your speech but you are over in your response.
Colonel (Ret'd) Don W. McLeod, as an individual: Senators, I am the National President of the Air Force Association of Canada. I am also the Honorary Colonel of 406 Maritime Operational Training Squadron and I sit on the command of Air Command's advisory council.
I would like to just preface my remarks by saying that my good friend Albert Tanguay's comments are much like the ones that I intend to make. I think he probably did it with a little less emotion.
Mr. Chairman and honourable senators, I want to thank you for the opportunity to be able to address you this evening. First of all, I want to say that, from an air force and a navy perspective, there has been no defence review. Rather, there has been a revitalization of the Canadian Army to form the Canadian Marine Corps, not unlike the U.S. Marine Corps, where the role of the navy and the air force is to support the army. Honking big ships, honking big army helicopters, replacement for a Twin Otter aircraft — while exciting, none of these projects had been on the horizon as part of a strategic defence plan.
Even if there were to be an influx of defence dollars as projected, the CF, and especially the air force, is still well into rust-out. It will take many years of careful, well-planned spending to bring the air force anywhere close to satisfying much-needed requirements. Yes, there is CF-18 modernization; there is a CP-140 Aurora update. However, before any money is committed to a new Airborne regiment — and by the way, no Canadian soldier has jumped out of an airplane operationally since Korea — fixed-wing SAR has to be fast-tracked. Strategic airlift must be moved off top dead centre and moved along expeditiously. While the talk of leased aircraft may be in vogue with the uninformed, it is a quick and dirty solution to moving critical troops and equipment; it is a myth from both a practical and a cost-effective perspective.
NATO countries are not able to commit to assured heavy airlift. There are simply not enough assets. All countries are struggling for airlift capability and many more countries are vying for the capability on a leased basis than there is capacity. Why is Canada not looking at procuring and then leasing its services to its allies, much as we now do with NATO flying training in Canada?
Canada needs to look at both technical and strategic airlift, and it has to do it now. Any school child can tell you that any military needs to be able to move personnel and equipment with any of the defence review scenarios there may be. I say there may be a possibility of a requirement to lift ground troops with medium-lift helicopters, even if our main defence objective is to assist failed and failing states in a three-block war.
The first Cyclone to replace the CH-124 Sea King is still a long way off and many current maritime helicopter pilots will never see it. However, the CDS has stated that he can fast-track a medium-lift helicopter capability to be delivered within two years. That is a slap in the face to Sea King pilots.
Mr. Lerhe: I am afraid I will have to call time.
Senator Forrestall: What you are suggesting seems to make a lot of sense. Could you elaborate a little bit more on what we have now and how we might improve? I am thinking mainly on the air side because I think you are fairly close to being bang-on, and when the general is finished it will be the army and perhaps, to a lesser degree, the navy. What could we do with the existing fleets that we have? I guess what I am saying is how should we go about replacing, for example, our strategic heavy lift?
Mr. McLeod: We must start the project — and I know that project exists right now within Chief of the Air Staff — to identify what is required, what is available. But what is most important is that even in the event that the dollars are not available, we must have a plan. We must have a plan now of what will replace the Hercules and what will be our strategic airlift, even if it is 10 or15 years from now. We just keep saying ``We have to do it.'' I am not saying that we must take defence dollars now and do it, but there has to be a plan. How are we to move people? People think it is great to rent an Antonov aircraft to move our people around. However, that will not always be available. We are looking to increase the army, but with no way to move them. Putting them on a honking big ship and sailing around the world will not get them where they need to be when they have to be there, so Senator Forrestall, I am saying that we need to sit down and look at a plan, not just for the air force but for everybody.
I will talk about the air force for a moment. Someday we will need to replace the Snowbirds. Someday we will need to replace the CF-18s. It may be 20 years from now but we have to start that planning now, and identify the dollars.
Senator Forrestall: I guess that is close to what I am asking. Do you see a sufficient diversified need for aircraft to warrant the maintenance of the air force itself as a separate branch? Do we have enough need, that you can see, to warrant the maintenance of the air force as opposed to turning equipment over, perhaps leftover equipment, to the army or over to the general for his use?
Mr. McLeod: I do not understand the question but I certainly see the need for a balanced air force.
Senator Forrestall: A balanced air force to handle the diverse requirements of airlifts?
Mr. Wally Buckoski, as an individual: Good evening, senators. I work for PSP at the Shearwater Fitness and Sports Centre. I have been in Shearwater since 1965, hence my nickname is Shearwater Swatter. I am a former light welterweight boxing champion of Nova Scotia. I am here to speak to you today on fitness and sports in the Canadian Forces. Today, part of my job in the gym is to look after equipment for the guys and the women at Shearwater.
Today, I had to close a squash court to make room for some spin cycles. This is a new fitness thing and I think it is a really sad day for Shearwater that I have to close a squash court to make room for spin cycles when we should be increasing our fitness and not downsizing it in any way whatsoever. I have a ball field behind me that needs the fence moved back and the lights moved back because they changed the rules in the Canadian Forces three years ago for these guys and women, when they are playing sports that they are going to slow pitch instead of fast pitch. Every year now, when we have a tournament, we must go downtown to Halifax or Dartmouth and rent one of their fields. Here we are in the military, Canadian Forces, and we cannot even use our own field right in Shearwater. I am going through this right now. That is what I want to talk to you about today.
I know some of the other people here today are talking about helicopters and things, but this is what I want to speak about. I have a few things behind me here and the first one says, ``The definition of `insanity' is doing the same thing year after year and expecting better results.'' That is what we do with fitness and sports in the Canadian Forces. We do the same things, year after year, expecting results and we never get them. I want to elaborate on that a little bit.
You have an RMC hockey team in Kingston, Ontario that plays hockey, and that has full body contact when they play. However, what they have done in the Canadian Forces is that they have told the soldiers here that, ``You are not going to play any body contact. We find it just maybe a bit too rough.'' But yet you let the RMC team play full body contact but you will not let your own military members do it, and they are playing body contact anyway when they are out there. Another example is you took fast-pitch softball out of the Canadian Forces' curriculum. We do not know why you took it out, but you did it. You brought in slow-pitch, which we call ``beer ball.'' That is what it is. You go around the bases, you touch a base, you grab a beer and you drink it.
The men and women of the Canadian Forces do not want that. Fitness and sports for these people is so important. It is the outlet that I give them. In sports stores, I give them that. When they come to see me, with the stress from working, the stress from Swissair, the stress from all of that, my job in sports stores is to make sure that when they leave there, they do not have any stress. They have the recreational needs that they have met.
Another thing that was set up was that in 1984 we joined — and this surprised me — the Council of CISM Sports, where the elite athletes go against other countries in the world. It is a great program. I think it is fantastic, but look at some of the things that go on in that program. There is basketball, biathlon, parachuting, shooting, running — there are some really good things there. But where is the hockey? I do not see hockey in there. Where is the squash and the badminton for those people who like to do those things? Year after year, we do the same sports but we do not incorporate anything that has any new creative ideas, and that is what we must do. If you want to entice young people to join the Canadian Forces, you need to do that.
Senator Cordy: You have raised an excellent point. I also happen to be on a committee that is studying health care, and certainly when we talk about wellness, that is the priority in that it is like short-term pain financially for long-term gain because if people are well, they will not be using the resources of the healthcare system. We are currently studying mental health issues and the release of stress, and sports is a wonderful way to help people through the stresses of their jobs.
First, where does the funding come for your job? Second, you gave us lists without sports, or moving from fastball to slow pitch. Who makes those decisions?
Mr. Buckoski: It actually comes from an organization called CFPSA in Ottawa, which is the founding organization of the personal support programs, and that is what we do. We are not military but we are looking after your recreational needs. We are looking after your sports. My job in that world is in sports stores. I am the equipment provider. Anything that happens in Shearwater, whether it is buying a treadmill, fixing equipment for the ball teams, handing out hockey equipment, that is my job for the whole base. I am speaking for all the men and women, and I do not see any of them here today. I do not see any of my colleagues who are higher up the chain than I am, bringing these things forward. When these people come to my desk, when they come away from these tournaments, these are the things that they bring to me. ``Wally, where are they coming from with these ideas? Why are we taking body contact out of hockey?'' This is Canada's sport. Why do we switch from fast pitch to slow pitch? We have facilities right across Canada, such as curling clubs on all our bases. We have golf courses on all our bases. What surprises me is that every year we cannot have a national curling bonspiel for our military members. They do it every second year. The same thing with golf. We have a CISM golf team but we do not have a national golf program. We have some really weird things that go on. I do not understand some of the things that we do.
We should be increasing our fitness and sports as much as we can. The Shearwater gym is the only Department of Defence gym in Canada — and you can check this when you go back to Ottawa — that did not get an upgrade or a refit of any sort at all. Stadacona got one. The fleet got a brand new gym. Greenwood's got great stuff. Gagetown is fantastic. I have been to Borden. I have seen what happened right across Canada, but Shearwater is the only one that did not get an upgrade. I am down there now, gun-taping stuff together. That is not right for the people, the men and women of Shearwater, and that is exactly what I am doing down there. I am gun-taping things together.
Senator Cordy: So who do we talk to?
The Chairman: Actually there are other people waiting.Mr. Buckoski's time is up and there are two supplementary questions because he is the last person on the floor.
Senator Nolin: Today we had lunch with a group of seamen. There were not many sea women, by the way, which is another gender problem. Someone referred to the unfairness of the annual fitness evaluation. I want your professional advice on that.
I do not see why men and women do not have to perform the same amount of push-ups. I can see the lifting of heavy weights, but why push-ups? Have you heard of that before?
Mr. Buckoski: You mean the lowering of standards for men and women?
Senator Nolin: Yes.
Mr. Buckoski: On that test?
Senator Nolin: Why the standards are not the same.
Mr. Buckoski: I think that body structure, for a lot of females, they have trouble with the body structure of doing a push-up. That is not to say that they are all like that but, for the most part, I find that that is the most difficult thing that they have, is doing the push-ups for their upper body strength. It is a known fact that, with respect to the upper body, women do not have quite as strong muscles as men up on this part of their bodies. However, when it comes to sit-ups, and the run and everything else that I have seen, a lot of the ladies in the forces today actually compete on the same level with the men.
We just had a floor hockey tournament in Shearwater. We had women playing on the same team as men, at the same level and doing it very well. That is the only thing, I think, that there is a problem with, is the push-ups.
Senator Munson: I have an observation. I agree with what you are saying. I mean, in the stressful time in which we live, and with men and women coming back from Afghanistan, coming back from the Gulf on ships. You know, I am sort of glad in a strange way that Cornwallis and Chatham are closed because I played once for the Yarmouth Bluenosers in 1965, right? I was 6'2'' and then I played for the —
Senator Nolin: When I said he was going to be serious...
Senator Munson: — and I played for the Bathurst Papermakers against the Chatham Ironmen and I went down to about 5'4'' and these military guys, they did play body contact and they should play body contact, but I could not take much more. Thank god the bases were closed.
Anyway, I appreciate what you are saying. I just had to get that off my chest. It has taken 40 years to get that off my chest.
Mr. Buckoski: I really believe that fitness is so important in the Canadian Forces that we should be increasing and not decreasing what we are doing here. I find that Shearwater is a great place to start because they really need an upgrade there. When I talk about the sports themselves, we should be increasing the funding for them. I really believe that we need new concepts and new ideas.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, sir. You have made your point. You got a couple of extra cracks in with senators who thought you were pretty good.
Ms. Carolyn van Gurp, as an individual: I am a teacher at a local school. I came here tonight not intending to speak or make a presentation, but since the microphone is free, I would like to do this.
I spent today teaching the students on the workings of democracy. We looked at how our government works, the various levels of government, how citizens can influence what happens in our country. These are our young people who will be running the country in a few years, and I hold great hope for the young people that I teach. I find myself quite disturbed because I am finding it very difficult right now to instil a sense of pride in our military when I look at what our military currently seems to be involved in and doing.
I have recently returned from Serbia with students from a number of schools from across the country. It was an absolutely amazing time, except for the occasions when we were asked by the people whom we were visiting, ``How does it feel to know that your tax dollars are used to bomb our country, to destroy our buildings, to kill our people?'' I had a very difficult time answering that question.
I spent last week with a Haitian-Canadian family who had a similar question, ``How does it feel to know that your tax dollars are being used to support a police force that has been charged under a number of human rights committees for human rights violations?'' Again, I had a very difficult time answering that question.
Tomorrow I will be going back to my students. We will be talking about democracy some more. We will be talking about how citizens can influence the workings of our government, and I would really like to be able to tell them that there is an opportunity to have their voices heard.
I came here at the last minute. I heard about this meeting through the newspaper and thought, you know, since I tell my students, ``You need to be active. You need to be informed,'' that I should be here myself. I know there are many people who have similar concerns about the direction of our military, and who are not here tonight, for various reasons.
I would like to know what I can tell my students and other people in the community who are not here tonight and who have a concern about the direction of our defence policy, to be sure that their voices are heard in this process. I am not sure if you have any advice for me.
The Chairman: Well, ma'am, we are not here to give advice. We are here to listen to views. That was the announced format.
Senator Munson: In terms of public affairs, I was part of the media for 35 years, and I believe that we have to take a stronger interest in understanding today's military. I think before Somalia there was that sense of pride, and after that there has been a whole rebuilding process. In Kosovo, Canadians did so much.
It drives me crazy that we do not teach Canadian history. It is not obligatory to teach Canadian history in our schools, including military history, so I think that something has to happen there in order for all students to understand.
Today, we all remember Victory in Europe Day with great reverence. I am thinking of my five uncles, one of whom died over in Burma. He was a navigator. How did he get from Alma, New Brunswick, to there?
There are so many stories. Teaching history has to start in the schools, and I think that military people must be in those schools telling those stories about our recent history so that we can get that pride back. That is just my observation.
Ms. Van Gurp: Absolutely, the root of the problem is a lack of education, and part of the fault is the schools. Part of the fault is our public media, really. Today I picked up the newspaper, read an article in The Globe and Mail about the Haitian person on a hunger strike who has never been charged, really, under Haitian law. The article was, I found, quite disturbing, with the inaccuracies that were in the article. I think the media, as well as the education system, has an important role to play in informing Canadians.
For those Canadians who do take it upon themselves to find other sources of information and keep themselves informed, again I am hoping that there is a way for those people to have input into this committee's deliberations. I am wondering what the best way is for that to happen, what advice can I give the people in my community and the students I teach.
The Chairman: If no one else wishes to come to the microphones, I would like to thank you all very much. We appreciate more than you know the time that you have taken to come down here tonight. We note that it takes a special effort to come to a public meeting like this and we are grateful to you for your participation. On behalf of the committee members, thank you very much. We have listened to you, made notes and will take your views into account as we move forward.
The committee adjourned.