Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence

Issue 18 - Evidence, March 10, 2005 - Evening meeting - Town Hall


WINNIPEG, Thursday, March 10, 2005

The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 7:20 p.m. to examine and report on the national security policy for Canada (Town Hall Meeting).

Senator Michael A. Meighen (Acting Chairman) in the chair.

[English]

The Acting Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, we will get started in just a moment, but before we do on behalf of all of the members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, we would like to extend our thoughts and condolences to the family of the victims, to the RCMP, and to the larger RCMP family. I say this publicly and for the record. Our thoughts are with them at this very difficult time and I think it would be appropriate if we stood for a moment of silence.

(Moment of silence)

Senator Atkins will be here any moment, but perhaps I could call this meeting to order. I will introduce the members of the committee momentarily, but I did want to say to you all that normally there are more of us than what you see. There will only be three of us this evening. I think the reasons are readily apparent. Many of our number were in Edmonton today. Our chair was back in Ottawa in order to defend our budget, which he did successfully, so that we will be able to continue after the end of fiscal year on March 31. Our vice chair left this evening on official Senate business to fly to Jakarta.

However, what we lack in quantity, speaking on behalf of Senator Munson on my right and the soon to arrive Senator Atkins on my left, we hope to make up with in quality.

These town hall meetings have proven extraordinarily successful, at least as far as we are concerned. We have held them in places as far apart as St. John's, Newfoundland, and Victoria, British Columbia we have had them in Calgary and Edmonton, and Saint John, New Brunswick. These meetings give an opportunity, which is vital to our study, to hear what the people of the communities think about the type of defence forces that our nation should have.

This is really your evening. We are here to listen and to learn. We hope that in the hour and a half that is available to us, everybody who wishes to say something will get a chance to do just that.

So perhaps in that connection, I might start by thanking our moderator, General Ray Crabbe, who kindly agreed to fill that role for us.

In the interests of giving everybody a chance, we have to limit people, and I am going to ask our moderator, General Crabbe, if he would at this point go over the ground rules of tonight's proceedings.

Lieutenant-General (Ret'd) Ray Crabbe, Moderator: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good evening ladies and gentlemen. The ground rules are fairly simple. There are two microphones, as you see, one on the left and the right. If you wish to make a comment, please line up behind the microphones. You will not be asking questions but rather you will be making a presentation or giving a comment that will not exceed three minutes. You have three minutes from the time you reach the microphone and start speaking until you are asked to cease. The clock will show the remaining time, and when the red light comes on, that means your time is up. Please adhere to the time.

One member of the committee may then ask a question of you to clarify your comments, and you will have up to a minute and a half to respond.

The committee requires that the speakers identify themselves for the record, in order to facilitate any possible follow up with you. This is a Parliamentary proceeding; you will understand that an accurate record is required.

On the way into the meeting you were handed, or you had access to a registration card. Please make sure that you hand this card to the clerk if you wish to speak when you arrive at the microphone. If you did not get one, there are more available at the registration desk outside of the room.

This meeting is being interpreted in both official languages, and transceivers are available at the registration desk should you require one.

I think we are ready to start, Mr. Chairman.

The Acting Chairman: Thank you very much, General. Perhaps just before you do, so you know who you are dealing with, I will introduce my colleagues more fully. On my left is Senator Norman Atkins from Ontario. Senator Atkins came to the Senate with over 27 years of experience in the field of communications. He served as a senior advisor to former Federal Conservative leader Robert Stanfield, Premier William Davis of Ontario, and Prime Minister Mulroney. Senator Atkins is also a member of our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, which I have the honour to chair.

On my right is Senator Jim Munson, who may be known to many of you. He was a trusted journalist and former director of communications for Prime Minister Chrétien, before being called to the Senate in 2003. Senator Munson has twice been nominated for Gemini awards in recognition of excellence in journalism.

My name is Michael Meighen, I am from Ontario, and I regret to tell you that Senator Munson and Senator Atkins are as well, however our hearts are all, I might say, in New Brunswick, where these two really come from and where I live part time. So there you are. To assist in my bona fides, I will tell you that I am the son of a native of Portage la Prairie.

General Crabbe, I think under your guidance, we will get started. Somebody break the ice and step up to one of the two microphones and we will get the proceedings started.

Could we have your name, sir, and perhaps you can hand in the card?

Mr. Martin Zeilig, as an individual: I am a journalist and researcher from Winnipeg. I want to thank you, first of all, for the opportunity to appear before you.

I would first like to commend Prime Minister Paul Martin for standing up for Canadian values and sovereignty by refusing to participate in the U.S. ballistic missile defence system. Briefly, BMD is unequivocally coupled to plans to weaponize space and thus frustrates negotiations toward a global treaty to ban the deployment of weapons in space and to preserve space as a global comment dedicated to facilitating terrestrial cooperation and harmony, a policy long supported by Canada.

BMD also adds to pressures, especially in China and Russia, for the accelerated development of anti-satellite weapons, ASATS, viewed by their advocates as relatively cheap, reliable, and asymmetrical threats to the space-based military and civilian assets of their adversaries. With that in mind, Canadian spending in support of international peace and security should include spending on the five Ds of security: development, democracy, disarmament, diplomacy and defence.

Thus, a defence policy for the 21st century requires another model, one that gives priority to human security and the protection of vulnerable people. In 1995, Care Canada prepared a report that defined this alternative model as:

A military model whose primary purpose is the relief of human suffering. This distinguishes such efforts from peacekeeping, whose basic goal is monitoring political and military accords, and from large scale warfare in which relief from human suffering is a goal secondary to strategic, economic, and political concerns.

In that regard, the Canadian government should establish a ``peacemaker's brigade,'' or PMB, composed of ordinary civilians who would be trained to monitor and negotiate opposing sides in certain conflict regions of the world. Such a brigade would be seen to be a non-threatening body. It would not be a substitute for traditional military peacekeepers under the auspices of the UN, rather the PMB, which would also work under the auspices of the UN, would only be used after aggressive hostilities have ceased and some sort of stability has been established. In fact, the PMB would work in conjunction with traditional peacekeepers.

During the years of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, the government established the Peace Research Institute. It was headed by Jeffrey Pearson, son of former Prime Minister Lester Pearson, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. I found the research done in facilities of the PRI invaluable. I used to live in Ottawa. The PRI gained an international stature for the quality of its research and for the conferences that it sponsored.

I am adding my voice to the growing call amongst many Canadians who would like to see the re-establishment of such an institute. After all, we cannot only rely on the generally hawkish militaristic strategic institutes. Thank you very much.

Senator Munson: Good evening, Martin. Assume Prime Minister Trudeau agreed to cruise missiles.

Mr. Zeilig: Yes, I know.

Senator Munson: Many of the people that we have listened to in town hall meetings in the last weeks are upset that we said ``no'' to the United States on BMD.

What would you say to the argument that there is not any cost involved in joining BMD? Some argue that we should be at the table with the U.S.

We said ``no'' once in Iraq, but we should not say ``no'' here?

Mr. Zeilig: Well, let me just say that I have spoken up and written about BMD previously. I do have something here that says that Canada would have no role in BMD if we had signed on.

This ballistic missile defence is a fraud. Any report of any value, and I have read reports from the American Physical Society and the Association of Physicists, has totally destroyed the argument of BMD as effective. We really would have no say, as far as I can see, at the table. Do not forget, it is an American system, a ``national missile defence,'' in which we do not play a part.

I am also opposed to Canadian corporations taking part in any contractual work with BMD. If we are out of BMD, we are out of BMD.

Mr. David Pankratz, as an individual: I am with Project Peacemakers. My comments will be somewhat similar to those that you just heard. This was not planned, but nonetheless, that is the case.

I would like to speak to the role of the Canadian military in the larger context of international relations. I see the role of the military as one in which they enter into a situation only when ``civilian hostility reduction strategies,'' have failed. These include treaties to reduce military necessities, and include the anti-ballistic missile treaty, which BMD violates and the landmines treaty. Economic and civil society development reduces desperation in failed states and creates alliances of mutual doubt. The development of trade relationships increases the costs of hostilities as countries or individuals break ranks with the international community.

Our first line of defence against hostility includes the strengthening of civil society through the United Nations International Criminal Court and the cooperation of police forces.

As we go to Indonesia to help with the flood, we establish a common humanity with people who might otherwise not know that we care about them.

Cross-cultural linkages and relationships established by organizations such as CUSO create educational opportunities and increase mutual understanding.

It is only after all of the above efforts have failed that the military needs to step in and take a role in the problem. I think it is important for us to understand that.

In short, we treat people everywhere with respect, we demonstrate our goodwill, we network widely where possible, we bring people and nations into the international community, we increase the cost of engaging in hostilities, and we honour our treaties and agreements.

What are the implications then for the Canadian military?

Signing on to ballistic missile defence violates a treaty signed in 1972 not to develop weapons that could shoot down missiles. It is because of that treaty that we have had peace for over 30 years, and is the reason that military expenditures are lower than they would be otherwise.

Another implication is that we do not align ourselves with militaries that are regarded around the world with increasing hostility, dislike, and disrespect. I speak of the military to the south and of many instances where there is little appreciation for their military presence. Aligning ourselves with that military simply puts us into a category that we have so far avoided.

Our military and civilian presence around the world is highly respected. I have spent a considerable amount of time in several countries around the world, including Iraq, and I can tell you that people have a different perspective between the Canadian and American military.

Senator Atkins: In view of the government's decision on BMD, how would you suggest our Prime Minister deal with the fallout?

Mr. Pankratz: That is a political question that I have not given a lot of thought to and so I am addressing it off the top of my head.

Certainly, Mr. Martin should make it very clear to Paul Cellucci, who liked to describe this as ``a blow to our sovereignty'' that this is in fact and affirmation of our sovereignty.

Our Prime Minister should make it clear to Canadians that we have made a decision on our own terms and we have chosen to honour our agreements and our alliances, in spite of enormous pressure from our neighbour to the south. That is an affirmation of our sovereignty, not a denial of or reduction of it.

I would like our Prime Minister to respond to the fallout by saying that we believe that the world is a better place as we take care of each other around the world and while we exhibit good global citizenship. The world is better if we do not align ourselves with military dominance.

Throughout history, military dominance meets increasing resistance until it topples. How that is going to happen with a country as dominant as the United States is hard to say, but it will not be through conventional military means, including missiles coming at us through the air.

That is another reason why ballistic missile defence is not useful: Ballistic missiles will not attack the United States; the attack will come in some other way.

Senator Atkins: It is not a conventional weapon, though?

Mr. Pankratz: Yes, but it is intended to defeat conventional weaponry.

Mr. Doug Winstanley, as an individual: I am from Aero Logistics, and I would like to thank the Government of Canada for providing this democratic process.

The comments that I would like to make are on National Defence and how it spends its money purchasing aircraft parts, and how it denies Aboriginal people the opportunity to supply aircraft parts to the Canadian military.

I have with me a letter from the National Defence Headquarters dated the 16th of February 2005, which states that the Procurement Strategy for Aboriginal Business, PSAB, sets aside contracts in which Aboriginal companies can participate. This is the denial by the Canadian Government for Aboriginal people to be part of this process. Aboriginal women who have access to fully qualified parts suppliers run the companies in question.

I quote:

In the specific case that you have highlighted, the inclusion of the program's principles does not apply because the procurement of aircraft spares is done on a lowest price basis, as long as the supplied part meets the certification of the aircraft manufacturer.

Now, let us discuss cost. A normal aircraft company goes on the internet and gets their part that day. FedEx ships it and it arrives. I have with me a contract that I received from the Canadian Government, for which I am thankful. The contract is for 10 bushings at $42.46 each.

I submitted my bid over four months ago. Last Friday the shipment was due. On Tuesday, I received my hard copy of the contract so that I could go to my supplier with the contract and can get the job done. It took over four months to get a bushing, which should only take a few minutes on the internet. Any other aircraft company would get the parts quickly, with the use of the internet. An apocalyptic bureaucracy is holding up a contract worth millions of dollars worth of parts.

One example, on AOG, which we have the privilege of supplying, we have four hours to respond, was a clamp. My first day on the job we got an AOG. The clamp is worth $7 on the open market. Where was the value to the government, when the next bids by people who have been doing this for decades quoted $200 and $900 for that clamp?

I think the Canadian government should investigate all of the purchases made under the AOG program to see that they are getting the true value.

There is no value for the Canadian government in waiting months to get a part for an aircraft. Our Herc fleet, which we specialise in, cannot fly if they are waiting four months for a bushing. The AOGs, one was a bag of normal washers. Someone got frustrated and had to go AOG to buy washers. Run your government and your purchasing like a regular business.

Senator Munson: I do not work for National Defence, but this is the first I have heard of this with the Aboriginal community, and it sounds like a pretty serious charge. We do have people who are travelling with our committee, perhaps who work in the military with whom you might want to speak.

I mean, is this a charge of racism?

Mr. Winstanley: Not in the least. The expectation is lowest cost. You are not getting lowest cost because of the bureaucracy. These people can supply at global pricing, the regular price that Taiwan, China, England or France would pay for a part, and they can do it without the bureaucracy that we have here.

Senator Munson: And have you brought your representations forth to somebody in Ottawa?

Mr. Winstanley: For eight months, I have gone around the mulberry bush in the Canadian government trying to solve this problem. I finally gave up, until tonight when I decided I would show up.

The PSABB program is an excellent program because an Aboriginal person can develop a strategic alliance with any company in the world over the internet, and they can live anywhere in Canada, and supply a part that gives value to the Canadian government. When the government buys the part, the money goes into the community here.

The people who have developed the PSAB program, Indian and Northern Affairs, have created an excellent, excellent program. I really respect it. However, according to this letter, we have been told they are not going to do it and that we should go home.

Senator Munson: This is a public hearing. I would appreciate it very much if you would leave us a copy of what you have with us, and perhaps we can bring your concerns to those involved.

Mr. Winstanley: Yes, thank you very much. I was asked to bring it to the Treasury Board, because I talked to them earlier on, they want a copy of the letter too.

I would like to thank the Canadian people, this is a great format, and for you people who have been traveling on the road, thank you very much for coming to Winnipeg. Thank you very much.

The Acting Chairman: Thank you, sir. We can photocopy that letter if it is of any assistance to you, if you just give a copy to a member of our staff that would be great.

Mr. Bud Sherman, as an individual: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, senators. My name is Bud Sherman; I am Chairman of the Advisory Board of the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders, which is a local infantry reserve regiment, as you know. Our presentation is going to be made by our Honorary Lieutenant-Colonel and a former commanding officer of the regiment, Mr. Douglas Ludlow.

Mr. Douglas Ludlow, as an individual: Good evening gentlemen. Like the illustrious leader of the Catholic faith, I have an unfortunate problem, and I will shake a little bit when I am trying to address you.

Our organization wishes to emphasize our strong support for the position expressed by the Government of Canada through the Minister of Defence, Bill Graham, and Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier. It is very encouraging to see a totally new approach being presented to how the military is organised and will expect to handle itself in the future.

Having been critical of earlier programs, we wholeheartedly endorse this new approach. In our opinion, the proposed framework will provide a purpose and impetus to a renewed Canadian military. We seek assurance that the Government of Canada is going to stay the course of these proposals, bearing in mind promises of past years were not always translated into action.

In our view it is vitally important, when considering personnel expansion, that high priority be given to enlarging the seriously under strength reserve army. We also seek clarification as to the end-strength target.

May we expect the number to be 18,500, as previously approved by the reserve force restructure, plus the 3,000 recently proclaimed by the Government of Canada?

Canada's reserves are a prime source of qualified candidates for regular force enrolment. Sorry, I lost my course there. I shall proceed to the next point.

The bureaucracy, with its time-consuming attitude dominates the recruitment process. The enrolment process dissuades recruits who can quickly find some other pursuit to attract their loyalty.

The army, with which we are most familiar, needs to expand the scope of training to encompass the natural disaster situations within Canada, in addition to military requirements. Even so, there is a lack of military equipment and a shortage of qualified trainers, which is in fact a roadblock.

One of our suggestions is that we go out and re-entice trainers who are skilled at their job to come back on a short service, short-term arrangement contract with the government and handle the training, which is the roadblock for enlarging our present services.

Senator Atkins: Do you think that General Hillier is on the right track in implementing a joint operational capability?

Mr. Ludlow: Yes, I do, wholeheartedly, sir. And I think he is such a wave of fresh air coming through DND, with due respect to my associates on your left, that they are thinking about today rather than yesterday. It is not pie in the sky; it is doable. I have been around the military for a long time as a part-timer; I hate to tell you how long. My family knows how long it has been. I trust that answers your question.

The Acting Chairman: There are those who say that our thinking about the reserves today is thinking yesterday's thoughts rather than tomorrow's thoughts.

Do you think that the reserves require a fundamental top to bottom restructuring, or do we proceed in the same way?

Mr. Ludlow: I understand your question, sir. My concern is that we have a reserve army that trained to stand in behind the regular force and look after things at home if they are away.

Does it have to be conformed in the same manner as it was in World War II? No.

I do not think that we could find a million people that would be willing to serve. I do think that we can beef up the present structure and identify specific tasks that each individual unit will be required to look after.

Senator Atkins: I just want to mention that I have known Bud Sherman for over 50 years. He was an outstanding Member of Parliament, and I think it is wonderful that he is still taking an active part in the community, and I take my hat off to you, Bud.

The Acting Chairman: I know that you speak for all of us, Senator Atkins.

Mr. Tony MacLachlan, as an individual: Mr. Chairman, members of the Senate, I am one of the Christian Brethren, and I am most grateful for the privilege and the honour of appearing before this committee.

I feel it is imperative that Canadians strive for unified relations with our North American neighbours in all military decisions. Canada's government, regardless of the party in power, must be brought to realise that this issue is one of life or death. The U.S.A. and the great and good country of Canada need to work in closest agreement and harmony if we are to protect the North American continent.

For these conditions to prevail, it requires mature minds and practical common sense to dominate. Military funding, as well as many other problems, can be worked out once the elements of trust and unity are established. For many years, NORAD and NATO have proved to be possible and workable between our two countries. Let us face facts; we are friends as people and as traders. We need each other, especially in critical times. If we could set aside political considerations, it will be easy to work with each other on all matters of defence.

I felt very distressed with the Prime Minister's recent decision on missile defence, BMD. Canada cannot afford to take such high ground. It is not a good idea to snub your best friends.

In World War II Canada had only 12 million population, yet created the highest military force per capita of any of the combatants, and almost entirely on a volunteer basis. These forces merged very well with the American and Allied powers. Field Marshall Montgomery declared, as World War II terminated, ``those magnificent Canadians'': Very high praise indeed, especially coming from Monty.

May Canada's government see the light of day and increase every facet of our military force in tune with our American cousins.

Senator Munson: Sometimes it seems that governments run on polls, focus groups, or public opinion, and that is just a little point of view that I have.

The NORAD contract I believe is going to run out in May of 2006. It is possible that the U.S. could feel that it could go it alone.

Do you fear that we will be isolated; that the U.S. will ignore our strategic position in the defence of North America?

Mr. MacLachlan: I think, and I will not apologise for it, sir, that we should renew our relationships 100 per cent as to NORAD.

I was a teenager during World War II. I was on the south coast of England and experienced the Battle of Britain, the Blitz, the V1s and the V2s, the rockets; I was there. I can see the value and the common sense of a stronger armed force in keeping with the Americans.

I am sorry, I am not here to curse the Americans, I am glad such a nation exists. I saw the power and the resources in World War II. It could not have been done without them.

Senator Munson: Thank you, sir. I appreciate it very much. You and I talked earlier and I share your views.

Mr. Matthew Weins, as an individual: Good evening. I thank the committee for this opportunity. My name is Matthew Weins. I am a member of Mennonite Church of Canada, a church body with 37,000 members across the country, a church body with a strong stance against the use of military force.

I am an advocate for the creation of a dedicated and courageous Canadian peacekeeping and disaster response force. I am also a member of Christian Peacemaker teams. From October 2004, until January 2005, I worked with the Peacemaker teams in Columbia, paddling down rivers to accompany villagers threatened by guerrillas and paramilitary forces. We witnessed fear and violence that is exacerbated, if not a direct result, of military training and the prevalence of military hardware.

One rural family I came to know has a large sign in front of their house that simply says, ``Allow us to produce food.'' A strong but simple message to the various armed groups to stop interfering in their lives.

Numerous communities in Colombia have declared themselves actively neutral as part of the peace community movement that began in Colombia in 1997. These communities declared that they were autonomous and refused to be involved with any armed group, whether it is the guerrillas, the paramilitaries or the Colombia military.

It is my conviction that security in Colombia and around the world is achieved when people feel that they have a hope for a better future, i.e. reliable sources of food and medicines, schools for their children, and assurance that they will not be forced to flee their homes. Lasting security is not achieved with machine guns, helicopter gunships, or troops trained to kill. Lasting security comes through negotiations, not force. Security follows when inherent rights have been honoured, when basic needs are met by all, and when we honour a common agreement to show respect for civilians and hold lawbreakers accountable through an impartial and just process.

I am advocating for the creation of a dedicated and courageous Canadian peacekeeping and disaster response force. Canada has a respected reputation as a peacekeeping nation. I have a great deal of respect for the men and women of Canada's Armed Forces who have risked their lives for this cause. Let us build on this tradition.

Our country and our world needs an alternative vision to the one that devotes too much energy and resources on military infrastructure. We do not need a military. We need a dedicated peacekeeping and disaster response force to realise the full potential of Canada's women and men who have committed and continue to commit to building a more secure world.

I ask this listening committee to show courage and vision. Please consider the recommendation that Canada augment its worldwide peacekeeping role by reducing or eliminating our military and establish a robust internationally praised peacekeeping and disaster response force.

The Acting Chairman: Do you see any circumstances under which an armed force, military force would be entitled to go into another country where civilians are being slaughtered or oppressed by a home grown or foreign military force? For example, under United Nations auspices, should we take up that challenge or should we wait until the situation is such that completely unarmed peacekeepers could go in without running the risk of slaughter?

Mr. Weins: I would love to see resources put towards investigating approaches that do not require weapons.

The Acting Chairman: So would I.

Mr. Weins: Many people have put a lot of thought into non-violent approaches to addressing this issue; one of them was Ghandi. When asked how a pacifist such as himself would respond to someone like Hitler, Ghandi responded, ``Not without great cost.''

Unfortunately, our current method also comes with great cost.

The Acting Chairman: Indeed. Let us take a hypothetical situation in Darfur, and suppose the United Nations came to us and said that we have passed a motion condemning what is going on in Darfur and we would like Canada to lead a military force to go in and establish the peace there.

If you were the Prime Minister of Canada, how would you respond?

Mr. Weins: I would say we will commit a force to stepping in. Yeah, I think that is a valuable place for Canada to consider putting its forces.

Mr. Harold Graham, as an individual: Mr. Chairman, senators, thank you for this opportunity to speak. I am a retired Lieutenant-Colonel with the Royal Canadian Air Force initially, and with the Canadian Forces laterally.

I want to address, the fundamental change in our Canadian Forces commitment, but first I want to say that I believe that the fundamental role of the Canadian Forces must always be the defence of Canada's sovereign and territorial rights on the land, on the sea, and in the air.

We recognize that we share common borders with the United States of America, and our sovereign rights are identical to theirs with regard to these borders. Our long history of working together has resulted in co-operation and peace, and we must preserve that peace through political, democratic, and military dialogue, and agreements concerning the defence of North America.

The reason I am here tonight, and the thing that really stirs my heart, is to recommend that the Canadian Forces assume a much greater role in world peace and security. You may call it ``defence,'' but I prefer not to.

I believe that the greatest need for security in our world today is that one nation, or more nations openly declare their commitment, their solid commitment to leadership within the United Nations organization, because the UN has only one aim, and that is maintaining and keeping world peace.

Canada is acknowledged and respected as a worldwide peacekeeping nation because of our numerous UN operations starting with the United Nations Emergency Force in the Sinai Desert, in response to the Suez Canal crisis of 1956-57. This military force included eight nations, and after many years of successfully keeping the peace, Canada's Lester Pearson received the Nobel Peace Prize.

I was on this team; I was on the first air team that took off out of Montreal. I was in transport command. We flew the first Canadians to the El Arish aerodrome and at which point the army moved deeper into the desert. I was part of the reinforcements and eventually I my assignment took me to the Sinai Desert, where I served with these other seven nations for one full year.

Mr. Crabbe: Sum up, please.

Mr. Graham: The main element that I want to say is that we have a proven respect in the world community. We must make a solid commitment for the Canadian Forces to take on leadership in world peacekeeping. Thank you.

Senator Atkins: Are you in favour of increasing the number of members in the military, and are you in favour of increasing the budgets that are demanded in making that force relevant?

Mr. Graham: Definitely, we need more money in the military.

Are you talking about current levels of financing? If you are, they are insufficient.

We do not have the equipment to do it. The best model of equipment I think that we have is a mini aircraft carrier. The British used that very well just recently. If our peacekeeping forces had that vehicle to move into an area that required it, after it had been fed by the air element, we would have a very powerful peacekeeping force. We do not have that, we do not have the airplanes anymore, we do not have the long-range aircraft, we do not have the supply ships or something as wonderful as an aircraft carrier to go in there and establish a foothold in the area before we actually commit our peacekeepers.

It would also cut down on the transportation time. It is awesome, the time late factor that happens when you really do not have the vehicles to get you on the scene. More money is the short answer.

Senator Atkins: Are you willing to pay more taxes to do it?

Mr. Graham: Yes, because I would also insist that the Canadian government go in and look at all the things that are military and throw out the things that we do not really need. There is a lot of waste in there. I would want this to be at the expense of other military missions that I think are really of dubious value to the Canadian people. So, yes, I would sacrifice that.

Mr. John Fulham, as an individual: Mr. Chairman, senators, as a preamble before I start, I would like to comment on some of the statements that were made here about the desire for peace in the world and this sort of thing. Believe me; nobody wants peace more than I do. I was shot down during World War II, I spent a couple of years in a German prison camp on forced marches; I know what war is all about. I do not like war, but we still have to defend ourselves.

In that context, I would like to tell you about the situation in Europe prior to 1939. The French were building the Maginot line and wanted to extend it to the North Sea. They built it to protect themselves against the new technology, the German tank battalions. They wanted to extend it to the North Sea, but Belgium refused, they said because it is going to give offence to the Germans, so the French could not build through the Maginot line. Hitler complimented them and thanked them profusely, and a few months later, he invaded France through Belgium.

Now, I am here as messenger. After I left the air force I attended university, I travelled all over the world and did a number of things, and then I went back to the air force, and I worked in NORAD. I know something about missile defence and this sort of thing.

While down at the Yuma air base in Arizona, I met a very brilliant air force intelligence officer, an American. We discussed a number of things. We discussed missiles even then, quite a few years ago, and we discussed NORAD, and of course, UFOs, he had a lot of experience with those as well. That is another story.

Then I met him later on in Cold Lake, Alberta, and I met him in Toronto and so forth. I kept in contact with this man. And he rose through the ranks very rapidly, he is a brilliant man. He is now a retired general, although he is still a young man. He is a chief advisor to the American Department of National Defence; he holds a very prominent position. I talked to him about a number of things. Just a few days ago I was talking to him about, again, what was happening in Canada. He knows something about it because he is an advisor to his government. He understands the position of the government and that it is reacting to the polls and to public opinion, which is misinformed. He thinks that the uninformed public is the problem. He believes that the public needs to be informed and that is a difficult thing to accomplish.

Perhaps the best thing to do is give them an option or rather broker a deal with the United States. They are monitoring the North Seas right now.

Mr. Crabbe: Do you want to sum up, please?

Mr. Fulham: He suggested that what we do is that we broker a deal with the United States. Let them monitor the Arctic oceans for us under an international agreement. They are doing it now. There are Russian ships, English ships, French ships, submarines in the Arctic, and not too long ago there were Chinese submarines.

Mr. Crabbe: Make your final point, please?

Mr. Fulham: Then in regards to the Northwest Passage, which is another difficult thing, he suggested that we establish another agreement with the United States, Britain, and France to establish an international corridor with transfer rights that under the international shipping conventions would recognise Canada's sovereignty under international law.

I think that we could take that idea to the public and to the Canadian government.

Senator Munson: I do have a copy of your paper, and if there is one thing as an Eastern senator that I have learned on this trip, particularly in Alberta with professors involved in defence and military people, was the north and the Arctic. They have mentioned that there is a major breach, an unchallenged, undefendable, ballistic missile corridor in the Arctic. I guess it is the United States now who will protect us, I suppose. We do not have any; we do not have any surveillance missions.

Mr. Fulham: We recognise there is the Arctic missile corridor, NORAD never dealt with that, our aircraft could not go there, and our aircraft principally protected the North, the West, and the East Coast. There is no protection against ICBMs, none at all, and the Russians, of course, recognise that. They call it ``mutual destruction.'' They knew if they bombed us with ICBMs that we could destroy them; that is the standoff.

In regards to the bombers, they are being phased out. They are being phased out by virtue of the fact that missiles are taking over. You can see by the budgets of all of the major industrial countries of the world that they are going more and more toward missile purchases.

Somebody was asking this afternoon, why are the Americans interested in the Arctic? What is the principal reason for this ballistic missiles defence? Well, because everything has changed. The bombers, we are putting them out to salvage or to scrap yards. The Russians are doing the same thing with their bombers and replacing them with cruise missiles. The biggest threat that we are facing is not the ICBMs, but the cruise missiles. And for this reason, and this again is another American invention, when they started off they were land-based and they would fire 1,500, two out 500 miles, now they do over 2,000 miles.

The biggest danger to the cruise is now it can be fired sub service. They go into another — the best environment for them, according to the general, is up in our Arctic.

Who is monitoring them? Who monitored the Chinese submarine when it was up there? Maybe it is still up there. Did the Americans monitor the Chinese sub?

They recognise that we cannot afford to monitor the Arctic and they will do it for us.

Senator Munson: One of my major concerns after listening in the last three days is the dispute of territory that remains between our two countries and the claim to resources, besides the military aspect, and that day will come soon.

The Acting Chairman: We have your paper, sir, and it will be part of our record this evening, so thank you very much, and we will review it.

Mr. Randy Kitchur, as an individual: Good evening. I represent the Institute for Cooperation in Space, ICIS, based out of Vancouver, and Disclosure Project, Dr. Steven Greer's organization based out of Washington D.C. I sent all of the members of the committee an email a few days ago explaining what I want to go into, but I will get to that eventually.

I should mention to you that I have a proposal that I am submitting from Alfred Webber, who runs the institute in Vancouver. We also have four other directors: Dr. Carol Rosin, who the assistant to Wernher von Braun the last few years of his life; Daniel Sheehan, the famed attorney; Edgar Mitchell, who was the last man to walk on the moon; and, Arthur C. Clarke. It is a heavy-duty committee.

In respect to CSIS, Dr. Greer has put together this organisation out of Washington where he has accumulated up to 600 whistle blowers. These are people that have top secret, and above top-secret clearance. They come from all levels of military service and all levels of intelligence. We have, we have astronauts and cosmonauts, and we are looking for a forum to present these people to the world.

These people have the evidence to prove that they have been witness to what the government actually knows about the UFO issue, or the extraterrestrial issue.

I have very good friends, I communicate with them regularly. I know many of these witnesses.

When these people tried to present documentation to the Canadian media outlets, they told that if they ever tried to do it again CSIS would charge them with acts of terrorism and take them to the U.S. for a secret trial.

I specifically address this to Senator Munson. I have this in writing; I have eyewitnesses. I can prove this.

After they received the threats, the people associated with this received death threats, and one had to be rushed to the hospital. That information is the email I to you.

I have gone to members of Parliament. I talked to John Manley and Lloyd Axworthy, when he was foreign minister. I talked to Gary Filmon, who was here at one of the CSIS meetings. I put information in these people's hands. I have received nothing back in response from these people in five years. I do not know what else I can do. I gave the evidence to Senator Kenny and Senator Forrestall last year.

Mr. Crabbe: Sum up, please.

Mr. Kitchur: That is it. I want to find out what you can do about it.

The Acting Chairman: There is nobody better qualified to answer that question than Senator Munson is.

Senator Munson: I have not received your information.

Mr. Kitchur: I have additional copies with me.

Senator Munson: I would appreciate that. Can you give a more details of what you are seeing, what you are hearing, what is out there, what your concern is, and that we are not paying attention to, or the establishment is not paying attention to?

Mr. Kitchur: These people have worked in top-secret programs that realise that the programs are illegal and unclassified. These programs have no oversight whatsoever. They are rogue programs without any control.

One of the whistle blowers is Clifford Stone, who is a very good friend of mine. Mr. Stone was involved in the crash recovery of extraterrestrial vehicles for 20 years with the U.S. military. He is also an intuitive communicator and had conversations with the crash victims of the extraterrestrial vehicles.

The U.S. military and CISIS have tried to prevent this information from reaching the public.

Now, this has gone on for five years and I cannot get one member of Parliament, one bureaucrat, anyone to talk to me about this subject. We want dialogue. We will brief you, we will send our top people from Washington, and we will send generals, admirals, astronauts, whomever you want. We will send them to Ottawa to talk to you. The people want to know the truth about this subject. We cannot tell the truth because when we try to the media calls us terrorists.

The Acting Chairman: Why can you not organize a press conference?

Mr. Kitchur: That is contained in the email that I sent you. There was a two hour press conference at the Washington National Press Club.

The Acting Chairman: And no members of the media attended?

Mr. Kitchur: It was packed; it was in all of the media for two days, and then nothing. It went black.

No member of Congress, no senator is going to risk his or her career stating that this is real information. It is because they have been lying for 50 years that they are afraid of the issue. We do not want that, we just want to know the truth.

The Acting Chairman: I hear you saying that is what happened in the United States. What about in Canada? Have you tried the same procedure in Canada?

Mr. Kitchur: Yes. In Toronto, this fall, we have a disclosure conference where we are trying to alert the Canadian news media to what is going on, but it is like pulling teeth. These people do not get it.

The Acting Chairman: Maybe informally after the meeting you can talk to Senator Munson as to how to interest the media.

Mr. Kitchur: I would very much appreciate that.

Ms. Lisa Martens, as an individual: Good evening, and thanks very much for this opportunity to speak and for the opportunity to hear from everyone who has spoken. I appreciate that very much.

I just want to say that I have worked also with Christian Peacemaker teams for about five years, sometimes part- time and sometimes full-time. I have worked in war and conflict zones, including Iraq, Colombia, and Vieques, which is part of Puerto Rico.

I would like to say also that I agree with the previous speakers who have said we need to put our efforts into peaceful means and disaster relief for folks around the world.

In Iraq I people who learned I was Canadian commented that Canadians were friends of Iraqis. I have also seen a lot of rage from those people about the way they have been treated violently by the U.S. military, as well as by their own, the violence inside their own countries.

Finally, I agree with and affirm the Prime Minister's decision not to be a part of the ballistic missile defence.

Senator Atkins: Do you think there is a role for the Canadian military in the areas in which you have been involved?

Ms. Martens: In my organization, we go without weapons to areas of conflict, and we reduce violence that way and make it safer for civilians. I certainly see opportunities for the Canadian military, if they are interested in non-violence training and interested in going to places where there is a covenant of non-violence. I know they do already, but they should go to places without weapons.

Senator Atkins: Do you consider that a specific type of training?

Ms. Martens: The training that I have been through and my co-workers have been through is very specific. It is Christian training. There are many kinds of training and I could get back to you about names for them.

Senator Atkins: Could you tell us about your training?

Ms. Martens: I worked in a Christian Peacemaker team's office for about six months and learned about the conflict zones where my organization works. I did a month-long training that involved role-playing based on experiences my co-workers had in actual situations. We created scenarios of escalation of violence, either from armed groups against unarmed civilians or else between armed groups. Our co-workers taught us how to intervene in those types of situations. We also learned how to de-escalate potentially dangerous situations.

Senator Atkins: When you were in Iraq, did you ever feel you were at personal risk?

Ms. Martens: Yes, certainly. My co-workers are still there and often feel that they are at risk. The way we reduce that risk is getting to know unarmed Iraqi civilians and to making connections with them. We make connections in the universities and with woman's groups and all kinds of groups. We believe that those good relationships are our best protection.

Mr. Gerritt Siebring, as an individual: Hello, good evening. I am Second Lieutenant Siebring; I recently joined the Canadian military. I am going through pilot training. I recently graduated from Canadian Forces Leadership Recruiting School in St. Jean, Quebec.

Thank you for the opportunity to have an audience with you. It has been a pleasure to hear some of the interesting topics.

I was living and going to school in the United States, and employed as a pilot in Texas when I found out about Canada hiring pilots. I joined the in Toronto and I have nothing but praise for the recruiting process.

While living in the United States I entered a relationship and we recently married. Now we are going through the process of gaining permanent residency status in Canada.

As a member of the Canadian Forces, I would like to know if there is any possibility that my spouse might receive permanent residency status more efficiently than a civilian might.

There are benefits of the MFRC, Military Family Resource Centre, that provide benefits to spouses, but I am wondering, does the Government of Canada have anything for the spouses that are not Canadian citizens?

The Acting Chairman: I do not know the answer to that question. Does anybody among our staff or in the audience have an answer to that question? If not, we will have to find out and get back to you, sir.

Mr. Siebring: I do appreciate that.

The Acting Chairman: We will take a note, and if you can leave your address with the clerk, we will get back to you.

Mr. Siebring: Thank you very much.

Senator Munson: Are you here as an individual or as a military person, or what is your capacity?

Mr. Siebring: I am actually here in on-the-job training in the 42 Squadron in Winnipeg.

Did you mean here tonight?

Senator Munson: Yes, I mean here tonight.

Mr. Siebring: I am here as an individual.

Senator Munson: I just was thinking, there has been a rather nice mix tonight of points of view, and what a tremendous democracy we live in when we can share these kinds of views.

Mr. Siebring: I received the information on an email through the DND at work that this meeting was taking place. Under my own initiative I came to ask these questions.

Senator Munson: All right. When you hear other points of views tonight, for example, against BMD, talking about possible UFOs, listening to statements in support of BMD in the military, as a young person, are you going to grow up trying to convince others who are against BMD to take a more military line, and from your perspective maybe see the light of day?

I walk right down the middle.

Mr. Siebring: For myself, senator, I would like to be more educated about the matters. My initial reaction to it is to hesitate until I am more educated more about the pros and cons about the subject. Initially, no, I am not very pro BMD.

Mr. Gary Solar, as an individual: I am President of the Royal Military Institute of Manitoba and Honorary Colonel of the Fort Garry Horse.

I have four children and three grandchildren, and I do not want them to have to go to war, and I am convinced that the only way that we can prevent our nation going to war is to have a strong military.

I think we should increase our regular forces to a size that is sufficient to do the job they need to do. I think that our reserve forces should be double the size of our regular forces, as they are in almost every other country in the world.

As long as we have dictators, bullies, and evil in the world, somebody has to step up to the plate and defend the nations that cannot defend themselves.

I see a lot of room for improvement within our forces. We have fallen behind in recruitment, training, equipping and deploying.

We need a budget that provides our forces with the means that they need. I do not think not think it takes much talent to design a military that we need. We know what has happened in the past, and hopefully we have learned from our mistakes. We know what the situation is today, and we have a pretty good idea what is going to happen tomorrow.

If we do not know exactly what is going to happen tomorrow, neither did Neil Armstrong when he stepped on the moon, neither did Columbus when he set off over the horizon. We need some adventurous people in the military and in politics.

I think we have learned from two world wars that military conflicts come about because nations are not prepared. If you are prepared, it puts bullies and dictators and evil back in its place. I think that Churchill described World War II as the unnecessary war. It was unnecessary because nations were not prepared to stand up to dictators.

That is my presentation in 45 seconds; I knew it was going to be short. I have two other things that I just want to mention. I am totally in favour of the ballistic missile defence. It does work, and anybody that suggested that it does not work or will not work does not know the capacity of the American industry.

Senator Atkins: If you had the responsibility of writing the manual for training, what would you recommend that is different than what exists today?

Mr. Solar: I would start with a short phrase: Frightened we are, someone must take a stand, coward take my coward's hand.

We are there for a reason, and we have to start thinking of that reason, and see an end to it.

Senator Atkins: Are your priorities different in terms of Canada's responsibility to its own borders, its interests in the north, and its response to natural disasters?

Mr. Solar: Our military has been good at responding to natural disasters, but it is only through the good graces of the United States that we have a defendable border. We have no capacity to defend our own borders. We should not dream that we do defend our own border.

Senator Atkins: Should we defend our own border?

Mr. Solar: If we want to call ourselves a sovereign nation, yes we should defend our border. It would not take a great deal of effort or funds to meet our responsibilities in North American defence.

Mr. David W. Faurschou, as an individual: I am the MLA for Portage la Prairie, the home of your father and that proudly bears his name on one of our high schools. I hope you come to visit sometime and see the historical home, the family home now displayed.

The Acting Chairman: I have and I will, and it was my grandfather.

Mr. Faurschou: It was your grandfather, sorry, my apologies.

Now that I have embarrassed myself, I better collect my thoughts. I have not prepared anything tonight because I feel most humbled to hear presentations from persons that have served our country and so proudly flown our flag in all parts of the globe. We do have a tremendous military history of which every Canadian that I have spoken with is most proud.

I probably have an opinion on virtually every topic within the military, which my father served and discussed on numerous occasions. From my perspective of Portage la Prairie is see the proud home of the oldest serving reserve unit in Western Canada, the 13th Field Artillery Unit.

I believe that the reserve unit and the reserve forces play a vital part in the military structure and should be enhanced, augmented and promoted.

Portage la Prairie is home to two military air force training bases; one is closed and the other has been taken over by private enterprise. I see the Bombardier training the next generation of military pilots and believe that it is a success story and that a person should not be afraid of change or afraid of engaging private enterprise. Earlier, we heard a perfect example about procurement. It is very important that we get value for service.

My goodness, I am used to 40-minutes time in the legislature, and I only have three minutes here.

As we look into the future, we must not be afraid to look at new technologies. I would like to leave with you the thought of lighter-than-air cargo ships. These vehicles provide a very environmentally friendly, cost effective platform from which to observe or to engage.

Senator Munson: You are a politician, Mr. Faurschou. I have just been doing this for 14 months.

Mr. Faurschou: I am a farmer turned politician.

Senator Munson: Well, as a politician, you are aware of the mood and swings of your constituents. We know that at one point 70 per cent to 80 per cent of Canadians were in favour of BMD, and then somebody lost control of that debate and it began to swing the other way. We do not know whether it is the populous of Quebec, the majority, or whoever else in the country caused the change but the percentages changed.

There was an impression that Mr. Martin would support BMD at one particular point, but lo and behold, he did not.

How do you react? Do you react straight from the heart? Do you react according to what your constituents want? Do you react to what the constituency called Canada wants?

Mr. Faurschou: Our responsibility is to represent our constituency first and foremost. However, unfortunately, we as politicians have put before the mind's eye of the public that we are lower than that snake in the proverbial wagon wheel rut, because we are constantly attacking and belittling each other.

We must trust the people that have the responsibility to collect all of the information and make the right decision in the best interests of all Canadians. It is so difficult to educate all 36 million Canadians. Unfortunately, the public second-guesses the elected officials, perhaps with only one-half of the proper information.

Senator Munson: What position do you take if you want to stay in power?

Mr. Faurschou: We have to get by that, Senator Munson. As far as elected individuals are concerned, we have to remember where we came from, do the right thing, and do it for the people that we represent rather than for ourselves.

Senator Munson: Then you are a breath of fresh air.

Mr. Faurschou: I hope so. Thank you very much.

Mr. John Church, as an individual: Mr. Chairman and senators, I am from Woodstock, Ontario. I am here today because I believe in good government. I am a Christian that believes in good government. I am also deeply disappointed in the government's decision on the missile defence. I feel that we need to cooperate more with the United States rather than less. We have to make a disclosure. Three of my children live in the United States, my wife came from the U.S. and I think that only proves how interconnected we are. I think we need to work together. That is all I have got to say.

The Acting Chairman: I think many of us would agree with your underlying sentiment, but let me be the devil's advocate for a moment.

We did not join with the Americans in their Vietnam experience. I happen to think we were right not to do so. Surely as a sovereign nation, we have to decide these questions in terms of Canada's best interest, given the fact that the U.S. is our closest and best ally.

If the Americans to do ``X,'' we should necessarily jump into bed with them and do ``X.'' I suppose it is my thoughts, you know, that we have to pick our disagreements.

Mr. Church: I think you are right, sir. I think we need to be governed by what is moral, rather than by what is political or by what is in my own interest. I think as a country we have been selfish in the way we have acted. Look at the current situation in relation to Iraq. Many Canadians are happy that we did not get involved in that situation, and look at the mess the Americans are in now.

What would have happened if the States had not taken a stand in Iraq?

I hear people say that they want Canadian forces to be peacemakers only. I do not think that you could have changed the regime in Iraq by being a peacemaker. I do not think that you could have stopped those pilots that flew into the World Trade Centre by being peacemakers.

We need a strong military. We need a strong defence. We need someone that is willing to go outside of their own interest and take a stand. President Bush has done that. He is denigrated, but I think he has done a good job. That is my opinion.

Mr. Blake Badour, as an individual: I grew up in Winnipeg, but I am from Comox, British Columbia.

I am a civilian, and here to address what the speaker wants in terms of the civilian side of industry and corporations and to discuss the Department of National Defence budget.

I think we need to look at how the military affects the industrial complex of countries. Not too long ago, I read in the financial section of the National Post that the Americans put 38 per cent employment for direct or indirect contracts in the Department of National Defence.

I hate to kick an old horse about the CF-18, but you brought up Bombardier, which took over Canadair; and here in Winnipeg, Bristol Aerospace with Magellan and the F-5 contract. We can also see the PC's with the F-18 contract and, of course, the party changed, federal politics changed a little bit in the 1990s, and lo and behold, we have an F-5 contract cancelled by the Liberal government. We had a great corporation, we still do, and, of course, the Americans took it over with Magellan.

I think what we need to look at military contracts, and Canadian workers, with Canadian dollars building Canadian equipment. The Canadair take over and the Magellan take over of Bristol Aerospace are unfortunate; it would have been nice if the companies had been taken over by Canadian companies. The trainer program in Portage is a good example with the Hawk; it would have been nice if a Canadian company that was taking that contract over.

The second thing that was on the list of the Auditor General in Canada was the problem with the F-18s. I hate to drag this out, but I think you have to look at the amount of money that Bombardier is spending on their civilian contracts versus the money they are spending on their military contracts.

Mr. Crabbe: Sum up, please.

Mr. Badour: That is summing it up. Is there is some kind of auditor of the money that is being spent in Bombardier from civilian contracts to military contracts?

Senator Atkins: What you are really recommending is procurement of Canadian products in the military.

Mr. Badour: I think if you look at the history of the Canadian military, up until the early 1980s there was a large number of contracts that the Canadian military had with Canadian corporations.

Senator Atkins: Do you agree in the proper management of money? If you could get equipment at 20 per cent less out of the country, do you think that would be a wise investment?

Mr. Badour: I do not believe so. I think if you look at the long-term employment, secondary contracts, spinoff contracts, it is wiser to keep the contracts in Canada.

I am not going to come down on the Cormorant project with Westland-Augusta. I think that the Sikorsky contract and the spin-offs within Canada because Sikorsky is an American company, is probably a lot more long-term than the contract with the consortium from Europe.

I think that if the European consortium bought the additional helicopters, our navy might have newer, more up-to- date helicopters in service. The contract with Sikorsky is great, but when you look at four years down the road before we see our first helicopter, I find that unacceptable.

Senator Atkins: Thank you for your comments.

The Acting Chairman: Someone once said when referring to politicians that they are like sharks. There is a professional courtesy between them, so I will give the honourable member for Portage la Prairie 30 seconds to add one final point.

Mr. Faurschou: Mr. Chairman, my main point is that Parliament in regards to the military cannot continue to deploy the military at random without consequence to the Parliamentary budget. The budget should be established to the Department of National Defence, and that is to run the military. If the military is asked to deploy anywhere in the world, then there is a prescribed budget that must come from Parliament, so there are consequences to that particular deployment. Rather than squeezing and making the military work within that budget, Parliament has to have consequences to their decision. Thank you.

Senator Atkins: When you put it that way, it makes sense, but I do not think that you are being realistic, because sometimes governments make decisions that commit the country to expenditures, and it is only after they have made that decision that they go to Parliament to pay the bill. You should know that if you are in the legislature.

Mr. Faurschou: I know how the legislature functions, but somewhere along the road in our history, we have gotten away from common sense and the way it should be done, because we have to be accountable to Canadians, they are the taxpayers that pay the load.

The Acting Chairman: On that note, I will draw the meeting to a close. I want to thank the members of the audience for giving up a portion, if not all, of their evening to come and help us in our examination of security and defence matters.

As I said at the outset, these meetings are of immeasurable value to us. I think Senator Munson phrased it very well earlier when he pointed out that, we have had a great spectrum of opinion, all of which was extremely well articulated.

We have been in Edmonton, Calgary, and elsewhere, and certainly, this meeting this evening stands right at the top in terms of quality and helpful input.

I want to express the warm thanks of the committee to General Crabbe for acting as our benevolent but firm moderator. We appreciated your interventions this afternoon as well as tonight.

Colleagues, that draws the evening to a close.

The committee adjourned.