National Defence Committee on Nov. 20th, 2006

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Oh, it was my question, and I have another one.

I understand that for financial reasons, we are resorting to private sector. On the other hand, I have a second question for you and it is a bit more difficult. It is about the cost of the mission. More and more newspapers are reporting that it would cost us up to 4 billion extra dollars to go to the end of the mission in 2009. The total cost of the mission, from 2001 to 2009, would be $10 billion. Was there an error in evaluating the cost of the Afghanistan operation, or does the current situation oblige us to send tanks and perhaps even F-18s? With all this, the bill is adding up enormously, and the public will say that this is very expensive. Was there an error in evaluating the cost of the mission, or do we just have to adapt to the current situation?

[LGen Andrew Leslie]

Sir, I do not believe any mistakes were made in the planning of cost related to the mission. With regard to the exact details, I will try to obtain those facts. There are people taking notes behind me and they will make sure that I give you the most up to date information.

With regard to supplemental costs involved in sending additional types of equipment overseas, you mentioned tanks.

When I went to Afghanistan in 2003, there were threats of terrorists and insurgents, but the principal threat was warlords. The main intent was to ensure that President Karzai's government had a chance to carry on. The heavier equipment was not deployed.

Our soldiers deserve all the protection we can possibly give them. As the enemy changes tactics and procedures, we respond, just as they do. They are a thinking enemy. Some of them are extraordinarily courageous and willing to die for what they believe in. So are we. As they change, we respond with additional equipments or soldiers with different skill sets.

For example, on the decision to send tanks, yes, that's expensive; on the other hand, Canadian soldiers deserve that level of protection. It's the single heaviest and most protective vehicle we have. It has a better chance of surviving that awful moment when mines, improvised explosive devices, or rockets come their way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We're out of time.

Ms. Black.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you for appearing here today, General Leslie.

I know you said very clearly how stretched the army is in fulfilling the commitments the Canadian government has asked of it.

I asked a question in the House today about the Vancouver Olympics in 2010. My question was to determine how the army would be able to participate in the security for the Vancouver and Whistler Olympics if we are still engaged in Afghanistan. I think there were 10,000 troops in Montreal in 1976--that was 30 years ago. In Turin, there were some 15,000 security personnel for the most recent Olympics. We're committed to Afghanistan from now to 2009. As you know, a number of people, including General Hillier, have said it may be 10 years. Others have said a Canadian commitment could be even longer. I want to ask if you've looked at that. Is the army looking at deploying security for the Olympics in 2010?

Secondly, in the summer of 2005, you were widely quoted in The Toronto Star and other media as saying, “Every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you”, and that “you have to be prepared for the consequences” of that. That was the quotation. I want to know if you still believe that and if you think that's part of what's happening in Kandahar. We know there's a problem with the Pakistan border and the Taliban training there and coming back. So I'm wondering about that statement.

My third question has to do with the Leopard tanks you just mentioned. I understand about the deployment. I'm wondering what state of readiness they were in, what had to be done to make them usable in Afghanistan, if anything, and if there are plans to send more. What kind of work has to be done to ensure they are in a state of readiness?

[LGen Andrew Leslie]

Vis-à-vis your first question on the stretching of the army, there's no doubt that the army is under tremendous pressure. If I didn't think we could do it, I would tell you. I think we can do it, but it's going to be tough. The reason it's going to be tough is cold, hard math. If we weren't getting thousands of additional soldiers through funding by the Government of Canada, we would not be able to get it done. The good news is that we are getting thousands of additional soldiers, both regular and reserve. And I'll come back to the reserve--

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Get what done, though? What are you referring to?

[LGen Andrew Leslie]

Those things that we've been told to do, be it Afghanistan.... And of course, Afghanistan isn't the only mission. There's also our first line of operations. The single most important thing we do—and I guess you can think of the armed forces as having three main tenets—is that we take care of Canadians first. So across the entirety of the Canadian Forces we have probably 10,000 great folk in uniform who are serving the interests of Canada, defending Canada and Canadians at home--from search and rescue, to the Rangers, to the immediate-reaction units, to the immediate-reaction ships, the ready-duty ships, and the list goes on.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

That's why I'm asking about the Olympics.

[LGen Andrew Leslie]

Absolutely, and I'll come back to that at the end. I have to fit it into the order in which you asked the questions, I think. Of course, if I don't, I'm sure you'll remind me.

So are we stretched? Yes, we are. Can we get it done? I think we can. If I'm not right, I'll let you know over the next couple of months. I'm pretty confident that the reserves will answer the call and get us through this transition period, because at the same time as we're doing all these operations at home and abroad, we want to grow.

In the past, when my father was a soldier, it would take probably 30 to 90 days to give him or her sufficient skills to go off to war. Now, because of the complexity of the things we do, it takes an awful lot longer. So at the same time as we're trying to grow, we have to send NCOs and officers overseas to lead their young men and women. And by the way, we need those NCOs and officers to train the recruits. That's why we have to get a little bit creative about trying to farm out to civilian industries some of the more routine activities that soldiers don't have to do.

With regards to the Olympics, the government has announced--or is about to announce or has stated the intent--the territorial battalion concept. We're going to start that in the west. That's the grouping of reserve units into what a regular force officer would call battle group equivalents, and reserve growth will be focused on the west. The intent that I've just finished articulating to all my army subordinates--the area and brigade commanders--is that the reserves will be focused on domestic operations supporting the regulars overseas; the regulars will be focused on international operations, supporting the reserves at home. Now, there's going to be a great deal of cross-blending, as there always has been in the past.

Vis-à-vis the Olympics, the organization that has a responsibility to do the detailed planning--and we're an adjunct to fit into that, if you would--is the RCMP, for the security aspect. Canada Command has stood up full time; they have some folk working on this full time. The indicative numbers—and you'll forgive me if I don't share those with you yet—are sizeable, but if you look at what sorts of duties those soldiers would be expected to do, it is not high- and mid-intensity combat--please, not to secure the Olympics. So the training requirement for them is much less than for the soldiers we're sending into combat operations overseas. For every soldier we train here at home, there are usually two more who are assisting in that training or getting the equipment ready. Those numbers are far less to support the Olympics.

So do I think we can do it? Yes, I do.

On the third part, in which you quoted my comment of some years ago about how every time you kill an angry young man, others come after you, that has been true throughout history. As a professional soldier who has been in combat operations, the last thing you want to do is actually kill. Having said that, we have been trained most of our professional lives through the application of lethal force as an option. And when those angry young men are coming after, for example, two school girls, whose bodies I saw decapitated by the side of the road because they had the temerity to want to try to go to school, if you can intercept those angry young men before they can kill those young women, and you offer them the choice of surrender and they decline, your choices are limited. So sometimes, tragically, there is no choice. We are there to protect the weak and the innocent, and we are willing to put our soldiers in the way. They are willing to go in between the foe and those we're charged to protect, and yes, sometimes it does involve killing. It is a last resort, but we are soldiers.

With regards to Leopard tanks, currently we have about 65 in running condition. There are around 20 tank chassis currently deployed overseas. They are in very good shape. I will have a sustainment issue over the next two to three years. There's no doubt that the army needs a heavily protected direct-fire weapons system. We put on additional armour and made a variety of other refinements to those tanks, some of which are taking place as we speak. As soon as those refinements and add-on armour packages are finished, the tanks will go into operation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We're out of time, so we'll have to move on.

Mr. Hawn, go ahead, please, to finish the first round.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome, General Leslie.

I have three different questions for you, so I'll ask them one at a time. The last one is a gunner question, so that'll speed up your answers to the first two.

You talked about the difficulty with reservists and recruiting them and keeping them, and so on. Would you like to see, as is the case in the U.S., legislation that would guarantee employment for reservists when they get out of the reserves?

[LGen Andrew Leslie]

Sir, anything the leadership of Canada can do to ensure that those extraordinary young, and sometimes not so young, men and women who join the reserves can have a better opportunity to serve their country would have my full and enthusiastic support.

The second and third order implications of what you're suggesting have to be carefully thought through, and of course, that's far outside of my ship or lane to respond to. The bottom line is that everything that anybody can do to ensure that those wonderful folk in the reserves have just about every opportunity they can to better serve would have my full support.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Have you chatted with your counterpart in the U.S. on that topic over the years?

[LGen Andrew Leslie]

Yes, sir, I have. I had a meeting with General Schoomaker a couple of days ago. I met him in Heidelberg at the Conference of American Armies. That was one among several issues that were discussed. They have enormous strengths to their system. It is uniquely American, as you might suspect. There are some disadvantages that would have to be thought through vis-à-vis the Canadian context.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

It was kind of implied that the army might have been surprised by the extension of the mission. Can you comment on the mission readiness and whether it's the army, navy, or air force that have standing units ready to deploy to NATO or wherever, so that if a requirement comes up on relatively short notice, the army, navy, or air force is prepared to respond? That would give you time, then, to crank the rest of the reinforcement or sustainment troops up and to get that going. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the army is in the state to deploy from the get-go to meet a requirement that pops up.

[LGen Andrew Leslie]

Yes, sir, and, I'm sorry, I did not mean--to correct the impression that may have been offered--that the army was surprised by the extension.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

You didn't allude to it. Somebody else did.

[LGen Andrew Leslie]

Okay, yes. We were not surprised by the extension, in the sense that the various battle groups were already training. Every six months we have a new one starting to form, coalesce, and go through the training cycle. Approximately 90% of the folk currently deployed into Afghanistan come from the army, so whether or not it's 90% of 2,300, or 2,000, or 1,800, it's a matter of scale.

In terms of the duty-ready organizations, the air force, in their response to NORAD, with their ready ships, the transport-ready aircraft, the transport aircraft, and the fighters, have very sophisticated mechanisms for keeping their aircraft on alert status. I'm not going to say anything more about that, because you have a real expert coming in two days, the commander of the air force. The same is true of the navy, and the same is true of the army. Having said that, the units that we have on immediate reaction unit status are for domestic operations. There is a very small cadre that does planning for international operations, but considering the number of soldiers we have overseas, those training to go in, etc., we don't have much left to offer, unless we stop doing a whole bunch of things.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

In the normal state of affairs--let's pretend Afghanistan wasn't happening--there would be a combat unit prepared to respond to a requirement?

[LGen Andrew Leslie]

Yes, sir. There would be a 1,500-person organization ready to go somewhere to do something.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Now I have a quick gunner question for you. With respect to the XM777 and the Excalibur round, there's been chat lately about how much those things cost, and so on. We're trying them right now. Can you make some comment on the cost-effectiveness of a precision round like that in terms of hitting what needs to be hit, and, more importantly, the safety factor for our own soldiers in proximity, or civilians in proximity, where we want to limit collateral damage?

[LGen Andrew Leslie]

Sir, you've hit the nail on the head. The Excalibur round is designed to be a projectile for the 777. The 777 is remarkably accurate. But when one is pushing shells out 20 or 30 kilometres, and the intent is to neutralize a pinpoint target instead of saturating the countryside with high explosives, then I guess the question to ask is what the cost is of not having this precision capability. The intent is to buy a modest number of these shells--somewhere between 30 and 35. They are expensive, there's no doubt about it, but it's far better to spend a certain amount of money than to have tragedies ensue when collateral damage may be inadvertently caused to those we are not actively trying to engage.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I just have a comment. Remembrance Day, of course, just passed, and I was at a number of events in Edmonton, as we all were in our own ridings. One of the things that struck me--and you and I have chatted about this and have encouraged it, and I just want to say well done--is that we are getting privates and corporals out to Remembrance Day ceremonies to talk, to make the presentations. Rather than officers, we are getting the young troops out. The one I was at in particular was at a high school. The poor private thought he was talking to a class; he wound up talking to 1,000 people in the gym. He did a terrific job, and it was extremely well received.

So just pass that on to the commanders and the subordinate commanders for getting those guys out. In my view, that's exactly the right thing to do. They're not being judgmental. They're just talking about their experiences, and people can make their own assessments. They're wonderful people and great spokesmen, and let's keep doing that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Okay, that ends the first round. We're starting the second round, the five-minute round.

We go to Mr. McGuire and then to Ms. Gallant.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a number of questions, General. Since the U.S. elections, and maybe even before the results of the U.S. elections, the administration was evaluating their future in Iraq. I guess we're still waiting for ex-secretary Baker to report. Has NATO been conducting the same sort of evaluation as far as Afghanistan is concerned, and if so, when would such a report come out?

The second question would be whether Afghanistan's neighbours--for example, China or Iran--are planning to play any role in Afghanistan's future as far as economic development or security goes. These people are there; they're their neighbours. Is there any indication from them that they are planning to participate in the reconstruction of Afghanistan and to relieve the forces from NATO or from the west in that particular area?