National Defence Committee on May 30th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Hawn, three minutes.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thanks, Minister, Admiral, and Mr. Rigby, for being here. I just have a couple of questions and then we'll come back on another round.

I'd like to talk a little bit about the rotations and the sustainability, and your view of our sustainability with our current forces, and how recruiting and training is going to be able to assist that.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

As I've said previously, we can maintain that level of commitment of 2,300 to 2,400 into the future. We have enough resources to rotate at the appropriate time, so we can maintain that commitment--and that's an army commitment, primarily.

The challenge is that if we had to take on another substantial commitment, there aren't enough soldiers around to sustain it. What we're trying to do is expand the armed forces. That's the real challenge, the Achilles heel, right now--to try to expand the armed forces. We have a problem expanding the armed forces because in the nineties there was an uncontrolled downsizing and we lost all those people who today would be senior NCOs--senior non-commissioned officers--and middle grade officers who would be the heart of the training establishment. We're short of the kind of people we'd have as instructors and we're trying to work our way out of that.

Over time this will improve. As we produce more and more trained personnel, that will be increasing the size of the army, air force, and navy--but we're talking army at this moment--which will increase our capability then to take on more ventures. At the moment in the army we can take on one--we'll call it a major venture--like Afghanistan.

The navy is capable of taking on a task force. We can send three or four ships on some continuous basis on a commitment somewhere and we can also dispatch various parts of the air force, but the army is strained right now to take on a substantial commitment other than what they have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

A minute and a half.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I'm not sure if you know the answer to this, but I'm curious about the ratio. We talk about combat operations in Afghanistan, which clearly there are, and all the democracy infrastructure, reconstruction efforts, and so on. Is there a ballpark number that says here's how much of our effort is toward combat operations and here's how much is towards what I'll call humanitarian operations?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

I'm not aware of a ratio. I think in all countries they work with diplomacy and development. They may not call it that in the military. In our country the preceding government made a determination of what level of military effort and what level of development effort and diplomacy we were putting to it, and we're reviewing this all the time.

As I said, from the military point of view I think we're doing the right amount right now. I think our government is continuing to review--and I can't speak for other ministers--the level of effort they're doing in development and how they do development. You'd have to get the other ministers to explain that. I can only speak for the military.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Okay, that concludes our first round.

Now, how this works is the official opposition, the government, the Bloc, the government, the opposition, and then we're going to be pretty close to being out of time here.

Mr. Dosanjh.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I understand that the bombing issue of Azizi was touched on earlier. What's the status of the inquiry by the coalition into that bombing last week? Has Canada asked to be part of that investigation? Have we been asked to be part of that investigation?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

I'll have to turn to Mr. Rigby. Do you know that?

[Vincent Rigby]

I think Dan might be in a better position to answer.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Do you know the answer to that?

[Rear Admiral Dan Murphy, Director of Staff - Strategic Joint Staff , Department of National Defence]

I don't know the answer to that, Minister.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

What we can do, Mr. Dosanjh, is get you an answer to that. As I say, we weren't directly involved in it and I don't know if we would be involved in the investigation.

It is normal operating procedure in our military, and I believe also in the American military, to do after-action reviews to investigate when you have events like this occurring.

We'll get you the answer, but I think it will be shown later on that the American military probably have an investigation team in there right now.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

The reason I ask is that part of the operation here, part of the purpose in Afghanistan, is to win the hearts and minds, as we say, of the Afghanis. What we witnessed yesterday in the Kabul riots is actually quite worrying, because although I understand there have been other riots in Kabul, this is the worst riot so far in Kabul.

I raise that for this reason. Could one construe, Minister, from what happened in Kabul as a result of that accident that we are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the Afghanis? Kabul is supposed to be an area where at least the government's writ runs. I ask that in all sincerity, because ultimately you cannot sustain a military operation if you're losing the population.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Well, as I said before, from my point of view, this is not a military operation. The actual purpose is to try to restore Afghanistan, and the military are there to provide security.

I can't speak in the global sense of what's going on in Kabul. The president came on TV, where I saw him just as you probably did. He asked for calm and was suggesting that some of the people involved in the riot were, whatever the term was, troublemakers. So I don't know what's behind it. There was legitimate outrage at the time when the local person was killed by the convoy. I don't know if the riot reflects any systemic problem there.

I can tell you about our own area, because I do get feedback. Our forces are very popular in the area they're in. The various little villages and the people around them appreciate our being there. I think it's our years and years of dealing in other countries and other cultures that we have, as it were, a lighter touch. We don't take polls there, but the reports I'm getting are that they appreciate the Canadians being there. I think in our area we are winning the hearts and minds, and that's of course what we're going to be concentrating on in Kandahar.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I'll move on to another issue. I'm seeking some clarification with respect to your government's policy regarding the media ban, a policy that has now been changed, which I appreciate. In April, Minister, you had insisted that the media be banned from Trenton in order to be consistent, yet last week the Prime Minister said he had standing instructions to consult with the families of the fallen, and soon thereafter, of course, the statement reversing the policy was released.

Could you tell us if the Prime Minister had given those standing instructions, and if he had, why were they not followed?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

They in fact were followed. What I don't want to do is to publicly name or identify people. I can tell you that up to this point, we will carry on with this. My main purpose is to protect the privacy of the families, and if there's anyone in groups of families, or primary next of kin, who indicate they prefer not to have the press there, the press will not be there.

But we've clarified it a little bit more, so that if the primary next of kin want the press there, the press will be there. I'm just saying that I've got to watch what I say; I'm not going to bring people's names out into the public.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

No, I actually appreciate that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I'm sorry, but your time's up.

Ms. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When our troops were in Kabul, the soldiers and even the civilian support staff were doing projects on their own during their off time, for example, Project Mercury Hope. Has the situation in Kandahar stabilized yet to the extent where soldiers in their off-duty hours are able to build schools and help out in the communities in that way?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

I think you'd have to ask the admiral.

Admiral, do you know the answer to the question?

[RAdm Dan Murphy]

I don't know specifically, Ms. Gallant. I'd be happy to find out. To my knowledge, the troops stay within the Kandahar airfield when not on patrol. It's quite a large area in and of itself, and the reconstruction effort is being left to the expertise that resides in the PRT. But I'll undertake to find out.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

To just add to that, I think I've seen news reports of soldiers in the city of Kandahar, but in the main I think they're from the PRT. My belief is they're from the PRT and they're in Kandahar and of course they wander around Kandahar trying to help people. But as the admiral said, he'll try to find out if people from the base get involved.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you.

On one of the former rotations, we had reports of the drones crashing. Are we still using the drones, and are we experiencing any more success where they're used?