National Defence Committee on Nov. 29th, 2007

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

The cost of fuel--

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Let me finish. I'm quoting from the actual e-mail.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

So was I.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Well, I'm quoting. It says “I'm told it's not the cost of fuel that had the impact, that it's really much more of a safety concern”, and in fact, the individual in question here...we're talking about a two-day delay.

I also would be quick to point out that the Canadian navy, when returning from deployments such as this, are also, of course, on call to respond, as they did in a heroic way, to pluck from the waters an army individual from Yemen who was fleeing a volcanic eruption. They were able to react very quickly, so of course one would expect they're going to be prudent with the use of fuel.

But they're certainly more concerned here about the waters, the safety of their sailors. They want to make sure they get home safely, and if it means a 24-hour or a 48-hour delay, I think that's reasonable. I can certainly assure you that, from what I'm hearing from Lieutenant-Commander Gagne, they're going to get home safely. That's the most important thing for Christmas and the best gift they could receive.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

What is the planned date for return, then, Minister?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Your time is up.

Mr. Bachand.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to our guests.

I would like to talk to you about Afghanistan. You mentioned in your presentation that you were going to add $340 million to that operation's funding this year.

Could one of you tell me how much operations in Afghanistan have cost since the start of the conflict?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chairman, the total cost of military operations since the start of the mission in Afghanistan in 2001 now stands at $3.1 billion.

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

The committee is increasingly gathering information, and I think this is a legitimate concern. There is a lot of talk these days about accountability. When we went to Kandahar, a number of people showed us that CIDA was doing very poor accountability. Cheques were being signed and no one was concerned about follow-up.

I'm going to ask the Minister of Defence a question about accountability. You seem to be very optimistic, since you say in your presentation that you've been there three times and that you've seen progress.

Incidentally, General Hillier, I'd like you to apologize to Brigadier-General Atkinson for me because I gave him a very bad welcome the last time he appeared before our committee. I thought he had put on rose-coloured glasses in order to give us his monthly briefing.

A number of reports completely contradict what's currently going on in Afghanistan. I could mention the Senlis Council and Oxfam. Most of those reports say that we are losing the war in Afghanistan. There's been a major setback: 56% of the territory is apparently occupied by the Taliban.

So when we talk about accountability, we have to ask ourselves whether our work and what it costs are worth the trouble. Is the department really giving us an accurate picture when it tells us that everything is going well, whereas other reports say that everything is going poorly?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps I'll respond briefly to some of your questions and give General Hillier an opportunity to respond as well. He of course has been spending a great deal of time in Afghanistan over the past number of years and can give you his personal observations.

First, on the Senlis Council, who are they, who do they report to, and who is on the ground in Afghanistan making these observations? I note that in their reports there is no index, there are no footnotes, and there are no quotes from individuals they've talked to in Afghanistan. I also note that much of their advice or observations appear to be of a military nature. My understanding is that they are a humanitarian group, yet they're advocating a certain troop increase, and that we should be invading Pakistan.

I completely reject their assessment of the percentage of land now under control by the Taliban. I don't believe it to be remotely true.

You asked for my personal observations. I have seen an increase in the ability of our provincial reconstruction team to complete more projects. I am told by officials there and those who have since returned from the provincial reconstruction team that we have a greater capacity to be outside the wire interacting with Afghan people.

I can tell you as well that those projects make a tremendous difference when they involve Afghan citizens and contractors. When they take ownership of the roads, schools, medical clinics, wells, and those types of infrastructure projects, when they have completed them themselves, constructed those items, they defend them fiercely and have greater ownership. To that extent I believe we are doing more.

Of course, all of this only happens behind the envelope of security that is established on the ground. That's where our Canadian soldiers are at their best. They are expanding that envelope and allowing the backfill of CIDA, of the projects they conduct. In addition to that, we have people in the capital of Kabul, with the SAT from our embassy, working directly inside the Afghanistan government to build good governance.

I'll turn it over to General Hillier.

[Gen R.J. Hillier]

Minister, thank you.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the apology for handling General Atkinson with slight difficulty, but let me just say that we brought General Atkinson here at your request, on the direction of the minister, to provide a briefing to you. If he shows up and is told he's wrong, we're wasting his time, my time, and your time in having him come here. That is all I would say on that one.

Sir, I would say the best thing to do is ask the Afghans whether we're making progress there or not. We have asked them that question in a variety of ways in recent weeks and months, and their response has been pretty clear. But I don't do polls myself. I base it upon what I see my soldiers, sailors, airmen, and airwomen do, and what I see myself.

Let me just give you a summary of what I have seen so you can judge for yourselves. One is the initiative on the security operations. The Taliban are slightly on a back foot. I don't over-emphasize that, but they have been knocked off their tactical approach of trying to encircle Kandahar city and Kandahar province. They have not been able to control the districts and they have not had the initiative.

With those security operations we have opened a developmental space. We have done that to allow us to build routes like Route Summit, where I stood a couple of weeks ago; to build a causeway across the Arghandab River, where I stood a couple of weeks ago; and to actually rebuild a school in Masum Gar, where I was several weeks ago to see the three shifts of children going to that school. We have also conducted those operations to allow building the security forces.

Monsieur Bachand, a year ago when I was there, we had no Afghan National Army soldiers whatsoever with us in Kandahar. As of this moment we have three battalions. Yes, they are at various levels of training and readiness, but two of those battalions are with us in the provincial districts conducting operations to enhance their own security.

A year ago we had no police whatsoever. Now we have five police substations and we hope a sixth police substation in the Panjwai area. There are all kinds of problems with the police there with not enough equipment, not enough training, and not enough pay. But it is a delight to have those problems, because last year they were not even present.

While we're doing that to allow the development in Kandahar, in the rest of Afghanistan there is acceleration in economic development and governance development, and people are getting on with their normal lives because the Taliban have been put on the back foot in the south by us, the British, and our other allies working there.

So you can judge for yourself, from what I say, what my assessment of the mission in Afghanistan is.

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

Thank you.

I have one question left, and I'd like you all to answer me together at the end because I want to leave my colleague some time.

I don't want to interfere in ministerial meetings, but there's one thing that I'm concerned about at NATO. Don't you think we should have common funding? It's very costly in southern Afghanistan compared to what it costs in the north. I know that these discussions have taken place in NATO's Parliamentary Assembly. However, I'd like the minister to tell us later whether he is pressing this matter in order to step up the rotation so that it's not always the same ones who pay the price, not only economically, but also in terms of lost lives.

So I hand the floor over to my colleague, who will take one or two minutes, and I'd then like you to answer me together.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for being with us, Minister. General and deputy minister, thank you as well.

I want to talk to you about the Bagotville base. I'm a bit surprised to see that there appeared to be no estimates concerning the reconstruction of two facilities that are important for safety. First, the landing strip is at the end of its useful life. It was built in 1974. Every morning or regularly, military personnel pick up rocks on the strip because of the damage they could cause by entering the engines. The strip has been resurfaced on three occasions, but it is no longer possible to do that because the concrete is too thin. So this is an urgent matter. Even the base commander recognizes that this is a priority. Consequently, I'd like the budgetary appropriations to give priority to reconstruction of that strip in 2008.

Hangers 2 and 3 are also obsolete. The roofs leak. They've even removed the insulation from the roof space because it was falling on people's heads. This is a matter of safety. I'd like this to be recognized as urgent work and that it be entered in a program.

This past summer, Mr. O'Connor before you came and announced an expeditionary support squadron. In 2010, we are supposed to have 250 military personnel. I would have expected to see infrastructure planning in the estimates, but I see nothing.

Was that announcement serious? I'd like to have a timetable and infrastructure plan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Please give a very short response if you can, Minister.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

As you would expect, we have enormous demands across the country at a number of bases. Bagotville is a priority, and you're right that some of its infrastructure is certainly old. I would even go so far as to agree with you that it's antiquated.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

The landing strip has to be a priority.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

In any event, we have plans to prioritize all of the various bases across the country when it comes to health and safety. Those operating air strips in particular take on a very high priority. The Chief of the Air Staff is aware of this, and we have had an opportunity to go through the various demands and priorities within the bases, and air bases in particular. We are going across the country and looking at the urgent priority needs.

Clearly, when there is deterioration as you've described, we want to get on with that. You're right that there was no specific set-aside in the supplementary estimates, but there is money available. We are looking at moving forward on that project the way we have on others, such as Shearwater and Greenwood--there have been other announcements--and we'll continue to do so.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Could you reconsider your programming regarding the landing strip?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Bouchard, your time is up. We have to move on and get everybody in here. I'm trying desperately to do that.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, Deputy, and CDS, for your attendance today.

I'm subbing for the regular NDP member from New Westminster--Coquitlam. So let me just take an opportunity to say, no matter how much we may disagree on different aspects of the mission and details of what we ask our forces to do, as someone from Hamilton, with a lot of soldiers serving us, how proud we all are of the work they're doing in carrying out the mandate of Parliament, and our duty is to flesh out what that mandate should be.

My question is around the item on page 207, and it's the “Mounted Soldier Survivability: Non-lethal Laser Dazzler”, to the tune of $10.5 million. My understanding is that this is a relatively new technology, and it's meant to afford soldiers an opportunity to temporarily blind anyone in front of them, for whatever reason they may feel necessary. We all want our soldiers to have the best possible equipment so they can be protected, but this is Canada. And as we're seeing with tasers, that's not where we begin and end our concerns. We've also got to consider the public and others.

So much like the tasers, this new technology looks like a very big buy. Could you give us a sense of how much each of these costs and what this will mean exactly?

But the focus of my question is around the issue of health. We are part of a treaty signed in 1998 that said we wouldn't use any laser weapons that could cause permanent blindness. Therefore, what we of course need to do is make sure we're doing adequate testing to ensure that is not happening inadvertently, much like a concern that now exists for tasers. So I'd be curious to know what steps have been taken, what medical steps have been taken, what kind of technological assurances there are, given that we signed an agreement that's part of the Geneva Convention that would guarantee we do such testing to ensure that we meet the requirements of the treaty we signed in 1998.

So my focus is on exactly how many, and how would they be deployed? My main focus is on how much testing has been done. What kind of assurance could you provide, including tabling documents if necessary, that shows that the proper testing has been done, that we've met our international obligations, and that we're not going to inadvertently be doing something these aren't intended to do, which is to cause permanent blinding.

And if I could put one other question in there, I would also like to know whether or not these would ever find their way into domestic crowd control situations.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Through the chair, thank you for your questions, Mr. Christopherson.

First, we're not currently using them. Extensive tests have been conducted already--three rounds of tests, as I understand. They are intended, as you've alluded to, to allow the Canadian Forces to use non-lethal force in response, in some instances. They're meant to act as a non-lethal means to warn drivers in an instance--as you can appreciate, most notably in Afghanistan--where much of the threat to our soldiers has been through suicide bombers and vehicles approaching. This is a means to deter those who might be encroaching upon soldiers or a convoy. The equipment is thoroughly tested at this point, as far as I understand, and would be further tested before it would be deployed. As I mentioned, we're not using this technology currently. We're aware of the technology and going through very rigorous tests.

The Department of National Defence has looked into this project and is currently weighing the merits of it. So the money has been set aside but we have not purchased any at this point, so I couldn't tell you how much these particular devices cost individually.

The philosophy behind it is clearly to examine all the means we can employ to use and to protect both Canadian soldiers and those who may be approaching for the potential or for the intent of causing harm. So we're looking at all kinds of new equipment in that regard. This is simply one of them and this is set aside until further tests are conducted. I'm aware of the international conventions you speak of. We would never employ or use a weapon of any kind that would be in violation of the Geneva Convention or any other international convention.

I'm also aware we have been working in conjunction with Australia, the U.K., the U.S., and others who have similarly looked at the use of this particular device. But that we are not there yet is the short answer, and we have not purchased.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Do you know the procedure--and I appreciate that you may not, off the top of your head, and maybe you could commit to providing it--to give the assurance that the testing has been done, that it's considered safe, that there is no lethal aspect, that there is no permanent blindness? What is the process? Does it go somewhere to an international body where they review the testing and say, “Yes, we agree that it's okay”, or do they go on our word? How does that work exactly?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I believe that after all of the tests were completed there would have to be assurances that there weren't going to be any lasting effects like blindness.

But perhaps, General, you would have something to add on the actual procurement of a device such as this, which is, as I understand it, a new technology that is not currently in use.

[Gen R.J. Hillier]

Thank you, Minister, and thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are looking at this, obviously, as something to fill the gap between vigorously waving at people who are suspected of being a threat and shooting them. So we are actually looking at this as a way to protect the health of people who are around our soldiers on a high-risk mission as opposed to endangering their health.

We have done three sets of testing on the equipment. We will do further testing. We're going through medical reports on this kind of laser system, but just to show you what it's really designed to do, it's best employed and designed to flash off the windshield of a car. It doesn't go into the eyes per se. It creates a razzly-dazzly light on the windshield of the car, which gets somebody's attention immediately, and that avoids, perhaps, our having to take a shot at them because they have not paid attention to our warning signs, our waves, or our vehicles, etc.

We will continue with the testing. We'll ensure that the medical testing is done, either through our own medical testing or using other tests that have already been done internationally, and then we will ask our judge advocate general of the legal system to rule on that to ensure that we meet all the things that we have signed on to, as a country, with the Geneva Convention. We are not going to be using something that clearly would be against international conventions that we've signed on to, etc.

But sir, I'll just say that we're not after something here that's really “out there” doing something that's going to harm people deliberately. What we're after is something to save people's lives, to give our soldiers tools besides waving and shooting, and that's something we don't have right now.

If this is promising and allows us to do it, we'll obviously proceed to acquisition and can provide you details then, but if it's not, we clearly won't.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I appreciate that. Much like the tasers, it's the same thing. I was formerly the Solicitor General of Ontario, so I know the need to ensure that we have different abilities to respond to use of force situations, and that is why I'm raising it in this fashion. But I also know that, this being Canada, the last thing we would ever want to do is to blind an innocent person from any country.

I just want to focus in on the last part, General. You said that it goes to--I didn't catch the title--the person who makes the finding.