National Defence Committee on Sept. 25th, 2006

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Briefly on Mr. McGuire's comments, I recall distinctly when it was first announced that Canada was going to Afghanistan. It was on the Sunday prior to Thanksgiving 2001, and the announcement was made unilaterally by the Prime Minister. There was no debate in the House of Commons; the troops were just sent in. The recent debate was the first opportunity we had to debate Afghanistan.

Dr. Bercuson clearly articulated the answer to this question, so I'll ask it of Dr. Bland. Would he state for the record why the mission in Afghanistan is of national interest to Canada?

[Dr. Douglas Bland]

I think it is of national interest to Canada because a stable global environment made up of liberal democratic states seems to be the most peaceful composition for the international community you can imagine. The more that states are free, elected, and democratic—as they are becoming—the more this brings with it peace and security.

That's a fundamental assumption in the field. If you look at East Europe, the Balkans, and many other parts of the world, the assumption is that citizens who freely elect their government tend to be involved in peaceful kinds of things. Where we can do that in other places, I think it is important to do it.

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

Thank you.

Dr. Bercuson, critics of this mission say our forces cannot succeed where the U.S.S.R. failed after 10 years. Why is it that you believe we can succeed?

[Prof. David Bercuson]

Because the political mission is totally different, and I would apply this to the analogy of the British in Afghanistan in the 19th century that's being used quite often by the opponents of this war. We're not there to conquer Afghanistan. We're not there to impose our political will on the people of Afghanistan. That's what the Soviet Union was doing there. It was backing a puppet government that it established through a coup, and it was sending its troops to do that. We are not doing that.

The government in Afghanistan was duly elected after an entire constitutional process, and that government needs and has asked for our help. That government controls a national military and a national police—not as large nor as well trained as we would hope, but it does control them. That government exercises sovereignty over most of Afghanistan; that government wants us to be there; and that government is asking us to help it fight an insurgency. This is a completely different case than the situation we had during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

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

For both of the witnesses, is Pakistan doing enough to disrupt the Taliban before they come to Afghanistan?

[Dr. Douglas Bland]

I'm not an expert on the region, but I would say evidently not, simply because of the criticism that is coming to Pakistan from the major leaders of other countries. The Pakistanis will explain that it's a very tough nut and they're working on it. But I really don't know the answer to your question.

[Prof. David Bercuson]

I don't have the answer to the question either. But I ask myself, with the very large military force that Pakistan has, why has the Pakistani attempt to stop cross-border operations been as unsuccessful as it has?

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

Dr. Bland, you made reference to Mr. Staples, who was a witness earlier. If you have seen the testimony he gave, would you care to comment? If not, I'd appreciate it if you would read the testimony and submit to this committee any responses you'd like to make to the comments that were made.

[Dr. Douglas Bland]

Yes, I have seen the testimony. I read it in detail, and Mr. Staples and I were engaged in a public debate two Fridays ago at Queen's University's homecoming. The debate was attended by 300 or 350 people: students; older folks; grey-haired men in suits. We talked for two hours with an adjudicator. Mr. Staples used some of his information from the June 8 presentation. At the end of the debate, the principal of Queen's University took a hand vote, and I'm proud to say that it was 75% for the resolution that Canada ought to stay in Afghanistan, and Mr. Staples lost.

Where he is weak is that he puts out a lot of evidence that is easy to refute and hard to support. And he quotes the British captain as an authority. He quotes the Senlis, the United Kingdom's approach on narcotics. He talks about the study, the policy alternatives put out. He also says, strangely enough--and this is in reference to that June 8 presentation--that Canada should be doing more in the world, more peacekeeping and more UN missions, and so on, and that we should reduce the defence budget.

I'm not sure how that works.

I was pleased to see that my friend John McCallum, who, as you all know, is an academic, and the defence minister and president of a bank, was at that meeting of your committee and explained to Mr. Staples that his facts were wrong.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We're moving on.

Mr. Bouchard, five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank both of you for your presentations.

My question is for Mr. Bland. You talked about casualties. We know how many Canadian soldiers have lost their lives. Do we know how many soldiers from other countries have lost their lives in Afghanistan? Do we know how many Taliban have died in combat? Can we compile information on the force we are facing? I assume that we have killed a certain number of Taliban and that others have been taken prisoners. What is done with the prisoners? Do we keep them or do we subsequently release them? I assume that we do not.

I do not know if you can answer all of those questions. I think that it would be interesting to hear your views on that.

[Dr. Douglas Bland]

No, I can't answer all your questions. However, the first question on the number of casualties in other forces operating in Afghanistan is readily available, and I think the research staff can find them. If they can't, would somebody send me a message and I'll put them onto a website where that information is available?

On the details of the Taliban organization, and so on, there are references, again, in research material and on the web, from different nations and different organizations, about the composition and strength of the force. I would bet that this committee has better sources of information than I do. There is a process, I understand, for in camera briefings, and that's where I would ask those kinds of questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Bercuson, any comment?

[Prof. David Bercuson]

I'd like to hear what Dr. Bland thinks about this, but I think it's still the case that the casualty rate for Canadians in Afghanistan is the lowest than for any conflict that Canada has fought. That's World War I, World War II, and the Korean War--by far, still.

As far as the Taliban casualties are concerned, I think talking about Taliban casualties in terms of body count is exactly the wrong way to measure success or failure in this war. And I have to say that when I do hear Canadian military officials talking in terms of the body count, I think it's the wrong message to send. I don't think it's the number of the enemy that we are or are not killing. I don't know how we can possibly know that when they remove the enemy from the battlefield. I think it's this. Are we taking and holding territory? Are we expanding the area in which the government can exercise its authority? Are we succeeding in making the place safe for reconstruction efforts? That's the way we ought to be judging success or failure in this mission.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you.

[Dr. Douglas Bland]

Can I add a point to that?

I agree, and I don't think talking about Canadian casualties as a measure of success or what we're doing is all that useful either.

The research staff here might actually be able to go and find out how many members of the Canadian Forces have been killed in accidents, training accidents, and so on, from 2001 until now. I would wager they're up there close to the numbers who have been killed in operations in Afghanistan. That's not to diminish them or anything but to put it in some sort of perspective. You will recall that a month ago or so, three members of the Canadian Forces were killed in a helicopter crash. This goes on much more often than people think.

But I guess the general point of recommendation for the House of Commons is that they not, again, with respect, try to set national policy one battle at a time. This is a long, drawn-out effort. We're going to win some; we're going to lose some. In the end, with our allies and with the Afghan people, I think we'll succeed, but we can't do it one headline and one battle at a time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you.

Just a short question, please.

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

You stated that Canada has spent $1.8 billion since the beginning of its mission in Afghanistan. How did that spending break down? Does that amount include the military personnel? I would like further details on what is included in that $1.8 billion.

[Dr. Douglas Bland]

All that information, I understand, is readily available from the Department of National Defence. They prepare reports for Parliament on the expenditures, vote by vote and item by item.

I believe from one of my colleagues that the latest report, called “Peacekeeping Expenditures 2005-06,” has just been completed or is being completed for presentation. Those kinds of reports provide detailed information on defence expenditures, line by line, for that matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you.

Moving on, we have Mr. Calkins for five minutes, and then we'll go back over to Mr. Cannis.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

In a recent article, Dr. Bercuson, you stated that Canadians were apathetic about defence issues. I'm wondering what steps should be taken to convince Canadians that terrorism is a real threat.

Recently, I was down in the United States and I was talking to some American military officials who basically said that this is the number one priority they face. It's a life-and-death issue in the United States. They view the war on terror as a life-and-death issue, yet here at home we don't seem to think of it in that particular way. What do we need to do here in Canada in order to perhaps see it in a more important light than we currently do?

[Prof. David Bercuson]

It's difficult to say, because the country doesn't speak with one voice. We have a government; we have a free press; we have commentators like Doug Bland, myself, and others, who are opposed to the war, and so on. To say there ought to be a concerted message about this, or there ought to be a concerted message about that, the problem is who's going to concert the message.

I think one of the major problems we've always had in this country is that Canadians do think--as Senator Dandurand has been famously quoted in the early 1920s--that we live in a fireproof house, far from flammable materials. And they've always thought that. They thought that in the 1930s, when the situation in Europe was deteriorating, leading to the Second World War. They thought that in the 1950s and 1960s. They think it today. It's very hard to convince people, especially on this issue.

I'm really quite mystified about this. September 11 happened, and 24 Canadian were killed. They were killed incidentally. They weren't attacked as Canadians. They were in the World Trade Center. But how many thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs were lost in this country in the weeks following that because the border closed? How do you explain to Canadians that when you have this kind of integrated supply system for industry on this continent, where just-in-time delivery is the rule and not the exception, that if the border closes again as a result of a terrorist attack in the United States, we may not only see thousands of jobs being lost in the immediate aftermath, but we may see major corporations saying, “Well, if we want to access the U.S. market, can we really take a risk about setting up a plant in Canada, in case the border closes?”

That's what I meant when I said earlier that 40 cents of the dollar in every pocket of every Canadian comes from international trade, and most of it from the United States. We have a direct economic, national interest in trying to maintain some sense of global order. The problem is that because the danger is not right on our doorstep, because the Toronto 16, or whatever, have not succeeded in what they're alleged to have tried to do, we don't have, thank God, blood flowing in the streets of this country. So people don't see it as an immediate problem, but it is an immediate problem.

[Dr. Douglas Bland]

I'll just trade quotes with my academic friend. Wilfred Laurier, in 1910, set out the first principle of Canadian defence policy: there is no threat, and if there were one, the Americans would save us. All prime ministers have agreed. They believe that freeriding on the American eagle is a worthwhile thing to do--it's a rational policy, after all. I think it affects the way a lot of Canadians think about things. Not to be too cynical or too radical, I think if all members of the political community believe there are significant threats to Canada out there in the world, perhaps a non-partisan defence policy for the country would serve us all a lot of good and provide some leadership to the Canadian community. I'm certain there must be things we can all agree on.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We have one minute.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Could you please elaborate for me, gentlemen? The Canadian psyche right now is having a tough time coping with some of the casualties and so on because of the way it's been portrayed. I hear a lot from people that Canadians' role internationally is that of peacekeeping--we're peacekeepers. When you go back in our history we know that's not true, because we've been involved in various military conflicts. Can you just elaborate for us and for this committee: was peacekeeping the original reason Canadian troops were dispatched to Afghanistan in 2002?