Evidence of meeting #12 for National Defence in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was afghanistan.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Professor, Director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary
It was absolutely not the reason. They were sent in there to help the Americans in the south near the Tora Bora area to try to chase down bin Laden and to try to destroy the heart of the al-Qaeda operation in the spring of 2002.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
How would you compare today's mission to that early deployment? Has anything changed? The Canadian psyche seems to have changed; the Canadian psyche seems to think that maybe we went over there originally to be peacekeepers, and now we're involved in some heavy lifting when it comes to a military conflict. Yet your previous statement said that actually we were sent over there to root out the Taliban, to root out the insurgents, to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan, so has our mission really changed at all since the first deployment?
Professor, Director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary
No, our mission hasn't changed. In fact at that time, in the aftermath of 9/11, I think we will remember we had some 70% to 80% of people in this country demanding that Canada involve itself militarily in the fight against al-Qaeda.
I think what's changed, to be very honest with you, is that we've had the invasion of Iraq, we've had the precipitous decline of the popularity of the President of the United States, we have had in a sense the poisonization--if I can coin a phrase--of virtually every enterprise the United States is involved in, and therefore the opponents of this mission have taken advantage of the fact that we are in Afghanistan with the U.S. to paint us with the same brush that they would use to paint the President of the United States. I think that's what accounts for the difference between where popular support is today and where it was in early 2002, when Canadians were demanding that we send our soldiers to Afghanistan.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
The time is up for this.
Now we'll go over to Mr. Cannis, then Mr. Hiebert, and then back to Mr. Scott.
I'd like to tell the committee that Dr. Bland has a commitment and has to leave us at 5:15, so these next three five-minute sections--
Chair, Defence Management Studies Program, School of Policy Studies, Queen's University
I can leave around 5:30.
Conservative
Chair, Defence Management Studies Program, School of Policy Studies, Queen's University
The commitment is to VIA Rail and an early class of students tomorrow. There is a difference between professors and students: professors actually have to go to class.
Liberal
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I've come up with a statement that I think reflects each and every Canadian. I firmly believe that each and every Canadian supports our men and women, whether they're serving within our country, addressing disasters, etc., or whether they're serving abroad in any mission.
I find it very sad and very awkward in some of the statements that were made, which I'll address in a minute.... But before I do that, I take this opportunity to answer my good friend Ms. Gallant, who asked about the former Liberal government unilaterally making a decision to implement the three-D policy. She's absolutely correct. And for the record, after consultation with the international stakeholders, the Liberal government of the day did make a unilateral decision to commit our men and women to Afghanistan under the three-D policy.
But the question that Canadians have today is this: less than three months into the mission--and I will ask the question of the guests as well--why did we expand the mission, and why did this government not also take a unilateral decision and let Canadians judge for themselves, as opposed to needing a vote?
In essence, that goes back to a comment that Dr. Bland made, which is polarizing. I will start with that comment, sir. It's comments like this that really aren't necessary at times like this. I'll quote you: “I find it distasteful when people for whatever purpose use the casualty count to prop up their ideological interests, but I find it especially regrettable when they do so in order to win a few seats in parliament.”
I speak on behalf of each and every parliamentarian. Let me assure you, sir, that it's not a matter of seats, it's a matter of doing the right thing for our country and for the international community.
Mr. Chairman, there were several questions from both sides of our panel, and on several occasions Dr. Bland said he didn't know the answer. But he also said we don't need to bring in older men with grey hair and suits, that we should bring in the soldiers on the mission. So I ask, what is he doing here?
Liberal
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Do we not need to invite people such as Lieutenant-General Richard Evraire, retired, or Colonel Brian MacDonald, who were with our committee, to get their expertise and hear their views, just as we have heard your views and those of the good gentleman from Calgary as well? I believe these people who are serving on the front will have expertise today and in the future to pass on to future committees so we can learn from them.
I find these types of comments are what's polarizing our nation and our people, as opposed to us looking for solutions about how best to address the international problems that are occurring today.
When you refer to the great battle of Dieppe, sir, let me tell you what the difference is, in my humble opinion. It is that the Canadians did not retreat, and neither did the Brits, the Americans, the French--all the allies. The problem lies today in the institutions we work with, be it NATO or the UN. Canadians are questioning their credibility.
It was mentioned earlier, I believe, about the Polish troops and what Mr. McGuire heard this morning. I haven't heard it, but thank you very much for bringing us up to date. Canada has always been at the forefront, and we are willing to be at the forefront, but it's a shared responsibility.
When we talk about heavy lift, for example--and we were at NATO with the committee, and we supported them--the question is, why should Canada carry this burden? Why should we buy heavy lift, which I believe we need, and just have it sit there? When we go on these international missions, why not collectively make sure that NATO, for example, is properly equipped to use this equipment when needed.
I think we have an obligation as a committee to really look at the missions under UN and NATO, and that's what I think Canadians are asking themselves today.
That's my time, Mr. Chairman? Oh, God, time flies.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Mr. Cannis, I'll just point out one thing. Mr. Bland is here by the invitation of the committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
You used your five minutes to make a statement, and we'll take it as that.
We'll move on to Mr. Hiebert for five minutes.
September 25th, 2006 / 5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to both our guests who are here this afternoon to enlighten us on their perspective of what's been happening in Afghanistan.
I have a number of questions, but what intrigued me the most during Mr. Bland's presentation was his comment about.... Actually, I think it was almost a rhetorical question about the accusations by some members of the opposition, including the leader of the NDP, that we're a lapdog to the President, to use your words.
Could both our guests elaborate on what exactly you're trying to communicate to this committee when you say it's a matter of Canadians recognizing that three prime ministers and all these other leaders have sent our troops there? What's the point you're trying to make? How would you respond to calls by the NDP leader to cut and run at this time?
Conservative
Professor, Director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary
Well, the point I'm trying to make is that I was asked to come to give my views on the mission. My view is that the mission is one we should strongly support and that it is a worthwhile mission for this country and a worthwhile mission internationally.
Obviously, I disagree very strongly with Mr. Layton in a number of ways, but most importantly because I don't think it's up to us. I don't think it's up to Canada and I don't think it's up to NATO to decide whether or not to open a dialogue with the insurgents. I think that's up to the Government of Afghanistan, and the Government of Afghanistan has chosen not to do so.
President Karzai was here only last week making a very strong case as to why this insurgency has to be fought. I was trying to make that same point this morning with the news story about the assassination of that provincial official. That's basically it, as far as I'm concerned.
I would say, and I've said it before, this committee needs to have more oversight of military and defence issues in this country. I strongly believe that and I've believed it for a long time, and I include the war in Afghanistan. It's a good thing you're conducting these hearings and investigations. But I also say that there is a chain of command. The Chief of the Defence Staff answers to the Minister of National Defence, who answers to the cabinet, and this committee's input has to be put into perspective within that chain of command.
What you can't do, as Doug was saying earlier, is try to say, okay, there's another battle, we lost another battle, we had a bad week with casualties, and let's conduct another investigation. Quite honestly, I think that has a danger of undermining the morale of the troops. I don't think anybody wants to undermine the morale of the troops; I think it's just something that happens.
On this constant questioning of the mission, at some point, you've got to say we've decided to do this mission and the vote was taken in Parliament. We'll look at it six months from now, we'll look at it a year from now, and we'll look at it when the decision's made to redeploy. We then have the debate and the discussion all over again. That's what I think needs to be done.
Chair, Defence Management Studies Program, School of Policy Studies, Queen's University
I would say, first off, that I have difficulty with Mr. Layton's statements. The point is, I don't understand them, I can't make any sense of them, and I don't know how he would effect what he's talking about. On leaving the country immediately, or by February or some time, I don't understand the mechanics of how that would work.
When I note that other people have referred to Canada's policy of the former government, and Mr. Martin's government, and this government as simply being a reaction to please Americans, and so on, I think it is disingenuous, to say the least. Canadians make their own policies. They have a Parliament and they vote for people. If the Canadian people don't like the policies of the government, then they will remove them.
I think we can talk about the links among defence policy, trade policy, immigration policy, our relations with other countries, and how that affects our relationship with the United States, but that doesn't make us beholden to the United States. We're not in Afghanistan, in Cypress, in the Middle East, in the Atlantic, in NATO, or in Bosnia because of what Americans think. We're there because of what we think. I think it's important that leaders make sure people understand those relationships.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Very briefly, Mr. Bland, could you elaborate on your comments about contingency spending and the fact that a comment was made today, again during question period, that the cost of our military endeavours are one-tenth the cost of our aid?
How would you balance that equation, and what role does the security of our aid workers have?
Chair, Defence Management Studies Program, School of Policy Studies, Queen's University
This is a very good point. When people ask me whether the Canadian Forces should be in Afghanistan, my response is “Do you think Canadian humanitarian workers should be in Afghanistan?” People usually say “Yes, of course,” and then I point out the relationship between security and humanitarian operations.
As I tried to point out, I don't see any natural, logical connection between how much money you provide for humanitarian operations and, necessarily, how much you provide for military operations. Each has its own demand and its own dynamic. As the opportunities and circumstances change, you change the application of resources.
How much is enough for defence spending? Nobody knows. How much is enough for humanitarian operations? Nobody knows, but the government of Afghanistan has an opinion on that and needs to be consulted too.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Thank you. Mr. Scott, this five-minute intervention will end the second round.
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you very much. I'm a visitor to this committee, so bear with me a bit.
I would be interested in both of our witnesses' responses to the question that everybody here seems to be struggling with, and that is what is an appropriate means of doing our jobs as parliamentarians in this circumstance.
We have been talking about why the public doesn't seem to support this mission. It's a legitimate question. We're parliamentarians. I get calls. I have a large military base in my constituency. Spouses of military personnel call. They ask what the purposes are. These are legitimate questions, and they are legitimate questions for us to ask.
I'm sure all kinds of people are being political about this. It's the nature of what we do, but it's a legitimate question and it's unfair to suggest, when those questions are put, that somehow our motives are anything less than legitimate inquiries by parliamentarians who have interested constituents.
My question is this--Dr. Bercuson said something about every six months it could be reviewed, and so on. What is it that you would propose is the real, appropriate role for parliamentarians? I find it troubling when anyone asks, or somehow equates an inquiry that I might make on behalf of a whole bunch of military personnel--and they are personnel, mud on their boots personnel--and their spouses...I ask something and somehow my support for these people is questioned. It's patently unfair, frankly, but that happens routinely.
My question is, what is the role? What is an appropriate intervention by a parliamentarian who is representing many thousands of Canadians who are interested in this and want to know what we're doing, why we're doing what we're doing, how it's going? These are legitimate questions for Canadians to ask.
Chair, Defence Management Studies Program, School of Policy Studies, Queen's University
Yes, I agree with you entirely.
Over the years in my program at Queen's we have surveyed members of Parliament to find out what they know about defence policy, how they think about defence policy, what the relationship is with each other. We've said on many occasions that parliamentary committees are extremely important in this business and that they need a lot of research staff to get the point across, to provide them with the information to do things.
Members of Parliament ought to be involved in the details and going out and explaining things to citizens. They need a great deal of information to do that, and the more information that can come from the Canadian Forces, from the people in the field, from government and so on, the better off we'll all be.
I would encourage the committee and members of Parliament to become very well acquainted with this important national activity and then talk to people. Where there are legitimate criticisms, they should be brought forward.
One of the motives for this, I would hope, is to make sure the people in the field have the resources they need to do the job Canadians have asked them to do, and that kind of support for the mission should come from all parts of the political community.