Evidence of meeting #17 for National Defence in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was nato.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Mr. Dosanjh, I understand that you wanted to share your time with Mr. Wilfert.
You have ten seconds, Mr. Wilfert. Do you want to add something?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
I just want to ask a quick question to Mr. Granatstein.
You commented that National Defence headquarters needs to be reformed because of the politicization and civilianization of the military. Can you expand on what you meant by that?
12:25 p.m.
Senior Research Fellow, Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, As an Individual
I certainly didn't say that today.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
No, you didn't say it today, but you've said it in your writing.
12:25 p.m.
Senior Research Fellow, Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, As an Individual
I don't think there's politicization of the military.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
12:25 p.m.
Senior Research Fellow, Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, As an Individual
I don't think there's politicization of defence headquarters.
12:30 p.m.
Senior Research Fellow, Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, As an Individual
I think the military has been pretty much a non-partisan force that serves the government of the day. I think we have bureaucratized.... I think we have too much bureaucracy.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
I didn't see that word in your book. I only saw those other two. But okay. We'll follow up.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Granatstein, I would like to know if it is in the national interest of Canada to be re-involved in peace operations?
12:30 p.m.
Senior Research Fellow, Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, As an Individual
Sometimes. Sometimes it is in our interest. It depends on where the peace operation is. It depends on what our forces can do.
What I don't want us to do is say that we will always support peace operations and that we will always support the United Nations, no matter what it does. I want us to be able to say that this is a good operation and that one isn't, so we'll do this one.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
As you said, philosophically and politically, the Canadian nation and the Quebec nation have a better perception of peacemaking. As politicians, we try to satisfy our electors. If someone told Canadians that it is in the national interest of Canada to end combat operations, such as those in Afghanistan, and that the foreign policy of Canada in the future will be to take part in peace operations, I believe that people would agree.
12:30 p.m.
Senior Research Fellow, Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, As an Individual
It might be public opinion, but it might not be in the national interest. That's the key.
Canadians I think would benefit, and Quebeckers would benefit, from some reality checks. We need to tell Canadians that the United Nations doesn't always work very well and that the peacekeeping operations that have been undertaken abroad have not all been successes. Most of them haven't been successes.
We need to persuade Canadians that at no time have the Canadian Forces ever devoted more than about 10%, at most, of their personnel or money to peace operations. That cannot be the major or only role of the Canadian Forces. It's a real mistake to go that way. It would serve none of the interests of Canada, and frankly, it would serve none of the interests of Quebec.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Merci.
This term “national interest” can be confusing, Professor. Obviously, if we are under attack, if all of a sudden American tanks roll across the border, it is in our national interest to defend ourselves.
12:30 p.m.
Senior Research Fellow, Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, As an Individual
In that case, we surrender.
12:30 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I know many Canadians, people I have talked to, who have asked what our national interest is in Afghanistan. Do we expect the Taliban to hop on a plane and come over here and do damage? It doesn't make any sense, somehow, to many people.
Other writers and researchers have written that, in effect, our national interest is a geopolitical interest. In other words, there is a play going on in this region between the west on the one hand and China and India on the other. When you speak of national interest, do you mean that geopolitically it's in our best interest, as a western nation, to have a foothold there to ensure a supply of oil, to ensure our future energy interests?
May 13th, 2010 / 12:35 p.m.
Senior Research Fellow, Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, As an Individual
No, I don't.
You used an interesting analogy when you talked about the Taliban hopping on a plane and coming over here. It wasn't the Taliban that did that; it was al-Qaeda. They did that because they launched their planning under the protection of the Taliban. In other words, what goes on in obscure parts of the world, on the other side of it, can have a major impact on us. The hardening of our border with the United States is a direct result of actions that began in Afghanistan. That seems to me to be a clear enough indication that our national interests can be involved outside of this nation.
Yes, I'm sure that some people think in terms of oil and oil security. We're one nation that really doesn't have to, because we have sufficient resources here to take care of our needs for the foreseeable future. Maybe it's not in ways that appeal to every environmentalist, but we do have energy resources. Other countries may not.
Our national interest is basically peace, security, freedom, and democracy. Those are the things we want to see as far-flung as they possibly can be. If that requires us on occasion to commit our troops to odd parts of the world, well, that's part of the price of living in our globalized environment.
The national interest really is as I stated. There are basic, key things that every country must think about. There is the security of its people and its territory: al-Qaeda threatened our security and our territory. There is the economic well-being of Canadians: the hardening of the border is a direct result of that. That has had a major impact on us.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Professor Granatstein, if we withdraw from Afghanistan as per current plans, what will be our legacy? Will part of it be that we saved Kandahar province while waiting for the cavalry, the U.S., to arrive?
12:35 p.m.
Senior Research Fellow, Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, As an Individual
I think we can genuinely claim that. I think the 2006 efforts of the Canadian battle group Task Force Orion, in particular, were extraordinary, and I think we may legitimately claim to have saved Kandahar province that year, when the Taliban thought it could topple it very easily. I think the military legacy will be a substantial one. In my view, the legacy will be weakened if we pull out completely.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you.
Do you see Kandahar or Kabul as the key to the country for the Taliban?