National Defence Committee on May 17th, 2012

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Right. But putting aside the issue of political will, which was expressed sometimes more visibly, sometimes less visibly, was the actual command and control form of leadership mostly from NATO commands—the operational one was led by Charlie Bouchard, but obviously there were higher commands above him—or was it mostly from U.S. stand-alone commands?

[David Perry]

It's my understanding, at least certainly with the air component, that it was done through NATO.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

And for the maritime component and the overall strategic direction?

[David Perry]

I would have to check on that, but I believe it was also NATO-directed.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

So this concept of leadership from behind, which you've analyzed in the case of Libya, I think also has a current application for NATO in Afghanistan, to the extent that many nations are now shifting to a training mission as opposed to a first-echelon combat mission.

Do you see the concept of leading from behind, enabling the forces of non-NATO countries, as something that is compatible with this strategic concept?

[David Perry]

Yes, certainly. I think the types of support that the United States provides to all the people who show up but can't essentially feed and sustain themselves, for instance, is an example of that kind of thing. Even if you look at the countries that make very small contributions, they wouldn't be there unless the U.S. military was essentially providing all their logistics.

If you want to take it a step further, I think one of the key issues in Afghanistan—some of my colleagues were talking about this the other day when they appeared before you—is that the annual bill, depending on who you ask, for the Afghan national security forces will be $6 billion-plus after 2014. These estimates aren't very concrete, but I believe the Afghan government's ability to bring in revenue is something around $1 billion a year. So there's a huge shortfall just to keep paying for the security forces.

If nothing else, I think it's one example of leadership that may not be so publicly prominent. Someone is going to have to actually keep funding the Afghan government for a very long time into the foreseeable future.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Does Canada have the capacity to lead from behind in missions like this?

[David Perry]

In that kind of capacity, doing things like providing funding, I think absolutely.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

What about in the Libyan kind of capacity, and to some extent even in supporting counter-insurgency in Afghanistan, where its military enablers, command and control, ISR, air defence capabilities, and so forth...? Where do we stand?

[David Perry]

I think those are examples of us leading from the front.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

But you mentioned that the United States in Libya had provided those enablers while leading from behind.

[David Perry]

Oh, okay. Yes; I mean, if you did things like provided the airlift, provided the refuelling.... I think we may have actually been the second-largest refuelling contributor to Libya, for instance.

That's an example of where you can provide enabling capacities that allow other people to do things.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Do you see gaps in Canada's capabilities in this respect in light of the Libyan and Afghan experience?

[David Perry]

I certainly think some of them have been addressed by the lift that we've acquired, which all comes down to how you prioritize what you want to do. Depending on the policy direction, there can be gaps or not. I think acquiring lift made a lot of sense, and bolstering our refuelling capacity—if it's not quite up to where we need it to be—would be an example of where you could serve national priorities but also then potentially have something you could contribute to an operation on a wider basis.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We have time for a couple of very short questions. We have a couple of minutes left before we have to adjourn.

Ms. Moore, you have the floor.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I would just like to hear your thoughts on something. I noticed that you studied the use of companies or private security firms in Canada, where it starts, and elsewhere. What effect could that have on NATO countries and missions?

[David Perry]

I think it's a critical one. I think most of NATO relies to a greater or lesser extent on private support. Certainly we do. We did very extensively throughout the contribution in Afghanistan. So it's something that.... Depending on what types of services you're talking about, it provides a pretty critical enabling function, and it's one that allows military commanders to concentrate the share of forces they send overseas on operational military troops to the greatest extent possible.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Okay.

I would like to know what happens when these foreign companies are used. Should special attention be paid to their reputations? The situation can become more complicated if the company does not have a good track record or has been accused of something in the past. If a private firm is contracted to perform certain functions, what should we do to ensure the company doesn't cause problems for us once we've used its services?

[David Perry]

I think the focus shouldn't be on the companies per se but rather on what they're doing. You need to have pretty stringent oversight and make sure that the contracts are being managed effectively, and that's more important than what the country may have done eight or nine years ago. So it's more important to make sure that what's being done is executed to the letter of the contract, and to look and make sure that you're getting what you're paying for and that the people who are doing things for you are staying within the parameters you outlined for them at the outset.

I think the focus should be on that kind of enforcement rather than worrying particularly about whether the contract went to a certain company that may or may not have had a bad reputation in the past.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Time has expired, and another committee is due for this room at one o'clock.

Mr. Perry, I want to thank you so much for your input and for your studies that you've undertaken on the Libyan and Afghanistan missions and the overall function of NATO. I want to wish you the best of luck with the rest of your doctoral studies and your dissertation research.

With that, the meeting is adjourned.