FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 20, 2001

• 1544

[English]

(Technical difficulty—Editor)

Mr. James R. Wright (Assistant Deputy Minister, Global and Security Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): ...the Ottawa convention banning land mines and our work toward the International Criminal Court are two notable examples.

[Translation]

Since September 11, we have been working closely with our US partners at the UN in the campaign against terrorism. This has been reflected in three important Security Council resolutions addressing the collective military action in self-defence, concrete counter-terrorism measures, and most recently, the political transition, humanitarian and security efforts in Afghanistan. The US has also used the General Assembly as a forum for mobilizing broad solidarity for the current campaign. This is highly welcome because we believe the UN should be a leading vehicle for fighting terrorism globally.

[English]

From our perspective, mobilizing multilateral institutions, particularly, but not only, the United Nations, will benefit the fight against terrorism. In doing so we are following traditional patterns and strategies of Canadian internationalism, ones that we continue to apply to a wide range of today's security challenges. It is a unique Canadian contribution.

As I noted earlier, the multilateral thrust of Canada's security policy is underpinned by close security cooperation between Canada and the United States through both bilateral and regional structures. Indeed, Defence Minister Eggleton is in Washington today to discuss the post-September 11 environment and bilateral defence relations.

Similarly, the Canada-U.S.A. Permanent Joint Board on Defence, or PJBD, will continue to provide an important forum for Canada and the U.S. to discuss continental security. It is possible that the board may meet more regularly or even change slightly in structure in order to interact properly with other binational structures as they appear. My colleague, Major-General Cam Ross from National Defence, will speak in greater detail about these two institutions.

NATO is the other important security arrangement that binds us not only to our American neighbours but also to our allies on the other side of the Atlantic. From the civil wars in the Balkans to the attacks of September 11, NATO has shown its true transatlantic character. In Bosnia and Kosovo it involved its North American partners in military action and stabilization in Europe. Today NATO surveillance aircraft patrol the skies of North America to enable assets to be freed up for the campaign in Afghanistan. NATO has demonstrated repeatedly over the past decade its creativity, flexibility, and overall its relevance from dynamic new relationships with Russia and the Ukraine, to enlargement, to peace building in the Balkans, to the common fight against terrorism, and we have done this shoulder to shoulder with our U.S. neighbours.

[Translation]

Through these bilateral and multilateral channels, Canada needs to reinforce its dialogue with the United States on how to promote stability and security outside North America, for this is where the defence of this continent begins. The current crisis has seen the development of broad coalitions to enable us to deal more effectively with the challenges that begin offshore and have a direct impact on our shared security. They include everything from governance, human rights and humanitarian issues to drugs, money laundering and illegal migration to the illicit development of weapons of mass destruction. Canada believes that it is not enough simply to react to these threats, but rather that we must mobilize our diverse international partnerships and multilateral skills to take preventive action to deal with these security threats in their incipient stages.

[English]

Briefly, perhaps, I'll say a word on the outcome of the recent summit between Presidents Bush and Putin at Crawford, Texas. We welcome its result, an historic agreement between the United States and Russia to cut their nuclear arsenals to their lowest levels in four decades. This agreement signals a new phase in nuclear arms reduction and is an important contribution to international stability and security and our shared commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is our hope that progress will be made toward codifying these reductions in formal agreements between the two countries.

Importantly, the two leaders also established a very good personal rapport. There was considerable common ground on the campaign against terrorism and on future governance in Afghanistan. And there were good ideas on enhanced NATO-Russia relations. In sum, it was a positive meeting that we hope the United States and Russia will continue to build upon and share as a contribution to global security.

• 1550

Our aim must be to promote continued U.S. commitment to and engagement in multilateralism, non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament, and crisis prevention and management. Our foreign policy goals will be best served if Canada has the capabilities to remain a key coalition partner of the United States and a valued partner of a broader, more diverse multinational community in the context of a robust international security framework.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Wright.

General Ross, thank you for coming. We don't get the military people here very often. It's good to have you. The former chairman of the defence committee of course is delighted, finally, to have a colleague here.

Major-General H. Cameron Ross (Director General, International Security Policy, Department of National Defence): Mr. Chairman, honourable members of the committee, I've been asked to discuss with you issues relating to the topic of the foreign policy context of continental security. Representing a defence perspective, I am particularly pleased to address this topic with Mr. Wright from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Our two departments work very closely together on this and other related subjects.

Canada has long believed in the concept of forward defence. This comes from the widely accepted notion that the security of Canada and North America is fundamentally affected by what happens overseas. The tens of thousands of Canadians who are buried around the world are testament to this fact.

Let me now speak about how we are approaching continental security in light of September 11. Today, more than ever, continental defence has become a real issue for Canadians. They are concerned and feel threatened, with justification. The Canadian Forces stand ready to defend Canada, and, with the United States, to defend North America. The white paper of 1994 identifies these two goals as the highest priorities of the department and the Canadian Forces.

Historically, we've always held these objectives as our highest priorities. We have provided assistance to, as well as aid of, the civil power throughout Canada's history and have gone abroad to confront ideologies that posed a threat to Canada.

With respect to September 11 and its aftermath, perhaps it would be appropriate to provide a snapshot of what the Canadian Forces and the defence department did regarding continental security. Clearly, on the 11th the key player was NORAD. As you know, the deputy commander-in-chief is a Canadian. What you may not be aware of is that there are five senior duty officers in the Cheyenne Mountain complex. They are called command directors and are colonels; there is one from each of the U.S. Air Force, Army, Navy, and U.S. Marine Corps. The fifth is a Canadian. It was that Canadian who had the helm on the morning of the 11th.

I say this to illustrate the extent of integration with the United States, at least with aerospace defence of the continent. And by the way, we tend to think of NORAD as being nothing but air force. That Canadian is a sailor.

NORAD is a binational command, charged with the aerospace defence of the continent. Within minutes of the first attack in New York, NORAD took charge, scrambled Canadian and U.S. fighters, and effected positive control of North American air traffic. As commercial aircraft that were destined to the United States were diverted to Canadian airports, Canadian CF-18 fighter aircraft escorted some that were of questionable intent.

On the 11th and the days shortly thereafter, the Canadian Forces assisted civil authorities in transporting bedding, cots, and other items to airports like Gander, Newfoundland, that were swamped by the sudden influx of passengers.

Those were the immediate reactions of DND in response to the threat to continental security. Concurrently, the Canadian Forces prepared plans to provide humanitarian assistance to the stricken U.S. cities, especially New York. Although the Americans did not call for this assistance, the forces stood ready to respond rapidly.

Canadian military and civilian intelligence capabilities, notably the Communications Security Establishment, have played a significant role in our efforts to identify and counter terrorist threats to Canada and to North America. These agencies have been very much value-added to this campaign.

• 1555

Plans were also very quickly developed to deploy combat forces in support of the U.S.-led coalition campaign to counter terrorism. A planning team was deployed to central command headquarters in Tampa, Florida. They and the staff in Ottawa very closely coordinated with their U.S. counterparts the deployment of one of the most significant Canadian overseas efforts in recent Canadian history.

The navy dispatched the task group of one destroyer, two frigates, a supply ship, and attendant helicopter support. This task group is currently patrolling in the Arabian Sea.

An additional frigate, HMCS Vancouver, is sailing west with the USS John C. Stennis Battle Group for duties also in the Arabian Sea.

Planning is under way regarding a frigate that would backfill our commitment to NATO's Standing Naval Force Atlantic.

The air force made available two Aurora maritime patrol aircraft, plus three Hercules transports, and one Airbus A-310 transport. The Airbus is currently in Frankfurt, Germany, and is expected to commence operations within a few days.

With respect to the army, about 1,000 troops from 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry in Edmonton and in Winnipeg are on 48 hours' notice to deploy to Afghanistan to assist in providing a security environment for humanitarian operations in that country.

As you are also aware, a component of Joint Task Force 2 has been made available.

Further to these more visible actions, we recognize that the nature of the threat is very much changing. In an increasingly information-dependent world, for example, computer and communications infrastructure is fundamental to our security. Located with DND, the newly created Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness, OCIPEP as it's known, is the Government of Canada's coordinating agency for efforts in this field. OCIPEP is also responsible for the federal government's responsibilities in fields such as energy and utilities infrastructure, transportation, and communications. It was stood up this past spring and has obviously been fully engaged in this crisis in cooperation with U.S. agencies.

We also recognize, in keeping with today's theme, that the defence of North America from this new threat cannot just be accomplished by our actions here at home. We cannot truly be safe from what President Bush has called terrorism “of global reach” unless we seek it out and destroy it.

Lastly, with respect to September 11 and its aftermath, you may be aware of a bilateral institution called the Permanent Joint Board of Defence, which Mr. Wright has just mentioned. The Canadian co-chair is Mr. Jacques Saada, member of Parliament for Brossard—La Prairie. This board, comprised of Defence and Foreign Affairs officials, has been in existence since 1940 and normally meets every six months. Three days after September 11, I drove to Washington to meet my counterpart on PJBD. We subsequently had a full PJBD session in Ottawa on October 10 and 11. The topic, not surprisingly, was continental security. What may be surprising is that the topic was selected prior to September 11.

Mr. Chairman, honourable committee members, looking to the future, it is certain the Canadian Forces will evolve to keep up with the new challenges posed by international terror. Though plans are still in the initial stages, it is anticipated that greater attention will be paid to areas such as: enhancing capability to aid civil authorities in dealing with either natural or man-made disasters and in dealing with the danger of an attack using chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons; enhancing counter-terror capabilities, both at home and abroad; close coordination with emerging security initiatives in Canada in such matters as border protection; examination of ways in which the Canadian Forces can be trained and equipped to deal with the new challenges they face; and greater cooperation with the United States in continental defence against new threats, both military and non-traditional.

• 1600

As you are aware, the United States is also implementing significant changes in the way it approaches homeland defence. We, along with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, are following those developments closely. As has been mentioned, our minister and Ambassador Kergin met with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in Washington a few hours ago.

This menu of priorities is clearly varied. Under normal circumstances it would present significant challenges to any organization. Today the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces must examine, select, and implement far-reaching programs and changes in an environment of threat, high operational tempo, and uncertainty. It is a constant challenge, but it is one that all of us fully accept.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, General Ross.

We'll now go to questions. Mr. Duncan, sir.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

After listening to the presentations, it occurs to me that the Department of National Defence is basically operating per the last white paper but is trying to address circumstances that were not contemplated at that time. So is it not appropriate at this time that we address our entire armed forces' direction and needs based on a new white paper? Is this not the time to launch a new initiative in that direction? That question is directed to General Ross.

MGen Cameron Ross: Mr. Chairman, yes, the white paper of 1994 is the document that guides us. We still believe that the roles outlined in that document, particularly with regard to the defence of Canada, the defence of the continent, and our contribution to international security and stability, are still valid.

There is a constant review of policy, but white papers and policies are government decisions. The military and the bureaucracy provide advice where and when asked. It is the government's decision as to whether there would be a new white paper or a new defence review.

Mr. John Duncan: In your statement you talked about the fact that our troops are on 48 hours' notice to deploy to Afghanistan. What does that actually mean in terms of time to reach Afghanistan?

MGen Cameron Ross: My colleagues and I have been involved in these states of notice a number of times in our careers. What it means is that when somebody says go, you have 48 hours to do your final preparations and to leave the area you're in. For example, in the case of the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, when the decision is made to deploy them, they will march out of the gates of Edmonton Garrison about 48 hours later, destined, presumably, for the international airport. It will take them some time to get to the area of operations. That's what degree of notice means, 48 hours.

We have other assets that are on shorter and longer periods of notice of readiness, but that does not mean that in 48 hours they're in Afghanistan or wherever they may be deployed.

Mr. John Duncan: If that were initiated now and they were to leave 48 hours from now, when would they be in Afghanistan?

MGen Cameron Ross: We are looking at long flights.

Mr. John Duncan: Some of us just came back from Doha, so I understand the length of time to fly there. But aren't preparations required at the other end prior to them being able to land in Afghanistan?

MGen Cameron Ross: Absolutely.

Mr. John Duncan: So how long would that take?

• 1605

MGen Cameron Ross: Part of this is the reconnaissance. One does not just deploy a body of troops, certainly in the numbers we're talking of here, sight unseen to the area you're going into. So there would be reconnaissance.

That reconnaissance element is ready to go. They would likely deploy to a secure base in one of the surrounding countries. Then they would deploy tactically, perhaps with Hercules aircraft or helicopters, to the site we may be going to in Afghanistan. The troops would follow once the situation on the ground is known.

We are not going by ourselves. We are part of a coalition. We will not be acting unilaterally. We will be working with the U.S. and other countries, not only in the movement there but especially on the ground, wherever that is.

I would add that the situation on the ground is extremely fluid. The person who controls the airfield we want to go to today may not be the same individual who controls it tomorrow morning. It's very difficult to go into a situation and try to establish a secure and civil environment to deliver humanitarian aid. So it does take time.

Mr. John Duncan: Presumably, we now have a secure base in an adjacent country. Why would we delay sending our people to that secure base where they could quickly adapt to a new situation in Afghanistan?

MGen Cameron Ross: If we are to wait anywhere—and I say this as a soldier—we would rather wait at home. There's no point in us going to some adjacent country and sitting on our rucksacks waiting for the condition at our end destination to be sufficiently suitable for us to go into.

The transition time at the secure base should not be long. The objective would be to get in as quickly as we can to assist in the provision of humanitarian aid.

I would add that there are secure bases around, but there is a lot of activity associated with the continuing campaign to seek out the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden. Our contribution is just part of a larger picture.

Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Wright wanted to say something.

The Chair: Yes, I was just going to ask him if he wanted to comment.

Mr. James Wright: I'll just add one point to what Major-General Ross has said. The coalition effort is focused very much on the offensive campaign going after al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the Taliban. But they are also looking at the security vacuum created by the very sudden departure of the Taliban. The coalition leadership is at present in the theatre talking to some of the different parties on the ground.

Just to echo what Major-General Ross has said, there are different views on the ground in Afghanistan right now about the value of such a stabilization force. We want to make sure that in joining our coalition partners, we are going into an environment where, for the most part, we are expected and the tasks are very clear to all concerned.

All of these issues are being sorted through on a 24/7 basis in Tampa and in the capitals of coalition countries and by the coalition leadership, who, as I say, are in the theatre right now. So every effort is being made to expedite the process to get not only Canadian but other coalition parties on the ground as quickly as possible.

But we're not going to go in on our own. We are not going to go until the mission has been clearly defined and until such time as we are certain that the parties who are currently in control of the situation on the ground recognize that we are coming and what we are coming in to do.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Paquette, you have the floor.

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Thank you for your presentations.

My first question will be for General Ross. In your presentation, you said that today, more than ever, continental defence has become a real issue for Canadians and that they must, with the United States, defend Canada and North America.

• 1610

I'm always a bit surprised to see that from the beginning people have talked about North American integration. It is as though there were only Canada and the United States. I am well aware of the fact that we have privileged relations with the Americans because of NORAD, among other things, but we are at tempting through NAFTA and other means to create a North American economic community which may share other common elements, eventually. Until further notice, Mexico is part of that entity known as North America.

When we talk about North America, to your mind, does that include aspects of defence, which may be embryonic at this time, but which would include the Mexicans?

[English]

MGen Cameron Ross: Right now, our focus is on our discussions with the United States, at the defence level, on foreign affairs, and on other issues. I would say we are engaging with the Mexicans, particularly with respect to peacekeeping operations and the possibility of their joining us and other countries in peace-support operations around the world, primarily under the UN flag. But we have not embarked yet on discussions with them on continental security. Your point is valid. Our focus right now is closer to the United States.

Mr. James Wright: I'll just add that we do have a new government in Mexico now, and that government is taking an extremely active interest in international issues. As you may know, they have secured a seat for Mexico on the UN Security Council, starting January 1. The foreign affairs department is in very active dialogue with them on a full range of issues—multilateral issues, UN issues, human rights questions—and there is no question they want to play a more meaningful role on the international stage, but for the time being, Mexico does not have nearly the same nature of military assets, capabilities, or engagement with the United States—or Canada—as we have developed over many, many decades. That's not to say it won't happen down the road, but for the time being....

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I read that in certain circles in the United States some were worried about the fact that the Mexicans seemed fairly indifferent to the events of September 11, 2001 and everything that ensued. That does not surprise me. As they are only considered partners in economic matters, it is obvious that the September 11 events probably did not resonate there in the same way they did here. Their reaction was comparable to that of all the other Latin American countries. It seems to me that it would be in the interest of both Canada and the United States to integrate them as partners at various levels and not only in economic matters. That seems important also for Canada if it wants to further its influence with the Americans. In fact, Mr. Wright, you refer to this at the end of your presentation. You say:

Our aim must be to promote continued US commitment to and engagement in multilateralism, non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament and crisis prevention and management.

We are well aware of the fact that the reaction of our American neighbours will in large measure determine our own environment. In light of this, we are trying to play a role.

In that context, I would like to know what the people from the department thought about President Bush's decree creating special military tribunals to deal with foreign terrorists or presumed terrorists whereas, as you mentioned, Canada would tend to favour an international criminal court, which has yet to see the light of day. It seems to me that this runs counter to Canada's intentions. We should make representations to American authorities, I believe, to correct, to denounce, in fact, this American breach of rights.

I don't know if you have given this topic any thought, but I would have another question to put to you. In fact, I'll ask it now.

You mentioned the meeting which took place between presidents Bush and Poutine and the reduction of the nuclear arsenal that is to follow, at least in the United States, and we hope in Russia, in turn.

• 1615

In light of that, has the department thought about the matter of the missile defence shield? It seems to me that American authorities are not letting go of this project, in spite of the fact that it was obvious that such a shield could not have prevented the events of September 11. Has the department given this any thought?

There is one last matter I would like to raise. You referred to a global approach. In your presentation, you talked about the military aspects, about international institutions; these are all things with which I agree. But you did not broach international aid considerations, nor the possibility of envisaging the openness of markets in a different way. We saw for instance at the WTO that the rich countries made a certain number of concessions to developing countries in order to restart the multilateral negotiations. Should this not also be part of our global vision of security?

[English]

Mr. James Wright: First of all, on the question with respect to military tribunals and the new U.S. order, I would point out a couple of things.

First, the establishment of these tribunals is provided for by the Geneva conventions. The United States, in issuing this order, has indicated that the order authorizing the use of military tribunals represents but one of the additional tools that are out there in terms of the fight against terrorism.

We are talking with our American colleagues to try to get more precision in terms of what exactly they have in mind. For the time being, our understanding is that these arrangements have not been finalized yet, but we are in discussion with the Americans to see where they want to go with this.

On the question of the Bush-Putin summit and the whole question of ballistic missile defence, I think you have seen the public statements by the President, by the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, on the issue of missile defence. I think there remains a strong interest on the part of the U.S. administration to pursue a vision of missile defence.

How that vision is going to emerge is still very unclear. There are a number of different concepts on the drawing board. The architecture could include land-based, sea-based, air-based, and a number of different technologies. The Americans have not taken any final decisions in terms of how they want to proceed.

In terms of the attitude of the Canadian government, I think we acknowledge the fact that there are new threats that have emerged in recent years, and we're not oblivious to what those new threats are. We certainly saw that in the attack of September 11. We want to try to be as responsive as possible to some of these asymmetrical threats.

Having said that, we are very much committed to a multilateral system of arms control and disarmament that has stood the international community well. We would want to make sure, if missile defence is a system that is pursued by the United States, it contributes in a positive way to global security and doesn't detract from it.

We are encouraged by the dialogue the United States has with Russia. We note they were not able to achieve agreement on the future of the ABM and the possible development of a missile defence system, but discussions will continue between the U.S. and Russia. These are two strategic powers. It's very important that relationship be maintained and strengthened. We want to understand how that dialogue is going to develop.

The ABM as a treaty has the capacity to be amended. It has been amended in the past. We have indicated, both to the Russians and to the Americans, our interest in understanding where they are taking their strategic dialogue and what the impact of this is going to be on global architecture, and we have indicated right from the outset to the Americans that we believe strongly in a rules-based arms control and disarmament process.

• 1620

We welcome the significant reductions in strategic missiles the U.S. and Russia are now committed to. We want to have a better understanding as to what numbers they are looking at. How is this going to be codified? Is it going to be verifiable? Is it going to be irreversible? Is it going to be legally binding? These are some of the questions that traditionally are associated with arms control and disarmament discussions, and these are the areas where we derive confidence from new understandings on strategic issues.

While the Canadian government has not taken a definitive position on missile defence, we are very much alive to the issue. We're talking with our American colleagues. We'll see how this process develops in the months to come, but we are realistic enough to understand that the current U.S. administration remains very committed to this process. We'll see how it develops.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: As to the matter of trade—

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Paquette, but your time is up. I have already given you 11 minutes.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Perhaps later when asking another question, I could bring up—

The Chair: You can have the floor again during the second round, but I am now going to give the floor to Mr. O'Brien.

[English]

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm reminded of our many hearings on Kosovo when we're hearing this. Also, our former defence committee held a number of hearings on NMD, and there was an interim report we tabled in the House; it was without recommendation but delivered as an update to members. If anyone's interested and hasn't seen that, there were quite a number of hearings held and there was expert testimony given from pretty well all points of view. I just thought I'd contribute that, Mr. Chairman.

I have three quick comments and two or three questions.

The Chair: Do you have an agreement on that now, Mr. O'Brien?

Mr. Pat O'Brien: No, no agreement, no recommendations.

When I did chair the SCONDVA, we had the opportunity to visit Cheyenne Mountain, and at the time General Myers, now chief of the Joint Chiefs in the U.S., was commander. General George Macdonald was then deputy commander. The day we were there, he was in charge because General Myers was off to Washington. I have to share with you how very impressed all members from all parties were at that time with the performance of our people and how closely they worked with the United States in Cheyenne Mountain. That's going to lead to a question on the Canadian public's knowledge of NORAD.

I hope our colleague, Mr. Duncan, can explain why we're not rushing troops into Afghanistan right now. I hope he can explain that to his leader. I think that's a very important answer that was given. There were questions in the House today where certain members wanted us to rush these troops in there. Quite frankly, it would in my view be irresponsible to do that, and I just hope we can enlighten those who think it would be a smart thing to do.

Major-General, I think the defence budget needs a significant bump. I was pleased that it has had a bump over the past three years, but it wasn't enough. I know there's temporary or emergency funding for Afghanistan, but I don't think that is nearly enough. I think the aid base or the real budget in defence, or whatever term you want to use, needs a significant increase, and I'll be arguing for that, as other MPs will. I don't expect to you to comment.

Now to my questions, Mr. Chairman—

A voice: He's nodding.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: He's nodding agreement. Note that he's nodding agreement.

On my questions, in response to the attacks on September 11, probably a lot of us as MPs—I certainly did—had people calling saying, why don't we work closer with the United States in defence matters? They didn't seem to understand or even know about NORAD.

I think the military does some polling. What's the level of understanding or knowledge of the Canadian public about NORAD, and what can everybody in government and the military do to help educate the public? I was shocked by how many people didn't understand that we, every single day of the year, are in a bilateral, binational relationship with the United States on defence. I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

My colleague Mr. Paquette anticipated a question on NMD. I would like to know if there's any change in the American sense of urgency to go forward with it. It's my perception that just because these two attacks came to the towers by planes, they don't see that there's no need now to proceed with NMD. They intend to protect themselves, or to try, against every possible threat, so I don't see them backing off. I wonder if there's any lessening of urgency in the American....

• 1625

I'll leave it there. I think that will do me fine.

Thank you.

The Chair: I think it is very important to note that it was a naval officer who was in charge at NORAD on September 11.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: That's right.

The Chair: It was a retired sub-lieutenant in Her Majesty's Navy. It was the first time I've learned of such a thing going on. Like the Canadian public, we all can be educated, Mr. O'Brien.

So who's going first?

MGen Cameron Ross: I'll start off with respect to the question of NORAD and Canadians' knowledge of defence issues. It's interesting to know that one of the largest hit sites on the Internet happens to be the NORAD site. It happens right around Christmas because that's the agency that does the tracking of the inbound presents and Santa Claus, but it does have one of the highest—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Pierre Paquette: What is the address?

MGen Cameron Ross: Your point is valid. We probably need to do some more work, and we have done some in the recent past, trying to raise people's attention and knowledge level as to the return on their tax dollars with respect to some of the activities we're engaged in with the United States.

I'll just make a brief comment on your point about ballistic missile defence. From a defence point of view we are fully engaged with the United States in consultations to learn as much as we can on this administration's intentions for the future. We have not made any commitments; that's the Government of Canada's decision. But we do have the lines open, so to speak. It's public knowledge that we have an officer in the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization as a liaison officer, and we are providing the information we gain from these liaisons to the government to assist in making a decision with respect to support or non-support of BMD.

Finally, I would like to stress that this also is very much a moving target with respect to how it's going to be employed. As Mr. Wright has mentioned, there are very many aspects of missile defence. One is what we have heard about, ballistic missile defence. There's also theatre missile defence. There are different technologies that are applied, but we are trying to follow this as closely as possible.

Mr. James Wright: If I could, I'll just add that on the issue of whether we see any lessening of intent on the part of the U.S. administration regarding their commitment to missile defence, I think the short answer is no. Clearly, the events of September 11 have significantly changed the agenda in the United States in the sense that the counter-terrorism campaign has assumed number one importance for the U.S. administration. They are pursuing it with vigour domestically and internationally as well as bilaterally with the Government of Canada. That being said, they have not lost sight of the missile defence issue.

We will all have opportunities in the days and weeks ahead to speak with our American counterparts on exactly where that process is going. There may be—and we'll have to see how this question plays out in Washington—an appropriations issue we'll need to monitor with interest in the sense that the cost of September 11 to the U.S. administration is not insignificant. Neither is the cost of ballistic missile defence, and we'll have to see to what extent moneys are appropriated by the U.S. Congress for this particular program.

I talked earlier about the very careful engagement of the administration with Russia. Of course, there are discussions with China as well. China has a great deal of interest in if and how this plan develops, and a number of countries, including Canada, have a particular concern on the issue of weaponization of outer space. This is long-standing Canadian government policy that we do not want to see that final frontier used for a program of weaponization.

• 1630

The Canadian government has been pursuing internationally the prospect of developing an international convention to prevent weaponization of outer space. That is another aspect of this issue where we're engaging our American colleagues. We'll see how the issue plays out in the months and years to come.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you once again, Mr. Chairman.

I have to respond to Mr. O'Brien, unfortunately. I don't know why you injected that, but the point of our questioning regarding the mobilization for Afghanistan had to do with our diminished ability within the armed forces for airlift and to support our troops. It had nothing to do with rushing pell-mell into Afghanistan. I thought I'd just make that perfectly clear.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I was just referring to your leader's question in the House of Commons.

Mr. John Duncan: And so am I.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Okay. Well, I don't agree with your interpretation.

Mr. John Duncan: You're a member of the government. You need to develop a thicker skin. You should try opposition some time. Just try it.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: No, you're doing well there. We'll let you have it.

Mr. John Duncan: Your minister was sending some very mixed messages, by the way.

So that's the side show.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: It's called ready, aim, fire.

Mr. John Duncan: We do battle on softwood as well. Anyway....

You injected it. I had no intention of going there.

The whole question of biological warfare has to be a huge challenge for the government and for the Canadian Armed Forces. So I have to ask what the armed forces are doing in that regard.

General Ross?

MGen Cameron Ross: We're very clearly looking at some capabilities that we should be having expertise in. We have had, for some time, a reaction team for nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare that is able to respond very quickly within Canada. But the question we're asking ourselves is, is this enough in light of September 11 and certainly the anthrax scare in the States and elsewhere?

Suffice it to say that it's premature at this point to reveal some of the planning that's under way, but where, as we call it, NBC capabilities may have been a Sleepy Hollow before September 11, the individuals who are in that office are burning some long hours right now to develop appropriate plans.

I would add that, as in any progressive community, the first responders are those in the communities. Those are the municipalities and the provinces, and then the federal level of how we can support. So we're not making these plans and conducting these deliberations in isolation. We have to talk to the municipalities and find out what the capabilities of local police and the local hospitals, and so on, are to respond to these types of threats. This will not happen very quickly, but rest assured that this is one of the highest priorities within the department.

Mr. John Duncan: If there were a requirement for mass inoculation, would the armed forces be an integral part of that in Canada?

MGen Cameron Ross: I'm on thin ice on this. I can get the answers for you.

It's safe to say that we are here to support Canada. We have done this in the past, not necessarily inoculations, but if there are assets that we have, clearly we would provide assistance if asked. As far as specific inoculations of certain areas are concerned, I just do not have that expertise to be able to respond.

• 1635

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.)): Perhaps Mr. Wright might wish to respond.

Mr. James Wright: Could I address a related aspect of the biological weapons issue? It concerns the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. The reason I raise it now is because in fact there's an important review conference taking place in Geneva as we speak. The Canadian government has long supported this convention, which dates back to 1972, and we have been working to strengthen the convention's norm against biological weapons, including bioterrorism. We are trying to use our time at this conference in Geneva to look at ways of strengthening review mechanisms and looking to see whether or not we can develop a new multilateral compliance regime.

Canada and the United States share a common approach here. We are trying to see what can be done to alleviate the danger of biological weapons, and we are looking to see whether we can strengthen the regime that prohibits them.

The U.S. approaches it in a little bit different way than we do. They have put forward some very good suggestions that relate to national responses. I think Canada has already acted on most of the U.S. suggestions, but their response focuses principally on the response side. What we have tended to push for—there are not many, but this is one area where we have a bit of a different perspective than the U.S. administration—is a legally binding multilateral regime where we can actually verify compliance with the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and prevent biological weapons proliferation in the first place.

So you're right to go ahead and raise the issue, especially in the current context of movements of armies. You will have seen press reports today where the United States, at the review conference, has accused Iraq and other states of going ahead and developing some of these weapons of mass destruction. Canada, I just want the committee to know, is advocating very strongly compliance by all states with respect to the provisions of this convention. Like the United States, we are concerned that Iraq and some of the other states named by the United States have been continuing clandestine biological weapons conventions, and we are working within the multilateral arena to see whether or not we can reign in some of those countries and put in place a strict verification regime that can allow us to try to shut down some of those programs.

Mr. John Duncan: If there were—

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): Perhaps we can go to the next speaker and then we can come back.

Ms. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your presentation. It's heartening to know that it was a Canadian who was the commander in chief on September 11 and actually oversaw all the major decisions dealing with our security in North America, as defined by Canada and the United States—excluding Mexico, for the interests of my friend from the Bloc.

In your presentation you talk about some of the issues you're looking at, in particular enhancing various capabilities. You talk about enhancing capabilities to aid civil authorities in dealing with either natural or man-made disasters and in dealing with the danger of an attack using chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

In response to a question by my colleague here, you recognized that in many cases the first responders are the local community, health, and policing services on the ground. You yourself said you need to get information about what their capabilities are.

In Quebec, not too long ago, we experienced a natural disaster, the ice storm of January 1998. That struck on the evening of January 5, 1998. By the Wednesday, January 7, many people—public figures, media—were calling on our government to call in the Canadian Forces because of the Canadian Forces' expertise in dealing with natural disasters in Canada, and the kind of logistical support and even material support they would be able to bring.

• 1640

Initially, the Quebec government said we did not need the assistance of the Canadian Forces. It took about a week before the request was finally made and the Canadian Forces actually began delivering the services, the help and the aid on the ground.

So it's not simply enough to know how the local services—municipal and provincial governments—are prepared to react in the case of either a man-made or a natural disaster—including chemical or biological disasters. It's also important to have some kind of agreement.

Is that part of enhancing your capability to aid civil authorities—to actually get the information, but also to work out agreements with the provincial governments, where it's the provincial government that has the authority, or with the local municipal government, if the municipal government would have the initial authority? Are you in fact working on this? I think it's really important. It was a major issue in Quebec.

Another issue initially in Quebec was about the civil security. The headquarters for the natural disaster emergency response was actually Quebec City. I was one of the individuals who called there directly during the first five days of the ice storm. I then called Premier Bouchard's office and attempted to speak to him directly, but spoke instead to his chief of staff, to say that it did not make sense to have it there when the overwhelming majority of the affected areas in the province were in the greater Montreal area and the Montérégie. Most of the people working at the command post didn't even know where some of the municipalities were located. If particular community centres or schools called with requests for generators or blankets or cots, they couldn't even locate these places on the map.

I was able to give actual examples of shelters that had been set up in my riding. When I called the command post—and I was a privileged individual, because I had those telephone numbers and spoke to the actual person who was heading it—and said I need this, this, this, and this, and the city of Lachine has been requesting it for three days and still hasn't received it, they couldn't even locate Lachine on the map. Shortly thereafter it was moved to Montreal.

What are you doing in terms of attempting to come to some kind of agreement with provincial governments and local authorities, be it a man-made or a natural disaster? It's a long question, but I wanted to put it in context.

MGen Cameron Ross: It's a very good question. Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted to respond to it because I have some personal experience in this area.

During the ice storm I was the area commander for the four Atlantic provinces and I was charged with the responsibility of effecting liaison, coordination, and communication with the provincial governments of those four provinces and the municipalities therein. It was one of my units that deployed to Saint-Hyacinthe—2nd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment.

As background, let me say that this is one of our responsibilities throughout Canada—to touch base with the provincial and municipal authorities, but primarily the provincial authorities, where the legislation is there, the responsibility and the accountability lies. There is no way the Canadian Forces are going to act unilaterally. We live in a democracy—fortunately—and we must respond to the requests of the municipalities.

An hon. member: Even in Toronto.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I agree with that. I don't want to move to Chile— and experience the military coup of Allende. So I'm very pleased.

• 1645

MGen Cameron Ross: But certainly post-September 11 the aspect of coordination with civil authorities has taken on new meaning and new dimensions. In the past we have perhaps paid more attention to natural disasters—forest fires, floods, and ice storms affecting Canada. Now it's different because of problems we've already discussed.

It's not just talking. That's not good enough. Action is required, action in the form of exercises—exercises with the public officials, the elected officials, the security forces, the police, the agencies. We have come a long way in Canada as far as our civilian ability to react to disasters—a long way—and there are civilian agencies that are very, very capable.

We have this new organization called OCIPEP, the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness in Canada. It was started up, as has been mentioned, last spring. So it's a very new organization and we are working with it—it's part of DND—but working with it and with the civil authorities.

There is much to do, but we have a lot of experience as well. I hope this answers your question.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It helps.

Mr. James Wright: I'd like to add one element relating to the issue post-September 11 on chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear accidents or attacks in Canada, both from a response and a prevention point of view. The code language is CBRN, but what it means is chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear.

It is important to acknowledge that subsequent to September 11, an enormous amount of effort has been put in by the federal government. It's not just the defence department or Foreign Affairs. In fact, we are not necessarily in the lead on some of these issues. It's the Solicitor General's Office, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Natural Resources Canada, OCIPEP over at DND, Health Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Agriculture Canada—and the list goes on and on.

All of these different levels of the federal government have come together to remind each other of where all the chemical agents that could create some of these weapons of mass destruction are located in Canada. Where are all the biological materials kept? What about nuclear waste? What about nuclear facilities?

What about radiological isotopes? We're the largest world producer of radiological isotopes. We export them all over the world. What are the export and import controls? What are the border management controls?

The only comment I would make to the committee is that these discussions are ongoing, not only with the interdepartmental community in Ottawa, but also over the course of the last few months—and at an extraordinarily intense level—with provincial governments and local governments, putting together the road map so Canada can have much better response mechanisms in the event that something goes wrong. Foreign affairs' area of particular attention is on creating much better preventative steps for dealing with these problems offshore before they become problems in Canada.

This complements what Major-General Ross has been talking about on the role the federal government is trying to play in terms of anticipating some of these crises. We are learning hard lessons from September 11.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you very much. I appreciate your responses and how informative they were.

I didn't get such informative answers from another department this morning—but then I'm used to that. So I do appreciate it, and I also appreciate the work going into making sure Canada is in fact well prepared, with mechanisms in place to protect the safety of Canadians.

Mr. James Wright: I should have added also that this is an area where we have fairly sophisticated dialogue with the U.S. administration. We are comparing notes on a regular basis with them about it.

• 1650

In fact, it touches on the administration's new portfolio, Governor Ridge's appointment as the cabinet secretary responsible for homeland security.

When Mr. Manley was down in Washington, some of these issues were indeed touched upon in terms of what we can do to enhance the bilateral, cooperative relationship. It's coming along very nicely.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Chair: I guess it's to be assumed that a nuclear catastrophe in one country would not likely be contained in that country, and that would probably include a biological one as well. Any biological, chemical, or nuclear threat presumably would not be respectful of borders. So I assume there's a great deal of cooperation between our two administrations.

[Translation]

Mr. Paquette, you have the floor.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I simply want to give Mr. Wright the opportunity of answering my third question. He didn't have time to answer it.

A voice: On development.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Yes, that's it. Shouldn't a global vision of security also include international aid considerations, as well as our perspective on trade or multilateral agreements, but especially multilateral agreements?

[English]

Mr. James Wright: I'll answer on a number of different levels. I can't speak on behalf of CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, but what I would say is there is a recognition that if we are going to learn the lessons of September 11, in addition to putting in place all the appropriate response mechanisms—dealing with prevention overseas by developing proper multilateral instruments, fighting counter-terrorism, whether it's at the UN, the G-8, or the G-20, helping to peace-build in Afghanistan—if we don't start to get at some of the root causes, such as poverty, deprivation, education, tolerance, some of the legacy is going to continue.

I think there is an acknowledgement on the part of ministers of the Canadian government—I think the Prime Minister has talked about this from time to time—of a commitment to look at the level of assistance that's provided by the Canadian government internationally for development, to see what we can do to help out.

I would point to one important example in recent weeks. That was the debt-to-development swap the Prime Minister announced with Pakistan, for close to half a billion dollars—

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It was $447 million.

Mr. James Wright: That's very good. You passed the test. That's a hugely significant—

The Chair: That's one-quarter of CIDA's budget.

Mr. James Wright: Yes. It's absolutely enormous—to go ahead and help out one country. President Musharraf has cited this Canadian example repeatedly in his discussions with other international leaders, asking for the same level of support that Canada has been providing.

So I would say we are showing some leadership here. I think there is recognition that more can be done. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that in terms of Canada's G-8 presidency next year, while terrorism will occupy an important space in the G-8 agenda, first and foremost on the Prime Minister's agenda is Africa. He wants to put Africa there because he feels very strongly about it personally, and because this was a decision taken by G-8 leaders in Genoa last summer, that there needed to be more focus on the new Africa initiative that has been developed in the course of the last year.

So I think you can't look at the post-September 11 environment without also looking at what more can be done to deal with development assistance internationally.

The Chair: Thank you.

We're going to go to Mr. O'Brien, then Mr. Duncan, but before we do, let me jump in with a quick one myself—maybe not so quick.

General Ross, you talked about the troops we're sending to Afghanistan, and you mentioned the 1,000 troops from the Princess Patricia's battalion being there to provide a security environment for humanitarian operations.

Could you tell us what the JTF2 troops have been doing, or what their role would be?

• 1655

Then I'm going to move to you, Mr. Wright.

I wonder if you could give the committee an overall view of how we see our role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, if you could call it that. Obviously, there are the troops, there's humanitarian aid, but it's an extraordinarily complex political situation. It's still a complex military situation. Obviously, the Americans are largely calling the shots, but the Europeans have their views about it, and as you said, we have our views on the root causes of terrorism, which may differ from those of the United States.

Again, going back to General Ross, we have a view of peacekeeping that is not shared necessarily by our American colleagues in the way they see military operations. How do you see a distinctive Canadian imprint on the process of reconstructing Afghanistan?

General Ross.

MGen Cameron Ross: The military operation is just one of several aspects of the coalition to fight terrorism—economic, financial, diplomatic, etc. Within the military aspect there are a number of operations that are under way. One is the offensive operation against the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden, primarily led by the United States, with the United Kingdom in support. That is the activity I think we have seen most in the media, in the television coverage and the like.

There is another operation Canada is very much interested in and focused on, which is the operation to provide a secure, stable, and civil environment in which Afghanis can return to some degree of normality and a broad-based, ethnically represented government can be established in Afghanistan. Both of these types of operations are coalition. There are a whole bunch of countries that are part of this, and we are just one of them.

With respect to the assistance we would provide in the provision of combat troops on the ground, you can envision a community, a city, in Afghanistan, one of many, where there's an airfield, where there are some roads coming into that community, where the NGOs, particularly the World Food Programme, have been delivering food with their trucks during the hostilities. There are a number of varying interests, factions, and war lords who are around this community. It is in this type of community and situation that we envision Canadian troops going in with our coalition partners. It may be the securing of this airfield. It may be the securing of a food warehouse, of a hospital—instruments of normalcy, for lack of a better term.

Is there likely to be combat? There might be. These are combat-trained troops. But it is not necessarily, as the minister has described, going into the caves against bin Laden and his cohorts. It's a difficult scene to picture. I have not been to Afghanistan, and I think few of us here have, but it is a very difficult scene on the ground.

I would stress that the UN is involved. The World Food Programme is delivering food very successfully. They have just reported that they have met their targets for this month, and they continue to deliver food. We, the coalition, want to ensure that continues.

With respect to JTF2, I hope you will understand I cannot go into any detail about their involvement, other than to say that a component of this asset of the Canadian Forces has been made available to the coalition.

The Chair: But presumably that would be for what they call the pointy end of things, rather than the other?

• 1700

MGen Cameron Ross: Yes—

The Chair: —wherever they may be, without commenting any further, very pointy—

MGen Cameron Ross: Without pointing; that was the point.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.

Mr. Wright, do you want to complement that?

Mr. James Wright: Yes, please.

Perhaps what I could do first is give you a bit of a quick snapshot, since CIDA is not with us, as to the humanitarian situation, then move into some Canadian views on the peace process and how they also fit in to some of the counter-terrorism efforts we have under way.

I would also add one other item to the list Major-General Ross was talking about, in terms of the task that could be undertaken by such a stabilization force on the ground in Afghanistan. By extension, frankly, the peacekeepers who will go in—the stabilizers—will also be facilitating the UN-brokered peace process that UN Special Representative Brahimi is heading up. He has his first meeting, I think, scheduled for next Monday in Berlin. I think that's the plan right now—to try to bring together all the interested Afghani parties to meet for the first time outside Afghanistan.

On the humanitarian situation, there is relief getting in. Major-General Ross talked about trucks going in and the World Food Programme meeting target deliveries, but obviously the security situation on the ground continues to be a rather major obstacle. Some areas in Afghanistan are safer than others. We're dealing with individuals who have shifting alliances. There is a lack of law and order. You saw, yesterday, four journalists were killed trying to get in, I think, from Pakistan. So it's not an easy set of circumstances—it was four journalists with Reuters, I think, who were killed.

It is paramount that we try to get delivery of food to the vulnerable before winter sets in. The problem has been complicated a little bit also by looting that has been done by Taliban and now by others within Afghanistan. Having said that, the expatriate aid community—the NGOs, the UN—are going back in.

The UN's first teams went in over the weekend, and a priority for them will be the protection of internally displaced individuals within Afghanistan. That's always a major problem. Also, the international community is doing what it can to help out refugees who have gone out, in particular to Iran and Pakistan. Having said that, what's interesting is we're hearing there already are something in the order of 12,000 spontaneous returns from Pakistan and Iran into Afghanistan. It gives you a sense of just how dramatically the situation is changing.

There is a conference taking place today put on by the Japanese and the United States in Washington, D.C. Canada is there. Representatives from Foreign Affairs, CIDA, and the Department of Finance are assisting. The World Bank is there, and the EU, the UN, and G-8 members. This is not a pledging conference, but it is an attempt to start the process of coordination.

We've been through this process before. When you have a major international relief exercise under way there is the risk of duplication—of waste—so it's extremely important that we have a common understanding of what the challenges are in front of us. That's what this first meeting is all about. I think it will lead to a donors' conference, probably sometime early in the new year. As soon as the security situation on the ground allows an on-site assessment to happen, that will take place, before the donors' conference happens.

There are a number of important steps we have to go through, but the first important step on the humanitarian relief side is taking place as we speak, in Washington, D.C. Colin Powell addressed that group this morning. There were a couple of priority messages that he delivered. One was how important it is to demonstrate immediately, in a visible way, the support of the international community for the people of Afghanistan. That has to be priority number one.

• 1705

The second message he delivered is equally important, and that is that the international community has an obligation to stay the course and not abandon Afghanistan, as has happened in the past.

We see lots of different interested parties trying to get assets into Afghanistan very quickly—other countries with their representation on the ground. Everybody has a stake in what's going to happen in Afghanistan in the future. The great game runs the risk of playing out again.

That said, the UN Secretary General, who was here over the weekend, met with the Prime Minister and with Mr. Manley. He is working extremely hard to put in place a peace process that will be inclusive and will bring together all the Afghani parties with a view to building a multi-ethnic, stable, inclusive governance structure that makes sense in the world we live in right now. It is going to be extraordinarily difficult.

The Northern Alliance are on the ground in Afghanistan right now. There are warlords who are there. Everybody is trying to take a piece of the pie. They are less than welcoming in terms of the stabilization force or the role of the UN. Committee members should not underestimate the challenge the international community, the coalition, and in particular the UN face in Afghanistan.

Our own view is that there needs to be a very strong, transparent, inclusive political process that parallels the military operation under way in Afghanistan. There must be a leadership role for the United Nations. There is the possibility that the former king of Afghanistan could serve as a rallying point for an interim administration in Afghanistan that would be supported by the UN and the international community. We have said that to the king's family. His grandson is a Canadian, and we've spoken to him on a number of occasions.

There has to be a role in this process—and benefits—for regional players. We know Pakistan, Iran, India, and Russia all have concerns. They're all watching the situation extremely carefully. It's going to be difficult, but if we don't do it properly we're going to relive this opera in ten or twenty years' time, and nobody wants to do that.

One of the Canadian ideas we are promoting with our international colleagues is the need for a regional security and cooperation dialogue. That has been lacking in this area. We have it in Europe; we have it in the form of NATO and OSCE. There are other regional forums in the OAS, in Africa, and in Asia, but not in Southeast Asia. What we found in respect to the Balkans was we had a lot of different institutions that wanted to help out instantly—the European Union, NATO, OSCE. None of these institutions is present in the case of Afghanistan; it's only the UN that's there. We think one of the dimensions that should emerge from this crisis is some type of new regional security dialogue that could build confidence among regional players.

The last point I would lay out, Mr. Chairman, is the extent to which all these efforts—on the humanitarian relief side, through the military coalition, in the political process through the United Nations—have to connect with the broader counter-terrorism plan the Canadian government is trying to advance through a number of different mechanisms, principally the G-8, and the G-20 over the weekend, where Finance Minister Martin had a very successful meeting.

We are looking at developing a G-8 counter-terrorism action plan that deals on a variety of different levels involving the UN—not just to see countries implement the 12 terrorism conventions that have been approved by the UN, but actually to offer some capacity-building for those countries, to help them go ahead and implement this. While it may be easy for developed countries like Canada to do this, we know there are lots of countries out there that will have difficulty meeting these new obligations and norms that are being established by the UN Security Council.

• 1710

The issues include terrorism financing; chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear issues; the question of drugs; the many connections between organized crime and terrorism and how to break down some of those areas; aviation security; and judicial cooperation, so we remove some of the barriers to greater mutual legal assistance and extradition between countries.

On travel documents, how do we go ahead—

The Chair: The question was really around Afghanistan. I can see where drugs might come into Afghanistan.

Mr. James Wright: But I'm trying to paint the broader picture.

The Chair: We've got an idea. We have a couple more questions, so maybe I'll stop you there.

Mr. Duncan's getting restless and so is Mr. O'Brien. So we'll go to Mr. Duncan and then Mr. O'Brien and Ms. Jennings.

Mr. John Duncan: I have just one question. Not being very familiar with article 5 of the NATO treaty, would it be invoked if it were not a demonstrable physical attack? In other words, would it be invoked if there were a biological attack that could be pinned on an outside force? Is my question clear?

Mr. James Wright: Yes, it is, and I think the answer is yes. I don't know if you've seen it, but my reading of article 5 is that parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America.... Now it says an armed attack, and I guess it depends on how you want to define that. In the case of the airliners that crashed into the World Trade towers—

Mr. John Duncan: No.

Mr. James Wright: Absolutely. It was regarded as being an armed attack, and for that reason NATO felt it important to immediately go ahead and invoke article 5. I think you would have to gauge the nature of the attack, but if it were a biological or chemical weapons attack that had massive casualties.... I'm not a lawyer, but I know the chairman is, and he'll probably counsel me to be cautious—

The Chair: So is Ms. Jennings.

Mr. John Duncan: Just to interrupt, though, the fact that we're having this sort of discussion probably points out that some dialogue and discussion on this very point between the NATO signatories might be appropriate, on a sort of pre-emptive or proactive basis. We certainly don't want to have this discussion after the event, after the fact. Maybe this has already occurred, but my guess is it probably hasn't occurred at this point.

Mr. James Wright: Your question's a very good one. This is the first time it's ever been invoked. There was discussion at NATO when the question arose as to whether article 5 should be invoked in this instance. It was invoked very quickly, as you know. The attack happened on September 11. NATO article 5 was invoked on September 12. While there was a discussion, it was a very brief discussion.

So NATO has the capability of responding extremely quickly, under the circumstances. But your point is very well taken, and I suspect there is a good deal of reflection on how this article could be interpreted down the road in other instances.

Mr. John Duncan: I would like to recommend that we put an asterisk beside that point, and maybe when we make our report we make some recommendation to the effect that that's a question we should have our government pose to NATO.

The Chair: I'll make a note of that.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. O'Brien.

• 1715

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I have some quick questions. If we send troops to the ground in Kosovo, Major-General Ross, would there be any new problems we haven't faced before in getting troops into a theatre? Would there be anything new or different, other than obviously that it's farther away than some?

MGen Cameron Ross: You said Kosovo—

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I'm sorry, Afghanistan.

MGen Cameron Ross: I presume you mean Afghanistan.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Freudian slip.

MGen Cameron Ross: It's hard to answer. We have never operated, certainly to my knowledge, in this part of the world. But I think one of the things that—

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Sorry, I just meant transporting them. Is there anything different in getting troops to Afghanistan over Kosovo, say, other than distance?

MGen Cameron Ross: Not really. It's just an awfully long way to fly.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Yes, that's right.

MGen Cameron Ross: But on who provides the transport, whether it's a combination of our own, commercial, U.S., British—

Mr. Pat O'Brien: So there's nothing new there.

MGen Cameron Ross: Nothing.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I didn't think so.

Are some of our allies not going in with troops at this point, who thought they were? If so, who and why?

MGen Cameron Ross: There are a number of allies who thought, as we did, they might be deploying more quickly, but they're faced with the same reality on the ground—a very fluid situation.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: So it would be pretty dumb to go in right now without a stable situation.

MGen Cameron Ross: Oh yes.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: That's what I thought. Okay, thank you.

On the helicopters, we all know, certainly those of us who were on the defence committee, as do most Canadians, that we need new helicopters. We're in the process of trying to fill that need. Frankly, it should have been done before, in my view.

Can you imagine a Canadian commander expecting his people to go up in what is deemed an unsafe helicopter, for any kind of mission?

In your view, are the Sea Kings safe to carry out the tasks they've been asked to carry out?

MGen Cameron Ross: These are leading questions.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I'd be shocked if they were sending people up in what you consider, or anybody else....

MGen Cameron Ross: I have commanded troops most of my career. I would, as would my colleagues, be the first one to say no to our troops going in equipment that was not safe. I know some of the Sea King pilots. I know the commander in Shearwater, and I am extremely confident that if these airframes were not fundamentally safe to fly and operate in the conditions, as we, the Government of Canada, are asking them to do, they would not do so.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you.

I'd like a copy of that answer so I can forward it to the leader of the opposition and some others who are, quite frankly, engaging in some pretty irresponsible scare tactics. It's nice to see that the Alliance—formerly the Reform Party—is now apparently pro-military, when in the 1997 campaign they wanted to cut the defence budget. Anyway, they have to live with their own actions.

I have one final question. On the Permanent Joint Board on Defence, which I think Mr. Wright spoke to earlier, I just want to hear from Major-General Ross or Mr. Wright. Would you care to speculate on how the PJBD could possibly change in light of post-September 11?

MGen Cameron Ross: I'm the military senior representative for the Canadian side. We have discussed these issues with my American counterpart, with our Foreign Affairs colleagues, and also with the State Department, on how we can improve the Permanent Joint Board on Defence. That was before September 11, and now it has certainly been accelerated.

As Mr. Wright has mentioned, there are aspects of the operations of Governor Ridge's office and Minister Manley's cabinet committee on public security and counter-terrorism and the like that affect PJBD. It is a very effective institution, but we want to make it more effective.

• 1720

Our next meeting will be held in the spring out on the west coast. One of the agenda items is on how we can improve in light of developments since September 11.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you very much.

Mr. James Wright: I think Cameron is absolutely right.

The only item I would add is that we may see, and I think we will see, a heightened political interest in the work of the Permanent Joint Board on Defence. I think it was always there.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Was it on public issues?

Mr. James Wright: Yes.

In that sense, I think ministers will be monitoring this process more closely. They may decide they wish to associate themselves more directly with this process from time to time. It's an option that is certainly out there.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you both very much and for your good testimony today. I appreciated it.

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: My pleasure.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Jennings. Would you like to have the last question?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I think I have a few more.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Marlene never has one question.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Especially seeing as he ate into my time.

The Chair: We are going to stop at 5:30.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Okay.

This is an issue Mr. Wright raised that I found very interesting. While it has not been part of discussions or even the paradigm in the past, it is now becoming part of the present and future paradigm. It is the issue of regional security in the area of Afghanistan. It includes Iran, Pakistan, obviously Afghanistan, if we're able, and the coalition, etc., to actually bring some kind of democratic governance structure there. I believe it's Uzbekistan.

One of the problems, though, is a problem we see even now with, for instance, Pakistan. Pakistan is under military dictatorship at this time. Constitutional rights and freedoms have been suspended by the government. In northern Pakistan, it's part of the breeding ground, or has been, for Taliban forces.

Both religious and ethnic minorities within Pakistan are refugee claimants to Canada and the United States, with good reason. They are, in fact, being accepted as bona fide refugees given the conditions in Pakistan. We are seeing the same thing in Iran. I would assume Uzbekistan probably has the same thing.

How does a country like Canada raise the issue with them through our different allies and actually be able to trust any agreements that come about?

Mr. James Wright: I think it's a very good question.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I thought so too.

Mr. James Wright: We have a bit of experience in addressing this kind of problem. When the war in Kosovo took place, the response from the Canadian government and the international community was not a response uniquely to Kosovo. It was a regional response.

My expectation is, in respect to Afghanistan, the engagement of the international community will not be focused exclusively on Afghanistan. You would only be dealing with part of the problem if you did so. It has to be a regional response. Governance issues in Central Asia have long been a concern of the Canadian government.

I remember this committee travelled to that neck of the woods a few years ago.

Ms. Diane Marleau: It was last year.

Mr. James Wright: Yes.

You're familiar with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and the kinds of problems we have on the ground on respect for human rights, good governance structures, democracy, and market reform. It's going to take some time. The same is true in Afghanistan, with lots of tribal infighting and lots of clans.

In tackling the problem, Canada, other G-8 countries, the UN, the EU, and the World Bank are going to have to come up with problems that look at the full range of issues out there.

• 1725

With respect to the Balkans and Kosovo, as an important component of our programs there, we have police reform and military reform. The Department of National Defence is playing an important role in helping us deliver on some of the programs.

There will have to be a wider approach than in Afghanistan to the crisis in Southeast Asia. Pakistan is a country a bit apart from the others. Obviously, it has to be very much a part of the solution. There is a commitment on the part of General Musharraf to democracy. There's a commitment to elections in 2002. It's a commitment he has made to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth, as an institution, will hold him to account.

All I can say is countries like Canada don't give out foreign assistance or international assistance unless we are certain there's going to be a return. We put in place all sorts of checks and balances so the moneys are spent wisely. Canada is not alone in pursuing this. We'll do the best we can. It's a big, big challenge.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I think I'm going to do as my colleague did and ask for a copy of your response to send to the official critic of the Alliance Party for international cooperation.

Thank you.

Mr. James Wright: My pleasure.

The Chair: Everyone is very happy with the answers today.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I'm trying to educate folks.

The Chair: On that note, I think we had better wrap up. Mr. Duncan might decide he would like a few questions to get the answers to send to our minister.

I'd like to thank you both for coming. Thanks, Mr. Wright. Thank you, General Ross. We appreciate your evidence. It will be helpful to us in drafting our report.

Since you were the one who sent us off on our trip to Uzbekistan, Mr. Wright, we're glad to have you back before the committee. I'm glad to say we're all back from Uzbekistan, particularly Ms. Marleau and a few others. Thank you.

We're adjourned until Thursday.