MND's Speech to RCMI in Atlantic Canada 22 Sep 04

[NMPeters]

Hon. Bill Graham: Thank you very much, Roy, for that more than kind introduction. Since I am speaking before dinner, I'd better get my glasses or you'll have a quicker dinner than planned. But, Roy, thank you for those kind words, particularly your reference to our time together in the House of Commons. I have to say that when Roy was in the House of Commons I was so far behind him, in the fourth row or whatever, that when he was up there taking care of trade matters but it was great to be able to work with him and work with many of the people that are here in this room. It's a privilege to be in this wonderful location.
I noticed the portrait of Sir Winston Churchill on the way in and I was reminded a little bit, I remember some years ago reading a biography of Churchill where he once said, you know the great thing about speeches and dinner speeches was that you had a good dinner, you talked about the food and then you had an opportunity to talk about what you were there to talk about. And he made it very clear that he was the one that was going to do most of the talking.
I personally don't intend to do most of the talking tonight. What I'd like to do is say a few words of introduction, something about where we're going with the department and then I'd like maybe a few questions and we can discuss things here because I see some former NATO ambassadors. I see General Devereau. I see some very knowledgeable people here and I want to say that I was sorry that I wasn't able to be here today to participate in the conference. It clearly was a remarkable conference because you're tackling basically the issues that we have to deal with - the new strategic environment, the changing nature of peacekeeping operations, the diplomatic defence and development interface, instability operations. The ideas that you were talking about today are the very issues that are having a profound impact on the Canadian Forces, on Canada's contribution to global peace and security and on our planning for the future.
So I'm really pleased to be here this evening I must say once again in this very impressive setting. I was privileged to be invited here when I was wearing the former hat to which Roy was good enough to allude and it's a fantastic opportunity to be here with such a distinguished audience. I recognize that the Royal Canadian Military Institute, the Atlantic Council of Canada and the Canadian Institute on Strategic Studies all play a critical role in raising awareness and understanding of important strategic issues in Canada. In fact, this is my first major opportunity to speak since my appointment as Minister of National Defence. And in my view it's no more appropriate audience could I appear before than this one.
Tonight I'd like to provide you with some cursory thoughts on some of the issues that were discussed today at the conference, particularly some of those that were having such an influence and impact on what we're doing at Defence. Then, and I recognize looking around the room, Professor Bland and others, there's a lot more expertise here than I have in these areas so I will be brief on that area but then, with your indulgence, I'd also like to spend a few minutes discussing my priorities for defence over the next 12 months. It is certainly going to be an interesting year ahead not the least of which will take place in the parliamentary agenda as we face a minority government and all the parliamentary ---
Unidentified Male Speaker: Chicanery. (Laughter.)
Hon. Bill Graham: --- challenges that that presents. (Applause.) So before going any further, I'd like to say I'm very proud that the Prime Minister asked me to be the Defence Minister. I've always considered Defence one of the most critical portfolios in government. There is nothing more important for a government than protecting the safety and security of our citizens and in securing our nation's sovereignty. These are not abstract notions to be debated by philosophers or theorists. They're fundamental responsibilities of government and today they have to be met in extremely complex and uncertain conditions.
As Foreign Minister, I always subscribed to the maxim that while defence policy is in many ways derivative of foreign policy, the effectiveness of our foreign policy is very much dependent on the quality and strength of our defence capacity. And I firmly believe that the place and respect that Canada occupies in the world today is one that is due in large part to the role that our armed forces have played and are continuing to play in world events.
I was fortunate enough to get to know George Robertson well through my days at NATO. Dave will recall his sense of humour, the way in which he guided us through some tricky bits of negotiations. And George was good enough to write me congratulations. And in his words, Roy, echoing yours, congratulated me on being "promoted to the most important post in government." (Laughter.) He made what was perhaps a characteristically Defence Minister's distinction between my past and present roles as follows. And he said this, "Maybe briefly you'll miss the honeyed words of the diplomatic world but the rewards of defence are great and enjoyable. Putting foreign policy into practice is no small task but there's great satisfaction in doing it." And that was a man who is a master of both the art and the practice of politics and international security issues.
And I'd also like to emphasize that defence and security are key components of this government's forward-looking agenda for Canada and for Canadians. Since December we've invested significant new resources to protect our country and our citizens. We've introduced Canada's first national security policy. We've created the Department of Public Security and Emergency Preparedness and we're now in the process of conducting an international and defence policy review. We also recognize there's a great deal more to do.
Again, in my role as Minister of Foreign Affairs, I had the opportunity to meet with many of the members of the Canadian Forces. I've also had the opportunity to visit them abroad and witness the absolutely amazing work they do throughout the world. I've seen firsthand the dedication, the spirit of self-sacrifice and the professionalism of our men, women in uniform. And I can say without exaggeration they're the best in the world at what they do. I've also seen firsthand the difference they're making in the lives of people in need. I've seen the real and significant impact that they had on the people of Afghanistan, of Bosnia and Haiti, to name but a few places where I've visited and seen them in action.
I often think in fact and repeated it today to a university audience that I was speaking to of an encounter I had or witnessed between a Canadian Forces member, a sergeant, and a little Afghan girl on a crowded and rather chaotic street in downtown Kabul. And there was a child who pointed what could have been a weapon towards the sergeant. And he reached out around behind this little girl and just took that weapon away from this little boy. And it was a toy weapon but he didn't know that. And I said you were risking your life. And he said, "Well, I'm wearing a flak jacket and I believe it was more important to risk taking a hit and reaching out than perhaps killing an innocent child." And I can tell you it was amazing to watch what happened in that group with those people. And while that soldier's job was to provide security and stability in a hostile land, I was really struck by his willingness to risk his life and to bring something to the community there and to reach out to this little child and even bring a little bit of, because he made a joke about it, brought a little bit of humour into the little girl's life. And I was really struck by the pride that he took in doing this and ultimately the tremendous warmth that he was received by that child and her entire family and everybody on that street that we talked to.
So I've had the opportunity to become quite familiar with many of the issues now facing Defence. This is not to imply that I don't face a learning curve; I do. But I just like to think that I bring to this new task some useful insights from my previous experience and a real appreciation of the importance of defence and all that it stands for.
As you discussed today, Canada faces a complex array of defence and security challenges. Fifteen years after the end of the Cold War and it's obvious that the world is an unpredictable and perilous place. It's also obvious that the peace dividend we so eagerly sought in the west was an allusion. As we begin the 21st century, we face significant new and evolving threats such as global terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the dangers caused by failed and failing states. At the same time, threats of more traditional nature, such as intrastate or interstate conflicts, now exist along newer destabilizing factors such as environmental crises on a global scale, civil strife and pandemics.
Simply put, the lines between security and defence have blurred if not disappeared altogether. I think the Prime Minister captured it well in a recent speech when he made and when he said, "Today's frontline stretches from the streets of Kabul to the rail lines in Madrid to cities across Canada." And this is having a fundamental impact on how we approach our domestic and continental security, our relations with our closest allies and partners and on how we protect and project our interests and values abroad.

...more to follow...

 

[NMPeters]

The increased volatility of the international security environment has also produced greater demands on the Canadian Forces. The statistics are well known but also very telling. Since the end of the Cold War, the number of operations in which our military have participated has tripled compared to the period between 1945 and 1989. At the same time, the Canadian Forces have been called upon here at home on an unprecedented number of occasions over the past decade. We know this unforeseen demand has had an impact on the men and women of the Canadian Forces and their families. What's less obvious to the casual observer is the impact it's had on the broader organization, on our ability to train uniformed members, on our equipment and on our capacity to deploy troops domestically and internationally.
Of course as you've discussed at length today, international operations are not only increasing in number but they're also changing in nature. The days when peacekeeping operations meant deploying static observers along a cease-fire line have, for the most part, passed. As a nation, we can and should be very proud of the role that our country played in developing and putting into practice this traditional form of peacekeeping. But equally as a nation we must be prepared to play a leadership role in the next generation of peace support operations that have become more common over the past decade.
Today's operations, as you've heard from Colonel Tremblay and others here today, are more dangerous and demanding, frequently taking place in regions where tensions are still strong or where there is little peace to keep. Today's operations are also much more complex. In a grey zone between war and peace it's becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between friend and foe, especially when dealing with terrorists and suicide bombers who seek shelter among civilians. Our militaries often themselves working with the troops of other nations alongside international organizations, humanitarian workers, the media and non-governmental organizations and are often called upon to fulfill a much wider array of responsibilities.
Our mission in Afghanistan is an excellent example. As part of their duties, our troops have conducted security patrols, assisted in the disposal of unexploded munitions, delivered medical supplies and coordinated numerous humanitarian projects such as the construction of schools and wells.
In Bosnia-Herzegovina our soldiers have played a central role in helping to establish stability and security. When I travelled there a few weeks ago, I was impressed to learn from our truly impressive commander there, General Beare, that under his initiative SFOR established a radio station geared toward the local youth so that they have some sense of a very necessary civic engagement. And I'm sure that it's both popular and effective. Reaching out to Bosnians, sharing our views and values, all of this is absolutely critical to assuring long-term peace in that country in that region.
And I must say, General, our UK general, we're really pleased to see you here today, sir, because it was my privilege when I went to Bosnia to assist at the departure of General Beare and he was replaced by one of your countrymen and it was, I have to say, it was truly remarkable to see the level of cooperation between our troops and the way they interact with one another and the spirit of tremendous camaraderie amongst them. I know the European Union will take over that mission and bring it the success that SFOR brought and under the tremendous leadership of your general I know our guys that were there felt they were in very, very good hands.
To be successful in today's robust peacekeeping operations, then, it's clear our troops must be part warrior, part diplomat and part aid worker. Some argue that this diminishes to some extent what is referred to as the "warrior ethic" or renders our troops less effective on the battlefield. Frankly, I disagree because in today's world our soldiers must be capable not just of winning the wars but also contributing to conditions which make it possible for us to secure the peace. And I'm proud to say that with the experience and skills they've acquired through the years, the men and women of the Canadian Forces are better at this than anyone in the world. The image of warrior diplomat, humanitarian is certainly consistent also with the government's 3-D approach to international affairs. That is the integration of our diplomacy, defence and development efforts.
With this approach, Defence is working much more closely with other departments and agencies such as Foreign Affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency in order to maximize the effectiveness of our involvement in the international scene. This 3-D approach has been an unqualified success in Afghanistan. Canadian diplomats are assisting the Afghan people to rebuild their country's institutions. Canadian aid workers have undertaken numerous humanitarian projects. And our troops are in Kabul contributing to the stability needed for the other two groups to succeed in their work. Afghanistan has and will continue to be as a model for future international interventions and as it also serves in my view as an example of the dimension and complexity of these new operations.
While I've been focussing my remarks so far on the role of Canada's role and contribution internationally, which I appreciate was the focus of today's discussion, I'd be remiss if I didn't say a few words about Defence's domestic and continental responsibilities, bearing in mind that we do live in a world of limited resources and that increased responsibilities at home do have an impact on how we engage abroad.
With the lines between domestic, continental and international security now blurred, the government has taken aggressive action to protect Canadians here at home. For Defence, this means enhancing our contribution to maritime security, improving our defences against nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and better understanding and responding to the dramatic changes that are occurring in the Arctic regions of our country. It also means working more closely with our American neighbours to protect our citizens and our shared continent.
When I had the opportunity of visiting NORAD headquarters last year, I can't tell you how impressed I was by the level of professionalism and cooperation that I saw between our two militaries - Canadians working side by side with their American counterparts separated only by the colour or style of their uniform, working together to protect our skies, our sovereignty and our citizens. This is exactly the seamless cooperation that's required to address today's security challenges. And it's precisely why we've established the Binational Planning Group at NORAD and are in the process of discussing Canada's possible participation in the ballistic missile defence system.
We have a fundamental responsibility to protect Canadians. We also have a fundamental responsibility to contribute to the defence of our continent. Ballistic missile defence might just assist us in doing that. One thing is certain: our American colleagues are determined to pursue it. And it will become a part of the defence architecture of North America whether we participate or not.
So we're exploring it. As a responsible government, conscious both of the need to protect Canada and maintain a close working relationship with our American colleagues - and neighbours should. It doesn't mean we're going to compromise our interests or values in the process. We will not, for example, join any system that involves the weaponization of space. The Prime Minister and I have been very clear on this issue and I can tell you the United States understands our position. Discussions at the moment are ongoing after which time we'll make a decision on the way ahead. But I can assure that whatever decision we take, Canada's interests and values will be protected.

...more to follow...

 

[NMPeters]

So continental defence will be one of my key focusses over the coming months but it's not going to be the only priority. As we look to position the department and the Canadian Forces to meet the challenges of the future, I'll be concentrating on three things: first, completing the defence policy review; second, ensuring the Canadian Forces have the modern equipment they need to do their job safely and effectively; and third, ensuring that we look after our people.
Let me start first by talking a little bit about the defence policy review because of the impact it will have on the other two priorities. As you know, we are now in the process of completing the defence policy review in conjunction with the government's overall review of Canada's place in the world being led by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I know that some critics have accused us of conducting the review process in a vacuum but nothing could be further from the truth.
First of all, the defence policy review builds on the examination that was conducted in the fall of 2002 - an examination that featured extensive consultations with a variety of stakeholders. Canadians across the country also had the chance to express their views. We're also making use of the work done over the last few years by a number of distinguished security and defence organizations as well as the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence and other relevant parliamentary committees. As former chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, I'm absolutely committed to working with my fellow parliamentarians in charting the way ahead for Defence.
We expect to complete our review in the fall, after which we intend to seek the views of Parliament through the committee process and this should provide ample opportunity for public discussion and input. And while this is taking place, I'll continue to consult personally with key defence stakeholders. I certainly recognize that organizations such as yours have much to contribute to the discussions. The process we've selected is meant to strike the most appropriate balance between allowing time for discussion and moving ahead on decisions that have to be made.
I can't tell exactly when our review will be submitted to Parliament but I can tell you some of the issues that it will address. Broadly speaking, the defence policy review will identify Canada's key defence priorities. It will, in the most basic sense, help us determine what kind of military Canada will need in the future. The review will also establish the most appropriate balance between our continental and foreign responsibilities. It will also look at the ways we can enhance the safety and security of Canadians here at home. Some of the options we're now exploring include expanding our surveillance and counterterrorism capabilities and increasing the size and capabilities of the reserves to deal with domestic crises. The review will also look at working with the United States in new and innovative ways to protect North America against emerging threats.
On the international level, the review will build on our 3-D approach to global interventions. It will look at how the Canadian Forces can contribute to participate in a wide range of international operations. As part of our peace and nation building initiative, the government will increase the size of the Canadian Forces by 5,000 regular personnel. This will allow our military to assume an even larger role in bringing peace, security and democracy to troubled nations. We're also moving ahead on our plan to increase the army reserves by some 3,000 personnel. Colonel, you'll be pleased by this. (Laughter.) This will give Canada badly needed capacity to respond to domestic crises including natural disasters and chemical, biological and nuclear emergencies.
Taken together, these are the most significant increases to Defence in more than a decade and they're a very clear demonstration of this government's commitment to building a revived and robust military.
I'd like to make one point very clear: expanding the size of the Canadian Forces will not be done at the expense of our existing capabilities. This is not a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The additional troops will be funded through new investment by the government and I'm working to have these new resources feature in the next federal budget.
Given the global context in which we now live, I firmly believe that the status quo is not an option. Defence must adapt to new conditions but it must have additional resources to enable it to do so. And I'm confident that the government will respond to this new imperative.
Once we determine through the review process what our key Defence priorities and requirements are, we'll turn our focus to ensuring that the Canadian Forces have the modern equipment they need to do their job. Modernization does not mean we're looking to completely reequip the Canadian Forces. Like many of our allies and partners, we're combining existing and emerging systems to enhance the capabilities we'll need in future missions or to create new ones that would give us greater flexibility and versatility.
Of course we have a very solid foundation on which to build. Since last December alone, this government has committed more than $7 billion for new equipment for the Canadian Forces including the Maritime Helicopter Project, the mobile gun system, joint support ship and fixed wing search and rescue aircraft. I think you'll all agree that this is good news for defence.
But I want to stress that our modernization of our military is not complete. For example, we're now experimenting with unmanned aerial vehicles and looking to enhance our defences against nuclear, biological and chemical attacks. Pending the outcome of the defence policy review and building on the strategic capability investment plan, we're committed to investing in the most relevant mix of capabilities to ensure the Canadian Forces can meet their commitments.
Ultimately, regardless of how modern our military equipment is, we're not going to be able to meet our commitments if we can't count on quality people. Our people, military and civilian alike, remain our most valuable resource. And ensuring that we take care of them is an important priority for the department and for myself. The high operational tempo that I discussed earlier has had an impact - we must recognize that - on our men and women in uniform and their families. And, as I said before, they need and they deserve a break. This is why we're now moving to reduce our operational commitments and begin a period of regeneration.
For example, the improving situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina has allowed us over time to reduce our presence from some 1,200 personnel to 650 personnel and it will soon be reduced further to some 80 troops. We've also reduced the number of people we've committed to the Afghan mission to about 1,000.
Taken together, this means we now have slightly less than 1,900 personnel deployed on operations as opposed to the 3,300 we had in the spring. These reductions will allow us to do some much needed training, professional development and equipment repair. More importantly, it will allow our uniformed members the time they need to recharge their batteries both at the personal but also at the professional development level. Although the Canadian Forces have always delivered when called upon, we're committing to do a better job in balancing operational deployments with family life and training needs.
So these, ladies and gentlemen, are my three main priorities for Defence over the coming year: complete the policy review, continue the modernization of our equipment, and ensure that we look after our people.
And so in concluding I'd just like to say that the government has - and I'm not saying this because I am, as I said, privileged enough to be Defence Minister - the government has placed Defence at the forefront of its overall agenda over the next 12 months. If you've listened to the comments of the prime minister both recently and during the election, I'm sure you'll agree with me on that. And we're absolutely committed to providing the department and the Canadian Forces with the policy guidance, people, equipment and funding they need in order to meet the challenges of the future.
I couldn't think of a more interesting and critical time to be at Defence. I can think of no portfolio in government whose challenges are of such significance to our country and I'm certainly aware of the great challenges and responsibilities that this job entails. For that reason, I will particularly appreciate the informed support and advice which comes from people like yourselves in this room as we work to shape Defence for the coming decades. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

...more to follow...

 

[NMPeters]

Moderator: The minister has agreed to taking two or three questions so John Thompson on microphone number 3.
Question: Thank you. Actually, I've come to ask a small favour. (Laughter.) As a lawyer and of course as a cabinet minister, you understand the importance of words and even a small word can still have important consequences. And today we heard about stabilization forces, reaction forces, intervention forces. When we heard the word peacekeeping, it was generally in the past, past context, an idea whose time has come and has gone. But all of us have heard arguments in the past that peacekeeping is, as a word, is used -- can be used to justify light scales of equipment, reduce sizes of our formations, less robust capabilities than we actually need. Might we actually ask that as you discuss this increase in our forces, that you actually refrain from using the word peacekeeping, particularly when it comes up in the context of 5,000 more troops for the regular force?
Hon. Bill Graham: Well, that's a legitimate observation in one respect and I hope what came through the tenor of my remarks, particularly when discussing my personal experience, for example, in Afghanistan and Bosnia. I mean when I looked at the conference you were having it seemed to me robust peacekeeping is about two things. It's about the new requirements which are far more -- they require battle-ready forces that can deal with it but they also require forces that are able to do the things that we talked about in Bosnia - stepping in, keeping civil order and doing it in a way which enables the development of a new civil society which is what we're going to try and do in Afghanistan and manage the problem of drug dealers with PRTs and do all those sorts of things. So I'm not so sure I'd abandon the term peacekeeping but I think that everybody who is engaged in this, certainly our colleagues at NATO when we've discussed this, have all recognize that there's a new dimension to it and that this is not something that we send our soldiers out as if this was some sort of police operation. It's not a police operation. It can only be done by highly trained troops with the best equipment that are meeting dangerous situations. As I say, these are interstate conflicts they're involved in.
But ultimately, if we're going to succeed in the long term, it's going to be very helpful if we continue the tremendous traditions of the Canadian Forces of that of being able to reach out to that child that I described in Kabul. Because, as General Leslie said to me when I was talking to him about that experience at dinner that night, he said, "We believe that good relations with the community is one of our important defence mechanisms here and one of the best things that our troops can do to guarantee their security." And so it is a really delicate thing. That's why I insist on this 3-D approach. And that's why I think that our young men and women, the demands on them are incredible. When I first went to Bosnia about five years ago as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I couldn't believe meeting these young officers that were sort of running villages and doing all sorts of things, getting mines removed, at the same time helping people, you know, deal with the immediate problems of trying to get their lives back together.
So we're asking a lot of these people. So maybe you don't like the term peacekeeping because you're afraid that it's somehow -- it's not giving full respect for the nature of the robust challenges both military and civilian that they're called upon to do. Maybe we could look at that but let's not forget also that in the Canadian public and in Canada we have a proud tradition of peacekeeping and I'd like when I -- I live around the corner from that monument we've got in Ottawa and I walk by it almost every day when I walk up to the House of Commons and one thing I've learned about the Forces since I've been in them, tradition and the memory of the sacrifices of people who have gone before is very important for our forces so I'd like to bear that in mind as well.
Moderator: Thank you. Colonel Peter Hunter, please.
Question: Minister, I'm Colonel Peter Hunter, co-chair of Reserves 2000. I was delighted to hear you in your comments tonight say again that the reserve forces would be expanded by 3,000 personnel. That in fact is a reiteration of the government policy announced on October the 6th, 2000. And there is a plan in place called Land Force Reserve Restructure which is designed to accomplish the goal of 18,500 reservists by March 31, 2006. My question is will you confirm to this audience tonight that that time frame is still in place and that it will be funded so the goal can be achieved by March 31, 2006?
Hon. Bill Graham: Well, Peter, I'm ---
Question: Yes or no?
Hon. Bill Graham: What did Roy say about, you know, Question Period not being Answer Period, something like that like the House of Commons. (Laughter.) I'm not trying to skate away from your question but the thing is -- let me emphasize two things. I certainly recognize the role of the reserves. I had a meeting with John Eaton the other night. I've talked to a lot of the people involved in what we're trying to do. I was really impressed when I was, as I said in Bosnia, about 25 percent of the people that I talked to in Bosnia went down and met some of our forces there, about 25 percent of the people I talked to were reserves. I mean it's an amazing proportion for a mission like that. So I'm committed. But I can't tell you I've got a complete time frame because there's a thing called absorption capacity that we have to deal with. I don't know how fast we could absorb 3,000 members but the government's committed to deliver on the 3,000.
Question: The time frame in place. It was stated in 2000.
Hon. Bill Graham: Right.
Question: It's a matter of funding the third year of the program.
Hon. Bill Graham: But this is ---
Question: Which is a small amount of money. Why can't you commit to it?
Hon. Bill Graham: Because I can't commit because I don't -- I'm frankly not expert enough to know whether or not between 2004 where we are today we can add 3,000 people to the reserves between now and 2006. Now somebody in this room who's smarter than I am about recruiting and understanding all those things. But the one thing I have learned by meeting regularly with the CDS and the superior officers as well as the civilian leaders in the department is what looks simple from the outside always turns out to be a hell of a lot more complicated. All I can do is give you my assurance this is government policy and we'll do it as quick as we can. It is a commitment to do and I'm hoping -- I'm counting on having money in the budget for it come this budget. That's the best I can promise you.
Question: Unless the decision is made, it won't be achieved. Somebody has to say yes, it will be funded and we'll get it done by the deadline that was originally stated.
Hon. Bill Graham: I'll work on the funding. We'll let the military recruiters work on the other part because I can't do that.
Question: It can't happen unless the funding is put in place. If you said the funding is there, I'll bet it could be done.
Hon. Bill Graham: I appreciate that.
Question: Minister, Bill, if I may, I just want to preface my remarks by saying that your appointment as Minister of National Defence brought light to many of us because of your intelligence and skill and previous background in Foreign Affairs and bringing those two departments together. I would like to address the issue again of robust peacekeeping. NATO is no doubt the world's premiere robust peacekeeping organization in the world. There's another one that's a close second and that's the SHERBRIG, Standby High Readiness Brigade for UN peace operations. Has that come on your radar screen and are you planning to do anything to strengthen SHERBRIG which can meet a different market and can also -- it has advantages that NATO doesn't have. And so has SHERBRIG -- do you have any ideas about how to strengthen SHERBRIG?
Hon. Bill Graham: Well, I certainly know, as you know, the general in charge of SHERBRIG at the moment is a Canadian brigadier and we have detailed several officers to SHERBRIG's command. The last time I was at the United Nations discussing this issue, there were some real problems of putting together that organization. I mean every time we talk about a kind of a permanent force at the United Nations it seems to create an unholy, complicated system of questions about how people get promoted, where they're dealt with, I mean it was pretty wild. But we're committed to trying to strengthen the United Nations system and in terms of SHERBRIG I happen to know that some of our officers are consulting with the United Nations and if, for example, the United Nations gets engaged in something like in Africa, in Darfur or someplace like that, our officers are there advising how that would be dealt with. So we're certainly familiar with -- I'm personally familiar with the organization and as time goes by I'll be seeing what we can do to contribute to strengthening and I agree with that. But it is much more complicated than NATO which -- where one has a unity of purpose and an experience that is far more -- you know, much more in-depth than at the UN. I mean it's a much trickier task it seems to me. Yes?
Question: Minister, Professor Neil Ram from the RCMI, an American military university. I have a serious concern about what you just said. The fact is that the bulk of the Canadian Forces problem lies within NDHQ. You have 7,000 uniformed personnel who don't really do anything - that's in my humble opinion - which sucks up a vast amount of resources, approximately a billion dollars annually in terms of the logistical training that's associated with them. The other issues are the fact that though you're talking about getting more forces and troops, the fact is that the Canadian Forces are suffering from a recruiting and retention crisis that they've been suffering from for years. The point is there are personnel and there is money in the system but it is squandered within the bureaucracy of DND and NDHQ. The fact is that you have an entrenched bureaucracy that simply is unwilling to accept this and you, being at the top end of that bureaucracy, may or may not be getting the message. And to be quite blunt, you need to kick the butts of some your bureaucrats and a lot of your generals. A military with 25 percent that is officers is fundamentally dysfunctional. The fact is we have plenty of money and we have maybe not enough soldiers but far too many officers. That issue needs to be addressed at the most highest levels of this government for the Canadian Forces to be reconstituted. The reason we're in the situation we're in right now is we've run out of soldiers to do the job. We haven't run out of officers though. (Laughter.)
Hon. Bill Graham: Well, this is a comment that's been made to me. I do hope you don't get to talk to my colleague John McCallum too much because he's in charge of scooping money out of departments and he might just take you to heart. And we'll find out that we lose more than we gain in the present exercise. But we're going to be looking -- I'll be looking with Mr. McCallum. I mean he's charged by the Prime Minister to look at the way in which every department of government is -- whether we've got our priorities right and whether or not we're spending in areas we should. And it has been pointed out to me that in fact there are people in uniform doing things in the department that could be done by civilians and other things. This is obviously something which ministers can only give a form of direction to because you can't really run the department on a day-to-day basis as a minister, as you know. But I can assure you that the government is determined to look at this type of issue and not only in the Defence Department but in every department across government. You may have seen the speech that my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, was giving the other day. So there's a definite desire to figure out how we can do government better and get a better dollar for what we're doing and I'll be looking at all those issues. But I have to tell you I've been pretty impressed by the quality of people I've been dealing with since I got in there so you'll have to point out to me where all this -- where all this lolly gagging and waste is going on -- (laughter) -- because so far I've been really impressed.
Moderator: One short question, Jeff.
Question: Yes, thank you. And, Minister, I'm Jeff Steiner with the Atlantic Council. Thank you for coming tonight and speaking with us. I have a question really about the politics of going forward. You identified it sort of a 12-month agenda. We now have the first minority government in about a generation and you're well known for being able to get along with all the parties much like Roy was when he was in the House of Commons. I'm just wondering what impact does the minority government have on defence policy a), b) or your objectives? And are there any significant differences between the official opposition and your own policies as Defence MInister?
Hon. Bill Graham: Wow, that's a lot of questions. (Laughter.) I have no doubt but the minority situation is going to have an impact but I don't what it is going to be until we get into the House of Commons and we see how it starts to function. I don't assume that there's a unanimity of views with us and, for example, the official opposition on a lot of issues around defence. People say that, for example, on BMD there's an assumption there might be some support there; there might not be. I've heard the defence critic be questioning on this. So I think we'll have to see as we go ahead. I have no doubt but there will be some stark differences of opinion between ourselves certainly and the NDP and the Bloc in terms of defence spending. But I think that generally even members of the Bloc that I had the privilege of working with when I was a parliamentary committee chair recognize that our armed forces are very important for Canada. I think there's a general recognition all across all parties that we need to increase the resources of our services and that's what I'm going to be banking on when I try and get that all party support for going ahead on getting the right budget commitments to deal with things like the reserves and other issues. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Moderator: I now call upon Mr. Barry Davenport to thank the minister.
Barry Davenport: Thank you, John. Minister Graham, you face the daunting task of aligning the capabilities of our military and the Canadian public's aspiration for both robust national security and to assist in making the world a less troubled, more unequal place. On behalf of the Atlantic Council of Canada, the RCMI, the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies and also on behalf of the members, our distinguished speakers and guests who are here this evening, we'd like to offer you our sincere thanks for your presentation. We wish you every success in these vital endeavours going forward and we have a small token of our appreciation for you.
Hon. Bill Graham: Thank you very much. (Applause.)
-30-