Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 19th, 2006

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

How would having the United Nations leading the mission impact it differently than the African Union's presence there now?

[Wendy Gilmour]

We have pushed very strongly in Canada for a transition to a UN mission for a number of reasons. There are simple economies of scale that will be brought about by consolidating all the international peace operations' efforts inside Sudan under one chain of command, one logistical supply chain, and one common set of equipment, training, and standards for conducting these types of operations.

The UN has a lot more experience than the African Union in managing the complexity, the size, and the integration of civilian, military, and police efforts in a mission of this scale. Simply with an increase in expertise, we are hoping, and I think quite justifiably, for an increase in the effectiveness and performance of the troops on the ground.

It's also a very large area. We use, in many of our briefing notes, the comparison that Darfur is the size of France, but without any of the infrastructure that you would have in France in terms of your ability to move around by road to access different areas. By increasing the total number of troops, which the UN resolution will allow us to do, we're going to get better coverage of the Darfurian territories.

We will also put the whole force on a more sound financial footing. UN peacekeeping operations are funded through the assessed scale of contributions that all UN members pay for. It means that there can be an effective planning, forward provisioning, and solidity to the force that is provided by a constant flow of financial resources. That's not the case when you're dealing with an African Union force, which is funded by voluntary contributions.

At the moment, because we know it doesn't have any longevity, there will be a transition. So it's increasingly more difficult to actually plan for the financial expenditures needed to keep the force on the ground.

So it will help in a number of different areas.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

It's also mentioned in the notes that Canada stands ready to consider UN requests for the specialists who will be key to the UN forces' effectiveness, whether it's military, police, or otherwise.

There was a report on television last night that talked about the deployment to Afghanistan that was initiated under the previous government, how the resources for that are stretched thin, and how the actual fighting troops are now being drawn from other trades and other elements, although they're all basically trained in the military for it. The commentary was basically that it's really stretching the resources of the military now.

How do you think that would fit in with essentially committing more assistance to a future UN mission, and would we have the capabilities?

The second question was on the armoured personnel carriers that were committed to that. Were they armoured vehicles for the protection of our own troops that have left us short at all in Afghanistan, or were they truly excess to the needs of our troops in Afghanistan?

[Wendy Gilmour]

With respect to the specialists, you'll note in the speech that we've said explicitly civilian police and military. As it stands right now, the type of specialist expertise that the UN may be asking us for won't necessarily draw directly from the Canadian Forces.

We have an option of providing civilian experts, and in particular the expertise that's often looked for is logistical and technical, because we're going to be dealing with a number of troop-contributing nations that have not previously been part of UN operations. Sometimes it's advisory expertise that we can provide through the use of retired specialists in Canada. So there are a variety of different ways we can respond to the UN request for assistance that take the burden off the serving members of the Canadian Forces who are needed in other operations.

It is important to note that there are serving Canadian Forces officers both currently in the UN mission, UNMIS, which stands right now at 32, and in support of the African Union Mission, as well as serving Canadian police officers, retired Canadian police officers, and a number of civilian experts.

With respect to the APCs, these were absolutely surplus to requirement. They were mothballed, effectively--in storage, because you never throw out pieces of equipment that actually are used--but they were not in current service in the Canadian Forces. They were resurrected. We had people in the forces who were still trained on these vehicles, who then provided training to the Senegalese, Rwandan, and Nigerian forces that are currently using them. A commercial contract has been put in place to maintain, equip, and provide spare parts, so it's not in any way detracting from ongoing Canadian Forces operations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Madam McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for appearing today on what has to be one of the most distressing and alarming tragedies unfolding before our very eyes. I'm sure you must feel this each and every day, all day long, and probably have nightmares about the sorts of genocide in slow motion that just continues to roll out.

That said, I'm very, very encouraged by several parts of your presentation today, not for a moment to indicate--and I don't think anybody would--that we should have anything but a desperate sense of urgency about the situation that's unfolding, but I'm glad to hear you stressing the importance of working through multilateral channels, through international bodies. I think when we sometimes depart from that, we get into misadventures, and we see what happens in Iraq and in Kandahar. There was also your emphasis on peace-building, creating the conditions that are capable of really leading to genuine human security and genuine enduring peace, because this is so often lost in the desperate sense that people have for military intervention.

Maybe it's not a welcome comment, but I have to say, I think we're not doing very well on the women, peace, and security front, either here in Canada or across the world, and it's very reassuring to see women in very senior roles working together--no insult intended whatsoever to the male member of the panel.

I'm thinking about people around this table on the committee and people who are here representing groups--STAND, SHOUT, Students For Darfur, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and various organizations--who have been desperately pleading for a more robust response from Canada.

I'd really like to ask two questions. First, could you be a bit more specific and a bit more explicit around the kind of comprehensive peace-building, confidence-building work that you see as being so important and that Canada has been engaged in?

Secondly, really following up--and I'm not coordinating my question with Mr. Goldring, but he raised questions about stretching the troops' resources to the limits and our military capabilities--I'd like to know whether we have sufficiently today within Foreign Affairs and within CIDA the robustness we need in the diplomatic forces, in the diplomatic strength, expertise, and confidence, both in terms of numbers and in terms of expertise that is desperately needed to be able to bring this to a peaceful resolution, which may or may not be possible without there being a more robust security element. Do we have enough of that human resource to play the kind of role that is perhaps even more promising for enduring peace?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Ms. McDonough.

Ms. Graham.

[Janet Graham]

Well, we could always use more resources. I think that's always a plea.

The government did set up a task force on Sudan in recognition that it doesn't take one or two people to do this. The task force works closely, cooperatively, collegially with CIDA and with National Defence so that we can have a multi-dimensional, all-of-government approach to the problem, because it's certainly not a problem that one department or one individual or even a few individuals can make a difference in.

It's also one of the reasons why we jumped at the opportunity to work with a contact group. Canada has a huge investment in resources to the African Union, humanitarian assistance...perhaps fewer resources on the ground in terms of our mission, although we didn't even have an embassy there a few years ago. We've built up from a one-person mission to three Canada-based staff now, and growing. I'm trying to get more resources into--

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Can you just elaborate a little bit on what kinds of resources those would be? I think it often gets dismissed by the government, and some others, that this is important. But what would that look like? What kinds of additional resources do we need there?

[Janet Graham]

We're going to add some political officers to the staff, because Canada has been following very closely and is directly involved in the Darfur peace agreement negotiations. I think it's very important that we participate in the process of the implementation of that agreement, but it's going to need a great deal of diplomatic effort. First of all, we need to get the non-signatories back on board. There are challenges with the agreement that need to be addressed. There are problems with the ceasefire commission, compensation issues. But we need people on the ground to actually work with the other missions, other countries, to meet with both the signatories and the non-signatories to get that process reinvigorated.

I'm always optimistic--although I don't sleep very well at night. Once we have a process, it's going to be a sustained effort on the part of the international community, both on a developmental reconstruction level and a diplomatic level, to implement the peace agreement. That's going to be a real challenge.

I'll go back to the peace-building funds we have. We have set aside funds for the implementation of the DPA and for the eastern talks, which have recently concluded--and we have an agreement there that we're very pleased about. We don't know enough about it to say very much, but it looks on paper to be good. But we need efforts to help the communities. The Darfur dialogue is a big part of the process to get the communities in Darfur together to try to reconcile their differences. There will be a great deal of work, and I'm hoping we'll have a mission in place that will be able to facilitate that process. We'll have moneys to facilitate the process through peace-building. We've already identified areas that we want to help in--promulgating the agreement so that people know about it; working with the African Union Mission, giving them technical assistance, because they will have a large role in implementing the Darfur peace agreement when they have their resources. There are other areas that we will be working in with some of our colleagues.

But we're kind of frustrated. We have the money and we haven't been able to use it. In fact, we've had to divert some to the south because of the slowness in the implementation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Ms. Graham.

We'll come back to the government side, and we'll go to Mr. Menzies, please. Second round is five minutes.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I must apologize for not being here for some of the presentations. It is by no means any reflection of my lack of concern for this issue. We've debated it in the House. I think I share Madam McDonough's concerns for how slowly things are moving over there. I appreciate what you folks are doing, and I appreciate the challenge you're facing, both Foreign Affairs and CIDA.

We all recognize that countries need to work together. No one country is going to solve this problem, whether it's the United Nations or however we bring it together. I may have missed this in a presentation--and this will probably be directed mostly at CIDA, Diane--but is there any plan for any donor conference, so to speak, coming together? Is there going to be an opportunity, maybe not necessarily at the United Nations, but at some other level, to raise the level of discussion about this?

[Diane Jacovella]

As you know, there already is strong collaboration between many countries and international and multinational agencies on the north-south process. That's going on and it's still working. People are looking at lessons learned and how to improve the process.

In terms of Darfur, as soon as the peace agreement was signed there was already work in motion to be able to look at what the needs are. There was an assessment mission. People met and discussed this.

Right now, because of the security situation, the donors conference is on hold. Donors are concerned about how they can invest if the security of even humanitarian workers is at risk right now. All of the diplomatic efforts are there to say that as soon as this takes place, donors will meet and look at what they can do in terms of recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction. But right now, with the security situation, the focus is mostly in Darfur on humanitarian assistance.

Throughout the rest of Sudan, north-south, we are working really hard to show results. We want the people of Darfur to know that there can be some results if peace isn't prevented.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

And the displaced refugees? We're doing as much as we possibly can for them?

[Diane Jacovella]

Yes. Some of them have returned. Some of our funding is for basic health services, such as access to clean water, repairing some of the infrastructure, and de-mining to make sure the roads are safe. This is taking place right now with the north-south.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Okay.

I think Mr. Obhrai has a question also.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Janet, I just heard you say that you've had sleepless nights.

I just want to take this opportunity to say, and to put on the record, that I was with Janet in Berlin for the donors conference, and she worked very hard.

This is a very tough situation, no question about it. You guys have done an excellent job in this tough situation that is in Sudan, and I want to put that on the record. Having been heavily involved in this myself, I know the challenges that are taking place there. Sometimes it is beyond our control, as was seen at the donors conference. Nevertheless, working together...and you have quite a challenging job.

So I'd just like to say, on the record, good job.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Obhrai had a few more minutes left. I would like to use that time, if I may, because it is part of the government side.

You have 2.2 million dead, 4 million displaced. We're happy that there's some evidence that maybe, as Madam McDonough said, there's...you know, we're peace-building. But the facts remain: it's always easy to build peace after you have 2.2 million dead. I mean, they just keep killing.

Canada isn't in charge of this. We talk about the importance of the multilateral groups that go out there. Canada can't invoke its wishes on Sudan. Canada can't say, “We're going to do this.”

Do we have any frustrations where, because we're working through multilaterals, we're held back on the things that we would like to see accomplished? I know we have good discussions with the UN, and with all those agencies that are active, working there, and we have input to all of those. But are there some ways in which we're being frustrated here in Canada--you know, when you aren't in a bilateral relationship, or when you aren't in a bilateral response?

Not so?

[Janet Graham]

We would always like to be on the Security Council, but....

[Wendy Gilmour]

Mr. Chair, my answer actually would be no.

With respect to our engagement with the African Union, for example, when we approach the African Union as an organization bilaterally, we're only speaking on behalf of Canada, one portion of the donor effort. We're much more effective when we work as part of the contact group, as part of what we call the African Union partner nations, to go collectively and to say, “Look, our collective experience and our collective resources are going to be applied in a particular way, and this is how we would like to help you.” Frankly, the AU is much more appreciative when we come forward as a group, as a block. It makes it easier for them to deal with the donor nations.

I honestly believe that in that particular instance, certainly through our efforts in the peacekeeping community of the United Nations, we're more effective when we do so as a collective organization.

[Janet Graham]

I would just add, in that same sense, that the Government of Sudan is paranoiac, frankly, about the west. That's why we're trying to work with African and Arab countries to put pressure on the Government of Sudan. It's not as effective one on one. It makes a difference if we can work together and be seen as part of a multi-country approach, not just western countries.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I think we can take a great deal of pride, though we may feel like we aren't doing enough, in being one of the top donor countries. It may not apply to big projects like Sudan, but there's an old saying: the best committee is a committee of one. Sometimes we'd like to go in there and do what we think we should. Yet here we're told we can't. Years ago, we were told to send troops but to make sure they weren't white. They wanted us to be involved, but in their way.

I appreciate your honesty in coming out and saying there's nothing major. But I'm sure that, as in any other crisis, you wish you could do more. Even with $190 million and some of the other things, it's just not enough.

Mr. Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I've had a concern with Sudan for some time. There is a sense of urgency about this that we may not be appreciating. I met with Jan Egeland at the UN General Assembly when I was with the foreign minister. He made the statement that we risk seeing 100,000 deaths a month unless we have an urgent intervention. He meant that we needed a UN multinational protection force on the ground.

I know reference has been made to the Sudanese president's acknowledgment of his cooperation with the African Union. That's not the issue. The real issue is the Sudanese president's refusal to allow a UN multinational protection force into the country. A transition from the African Union to that objective is mandated by a UN Security Council resolution.

So what do we do in the face of the refusal by the Sudanese president to permit a UN multinational protection force? Do we say we want his consent but are prepared to go in without it to protect a doctrine? What are your views on that?

It seems to me that unless we can ensure a prompt transition to multinational protection forces, we're going to see more dead, more displaced people, and more people on the humanitarian life support system. All the good work that's been done will come to naught if the disaster we're facing takes place.

[Janet Graham]

I agree with what you said. Time is precious, and we need to have movement on this sooner rather than later. We are working with the security resolution we have now, 1706, which requires the consent of the Government of Sudan. If this does not work, Canada will have to push the Security Council to go back to look at other measures. Clearly, we can't sustain this for long. I don't think Canada would hesitate to push for stronger measures at the UN. The political challenge would be to get something through the Security Council.

This resolution makes reference to the responsibility to protect. It is apparently the first resolution that has done so. It's not very clear—you have to find it in the top language. The responsibility to protect is a process. We hold the Government of Sudan accountable, but the Security Council would have to come back with stronger measures such as sanctions and no-fly zones. Whether the Security Council would be prepared to take chapter 7 action, which does not require the consent of the Government of Sudan, will be interesting to find out.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

The UN no-fly zone is already the subject of a UN Security Council resolution. It is being breached continually, as are the other UN Security Council resolutions. Are we going to hold the government to account for resolutions already breached? I suppose we hope that somehow they'll go along with this recent 1706 resolution, which itself requires a transition to a UN multinational protection force. If we're not enforcing other resolutions, then they're going to scoff at this resolution as well.