Foreign Affairs Committee on April 26th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Sedra.

[Mark Sedra]

Thank you for your comment.

First of all, I'll speak on the area that my research focuses on most, which is on building up the security sector.

As I said in my presentation, I think there's a need for a substantial increase in investment in judicial infrastructure, everything from building courthouses at the district levels across the country to, at the provincial level, training judges. We're severely behind in this regard. There is a great deal of need to fill this judicial vacuum.

One of the big issues is the correction system. I know this is a big issue in Canada with the recent case of detainees being passed over to the national security directorate in Kandahar. The fact is that very little money has been dedicated to rebuilding the correction system. The coalition and the International Committee of the Red Cross did a survey recently, and they found that the vast majority of the prisons in the country are simply uninhabitable, by international standards. This is another part of this judicial apparatus that just is not receiving enough attention.

Obviously there's a need for more investment in the police, but even if we put a lot of investment there, if we don't fix this judicial part, it's not going to do the job. So I think that is absolutely essential, the whole rule of law component: justice, corrections, and police.

I think there is a need to focus again on this issue of corruption, because corruption is linked to the issue of governance—building up governance at the subnational level, going down to the district level and trying to encourage good governance, mainstreaming the issue of anti-corruption within the government, and putting a little bit more pressure on President Karzai to deal with some of the figures in the cabinet and some of the figures in his administration who are known to be corrupt, of whom there is ample evidence, at least that I've seen, of their corruption but little action is taken.

Those are some of the areas that I would advocate focusing on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Sedra.

Mr. Gilmore.

[Scott Gilmore]

Mr. Goldring, this might be one of the rare points where I disagree with Mr. Sedra. I think these issues are critical and important, but in the timeframe that we have in front of us here, jobs and economic recovery are the first step.

One of the things we have gotten wrong in other post-conflict situations is that we've rushed in with human rights projects, with gender projects, with justice projects, and we haven't tackled the root of the instability, which is simply that if you're not being fed on a regular basis, if you don't have a regular job, then you turn to extremism.

In Afghanistan right now, the economy is a mess, and it doesn't have to be. I would encourage the Canadian government and the rest of the international community to get back to basics, which frankly aren't as sexy in the development community, but creating jobs in the next five to ten years will allow you to move on more successfully to the issues of justice reform.

That said, there is an absolute need in the short term to create a secure environment where we can create jobs, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we then move on to the second and third order of priorities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Gilmore.

We'll go to Madam McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for being with us today. I just want to say at the very outset that my party and I are very much in agreement with the point you've driven home, as have many others, that there is absolutely a key role for Canada in Afghanistan today and far into the future, one that could well last twenty years or beyond.

The major concern that I think is shared by a great many Canadians, and certainly very much expressed by my party, is the mess that we've gotten ourselves into in Kandahar, which I think jeopardizes our effectiveness and our role in the many other aspects of the work desperately needing to be done.

I want to start first with you, Mr. Sedra. You stress that really the whole business of nation building—and I know your expertise is in security sector reform—is all about entrenching the rule of law and human rights and about achieving justice. Yet our situation in Kandahar is one of having tightly associated ourselves in the first instance with Operation Enduring Freedom, which is the antithesis of justice, human rights, and rule of law.

In fact, it is basically a mission of revenge and retaliation that we simply signed on to and in which we have become indistinguishable. We can talk all we want about being Canadians, having different priorities, having different values, having different ways of going about things. Now we've morphed into part of an international force and so on, but the reality is that it's very difficult to extricate ourselves from the very concerns that are driving more and more people into the arms of the Taliban.

Secondly, I think we also are very concerned that we've become so tightly associated with the corruption that is so massive, right up to senior officials in the Karzai government, that we end up again, for different reasons, being seen as associated with a great source of fear and insecurity in the lives of large numbers of people in Afghanistan, especially in Kandahar.

I guess I have two questions for both of you, having expressed those concerns about how we are seen in a way that jeopardizes the other important roles we need to play. I want to talk about our diplomatic effort, because you both really talked about the importance of the three-D approach and closer coordination of those and so on. Have we not made it extremely difficult for ourselves to be seen as a credible partner in robust diplomacy because of our association on the one hand with Operation Enduring Freedom and on the other hand with a corrupt Karzai administration, so that people don't see us as an honest broker, don't see us as having a balanced approach?

And secondly, I'd like to know what you both might have to say about the virtual absence of any meaningful comprehensive diplomacy that brings in the many different parties to these immensely complex conflicts. Is it not a problem that we have such a major exclusion of so many of the parties, both in the tribal sense—the Pashtun being a key one—and in the regional sense, so that there's nothing with which we can really be credibly associated as honest brokers in the diplomatic process, and there's not much going on that you can describe as comprehensive diplomacy?

I'm sorry. I know that's a big question, but I'd be very interested in your using up the time to address those two questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madam McDonough.

We have only enough time for a “yes, no, or maybe” answer. That's just a little joke.

Go ahead, Mr. Gilmore, very quickly.

[Scott Gilmore]

I would not agree with your description of our current mission in Kandahar as one of revenge and retaliation. I disagree that—

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I didn't say that. I said we became associated so early on with that that it's hard to extricate ourselves.

[Scott Gilmore]

I would not agree with your belief that we are seen as being associated with corruption. The Afghans are a very sophisticated political people, much more so than your average Canadian is. They understand the multiple roles that the donors play, and I think we're seen as an honest broker still. I think that any diplomatic influence we have is due to the significant commitment in the military that we have brought to the table. If we didn't have it there, nobody would be picking up the phone when we call.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Gilmore.

Mr. Sedra.

[Mark Sedra]

Yes, I would agree with Mr. Gilmore. I don't think, in our military mission now, or at least at this moment, we are seen as wholly associated with the Operation Enduring Freedom mission. There is at least a sense in Kabul and beyond that we are now part of this UN-mandated NATO mission.

I think there is a need, unfortunately, at this time for more robust combat operations. That doesn't mean I support the use of air power the way it's been used. Obviously there have been many mistakes made with the euphemism “collateral damage”, mistakes that have done a lot of harm to the reconstruction process and to the image of the international community in Afghanistan, including Canada. So I think there has to be more sensitivity to the types of operations being conducted.

But I think Canada is not necessarily associated with that now. And I agree with Mr. Gilmore's comments about corruption.

In terms of bringing together a broader group of actors, I think that's one of the issues, and I've touched on the need to bring some of the moderate Taliban around the table. One of the problems with Bonn is that it wasn't a classical peace agreement, because it didn't bring all the actors to the table. It was a victor's peace, bringing together the Northern Alliance and some other warlords in the country and some other political factions. So I think there's a need to start to talk to a wider range of people now. But the Afghan government, not us, not the Americans, has to lead that process. We can only support it.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sedra, and thank you, Mr. Gilmore, for your time with us. Our time is up.

We appreciate the input you have made into this comprehensive study this committee is undertaking.

We will now suspend for a few moments and then we will come back to committee business.

We'll cut our relay with you, Mr. Sedra. It's been a pleasure having you here today.

[Mark Sedra]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll have a two-minute break, committee, and then we will go to committee business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Order, please.

This is committee business from meeting number 51 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on Thursday, April 26.

We want to take a look at the steering committee report. Does anyone have any problems with any item on this report? We have now been given a copy of the China report from our subcommittee. Maybe don't quote me on this, but as much as they would like to move this as quickly as possible, we need time to look at this report. I have difficulty signing onto it without giving you the opportunity to see this very good report. We would study this on May 10.

You also note that there is a parliamentary restaurant...for the delegation from the Czech Republic. We wanted to give our clerks the opportunity and time to get that set up.

The committee will meet on May 1, next Tuesday, to begin the report on democratic development. That means you're going to be working on the weekend. It's part 1.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

We always do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, I know we always do.

The fourth item is regarding an issue that came up last week with the Mexican delegation that was here with regard to foreign affairs and the motion that was brought forward. All of a sudden television cameras appeared—only there for committee business—so we have asked for a little better definition of reasonable notice that the media have to give us for things such as that.

Do we have a consensus on adopting the steering committee report?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We were given notice of motion yesterday by Madame Lalonde, and this motion is in order.

Madame Lalonde, would you please speak to your motion?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

In consideration of the circumstances and this committee's duty, I hereby move this motion. The minister announced yesterday there was an agreement. That does not prevent us from passing this motion, on the contrary.

All you have to is take a look at this agreement to understand that it just confirms all our fears.

Given this, and several other factors which I could add and which you are aware of, I think it is crucial that we adopt this motion.

I know that Mr. "Orange", I'll go by that name—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Borys—

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I know Borys, but I know him better since the Globe and Mail, he can tell you what he wants added.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right, he can, as soon as we go through our order here. We have Mr. Goldring, Mr. Patry, and Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.