Afghanistan Committee on May 20th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

I will go to Mr. Ruff.

Mr. Ruff, will you accept the amendment by Madam Damoff?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Chair, respectfully, I can't, because the committee ceases to exist—as I just clarified with the clerk—on the 8th of June. There's no use in sending it to a non-existent body. We need this for inclusion in the report.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Even though you don't accept it, Madam Damoff has an amendment to the motion, and now I will go to—

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, can you just clarify that the amendment is in order considering that, basically, as I just pointed out, the committee doesn't exist after the 8th of June?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

The committee ceases to exist after the 8th.

You don't need to accept this, but the amendment is on the floor, so we will be able to talk about the amendment to this one.

Let us speak to the amendment now, please.

Mr. Van Bynen, go ahead if you want to speak to the amendment to the motion.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Actually, this was a legacy hand, but since I'm in the lineup, and I don't see a lot of people lined up....

Could we circulate, I guess for my benefit, the orders that put the restrictions on the June 8 date? I don't have that information in front of me. I just want to clarify the statement being made that the committee no longer exists after June 8.

If that is the case, I'm wondering if it would be possible for that information to come forward through another avenue. Are there other committees that are engaged in these discussions? Are there other committees that could be using this information to help inform the government?

Perhaps I could get some clarification on that, Mr. Chair, particularly to clarify the date and whether there are any other options that would be available for this information to come forward or be considered, and also what committees those would be. If somebody could just clarify that for me, I would appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

As for this committee, as I said earlier, the committee ceases to exist after June 8 or whenever it reports.

I would like to have some time here. I will suspend for a few minutes and then come back to you on this one.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I call the meeting back to order.

For the clarification of all the members, this committee ceases to exist after June 8. June 8 is the last day. If we present the report on June 6, then June 6 is the last day for this committee and we are done.

Another thing I checked is that the amendment by Madam Damoff is in order. We can have a discussion and then a vote, but I know it's Friday, and I wish that members could somehow come up with a consensus amongst you so that I could let you guys go. Otherwise, I'm here, sitting in the chair, and I'm going to carry on my duties as the chair. I have to continue to acknowledge members as long as we don't have a hard stop from the clerk.

Mr. Van Bynen, you have the floor. Please go ahead with your intervention.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have the answer to the first part of my question. My concern is that if this information is critical and it's important, what other avenues or sources, or what other committees, are available? It may not be specific to this situation, but isn't this study part of an overall study in terms of the government's responsiveness?

I heard on several occasions that some of the witnesses had indicated that the readiness should be for future potential crises of this nature. There were some comparisons made to the current conflict that we're seeing in Ukraine. There are other elements that the government should consider. There are elements here in the information that I believe Mr. Ruff is seeking that should be considered for other potential situations and that could be applied back to, for example, the situation in Ukraine.

So if the information is effective, valuable and meaningful for the government to develop some plans, actions and readiness programs, then there must be some other way that this information can come forward. That's my concern. Why would we restrict that information to only this committee?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Van Bynen, we can't request documents on behalf of another committee. We have to deal with it here at this committee. This committee was specially constituted for a particular reason, and that's what we are here for. Even if the other committees wanted to order documents on behalf of our committee, they couldn't do it either.

I hope that answer clarifies it.

Mr. Baker, the floor is now yours.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I'm glad to hear that you're staying in your chair. I'm going to have to stay in mine, because I asked some questions at the beginning of Mr. Ruff and I just haven't had an answer. I think the questions I asked are fair questions.

I respect Mr. Ruff very much. We've had a chance to chat over the course of our time on this committee together about some of his thoughts and ideas, and I very much respect his point of view, experience and his service to Canada as part of the forces in Afghanistan.

I need to understand better what's behind the motion. In other words, why is the information that would be provided in these reports relevant? What are these reports and the scope of these reports? I still don't understand what these reports include or don't include and how they would be relevant to our study. I'm at a point where I still haven't had the answers to those questions. I would really appreciate an explanation.

Ms. Damoff presented a thoughtful amendment. I think it allows us to make sure that the committee delivers this report on time. I don't even know what's in these reports, so I don't know how much information there is or how relevant it is. However, one can imagine a scenario where there's a lot of information that this committee won't have time to review, won't have time to ask witnesses about, and that puts us in a position where we can't meet our mandate as a committee, set down by the House, to have the report completed by June 8.

In not having answers to these questions, I'm concerned to begin with, but I'm really concerned, especially if we get a whole bunch of information that we then can't properly incorporate, or have to incorporate without proper background or context or witness testimony. To me, all of that raises a lot of flags. I think Ms. Damoff's amendment makes a lot of sense, to make sure that we can get the report done and move forward.

Also, Mr. Van Bynen raised a really important question, which is whether there are other sources for this information. Like I said earlier, since I don't really know what this information is, it's very difficult to answer that question. When I say “what this information is”, I mean what this information is that's in these reports that supposedly exist.

In the absence of understanding what's in these reports, I dug through some documents and some publicly available sources of information. I thought it would be useful that I share some of the information, and maybe Mr. Ruff can comment. He can choose not to—it's up to him.

In his motion, he requested these after-action review reports with respect to the evacuation of Kabul in August 2021. Mr. Van Bynen was asking whether there might be sources of information that we could tap into that might allow us to answer some of the things or provide some of the information that would be in these reports. So I looked through some public sources that might have some of the information that Mr. Ruff is looking for, and I want to lay some of that out here. When I'm done, maybe Mr. Ruff can tell us whether this is some of what he was looking for.

I found a sort of timeline of some of the key events leading up to August 2021. For example we know that on February 29, 2020, the U.S. and the Taliban signed an agreement that set the terms for a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan by May 1, 2021—but they didn't release the information that set the conditions for the U.S. withdrawal. At the time of the agreement, the U.S. had about 13,000 troops in Afghanistan, according to the U.S. Department of Defense Office of Inspector General. The withdrawal of U.S. troops was contingent on the Taliban's action against al Qaeda and other terrorists who could threaten us, President Trump is reported to have said in a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference. The pact included the release of 5,000 Taliban fighters who were held prisoner by the Afghan government, which was not, of course, a party to that agreement. That was on February 29, 2020.

On March 1, 2020, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani objected to a provision in the agreement that would require his country to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners. He said: “Freeing Taliban prisoners is not [under] the authority of America but the authority of the Afghan government. There has been no commitment for the release of 5,000 prisoners.” That was on March 1, 2020.

On March 4, 2020, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, told the Senate armed services committee that the Taliban pledged, in a classified document, not to attack U.S. troops and coalition forces or launch what he called “high-profile attacks”, including in Afghanistan's 34 provincial capitals. He went on to say that the Taliban had signed up to a whole series of conditions and that all of the members of Congress had all of the documents associated with the agreement. Despite that agreement, the Taliban attacked Afghan forces in Helmand province and the U.S. responded with an air strike. That was on March 4, 2020.

On March 10, 2020, under pressure from the U.S., President Ghani ordered the release of 1,500 Taliban prisoners.

This is just for context. Originally the agreement between the U.S. and the Taliban was for 5,000. The Government of Afghanistan released 1,500, but they were also releasing them at a rate of about 100 per day.

On May 19, 2020, in releasing its quarterly report on Afghanistan, the Department of Defense inspector general's office said that the U.S. cut troop levels in Afghanistan by more than 4,000 “even though the Taliban escalated violence further after signing the agreement”. It went on to say that “U.S. officials stated the Taliban must reduce violence as a necessary condition for continued U.S. reduction in forces and that remaining high levels of violence could jeopardize the U.S.-Taliban agreement.”

That is according to the report, which covered the activity from January 1, 2020 to March 31, 2020. It went on to say, “Even still, the United States began to reduce its forces in Afghanistan from roughly 13,000 to 8,600.” That was on May 19, 2020.

On August 18, 2020—

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

We have a point of order.

Mr. Ruff, please go ahead with the point of order.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I would like you to make a ruling on relevance. The motion on the table has nothing to do with historical facts. It is asking for the submission of documents and reports by different government departments, which have already been mentioned in testimony. The amendment to the motion that is being debated right now mentions removing a date for reporting it back to the House.

I would appreciate it, Chair, if you could just keep any discussion or debate focused on what we're actually discussing, i.e. the motion, not historical information about everything, because the motion has nothing to do with that.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you—

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair, on this point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Hold on. One second, please.

First of all, I want to respond to Mr. Ruff.

Mr. Ruff brought up a valid point.

Mr. Baker, your discussion should be focused on the amendment that was brought by Ms. Damoff. As long as your discussion or intervention is in reference to that.... Because it is the motion as amended that is on the floor for discussion, please keep your comments limited to that.

Thank you.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Madam Kwan, on a point of order, please go ahead.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to get some clarity on the amendment that's been put forward by Ms. Damoff, and perhaps the clerk can provide this information for all committee members' understanding.

The amendment calls for the elimination of the June 8 date and for the after-action reports not to be included in the report by this committee. However, when Ms. Damoff made those comments, her perspective was that it is not to impede, necessarily, the after-action reports and the undertaking from being included in our report to the House. Rather, in the event the documents do not make it in time—that is, before the drafting of the report—that would not delay the work of this committee. That was my understanding of her intention with her amendment.

Let's say, for example, the undertaking is put in. Because this committee ceases to exist on June 8, the documents must be referred to this committee before June 8. Let's say it's June 7. That's after June 6, when we will have completed our draft report, so would committee members still be able to receive these documents on June 7?

Could I get clarification on the understanding of this amendment and how it would work procedurally and practically, for this committee, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much, Madam Kwan, for your intervention.

Madam Clerk, would you be able to respond? Please, go ahead.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Miriam Burke]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Special committees, of which we are one, cease to exist upon presentation of their report to the House.

The date stipulated in the motion creating this committee is six months after the adoption of the motion creating this committee, which brings us to June 8. Should the committee adopt and present the report in the House before that date, that is when the committee will cease to exist. Should you present in the House on June 8, that is when the committee will cease to exist.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Can I follow up with a further question, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Madam Kwan, please go ahead.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

In that vein, with respect to undertakings made to departmental officials already—independent of this one, but perhaps if it goes through, it could be included as well—would the officials be required to provide the undertakings the committee has already requested before we complete our report? There is a whole bunch of undertakings that we still have not received. The one I was referring to earlier, which is pertinent to this report, is about the files that have been referred from GAC to IRCC and the files that have been referred from the Department of National Defence to IRCC. We still haven't received that information yet, which I think is pertinent to this report.

What will happen if the officials don't provide that information to this committee before we table our report? Are they obliged to do so? Could I get some understanding on that?