Afghanistan Committee on March 26th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I call the meeting to order.

Today we are having meeting number two of the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan. This is pursuant to the order of reference of February 10, 2009, from the House.

We have two parts to our meeting today. The first is from the PCO: David Mulroney, deputy minister, Afghanistan task force.

Committee, we have to be out of here at one o'clock for another committee. I'd like to leave 15 minutes at the end for an in camera meeting to deal with committee business. We won't delay. We'll get started and we'll get as deep into the rounds of questions as we have time for.

Mr. Mulroney, thank you very much. As you know, this committee hasn't sat for a while, so we are keenly interested in what you have to tell us about the recent developments in Afghanistan.

Sir, the floor is yours.

[David Mulroney, Deputy Minister, Afghanistan Task Force, Privy Council Office]

Good morning and thank you for inviting me today. I am grateful for the chance to provide an update on developments since my last appearance before this committee.

At that time, in June 2008, new policy priorities for our Canada's mission in Afghanistan had been established and programming refocused to increase our emphasis on diplomatic and development contributions. The first quarterly report to Parliament had just been tabled.

Over the last nine months departments and agencies, led by the cabinet committee on Afghanistan, have been focused on fulfilling the commitments made in the government motion of March 13 last year and the recommendations of the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan.

These actions have included a significant increase in our civilian deployment, including more senior people and more managers. When I last appeared before you in June, we had a total of 52 people in Afghanistan. We're now close to 100 and we'll grow beyond that in the coming months. Significantly, most of those people are in Kandahar and are working side by side with the Canadian Forces in Kandahar.

Since I last saw you, we've established benchmarks to better track progress. We've pushed out and increased authority delegated to our people in the field. As you know, we've deployed helicopters and UAVs. We've tabled two additional quarterly reports since I was last with you. And I think we've established a focused and connected whole of government effort that's increasingly seen as a Canadian innovation and success.

At the same time--and we've spoken frankly about this--the overall security situation in Afghanistan has remained dangerous and has deteriorated in the last quarter, despite international efforts and the efforts of the Afghan national security forces. Insurgent attacks are indiscriminate, killing both civilians and military personnel. Incidents in both Kandahar and Kabul, and indeed elsewhere in Afghanistan, illustrate how difficult the work of Canada and its partners is. But we continue to do our work, and that's one of the things I wanted to report to you today.

Despite the challenges, Canadians, military and civilian, continue to do what we have asked them to do. Just last week I was in Kandahar and Kabul with ministers Day and Cannon, and among other things, they met with the team that is planning the implementation of the Dahla Dam in southern Afghanistan. They met people who were working up at the dam, walked along the irrigation systems that lead from the dam down to Kandahar City, and even did an investigation of the tunnel that takes water through the mountains the last part of the way. And they met with local officials to talk about the dam and to talk about the important role that local officials, councils, and shuras would play in guaranteeing its success.

We met with civilian and military colleagues who are training the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police and correctional staff in Afghan prisons, and we met with colleagues in Kabul who are implementing our new governance support office, which is deploying experienced Canadians to a range of Afghan government departments to enable them to perform better and to build capacity.

And while we haven't hesitated to speak frankly about the challenges we face, particularly in terms of security, we also need to stay focused on what's going right. l'd like to quote three specific instances that the UN's special representative in Afghanistan, Kai Eide, listed in his March 19 statement to the Security Council. Here I'm quoting Mr. Eide.

First: “After all the changes that have taken place over the last six months, the Afghan government is today better and more competent than ever before. And the level of provincial governance is higher.”

Second: “The cooperation between key elements inside the government has improved. That applies most prominently to the security ministries and institutions.”

Third: “The improved internal cohesion we now see emerging could help us cover the fragmentation which has hampered coordination with the international community.”

So as Kai Eide pointed out, we have seen developments that represent potential success stories. Turning them into reality will, to a large extent, depend on the ability of the international community to respond quickly, but most importantly to the Afghan government, to continue to welcome and support these reforms.

I believe what has been achieved in the last year is something Canadians can be proud of. I think we're leading the way in terms of civilian-military partnership. This is increasingly something we get asked about in other capitals because we're deploying, as I say, more civilians to our PRT, our Provincial Reconstruction Team, than anyone else and we're deploying them in a very difficult part of the country.

We've resolved to make transparency and accountability the touchstones of delivering what was committed to by the government, and I think our quarterly reports represent that. We've developed new ways of communicating with Canadians in an effort to increase public awareness and understanding of how Canada is contributing to the international effort in Afghanistan. If I could cite two examples, over the last few weeks and in coming days, we've had people like General Denis Thompson, the previous commander of Task Force Kandahar; his deputy, Colonel Jamie Cade; and Elissa Golberg, who was the senior civilian in southern Afghanistan--the person we call the RoCK, the representative of Canada--meeting audiences in Canada and internationally to talk about what Canada's doing in southern Afghanistan.

Secondly, we've spent a lot of time moving from a period when we had numerous government websites on Afghanistan to a single government website that captures the entirety of the mission. Yesterday some of you may have seen Minister Cannon explaining that to Canadians and showing them, for example, the kinds of footage and reports we have, the podcasts on the various development projects we're undertaking, and a pretty unique map that allows people to click on particular areas and find out more about specific projects.

In closing, it is important to keep in mind that Canada is one of many countries and international organizations working to improve security, development and governance in Afghanistan. We share a common purpose with Afghans, our partners, and our allies: To protect international peace from the dangers that form in the violence of failed States.

International meetings over the next few weeks will allow us to work for greater coherence, sharpen our focus on key issues like ANSF capacity, and continue to transfer authority to Afghans.

Progress in Afghanistan will not come easily, and the country's transition to a more secure and stable society will take time. Nevertheless, our focus is on building Afghan capacity, ensuring that this process of transition is increasingly planned and led by Afghans. We are contributing to a better future for Afghans in a way that corresponds to Canadian values and to Canada's security.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you very much.

We'll get right into the questions. We'll start with the official opposition.

You have seven minutes, Mr. Wilfert.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I'll be splitting my time.

My question, through you to Mr. Mulroney, is this. There has been a lot of discussion and evidence of very weak public institutions that clearly are not capable of countering the insurgency, and this had led clearly to feeding the insurgency, allowing the insurgents to win over public support. People are frustrated, particularly the poor, at the lack of real governance, lawlessness, the absence of essential services, and ultimately the issue of corruption, which we're hearing more and more about, particularly from key figures within the Afghan government. Could you respond to that in terms of what Canada is doing in responding with our allies in dealing with the situation? Clearly, if there's a lack of public confidence, we're not able to advance the goals you have articulated this morning.

Could you keep it as short as possible, so I could then go to my colleagues?

[David Mulroney]

We're addressing that in a number of ways.

First, our priority is building up Afghan national security forces, so we have Canadian Forces mentors who are working with the Afghan National Army. We report on this quarter by quarter and we are seeing success in terms of the ability of the Afghan National Army to mount security operations where they need to mount them.

Policing is, I think, more of a work in progress, although we've established a police training centre at our own PRT and we're beginning to have some success at the local level. We're also bringing in more RCMP and civilian trainers.

I talked about the governance support office. We have Canadians who are working with institutions like the Ministry of Interior, which manages the police. The new Minister of Interior, as one of his first acts, fired a number of police chiefs in different parts of the country. We think we're seeing a change there, but I won't suggest that it isn't a big, big challenge that we have to stay focused on.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Mulroney, I'm a little surprised that you didn't talk about two issues that put some of this in context. The first one, obviously, is the question of the election and the impact that it's having with respect to the Afghan constitution--whether President Karzai will be in fact allowed to stay beyond May, given that the election is not taking place until August.

The second one is the question of Pakistan and the question of the overall regional issue. I've been harping on this question for some time. I would certainly appreciate it if in any future discussion you could tell us more about what's taking place in the northwest of Pakistan, which is the training ground for the Taliban. Unless we get a handle on that subject, I don't think we're going to be able to deal with the nature of the insurgency.

Could you touch on those two points?

Mr. Coderre will have a question afterwards.

[David Mulroney]

On the elections, there are a couple of things I would say, Mr. Rae.

One is that I think we can take some satisfaction from the fact that registration unrolled more smoothly than many had anticipated. We had something like four million additional registrants, in addition to the 12 million who had registered previously. So while we're not taking our eye off the ball vis-à-vis the elections, which happen in August, I think there is a growing degree of confidence that the Afghan national security forces performed well.

We have contributed to the UN process in support of the elections. UNDP ELECT will be spending additional funds for voter education and citizen awareness to help build a sense of what elections are all about and the rights and responsibilities of people.

What happens after May 22, in terms of President Karzai's authority, is something that will be worked out politically by the Government of Afghanistan and the opposition parties. I think that's happening now. I can't predict what the outcome will be, but that's the appropriate course, and I think they are following the constitution.

On Pakistan and the regional dimension, I think there has been an increasing focus internationally, as we've seen. It's not an easy thing to manage in the absence of any regional institutions. What Canada has been doing over the last year is that we've been coordinating with our two missions and two heads of mission, working together on joint policy recommendations. For example, how can our support of programming in Baluchistan, which neighbours Kandahar, reinforce what we're doing in Kandahar? When ministers Day and Cannon were in Kabul last week, one of their meetings was with our ambassador to Afghanistan and our high commissioner to Pakistan, who reported to the ministers how we're working together.

We're continuing to encourage a resumption of what we call the Dubai process, which had border officials from both countries meeting together. That was suspended last year when Afghanistan suspended its direct relations with Pakistan. We're working at getting that back on track. So we're engaged on that file, as are others, and I think the increasing international focus on it is a good thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

You have two minutes, Mr. Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General Thompson told us that people thought the security rating had gone from 55% to 30%, and that the number of attacks had doubled. So there is a growing feeling of insecurity.

Some of the local leaders and the people in the field right now are saying that Afghanistan is on the brink of chaos. Do you agree with that, given that even in Wardak province the Taliban are controlling about 60% of the territory?

Given that the number of attacks has doubled, do we have the equipment we need to carry out our mission properly? We purchased 100 tanks, and 40 of them are not ready yet and are at the Longue-Pointe base.

[David Mulroney]

Mr. Coderre, as you—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Make it a short response.

[David Mulroney]

It is true that there has been a decline in security in recent months.

It's true that security, by many measures, has deteriorated. That's a fact measured in the statistics and shown, for example, in the complexity of the ambushes being staged. Whether that means that Afghanistan has reached a state of chaos, though, does not necessarily follow. If we look at the ability of the Afghan national security forces to manage the election registration, for example.... The last election was an ISAF-managed election; this one is an Afghan-managed election.

One of the objectives of the insurgency is to undermine public opinion, and that is working, but it is not leading to chaos, because we're seeing a resolute response from the Afghan national government.

I think Canadian Forces, if not the best-equipped forces in Afghanistan, are among the very best-equipped forces in Afghanistan. The tragedy is that as we arm and equip and protect our people, insurgents continue to develop more insidious IEDs, improvised explosive devices. They're bigger and more complex in terms of the number of people involved in triggering them.

There are couple of things that I think we have going for us. One is the increase in troops in Afghanistan, the increasing number of American troops. Two, the use of helicopters and UAVs to have more eyes on where Canadians are working will be a positive. But we will continue to face that challenge. The insurgency is a very determined insurgency.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bachand.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Mulroney. Your presentation was similar to what we generally hear. I have nothing against your optimistic nature, because it is important to be optimistic—I too am an optimist. However, at some point, optimism verges on inaccuracy. There is a failure to take into account some important facts that show we are losing the war in Afghanistan.

I have some very disturbing statistics here. For example, there were 983 attacks in August 2008, a 47% increase over August 2007. We have not met the control and security objectives. There have been 120 attacks on humanitarian aid workers and 92 kidnappings, and these figures are increasing as well. There were 1,523 civilian victims in 2007, and 2,118 in 2008. So this figure has gone up as well.

Between 40% and 50% of the country is not accessible to humanitarian aid workers. Costs are rising considerably as well. From 2001 to 2008, the war cost $10.5 billion, and from 2008 to 2011, it is expected that it will cost $7 billion. The cost of this mission is getting higher and higher. There is also been an increase in the number of Canadian and American troops who have been killed since 2001. We are losing more and more soldiers.

We have been saying for a long time now that the mission must be changed. The American plan could be released tomorrow. We have to determine how we can complement the American effort. In your last report on Afghanistan, the inter-ministerial report of the five ministers, you said that to some extent, the situation had worsened over the quarter. I think it is getting more and more serious all the time.

Have we reached a crossroads, a time when the mission in Afghanistan must absolutely be changed? Everyone says that we cannot win the military conflict, and yet we are increasing the number of soldiers there. Is the solution not to ask the forces to build some security perimeters so that schools, clinics and irrigation systems can be built? At the rate we are going, it is clear that we will be unable to control this insurrection or to win. I do not think that the situation can be turned around by 2011.

Am I too pessimistic or are you too optimistic?

[David Mulroney]

We talk about security in very frank terms in every quarterly report. We made the point that security had deteriorated in recent months. That is a fact, and we were very clear about it. However, we also have to determine how Canada and the other countries can correct this situation.

We've talked very frankly about the nature of the insurgency--how the insurgency has changed, how very desperate it is to undermine civilian confidence, and the real impact it has had. It makes doing our work very difficult. But the sentence doesn't end there. We haven't stopped doing our work. We spend a great deal of time working with the Canadian Forces and with Afghan national security forces, thinking about how we respond. The very intent of the insurgency is to get us to down tools.

In each of our quarterly reports, while we talk about how difficult the security situation is, we also say that we've completed three schools and we're working on 22 more. We're continuing to plan the implementation of the Dahla Dam. We are working with the World Health Organization to immunize people in southern Afghanistan.

We're not for a minute saying that it's easy or that we don't face challenges. We're saying that we're determined to carry this out and to report frankly to you each quarter in terms of what we're doing.

What is more positive? I think an increasing U.S. presence in southern Afghanistan is a positive thing. It will deal with some of the challenges we face in being able to cover territory, and hold territory, over the longer term. But more important, I think we are beginning to see increased ability and increased capacity on the part of the Afghan National Army and parts of the Afghan government. It's not the entire government--it's still a work in progress--but we are seeing, in certain key ministries, a degree of connectedness that we hadn't seen before.

I'll offer a very short example. When Minister Oda was in Afghanistan in January, I was with her. We talked about the Dahla Dam with Kai Eide and also with the minister responsible for agriculture and irrigation. We talked about the irrigation that the Dahla Dam would provide and the link between that and the development of agriculture in southern Afghanistan. The Arghandab district was the breadbasket of southern Afghanistan. The irrigation systems fell apart. Agriculture itself fell apart. We're beginning to change that. That's now a $20 million industry just outside of Kandahar. That will grow if we stay focused and we are determined in our response.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

You have a minute.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

If possible, I would like you to tell us about the strategy Canada will be unveiling at the upcoming NATO meeting in April. Will Canada do what it usually does, or will it be putting forward a different plan, that will focus more on diplomatic and development efforts, and less on our military contribution? Could you take a few seconds to tell us what Canada's position in Strasbourg will be?

[David Mulroney]

First of all, Canada wants Afghanistan to continue to be a priority for NATO. Second, it will be asking for assurances that the Afghan capacity to manage the challenge will be strengthened. Third, we want NATO to develop the Afghan National Security Forces.

However, before the meeting in Strasbourg, there will be a meeting in the Netherlands that will be chaired by Mr. Eide. It will involve NATO members, Afghanistan's neighbours and some other very important countries. Under Mr. Eide, and in partnership with NATO, the issues of development and governance will be discussed. So there is a fundamental international coherence in this regard.

Our strategy continues to focus, of course, on the security, but the Canadian goal is to meet the objectives set out in the parliamentary motion--that is, rebuilding, governance, and increasing Afghan capacity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you very much.

We'll move over to the government side, with Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, David, for coming back here again.

I want to stay on the topic of the new developments taking place. You've given your quarterly reports to Parliament as per the motion. They state what Canada is doing and what Canada's progress has been. But a couple of new developments are taking place. One is what you just alluded to, the Hague conference in Holland, where the regional players are coming. Iran, I've just noticed, has accepted the invitation to come. At the same time, the Obama administration will also give its policy on Afghanistan, which seems to be looking at a lot of development effort, diplomacy, and all these things. Pakistan as well is coming to that. I would like to know the government's thinking in terms of our going there. What will this do to enhance our presence there?

There's one other point you could address at the same time. Today, or perhaps yesterday, there was a changing of the guard at the UN. Our ambassador was replaced by Mr. Galbraith to be the second in command to Mr. Eide. These developments indicate more active international presence. This should not be seen as a negative thing; it should be seen more as an international coming in--especially the Obama administration, coming back in there after their focus in Iraq.

So those are just some things that are coming up on the horizon. Could you tell the committee and Canadians who are listening today about these developments?

[David Mulroney]

The international meetings in the next week--both the meeting in the Hague, presided over by UN special representative Kai Eide, and the NATO meeting--have some common objectives. They're objectives that have been Canadian objectives since the Prime Minister attended the NATO Summit in Riga more than two years ago.

First, Canada is seeking, and I think we are now seeing, a greater international effort. That's an effort not just in terms of troop commitments, although we're seeing that with the Americans and certainly the French and many others in southern Afghanistan, but also in terms of more partners coming to the table. You've talked about some of that. Because there is a burden sharing to be done in terms of funding, training, and capacity building as well, the meeting in the Hague is referred to the big tent meeting. That has been and is an objective of ours.

The second issue is coherence. How do you bring all of that together in a way that actually leads to results? That has been a Canadian objective. We were very successful in focusing NATO last year at Bucharest. We'll be working very hard this year to make sure that as all of these actors come onto the stage, we do it in a coherent way. The leadership of the UN and Kai Eide is tremendously important.

As you indicated, Kai's number two for political affairs was a Canadian, Chris Alexander, who used to be our ambassador in Kabul. He'll be replaced by Mr. Galbraith, who also has some Canadian lineage through John Kenneth Galbraith. We continue to support the leadership of the UN in that sense.

The third objective is to have a chance to share best practices. We have different actors doing different things in Afghanistan. It's really important that we take time out to learn what's working. There, both in the Hague and at NATO, Canada will have a good story to tell. There is increasing interest from other countries in deploying civilians. If you want to do governance and development in a big way, you need to have civilians who are specialists in that, so we're getting a lot of questions in terms of how we have done what we have done in southern Afghanistan.

There are also a lot of questions about benchmarking. The UN itself is now talking about benchmarking.

Finally, there are questions about how you stand up the Afghan national security forces. The Canadian Forces in particular have a very good story to tell. They're among the very best in terms of training the Afghan National Army. This will be a stock-taking, and Canada can share some real success stories.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Do you want to go ahead, Mr. Hawn?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

You have three minutes.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Mulroney, for being here again.

For some of us, even those who refer to themselves as optimists, the glass seems to be perpetually half empty. That's understandable and that's okay, but I think one of the measures of the ability to conduct the mission is the level of activity of our civilians in DFAIT, CIDA, and so on, outside the wire. Can you comment on the level of activity they have been able to conduct?