Evidence of meeting #15 for Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was afghanistan.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
It's just that it's a simple courtesy to actually receive ambassadors. It's a simple courtesy. It's a Canadian way. And I guess if you're not able to receive ambassadors it's very difficult to deal with the problems we have.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon Conservative Pontiac, QC
Don't be so ridiculous, Mr. Dewar. I meet ambassadors on a regular basis.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon Conservative Pontiac, QC
Mr. Dewar, I'm telling you that depending on the issues that are raised--
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon Conservative Pontiac, QC
--we discuss these issues.
Mr. Rae, for instance, when he was Premier of the Province of Ontario and he dealt with the Province of Quebec, I know he spoke with Mr. Bourassa. I know that personally. He didn't deal with the minister, he didn't deal with another one, he dealt directly with the premier.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chairman—on a point of fact—Mr. Cannon is referring to my role as premier and who I met with. I met with several ministers in the Quebec cabinet.
I met Gérald Tremblay, I have often talked to him about economic relations. You are wrong, Minister, it is not like that—
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
You are not showing any evidence of Canadian competence, but rather of Conservative incompetence.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
I would like to call you to order, Mr. Rae. That is not a point of order.
We are going to go to Mr. Hawn now, please.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the witnesses.
I'll try to stick to current events.
Speaking through you, Mr. Chair, to General Natynczyk, and going back to what Mr. Bachand talked about, quoting some statistics, I think it's important that we not just quote simple statistics but understand what's behind the statistics and what the impact is—we talked about increased IED events, increased attacks, and so on—of the fact that we have four times as many allied troops on the ground in Kandahar and ten Kandaks on the ground in Kandahar, and tens of thousands of American troops in other areas of the country. How much of an impact does that have on the number of those kinds of incidents because we are simply taking it to the Taliban more?
October 27th, 2010 / 5:05 p.m.
Gen Walter Natynczyk
I think this is the fundamental issue.
When we had just Task Force Kandahar—only Canadians, and even before the arrival of the first U.S. battalion—we were in a very small, concentrated area. Many of you visited some of the various camps. Camp Wilson, just west of Kandahar, used to have about 250 soldiers. There are in excess of 3,000 soldiers in that camp right now, and they are patrolling throughout the whole western area of Kandahar down to Zhari District. They are not only removing the Taliban from the area but they are staying. That has obviously increased the number of statistics in terms of IEDs found, IED hits, and IEDs cleared.
This is a fundamental issue: you need to have sufficient troop density in order to hold ground. What we've seen now is that the addition of the 12,000 U.S. forces, but really significantly the additional ten Kandaks or ten battalions of Afghan army, plus the advent of more capable Afghan police, is having a dramatic effect upon what's happening on the ground.
In the short term it will be manifested through increases in violence rates. I still remember a visit earlier in the year, when I brought this up to the attention of other ambassadors. Their comment was: “When the troops hit the Normandy beaches, violence went up in France.” The fact is that when you put in that number of soldiers you are going to have a significant level of kinetic activity on the ground and at the same time, as seen through open sources that I know you're all reading, a number of Taliban fighters who have been removed from the battlefield and very significantly Taliban leaders who have been removed form the battlefield not only by the troop density but also by all the other essential intelligence and surveillance enablers that are allowing the soldiers to be smart, to be precise, to be surgical. From our standpoint, if we can do a mission without firing a shot, that's success. The reality is, that is having a significant effect on the ground.
I would look to Dand District. I know we've testified here before on Dand District, just south of Kandahar; we talked about a model village a year and half ago. We had to fight to move into Dand District, but working with a very capable district leader and funnelling development aid through our DFAIT and CIDA colleagues and through that district leader, enabling him to demonstrate leadership, Dand District is now advanced far beyond many other districts in the area. That's where the minister mentioned 26 schools. Two years ago there were no schools; this year, there are 26 schools. That's because they have the density of forces.
Panjwai is the same way now. It's because of the density of forces on the ground. That's why we saw a significant change of context.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you very much.
This is through you, Mr. Chair, to Minister Cannon. I'd like to go back to the elections. A free election is obviously an indication of progress, but 1.3 million votes were disallowed. That's a dramatic number, but is it a sign of progress that they actually have a mechanism in place to do that properly?
Even with those 1.3 million votes disallowed, their turnout rate was 38.5%. We just had municipal elections in a number of provinces. In Edmonton our turnout was 34%, and nobody was getting shot at. So would you call it a glass half full or a glass half empty?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon Conservative Pontiac, QC
Well, I think, colleague, before making that final determination, we need to await the final results. Certainly we look to the Afghan electoral institutions to be able to address the challenges that come forward, particularly in a transparent fashion.
We obviously commend the people of Afghanistan for having organized, campaigned, and voted in these elections under extremely difficult circumstances. I don't know very many countries on the planet that have elections and people going to vote in the elections under military combat conditions.
They are indeed building these institutions. Yes, it is a long task. They have to keep at it. We will wait to see the final results, but I think from a preliminary analysis, we're quite pleased with the direction this is taking.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Since this is one of my first interventions on this committee, I would like to take the opportunity to agree with everything my colleagues have said, General, about the professionalism and the courage of our troops. We are very proud of them. I have said that many times, but I did not want to miss the opportunity to repeat it.
But as a rookie on this committee, I am also very puzzled by what I have heard. If our relationship with the UAE, as the government side has said, is excellent, what would it be if it were not excellent? I cannot believe anyone here would find it trivial the fact that we have this expulsion from Camp Mirage a few months before the end of our mission. If a friend did that to us, reasons must exist for it.
Minister, these reasons must be important ones. You said that you met with the ambassadors when it was important. If this situation is not important, one wonders what is.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon Conservative Pontiac, QC
Mr. Dion, as far as my comments are concerned, I would simply like to remind you that we do indeed maintain an excellent and strong relationship with the United Arab Emirates on many fronts. Moreover, this is quite understandable, given that the UAE is an important partner for us.
In addition, as my colleague mentioned, we are not going to be commenting on the operational aspects. However, suffice it to say that when we discuss matters on behalf of Canada, we consider Canada's interests. However, under the circumstances, we felt that the offer made to Canada was not in the best interest of Canadians.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
According to what we do know, the reasons why this disagreement took place are not related to operational considerations in the field, in Afghanistan. This was about obtaining flight or landing rights. We heard that you were defending Air Canada's point of view, which may be very legitimate, but there were also other reasons, reasons pertaining to visas and other things of that type.
It seems to me that if these reasons do not have anything to do with operations, Canadians are entitled to know what they are.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon Conservative Pontiac, QC
Mr. Dion, that is what you are claiming. I am, however, simply telling you that we felt that the offer made to the Government of Canada was not in our best interest.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
If this was not related to operational reasons, could you please tell us what this was all about?