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.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
However, I would like to know why it is that way. Efforts were made to organize meetings to resolve an ongoing, long-standing problem. This problem is not new, and we fully understand that the government's decision to not grant an extension for military activities at the base clearly causes problems for the Canadian government, for the Canadian Forces and for our NATO allies. We cannot deny that, so why not hold specific meetings?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon Conservative Pontiac, QC
Mr. Rae, once again, I will repeat that I met with the minister. I will not discuss operational aspects here, I told you that our relations are robust, they are good, and we continue to have excellent relations. You are asking me, very simplistically, how many times I met with certain people or individuals. I am telling you that I met with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of that country on several occasions.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Thank you, Ministers. Thank you, General, for appearing.
In putting this motion forth, the concern obviously is the impact of the closing of Camp Mirage. I don't want to get into operational issues, but again, Minister MacKay, obviously this is very significant, given the planning that has been going on.
The general indicated that he wants to see a seamless transition. Could you first of all confirm that November 5 is still the date that Camp Mirage will be closing?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
If November 5 is in fact the date, how do you have a seamless transition when one major piece of our operations is now being closed? Could you enlighten us as to alternatives and their implications, both in terms of cost and in terms of the effect on personnel? The real discussion we want to have later on, obviously, will be on what happens as we go forward.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS
Of course.
Thank you for the question. As part of prudent military planning there are always contingencies, and if there's one thing I've come to understand and respect about the Canadian Forces it is that they are tremendously adept at adapting to circumstances, and there is a continued effort to have plans and more plans should circumstances change.
What we're talking about here, obviously, in the drawdown that will occur nine months from now is that we will use an alternative location, an alternative to Camp Mirage, which would have been the point at which we transported or transitioned a lot of the material we have in theatre. Alternative locations will now be utilized.
It's also fair to say that as part of this transition or drawdown, as General Natynczyk has indicated, these efforts will be aided in large part by the new equipment we have been utilizing, the C-17s, which allow us to transfer large amounts of equipment and large pieces of equipment. That C-17 aircraft has been a godsend, both in its operational excellence in Afghanistan, but also, as you know, for humanitarian relief in places like Haiti and Jamaica.
So we have enabled the Canadian Forces with new equipment: new transport planes, Chinook aircraft, UAVs, heavy equipment, trucks, tanks, and artillery. All of that new equipment will be brought back to Canada through an alternative route, which will no longer include the UAE.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
So, Minister, you can assure this committee that this seamless transition will in fact go ahead?
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Secondly, Minister, as far as the implications are concerned, you mentioned the C-17s. At some point, I certainly believe this committee, probably in camera, needs to look at what the cost is going to be versus what it would have been had Camp Mirage not in fact closed. We clearly have seen it to have been a rocky road with the UAE for at least a number of months—
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
—so I would think at some point it would be very helpful to know what the cost implications are going to be as well. And I certainly take the general at his word and certainly, Minister, your comments with regard to the seamless issue, because that's absolutely critical.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I too want to welcome the two ministers and the Chief of the Defense Staff. I would also add, having traveled to Afghanistan on several occasions and having seen developments and having seen Canadian troops develop, that in fact, they are doing extraordinary work. Mr. Chair, I also want to take this opportunity to wish the Royal 22nd Regiment good luck. As the Chief of the Defence Staff knows, I am myself a member of the Royal 22nd Regiment, I have trained with the troops, and we are very proud of the regiment in Quebec. So we wish them good luck.
Those were the compliments, now here is the criticism. Mr. Chair, for the past six or seven years I have been hearing the same old song. The words are almost always the same. I have listed only three: "government priorities", "positive developments", and in this case, reference is made to the document that has been presented. We have also often heard that "progress has been made and we have reached a positive turning point and from now on it will go better".
I have here a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies which says almost exactly the opposite of what you have just told us. I will describe the slides, the tables which seriously compromise your point of view. The information that I am sharing with the committee does not come from "idiots", these are documents from ISAF—the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan—from NATO and from the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office. I am going to describe seven or eight tables that I have, which show exactly the opposite of what you have just said.
With respect to the escalation in the war, there has been a sharp increase in mines, improvised explosive devices, ambushes, mortar attacks and rocket attacks. Since 2004, there has been a progression and it continues.
Another table is entitled: "Time is Running Out". Mr. Chair, on that page there are tables from 2005, 2007 and 2009 which show that kinetic incidents, in other words explosions and so on, have significantly increased in Afghanistan and are taking place almost everywhere in the country in 2009.
The next title is: "Where the Fighting Is: 2009". There are red areas which indicate combat zones, and they cover a very significant part of the country.
The table entitled "Insurgent Influence and Capability by District" is covered in red and orange areas which illustrate the influence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and those areas cover three-quarters of the country. So that is not extraordinary progress at all.
I have another table dealing with monthly attacks launched, and they are constantly on the rise. In 2006, there were 387 per month, and there are 1,319 monthly attacks in 2010. The situation is not good at all.
Another table deals with incidents caused by improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan, and at the end of 2009, the curve goes straight up. So that is not good either.
I also have information on the number of attacks by region: 963 in the south of Afghanistan in 2008, compared to 2,570 attacks in 2010 in the same region.
The number of members of coalition forces who have been killed in action is also sharply increasing.
Explain to me why, all this time—and these tables date back to 2004—we are being told that all is fine, that everything is dandy, and yet these tables show the contrary. The Center for Strategic and International Studies is internationally renowned, and I believe that these are valuable reference documents. Tell me why you have continued to say the situation is rosy since 2004?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS
I haven't seen that particular report. I have one in my hand that's dated October 12 of this year, Mr. Chair. It talks about public opinion trends and strategic implications. This report verifies much of what we saw and what we heard anecdotally in Afghanistan.
I personally would lean toward accepting the word of the people who have been on the ground in Afghanistan for a sustained period of time. They include people such as Tim Martin, the representative of Canada in Kandahar, who lives at the provincial reconstruction team location just outside Kandahar City, outside the base, and our ambassador, who makes frequent trips down to Kandahar from Kabul and is in regular contact not only with our officials but also with Afghans and his counterparts in the ISAF mission. I would also like to mention the efforts of Governor Wesa, who, while born in Afghanistan, is in fact a Canadian citizen. He did a great deal of work in British Columbia at the University of B.C. in the agriculture field and has made a tremendous contribution. He is, at great risk to himself and his family, going out into villages and towns throughout Kandahar, throughout the district that he represents, and doing outstanding work on behalf of our country and on behalf of Afghans to bring about a sense of confidence in their own government and in the efforts that are being made internationally.
Yes, there will be reports and there will be continued tracking. We're doing that as well, as mentioned. Some of the same subject matter is touched upon in the quarterly report that speaks about the Canadian priorities that we have identified: immunizing children and building the infrastructure in Afghanistan, such as the Dahla Dam. That has had tremendous impact on regions such as the Arghandab, where we've opened up wadis and allowed water to flow and have brought electricity. The lights are on in villages, literally for the first time in centuries, in some cases. We are seeing work now with women, in terms of their ability to start and run their own businesses. Education is starting to flourish in places like the Dand District, where we now see 26 schools operating, and we have to try to mirror that same progress in Panjwai.
All of this happens, Mr. Chair, under the umbrella of security provided by brave men and women in uniform from coalition countries. Canadians can have full confidence that the members of the Canadian Forces, in concert with all of the government partners and the Afghans, are truly committed to seeing the security last and the implications of the reconstruction and development projects spread throughout the south.
We are seeing as well further engagement from the Afghan government, which I think is also a very encouraging sign. President Karzai, as Minister Cannon mentioned, took part in a shura in the Arghandab region that was attended by hundreds, and we are seeing increasing evidence that those participants are getting off the fence. We're seeing Afghans now accept the reality that the Taliban are not coming back. I think that also denotes a shift in public attitude. That is also reflected in this most recent survey that came out of Afghanistan, which was put forward by the SHAPE staff at NATO. It notes some very encouraging signs in terms of the public attitude and public confidence in what is happening in Afghanistan.
I tend to perhaps see the glass half full. My friend may prefer the other approach, but I know that the efforts are Herculean. I know we still have work to do, and I'm extremely encouraged by the efforts that are being put in by Canadians at all levels.
I also would ask my friend to keep an open mind about other reports that seem to indicate otherwise.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
To conclude, Mr. Chair, it is very unfortunate that we are denying reality. I have these charts which come from NATO and I showed eight of them today. However, I have about another 50 in my possession on various important issues in Afghanistan, including ones on people's reaction to the lack of security, and the situation as regards opium and heroin. There is a set of tables which say exactly the opposite of what the Minister of National Defence has just said.
I want to believe that the ambassador and people over there are telling the truth, I will not say they are not, but I have statistics, and tables, which say exactly the opposite.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
