Afghanistan Committee on Dec. 1st, 2010

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our guests for being here today.

I'll continue just on the questions to IPA Group.

I'm kind of interested in the fact that you had pointed out on page three of your submission to us today that following the U.S. special inspector general's report on what was happening in situ, they had talked about the fact that they have equipment there but don't have people who can actually use it.

It reminds me of how international development was done in the 1970s. We would lay out elaborate irrigation systems, and then when we left, it rusted.

But what I'm really curious about is this evaluation. Do you know of any similar evaluation? We get the Auditor General looking at things, but in terms of our value for money and how things are working in situ from a Canadian perspective, do you know of similar evaluations that have been done beyond your own project? You do an internal evaluation, presumably, but is there anything that's similar to the U.S. special inspector general?

[John Inns]

I don't believe so, no.

[Geoff Poapst]

I will say that the SIGAR report, as it's called, is a very good read.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Okay. I think it's something that has been lacking. In fact, we've had some challenges to get a cost of how much we're spending, investing in the mission in Afghanistan, as you probably are aware.

I'm interested in that, because we have had a situation where we've changed the emphasis in terms of what we were understanding the mission expenditures would be. Up until a couple of weeks ago, we were looking at about a $550 million expenditure on primarily a civilian-only mission. Now that's changed, as you know, to $100 million for the civilian and $1.5 billion for military training.

I've asked the government if they could actually lay out where we're at, and they can't. In fact, witnesses the last time we met here were in a bit of a scramble because things had shifted and they weren't informed.

So I guess my question to you would be, is your work...? Would that be seen...? I don't know if you saw the Treasury Board submission. It was made public in August. It was fairly detailed as to where the investments would go.

Would you see the work that you do as being under what I would call more of a civilian mission, versus military training?

[Geoff Poapst]

It could fit easily under both categories, because our troops who are there are going to be there as trainers teaching technical skills and also--I would assume, within the military setting--military management skills and strategic skills. There is no reason that these very skilled trainers—if they are very skilled trainers, which I'd assume them to be—couldn't be delivering the program and the methodology we've developed, and the same would apply for our RCMP people who've been there, especially in a capacity as mentors, both at NDS and at the ANP.

At the same time, if you call what we do as a stand-alone organization “civilian”, then it could certainly proceed in that respect as well, particularly in the development of an Afghan train-the-trainers program. But it could switch back and forth between the two.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I mean, I'm looking at the work you've done, and I think most of it was outside of the military ambit. It was with NDS.

[Geoff Poapst]

Yes.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I find it interesting, because you were doing, as you say here, work up until 2009, right? What happened? You say here that with the election there was a change in terms of the people you were training. They were re-deployed, I guess. Have you made submissions to further the work you were doing?

[John Inns]

Yes, we've been asked two or three times by DFAIT, by the RCMP working with DFAIT, to put forward another submission. Those submissions have gone in, and at first when they asked for the submissions they came back to us and said “We can't go ahead with that work because we don't have any money”. Then we were asked to re-prepare submissions to DFAIT, and they came back and said “We have money, but we don't have any time to do the work”. They now come back to us and say “We have received a formal request for you to restart your work on NDS, but we have an appetite to train only 225 people, and that can start in the new fiscal year”. That's where it sits right at this point in time.

Our view is that you do not assess a critical mass by saying that someone in the Pearson Building knows that you need to train only 225 people.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Let me get this straight. You were requested to put in a submission. You did, and they said “Sorry, we don't have any money”?

[John Inns]

That's right.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

That's happened three times now?

[John Inns]

Yes.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Okay. I guess it's up to the government to figure out what they're doing, and then maybe you'll get an answer, but you're talking about fiscal year as in the next fiscal year?

[John Inns]

I mean April 2011.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Well, my understanding was that there was actually a submission going to Treasury Board, which would have had money for this kind of training, so I guess I would just say that it's too bad this didn't go ahead, because you might have gotten an answer earlier. I know my colleagues down here would have appreciated that before they signed on to the deal they signed on to, but that's their deal.

If I may, Mr. Luxton, I have a very simple question in terms of the work you do. One might say the best way of dealing with IEDs is to have people stop planting them--I'm sure you've looked at that, and you look at the sources--as opposed to just having people trained to be able to take them apart. One of the issues, I would imagine--and I certainly heard this from our folks on the ground--is that they keep on changing methods, and you're trying to catch up to them. It reminds me of what happens with hackers and computers.

One of the more innovative ways that people have dealt with computer hacking and the kinds of damage they do is to actually take the people who were involved and get them on our side. We already have the Russians we're retraining as our special agents looking for the Taliban now. I'm just wondering whether that kind of approach has been taken, so that you have people who were actually involved on the other side now helping you out or helping coalition forces to deal with the IED problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You have time for a brief answer.

[David Luxton]

There is an element in this whole integrated system approach to counter-IEDs that does involve human intelligence, so that gets factored in. Of course that's the most valuable intelligence that can be had. I don't think I'd comment further than that, but it is a valuable contribution to the problem.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Okay, Mr. Dechert, go ahead.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Inns, can you confirm something? With regard to that exchange you just had with Mr. Dewar about funds available for training, can you confirm that DFAIT has now told you that funds are available for training going forward?

[John Inns]

Yes.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Okay, thank you. I just wanted to make sure I heard that correctly.

When this committee visited Afghanistan in June of this year, we were told that schools in many areas of Afghanistan had not operated for most of the last 30 years, as that country has gone through various conflicts. What has your experience been with illiteracy in the NDS? And if you have encountered that, how have you dealt with it?

[John Inns]

As I think I said earlier, I think NDS is widely recognized as sort of the cream of the crop within the Afghan public sector. There were some individuals who were illiterate, and they were being helped out by colleagues. There were some rudimentary training programs that were available to NDS, and they were trying to minimize the problem as much as possible. It wasn't a major characteristic of the workforce, which was certainly what was rumoured to be the case with ANP.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

That was probably the case with the police.

Sorry, Mr. Poapst, did you have a comment?