Evidence of meeting #50 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was afghanistan.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Just let Mr. O'Connor finish.
Again, we will direct the questions through the chair. I may also remind the guests to answer through the chair, as this would prevent this one-on-one, nose-to-nose confrontation.
Mr. Minister.
Conservative
Gordon O'Connor Conservative Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON
When the representative of the NDP talks about violence in the south, the violence is being provoked by the Taliban, a murderous regime. She basically takes the approach that NATO is bad and the Taliban are good. I'm saying it's the opposite. It's the Taliban who are trying to disrupt the life of Afghan people and it's NATO who is there providing security and development. The source of the violence is an insurgency that will not give up its hope of taking over the country.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.
We'll go to the government side.
Mr. Casson, and then Mr. Obhrai, on a split, please.
Conservative
Rick Casson Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I'm not sure Mr. Obhrai is going to have much time.
Mr. Chairman, one thing I won't do is to ask any of these gentlemen to resign, because I think they're all doing a hell of a job in leading our troops in a very difficult situation.
Recently we had the opportunity to visit Afghanistan with the defence committee. I'd like to run over a couple of things we learned there.
One of the things that really impressed me was the complexity of our involvement there. We're not talking strictly of combat troops engaging the Taliban; we're talking about a full-blown effort at all levels to rebuild that country. It wasn't just the infrastructure or homes and things that had all been beaten down to nothing, but the governance, the legal system, and law and order. There was nothing; it was flat. And we took on, with 36 other countries, a pretty tough job to go there to try to help rebuild.
I must say it was the former government that gave that job to us, and it's this government who's carrying on under the guidance of the CDS to see that it's carried out to the best of our ability. So congratulations to the minister and to all involved in getting the equipment that our soldiers need to do that job.
One of the things I saw was Warrant Officer Henley, I think his name was, going out with his little silver suitcase to talk to the shuras or councils. They talked about ink spots, about building a little spot of support out somewhere in the district and letting that grow. I admired that guy for his courage, that he could go out and do that on a daily basis and create that rapport at the ground level.
I know we're working at all levels, from the minister's office down; however, I think it's the grassroots involvement at that level that's going to win this for us. We're going to win the hearts and minds—and we are. When we talked to the Afghan people there they were very, very confident in what was happening and very, very optimistic.
When we were there, there was an RIP just starting, a rotation in place. In talking to the troops who were leaving in their rotation, I found they were optimistic about the changes that have been made. They told us this time and time again, and these weren't hand-picked people who came to talk to us, Mr. Chairman. We sat down every meal with a different group of Canadian soldiers, and they told us that what they were doing was the right thing and that they were making a difference. That to me is an indication.
We can talk about spending a dollar on the military or a dollar on reconstruction, but it all works together. I think we need to spend more dollars to get that country secured. Once that's done, we can spend more money on reconstruction, but it's happening at all levels now.
So I'd like to ask the minister about capacity building. When I talk about capacity building, I want to talk about it at a basic level, and that's the Afghan auxiliary police and the Afghan National Police Force. In order for us to be able to get out of that situation any time in the future—and I know we're committed to February 2009—these forces are going to have to be able to step up and take over the security of that country, along with the army.
I'd like you to comment about our involvement in that. Are we going to meet the plateaus that have been set forward? They're talking of some pretty large numbers for the army—70,000 to 80,000 trained and equipped and ready to do. Are we dreaming, or is that attainable?
Conservative
Conservative
Gordon O'Connor Conservative Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON
Yes, the goal for the army is to attain 70,000, and I think they're at about 35,000 now. Yes, I think that goal is quite attainable, though I think the goal is for a year or so after our commitment. But the army is growing every year, not only in numbers, but also in quality. There's all the confidence in the world that it's going to meet those goals.
A 70,000-man army backed up by a police force—and I think the goal is 62,000 for the police force—will provide sufficient security throughout the country to allow people to carry on with their normal lives.
So, yes, the army is on track at this time.
Conservative
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
I just want a little clarification here.
General Hillier said that you signed the compact when the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of National Defence clearly knew what was happening, which, then, in turn, would tell me that the Liberal minsters, the Liberal Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Liberal Minister of Defence, clearly knew what was in that agreement that they had signed in reference to detainees. So if that was the case, then how can you stand up, Mr. Dosanjh—
Conservative
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Sorry.
How can the Liberals stand up and then accuse Mr. O'Connor, when he has already gone and said he made a genuine mistake? If they knew exactly what was in there, they should have known a long time ago.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
So my question here is that, obviously, the Liberals were well aware—well aware—of what they had signed, and now they want to just close their eyes and say nothing has happened and try to throw all aspersions here. That's something that is really confusing to me.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Well, if it's confusing to you, Mr. Obhrai, we'll ask one of our guests if they could answer that question.
Conservative
Gordon O'Connor Conservative Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON
Which one of us is supposed to answer that?
Conservative
Gordon O'Connor Conservative Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON
My understanding is, of course, that an international agreement has to be approved by the government of the day, and the Liberal government of the day approved that agreement. It wouldn't be signed otherwise.
I'll ask General Hillier to confirm. He wouldn't have the authority to sign an international agreement unless the government agreed to it.
Gen R.J. Hillier
I think I answered, Mr. Chair, when I responded before. I signed the agreement, of course, more because I was there at the time. If I had not been there, the ambassador to Afghanistan would have signed the agreement on behalf of the country. So it was signed as an agreement of the Government of Canada. The Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of National Defence were involved, to develop that agreement.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much, General Hillier
We will then go to the opposition side, to Mr. Eyking and Mr. Cotler, on the split, and again I remind you that it's a five-minute round.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Cotler. I'm going to be quick here.
Minister, in your opening statements you stated that you expect proper treatment of detainees, of course, and that you work closely with your NATO partners. But, you know, our partners, our NATO partners, are putting their money where their mouth is and we're not. Just in the last year alone, 2006, Denmark gave $1.2 million; Finland, $1.1 million; the U.K., $1 million; and the U.S., $2 million to the commission. The Conservatives last year pledged $2,200, but none of it was received by the commission.
My first question would be, how do you expect the Canadian public to believe we're a partner and we care about the treatment of these prisoners with this disgraceful contribution?
Concerning my second question, you stated in your opening statements also that the commission did not request funds from us, but I have a quote here, in the Globe and Mail from your visit to Kandahar on March 23 of this year. You say, “I think it would be improper to give them any money”. So those two statements contradict each other. Even if they asked for the money, would you give them the money? And my first question, as you know, is why are we not giving any money when our other NATO partners are giving over $1 million?
On that, to the members opposite, when the Liberals were in power, we pledged over $1 million in 2003 alone.
