Evidence of meeting #18 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was troops.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Raymond Chan Liberal Richmond, BC
I join my colleagues in thanking you, the panel, for your great work. It is a very complex matter, and you have tried to summarize it in your report. Of course, there are many issues related to the mission that I'm very concerned about, but there are a few that stand out in my mind.
The first concern I have is that there doesn't seem to be enough commitment from NATO and the west compared to their commitment in Yugoslavia, when they were dealing with that problem. That is both in the military and in the amount of aid dollars they're willing to invest in Afghanistan.
The second problem I have is that, yes, we have picked the most dangerous region to be in, but I don't think it's fair that just because we started in that region, we have to stick to it until the end. I think it's important that the other NATO members assist, step by step, and pick up that experience we've gained. Yes, we have to make an investment in it. But we also owe it to our troops and to our youth, as you have said, if we're putting their lives on the line, to make it our responsibility, politically and nationally, to get a fair bargain on our commitment rather than having Canadian soldiers do most of the heavy lifting. We continue to do that without bargaining for a better deal for our soldiers.
The third point I have is that you talk about a diplomatic effort in the region. Many of the witnesses who have come to this committee have mentioned reconciliation and a democratic effort in parallel with our military effort, led by the United Nations. I think Canadians might even have a role on that front.
Those are the three points that linger in my mind.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Chan.
You left our committee with about a minute to answer those fairly comprehensive questions.
Mr. Manley, you can do it.
4:25 p.m.
Chair, Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan
We may run a little over.
Those are important questions, and they're not easy questions.
Let me start by saying that I think the committee entirely agrees that those four pillars Mr. Martin referred to need to be accomplished.
We need to have reasonable expectations of what success will look like. We will not establish the Court of Queen's Bench in Kandahar province. We will need to rely heavily on traditional methods of dispute resolution, the wisdom of elders, and the respect people have in their own communities in order to see a reasonable system of justice established.
In the case of the police, it takes time to train police. It takes longer to train police than it takes to train soldiers. We need to recognize the fact that while everyone will tell you that the Afghan National Army is probably one of the great success stories of the last few years and is growing in its capacity, size, and ability, the police would not be described as a success story. There are some better things happening, but even the basic things, as I think Mr. Dewar referred to, like getting them paid, is problematic. There's no ATM machine at the Walmart in Kandahar. Getting them paid is really challenging. Well, if you don't pay your police, and they get killed at a faster rate than soldiers, it's not surprising if they set up a bit of a toll booth on the highway.
These are important problems. One of the reasons we called for a very active coordination of effort was to try to tackle some of those issues as well as the question, as you put it, of the culture of impunity, which we called corruption, that you see in the government. Once again, we're not going to get Afghanistan very high on Transparency International's list of countries, but we can make improvements.
The worry we have is that if we don't really insist, which is what we suggest needs to be done on a diplomatic level, that President Karzai and his ministers deal with the issue of corruption, we are seen--not just Canada, but the international community--as the sponsors of that government, and we become implicated in the corruption people see.
If you hear one thing on this question about support for the Taliban--and there is zero support for the Taliban--there is a recognition that the Taliban may have been a lot of things, but they weren't corrupt. We have to be concerned that if the effort isn't there to address those issues, support will be lost.
4:30 p.m.
Panellist, Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan
I'll just add a point on the corruption issue, and I do it with some sensitivity to the fact that you're all elected members of Parliament.
You have to understand that some of the people who have been involved with practices that we want to condemn were elected to the national assembly in Afghanistan. We even met a Stalinist--an unreconstructed communist--who would like to see a return of the Soviet Union to Afghanistan. So the point I'm trying to make is that sometimes when you sow the seeds of democracy, you don't get a pristine verdict from the electorate. There may be many reasons why some of these people are elected by their local people, but it's very difficult for the international community to go in and impose a standard of democracy that suits our interests, as opposed to what they see as being in their interest.
I'm not excusing it; I'm just trying to put it in with a degree of realism that it may be a little unusual.
4:30 p.m.
Panellist, Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan
That's one of the things we discovered, with our mentality of what we think is important and we want to impose--we want to make sure there are women's rights and we want to make sure there's a judicial system. And they would look back at us and say, “That's great, but first we need some clean water and some schools and a little bit of health care, and then we will figure that out.” So we also have to listen to the folks there and do it in the order that's going to work.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
We'll try to get you in, Mr. Chan. You've already gone six minutes over your round.
Mr. Lebel, you have five minutes.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Denis Lebel Conservative Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Panel Chair Manley, Ms. Wallin, Mr. Burney, thank you for being here today and for your work.
As soon as I read Mr. Manley's foreword, I was struck by the different aspects and issues that influence Canada's presence in Afghanistan. The security of our country, Canada, and of the rest of the world, our reputation on the international stage and our ability to contribute to the well-being of one of the poorest peoples on earth all had an effect on me. Last week, we welcomed six Afghan women who had been democratically elected to the Afghan Parliament. They came to tell us about the great good that is coming from Canada's presence there and the major results that have been achieved.
Earlier, you spoke about the rotation of Canadian troops. At this very moment, soldiers from other parts of Canada are going to Afghanistan and a number of soldiers are coming home to Quebec. As several from my constituency were in Afghanistan, I have called and spoken to some of them. They all told me of their pride in the work they have done. I spoke to one young man who was brought home a little earlier. Two months ago, his wife gave birth to a little girl. He told me that, had it not been for the birth, he would have asked to extend his tour of duty in Afghanistan for three months in order to help with the work being done there. His brother will be coming home in two days.
Another soldier told me that he found it impossible to think about reconstruction and development without a military presence and the security needed for those responsibilities to be taken on. We may well want to do development and reconstruction work, but without the military to provide follow-up and security, it is impossible.
I would like to know your opinion about that.
4:35 p.m.
Chair, Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan
For us, that was a fundamental principle and we tried to explain it clearly in our report. Security and reconstruction are linked and we cannot forget that. At the moment, it is not possible to advance the cause of reconstruction and development in Afghanistan without having the military force necessary to guarantee the security of workers, of representatives of non-governmental organizations and of those of CIDA or other international aid agencies. This is necessary in a dangerous situation. An alternative government in the form of the Taliban would like to establish itself. They are ready to say that no progress has been made, that the international forces are providing nothing and that another uprising is needed. Conflict exists, and it is clear to us that we must continue our security efforts if we want to continue development.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
Right off the bat, I would like to make it clear that I am not a big expert in military matters or strategy. But human rights, the rights of women and democracy interest me greatly.
Mr. Manley, in your report, you state that Canada should invest in projects that meet the urgent needs of the Afghan people. In connection with the present mission in Afghanistan, a witness recently told this committee, and I quote: "The priorities and the efforts of the mission seem confused. Everyone has their own priorities." By "everyone", he was speaking of the United Nations, NATO, the United States and Canada. He also asked himself this question: "Are we really in Afghanistan because the Afghans asked us to be there?"
I refer to the questions from the witness because I am also pondering the words of Ms. Malalai Joya, the Afghan parliamentarian who was expelled because of her criticism of, among others, the Afghan government. She claims that the Canadian presence in Afghanistan is changing absolutely nothing in the situation of women in the country. Many Afghan women commit suicide. Just a few days ago, an Afghan woman set herself on fire in front of a court because she could not obtain justice.
Through her website, Ms. Malalai Joya provides information to women's groups here about the situation in Afghanistan. She also says that the great majority of the Afghan population sees Canadian troops as invaders, not as an allied force that is trying to help them. What is your response to that?
Let me conclude by repeating her words: the Canadian presence is changing absolutely nothing in the situation of women in the country.
4:35 p.m.
Chair, Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan
Thank you, Ms. Deschamps.
I do not know what Ms. Joya is basing those statements on. I first visited Afghanistan in January 2002 when I was deputy prime minister. When I was in Kabul, I visited a CIDA project run by the NGO CARE. That was the reason why I agreed to become involved with CARE Canada after leaving politics. The project involved giving widows in Kabul enough food so that they could survive. CIDA is one of the few international aid organizations that continued to work in Afghanistan during the Taliban regime.
I met those widows; there were 30,000 of them in Kabul. The goal of the CARE project, the Canadian project, was to help 10,000 of them. All it involved was giving them a sack of wheat, a sack of beans and a bottle of canola oil per month. One woman told me that her husband had been killed during the civil war, leaving her with six children, the youngest six months old. At first, she worked, but when the Taliban arrived, she could no longer do so. She asked me to thank everyone when I got back to Canada for saving her children's lives.
Six years later, our panel went back. Now, the CIDA and CARE project is not just a humanitarian project. The widows are involved in a development program, they receive micro-loans to help them create their own jobs. This is a significant change that has been brought about in a few years.
Can we say that people there are living in comfort like ours in Canada or the United States? No, not at all. This is a country that is twice as poor as Haiti. It is still a problem. Has the situation improved? Let us hear what your witness has to say, but as far as I am concerned, I have seen an improvement.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
The witness I referred to, Mr. Manley, is a retired army lieutenant-colonel.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Thank you.
This is a question that I'm just posing to the panel. I've alluded to the British parliamentarians coming here and talking about Afghanistan and their contribution, and all of that. One of the questions I asked them was if there was any political party in the British Parliament that is asking for an immediate withdrawal of British troops, and they said no, not a single one. Yet here we have, of course, one party alluding to that factor, and there's a difference of opinion over whether we should leave now and then do all of the other things.
My question is what impact that statement would have back in Afghanistan, not here, among the people in Afghanistan. But in our debate here, we have this issue of immediate withdrawal. Now, would that have a negative impact on security, would it have a negative impact on reaching the political settlement we're all talking about as quite necessary over there, because then they would say, well, why? It seems to me that out of all the other countries, no other party has asked for this.
I know this is a politically sensitive issue, but I think it's best that it be addressed. We just can't put it under a rock. Let's just go ahead on this.
4:45 p.m.
Chair, Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan
Mr. Obhrai, of course I don't do party politics. And we didn't try to write a report in any way written from a partisan point of view. I think most fair observers have said that we were critical of governments--plural--of different political stripes in some of the things we said in our report. We made recommendations that were fundamentally based on our view of what was in the national interest.
Perhaps I can put it this way: if you believe Canada should have an active role projecting Canadian values abroad, then that's a principle, and if you subscribe to that principle, then you need to ask yourself, how does any country do that?
I held the view for a long time--I held it when I was the Minister of Foreign Affairs--that there are essentially only three ways countries can influence the world and project their values. There is development assistance, there is diplomacy, and there is defence. Now, it's entirely legitimate to take the view that we should do only one or two of those things. That's a legitimate point of view. But it's not a point of view I share.
When I became foreign minister, I actually thought Canada punched above its weight in the world. It's something we all said, and we were all very proud of Lester B. Pearson's Nobel Prize and its legacy. But I discovered that in many of the international clubs we were members of, we didn't in fact have much of a voice. Quite frankly--well, I said it once, and the Prime Minister didn't like it that much, but I'll say it again--we sat at the table, and when the waiter came with the cheque, we excused ourselves and went to the washroom. That's not a way to project our values.
I believe in a robust foreign policy for Canada because I believe this country has an enormous amount to offer. I believe we have an enormous responsibility because of the wealth that, for whatever reason, we have inherited. It's therefore our duty.
Now, I'm not going to take issue with those who think we should only do development assistance, or maybe some diplomacy, or we shouldn't do military--that's not my role, even though I don't agree with that point of view--but I will take serious issue with anyone who says that Canada should just retreat into fortress North America and not play that role in the world. On that I'll take them on.
4:45 p.m.
Panellist, Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan
I think there are implications. And we saw, as other countries debated whether they would stay or go, that it doesn't help for those who are fighting for democracy and freedom on the ground. It does make it a little difficult.
We can't solve all of the world's problems, but we see from the results of polling across the country--you know it from talking to your own constituents, I'm sure--that Canadians don't see Canada as a spectator nation. They see Canada as a participant nation. The question is, are we living up to that self-image? We need a bit of a reality check on where our contributions are and what we're doing.
Afghanistan, as John has said, has put us back at the table. We are there in all of the three Ds. We are there in every way. The presence is real. We now have voice because we are putting our lives and our values on the line. It does give us respect in the international community, and I think that's valuable, because you want the Canadian voice to be shared. We need to be able to comment, and to criticize NATO and our allies in it. If we believe in a multilateral approach and those organizations, the UN and what not, we need to be able to criticize it, but you can't do that if you're not a participant, if you're not there.
Now that we are at the table, it gives us our voice back to really engage, not just to solve the problems of Afghanistan but to deal with some of the issues of the international community and whether those mechanisms, such as the UN and NATO, are as effective and efficient as they can be. We have a responsibility--and now a right, I think--to engage in that conversation.