Foreign Affairs Committee on March 11th, 2008

[Derek Burney]

I would like to conclude the non-political discussion we just had by quoting my chairman. It's always useful, with a former deputy prime minister, to quote him:

If we are not willing to lend our military resources when asked to do so by the United Nations, in a mission coordinated by NATO, in a country whose democratically elected government wants us and whose citizens desperately need us, then we wonder where and when Canada would do so.

If the answer is we're not going to perform that kind of mission, then that means we might as well shut down the military and rely exclusively on the United States for our defence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

With that, we'll move to the NDP. Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I appreciate the points from my colleague across the way. I think I prefaced my comments last time, my last turn around, to say that it's not about whether we should help Afghanistan, it's about how we do it. For those who have a certain stereotype in their minds about our party, you should know that it's not to withdraw to any fortress, it's to engage.

I know, Mr. Manley, you appreciate that. I'm not sure my colleague across the way does. In fact, as someone who left university and went and worked for six months in a war zone at the age of 22, I have personal experience as to what it means to be in harm's way, and I was doing it not in the military but as a development worker. So I appreciate the fact that there are other ways of doing it.

I also have to say that the three-D approach that you mentioned, Mr. Manley, sadly is in imbalance right now. You said that in the report.

At the committee, when I asked a deputy minister where is three-D, because it wasn't being mentioned in his presentation, he said that we don't use that term any more; we now use the “whole of government” approach.

My concern is that we aren't in balance. Today we hear that we're a billion dollars over budget in terms of the military expenditure. We hear from on-the-ground people that the situation in security is getting worse. The day-to-day lives of Afghans is not getting better compared to a couple years ago. Civilian deaths are up, and some of those sadly have to do with the conflict we're engaged in—not meditated by us, of course, but that's the cold, hard reality of what's going on in Afghanistan.

We've heard time and time again from people who have come before our committee saying we have to change the way we're doing things. They point to the other two Ds. I was shocked at committee when I heard that we had nine DFAIT and six CIDA people on the ground. The government has since changed those numbers, but how the heck do we do three-D—well, they don't do three-D, it's called the whole of government approach—when we don't have the requisite resources? I know you mentioned that in your report.

But I also have to talk about—and we haven't brought it up today—the way we're doing our development.

You, Mr. Manley, were with CARE before. I want to quote to you another John—that is, John Watson. As you know, he has been very critical of how we've been doing development. He said “There's no question that there are many more schools being burned than being built, and that's because the military is engaged in the building of the schools. The schools are looked upon as part of the conflict.”

My question is around signature projects. I believe, after hearing from witnesses, people on the ground, that they're not the way to go, and quite frankly, I don't think Canadians care if there's a Canadian flag on the school, particularly if, as Mr. Watson says, it's going to put people in harm's way.

So I have two questions, on the three Ds and how we do aid, and is the military actually the appropriate vehicle for delivering aid and doing aid?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Dewar.

Mr. Manley.

[John Manley]

First, I entirely agree that we've been deficient in the resources we've made available on the other Ds. But I'd have to say, although we have kind of the image in Canada that we're doing all the heavy lifting and the military is dominant, let's face facts here.

We have 2,500; we can't put another 1,000 of our own troops in. Britain is not twice our size. They have many times more soldiers, not only in Afghanistan but elsewhere in the world, than we do.

If you look at any of the spending numbers and pick any of the three Ds, look at the spending numbers relative to other countries that we should see as our peers. We are vastly deficient in our expenditures.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

But within our own envelope, how much we're spending on military, we're about ten to one. That is roughly the coefficient.

[John Manley]

And in development, we've talked about these targets for years. I'm happy to say that I brought in an 8% annual recurring increase for development assistance when I was Minister of Finance. I'm sad to say that in the testing the department does on what focus groups think of the budget as they read through it, development assistance had the lowest score. So I think, quite frankly, that those of us who believe in the importance of development assistance need to do a lot better job talking to our citizens about why Canada has a role and responsibility, and how we can make a difference.

You know, I've had this discussion with John Watson. I think in some circumstances he's absolutely right, and on some NGOs he's absolutely right. The Red Cross, for example, has to maintain an entirely independent role in conflict situations, because that's the role they try to play; they're bringing that kind of support and assistance.

And I've had this discussion with CARE and others. Right now the largest NGOs, I believe, in terms of people on the ground in Afghanistan, are the Aga Khan Foundation and CARE, neither of which is in the south, for security reasons. And I guess my question would be, well, if you're not there doing anything because of the security risks, surely it's better to be there doing something, even with the protection of the military, than not to be there at all, so that people get the benefit of it, rather than leave the military as the only people who can deliver development assistance. I know about this, because I'm somewhat involved in that community, and this is very controversial in the development community, but I don't see a way around it.

Now, on the question of signature projects, quite frankly, our panel discussed these at some length, and you're entirely right that the Canadians don't care if Kandaharians salute the Canadian flag. They probably should care if they salute the Afghan flag, and we ought to be doing things that try to promote the development of confidence in a government structure that is going to provide assistance to its people, and not threaten its neighbours or allow its territory to be a training ground for terrorism. Somehow or other, we have to create that environment. That, in fact, is what will enable us to move our military forces out, when there's confidence that there's an Afghan government that's able to do that.

But in terms of projects, I think what our panel had in mind was this: people have to be able to identify an improvement in their lives with the efforts under way on their behalf. If they only see some of the destruction you're referring to, then it shouldn't surprise you that their confidence and their respect is going to dissipate.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

To wane.

[Derek Burney]

I'd like to add a little point to this, if I may.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead, Mr. Burney.

[Derek Burney]

You have three of us here, so you have to make allowance for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'm not all that used to giving nine minutes to a five-minute slot, especially an NDP one.

[Derek Burney]

Yes, but a nine-minute question at least deserves a nine-minute response.

[John Manley]

Mr. Chairman, take it off our opening comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead, Mr. Burney.

[Derek Burney]

There is a bit of a philosophical debate about signature projects—yes or no. And we know there's a prevailing view, hard in CIDA itself, resisting that. But the point we're trying to make is that if three-quarters of the assistance Canada is giving to Afghanistan is going through multilateral channels, or government channels in Afghanistan, there's no awareness on the ground that we are doing anything.

And to your point about imbalance, which we agree with, we're not going to correct that imbalance unless there are more identifiable Canadian projects being conducted in that country. So putting a flag on it is not as important as getting recognition for Canada in Afghanistan that we're actually doing things directly for the Afghan people, and not have all of it going through multilateral channels.

Now, I know in the development community there's a debate about the efficacy of these different approaches. All I would say is that in a war zone, I think we have to be more conscious of quick impact projects that people can identify. It was frustrating for us to meet with the elders of various communities, who were totally unaware we were doing anything other than our military role. So we're trying to get more recognition, more media attention, of the third D of the triple-D—if that phrase is still in use or not.

[Pamela Wallin]

That is just as important in Canada as it is in Afghanistan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, panel, Mr. Dewar.

With the prerogative of the chair, I would like to ask a question.

Just a number of days ago the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, presented a report to the Security Council entitled Report of the Secretary-General to the UN Security Council on the Situation in Afghanistan and its Implications for International Peace and Security.

In your panel's report, you recognized that issues of good governance are integral to achieving what we all want—a more secure, more stable, more democratic Afghanistan. But one of the observations of the Secretary General in his report was that

Preparations must begin immediately on voter registration and planning for the next elections. This requires decisions by the Afghan authorities on electoral dates and the adoption of electoral legislation. The international community will need to begin mobilizing funds to support these vital processes, especially that of voter registration, which must start in the summer of 2008 in order for elections to be held in 2009.

Can I ask you to look ahead and comment on how you would recommend that Canada assist in this crucial next stage, not just of elections, but also of the democratic process? In regard to Mr. Dewar's question on signature aid, and things like those as far as democracy is concerned, Mr. Martin brought out the four areas—the corrections, the judiciary, the police, the military—but beyond the military exercise, how can Canada effectively play a role in the democratic process going on in Afghanistan and really make a difference there in this area?

[John Manley]

Well, the first thing I'd say is that it's right that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Could I just interrupt you?

We do want to thank Ms. Wallin for coming. It's five o'clock, and she has a flight to catch.

We thank you very much for being here.

[A voice]

We're used to her leaving us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You're used to her going early?

[Pamela Wallin]

Thank you very much for the opportunity. One of the things we concluded as a panel, and which I think we have seen in response to this report, is that the Canadian public is hungry for answers and discussion or debate, and even when we disagree, to at least have intelligent, informed conversation.

So thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We appreciate your attendance.

We'll go back to Mr. Manley on Canada's role in helping achieve democracy there.

[John Manley]

First, I want to underscore the importance of the upcoming election, in part because one of the things we're trying to instill is democratic institutions, but also because the past elections are a benchmark for how these elections will be run. By every measure, I think they were remarkably successful, given the state of affairs at the time; they will be a reference point for the 2009 elections, which I think a lot of people hope will combine both presidential and parliamentary elections. If they don't go well, it's going to be a serious problem, not just for Afghanistan, but also for the international community. So it's right that these should be focused on.

Canada actually has some history of involving ourselves with those. Elections Canada was very involved with the last round of elections. Therefore, we ought to be heavily engaged, whether it's through UN agencies or the OSCE, or wherever that coordination comes from. This is one of the things that we do quite well and should be contributing to.