Foreign Affairs Committee on Dec. 11th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Minister Oda.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you for your question.

Thank you for the question, because it enables me to expand further on actually how CIDA makes its decisions and distributes and uses its resources to support different organizations.

We have to remember, first of all, that we are working with the Afghan government and with 60 international partners. In order to do that, there are also many levels on which we're doing our work in Afghanistan.

When you're working with multilateral organizations at the request of the Afghan government—we have some organizations who have been asked to take on special projects, etc., or to take over an area—we make our contribution to that organization. Because these organizations are internationally very experienced organizations, such as the World Food Programme, the United Nations Development Programme, the World Health Organization, UNICEF, the World Bank, the International Red Cross—we work with them—they also understand the requirements of all their contributors to report back on the utilization of their funds and the contributions, so they're always willing to work with us on reporting back. I could not have given you the facts and the numbers that I reported in my presentation if there wasn't that cooperation on reporting back to the donor countries and to the donor organizations.

When we're working on other projects with other organizations, whether they're Canadian NGOs or international NGOs, we always ensure that the reporting back and the accountability is to our satisfaction. We always make sure we meet at least the minimum requirements of the Government of Canada. But I'll tell you, in the short time that I have been the minister, in my conversations and meetings with other countries and representatives of other countries, they have established very high requirements on accountability and reporting as well. Just as recently as this morning, I met with the French ambassador, who told me that France was reviewing its accountability requirements, etc., on the work they're doing in Afghanistan.

Consequently, as I say, we have monitoring and reporting requirements. We've also just recently completed discussions with the Government of Afghanistan--that was completed just before my visit--on strengthening their requirements and coming up with our agreements when we're working with them, as far as the requirements of how they will report on the utilization of the funds are concerned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Minister Oda.

We're pleased to have Mr. Bachand with us today from the defence committee.

Do you have a question, Monsieur Bachand?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I have just come back from a meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Washington. The ministerial meetings may have been a nice façade, but I can tell you that the parliamentarians from 26 countries who attended that meeting were asking themselves some very big questions. One issue relates to the reports submitted by NATO and other groups, stating that 56% of the territory of Afghanistan is currently controlled by the Taliban. So the façade begins to crumble.

NATO is currently reviewing its strategic framework. Previously, NATO's strategic framework was not complicated: we went in with our tanks and our planes, we engaged the army in front of us, we won, and then we rebuilt. Things don't happen that way anymore. NATO's strategic framework has to be revised, and the question of security will become secondary because now it is development and diplomacy efforts that will make a difference in the theatres of operations.

Your colleague is leaving this week for Edinburgh. That is called the Afghanistan Regional Command South. It is the nations that are in the south. Ordinarily, this would fall somewhat under the Minister of Foreign Affairs, because defence is an aspect of Foreign Affairs.

Will your minister stand up for this position? Will the new strategic framework place more emphasis on reconstruction and diplomacy, and less on military activities? At present, security amounts to hunting down and killing the Taliban, and no rebuilding and protecting the people working on reconstruction, and diplomats.

I would ask that the Minister answer in less than 30 seconds.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Could we just get to the bottom question, and that will give him an opportunity to answer that.

Very quickly, Mr. Minister, if that's possible on that question.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Yes, thank you.

I am going to take this opportunity to reply to what Ms. St-Hilaire said when I was talking earlier about Mr. Manley's task force. She told me that the terms of reference had not changed. That is true, because the development and reconstruction mandate is the one ... Canada has committed to 2011 under the compact and other countries. Mr. Manley's terms of reference relate solely to the military mission that will end in February 2009, that will be debated in the House.

On the question of the meeting to be held on Thursday or Friday, I will be attending with Peter MacKay. We leave this evening. It is an important meeting concerning southern Afghanistan, and we will be there with the English and others.

Earlier you spoke about the Senlis Council. I want to make one point about that report. I would like to quote UNICEF Canada's President, Mr. Fisher:

Saying that more than half the country is controlled by Taliban is dismissed by everybody I've talked to so there's a general feeling that (the Senlis Council) have really not done a great service to Afghanistan by over-dramatizing the situation.

That is the end of the quotation.

Even President Karzai has stated doubts about that position.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Minister.

We'll go to the government side, Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Obhrai and Mr. Goldring will split their time.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Yes, we will split our time.

Thank you very much, Minister Oda and Minister Bernier, for coming.

As the chairman said, there were a lot of motions asking you to appear, every motion that the opposition put forward. So I'm very glad you're here to talk about one of the most important foreign policy issues facing Canada.

Before I start, we have talked about this interim report that is going to be tabled. I want to make it very clear that the interim report was pushed through by the opposition, so it was, from our point of view, not a real report; it's a report that is only half a job done. But because they wanted to put it, they used their majority to force us to put this report. I want to caution everybody that this report is not going to have a proper study done. Madame St-Hilaire talked about that, about an independent commission and everything, but I can say—

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

It's my turn to speak, so just stay quiet.

In regard to that report, although it is going to be tabled, we have a lot of questions on whether it has really done a thorough job.

That said, I will go right to the question.

The issue of PRTs is an important one, because we all talk about the development of the PRTs and the PRTs in Kandahar. Could you shed some light on how these PRTs are working in Kandahar and the achievement? As you know, development is also an important part of the overall strategy for Afghanistan.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you for your question. It's an important one, because as you know also, Canada will have the lead in the south of the country in February 2008 concerning the military mission, but the reconstruction is an important part of our goal with other countries.

What is our government doing in the south, in Kandahar, more precisely? We are working with a number of departments. I have Bev Oda, with me. We are also working with the Minister of Defence, the RCMP, the Correctional Service and Justice Canada. The government is therefore taking an integrated approach. We are taking the same kind of approach when it comes to the provincial reconstruction team in Kandahar.

I have had the opportunity to meet people in that team on the ground. They are highly motivated and extremely professional people. They work under very difficult conditions. Together, they make up a multidisciplinary team that ensures that we can be more effective on the ground. The group also includes diplomats and experts in police training.

We make sure that we are working with everyone on the ground and with Afghans to carry out very specific infrastructure projects, such as building dams, irrigation canals, bridges and roads. Ms. Oda will be able to tell you more about the projects that have been carried out in the Kandahar region.

No project can be carried out without security. Security is the basic element. The Canadian Forces oversee these people to be sure that the area is secure and that development projects can be carried out. I am very proud of the work being done by all Canadian government officials and by the very reputable international organizations, to change the day to day lives of the Afghan people, little by little.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We'll go to Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, Ministers, for appearing here today.

Minister Bernier, we know the importance of the training of the Afghan army. I think we've seen this in other places, such as Haiti, the importance of the full training on security aspects in order to be able to move into other areas of development. Of course, the army would be a prerequisite for the training and moving along, but it's the police departments and the policing system itself. I think we have seen it by example in other countries, where the police are not only trained to represent the civilian population but also paid, so that they don't have a temptation or, we should say, the desperation that, if they're not paid, they're certainly expert at finding a source of income, and it generally would be at the expense of the population. So the two of them are very important and interrelated.

Maybe you could expand on the training of the police, and the pay and compensation aspect of it.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you.

Yes, you're absolutely right, the training of the police is an important aspect of security for the Afghan people, and Canada has adopted a comprehensive approach to Afghan police reform. To be more precise, this includes supporting the Ministry of Interior, providing strategic police advice; providing equipment and uniforms; building police infrastructure; contributing to the payment of police salaries, as you suggested; and deploying Canadian civilian police to train and mentor the Afghan National Police.

We're working with them to be sure that the Afghan people will be able to benefit from a professional and efficient police force. It's part of our goal to improve the rule of law. But the rule of law is not only the judiciary system; it starts with the police and with being sure they have security, so that the police can have proof needed to bring people in front of the court if they need to.

I'm very proud of the work we're doing there. We currently have 46 civilian and military police trainers and mentors supporting the Afghan National Police on the ground right now, to try to help them in reform. It's important work, and it's in line with the Afghanistan Compact, because in the Afghan Compact, we have the security part, the development, and the governance. We're making sure that we will deliver on the Afghan Compact, which all of the international community signed on to. That's why the work we're doing with our people and with the Afghan people is important for their country.

I will conclude by saying that we have six police operational mentor and liaison teams working in Kandahar province to monitor all the police substations and to be sure they are well equipped and the personnel have the right training. It's work for which we sometimes forget to give credit to the people who are doing this training, so I just want to take the opportunity to thank our Canadian diplomats and the people who are doing the training, for what they are doing right now, because with that work we'll be able to succeed in our plan for a better Afghanistan in the near future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Goldring, you still have another minute.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Are you satisfied, Mr. Minister, with the progress being made on numbers that you're bringing into the training in the policing program? Is the entire process of the training progressing as we would hope it would be? Are there any particular difficulties in the training process that perhaps have to be addressed in other ways?

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Police training is a tangible contribution that is genuinely changing things on the ground. This country is making a fairly substantial financial contribution, the $29.8 million that has been allocated for paying police salaries between 2002 and 2008. Canada's total commitment for police training amounts to about $39.8 million.

The work on the ground is effective. A few years ago, the police had no uniforms and no equipment. A few months later, they had proper training and uniforms. I am very pleased about this. The situation has changed completely.

Every day brings a new challenge, and the people on site have a responsibility to deliver the goods for Canada. And they are doing an excellent job of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We'll proceed to the New Democratic Party, and Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our guests today for taking the time to come to committee.

I have so many questions to ask. I'm going to start actually with a follow-up to questions I was asking officials from both of your respective departments when we had them here on the estimates.

One of the questions I asked—and I guess I'll start with you, Mr. Bernier—was of your DM, Mr. Edwards. I asked him the question because I was very curious about his comments, and I have them here. He didn't mention the 3D. I know, looking at documents from last spring, that the 3D approach had been referenced. I asked the question, “Are the 3Ds dead?”, and the response was, “Well, we don't use that terminology all that much.”

The reason I ask the question is that when I look at an approach—I guess it's a whole government approach now—I want to look at what are the actual resources to back it up. So when we look at the personnel in Kandahar, we have the CIDA president saying we have about 22 personnel. We have nine in Kandahar overseeing projects and expect a staff of about 35 by April 2008, compared to 10 in 2006, and Mr. Edwards said there are somewhere around six, which includes a senior adviser in Kandahar. Now this is compared to roughly 2,500 troops on the ground. What I'm hearing from you, and what I certainly heard at the conference today, is that there seems to be an imbalance. The imbalance is the following.

We have glossy overviews of what's happening, as we had just presented by you, that everyone's working together, and we have these little pristine projects going ahead, with the diplomats working next to the soldiers, and everyone's just whistling while they work, I guess. The reality, what we're hearing from people, is not the case at all. I submit to you, Minister, that one of the problems is the balance.

I want to know, if 3D is not dead—maybe replaced would be preferable to you—that the whole government approach and what I'm reading in your comments and your DM's comments, and anything else I can find from the government, which sometimes is challenging, is that you still have a concern about the balance of the mission in Kandahar. Do you have a concern, Minister, about the balance of the mission in Kandahar, yes or no?

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

That is a very good question, refer to the international community. We want to be sure to deliver the goods there, and to do that, you are absolutely right, we have to take a coordinated, comprehensive approach.

To start with, there can be no development or economic progress without security. So when you say that we have 2,500 troops there, some of them are working with the people who are responsible for development, with diplomats, to ensure their security and security on the ground. So by working for security overall, some soldiers are specifically assigned. As well, if we look at the Provincial Reconstruction Team, there are people from the armed forces who are there to do development.

You asked whether our mission is properly balanced and whether, as a government, we should be doing more development. Ms. Oda said a moment ago, and she will correct me if I am mistaken: from when the intervention began to 2011, Canada will be investing over $1.2 billion. Those are large sums of money for reconstruction.

As I was saying, we work together, but that is the reality on the ground. We want to have a balanced mission, in which it is not just the Department of National Defence providing the leadership. The evidence of this is that I have here with me Mr. Brodeur, the coordinator of the mission in Afghanistan, who works for the Department of Foreign Affairs. Our department, and all my other colleagues, are making sure that we have a comprehensive and balanced vision of the mission in Afghanistan.

But we have to understand that there can be no development mission if there is no security. Our Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar has personnel from the Canadian Forces, from CIDA and from my department. So that is a very specific example of coordination.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'm sorry to interrupt, Minister. I have just a little bit of time.

When we had witnesses before our committee, they were very clear that they are concerned that the balance isn't right, and moreover—and we heard a bit of this today at the conference—that some of the development we're doing and the way we're doing it is in fact bringing not more security, but less.

I'm hoping you hear that. I will pass it on to you.

My question goes back to the amount of resources. If in fact we have what I've just laid out as resources in Kandahar, I would suggest it's very difficult to have this kind of model when you have those few resources.

And I'm not talking about the military. We have, according to the government, since 2001 spent $3.1 billion on the military. We have about a ten-to-one ratio of military spending versus aid. Perhaps you'll get this in our committee report, but I think we haven't struck the balance. I'm very concerned that we've shifted from what was at least the rhetoric—but that's something—of a 3D approach to this whole-of-government approach.

My question is, Minister, are you using what is called the MNE 5 approach? Perhaps your officials can help us with that. Is that something you're using or looking at?

No?

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

No, it's the same approach. It's a 3D approach; it's a whole government approach, and I think the Honourable Bev Oda will be able to explain a little bit more the development of that part.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I would appreciate that, because according to officials the other day, we don't use the term “3D” anymore; now it's the “whole government”. I'm trying to get an idea of where this government is going and its philosophy on the mission in Afghanistan, because clarity is not really happening, from my perspective.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Minister Oda.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Let me respectfully suggest that this government's objective is to not only work with our partners, work with the Government of Afghanistan, but to make a difference and to show real results. Whatever we call the approach, what is most important is to ensure that we have a good assessment of the situation—it's a very complex, challenging situation-—and that we're very focused on the outcomes we want to achieve.

We've seen the evolution over the period of time. We've seen the local development councils being very effective in development and also in ensuring security within their communities. When the local community council decides it wants to have a school for their children, they'll protect that school. And we've found that working with our partners—