National Defence Committee on Oct. 18th, 2006

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Bouchard, at this moment there is no plan to deploy fighters to Afghanistan. I will never say never, but at the moment it's not even on our horizon. If the situation changed, we'd have to look at it again, but at the moment a number of countries are providing fighter cover in Afghanistan, and they're sufficient--but we maintain plans to deploy CF-18s. We have a commitment to NATO that in the event of a crisis, we would dispatch six CF-18s to NATO. We maintain that plan and the resources to implement that plan.

That's the situation at the moment with respect to fighters.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you.

Canada is taking part with the NATO countries to combat terrorism.

Mr. Minister, I expect you have many discussions and conversations with NATO defence ministers.

Could you tell us what these defence ministers’ concerns are? Have you also talked about the timetable or the duration of the mission? If so, could you tell us what they say regarding the duration of the mission in Afghanistan?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

The basic challenge for NATO defence ministers and chiefs of defence staff is that helping to rebuild a society like Afghanistan is a great challenge.

We've said a number of times that we're trying to help rebuild a country from a governing point of view, trying to make the lives of people better, and trying to offer security. The great challenge is always an issue at NATO. I may have it wrong, but I believe the population of Afghanistan is estimated to be somewhere around 26 million or 27 million people. We have a GNP of 119 or 120 times theirs, and we have about the same population--we have 33 million people--so you can see how far back they are. It's a great challenge for NATO, but none of the ministers ever question whether, ultimately, we're going to succeed. There's general confidence that we can do it, because we are among the richest countries in the world.

As to the timeline, there are timelines out there. The Canadian timeline at the moment is the end of February 2009, but there are timelines based on agreements in London and agreements in Germany. In 2010 there are certain things to be achieved, and in 2011, etc. There are times out there.

Although you may hear people on the news and different people with an interest in Afghanistan comment that this problem will go on for a long time, there is no set time in NATO. NATO isn't saying we're going to be there until 2012 or 2015 or whatever. NATO, at the moment, is committed to try to achieve the conditions that I mentioned earlier in my speech: we're trying to create a level of governance that would allow the central government and the provincial governments to deliver services to their people; we're trying to get roads and bridges and schools, etc., rebuilt so that society can operate again; and we're trying to suppress the insurgency to a level at which it doesn't interfere with the day-to-day lives of most people. That's what NATO is trying to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you. The time has expired.

We move over to Mr. Hiebert, and then back to Mr. Cannis.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for being here today.

During your opening remarks you commented that to accomplish success with this mission there are three objectives we have to accomplish: a stable government, terrorists who have been defeated and denied sanctuary, and Afghan national forces that are well established. I'm wondering if you could inform the committee as to the progress we're making on all three of these areas.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

I have to start at the national level first. What we see on TV everyday is because, of course, our national press are oriented to us and what we do, and it's important to them, and Canadians want to know what we're doing. But you have to understand what's happening in the whole of Afghanistan. I may have the number wrong, and maybe the chief or the DM can correct me, but I think there are about 34 provinces in Afghanistan. Of those 34 provinces, the insurgency is a great challenge in maybe six or seven. In the remaining provinces you have, in Afghan terms, relative stability. That's why you don't hear of many incidents in the north or the west of Afghanistan. Even in parts of the east of Afghanistan you don't hear of regular incidents. Once in a while you'll hear about a suicide bomber in Kabul, etc., but in the rest of the country, except for about six or seven provinces, you have relative stability.

The challenge right now is primarily in the south, and the two most challenging provinces are Kandahar and Helmand, where the British are, and to varying degrees, the provinces that surround them into the east. That's where the focus of NATO and the NATO commander is right now in trying to suppress the insurgency in those provinces. In the provinces where it's relatively quiet, the various NATO nations and the government and even NGOs get on doing what they have to do to improve the quality of life for people.

In the provinces in the south and in our province, Kandahar, we have a great challenge. We are trying to suppress the insurgency and, at the same time, trying to make people's lives better.

Also, even if you look at development in the province of Kandahar, we're not alone there, as I mentioned earlier in one of my answers. The United States aid program has many projects operating in the Kandahar province; the Afghanistan government has projects going on; and we—the Canadian government in various forms--have projects going on there. But in some of the areas they're greatly challenged.

Recently, as you all know, tragically, we lost six soldiers trying to build a four-kilometre road because the Taliban don't want us to build this road. It will connect one community with another community, and they'll be into the main highways and will have a better life. In our area particularly, and the British area in Helmand, development is very, very difficult.

But even that being said, we are progressing and developing. We are building roads and we've built schools. I've named a number of things we've done so far. We are about to launch a relatively large number of projects over the next few months in the Kandahar area because we're bringing in another company. One of the Van Doos companies will be coming into the Kandahar area by the end of November. It is going to be dedicated to protecting the PRT. Right now, because there's so much insurgency going on, a lot of the protection for the PRT has to go from time to time to deal with the insurgency.

When the Van Doos company gets there and goes into Kandahar and protects the PRT, they will be dedicated to protecting the PRT, and that will allow the battle group and the tank squadron that is streaming in at the same time to deal with the insurgency. This means that we will have more ability to protect our development. We'll be able to do more. Not only is it a matter of money and will, but we will actually have more protection to carry on development.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

You have half a minute.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I have a quick question.

A few weeks ago Professor Sean Maloney testified before this committee that it was his belief that the reason four soldiers were killed on September 17, just prior to the return of Parliament, was because the Taliban were trying to manipulate the Canadian media to sour the Canadian public on our mission in Afghanistan. I was wondering if you could quickly tell us what's your view of the media coverage that we've received so far. Is it too focused on the casualties and not enough on the successes? Do you think the Taliban are manipulating the media?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

I don't believe in any conspiracies. To have a conspiracy, you really have to put a lot of effort in. I haven't seen any conspiracy.

The central organization of the Taliban, of course, is quite astute. They do try to manipulate public opinion; they not only want to affect public opinion for their own people in their own area, but they also want to affect public opinion in NATO countries and other countries. They want to always give the message that they're somehow succeeding and we're failing, so that our people back home will get the impression that we're not succeeding.

Yes, the Taliban manipulates, but I would not attest to the fact that four soldiers were killed because the Taliban was trying to send a message. They try to send a message every day.

The media coverage is pretty good. We have embedded media in Kandahar, and they report fairly on what's going on. It's just that I'd like to see them report more than just action; I'd like them to report more of what's going on in the society. Before I visited Afghanistan the first time, I saw Peter Mansbridge on CBC. He actually went into Kandahar City, and I actually got a look at Kandahar City and the life there because the media were there, whereas previous to that all I ever saw was vehicles blown up on roads and two soldiers standing off in the distance somewhere. That was my impression, as a person who hadn't been to Afghanistan, of Afghanistan.

The media are absolutely fair. They report what's going on and they report it relatively accurately; I'd just like to see them show a little bit more of the rest of the life.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thanks.

[Gen R.J. Hillier]

Mr. Chairman, do you mind if I say a word to that one? On the media side, I had a very specific prejudice, if you will, both good and bad.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I think the committee would welcome that. Go ahead.

[Gen R.J. Hillier]

I was just crumpling up my recommendation to the minister for the deployment of F-18 fighters....

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Gen R.J. Hillier]

But actually, I agree exactly with what the minister said. We have no need to make any recommendation to him on anything to do with aircraft.

Sir, I'll come back to your question.

Let me just say on the media that we have seen some very balanced coverage that talks about this complex mission and all the dynamics of it in an incredible way. We've seen some of Lisa LaFlamme's reporting, and reporting from Christie Blatchford and a variety of others who have been balanced and complete and have been out there with our soldiers, have been on the reconstruction projects, and have been with Afghans.

I've seen some of the other stuff. All they do is stay inside the wire. I had at a bunch of journalists when I was there 10 days ago. I talked to them and asked if they had been outside the wire. Most of them said no, or very little. They all desperately wanted to go out; they had the opportunity to go; head offices back here in Canada in some of the major media outlets were refusing to permit them to do their jobs. They worry about casualties, obviously. They are worried about insurance rates, certainly, and perhaps other things.

We have been encouraging those head offices to change that policy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Cannis and then back over to Mr. Hawn.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me open by saying maybe the media is also frustrated that they're not getting adequately briefed so that they can present the fuller story. But on that, I too want to welcome the minister, a former member of this committee, and General Hillier as well.

I want to thank the minister, first of all, for his candid response that it was his decision in terms of the request that the committee put to him. I personally appreciate that very much.

That said, Minister, I want to put you at ease on behalf of everybody. We in no way intended to ask for confidential planning, future planning, and so on, because you first and foremost as the minister, General Hillier, and all of us have in mind the safety and security of our men and women, especially when they're abroad in this type of theatre. But I use the example of the Kosovo conflict. On an ongoing basis, Parliament and parliamentarians from all parties were continuously being briefed, upon request and even before requests, so that we as parliamentarians, and on behalf of our constituents and Canadians as a whole, were able to respond to their many questions.

As a matter of fact, and I put this as a suggestion to you, Minister, through you to the Prime Minister today, that there were members of the opposition sworn in as privy councillors, who were also briefed on an ongoing basis. Given, of course, that Prime Minister Harper has said that we are in a state of war, I find no better time, then, for the Prime Minister today to reach out and follow the same type of tradition that has been done in the past.

The other comment I have, before I ask two brief questions, is that you said this government is seeing that our military is getting what they need to do their job. I'm very pleased with that, because one thing I found so rewarding in this committee, which I formerly chaired and you were a member of, and even under the tenure of Mr. Pat O'Brien, was that we were all on the same page. We all had one issue, how to support our military, even under difficult times during program review and as we moved forward to do the best we could, with your support and others.

But for the record, I would also like to remind the committee, and members and the audiences that are listening, that in the 2005 budget, Minister, you will recall very well that there was close to $13 billion allocated by the previous government, which you, General Hillier, I recall, on television were praising in appreciation of the new funds that were coming to support our military--and I thank you for those comments.

Minister, you said terrorism is a global threat, and we all agree. The question I'm getting from my constituents--and I believe Canadians right across our beautiful country say this--is if it is a global threat, as you rightly pointed out, why is the rest of the world not engaging? I know you were in Slovenia and you worked very hard to try to get the other ministers on board. I thank you for that. But today they're not responding. There are these so-called, as you described them, caveats. Well, there are no caveats when it comes to protecting our society. They should be, whether they are in Poland, or in Italy, or in Germany, or anywhere else in the world. We're fighting global terrorist activities, as the general has put it in the past.

So I ask you why, as General Hillier said, we are in fact players...and I don't want to quote him exactly, but they're listening to us in NATO. This committee was at NATO headquarters, and I was so proud of how they looked upon us as a military presence. Today, why are we not forcing them and saying, hey, we made a decision, we're there, where's your participation? Terrorism isn't restricted to North America, for example. What else can we do, Minister, from your point of view, as a country, to get rid of these caveats and force the rest of the international community to join us in fighting terrorism?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

When I was in Slovenia--and I think I may have mentioned it to you because you were there--I got together with the countries in the south and we talked about our mutual challenges. The short version is that I asked them to lobby other NATO members who weren't in the south or the east to remove their caveats and to think about contributing more troops. Since that time, the Chief of the Defence Staff has been talking to his fellow chiefs of defence staff. He hasn't finished that process yet. I have started a process of talking to ministers of defence to see, as I advocated for the other people in the south, if we can get these other countries to remove their caveats and to provide more troops.

There is a meeting in Riga in November. The heads of government will be at Riga. I'm hoping that, by that time, these problems will have come to a head and will be resolved or partially resolved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I'm afraid that ends your time, Mr. Cannis.

We're going over to Mr. Hawn, and then back to Ms. Bennett.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

This is for the CDS. We've talked about hearts and minds. It's a catchphrase. A Canadian soldier is probably accepted as being better, perhaps, at the hearts and minds game than soldiers from some other forces. How are we dealing with the very fine line between doing the hearts and minds side without giving up the security side, for our own folks or for the Afghans we're protecting?

[Gen R.J. Hillier]

That, sir, is a tough issue. It really is. And occasionally you don't get it 100% right, as we found out tragically when we had a platoon in a village handing out school supplies, trying to deal with a bunch of little kids who just wanted to get on with life. We had four of them killed because of the mission they were involved in that day.

It's a constant balance. I don't do it from back at National Defence Headquarters, because I don't have the kind of situational awareness and understanding that allows it to occur. We put in place superbly trained, prepared, and supported commanders, right down to the junior non-commissioned officer level. On an hourly, daily basis they judge that balance: when you're in an armoured vehicle, buttoned up, moving quickly through an area, talking with nobody; when you are dismounted, going through a village, and dealing with people there; when you take your helmets off, and take your sunglasses or the ballistic glasses off and take a risk there so that you can actually make eye contact. They do those judgments on an hourly and daily basis.

In support of that, we give them an enormous amount of materiel, or put materiel right behind them, so as not to force them to make those decisions unless they really need to. And sure, they can sweep through an area, ensure there are no Taliban around to the best degree possible, help the Afghan national forces clean out the area.

Then we have our CIMIC teams moving right directly behind them to start developing the relationship with the village elders, finding from them what they most desperately need for the population of that village or that small district and then delivering it right away, because we probably know 50% of what they immediately need before we arrive there, so we have it right ready. We have found that combination works best.

Getting to it a little more aggressively was one of the reasons we had recommended to the minister, and then got government approval for, the enhancement piece—specifically the company to give the CIMIC team security when they deploy out, because that's where the real issue was. We were certainly securing the PRT compound, but to be able to put out a significant number of CIMIC teams each day with those kinds of capabilities and resources and the ability to meet with folks, you need some security. That's why we asked for the extra company, to improve that.

So it's a combination of things, Mr. Hawn. It's never perfect. We learn every single day. The minister referred a little while ago to the “lessons learned” process. If something happens, we have a team within two hours on the ground where it occurred, who analyze what it was and take immediate lessons from it. Within two to four hours past that, we'll have those lessons throughout the entire organization in Afghanistan. In 24 to 36 hours we have those lessons back here and we start a process then to say, how can we now become better on those things? So a constant learning process would be the third part of it.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Good. Thank you, sir.

Minister, at a recent debate in Parliament on Sudan, there was a statement made that there was a memo on the desk of the Minister of National Defence that said we have—and they used different numbers—1,200 or 1,600 extra troops that could be sent to Sudan. Could you comment on that, please?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

I'm not aware of the memo. I don't ever remember receiving such a thing. We do not have the capability, except in the most extreme case, to start sending troops of those numbers anywhere else in the world and we certainly couldn't sustain them. I don't recall ever receiving such a memo.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Perhaps it was a different Minister of National Defence?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

I don't know. It could be.