National Defence Committee on Nov. 8th, 2006

[LGen J.C.M. Gauthier]

“Throughout Afghanistan”, and this is at the Kandahar level and the regional level...this is Major Blair Baker:

...there have been five million refugees repatriated and over five million children are now enrolled in primary schools, many of whom are girls.

The efforts and sacrifices

--and these are the poignant parts of what he says--

made by Canadian soldiers and aid agencies on the international stage in the province of Kandahar has led to significant contribution of funds from several nations to assist in many projects that aid in development and are improving the life of the Afghan citizen.

Since February, Canada has lost 34 soldiers. They are all heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice. Today is a better day in Afghanistan than February--

--and this is from a person who was there in February and has seen it over those nine months--

--and every day is getting better. The development of infrastructure and government institutions is a slow process and can easily be assured through the security provided by soldiers--today it is Canadian soldiers, in the future it will be the Afghan National Army when they are able to stand on their feet.

Credit to Major Blair Baker for saying that so well. He's right in everything he said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you.

Mr. McTeague.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and I join with Mr. Hiebert, the parliamentary secretary, in congratulating you as well, General, on your recent accomplishment.

[LGen J.C.M. Gauthier]

Thank you.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

There appears to be evidence around suggesting that the success of the international community, certainly in context with what you've said, is increasingly in doubt. An example, of course, I would cite would be comments made earlier this year, this past fall, by the NATO commander in Afghanistan, General Richards, when he said that NATO must take advantage of recent military victories and do as much reconstruction and development work as possible.

I am citing his comments here. He said that if we do not take advantage of this in the next six months, then we could pour in an additional 10,000 troops in the next year and we still would not succeed because we would have lost by then the consent of the people. Added to that would be the Senlis Council, an NGO working in southern Afghanistan, which has raised alarm bells over the possibility of the urgent need for reconstruction, development, and humanitarian aid.

The CIA has found that an increasing number of Afghans think that the Afghan government and police are corrupt, have not provided enough reconstruction, and can't protect their people from the Taliban. American officials have also publicly decried what they described as dire warnings about the situation, and the International Crisis Group has produced a very pessimistic assessment of the situation.

I don't want to counter what you've said, but considering what these many groups, bodies, and agencies have said, separate from each other, do you agree that these are very worrying and troubling analyses of the situation in Afghanistan, or is NATO's top commander in Afghanistan, the Senlis Council, the CIA, and the International Crisis Group all wrong?

[LGen J.C.M. Gauthier]

I don't think you can link all of those. I don't agree with the linkage you're making between each of those groups. Each is quite different, and the foundation upon which their observations and analysis is based is also quite different, written from a different perspective.

I can't comment on Senlis. I can't comment on the International Crisis Group. Really, I've not read their reports. I read the New York Times piece that made reference to the CIA report. I've not read the CIA report.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

But you're prepared to say there was a link?

[LGen J.C.M. Gauthier]

On General Richards, I can say that I discussed his comment with him in his office two weeks ago, and his perspective was not that this is going to fail in the next six months. His perspective was that we need to show signs of progress, and it gets back to the issue of winning the confidence of the people. He has been saying for some time there's this 70% to 80% segment that could go one way or the other way.

I take issue with six months. I don't agree with the six-month perspective. Why six months rather than twelve months? The fact is, from our perspective--I will tell you my personal assessment--it will be difficult for the next twelve months. We need to be prepared for that. It will be difficult beyond the twelve months, but from a security perspective, it will continue to be difficult for the next six months.

Stepping back from that, if you look at where Afghanistan was in 2001 and compare where it is today, I don't see how you can be negative. I personally am positive about the incredible progress that's been made.

The other aspect is that our focus now is in the toughest place in all of Afghanistan, so that's the frame of reference we have now, whereas there's been lots of progress elsewhere in Afghanistan, especially in the north and the west. But to get back to my perspective, we are making progress. Nobody said it was going to be easy. Certainly we would not have said at the beginning of this that it was going to be easy.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Hopefully, the committee will have a chance to go there and witness first-hand. I must say I look forward to that, and I think my colleagues might.

[LGen J.C.M. Gauthier]

You certainly will, if I have anything to say about it.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I want to shift gears very quickly to an issue that I think has slipped off the radar screen. You made a point of asking us where Landstuhl was, and many of us here do know exactly where that is. We know the conditions in which our soldiers find themselves, regrettably, if they have to go there in transit on their way back to hospitals in Canada.

You said that if they fall they will be looked after. Has there been any progress on the commitment by the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence, and the Chief of Defence Staff when they said they would work very quickly to ensure that wounded soldiers would be compensated to the same level, including their tax benefits? As I understand it, as of this very moment, there has been absolutely no compensation announced. I know there was a committee of the whole that discussed this last evening, and I know it's really busy in Parliament these days, so it's tough to get questions forward.

I would like to know your opinion on that and whether or not you can give the same reassurance as to when this is going to happen.

[LGen J.C.M. Gauthier]

I'm not directly involved. I have heard what the CDS has had to say publicly and privately about this, and I have every confidence that we will look after our soldiers. We will.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you.

Mr. Hawn, and then Mr. Cannis.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Chair, and welcome, General.

We've cleared up one misconception, about the numbers of school children, and that's a good thing.

There's another persistent misconception or perception about the number of troops who are engaged in which activity and that we have 2,400 people who are out there chasing the Taliban around the hills of Afghanistan.

Can you briefly cover the tooth-to-tail ratio of the 2,400 or so folks—I'm talking about Kandahar, and never mind Kabul, because it's a small number—with the number of people in the battle group who are actually doing combat, whether searching out Taliban or defending certain groups, the PRT, and the support logistics portion of the 2,400?

[LGen J.C.M. Gauthier]

I don't have those specific numbers in front of me.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Is the battle group 800 people or so?

[LGen J.C.M. Gauthier]

We can certainly....

In fact, I may have that somewhere here, if you'll permit me to refer to my papers.

There is a danger in taking the battle group as the teeth part. This is what I tried to make clear in my comments. The new commander, General Grant, has three big pieces. They are different sizes, but in terms of effects, he has the reconstruction piece—the PRT, which, from my perspective, is the most important in the longer term—he has the battle group, and he has the “omelette”, which is the capacity building piece of this.

When we talk of “teeth”, it's not just the battle group. The strategic advisory team working in Kabul is part of the teeth.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I understand that, but the point of my question, or what I was trying to get to, is that there are not 2,400 Canadian soldiers chasing the Taliban around the hills of Afghanistan.

[LGen J.C.M. Gauthier]

I am making the same point. That is exactly right.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

The numbers can change. Some of them are staff.

[LGen J.C.M. Gauthier]

I don't know that the specific numbers are that relevant. The reality is that to have an effective battle group consumes a large number of people, but that doesn't mean that's the only thing we're doing there. Absolutely.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

No, not at all.

You talked about signs of progress, and you, of course, have just covered what Major Baker said. Are those the kinds of signs of progress we should be paying attention to?

[LGen J.C.M. Gauthier]

They're not only the kinds of signs of progress we should be paying attention to, they're the kinds of progress we need to be able to communicate to Canadians, and we've not done that as well as we need to.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Exactly.

There has been some suggestion that the mission is unbalanced, and so on. Given the fact that we are in a coalition of 36 countries and that we're talking about the entire country of Afghanistan, which is 34 provinces, and we're concentrated in the toughest province in the land—the six provinces in the south are the toughest area—what kind of impact would it have on the mission in the toughest part of the country, and on the overall mission in Afghanistan, if somehow Canada were to change its role and try to step away from the security side and put everybody who's there on the reconstruction side or the governance side?

[LGen J.C.M. Gauthier]

It would be very difficult for us to do that. In the near term, if we chose to do it, there's a requirement in Kandahar province: someone has to do this. Canada has signed up for this through to early 2009.