Evidence of meeting #4 for National Defence in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mission.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Christian Schmidt  Parliamentary State Secretary to the German Federal Minister of Defence, As an Individual
Sabine Sparwasser  Chargé d'affaires, Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rick Casson

Ladies and gentlemen, we'll call the meeting to order. I'd like to announce that there's a severe penalty if a cell phone rings. We're not sure what it is, but it is severe, I understand, so make sure it's on quiet mode, please.

Today is a date in history we all are aware of, the 62nd anniversary of D-Day—the beginning of the end, as some put it. It's quite a day to remember.

I would like to welcome the Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. MacKay, how much time do you have to spend with us, so that we can judge ourselves accordingly?

3:40 p.m.

Central Nova Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of Foreign Affairs

I would like to say I have as much time as you need, but I'm in your capable hands, Mr. Chair. I think we've scheduled about an hour.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rick Casson

Okay. We have a witness following you, a state secretary from Germany, so we'd like to save some time for that. We'll get started.

Mr. Minister, welcome. We are undertaking a study right now of our troops in Afghanistan. Your recent trip there, I'm sure, will add much to what you have to tell us.

There will be a round of questions. We'll get as many in as we can. Hopefully you can help us in our deliberations here.

Please go ahead.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, chers collègues.

I'm glad you noted, Mr. Chair, in your opening the reference to the 62nd anniversary of D-Day. This is of course a day all Canadians will remember, celebrating the sacrifices and the achievements of our allied forces in that operation to land on the continent of Europe, which quite rightly brought to an end the Second World War. As all of you know, there was still a great deal of fierce fighting that was necessary after that landing in Normandy.

Many of our closest allies and the friends we find ourselves working alongside in Afghanistan are promoting stability and building democracy. There are, as you would know, Mr. Chair, 30 other countries involved in this multinational effort, and upwards of 60 countries engaged in the broader reconstruction and development effort.

We are continuing in the tradition of much of the work done throughout history by Canadian soldiers with our efforts in Afghanistan. We play a very important role in organizations such as NATO and the UN, and Canada's engagement in Afghanistan has generated significant interest in recent weeks, as it should. Canadians have rightfully sought to learn more about why we are there, what we are doing there, how we measure success, and what it means for Canada and the world. I suspect many of those same questions we will attempt to deal with today.

With respect to why we're there, Mr. Chair, Canada and its international partners are making a difference in Afghanistan. The United Nations-backed engagement is important to Canadians, Afghans, and our allies. Helping to build a stable, secure, democratic, and self-sufficient Afghanistan is in our collective interests, and that is our goal. The events of September 11, 2001, demonstrated that our security is linked to situations elsewhere in the world.

Afghanistan, as we know, was an incubator for terrorism. Of course, we saw last weekend that Canada itself is not immune from terrorism. Ensuring that Afghanistan never again becomes a terrorist haven is a global responsibility, which we share. Afghans and our allies are deeply invested in this endeavour, sharing the risk and committed to the same goals as Canada.

Through a series of political agreements, including the Bonn Agreement of 2001 and the Afghanistan Compact agreed in January 2006, there is a contract between Afghans and the international community. The responsibility of rebuilding Afghanistan is shared.

Canada has been from the beginning with its allies. This is our second military deployment in Kandahar, where Canadian Forces personnel were first deployed in 2002. In 2002, we also re-established diplomatic relations with Afghanistan, opening an embassy in 2003. Our major efforts in Kabul in 2003 and 2004 helped to restore stability to the capital, while new national governance institutions were being built.

During my recent trip to Afghanistan, I saw for myself the progress that has been made, in particular in Kabul. Due in part to our efforts, Afghans in Kabul enjoy opportunities unheard of under the Taliban. Those in Kandahar have however yet to reap these rewards of reconstruction.

Canada has always engaged where we were most needed, and we've always tried to do the right thing. Canadians, soldiers, diplomats, and development officers are now needed in Kandahar, where insurgents are fighting to destabilize the Afghan government. Our continued presence is helping to restore security to that troubled region and is paving the way for NATO's expansion to southern Afghanistan this summer. That is where Canadians are most prominent--in the south of Afghanistan.

Alongside the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and other allies, we will be helping to ensure that the benefits of peace begin to extend southward to where Afghans need it most, while at the same time continuing to engage the central government in Kabul on the critical and mutually reinforcing issues of security, governance, and development. This is very much the approach that is being taken there.

What are we doing in Afghanistan specifically? Well, whether it's in Kabul or Kandahar, this is not a traditional peacekeeping mission, which separates two disciplined militaries once their governments have agree to a ceasefire or a peace process. It's never been that way. In fact, insurgents are not interested in peace. They seek to destabilize this country and our effort and our mission through violence. Mr. Chairman, you would know as well that we are there very much at the invitation and at the urging of President Karzai and the Afghanistan government.

The Afghan and international response has been unequivocal: we will not be deterred from this essential state-building exercise. Our mission in Afghanistan is threefold. We are there first to help stabilize the security situation; second, to strengthen local governance; and third, to reduce Afghan poverty. To do so, Canada is working alongside Afghan security forces in building the capacity of justice institutions to establish the rule of law and to promote and protect human rights. We are also helping to build local governance institutions so that they can provide basic services for their people, and we are helping to build a sustainable economy that affords opportunities for all Afghans.

Mr. Chair, none of these things happen without boots on the ground. Without the presence of our soldiers, this important work simply cannot occur.

Afghanistan's progress to date has been impressive.

With Canadian funding and support, Afghan women played an important role in drafting the Afghan constitution, in which the principle of gender equality is enshrined.

Canada's support for democratic development in Afghanistan helped enable Afghans to vote in two historic elections; 582 woman ran in the provincial and parliamentary elections and now hold 27% of the seats in parliament. That's more than in the Parliament of Canada.

With Canadian leadership, 11,000 heavy weapons are now safely secured, and 63,000 former combatants have been disarmed and are now being taught skills to allow them to build a new life.

However, considerable challenges remain that risk undermining this progress. There are no quick fixes. We recognize that success cannot be assumed by military means alone. For this reason, the Prime Minister recently announced the allocation of an additional $310 million in development assistance—raising Canada's total contribution to nearly $1 million over 10 years—and the construction of a permanent Canadian Embassy facility in Kabul. Alongside our military contributions, these elements form an integrated Canadian approach to Afghan institution-building, security, and development.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, how do we measure success in Afghanistan?

The Afghanistan Compact, of which Canada was very much a part of drafting, outlines 40 concrete benchmarks to guide Afghanistan and the international efforts over the course of the next 5 years. These benchmarks were developed by the democratically elected Afghan government and endorsed by the international community at the conference in London earlier this year. Specific examples of the benchmarks include the establishment of a professional Afghan national army; an Afghan national police and border police, able to meet Afghan security needs effectively; the 70% reduction of the area containment of landmines by the year 2007; the enactment of legislation against corruption by the end of 2007; and a 20% increase in the employment of women by the end of 2010.

Of course, Canada's strategy is to support the realization of these critical milestones contained in the Afghanistan Compact. As I mentioned, there are over 40. We will be regularly monitoring the progress against these benchmarks to ensure that the process remains on track. Our evaluation will be shared with all parliamentarians and all Canadians on an annual basis.

This is what this currently means for Canada and the world. First, we are not alone in this essential endeavour. The United Nations assistance mission in Afghanistan is the United Nations' largest special political mission in the world. Over 60 countries are contributing to the development efforts, and over 35 to the security side. We have an obligation to Afghans, to our allies, and to the United Nations to see that Canadians help get the job done.

Secondly, we take this responsibility seriously. To have reduced or withdrawn our presence before the Afghan government is fully established would have invited the return of the Taliban, negated our accomplishments to date, and ultimately threatened Canada's long-term security. We have a vested interest in being there, Mr. Chair, as you know. There is a point in time where a tipping point exists. Canada has been at the forefront of ensuring that Afghans do not fall back.

Thirdly, our Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence, and I have all visited Afghanistan recently. We saw firsthand how Canada is making a substantial difference. Extending our commitment was the right and responsible thing to do. Canadians will be safer for it, NATO stronger, and Afghanistan more free and secure.

Finally, following the two extensive debates and a vote that took place, members of Parliament and Canadians understand the real risks involved and the work that remains to be done. It is now time to rally behind the brave men and women in uniform engaged on our behalf in Afghanistan, in both civilian and military exercises. They deserve nothing less than our unambiguous support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rick Casson

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Maybe you'd take an opportunity to introduce the people with you. I forgot to do that earlier.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

I'm sorry.

I have Wendy Gilmour from the Department of Foreign Affairs, as well as James Fox. Both are very well versed on this particular file and all aspects of Canada's involvement in the mission in Afghanistan.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rick Casson

Good. We'll start a 10-minute round.

Mr. Dosanjh.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. MacKay, for appearing before us.

You mentioned in your remarks that some of the work that we're doing in Afghanistan obviously can't be done without the boots on the ground. I agree. Under difficult circumstances, you need those boots on the ground. I would agree—and I'm sure you would agree—that they also need appropriate equipment, as identified by the military. There is the recent controversy that's been going on. I understand that there have been at least 40 drafts of defence capability plans that have gone back and forth from DND with respect to what is needed by the DND to do its job.

It appears to us, sitting at a distance, that it is impossible to reconcile the political agenda of buying the strategic lift versus the military needs of the tactical lift, which is needed right now in Afghanistan, as per General Hillier. It seems to me that the government may not be pursuing the needs of the military through the tactical airlift, which is needed in Afghanistan today, and in fact is pursuing the purchase of C-17s.

Now, can you tell us why your government isn't immediately pursuing the needs of the military and purchasing the tactical airlift that's required by the military in Afghanistan today?

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

I'll respond this way, Mr. Dosanjh. You, as a member of the previous government, are not on the outside. You have a very privileged position, having seen the detail and the important decision-making that goes into military procurements.

I hesitate to reference the cancellation of helicopter programs by your government and the impact that has had on our Canadian military, or the cuts that they suffered under your administration. What I will say is that our Minister of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff are working very closely with officials to make the proper decisions and pursuing the needs of the military first and foremost. I would suggest that in a relatively short time, just over 100 days, we have made progress in deciding what it is exactly that the military needs.

In terms of strategic lift, you're absolutely right to suggest that the needs have changed. As far as modern equipment and the transporting of troops are concerned, not only in Afghanistan but in other missions that we may be involved in, in the future it's going to be very important to have that strategic heavy lift.

I saw, for example, the equipment that's being used by other countries, including the Chinook helicopters, the Black Hawk helicopters. We are very much behind as a result of the previous government's refusal to purchase replacements.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC

The previous government actually announced in November that we should proceed with a tactical lift, and what you've done is introduce the political agenda into this of buying the C-17s ahead of the tactical lift. Am I right or wrong?

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

You're wrong.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC

Why am I wrong?

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

You're wrong because--

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC

Why am I wrong?

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

Let me answer and I'll tell you why you're wrong.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC

All right.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rick Casson

Mr. Dosanjh, let him respond.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

You're wrong because your government hesitated for over a decade after cancelling the helicopter program for purely political reasons that put our men and women of the armed forces at risk. That's why you're wrong.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC

Am I right, though, that we announced it in November and you've now gone back on it and said C-17s are more important than the tactical lift?

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

You're wrong.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC

Why are we purchasing C-17s first and not the tactical first? The C-17 isn't needed in Afghanistan.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

We're making the right decision for our Canadian Forces; that is what we're doing.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC

The C-17 is not needed in Afghanistan, is it?

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

That's your opinion.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC

So it's a matter of opinion, not based on the needs as assessed by General Hillier. In April, before the Empire Club, he said he needs the tactical lift, he needs the helicopters, and he needs the trucks. Here we are buying C-17s, which are not needed in Afghanistan right away.