National Defence Committee on June 13th, 2006

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you both for being here today.

I appreciate your last answer. In fact, that's the information I've been given as well.

We've seen some recent events that show that the war on terror extends outside Afghanistan and the Middle East, with our own experience here in Toronto.

I note, Mr. Massie, that you and your colleague Stéphane Roussel have been working on a paper addressing the issue of North American security perimeters. Could you elaborate for our committee the advantages to Canada of this concept of a North American security perimeter and estimate whether Canada is capable of taking advantage of this concept?

[Justin Massie]

I think that it's already happening. The term “security perimeter” has not been used as such, but in reality, there is collaboration between the Canadian and American security forces and political authorities that involves talking about a security perimeter.

I do not think that the war on terror will happen through military force. Therefore, we shouldn't be looking for solutions or answers to the dilemma we're faced with at the level of cooperation in terms of defence, but rather at the level of cooperation between police forces and intelligence agencies. To that extent, the progress made on the new NORAD agreement, and the Maritime alert, is a step towards greater cooperation, improved sharing of information, and a more efficient battle. The threat does not necessarily lie at the border, but rather within borders because hate knows no borders. It is much easier to disseminate ideology today with the means of communication at our disposal, and the military defence equipment that we have, whatever it may be, is not sufficient to counter terrorism effectively.

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

I'll share the balance of my time with Ms. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you.

Tell us what type of intervention you'd recommend, in your opinion, to combat the violent, mob-like entities that are attempting to dominate the area.

Right now we have soldiers, and we have the RCMP with the PRTs, but do you believe soldiers are the right entity to be dealing with that faction?

[Justin Massie]

Personally, yes, of course.

In Afghanistan, we're talking about combat operations. The situation is not at all the same as that within our country or within the United States. As long as the population in that country is not secure, we need to use the military. Then the police can provide internal monitoring. Military forces need to be there in order to counter operations such as the ones being carried out by the insurgents in that country, whether it involves artillery or other means such as soviet arms from decades past. In that regard, the Canadian interventions are appropriate.

[Marc André Boivin]

I would like to add to that.

As I mentioned earlier, every peace operation has three main aspects or pillars: civilian, police, and military. The more violence there is, the more the military has a role to play. Provided the situation in Kandahar improves, we will gradually see more policing activity and then, strictly, development activity, if all goes well. But these three pillars act simultaneously. Their relative importance evolves, but all three of them are present at different stages in this activity.

Right now the military has the main role, which is important, but you need to sow early on the seeds of an eventual recovery. And the civilian people we have there, from CIDA mainly, or the police staff we have there.... Right now, I think the PRT in Kandahar is mostly military personnel, but there are a few policemen as well. All these people have to work together to plan, in a long-term approach, how to make the situation better.

Making the situation better is not just killing the bad guys; it's also making sure the population sees you as the good guys. In that sense, I think the major difference between the Russian effort and the current effort is that for the ordinary Afghans, it's quite obvious that they see the international effort as being much less self-interested than previous interventions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Okay, that ends that.

Now, there's a slot here for the official opposition to question. If not, then we go back to the government. Are there any further questions?

Go ahead.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

You mentioned that you thought that in the last four or five or six months or so, your position differed from that of the Chief of the Defence Staff on where you thought that significant progress was being made on the ground in Afghanistan. I'm wondering if it has something to do with the size of the contingents there. I know the Canadians have about 2,500 people there. I think the entire international contingent there, from a military perspective, is only about 6,000, if that's correct.

In order to provide the peace and security that you would need for doing the provincial reconstruction, how many more forces do we need from the international community to actually deliver the result we are looking for, which is delivering reconstruction efforts, humanitarian aid, and still providing security?

There's nothing that frustrates me more than hearing a report that Canadian soldiers go into a village one day, deliver a bunch of aid, do some good work, and then drive on to the next village, and then the Taliban and al-Qaeda run down from the hills, steal all the blankets, and take all the food and everything like that. In order to be effective, what size of force are we going to really need there?

The second part of that is that I think that's going to have to come from the Afghans themselves. I think that's the idea, to train the Afghan people to work along with us. How close are we to getting a large enough contingent of both the nationals who are already there and the international troops that would be required in order to effectively bring peace, reconstruction, and stability to the region?

[Marc André Boivin]

First, I think it has to be said that Canada has stepped up to the plate and has certainly delivered in Afghanistan. Now, if we are to compare our involvement, our commitments, to our partners in Afghanistan, they would pale in comparison.

Does Canada need to send more troops to Afghanistan? I think we've pretty much stepped up to the plate already and provided a significant contingent in Afghanistan. We need to be mindful and keep certain room for manoeuvres in other international engagements.

How many forces? At least as far as Canada is concerned, I think we've pretty much reached the levels we want to reach. That does not apply to Canada's partners, who should at least try to provide, certainly, a significantly superior effort to what they're doing right now.

This is related to another question, because there's a huge chunk of military forces that are currently under Enduring Freedom, which is distinct from the ISAF mission. On the ground, this has caused all sorts of trouble. Where you have two sets of rules of engagement, you see French soldiers in ISAF but there are also French soldiers in Enduring Freedom. People get confused as to who's doing what, which troops are part of what. So Canada should work and is in an ideal position to try to foster a deal and merge the two missions and have a common outlook as to how to bring security to Afghanistan.

There's been an alarming development regarding the national Afghan army. This is a program like pillars for reconstruction, and this pillar was and still is under U.S. supervision. The U.S. has a professional army and has a technologically intensive army. What does that mean? Per soldier, that means it costs a lot of money. Now, we're in Afghanistan here, and the government cannot afford to pay the levels of money that the Americans pay their soldiers.

The original figure was 70,000 Afghan national troops to be trained. We're up to 30,000 today, as the Secretary General mentioned in his last report. The Americans just announced that they want to bring that goal to 50,000, because it is becoming cumbersome and expensive to have these soldiers trained and then supported by the Afghan government.

If you look at regional numbers, per head the number of military, Afghanistan should have an army of about 140,000. So I think we need to be mindful of local circumstances, local conditions. If most of the countries in the region have conscripted armies that cost less, but our troops on the ground are present and are providing security, then perhaps it's time to talk about Afghan solutions to Afghan problems.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Calkins, you're just about out of time.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Last one, if I can sneak it in.

From the perspective of when we do establish a truly democratic and independent state there, I'm wondering what your opinion is. Based on the fact that it is mostly an Islamic state, the concept of Sharia law comes in, and I'm wondering what your opinion is on what our exit strategy should be. Are we looking for a democratic western state or should we be allowing the Afghans to decide for themselves what...? Without law and order, there's no point in leaving, so I wonder what your opinion is on that.

[Justin Massie]

If we are consistent about wanting to bring democracy to them, we must let the elected officials decide what is best for their own country, unless that undermines the security of their neighbours or the international community. There are countries with governments that do not enforce laws that we would like, but we respect them nevertheless, because they have a legitimately elected government.

Imposing legislation to be voted on or even a type of constitution that would reflect western principles in a country with a different culture would be met with disapproval. We must respect the will of the people and the forces present or the ideological majorities that have been elected by a majority in any other country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Bachand.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is a difference between what is happening today and the war occupation let by the Russians that was somewhat Imperialist. Throughout the country, they were perceived as people who had come to dominate, to take natural resources, and so on. I found in Afghanistan that the people are still giving the international community the benefit of the doubt. They realize that this is not a war of occupation. However, I realized that they wanted changes to their living conditions, which are unacceptable. The riots in Kabul lead me to believe that there is a problem. The Afghans realize that people want to help them, but they are not seeing any changes to their living conditions. Everything is in ruins as before, they have no more food than they did before, they still have problems with water, and they are wondering what the international community is doing for them.

I also realize that as far as security is concerned, it is being played out as we speak. These people want to live the peaceful life they have never known. In some villages, they wonder if they should side with the Taliban to ensure their protection, or with the coalition forces to ensure their security. Meaningful results must be delivered as quickly as possible.

What worries me the most is the pitiful state of the current government. It will say that Karzaï is the mayor of Kabul, nothing more. He has no credibility in Kandahar or elsewhere. At NATO, where the situation in the country is being monitored, they appear to be moving towards a kind of tutoring system for elected officials. Their parliament is very basic, and I was very surprised by that. Mind you, I was very impressed—Ms. Black, you will be happy to learn this— by the women. Twenty seven per cent of the members of parliament are women. I had an opportunity to meet a couple of them. I can assure you that they know where they are going. They will, however, need the third D, diplomacy, and some tutoring.

I was surprised when Mr. Karzaï told me that, when he wanted to write a letter to a head of State, he had to do it himself, because no one around him was able to do it. That is serious. Discussions have begun on tutoring. It is not about imposing anything on them. I am one of those who will contact a member of parliament there and offer advice. This is a good avenue for the Canadian government to explore. It could ensure that all members of parliament there are able to carry out their duties, thereby saving the government's credibility. These people have just been democratically elected. If everyone loses confidence in their government, then we will have to start over from scratch. What do you think about the idea of tutoring, that is being talked about these days in Europe or elsewhere?

[Justin Massie]

I think that the presence of a political adviser from Canada or elsewhere is always a good idea when a democracy has been set up, because that is not self-evident. We can understand it, because we have lived in a democracy since birth. The problem in Afghanistan is that although there is a willingness to commit, there is no formal commitment on the part of the international community, namely on the financial level. The Karzaï government lacks the resources it needs to meet the objectives that it has set, and most of its budget comes from that source. We understand the importance of that.

The second issue is the deployment of foreign troops. Moving ISAF into southern Afghanistan is positive, because that will mean an increase in the number of troops, if it is done quickly enough. The difficulty presently facing western nations is determining who will do what, who will conduct combat operations, who will conduct reconstruction and humanitarian assistance operations, and so on. The majority of Canadian troops are involved in combat operations outside the area or in more isolated areas, to counter the insurgents where they have taken refuge. Once there are more troops in the field, part of the contingent will be able to remain there, and the other part will have to provide protection for certain villages. And increase in the number of troops will perhaps make it possible to provide greater security.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I'm afraid we'll have to move on.

Ms. Gallant, please.

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

We have two motions to consider. Given that the bell will start to ring at 5:30 for a vote, I would not want to be told that we cannot consider them. At what time are we going to consider the motions?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We're hoping to get through this round and then move to the motions if we have a few minutes at the end.

Go ahead, Ms. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Recognizing that peaceful civilians are difficult to distinguish from suicide bombers, how would you suggest that Canadian soldiers get closer to the peaceful Afghan citizens?

[Marc André Boivin]

I think that in the last few years a considerable amount of experience has been gained. I think the Canadian contingent has developed and has evolved in the way it trains soldiers. I have certainly witnessed some evolution in the training being provided.

It's always a difficult notion. You have young kids who are 20 years old, out of a country like Canada, being sent far away, and they have to make some very tough calls. But it is paramount that we approach this in a humane way, that we are not trigger-happy, and that security doesn't work against long-term security. That is, if you shoot up every vehicle that comes close without asking questions, then obviously there are going to be consequences in the long term. That is the trade-off, of course, for our troops' paramount need for security.

So I think they've taken the right approach. I think they've changed their training recently to take advantage of some of the lessons being learned, namely by the Americans and British in Iraq and in Afghanistan. I think the Canadian military is looking at these issues quite closely and quite professionally.

[Justin Massie]

The main aspect is the need to obtain intelligence from the local people who are not opposed to Canadian troops. In that context, if they can obtain intelligence, they will be able to take a more preventative approach, without pulling the trigger.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I have two unrelated questions. I'm just going to ask them so we can respect the time, and you can judge your responses accordingly.

It's interesting to hear you say today that this is the military phase and that we should be playing a major role in the region until it has been further stabilized. We heard from some NGOs who raised concerns about the blurring of roles that they claim arises when our soldiers provide humanitarian relief.

On one hand, we're told that the soldiers must win the hearts and minds of the Afghan citizens, yet the NGOs say that this is dangerous for the NGOs. In your opinion, should soldiers be providing humanitarian efforts while they're there on a peacekeeping mission?

On a completely different question, the role of Pakistan has been raised. You mentioned that stability in Afghanistan would provide economic benefit through trade and commerce. Would you explain any advantages that Pakistan would have from the extended instability of Afghanistan?

[Justin Massie]

Unless security on the ground is effective, the presence of NGOs is not recommended. The soldiers, the military forces should provide essential humanitarian aid.

Once a kind of security perimeter has been established around a village or a region, we can start accepting the presence of foreign civilians. Otherwise, it might cause greater insecurity for the people and require more Canadian troops to guaranty the safety of the NGOs, when their efforts are required elsewhere to provide security or to meet their objectives on the ground.

Everything depends on the security phase or the level of control that exists on the ground, that determines whether troops or civilians should provide humanitarian assistance.

[Marc André Boivin]

Personally I think that the military providing humanitarian aid is just a bad idea. NGOs were present in Afghanistan long before any foreign military personnel were there, and the NGOs' concern at seeing their efforts so politicized is a serious one, because if they're seen as biased to one party or to the other, the Taliban or whichever insurgent will say, well, the grain you're providing is for the international effort, so we'll shoot you up. And that's it. You will not be able to provide any aid at all.

So I think, yes, the military should be doing military tasks. Providing security is essential for providing aid, and on that I agree, but to mix military-political missions with aid is inherently dangerous for the NGOs.

I'll just take a minute for Pakistan. On Pakistan, once again they're very complex issues. Some of the support for the military regime comes from Islamist parties, and these Islamist parties obviously have interests in Afghanistan, but they're also very useful for the conflict in Kashmir, for the introduction of terrorists on the Indian side of the border. So all these issues are related and are very difficult to contain.

Also very important is that Pakistan played a key role in organizing and financing the Taliban in the nineties, with of course the consent of the Americans. These affinities still prevail in some parts of the military apparel today, so obviously there are difficulties there as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you.

The next spot is Liberal, and there's no question, so it's back to this side, if there is one.