National Defence Committee on April 15th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I call the meeting to order.

Today we have two separate issues. Our first witness today is from the Privy Council Office, David Mulroney, deputy minister, Afghanistan Task Force. He's here as a result of a motion passed on April 3, that we have a briefing after the NATO summit in Bucharest.

Mr. Mulroney, we're glad to have you here. We'll give you time to make your presentation. Then, as usual, we will have one round of questions before we move on to our next set of witnesses.

Sir, the floor is yours.

[David Mulroney, Deputy Minister, Afghanistan Task Force, Privy Council Office]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, thanks for the invitation today. I look forward to giving you a debrief on the Afghanistan-related aspects of the NATO summit in Bucharest, which took place earlier this month. Part of the burden of my song was that Afghanistan was an important part of that summit.

Before I review the results of the Bucharest Summit, I think it would be useful to recall the steps that led us to this point.

The true starting point to the Bucharest Summit was the previous summit of NATO leaders in Riga, Latvia in November 2006.

Our own assessment at the time of the Riga summit was that clearly more resources were needed, given the security challenges the alliance was facing in parts of Afghanistan, and particularly in the south. Canada pushed hard at Riga for reinforcements to ensure the success of the mission. We also pushed to ensure that the Afghanistan mission was front and centre on NATO's agenda.

Our efforts to get the resources required in the south didn't end at Riga. One of the points I want to make is that, really, important as the summits are, we need to remember the work that goes on between summits. We continued our engagement with NATO and with our allies to underline the fundamental issue that we needed more resources to be successful and that we needed to share the burden.

The 16 months between Riga and Bucharest marked some critical progress in these areas. Significantly, we saw the number of countries that contribute forces to ISAF's Regional Command South--where Canada is--increase in the months following that summit. Whereas in November 2006 there were 11 countries providing troops in Regional Command South, there are now 17. More importantly, since Riga, troop levels in the south have increased by approximately 6,000. NATO accounts for approximately 17,500 troops now serving in Regional Command South.

Increased troop levels were absolutely critical to ISAF efforts, but this alone did not guarantee success. Like many of our allies, we realized that in order to succeed, we needed to adopt a comprehensive approach that combined our military and political efforts with development initiatives.

In the months leading up to the Bucharest Summit, Canada played a leading role in efforts to have NATO adopt a comprehensive military-political strategy for Afghanistan. We were convinced that a plan was needed to synchronize the different components of our joint effort.

Everyone knew that security, governance, and development are inextricably linked and mutually reinforcing, yet in the months preceding the summit, it seems that NATO planning failed to reflect that reality, which leads me to what we accomplished at the Bucharest summit.

First, allies agreed to the comprehensive political-military strategy that I just referred to. This strategy took the form of two documents, an internal planning document and a public vision statement. The internal planning document recognizes that ISAF's work on the security front and its support for partners working on governance and reconstruction must be done in a way that is coherent and complementary. This is a fundamental point.

The plan also identifies the strategic outcomes that ISAF needs to achieve or support. At the urging of Canada, it will be updated regularly and used to measure progress. And I should tell you that our delegation at NATO, working in various capitals, including Kabul and London and Washington and Paris and other places, pushed hard for a level of ambition and pushed hard for the notion of a plan that would feature benchmarks and would be updated regularly. We think the result that came through at Bucharest is in part a tribute to that Canadian effort.

The second component of the comprehensive strategy is ISAF's strategic vision as set out in the Bucharest statement. This declaration underscores the fact that the success of the international force is a priority for NATO, along with the ultimate objective of helping the Afghan people build a stable society.

Much like the internal planning document, the declaration clearly identifies several areas that Canada believes are important. It acknowledges the need for a comprehensive approach that combines security, development and governance efforts. It calls for increased coordination between ISAF and the UN mission to Afghanistan and commits the allies and partners to sharing the burden in Afghanistan.

Of course the Bucharest summit also saw some very important developments regarding troop commitments. France announced its decision to provide several hundred troops to work with U.S. forces in Regional Command East, and that will enable the U.S. to deploy a battalion of troops to partner with us in Kandahar.

As you are well aware, this meets the requirements identified in the Manley panel report and set out in the March 13 parliamentary motion. This reinforcement will significantly boost our efforts there.

Bucharest is not the end of the story. The statements made there were important, but we recognize that progress isn't achieved through declarations alone. We need to implement key elements of our political military plan, such as the training and mentoring of the Afghan National Army and the strengthening of coordination between NATO and the UN.

Importantly, at Bucharest we had the presence of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and of his new special representative in Afghanistan, Kai Eide. They were both present there.

What we have encouraged in our discussions, both at NATO and with the UN, is a much, much closer collaboration between the work of the UN on the ground and the goals set by NATO.

We will work in the coming months, as we worked before Bucharest, with our NATO allies to ensure that we are reviewing our progress and making changes as appropriate.

So from our perspective, the Bucharest summit needs to be seen as part of a progression. We worked hard at the preceding summit at Riga to ensure that we could bring Afghanistan to the centre of NATO's agenda. By the time we reached Bucharest, the summit was actually preceded by a session of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, where we had the Prime Minister, we had President Karzai, and we had NATO Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer on the same stage. We felt that was a pretty good symbol of the fact that we'd helped to move Afghanistan to centre stage.

We had the commitment of troops and the very welcome news that we would have a partner in Kandahar. And finally we had NATO develop a plan that we think is both realistic and also sufficiently ambitious to move the agenda forward.

So there's lots of work to do in the wake of Bucharest, but we think we're off to a good start.

I'll stop there, if I may.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you, sir.

We'll start with Mr. Cannis.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

David, if I may, welcome. It's good to see you again. Thank you for your brief. Certainly we, on behalf of our constituents, were looking forward to getting this briefing so that we can convey back to them the kind of work that was achieved, etc.

I'd like to open by just going back to 1998, when we had the then-NATO Secretary General address a joint session of the House of Commons and the Senate. I don't have his exact quote, but I'll try to quote him. He said we must move beyond resolutions and statements towards compliance and enforcement.

I personally and other colleagues have been to these various forums, and we somehow at the end of the day manage to make a great statement, which is needed, and then the question is compliance, as the former Secretary General said.

I'd like to initially touch upon France's announcement. It made the announcement. In a short response—because we're limited in time—please tell us when those troops can arrive to lend their support. Is there a time? It's great when we make announcements; it's when the delivery date comes due. Do we have one?

Through you, Mr. Chairman, I will not ask our guest to say anything beyond what he can say in terms of security, etc.

Is there any timeframe, David?

[David Mulroney]

Mr. Cannis, I can say two things. First, it's important to note that, as welcome as the French announcement at Bucharest was, the French had already established some presence in the south, and in fact they have a number of Mirage aircraft that are flying out of Kandahar airfield and actually providing support to Canadian Forces and others.

As for the various moves that will take place—the French deployment, which is in the planning phases right now, and then the American move to support us—I don't want to speak specifically for them other than to say we're confident that all will be in place in time for the February 2009 deadline that was present in the Manley panel report. So it'll happen in the coming months, and we will have our partner in the south by February 2009.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Good. That's wonderful to hear.

You also mentioned—if I may use your words—a need for “coordination”. You also used the words, “share the burden” in Afghanistan.

We met some time ago with the defence committee from Germany, and part of our exchange was, look, if you're going to be a member of the NATO family, we all know the prerequisites for membership. I'm passing on to you what we're hearing from Canadians, that if you're a member of the NATO family—as much as Canada stood proud in taking on this most responsible role it is now undertaking—the question Canadians have is this: why are we not having these rotations? Why have the caveats not been lifted?

Can you brief us as best you can on the issue of the caveats? It was brought forward by then Minister O'Connor, on which I congratulated him when we were in Slovenia. In this most recent meeting in Bucharest, were the caveats discussed? And if they were discussed, was there any progress? And what was the response from our NATO partners?

[David Mulroney]

One of the many things that were very useful in the Manley panel report was that it reinforced the notion that there aren't separate jobs to do in Afghanistan. You can't sort of separate the security and development roles; they are inextricably linked. We feel that should be true for all NATO members.

Has NATO achieved complete harmony in accepting that role? No. Caveats clearly remain. But I think we can take satisfaction from the fact that some caveats are being lifted. Since the Riga summit we have more partners in the south. Admittedly, some of them are from outside the NATO family. Countries like Australia are participating in the south, and France, a major western European player, is clearly willing to play a more robust role.

So that dialogue will continue. We think it's tremendously important that everybody accept that these jobs are really jobs for everybody within the NATO family. We'll try to make progress one country at a time.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I'm pleased to hear that. It certainly gives me some positive news to take back to my constituents.

On the Riga meetings, you said that more resources were needed. Canada indeed pushed hard, and that's wonderful to hear. Can you be more specific about resources? I know we're trying to address manpower per se, but it's not just manpower that is needed. For example, Poland contributed helicopters, but helicopters are no good unless they're manned. Were these types of resources to complement the supply of helicopters from Poland discussed? Can we look forward to these complementary resources coming from other countries? That's the first question.

Second, we know it's not just going to take hardware; it's also going to take funds. We understand some of the methods that are being used for payment of services rendered, whether it's for supplies, manpower, etc. Are the funds that were committed by other nations flowing? We're flowing our resources, to the best of my knowledge. The parliamentary secretary is nodding and I accept that, but are other countries meeting their obligations?

I have been to forums and heard grand statements. They're wonderful to hear. Then a year down the road, we say, “Well, you committed x number of dollars for development of schools, roads, new wells.” Then a year down the road, the NGOs are saying, as we've heard before this committee in the past, “We need funds.”

Can you comment on that with respect to Bucharest and the previous meeting? Have we made any progress there?

[David Mulroney]

NATO regularly publishes a statement of requirements for various parts of the mission. The part that gets focused on most often, for obvious reasons, is for personnel and troops. But that also includes estimates on how many helicopters they need and how many training teams they need--what they call the OMLTs. I know you've heard General Atkinson talk about OMLTs before. They really break it down and look at all the enablers, all the parts of the mission they need. NATO has still not met all of their statement of readiness, and that debate continues within NATO and across a variety of forums.

A number of western European countries are trying to think creatively about the fact that western Europe has a plentiful supply of helicopters, not all of which are finding their way to Afghanistan. They're looking at ways of pooling efforts to get more helicopters into the theatre. That's obviously an effort we welcome.

This conversation happens at summits. It happens between summits. It also happens bilaterally. One of the recommendations from the Manley panel was for a focused diplomatic strategy. One of the things I'm working on, and we've been working on in the task force I'm part of, is to ensure that our diplomacy, when we talk to other countries, the UN, and NATO, focuses on these very precise asks that Canada and our NATO alliance need.

When it comes to funds, the story is again mixed. We had a recent report from ACBAR, the organization that was monitoring aid disbursements. Their finding was that some countries are pledging but not delivering. We can take pride in the fact that Canada was with Japan at the top of the list in terms of disbursements, but that again is a subject we take up. France is proposing to hold a meeting of the major donors to Afghanistan in June. That will certainly be one of the subjects that gets raised. It's a subject that gets raised in these larger sessions, but we also raise it with our bilateral partners.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I think I have 20 seconds left, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

No, you're way over your time.

Thanks, Mr. Mulroney.

Mr. Bachand.

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

Welcome, Mr. Mulroney.

I understand that you work at Privy Council and coordinate the work of the Afghanistan Task Force. Can you tell me who the members of this task force are and how your meetings are conducted? Does the task force include officials from Foreign Affairs or CIDA? Do you personally coordinate the work of this task force? I would imagine the task force is composed primarily of government officials, not elected officials.

[David Mulroney]

The task force is made up of officials from CIDA, Foreign Affairs and other departments. I preside over a weekly meeting with the deputy ministers of Foreign Affairs, CIDA, National Defence and Canada's armed forces, including Chief of Defence Staff Hillier, Lieutenant General Gauthier or Colonel Natynczyk. I oversee this task force of deputy ministers that is linked to the committee chaired by Minister Emerson.

I've created a task force in the PCO of people from various ministries who have a great deal of experience on Afghanistan. Our job is to work with the key departments and agencies to set an agenda that's focused on achieving the Manley panel recommendations, and I work with the deputies of those departments, on a weekly basis, to make sure we're on track to do that.

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

I would like to you calculate something for me. You stated that our troop levels had increased by 6,000 in the past few months, which brings the international contingent in Kandahar to 17,500 soldiers. Does this figure include the 3,200 US soldiers committed by Defence Secretary Robert Gates?

[David Mulroney]

No, these are additional troops who will be assigned to this mission for six or seven months. However, 1,000 US navy personnel will be participating in operation Enduring Freedom, and 2,200 of these soldiers have been temporarily assigned to ISAF. So then, these troops are not part of the 6,000 soldiers I mentioned earlier.

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

If we compare current troop levels with the number of soldiers who will remain in February 2009, we see that levels will be lower. Is that right?

[David Mulroney]

No. Troop levels increased between the time of the Riga and Bucharest summits. The US has also increased its troop levels, but only for a period of six or seven months. These troops will be on a special assignment.

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

You are referring to the 3,200 soldiers.

[David Mulroney]

That's right.

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

So then, they will be leaving the country in February 2009, and there will be fewer soldiers on the ground. About 1,000 will remain behind, but 2,2000 will be going home.

[David Mulroney]

I think in this case it's a bit of apples and oranges. The apples are the troops that are assigned as part of the ISAF mission. This is a special deployment of a marine expeditionary unit, which is welcome, but it's not part of that. So it's temporary in that sense.

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

Did you accompany the Prime Minister to Warsaw?

[David Mulroney]

No.

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

The Manley report talks about increasing troop strength and about equipment. I have here a briefing book which was distributed to us for the NATO Summit and the Prime Minister's visit to Warsaw. As the coordinator of the task force of deputy ministers, could you explain to us how the other two conditions work?

The Prime Minister travelled to Poland to thank the government for its involvement and for making two helicopters available to Canada. As far as I am concerned, that is not enough. We need more helicopters.

Can you tell us a little more about the second condition which involves helicopters and the third condition respecting UAVs? How is the equipment being dispatched? Will it all be in place by February 2009 when Canada will need to decide whether or not to keep its troops in Afghanistan?

[David Mulroney]

We will have what we want by February 2009.

We have a plan in place. The Polish helicopters represent a possible component, but National Defence, working with other departments, is well on the way to acquiring the helicopters. They have a variety of options--purchase or lease--and we're very confident that this is in place.

Similarly, the work on the UAV contracts is actually of longer term, but again, we're confident that this is also in place for 2009. There are negotiations that continue, but that's natural.

In both cases the equipment has been identified and we think the Manley conditions have been met.