National Defence Committee on May 27th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Good afternoon and welcome to the 19th meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we will resume our study of the role of Canadian soldiers in international peace operations after 2011.

Before starting with our witnesses, I have a motion in front of me and I want the members to vote on it. It's a simple one:

That the Standing Committee on National Defence be authorized to purchase up to $100 in gifts to be presented to hosts during its trip to Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, and Iqaluit, Nunavut, from June 6 to 9, 2010.

Do we have agreement on that?

(Motion agreed to)

Now we'll go to our witnesses.

We have with us, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade,

Ms. Elissa Golberg, Director General, Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force Secretariat and Former Representative of Canada in Kandahar.

We also have two witnesses with us from New York.

The committee is also pleased to welcome John McNee, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations. Welcome, sir.

Also, by video conference we have

Colonel Simonds, Military Advisor, Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations.

We will start with Madame Golberg.

After you, we will have John McNee, who will do his presentation. You have between five and seven minutes. It's the same for Mr. McNee.

The floor is yours.

[Elissa Golberg, Director General, Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force Secretariat and Former Representative of Canada in Kandahar, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to make a few general remarks before turning the floor over to Ambassador McNee.

As you mentioned, I'm currently the director general of the Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force at Foreign Affairs, or START, a bureau that among many other things is responsible for developing Canadian policy around conflict prevention, humanitarian affairs, peacekeeping, and peace building, as well as developing whole-of-government capacity to manage Canadian engagement in crises.

My staff and I have had the opportunity to observe and participate in a wide range of Canadian engagements that have become known as acutely fragile and conflict-affected circumstances, such as Afghanistan, Haiti, Sudan.

I want to focus on fragile and conflict-affected states because they're a defining feature of the current international context and the backdrop against which many of today's peace operations are taking place.

Some 30 states can be characterized as fragile, affecting approximately one billion people, with a cost to the international system of approximately $270 billion per year.

These are the messiest, most challenging foreign policy contexts in which we can engage, and they require both humility as well as a long-term perspective, something that's not always obvious in our 24/7 universe.These countries are among the most exposed, both internally and externally, to shocks, and they're characterized by a complex cocktail of violence, criminality, and corruption, poverty, and vulnerability—dynamics that often spill over national borders, with regional and international implications.

Our engagement in such circumstances is therefore not just a statement of Canadian values, such as the promotion of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, but also a means of addressing our national interests.

This is the reality facing Canada as we consider our engagement in international peace support operations after 2011.

And it is because of this complex dynamic that peace operations have therefore changed significantly over the past 15 years. Today, peace operations are multi-dimensional, and demand a variety of expertise beyond military actors, to include civilian expertise and capacity.

As other witnesses have already pointed out, today's peace operations are called upon to address not only the protection of civilians but also to provide security for locations, advance peace processes and implement peace agreements, encourage reconciliation and investigate human rights violations, monitor and respond to the illegal movement of arms and natural resources, disarm and demobilize former combatants, and so forth.

As peace operations have evolved, officials in Canada, and internationally, have been reflecting hard on key lessons from our experiences in Afghanistan, Haiti, Sudan, and elsewhere.

I thought today I would point to four in particular. The first is that to respond effectively to these challenges we must implement the sophisticated approach, recognizing the interplay between security, governance, and development. As such, we must think, plan, and act comprehensively.

Modern peace support operations, whether conducted under the auspices of the UN, NATO, or another body, are dynamic and multi-dimensional, requiring a coherent, coordinated, and complementary approach by international actors, partner countries, and host nations.

Second, we have learned that each engagement requires a tailored approach to specific regional, national, and local contexts that are respectful of the complexity and diversity at play. Needs vary, and so do the cast of characters and tools we're going to need to draw on as a result. This requires a selective, case-by-case application of capabilities.

Third, and related to this, we need to adopt an integrated approach to peace operations, which requires a strong civilian component in addition to the professional contribution the Canadian Forces can make. To be successful in this environment, the Canadian Forces and their civilian departments and agency colleagues must establish shared priorities, understand our respective capabilities, align our activities, and set benchmarks to measure and communicate our progress.

Fourth, we need appropriate departmental authorities, flexible human resource modalities, and integrated planning process capabilities. No single department or agency has all the tools needed to be effective in these environments, so we need to be joined up from the outset if we are going to achieve the desired effects on the ground. These advances require us to adapt our policies, training, and activities in peace support operations, and this demands even more knowledge and sophistication from the military, police, and civilian personnel we're deploying.

Responding to these challenges and building on lessons from recent years, the Department of Foreign Affairs and our federal partners are making impressive strides in establishing a whole-of-government system for planning and managing our responses to international crises.

Our work in this respect is guided by the strategic direction of the whole-of-government Deputy Ministers' Committee on Conflict and Fragility. This has included the approval of a set of considerations to inform collective analyses of existing and emerging crises and to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of our efforts.

At the operational level, the Advisory Board of the Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force, which included directors general from nine government department, meets regularly to establish whole-of-government priorities and to engage in stabilization and reconstruction planning, assess progress and foster information exchange among departments involved in international crisis response.

We also try to apply lessons learned in order to adapt to new international crises.

Mr. Chairman, related to this, my bureau, in cooperation with our colleagues and partners, is also developing a series of interdepartmental strategies and policies on tasks that are common to peace support operations, whether it's exit and entry strategy discussions, or security system reform, or stabilization that will provide guidance to personnel in Ottawa and the field.

We also work to assist the UN and regional organizations in their efforts to increase efficiency and effectiveness of international peacekeeping and peace-building operations by, among many other things, making key investments in areas such as mediation, as well as significant investments in training African and Latin American peacekeepers.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, the important role that the Canadian Forces must continue to play internationally post-2011 shouldn't be determined in isolation but considered as part of the wider context of Canadian foreign policy priorities and the range of capabilities that are going to be required in modern peace operations.

The experience of the international community in places such as the Balkans, Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Haiti indicates that in addition to the deployment of military contingents, there is a critical need for the early, substantive, and sustained engagement of their civilian counterparts. These experts are focused on assisting the host country to build its capacity for security, governance, economic development, and the establishment of the rule of law through the transfer of knowledge and technology, mentoring, and training.

While the process of institutionalizing our lessons learned is still ongoing, START, together with our partners across government, is well positioned to advise the government on potential involvement in fragile and conflict-affected situations and to implement the decisions the Government of Canada directs us to take.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much, Ms. Goldberg.

Now I will give the floor to Mr. McNee from New York.

Mr. Ambassador, the floor is yours.

[John McNee, Ambassador and Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations]

Merci bien, monsieur le président. Thank you very much for inviting me to appear before the committee to address the United Nations dimensions of the committee's study.

The United Nations is, of course, the organization where the world meets, and its agenda encompasses all areas of human activity. Through consensus and diplomacy, the UN is the forum in which the problems faced by the international community are resolved. That's why the UN is so vital to achieving Canada's international objectives.

On a daily basis the organization examines, weighs the implications of, and endeavours to address the threats to international peace and security. These threats range from conflicts between states, as was the case in Georgia in the summer of 2008, to threats to international shipping from piracy, to challenges to peace and stability within states themselves. The latter threats more and more define today's international security environment.

In most cases the threats manifest themselves in the form of the lingering military forces of internal civil conflict, the rise of organized criminal activity bent on maintaining instability, and foreign armed groups using states as bases for operations against their homelands. As a result, maintaining peace is conducted in an environment in which stability itself is often acutely fragile. Moreover, in many cases the internal capacity of the conflict-affected state to provide for its own security is severely limited.

These circumstances have given rise to the increased complexity of UN peacekeeping missions today. Consequently, the notion of traditional peacekeeping that many of us have in mind--that is, a force interposed between previously warring parties conducting observation, monitoring, and reporting tasks--no longer really fits the current operational paradigm. While there certainly remain some UN peacekeeping missions where this is the case, such as the UN forces deployed in Cyprus and on the Golan Heights, these represent only a few of the current 15 UN peacekeeping operations.

In contrast, the contemporary multi-dimensional concept now requires engagement across a much broader spectrum of activities, including the disarmament, demobilization, reintegration, and often repatriation of former combatants; the active involvement in security sector reform; the protection of civilians, including women and children; and border security functions, all against a backdrop and in support of a political dynamic that seeks to advance a peace process.

The United Nation's “Peace Operations 2009 Year in Review” notes that UN peace operations have truly become a global endeavour, with 120,000 women and men from 116 countries serving under the blue UN flag in 15 missions. On the military side, approximately 85,000 contingent troops, experts on mission, and observers were deployed by the end of last year. Over 13,000 police officers now keep the peace and support the development of national policing capacities, and over 21,000 international, national, and volunteer civilians provide professional expertise to peace processes and administrative and logistics support to missions.

The demand for peacekeepers has unquestionably grown, but this has caused significant strains on the UN and on the international community as a whole. These strains are reflected in the ability of the UN to manage the mandates given them for peacekeeping operations, as well as in the slow pace with which necessary troops are generated. But we think the system is getting better: greater scrutiny is given to the circumstances before missions are undertaken; a closer examination of the link between resources and mandates is now being made; better guidance is being developed, both on the preparations expected of deploying troops and on how to accomplish key tasks; and, equally important, the UN has embarked on a process for reforming its field support system, aimed at enhancing rapid deployment and mission sustainment. These initiatives, coupled with many others, are all improving the UN's capacity to conduct peacekeeping operations.

The UN will normally operate where there is a peace to keep, and it is guided by three fundamental principles: the consent of the parties involved, the impartiality of the UN operation, and the use of force only in self-defence or in defence of the mandate.

The focus of missions can vary significantly, covering a broad spectrum of activities, from stabilization, as we have seen in the case of MINUSTAH in Haiti, to overseeing a comprehensive peace agreement as exists in South Sudan with UNMIS. Ultimately, guided by the specific circumstances on the ground, the objective is to transition from peacekeeping to a stabilized environment and then to one of peace-building.

I would note, Mr. Chair, that there is now a greater reliance upon and relationship with regional organizations to meet the growth in demand for peacekeeping forces. The UN/AU hybrid mission in Darfur is one telling example of the UN leveraging the capacity of the African states to meet force requirements. In the same vein, the African Union's mission in Somalia receives extensive direct field support from the UN to accomplish its goals.

Despite our extensive commitments in Afghanistan, Canada is an active participant in UN peacekeeping. Although our military commitments are limited to key mission staff and observers, our police contributions have grown. We are also heavily focused on developing the capacity of other countries to take on complex peacekeeping roles, through both training and equipping programs, most particularly with African and Latin American and Caribbean states. In addition, we are very involved in the UN's peacekeeping reform agenda. We of course continue to chair and play a key leadership role in the UN's Working Group of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations. And, we cannot forget that out of an annual budget for peacekeeping operations of about $8 billion, Canada pays over 3% of the total cost.

Lastly, it is important to note that the blue helmet no longer provides for the relative degree of immunity from attack that it once did. Military, police and civilian experts are now under continual threat from belligerents who seek to undermine the progress of peace processes. Casualties are more commonplace in the UN peacekeeping arena, as are hostage-taking incidents. This has required the UN to be more robust in its deployments, both in terms of the capabilities being fielded, as well as the training of the peacekeeping forces. Indeed, at the tactical level, there is a growing requirement for the use of force to protect the troops themselves or to protect civilians in immediate danger.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Colonel Simonds and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much, Ambassador.

Thank you for being here, Colonel Simonds.

I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Wilfert.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank all of you for your presentations. These presentations are taking a bit of a different slant from some we've heard in the past.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, I know in my own mind what I believe the central tenets of Canadian foreign policy are, but very quickly, could you comment on what you believe our foreign policy tenet is in terms of what we represent around the world?

Ms. Golberg, Mr. McNee, Colonel?

[Elissa Golberg]

Ambassador McNee, maybe I'll take a kick and then you can follow.

I think in the first instance, Canada continues to advance the promotion of human rights, the rule of law, and democratic development in countries around the world, in addition to trying to ensure that we have a strong international rules-based system and strong governance institutions internationally that can help us to achieve our national interests and to project Canadian values.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

Does anyone else have a comment?

[John McNee]

Mr. Chairman, I think that's a very good summary. In addition, of course, the promotion of international peace and security is in the Canadian national interest and is one of Canada's long-standing goals. We have a strong commitment to international development and the partnerships that go with that, and that is, of course, extremely important too.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

That's exactly what I was thinking, but in the minds of Canadians, for maybe the last 10 years, we have veered away from what people perceive as Canada's role as peacekeepers, as the blue berets, etc., because of our work in Afghanistan, which is much more peacemaking or peace-building than peacekeeping.

There was a presentation made that suggested to us that the United Nations, if not broke, is on the way to being broke, and that with the many administrative inefficiencies at the UN and the lack of political will around the table, in fact very little has been accomplished by the UN in the last while. The difficulties they are having in the eastern Congo would be a clear example of that.

So the thesis put forth is why would Canada ever want to be party to such operations when in fact we have very little say to begin with? That was advanced around the table. I would like your quick comments on that, and then I'd like to do a follow-up with regard to what happened with the EU and with regard to Lebanon.

So through you, Mr. Chairman, perhaps, Ms. Golberg, you could start off, and then we'll do the same round.

[Elissa Golberg]

Perhaps I'll let Ambassador McNee speak to the UN in particular, and then I would like to come back and address the question you asked about whether or not we have in fact moved away from peacekeeping and peace-building.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Ambassador.

[John McNee]

Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.

I think to pick up your last point on whether or not we have much say or any say in these operations, first of all, in terms of the policy and the doctrine of UN peacekeeping, Canada has long played a very big role in shaping the fundamental doctrine, and we lead on that today. That is not in the public view, but I think it is an important contribution.

Secondly, in terms of the decision-making process, of course Canada is now a candidate for election to the UN Security Council for the period 2011-12. If we are successful, as I think we should be, then we will participate in the decision-making, including the setting of the mandate for any new peacekeeping operations and changes to the mandates of existing ones.

On the two other points, the administrative weaknesses and the lack of political will, I guess I would say two things. The UN is working in an increasingly volatile and difficult international environment. I alluded to the fact that traditional peacekeeping in which Canada participated for very many years was often more of a static thing, as, for example, in the Golan Heights today, or in Cyprus today, whereas the UN's ambitions--largely the ambitions of the Security Council--to try to find solutions to countries torn apart by internal conflicts, for instance, have meant that UN peacekeepers are faced with more complex challenges. The UN system is trying to cope with those, but we would not pretend that administratively it's perfect yet. It is by no means, but we're working hard, as Canada and the mission down here, to try to make it better.

As for political will, that's an extremely good question. Of course, in the Security Council it's critical to have both full political support from the countries that contribute the troops and the host country's agreement to a mission. The degree to which those conditions are there is not always 100%--and eastern Congo is a case in point--but I think the response should be a pretty hard-headed look at the circumstances and an effort to make things work better.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Ms. Golberg.

[Elissa Golberg]

I think the idea of our having somehow moved away is often overstated, and I think this is partly a challenge of communications. We're actively engaged in a variety of international peace and security efforts around the world. Everyone is quite aware of what we're doing in Afghanistan, but we've made significant investments in other countries. We're one of the most significant contributors to MINUSTAH, the UN mission in Haiti. Canada has been a significant contributor to the UN missions in Sudan, in Darfur, and in south Sudan.

Beyond what we contribute in terms of military peacekeepers, we deploy up to 200 police peacekeepers every year, internationally, to missions. We also deploy diplomatic and development experts. We have undertaken a whole series of investments in terms of peacekeeping doctrine. We've organized a whole series of round tables in New York over the last couple of years. We participated in the UN Peacebuilding Commission, and we were one of the countries that actually encouraged its development. My own organization works very hard on issues related to security sector reform and the rule of law. There is GPOP, the Global Peace Operations Program, through which Canada is actually making a very significant investment in African and Latin American peacekeeping capabilities. There are a whole bunch of things we're actually working on.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

With those comments, if I advance very quickly, the UN today is dependent on strong military powers.

Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, just to put it forth, and I'll probably get another round... With the United Nations interim force in Lebanon in 2006, the EU dictated what they needed and what they were prepared to do to go in and do it. In future UN missions, if we so partake, will Canada be able to write our own conditions for future missions to strengthen what we need to do to take those on?

I put that out there. I'll probably have to get the answer on the next round, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Yes, you are right.

We will now go to Ms. Faille, for seven minutes.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My first question is for Ms. Golberg.

I listened closely to your opening remarks. I noticed that your written submission contains a reference to “women“. However, you omitted the reference to the promotion of women in your oral remarks.

If there a reason for that?

[Elissa Golberg]

Basically, it comes down to times constraints. I know your committee has a busy schedule, and therefore I cut a number of things out of my presentation. It's not because I think women are any less important. In fact, my directorate is responsible for the promotion of women, peace and security.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Can you tell us what you plan to do after 2011?

[Elissa Golberg]

You want to know what my personal plans are?

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

No, I want to know what your directorate is planning on doing. What direction do you intend to take after 2011, after the mission to Afghanistan?

[Elissa Golberg]

At this juncture, I do not foresee any major changes in the directorate's strategy. We are responsible for a number of peacekeeping operations. We are involved in a number of polices issues and in planning peacekeeping programs.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

What are you currently working on?

[Elissa Golberg]

We're involved in missions in the Sudan, Haiti and Colombia, to name but a few...