National Defence Committee on May 27th, 2010

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

I'm talking about the mission to Afghanistan. You say that you have only one...

[Elissa Golberg]

I said that our mission to Afghanistan is very important, but that it's not the only country in which we are working.

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

But what is the nature of your involvement there?

[Elissa Golberg]

I'm sorry.

We are working to strengthen police capabilities in Afghanistan, the correctional system and the legal system, among other things.

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

And how exactly do these issues impact women? What kind of results are you seeing?

[Elissa Golberg]

That is a much broader issue that we could discuss further.

For instance, reinforcing the capacity of the police in Kandahar directly impacts on the security of women and children, likewise our efforts in enhancing the capacity of correctional officers in Sarposa Prison. There is a female component of the ward in Sarposa Prison where we have directed considerable energy at augmenting the living conditions of women in the prison.

In terms of systems of justice, we've tried to assess and determine women's access to justice within Kandahar and how overall we might improve access to justice more broadly, which has direct implications for women and children there.

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

So then, you don't concern yourself with microeconomics either.

[Elissa Golberg]

No, that's CIDA's domain.

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

Of course.

You work closely with CIDA, isn't that right?

[Elissa Golberg]

Yes, we certainly do.

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

Earlier, you spoke highly of your efforts in Africa. Do you support the decision to cut CIDA's funding to francophone countries?

[Elissa Golberg]

That is a question that you should be putting to my CIDA colleagues, not to me. Regardless, I don't think that our commitment to Africa has diminished.

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

Does this have an impact on your operations, in terms of diplomacy?

[Elissa Golberg]

No, not in terms of my directorate's operations.

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

My next question is for Ambassador McNee, who is in New York.

First of all, good afternoon. You played host in New York to some NGOs from my riding at the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. One of the agencies from my riding was singled out for its peacekeeping efforts. Therefore, speaking on their behalf, I want you to know that they enjoyed their visit to New York very much.

Since you are closer to the decision-making powers in New York and more attuned to what is going on between different states, no doubt you know that the Obama administration and Mr. Clinton made statements to the media and expressed the hope that Canada would extend its commitment beyond 2011.

Can you tell us more about this and gave us a status report, from a diplomatic perspective, on ongoing efforts?

[John McNee]

Mr. Chair, the government's policy, which reflects the resolution passed by the House of Commons, is very clear on Canada's commitment to Afghanistan. Our allies, including the Americans, have a very clear understanding of our policy. Afghanistan does, of course, present a challenge and an objective for all of our NATO partners, as well as for Australia, New Zealand and Japan in particular. It poses a challenge for all partners. However, in my view, Canada's position has been clearly understood up until now.

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

Specifically, will Canada continue to deploy troops after 2011?

[John McNee]

I think the Prime Minister has been very clear about our military commitment to Afghanistan and about the fact that our troops will pull out next year. However, Canada is committed to helping with Afghanistan's development over the long term.

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

My time is up. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much, Madam Faille.

We will now go to Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our guests for your presentations.

Ambassador, thank you for joining us from New York. I would like to have you here in person some time.

We've had witnesses here talking about Canada's role in the UN and UN peacekeeping. One of the themes was that despite the fact that we haven't been involved directly on the military side in peacekeeping, the United Nations was really looking to Canada for greater participation, involvement, and support because of our expertise and commitment. I'm wondering how that melds with your statement that we are playing a big role because of our doctrine, which sounds to me like a past role, although it may certainly continue.

In the context of Canada wanting to be a member of the Security Council, don't you think that some further commitment might be required from Canada to underscore our support for the UN in peacekeeping and peace-building operations? That seems to be a missing piece. I know we're active in Afghanistan, but that's a very different matter.

What is required for us to show a strong commitment to the UN way or to provide leadership? I think one of our witnesses the other day said that the UN needs leadership from a country like Canada in this field. Is that something that rings true with you?

[John McNee]

Mr. Harris, thank you for the question.

I think the makeup of UN peacekeeping forces has changed dramatically over the last 20 years. If we look at the chart showing the top 10 countries that contribute troops, there are no developed countries on that list anymore. They are largely South Asian and African countries, and generally speaking that's a good thing. These are countries with very accomplished and professional military forces, and they are often more truly acceptable and effective in third world environments where many, if not most, of the conflicts take place.

But that isn't to say the Canadian Forces can't make very important contributions to a mission--and I think they are more targeted and specialized contributions. I'm not talking about large numbers of infantry, but a small contribution from the Canadian Forces in communications and logistics, or the commander of a force--what the military calls an enabler--can have an outside impact.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

If I may interrupt for a second, the numbers actually seem pathetic when you look at the 88,000 troops and less than 60 are from Canada. I hear what you're saying, but that doesn't look like a significant commitment. If we're going to expect to play and be voted on to play a strong leadership role at the UN on the Security Council, shouldn't we be sending a signal that we intend to be more engaged?

For example, what's the size of our mission in the UN right now? How many people do you have working with you in the Canadian mission?

[John McNee]

I think we are a total of 45 at the mission, embracing Foreign Affairs, National Defence, CIDA, and the RCMP.

But to try to respond to your question, I think it isn't really necessary for us to make indications of future commitments. There is a great deal of respect for Canada's contributions to UN peacekeeping over a long period of time, including the work the Canadian soldiers are doing now and the important work Canadian police officers are doing in Haiti and elsewhere. I am quite relaxed on that score. I think our credentials are very strong. If we can fill a niche or supply a need, the United Nations will come to us because of the high quality of our people and their track record, as they canvass many other countries to see who can come to help.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

To Ms. Golberg for a moment, you mentioned the role that Canada plays in promoting human rights and the rule of law, democratic development, etc. With regard to the kind of contribution that Canada makes--and I guess this is a broader question in terms of how Canada decides the priorities of countries--you mentioned Haiti and Sudan as examples outside of Afghanistan and the general work in building up a peacekeeping force.

Are we doing it on a one-off response basis or as a request from a country to provide assistance with policing, or is this something at a higher political level: we'll choose this because it's politically needed and necessary at a particular time? Or is there a plan that says we are going to concentrate on providing...? When you say there are 200 police officers per year available, are they only in Haiti and Afghanistan, or are we talking about a broader program that's available to countries upon request?