Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 8 - Evidence, December 11, 2006
OTTAWA, Monday, December 11, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 2:37 p.m. to examine and report on the national security policy of Canada.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence to order. My name is Colin Kenny and I chair the committee.
I would like to introduce the members of the committee. Senator Michael Meighen is the Deputy Chair of the committee. He is a lawyer and a member of the bars of Quebec and Ontario. He is the Chancellor of the University of King's College and Past Chair of the Stratford Festival. He is currently the Chair of our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs and also a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Senator Gerry St. Germain is from British Columbia. He has served in Parliament since 1983, first as a member of the House of Commons, then as a senator. He is Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples and also sits on the Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.
Senator Rod Zimmer is from Winnipeg. He has had a long and distinguished career in business and philanthropy. He has volunteered his services for countless charitable causes and organizations. He sits on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs as well as the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.
Senator Norm Atkins is from Ontario. He came to the Senate with 27 years of experience in the field of communications. He served as a senior advisor to former federal Conservative leader Robert Stanfield, to Premier William Davis of Ontario, and to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.
The subject of today's panel is understanding Canada's role in Afghanistan.
We have before us today Mr. James Fox, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. James Fox joined the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in 1976. He has served both in Ottawa and abroad in Madrid, Havana, Harare and Guatemala. He served as Executive Assistant to the Undersecretary of State for External Affairs from 1992 to 1993 and as Ambassador to Guatemala with concurrent accreditation to El Salvador from 1993 to 1996. From 1996 until August 1998, he was Director of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation Division, and from September of 1998 to June of 2002 he held the position of Director of the Japan Division.
Mr. Fox is accompanied today by Mr. Robert McRae, Director General, International Security Bureau, and Mr. Jason Reeve, Cabinet and Parliamentary Affairs Liaison, Afghanistan Task Force.
Mr. Fox, please proceed with your statement.
James Fox, Assistant Deputy Minister, Bilateral Relations, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: Thank you very much.
Senators, I want to talk to you about three different things. The first is some of the important gains that Afghanistan has made over the past year. The second is how Canadian efforts are helping Afghanistan to achieve its goals. The third is the key issues that Afghanistan faces as it moves forward.
I would also note that it has been approximately six months since the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Peter MacKay, presented to the committee on this subject, so this is an opportunity to provide an update.
Notwithstanding a challenging environment, Afghanistan has made impressive progress in a number of key areas since 2001. Free and fair elections at both the national and provincial levels have been held, governance institutions are being strengthened, and the Afghan national assembly or parliament has been functioning effectively, exercising its duties, such as discussing issues of national security and debating the national budget.
[Translation]
Last January, the United Nations, Canada and some sixty other countries held a conference in London in order to map out the path for the second step of the campaign to rebuild Afghanistan after more than two decades of conflict. With over $10 billion in contributions announced, the participants agreed on the Compact for Afghanistan, a comprehensive, joint five-year strategy to obtain results in the areas of security, governance and development.
For each of these results, there will be benchmarks measuring the progress made. I must point out, however, that these benchmarks are a means, and not an end in themselves. Canadian representatives contributed in large measure to developing the Compact for Afghanistan, for example, by determining the need for a mechanism for periodically reviewing the progress made towards the benchmarks.
Recognizing that a complex process such as the Compact would require monitoring and systematic evaluation, Canada helped develop the concept of the joint coordination and monitoring board. The purpose of the Council is to regularly and systematically evaluate the progress made toward the Compact's benchmarks and to meet the major challenges of coordination, implementation and funding in general.
Co-chaired by Afghanistan and the UN, the JCMB is a representative organization composed of seven members of the Afghan government and 21 representatives of the international community, including Canada.
You may be wondering what all this means. The international community decided that the majority of the short- term benchmarks that were to expire at the end of this year would be achieved by that point or before. One of the most important of these is the implementation of a senior appointment committee. This committee will review the appointment of key public officials such as police, judges and provincial governors.
It is essential that the process for appointing these people and other public officials be fair, transparent and based on merit. The people of Afghanistan must believe in their public institutions if they are to believe in their future.
There is no place for corruption within Afghanistan's local, provincial or national governing institutions. It is thus essential to strengthen the capacity for governance in order to increase public confidence in the Afghan government. Canada recognizes this fact and is responding to the request from the Afghan government to help launch this important mechanism.
The Compact for Afghanistan's objectives are Canada's objectives. Our integrated approach, which combines the skills and resources of the Canadian Forces, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, CIDA, RCMP and Correctional Service of Canada, is designed to help Afghanistan attain its security, governance and development objectives on the schedule set out in the Compact.
A key result in the area of security is strengthening the capacity of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) to assume responsibility for security in that country. In order to enhance the ANSF's effectiveness, Canada provided a national training team to provide basic training for the Afghan National Army. Together with its international partners, Canada is also providing operational mentoring and liaison teams directly to units of the Afghan National Army in order to enhance their skills and professionalism.
While progress has been made with the training and performance of the Afghan troops, there is still a great deal of work to do before they can assume sole responsibility for Afghanistan's responsibility. The strategic consultation team in Kabul is one way of helping the Afghan government to plan viable long-term strategies to respect the Compact for Afghanistan's main benchmarks in the area of security, among others.
[English]
Security sector reform is inextricably linked to development and governance. In Kandahar, Canada supports this link through the activities of the Provincial Reconstruction Team. The PRT is a multi-disciplinary interdepartmental effort aimed at extending the authority of Afghan institutions throughout Kandahar Province, as well as supporting reconstruction and development. Canada has increased support for justice and security sector reform at the national level by supporting expert deployments to key institutions and providing financial support for the Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan.
In Kandahar, our efforts in this regard are concentrated on developing local police capacity through training and mentoring programs, by supplying policing equipment and refurbishing police stations. The imminent deployment of additional civilian police mentors to the PRT in Kandahar will help to accelerate the training process. Bearing in mind Afghanistan's human rights obligations, projects are in development to improve Afghanistan's correctional system in order to bring it more closely into line with international standards.
Security is only one aspect of Canada's integrated approach to deliver stability and development in Afghanistan. Augmenting our capacity to deliver development projects quickly and effectively is equally important. With a total pledge of almost $1 billion Canadian, Afghanistan is the largest recipient of Canadian development assistance and we rank among the top five bilateral donors to Afghanistan.
Complementing this funding is an increased number of development officials who, alongside their Canadian Forces, RCMP and Foreign Affairs colleagues, are improving our capacity to select, plan, implement and monitor development projects more quickly and efficiently. For example, Canada has recently undertaken road construction and other infrastructure projects to link Kandahar City with outlying districts to improve rural access. Furthermore, we are contributing to humanitarian relief efforts that meet the immediate basic needs of internally displaced persons, especially in rural districts of the province most recently affected by conflict.
Finally, Canada has increased its programming in Kandahar significantly.
It is expected that CIDA will spend up to $20 million of its annual budget for Afghanistan in Kandahar Province alone this fiscal year. These initiatives help to demonstrate to the local population that the Afghan government is addressing their most pressing needs.
At the national level, Canada is one of the principal donors to the National Solidarity Program, or NSP, through which more than 12,000 villages, or half of all villages countrywide, have had a say in the construction of school, clinics, roads, irrigation canals and wells in their communities. Canadian support to the Microfinance Investment and Support Facility complements the objectives of the NSP. Microcredit is a key enabler, providing financial services to Afghan households to help increase equitable economic growth, especially for women.
Canada has played a key role in supporting the government of Afghanistan's ability to meet other benchmarks, such as those that address the rule of law and human rights, and economic and social development. Concerning human rights, for example, we are working closely with the Afghan government to improve its capacity to comply with the requirements of the international human rights treaties which it is party to. In addition, Canada actively supported the development of an Afghan transitional justice action plan that takes a multifaceted approach to addressing past injustices. The action plan, entitled ``Peace, Reconciliation and Justice,'' was formally endorsed by the Afghan cabinet in December 2005 and was formally launched yesterday in Kabul. The five key actions covered by the plan are: public symbolic measures to acknowledge the suffering of victims and their families; institutional reform; truth-seeking and documentation; promotion of reconciliation; and the establishment of meaningful and effective accountability mechanisms.
Three interrelated issues, if not addressed, threaten to undermine the progress made in the recent past. First, security remains the most immediate issue to be resolved and is pivotal to moving forward in other areas identified in the Compact, such as poverty alleviation and economic development. In the south, insurgents are seeking to disrupt efforts toward achieving normalcy and progress.
Second, the narcotics trade, which accounts for some 87 per cent of the global opium supply, is helping to fuel the insurgency while simultaneously undermining efforts to address the third issue, governance. The introduction of systems for strengthening good governance, despite some success, has been slower and more uneven than expected. This has led to corruption, real and perceived, at all levels of the public service, increasing feelings of dissatisfaction among the Afghan people.
Progress in Afghanistan depends on the concerted effort and sustained commitment of the international community. The United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan is the primary international representative responsible for stewardship of the Compact, alongside the Afghan government. In this, UNAMA has a crucial role to play in strengthening the emerging governance institutions of the Afghan state. Afghanistan's neighbours also have a central role to play. Instability does not respect borders and poverty is infectious. High-level regional engagement and cooperation are critical to stemming the trafficking of narcotics, finding sustainable solutions to the Afghan refugee issue, and addressing transnational terrorism, including the cross-border movement of insurgents.
We welcome the commitment of both Afghanistan and Pakistan to a meaningful and constructive cross-border dialogue and are hopeful that the Government of Afghanistan will do more to prevent cross-border movements of insurgents.
Another key partner for Afghanistan is NATO. Last month at the NATO summit in Riga, allies stated clearly that contributing to peace and stability in Afghanistan is the alliance's key priority. It was also announced that some NATO members are willing to deploy additional forces to the south and to reduce national caveats. These are all clear signals of the international community's confidence in Afghanistan's future, reinforced in September by the Security Council's decision to once again extend the multinational force's mandate in the country.
Honourable senators, transition takes time. State-building is a long-term enterprise. This overview was designed to give you a sense of the current situation in Afghanistan and the comprehensive approach being taken by the Government of Canada to meet challenges and to build a foundation for success. Despite the many difficulties, we believe there are good reasons to be optimistic.
Canadians can be proud of the contributions we have made in Afghanistan in 2006. Canada remains committed to playing our part to ensure the Afghanistan compact delivers on its promise to the people of Afghanistan.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fox.
Senator Zimmer: Thank you for being here today.
As a preamble, we can say that we cannot win this war on the point of a bayonet. Also, the situation as it is now is not working. It will take more than what we are doing right now. Our committee buys into the ``3D approach,'' but you just quoted the fact that it is a long-term enterprise — transition takes time. State-building is a long-term enterprise. If we cannot start delivering aid very soon, all of the troops are for nought.
I want to get into the relationships between governments. Could you describe the relationship between the governments of Kandahar and Afghanistan? What is the situation? Can you show how President Karzai and his government have full control over the Kandahar province and how important this is to Canada's success in that region?
Mr. Fox: We agree entirely that we cannot win in Afghanistan through military means alone. I think the 3D approach you referred to is an acknowledgment of that. Canada's approach from the outset has always been a comprehensive and multifaceted one. From the beginning of our engagement in Afghanistan, we have been moving on all fronts at the same time. We have not just been focusing on one particular element.
The relationship between the local government in Kandahar and the central government is important. The concept of the provincial reconstruction teams was to extend the reach of the central government into all parts of Afghanistan. That is at the core of what the PRTs are doing. It is very important for us to be working with the local authorities, in part to be strengthening their capacity to be doing basic governance, which includes the issue of development. One of the important things we have been doing in Kandahar is working with the governor and his team, to be putting in place governance institutions that will allow the Afghans to be doing precisely what you would expect a local government to do. Therefore, their role is very important and we work closely with them.
In Kabul, we have been working with the national institutions to encourage them to spend more time in Kandahar, and working through their representatives, particularly those responsible for the national solidarity program, which is responsible for development on a national basis. We are making progress, but this takes time.
Senator Zimmer: What would you say the relationship is between Canada and the local leaders in Kandahar?
Mr. Fox: We work, of course, through the governor, who has the responsibility to represent the Government of Afghanistan in Kandahar province. Therefore, we work with him on an ongoing basis. We have a good relationship with him, but we also work through the Afghan ministers in Kabul. We have been encouraging them to visit Kandahar on a more regular basis.
Senator Zimmer: In your presentation on point 14 you talk about the stability of the Afghan government. How stable is it? What are the factors that challenge the capability of the Afghan government? Has Canada contributed to combating these challenges? What remains to be done?
Mr. Fox: The important thing to emphasize is that progress has been achieved since 2001. We have an Afghan government that is democratically elected for the first time in Afghanistan. That is a major accomplishment. It is a government that clearly has the support of the Afghan people, and we have been able to stand up with international partners and the Afghan government itself, its national institutions, a new Parliament and many other national institutions. In that sense, the progress has been considerable. We now have the makings of a functioning administration. The challenge has been to do the same at the regional level.
The progress we have seen is remarkable. There remain many challenges, and these are longer-term challenges. Security is the first one. The situation with respect to security varies considerably across various parts of Afghanistan; progress has been good overall. Most parts of Afghanistan are more secure than was the case in the past. The situation in the south is more difficult. I emphasize that the situation elsewhere has improved significantly.
Senator Zimmer: Do you have benchmarks that are being used to measure the stability of the Afghan government that we can gauge ourselves from?
Mr. Fox: The issue applies generally. The Afghanistan Compact, which incorporates the Afghanistan National Development Program, has 40 benchmarks intended to track progress in achieving the goals of the Compact. These goals are in the different areas I mentioned; security, governance and development. These benchmarks are clear in setting out the outcomes that are being sought and what the timelines are. They allow us to track this. We also have the joint coordination and monitoring board, which has the responsibility of monitoring the implementation of these benchmarks.
In the security sector, the key benchmarks relate to the training and standing up of the Afghan national army and police. There we have seen good progress, particularly with respect to the Afghan National Army.
Senator Meighen: Mr. Fox, you were referring to the 40 clear benchmarks and the fact that they had timelines. Is it possible for the committee to have an indication of what those timelines are?
Mr. Fox: We can provide you with a copy of the documentation. The timelines overall for the Afghanistan Compact are five years. That is the main answer. They are tracked on an ongoing basis. We have carried out an assessment recently with our international partners in the Afghan government. The determination was that seven of the short-term benchmarks due at the end of 2006 had been achieved. Five will require a doubling of effort. These benchmarks are tracked on an ongoing basis. We can provide you with a copy of those.
Senator Meighen: That would be helpful. Most Canadians would be surprised to hear that much progress has been achieved.
The Chairman: What we are after in Senator Zimmer's question is not so much the goals, as the benchmarks along the way towards achieving those goals. If you are measuring them on a regular basis, they should be made public on a regular basis. We have not run across them. Are they published somewhere? Are we deficient in our research? Is this something you do not regularly put out?
Mr. Fox: The website where the information can be obtained is the Afghan National Development Strategy (ANDS) website, which has the Afghanistan Compact and all the benchmarks set out as well as information with respect to the progress being achieved.
The Chairman: How frequently is it updated?
Mr. Fox: I would have to check.
Jason Reeve, Cabinet and Parliamentary Affairs Liaison, Afghanistan Task Force, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: Twice a year or so.
Mr. Fox: This is an Afghan government website which has the information.
The Chairman: Where is our website that has the information? Where is the Canadian assessment of where we are at? Specifically, where is it for Kandahar?
Mr. Fox: The benchmarks I was referring to are national benchmarks. They are tracked nationally rather than regionally.
The Chairman: Which means it is impossible to tell how we are doing.
Mr. Fox: I would not say that. There is progress being achieved in the south. The benchmarks, by definition in the Compact, are national benchmarks.
The Chairman: It is hard to tell how we are doing as a country. It is hard to understand how things are in the environment where our troops are. You would be amongst the first to recognize that development aid in Kandahar will have a great bearing on how our troops are treated.
Where can we get those measurements?
Mr. Fox: The information is available from different sources. The Department of National Defence has been providing information with respect to the situation from a security point of view. CIDA has provided information in a variety of ways with respect to the development effort.
Senator Meighen: In paragraph 10 we talk about a total pledge from Canada of almost $1 billion to Afghanistan. Then down at the end of the paragraph there is mention of the fact that CIDA is spending up to $20 million in Kandahar. According to my math, that is one-fiftieth. Our troops are in Kandahar. How come?
Mr. Fox: The $1 billion I referred to is the longer-term pledge, which runs until 2011. It is the overall pledge for that entire period. It is $100 million a year that CIDA is spending. The $20 million I referred to in the south is one-fifth of the annual spending of CIDA at this point. It has been rising as we have increased our capacity to deliver that additional amount in the south.
Senator Meighen: Does that include the military's direct $4 million, which has been raised from $2 million?
Mr. Fox: This is CIDA's budget.
Senator Meighen: We are talking really about $24 million.
Mr. Fox: Perhaps, yes. I was referring to CIDA. It has been moving to increase the percentage of the national budget they have been spending to have more impact in the south.
Senator St. Germain: Assistant Deputy Minister Fox, thank you for being here with Mr. Reeve and Mr. McRae. You make reference to corruption. You say, at the top of page 3, that the people of Afghanistan must trust their government.
How do you monitor whether we are making any in-roads on corruption? Traditionally, in many of these countries, this is a pariah that plagues the country. If the help is not getting down to the bottom of the totem pole, is there any way of monitoring or policing the whole process of corruption? It is not an easy thing to monitor.
Mr. Fox: The issue of corruption is one that we, our international partners and the Afghan government are concerned about. We have been concerned about this on an ongoing basis.
I made reference to the transitional justice action plan that was announced yesterday in Kabul. One of the significant aspects of this is the question of appointments panels. We have pushed very hard to put in place panels that have the responsibility for reviewing candidates for senior positions. This is one mechanism we believe is important to make sure there is an oversight. The Afghan government has committed itself to doing that.
Senator St. Germain: Is there a definitive way to monitor whether things are improving in that field? Conversations I have had with people quite closely involved over there say it is one of the real challenges of working in that particular country. The drug lords and various economies that existed before tended to feed on this type of lifestyle in the country. Other than the transitional justice plan, is there any other monitoring by police or some authorities of the UN or NATO or whoever?
Mr. Fox: There are vetting programs for the police and the Afghan National Army to make those determinations to the best of their ability, to try to check on people's backgrounds. There are other efforts underway.
The United Nations played a role from the outset, even during the elections, to monitor the suitability of candidates to stand for election. People were, in fact, excluded from participating in the election.
This is an ongoing process. Canada has been one of the countries emphasizing the importance of strengthening these mechanisms.
Senator St. Germain: Canadians are concerned as to whether we are making progress. If you cannot weed through the corruption, it makes it tough.
On page 5, you make reference to another key partner for Afghanistan being NATO. There was a summit in Riga recently. Canadians have the perception that our forces are truly in harm's way and that other forces are not living up to the same level of responsibility. Possibly you could clarify that. It is what I hear from coast to coast, from people across the country. We seem to be right at the forefront, right in the heat of the action, but it seems, from various reports coming through, that certain countries are not prepared to entertain a theatre of action in the south for their troops. Canadians would like an explanation of that.
Mr. Fox: I will ask my colleague, Mr. McRae, to respond to that.
Robert McRae, Director General, International Security Bureau, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: There are a number of facets to the response. The Riga Summit demonstrated some progress on Canada's concerns. A number of countries since September 1 have increased their forces, particularly in the south. Poland, the United Kingdom, Denmark, the Netherlands, Romania and Canada have demonstrated increased numbers since that time. At the summit, there was also some progress made on the issue of caveats, and a number of those caveats have been softened. These are important steps in the direction we wish the alliance to take. As you notice from the Riga Communiqué, the alliance indicated that Afghanistan is NATO's number one priority. All the allies are committed to success there.
Senator St. Germain: There seems to be some hesitation. If you and I go into battle, I expect you to walk shoulder to shoulder with me. I think Canadians expect that. Canadians have proven they will always be there. I cannot see why Canadians should be exposed to something that others are not. I am not speaking on behalf of myself as much as I am speaking on behalf of the concerns out there.
Certain NATO forces are hesitant to be there. We as Canadians have to reassess why we are there and how we will stay there. I was in the military. I was prepared to go to any theatre of action. I would have expected that our allies would have been prepared to be shoulder to shoulder with us, and not two or three steps behind.
It has been clearly stated, and I have seen it in the media, that one of the NATO countries has just refused to move out of the north because of the safety factors. They are not prepared to send their troops south. I do not believe that is acceptable to Canadians. You say some progress has been made, Mr. McRae, and that is what seemed to come out of the summit at Riga. I honestly, like many Canadians, believe there should be a solution to this.
Is there anything ongoing to force some of the people that are hesitant to enter? You mentioned Poland, U.K., Denmark, Romania and Canada. Having looked at the information supplied to us, they are clearly the countries that are in the south now. The ones on the periphery remain on the periphery. Was there any indication that they were going to throw their shoulder behind the wheel and come into the south, which is the most challenging area in Afghanistan, from my understanding, and support our Canadian troops and the other troops there? The Dutch are there with us. I gather some Americans are in that region as well. Is there a plan to force everybody to put their shoulder behind the wheel and get the job done so that everybody can come home?
Mr. McRae: As we have stated repeatedly, there is no question that commanders on the ground need the flexibility requisite to getting a job done. This is the message that Canada has taken forward at the summit and also on a regular basis within NATO itself.
The countries that have increased their troops since September include Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, United Kingdom and Canada. The total is approximately 2,300 additional troops since September.
On the caveat side, France has indicated it is willing to remove its geographic caveat in an emergency situation, or in need, to allow its soldiers to be redeployed. We hope other countries that attended the summit will follow suit. This is an issue requiring follow-up at NATO headquarters. It is key, as these so-called caveats are removed or softened, that it is the commanders on the ground of ISAF who judge the need and have the flexibility from nations to redeploy forces as required.
Mr. Fox: We are continuing to encourage partner countries to increase their contributions, particularly in the south, but also more generally in military contributions and other contributions as well. This is an ongoing process.
The Chairman: As a supplementary to Senator St. Germain's question, Mr. McRae talked about an additional 2,300 since September. What increase have we seen since Riga? We heard the Chief of Defence Staff talk about baby steps coming out of Riga, which is not a resounding success. What are the implications for the NATO Alliance, if we do not see 20,000 troops in the next two or three months? I put 20,000 out as being the number that we are hearing generally associated with what is required at this time. What alliance do we have if we do not see those results by the end of the fiscal year?
Mr. McRae: I do not think any of us here, senator, would disagree with the importance of having sufficient manpower on the ground to achieve NATO's objective. This was a message that certainly Canada and others — we are not alone in the south — have been passing strongly to other countries.
Key to Riga, in addition to the commitments regarding the caveats I referred to earlier, is that allies as a whole have been sensitized to the importance of this mission for NATO and for its future, and indeed to the significance of what is going on in the south in particular in regard to that. This is a work in progress. The allies in the south continue to meet in a variety of formats to press this message and to ensure that NATO commanders have the requisite forces to do the job.
At the end of the day it is in the hands of the commanders to indicate what they feel is required at each step of an evolving security environment on the ground.
Senator Kenny: Gentlemen, surely this a situation where there is something we can measure. The French say they will help out if there is an emergency and that they will waive their caveat if there is a problem; but who knows how to define ``emergency,'' and who knows whether they will define it the way other countries define it. However, we can actually count troops and we can count days, weeks and months. It is clear that the ISAF Commander there has said that he does not have enough troops. I believe the number he is using is 20,000. Four months since Riga does not seem like an unreasonable time for NATO members to step up to the plate. If they do not, what does that say about NATO?
Mr. McRae: There are a number of dimensions here. It is clear that the credibility of NATO is at stake in this operation. You are quite right to put your finger on that issue. NATO needs to succeed in the south and throughout the country. Part of the equation is not only the issue of troop numbers. That assessment is an ongoing assessment depending on the nature of the threat that the commanders are facing on the ground.
Another part of the equation is ensuring that the Afghan National Army is strengthened during the coming period in order that it can take on more of the challenges facing Afghanistan as a whole in the area of security. Indeed, one of the challenges emphasized at the summit was the importance of development and of strengthening the Afghan National Army and the police as key contributors to stabilization and security on the ground.
Even though some of those aspects fall outside the mandate of NATO, it recognizes that an integrated approach is key to its own success on the ground. In some important respects, NATO's success is dependent on the larger integrated approach, which requires the efforts of others.
Senator Kenny: Mr. McRae, I am sure that is true, but all of our intelligence sources tell us that the Taliban are digging in and gearing up for a greater effort in the coming months. I am not being facetious or light when I refer to the Afghan army and police as three-week wonders. They are comprised of people who have had a minimum amount of military training. If you are telling this committee that you believe that in the next three months we will see a sufficient strengthening of the Afghan National Army and the Afghan police such that we will not require the additional 20,000, perhaps I did not understand you.
Is that your position?
Mr. McRae: I was earlier trying to describe the fact that, throughout the coming months and over the longer term, we cannot ignore in any way the importance of moving across all fronts. That is key.
You are right that the Afghan National Army will not be in a position in a short time frame to take on the security role played by NATO. However, we must address all of these issues over this period.
Senator Kenny: I understand that, but, with respect, you are answering a different question. The question was: What about the troops from NATO? First, do we agree that the number is in the area of 20,000?
Mr. McRae: I have to admit, senator, that I have not heard 20,000.
Senator Kenny: Would you care to consult your colleagues? Am I inaccurate with 20,000? If so, what is the number?
Mr. Fox: As we indicated earlier, this is an ongoing issue. Canada will continue to encourage all our partners in NATO to contribute in whatever way possible. The Secretary-General has done the same. He has been clear in his expectation that NATO members will participate to the fullness of their ability. This discussion continues.
We agree with you that it is important that all members of NATO do whatever they can to assist in what NATO leaders have acknowledged to be the number one priority of the organization.
The Chairman: We have established that it is the number one priority. Have we established how many more NATO troops are required, sir?
Mr. McRae: This is an issue that we would want DND to address in detail. It is an important question. Rather than approximating an answer, it would be best to seek a specific reply from DND on that.
The Chairman: Have you established when NATO needs to step forward with the number of people DND is going to tell us they need? Am I unreasonable to suggest three months?
Mr. McRae: A good window to look at is between now and the spring. However, my understanding, to be confirmed by DND, is that NATO has not set a specific time line. We know that there are a number of requirements across Afghanistan which the Supreme Allied Commander has indicated are gaps in NATO's military presence, and there has been some progress in filling those gaps.
In terms of the specifics that are required with regard to the south, it would be best to have a technical briefing by DND on that issue.
The Chairman: You are not challenging that the intelligence reports coming in across the board are suggesting that we will see a renewed effort from the Taliban. You are not disagreeing that I am in the right order of magnitude when I talk about 20,000. You are also not telling us, perhaps because you do not know, that we have seen nothing since Riga, other than some movement on caveats that is very hard to measure.
Mr. McRae: All of those questions are germane. On the 20,000 additional troops, I must admit that I have not heard that figure specified by a NATO commander. That may be something that DND would wish to address in detail.
The Chairman: What would happen if there was a refocusing of Operation Enduring Freedom? Are there enough troops there to make a difference?
Mr. McRae: The United States has a particular mission that it is addressing in that part of the operation. We have not heard any indication from them at this stage that they feel that number can be reduced in any significant way to increase additional troops in Afghanistan. We are all waiting to see what developments there may be in Washington with regard to the ongoing discussion there with the Baker-Hamilton report. There is a reference to Afghanistan in that report, but there has been no indication from U.S. authorities at this stage of any intention or consideration of altering their numbers in Afghanistan.
The Chairman: I would suggest redeploying as opposed to altering.
Mr. McRae: We have not heard anything from U.S. authorities with regard to potential redeployments at this stage.
Senator Meighen: Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you for appearing here this afternoon.
I want to go back to the question of aid, specifically the efficacy of aid in Kandahar Province. Senators Zimmer and St. Germain raised that question, and the chair touched on that point also.
You may be well aware that this committee has, from the outset, had difficulty, perhaps because government spokespeople have had difficulty, in finding out how much money is going into Kandahar, where we have assumed the primary responsibility, and how much is going elsewhere.
We were told that $100 million, which you repeated, Mr. Fox, in your statement, is going into Afghanistan generally. That is a lot of money for this country to be furnishing in addition to the money it is expending on the military effort. Of that, you said in your presentation that about one-fifth — that is, $20 million — is going into Kandahar. I think it is commonly accepted that the $100 million has largely been given to the United Nations to disperse and to the Afghan national government to disperse as each of those organizations sees fit — if I am wrong on that, let me know — except for the $20 million we talked about and the money that our military is now expending directly in Kandahar.
It seems extraordinarily difficult to find out what has happened to the money that has flowed through the United Nations and through the Afghan national government. Given the difficulty in being able to say, ``We have spent $100 million, but look at what we have achieved,'' is it not time to have a basic reassessment of what sort of aid we should be providing, how we should be providing it and where we should be providing it?
Going back to the conversation you had with the chair in terms of Kandahar and so on, Mr. McRae, what if Canada were to say, ``Given the fact that our troops are in Kandahar and are having a tough time, our aid will only go to Kandahar.'' If the other nations of NATO are willing to stay in the north and the east and not come down to the south in any great numbers, perhaps they could look after aid in those areas and we could concentrate our aid in the area in which our troops are fighting and dying.
It would really resonate with the Canadian public and with the population in the Kandahar area if we could say, ``We have built 25 new schools in the last two to four months and we have dug X number of wells.'' It would help both Afghans and Canadians to become convinced that our aid is meaningful in terms of benefiting those most affected by the war right now, the people living in Kandahar Province.
I invite your comments on that. I am heartened by what you said earlier in terms of being able to provide us with the benchmarks and the time line for those benchmarks. I do not know if that is a state secret, but I can give you advice that is worth what you are paying for it: it would be helpful to disseminate that to the Canadian public. We are convinced that we will not win by the point of a bayonet. We will win by security ensured by the military and a new lifestyle and security of life for the Afghans.
I invite your comments, particularly on the advisability and accessibility of providing delivery and location of our aid.
Mr. Fox: Thank you for that question. It is very thoughtful.
First, specific questions with regard to the development program should be addressed to CIDA, because they have the responsibility for delivering on the aid program.
We are trying to do this with our partners under the concept of its being Afghan-led. In terms of defining the priorities, the priorities are set out in the Afghanistan Compact. The priorities set out in the Compact are our priorities because we have agreed with our partners that the Afghans should be the ones identifying where those priorities are.
Senator Meighen: We are also trying to solve a military situation in concert with our NATO allies. We seem to be having difficulty there.
Mr. Fox: On the issue of its being Afghan-led, all of the partners involved in the development effort agree on the absolute importance that the Afghans are leading on this. At the end of the day, this is about standing up an administration that will be capable of governing Afghanistan in all parts of the country. We are heartened by the fact that the Afghanistan Compact is centred on the Afghan National Development Plan. It sets out very clear priority areas.
Canada has been a leader in terms of being a good donor in supporting Afghan government efforts rather than having parallel programs. As a result of that, some of the programs to which we provide funding receive pooled funds. It is more of a challenge to be able to identify where Canadian funds are going, because they are pooled with those of other development partners.
Second, in terms of the development effort in the south, there are constraints. There are two constraints in particular. First, there are capacity constraints to actually complete the development. I referred to encouraging and supporting efforts by the Afghan government to stand up local governance institutions, including provincial development councils and the provincial council itself. These are relatively new institutions that have the responsibility to work with the national authorities to complete these projects. We are seeing new capacity to complete these things, which is very encouraging. We have also been increasing our own capacity inside the Provincial Reconstruction Team to be doing our part of it in terms of project management.
The other constraint is the security situation. To the extent that the security situation allows development efforts to go forward, they are going forward, whether they be ours or those of the Afghan national government. Security is a constraint. The situation varies from region to region, but it is a factor.
Earmarking more than what the system can bear in terms of the capacity constraints could be problematic. As the capacity allows for more to be done, monies are being allocated both by the Afghan government and by CIDA to increase the development effort.
Senator Meighen: Throughout history, wars have had a very important propaganda component. Everyone tries very hard to win that war. How are we doing in that, again both in terms of the Afghans in Kandahar Province and the Canadian citizen who is supplying, through his or her taxes, the money for this?
I think somewhere in your presentation you provided statistics for wells and schools. You mentioned some numbers.
Three or four months ago this was a secure area. The secure area has been expanded so that we are now able to build schools and dig wells in this additional area. Our hope is to expand it even further. However, I am not sure that is the case. I am not sure we are not just in a holding pattern. Notwithstanding the loss of life and the injuries to our troops, are we moving forward?
I do not say this with any disrespect, but I am not sure I got an answer to my question. Is there no need or desire to re-evaluate the efficacy of the aid program?
Mr. Fox: In terms of the specifics of the aid program and the overall approaches being taken by CIDA, I would put those questions to them, but these things are under continuous review. We have regular meetings at the level of senior officials in which we review all elements of our activities in Afghanistan, almost on a weekly basis. We have regular meetings at various levels in which all of these issues are reviewed continuously. Our approaches are being carried out subject to a regular review.
We also have a coordinating mechanism in Kabul, led by President Karzai, in which Canada participates. We are one of four countries that participate in that. It is focused on the south so that the Afghan government and the military commanders and four of the main partners in the south meet on a regular basis in Kabul to review all aspects of how things are being dealt with in the south. The review is being carried out on an ongoing basis and adjustments are being made as required.
Things are getting better. Certainly in terms of security, while DND is in a better position to provide details, there is no doubt that the situation has become more stable as a result of operations carried out by National Defence and our partners. There is no doubt about that. Has the situation completely stabilized? No, it has not, but the situation is certainly much better than it was before those operations were carried out.
Senator Meighen: Mr. Fox, you candidly tell us that meetings are being held and adjustments are being implemented. What adjustments are being implemented? What was the problem? What is the solution and what has been the result of the adjustment? There is nothing wrong with saying, ``We tried this and it bombed; it did not work because . . . .'', and you do not even say why if you do not want to. I am sure you would agree that it is not the case that everything we have done has worked very well, or that, although there are minor adjustments here or there, we are absolutely on the right track. I am having difficulty satisfying myself that a major adjustment is not necessary.
You are saying the situation is under tripartite review continuously and I accept that. That is good. However, most Canadians are wondering whether their aid is going down the drain or being useful. I urge the tripartite committee to be more specific in their public declarations as to what works and what does not.
The Chairman: You are making that as a statement.
Senator Meighen: Yes, I would.
Senator Zimmer: It disturbs me to see Senator Meighen frustrated, but I want to approach this from different angle.
When I hear that 87 per cent of the opium supply to the world comes from there, my imagination is just filled with images. I see vultures in a tree. I see hooded monks in silent prayer waiting for this aid to come in. They swoop down and take it.
Do we have any measure, any empirical evidence, or any numbers whereby $100 million has been spent there? Does it get to the right places? Do we have actual figures or amounts saying the funding got to the right places and it was not scooped up before it got there? Rather than just talking about strategies and whether the situation has improved, do we have any statistical information to show that the money got to where it was supposed to go?
When we send it over, Canadians feel great, because we have assisted, but we never know what happens over there. I am asking whether we have any statistical information that the funding has gone to the right places. Was it for schools, lifestyles and things of that nature, or did it go to evil causes?
Mr. Fox: I would suggest that questions about the CIDA programs in terms of specific details be put to CIDA. When I made reference to the fact that Canada has been providing money in particular through the UN, it is precisely to be able to provide those assurances to the Canadian people that the money is properly spent. Those programs are subject to auditing and to reporting on results, as to whether projects are completed. Therefore, this gives a greater measure of assurance that the funds will be properly spent.
Providing funds directly to others would perhaps give cause for greater concern. Canadians should be reassured that the money is being administered in many instances by the United Nations Development Program, for example, which has controls in place on how the funds are being spent.
Senator Zimmer: I know it is a difficult question to answer. It is a faraway country and it is difficult to pin that down; there is always fear when you hear about organized crime with different governments; you are dealing with different people. It is not the same as in this country.
Mr. Fox: Monies are not being provided to anyone without controls being in place and making sure that they are subject to audit and reporting on results. Canadians have a right to know how the money is being spent.
The Chairman: When you say that Canadians have a right to know how the money is being spent, that was exactly Senator Zimmer's question. He does not know, and he is here, as we all are, asking these questions on behalf of Parliament as to how they are being spent and particularly how they are being spent in Kandahar. We do not feel we do know.
You say we have this right, but we are not receiving the information we would like.
Mr. Fox: CIDA would be in a position to provide more comprehensive information. I can give you several of examples we have. One of them is a global initiation in Kandahar Province. There has been an outbreak of polio in the south. CIDA is providing $5 million to this initiative, to be able to vaccinate Afghan children in Kandahar Province.
Another example is approximately $5 million being spent on emergency food assistance in Kandahar Province. That is being done through the world food program.
Yet another example is the national, area-based, development program in Kandahar. That is $6.5 million. It is focused on infrastructure projects that provide basic services. Funding is provided to accelerate the program through all 17 districts of Kandahar to focus on the construction of schools, irrigation canals and wells.
CIDA is also involved in an alternative livelihood project, which is part of a contribution to identify alternative livelihoods to opium as a longer-term solution to this problem.
These are some examples. CIDA would be able to provide more comprehensive reporting on their programs, but much effort is being put into the development effort in Kandahar Province.
The Chairman: These are the lists we see, and we hear about these dollar amounts. The question is: You have $5 million for this project. How many people actually got inoculated? You have X-million dollars for alternatives for opium work. What progress has been made that would give people reason to go into something other than growing opium? It is those answers we do not have.
Mr. Fox: As I indicated, we are not responsible for the CIDA programs. Those questions are better put to CIDA. We are simply not in a position to provide all of that information ourselves as the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Senator Atkins: As a follow-up to that whole discussion, does Canada get any credit for its efforts in terms of these investments? Do people in Afghanistan know that Canadian dollars are being used and Canadians are providing the money?
Mr. Fox: I think the manner in which Canadians are assisting in Kandahar Province varies. There are efforts being made by the Department of National Defence. Some of those projects being carried out are readily visible and identifiable as efforts made by Canada. Clinics are being done on television et cetera; those things are understood to be carried out by Canada. Some of the other projects would also be identifiable as Canadian projects.
With respect to some of the other programs, such as the National Solidarity Program, we are one of many partners who operate through those programs. Sometimes it is challenging to identify the correlation between Canadian contributions and the final outcomes. We are mindful of this issue and are encouraging every effort to identify projects as Canadian-funded wherever possible.
Senator Atkins: When we assist in building a school, there is a trickle-down effect of financing the school; who gets the credit for that? Is it the local governor or is it recognized as coming through Canadian aid?
Mr. Fox: As I say, that is an important issue. We take every opportunity to be able to identify things that are Canadian-funded. At the same time, we have also taken great care to involve the Afghans, and I think this is one of the reasons we have moved deliberately to be completing it through Afghan institutions. In carrying out these projects, we avoid completing them the easy way by carrying the projects out ourselves rather than having a dialogue with community leaders. Having that dialogue is what we have been doing both at CIDA and DND to invest the time to talk to community leaders, members of the community and identifying their priorities. This is an important principle: Involving the communities in the execution of the projects. It takes more time, but at the end of the day it is more effective because the communities themselves have an ownership role both in the priority setting and also in the building.
I would also note that our information is that, when communities are involved in developing these projects, the Taliban are in fact more careful about attacking these projects, because they know the communities have a stake in them.
That is the Canadian approach and it is the right approach because it allows the Afghan government to demonstrate to their citizens that it is capable of governing.
Senator Atkins: The Taliban have destroyed some schools; is that not right?
Mr. Fox: I am told the few built by the communities in which there has been strong community involvement are fine. When built by foreigners, they are more vulnerable. That is the information we have.
Senator Atkins: Consider the ANA and the police. Our chair referred to the ANA as ``three-week wonders.'' The rumours we have heard are that they lack commitment and discipline and you cannot count on them on holidays; moreover, they are not getting paid on a regular basis. Can you comment on that?
Could you also comment on the effectiveness of the training that these people are supposed to be getting?
Mr. Fox: I think our colleagues at DND would be better placed to comment in more specific terms on the Afghan National Army, but I can relay information I have heard from them and from others as well. First, I would note that the Afghan National Army has suffered significant losses. Their soldiers have been involved on an ongoing basis, and that is something we should acknowledge. They have made important sacrifices. That needs to be acknowledged. With respect to their training, which is an important issue, I am not in a position to be able to comment on the specifics, but Canada has been involved with training facilities in Kabul on an ongoing basis, and so have our partners.
We are all in agreement that standing up an Afghan National Army and a national police force is key to providing the necessary security that will allow development and governance to be able to proceed. Every effort is being made to step up those efforts. It is a long-term project.
Senator Atkins: Is there any assessment as to how long it will take?
Mr. Fox: The Afghanistan Compact that I referred to has certain benchmarks with respect to how many troops would be trained and up and running by certain dates. It provides a mechanism to be able to track that.
A huge effort has gone into training both the Afghan National Police and the Afghan National Army, but those efforts are continuing and will continue for some time.
Senator Atkins: We continuously hear that their economy is still based on drugs. Can you comment on how the different organizations are dealing with that problem these days? How does it affect their economy, when they bear down on that problem?
Mr. Fox: I would say two things in response to that. First, we are seeing fairly impressive economic growth in the Afghan economy. I think we have seen a doubling of Afghan national products since 2001. We are seeing good growth as the security situation allows economic activity to resume.
Senator Atkins: What are the alternatives?
Mr. Fox: There is a whole array of crops that Afghanistan has been known for in the past, from wheat to garden crops. There are quite a few alternatives, but this takes time. There has been a doubling of the Afghan gross national product, and that is very important. It is also allowing the Afghan government to increase its revenues to pay for its activities.
On the specific issue of opium, this is a major preoccupation and there is an Afghan national drug strategy that has a multifaceted approach to it, recognizing that it is a complicated problem with no single line of attack being capable of dealing with it. The intent is to deal with different elements of the problem simultaneously. It is a huge problem. There is no doubt about it.
Senator Banks: Gentlemen, thank you for appearing.
Most of the questions I have for you have been asked before of various witnesses, but the impression that some of us have is that we are not learning much. We have asked CIDA and the minister responsible for CIDA, we have asked the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs many questions along the lines of the ones that Senator Zimmer and Senator Meighen have put forward today, and it is an understatement to say that we are unimpressed so far by our level of knowledge, if that is the word, and information on this.
First, I suppose the advice is worth exactly what one pays for it. Of course there is the PR aspect, and I do not suggest that that is something mundane, because, with regard to the state of the public opinion of Canadians, what is at stake is the public confidence of Canadians in what we are doing and why we are doing it and why we are there in respect of all of these questions, including the ones asked by Senator St. Germain. There is an urgent necessity to provide clear answers to the kinds of questions that you have heard today, not just to us but to Canadians, and if you have the chance to convey that to the government — and I wish it had been conveyed to the previous government as well — it would, I am sure, have a beneficial effect on the attitude of Canadians and the questions they are beginning to ask.
As Senator St. Germain suggested, Canadians have never failed to ``belly up to the bar'' when it came time to do so, but we are unused to doing so in the context of an alliance in which one must undertake to convince other members of the alliance to come to the table.
That having been said, you spoke about the likelihood of attacks upon community projects — schools, wells or roads — being somewhat less if the community has a direct stake in it. That is logical. Is such a stake a prerequisite for Canadian direct aid? When a project is being considered, where does the aid come from? Does it arise from the community? Does the community come up through its governing process and say to whomever, ``This is what we would like done.''? Is the answer, ``We will give you X dollars to do so through a contractor whom we will work with you to obtain, provided that there is some demonstrable stake in that project by the community.'' Is that a prerequisite of those undertakings?
Mr. Fox: Every effort is made to consult with Afghans on their priorities at the national level. There is an Afghan minister responsible for national programs, especially the National Solidarity Program. Local governance figures — the Governor himself and local community leaders — identify what is most important to them. This has been going on since Canada arrived in Kandahar Province. It is an activity all members of the provincial reconstruction team have been involved with.
Every effort is made to do that rather than to have Canadians deciding what is most important. All opportunities are being explored with respect to what the delivery mechanisms are. They vary from project to project. Some projects are more complex and require different delivery mechanisms through contractors.
The starting point is to be clear about what the Afghan priorities are and how they fit into the National Development Program.
Senator Banks: Canadians, with all respect, would have less than entire confidence in their involvement. As I understand it, this is a building process that will take a long time. At the moment, however, it is hard to tell Canadians that everything is okay because it is being handled by and through the Afghan government, either the national or the regional governments, and undertaken in many cases, as I understand it, by Afghan contractors. I do not know how else you could do it other than that.
To be colloquial about it, a lot of Canadians would be convinced that there are probably some sticky fingers in the river along the way with that money. Are they wrong in that concern?
Mr. Fox: I said earlier that Canada has been very careful in terms of how our monies are spent. The fact that most of the monies are spent through UN agencies provides an assurance to Canadians that the monies are spent in an appropriate way. They are subject to auditing and reporting on results. In addition, a number of projects are being carried out, as we have seen on television, by our soldiers directly working with local resources as well.
It would be fair to say that all of the projects we are involved with are subject to controls and procedures to ensure that the monies are being spent properly. We are not giving money to Afghans without controls to ensure that the monies are spent properly.
Senator Banks: I am satisfied, I think we all are, with the level of information we receive from the military with respect to the money they have to spend on the ground right here and now. When we are able to ask them what they do with it, they are able to tell us quite directly, and they have done so. I am not sure that I, with all due respect to the organization, am given great confidence by the fact that the UN is monitoring this. Are the department and the government convinced that the United Nations is fully transparent and fully accountable and is doing all the right things with this money, when it is the source of the distribution?
Mr. Fox: Our department is not responsible for the implementation of the CIDA programs in Afghanistan. It would be fairer to address questions to CIDA with respect to the particular modalities governing how the monies are allocated.
Senator Banks: We have done that. I suspect the money passes through you before it reaches CIDA.
Mr. Fox: No, we are not involved in the transmission of the funds now.
Senator Banks: Do you think you should be?
Mr. Fox: No. I think CIDA is well established as an institution that carries out development projects in many parts of the world. They have a lot of experience in this area and have the mandate for doing this. I would put those questions to CIDA. They have been very careful about the mechanisms used for spending money in Afghanistan in order to ensure that we have suitable accountability.
Senator Banks: You stated two things about that. First, you stated that great efforts are made to ensure the efficacy of those funds. On the other hand, you also stated, given the way they have gone about it, that it is very difficult to paint our dollars pink, because they go into a big hopper and the UN, or the central government of Afghanistan or the provincial governor is handling them.
Are those two aspects reconcilable? Can we take comfort with respect to the accountability of those funds, when, as you have said, you cannot trace the funds because they are going into this big hopper at the top and being mixed with other people's money and we do not know exactly where they go? Have I characterized that incorrectly?
Mr. Fox: CIDA is in a better position to address the specifics of that question.
The issue of having enough capacity on the ground is very important. We have had to build our capacity in the provincial reconstruction team as quickly as possible to ensure that we have resources in place to do project design and do the oversight of the projects. It is critical that capacity be in place to ensure that we have the answers to your questions. As that capacity has increased inside the provincial reconstruction team, and it has been increasing continuously, we have in place the mechanisms that can provide those assurances.
That is why allocating monies too quickly would create difficulties, because we have to be sure that the mechanisms are in place to ensure the monies are properly spent.
Senator Banks: That refers to the benchmarks you talked about.
With respect to the five-year time line that you have mentioned, and you have undertaken to provide some of those benchmarks and what they are, is that the five-year time line that Parliament determined or is it a different five-year time line?
Mr. Fox: It is a five-year time line established in the Afghanistan Compact. The Afghanistan government decided it should be five years. It is the time line of the Afghan National Development Project as well, as determined by the Afghan government with the international community.
Senator Banks: However, it does not refer to the length of time in which action will continue in that theatre of operations?
Mr. Fox: No. It was a decision of the Afghan government and the international partners that the time line of the Compact should be five years.
Senator Banks: There have been newspaper reports recently, and there is one again today, referring to the view that Afghans in Kandahar have about our forces. The question, which most Canadians are rightly concerned about, is whether the Canadian Forces are there to help, and are the good guys, or whether they have become an army of occupation and are the bad guys as a result of things that have happened. When there are people shooting, bad stuff happens.
There is an article today suggesting, and this has been expressed to us before by NGOs and by civilian providers of aid and development money, that when the army — to use the global term — does that, it hurts the chances of civilian delivery of those systems.
A number of civilian development officers — more than 30, I believe — of one kind or another have been killed in Afghanistan. That makes the troops less welcome than they would be otherwise. I guess it is the ``three-block war'' concept. On the one hand they are shooting and on the other they are trying to build a school. Does your department have a view in that respect?
Mr. Fox: It has been the Canadian approach to want to work through all of the various partners available in the south to do the work we are committed to doing, whether that be international organizations, the Afghan institutions I referred to, or NGOs. We talk to all the partners on a regular basis. We would like to be able to work with all of them to accomplish our common objectives.
Senator Banks: We would all agree with that. I cannot ask you to comment on anything other than the present government policy.
The Chairman: Mr. Fox, I thank you and your colleagues for coming before us today. It is a complicated problem, which we recognize. We also recognize that, in some cases, the questions we have asked you today have been out of your line or perhaps have been broader government policy questions. Having said that, the committee is of the view that, at some point, somehow, these issues have to be brought together. We intend to continue to pursue them. We appreciate your assistance today. On behalf of the committee, I thank you for endeavouring to answer them.
For members of the public viewing this program, if you have any questions or comments, please visit our website by going to www.sen-sec.ca. We post witness testimony as well as confirmed hearing schedules. You can also contact the clerk of the committee by calling 1-800-267-7362 for further information or assistance in contacting members of the committee.
Honourable senators, I now invite Giuliano Zaccardelli, Commissioner of the RCMP, to come forward. I would ask Senator Meighen to read into the record a letter the committee has prepared for the Commissioner.
Senator Meighen: Commissioner Zaccardelli, as Deputy Chair of this committee, I am honoured today to read a letter addressed to you, dated December 7, 2006, signed by the Chair of the committee, Senator Colin Kenny, and myself. I hope you will forgive the familiarity at the beginning, but it is a sign of affection and respect. The letter reads as follows:
Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
1200 Vanier Parkway
Ottawa ON K1A 0R2
Dear Zack:
On behalf of the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, we are writing to thank you for your service to Canada as head of our national police force for the past six years. You have carried out your duties with distinction, integrity and honesty.
In recent years we have come to realize the many threats that face our world and our country. Under your leadership Canada has been a safe and secure place in which to live. We owe you a debt of gratitude for your unfailing attention to the well-being of the citizens and for striving to ensure that all of us can live in a safe environment.
Thank you for your valuable contribution to making Canada a safer and more secure country.
All good wishes,
The Honourable Colin Kenny
ChairThe Honourable Michael Meighen
Deputy Chair
The Chairman: Commissioner Zaccardelli, we would like to present you with this plaque, which reads:
To Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli
With respect and gratitude for the work he has done for
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canada
December 15, 2006
Thank you very much, commissioner.
Giuliano Zaccardelli, Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Thank you.
If you will permit me a couple of words, first of all, this is a total and pleasant surprise. I received a call from Senator Kenny just today, and I very much appreciate this honour.
This committee does some incredible work in helping to keep Canada safe and secure. I have been honoured to appear before the committee several times, and I hope I was able to help you understand some of the issues. As I said to Senator Kenny, after December 15, if he wants to call, I would gladly come back and might just be a little more flexible with my answers.
I have spent 36 years with the RCMP, and it has been an honour and a privilege to serve Canada, as all of you are doing and have done for so many years. I will continue to serve Canada because that is what servants of the people do, in whatever capacity we are given. It has been an honour knowing all of you.
Thank you very much. This honour means a lot to me.
The committee continued in camera.