:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Members of the committee, it's a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss Canada's mission in Afghanistan. This mission is a priority for this government, and I value every opportunity I get to inform Canadians about why we are in Afghanistan, about what we need to maintain, and why we need to maintain a strong military contribution there.
To put it succinctly, Canada is in Afghanistan to ensure the security of Canadians. Afghanistan was once a failed state that harboured and supported the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks of September 11, 2001. Thousands of innocent people died in those attacks, including 24 Canadians.
In Canada we can't pretend to be immune from threats like terrorism, simply because we live far away from trouble spots such as Afghanistan. We need to address threats to our security before they reach our shores. Canada therefore has a responsibility to ensure that the extremists who would harm us and our allies can no longer find refuge in Afghanistan.
[Translation]
Canada has a responsibility to protect Canadians. Canada has a responsibility to act.
[English]
We're also in Afghanistan in support of our friends and allies in the G-8, NATO, and the United Nations, who all consider Afghanistan a priority. As a responsible member of the international community, Canada must share the burden and do its part in Afghanistan. That's why we are currently there, alongside more than 30 countries that are as dedicated as we are to helping the Afghan people.
As part of our commitment to Afghanistan, Canada signed the Afghanistan Compact, which clearly outlines how the Government of Afghanistan, the United Nations, and the international community will work together over the next five years to ensure that the multilateral efforts in Afghanistan are successful. The compact also clearly identifies benchmarks against which to evaluate progress made in Afghanistan.
[Translation]
And third, Canada is in Afghanistan for the sake of the Afghan people. They have greatly suffered under the repressive regime of the Taliban and from decades of internal conflict, and they have explicitly asked us to be there. In line with Canada's tradition of helping those in need, we answered their call. That is why our mission in Afghanistan is not simply a military mission. It also involves diplomatic and development efforts.
[English]
In addition to our military contribution, we have established an embassy in Kabul to develop high-level ties between Canada and Afghanistan. Afghanistan has also become our largest recipient of bilateral aid. It is through this whole-of-government approach that we are helping Afghanistan become a secure and self-sufficient democratic state that will provide for the needs of its citizens, like any other country in the world.
So Canada is in Afghanistan to protect Canadians, to fulfill our international responsibilities, and to help the Afghan people. We have played a leading role in this mission, and together with our allies and partners we have achieved many positive results. But our job is not done.
As I said in the House during the debate on May 17, our military mission in Afghanistan will be successful when the country and its government are stabilized, when the terrorists and their local support networks are defeated and denied sanctuary, and when the Afghan security forces are well established and under the firm and legitimate control of the Government of Afghanistan.
It is because we are determined to accomplish these objectives that the government extended Canada's mission until February 2009.
[Translation]
This new two-year commitment will give the Afghan armed forces and the Afghan police the time they need to become operationally effective. It will ensure a smooth political transition in 2009 when the current mandate of Afghanistan's president ends. It's consistent with the timeline contained in the Afghanistan Compact. And it's what our allies expect and need from us.
[English]
Not only is it important that we maintain our commitment to Afghanistan, but it is also essential for us to maintain the right military capabilities to do the job. Our goals of security and reconstruction in Afghanistan are interdependent. Reconstruction cannot happen in an environment devoid of security, and a secure environment cannot be fostered without reconstruction efforts to help the local population build a stable future. Therefore, what Canada needs in Afghanistan is an integrated combat-capable Canadian Forces team that is composed of a provincial reconstruction team, an army task force and its supporting forces.
We need our personnel training the Afghan National Army in Kabul, as well as those who work at the coalition hospital at Kandahar airfield, and those who serve in ISAF headquarters. And we need the strategic advisory team that gives advice to President Karzai's government in Kabul.
[Translation]
We also need our military team to be able to function seamlessly within our “whole of government” approach. This means a team that can work closely with partners from the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Canadian International Development Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and others. It is also important to understand that the configuration of our military forces in Afghanistan is the minimum required for the safety of the men and women of the Canadian Forces themselves.
[English]
As we have all seen in recent months, southern Afghanistan, and the Kandahar region in particular, is a complex and dangerous environment where the dedicated provision of security for Canadian troops by Canadian troops is critical.
We would not have been able to meet this requirement by deploying a provincial reconstruction team alone without an army task force there to protect it. A smaller military commitment would also have let our allies down.
Through our command of the multinational brigade for Regional Command South, Canada is currently leading the transition for Operation Enduring Freedom to the NATO-led, UN-mandated, International Security Assistance Force in the southern provinces of Afghanistan. When this expansion is complete, ISAF will be present in more than three-quarters of Afghanistan's territory. NATO and our allies are counting on our continued leadership during this transition period. It is particularly true of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, who have made troop commitments to Afghanistan for two and three years, respectively, on the understanding that we would be there alongside them with the full range of capabilities that we have today.
So for these reasons, extending our military commitment to Afghanistan until February 2009 was the right and responsible thing to do.
[Translation]
Between now and then, we will keep Canadians informed of the mission's progress. The government will report to Parliament on the results we have achieved. And then, at the appropriate time, the government will decide whether or not to continue the mission beyond 2009.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan are standing up for Canada's national interest. They are helping to protect Canadians from terrorism. They are fulfilling Canada's obligations to our allies. And they are helping the people of Afghanistan.
[English]
On May 17 the House of Commons recognized the importance of our commitment to Afghanistan and voted to extend it. With that support in hand, this government is more committed than ever to seeing our mission through.
Thank you very much.
:
I agree. I've said elsewhere that there is no military solution to Afghanistan. The military is merely there to provide as much security as they can so that the country itself can grow and prosper, and people can live some kind of a normal life.
So yes, we and our predecessors are going to carry on and try to emphasize more development effort and more assistance of governments, etc., but we have to conduct security operations so that the Taliban, the drug lords, and the criminal gangs don't take over the country. Right now the country, certainly in the Kandahar province, is in a delicate situation. I would think that we in the south, in the sector we're in, in both Helman and Kandahar provinces, have some of the most difficult challenges to provide security because the Taliban started in the city of Kandahar, where we're located. Their breeding ground came out of the city of Kandahar, so they're particularly strong there. That's why, as I say, we appreciate the arrival of the British and the Dutch, because together we represent a substantial force that can keep the Taliban suppressed.
Lately the Taliban in our area have been coming out in larger numbers to try to...well, recently they tried to attack the city of Kandahar. I assume they watch TV. I don't mind those tactics, because what they're doing is playing into our hands. If they concentrate against our military, then we can defeat them, and lately they've been concentrating against our military in our area. They've been taking very large casualties, and I don't know how long they can keep up the intensity of what they've been trying to do in the last two months.
We have to do this so that cities like Kandahar can grow, and so that people can have their farms, go to school, and so on.
:
There is a command system. As I just described, under the current command system you have the American corps, the division, and down into Brigadier General Fraser's brigade--and there are five other brigades.
They have a coordination system. They have a coordination system for air operations, for artillery--these sorts of things. They also have coordination of where their various forces are.
The challenge you have in friendly fire, so-called friendly fire.... By the way, historically there have always been unfortunate deaths in war caused by allies or your own forces. In many of these cases, the friendly-fire incidents occur at night, in the black, with forces coming together.
For instance, our investigation into one of our casualties to know whether it was friendly fire is still going on, but in that case an American outpost was under attack and in danger of being overrun. Our forces were sent in as part of the reserve ready to go in and protect them. I guess they were arriving in the middle of the night, at the same time that a firefight was going on; sometimes people fire when they're not sure what they're firing at, so this happens--but there is a coordination.
:
With respect to how many years we're going to be in Afghanistan, from a military point of view, we are committed to February 2009. Before that date, based on our observations of whether we're succeeding or not—and I expect we will be succeeding—the government will make a subsequent decision on what it is going to do. As I said before, the choices are increase your force, decrease your force, maintain the same, or withdraw. So those decisions will be made out there.
People are speculating about 10, 15, or 20 years. That's just speculation. Right now, our military commitment—I can't speak for diplomacy or aid—is to February 2009.
With respect to the reserves, my understanding is that about 15% of the strength over there is reserves, and I think it will always be so wherever we go, because many of our reservists are excellent soldiers, sailors and airmen, and they volunteer to do full time for a while. We train them up to operational standards, the same standards as regular forces. As I said again in Aldershot last week, there is not a hill of beans between them, once you train them up to the same standard.
Yes, we're going to expand. Our plan is to expand the reserves by about 10,000. It doesn't mean that there will be more people in Afghanistan if we don't change the numbers, but the proportion will probably stay the same. But it means that out in the future, as we increase the regulars and the reserves, it's going to give us more capability to take on more ventures, if they come up.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll share my time. I don't think I'm going to take up the whole ten minutes.
Mr. Minister, thank you for being here today.
I had an opportunity during the break last week to participate in the Canadian Forces parliamentary program. I chose the air force program, and spent two nights and three days touring the NORAD headquarters, the air force headquarters, and 17 Wing and 4 Wing of the Canadian Armed Forces. I was very impressed with the level of expertise and professionalism that were shown to me. I slept a little bit better when I went home, knowing that our airspace is safe. I'm looking forward to hearing more good things as we increase our NORAD commitments into maritime operations and make sure that our shorelines are just as safe as our airspace is.
While I was impressed with the exercise, I'd also like to be sure that the training and equipment available to our troops in Afghanistan is up to par and the best possible equipment we can provide our soldiers. In the news, most Canadians are aware of the G-Wagon, which is a fairly new piece of equipment that we have, and the LAV III, the light armoured vehicles. But it has been brought to my attention that the department has purchased the Nyala armoured patrol vehicles, and I believe they're now in use in Afghanistan.
I'll just ask a few quick questions dealing with that, and wait for your response. What are the differences in layman's terms between the Nyalas, the G-Wagon, and the LAV III?
:
The LAV III, of course, is an eight-wheeled armoured personnel carrier, and for the threat in Afghanistan it's well armoured. The Taliban have fired a number of their small rockets at the LAVs to no effect. Once in a while some of our people get injured because they happen to be out of the turret and a piece of shrapnel hits them or something like that. Recently the Taliban fired four rounds at one of these LAVs to no effect. From an armour protection point of view and for the threat they're in, they're quite good.
They also have dealt quite well with mines, because the Taliban put these mines in the road. They're able to take a hit of multiple mines and basically our soldiers survive inside them. They may be shaken up, because the thing gets lifted, but usually wheels get blown off and things like that.
Recently the Taliban blew up a mine or mines around one of our LAVs and we had to abandon it because it caught on fire. There was fuel or ammo around and it caught on fire, so we destroyed it. The Taliban themselves didn't destroy it; it was a consequence of a fire.
With respect to the Nyala, the Nyala is a vehicle that was developed in South Africa. I'm trying to remember, but I think it has four wheels. It's very high off the ground and the bottom of it is wedged--armour plate in a wedge--so that when you have an explosion, it diffuses the force. It's built so that if it goes under an explosion, the wheels, the engine, etc. blow off. I've seen a picture of a Nyala after it went under a very heavy mine blast and the soldiers inside survived with minor injuries. The main vessel itself was untouched, but the wheels and the engine were blown off. They are quite effective against mines. They're also effective against small arms and things like that.
The G-Wagon in simple terms is a Mercedes jeep. It's a very good vehicle too for moving people around. They have limited armour protection. My understanding--and if I'm wrong here, Admiral, you tell me--is that in future we're going to limit nearly all the G-wagons to inside the camp to move supplies around and things like that. There may be an exception here and there of putting a few G-wagons out beyond the camp, but essentially our ground forces will be moving in either Nyalas or LAVs when they go out on missions because for the threat they're dealing with, they're pretty effective. You can't protect against everything. You can make an explosive big enough to move a tank, but right now these vehicles are very good for the forces.