War on Terrorism

Stéphane Dion and Stephen Harper Duel Over Afghanistan Mission

Greg Farries — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 10:26:21 -0700

Should Canada Stay or Pull out of Afganistan: A Tough Decision for Dion

Greg Farries — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 08:41:34 -0700

Canada in Afghanistan: Military & Development Roles

Jay Makarenko — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:03:31 -0700

Canada has played an active role in Afghanistan, from both a military and development perspective, since the United States-led removal of the Taliban regime began in fall 2001. Over the years, Canada’s role in Afghanistan has become a significant issue – both in Canada’s domestic affairs and vis-à-vis its international relations. Accordingly, this article provides an overview of Canadian military and development activities in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2007.

Introduction to Canada’s Role in Afghanistan

Overview of Afghan politics and Canadian involvement

Canada’s Military Role in Afghanistan

Nature and duration of Canada’s military involvement

Canada’s Development Role in Afghanistan

Political, social, and economic development initiatives

Sources and Links to More Information

List of article sources and links to more on this topic

Introduction to Canada’s Role in Afghanistan

Overview Afghan politics and Canadian involvement

2001 US Invasion of Afghanistan

On October 2, 2001, the United States, in cooperation with the United Kingdom and the Afghanistan Northern Alliance, initiated the war in Afghanistan. The US operations in Afghanistan were a response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City – attacks that were undertaken by the terrorist organization al-Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden. Afghanistan, at that time, was ruled by the Taliban, an Islamic fundamentalist group which provided safe haven and bases of operation for al-Qaeda and bin Laden. The stated purposes of the US invasion were to remove the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, capture bin Laden, and destroy al-Qaeda.

The US-led invasion led to the defeat of the Taliban regime, while removing Afghanistan as a save haven for al-Qaeda operations. US forces, however, were unable to capture bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader. Moreover, since their initial defeat, the Taliban forces since mounted an insurgency in Afghanistan, in an attempt to disrupt foreign initiatives in the country and eventually return it to Taliban rule.

For more information on the war in Afghanistan:

PBS: Afghanistan and the War on Terror

Canada did not play a major role in the initial invasion of Afghanistan. However, a small Canadian naval task force was deployed to the Persian Gulf in October 2007 as part of a larger US naval group which acted to support US operations in Afghanistan.

Establishment of a New Afghan Government

Following the invasion of Afghanistan and the defeat of the Taliban, Afghan factions met in Bonn, Germany under the auspices of the United Nations to map out their country’s future. This meeting led to the signing of the Bonn Agreement on December 5, 2001, which established a provisional plan for governing the country. Under the Bonn Agreement, an interim government and constitution was established, as well as a commitment to hold democratic elections in 2004. In June of 2002, Hamid Karzai was chosen leader of the interim government; he was subsequently elected President in 2004 following general democratic elections. (He continues to serve in that position, as of September 2007.)

Defence and Security in Afghanistan

While the Afghan government is autonomous, in the sense that it is democratically elected, it nevertheless remains highly dependent upon foreign nations. This is particular true in the area of defence and security. Since the 2001 invasion, domestic Afghan military and police forces have been unable to adequately secure the country from internal and external threats (including the Taliban insurgency). As such, foreign militaries have been providing security in Afghanistan until domestic forces are able to take over.

Originally this security role was predominately performed by the United States. Over time, however, responsibility has been transferred to other nations. In 2001, the United Nations Security Council authorized the creation of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to conduct operations in Afghanistan. ISAF is a multi-national military force led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). It is important to note that while ISAF is commanded by NATO and its forces are predominately from NATO members, some non-NATO nations do contribute to ISAF. Originally, ISAF was mandated to provide security only in the Afghan capital of Kabul. Since then, however, ISAF’s area of operation has been expanded to include the whole country.

For more information on ISAF operations in Afghanistan:

Canada has contributed substantial military forces to Afghanistan since the initial defeat of the Taliban regime, first in cooperation with US forces and later in conjunction with ISAF operations. As of September 2007, a large contingent of Canadian military personnel is deployed in Afghanistan, providing basic security and defence roles. Since Canadian military operations began in 2002, 71 Canadians have been killed in the line of duty, including one diplomat (CBC, August 30, 2007).

See the Canada’s Military Role in Afghanistan section of this article for more information on Canadian military operations in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan Reconstruction and Development

The Afghan government also relies heavily on foreign countries in its reconstruction and development initiatives. This extends to a range of areas, including the development of political and legal institutions, the promotion of health and education services, the reconstruction of basic infrastructure, and the rehabilitation of the national economy.

Foreign aid to Afghanistan comes in several different forms. On the one hand, there are several non-governmental agencies operating throughout Afghanistan in support of reconstruction and development. These are private groups, such as the Red Cross, which pursue their own aid initiatives largely independent of government funding and control (although some cooperation does exist). In addition, there are a number of governmental agencies operating in Afghanistan, which include groups that are directly funded and controlled by governments. These include agencies associated with international organizations, such as the United Nations, as well as those associated with individual nations.

A key component of foreign governmental aid in Afghanistan is the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PTR). These are small groups of civilian and military specialists which are assigned to oversee reconstruction and developmental projects in particular regions of Afghanistan, and which are backed by national and international security forces. These groups were originally built and operated by the United States. Following NATO involvement in Afghanistan, however, command of the PTRs was transferred to other nations participating in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

In this context, the Government of Canada has played a significant large role, providing personnel, technical assistance, and financial aid in support of political, social, and economic development. A number of Canadian agencies participate in these initiatives, including the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada , the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and the Department of National Defence.

See the Canadian Non-military Role in Afghanistan section of this article for more information on Canadian assistance in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

2006 Afghanistan Compact

In February 2006, approximately 40 countries, including Afghanistan, signed the Afghanistan Compact, the successor to the Bonn Agreement (see above). The Compact provides the framework for international community initiatives in Afghanistan for the period 2006-2011, with the overarching purpose of creating conditions of peace and security for the Afghan people through security, good governance and the rule of law, and social and economic development. The Compact, in effect, sets out the general parameters and goals of international efforts in the country.

For more information on the Afghanistan Compact:

Afghanistan National Development Strategy: The Afghanistan Compact

The Government of Canada was a contributor to, and signatory of, the Compact. Under the agreement, Canada committed to contributing to Afghanistan’s rehabilitation through to February 1, 2011. Canada’s contribution during this period may come in the form of military assistance or non-military aid.

For more information on Canada and the Afghanistan Compact:

Government of Canada: Canada and the Afghanistan Compact

Canada’s Military Role in Afghanistan

Nature and duration of Canada’s military involvement

Overview of Canada’s Military Contribution

Canadian Forces personnel were first deployed to Afghanistan in 2002 when a battle group of the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry was sent to the Afghan city of Kandahar for six months. The role of this Light Infantry unit was to assist multi-national forces in Operation Enduring Freedom, a US-led offensive against Taliban and al-Qaeda elements remaining in Afghanistan.

As of August 2007, Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, referred to as Joint Task Force Afghanistan, totalled approximately 2,500 (Department of National Defence, 2007). Moreover, Canadian Forces activities were divided into three main missions: Operation Athena, Operation Archer, and Operation Argus (see below for mission details). All current Canadian Forces operations in Afghanistan are conducted with the consent of the Afghan government and are guided by the objectives and parameters set out in the 2006 Afghanistan Compact.

See the Introduction to Canada in Afghanistan section of this article for more on the Afghanistan Compact.

Between 2002 and 2007, approximately 13,500 Canadian soldiers have served in Afghanistan on a rotating basis (CBC, June 27, 2007). Of that number, more than 70 Canadian Forces personnel have been killed in the line of duty (in addition to one diplomat) (CBC, August 30, 2007). Between 2002 and March 2007, the financial cost of the Canadian military mission totalled $2.6 billion – a cost which is projected to reach $4.3 billion by the planned end of the military mission in February 2009 (CBC, June 27, 2007).

Roles of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan

According to the federal Department of National Defence, the general objectives of Canadian Forces operations in Afghanistan are to (Department of National Defence, 2007):

Provide the people of Afghanistan with the hope for a brighter future by establishing the security necessary to promote development and an environment that is conducive to the improvement of Afghan life;
Conduct operations in support of Afghan National Security Forces;
Help strengthen and enhance Afghan Governance capacity;
Help extend the authority of the Government of Afghanistan in the South;
Facilitate the delivery of programs and projects that support the economic recovery and rehabilitation of Afghanistan; and
Assist in addressing humanitarian needs of Afghans by supporting Canadian governmental organizations and non-governmental organizations whose efforts meet Canada’s objectives.

In meeting these objectives, the Canadian Forces perform a number of different tasks. These include (but are not limited too) providing regular security for the Afghan population and foreign nationals working in Afghanistan; conducting combat operations against anti-government elements (such as the Taliban); training and leading Afghan security and military personnel; providing advice on security issues to the Afghanistan government; decommissioning weaponry and armaments left over from previous Afghan wars; and distributing humanitarian aid in the country.

Operation Athena

Of the three Canadian Forces missions in Afghanistan, Operation Athena is by far the largest. First introduced in 2003, this Operation represents Canada’s contribution to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Since its inception, the nature of Operation Athena has changed significantly, due in large part to shifts in ISAF responsibilities and areas of operation.

Originally, Operation Athena was associated with ISAF’s mission in the Afghan capital of Kabul. Under this mission, ISAF was responsible for providing security and intelligence-gathering in the capital in support of the new Afghan government and international agencies. From the period 2003 to 2005, Canada contributed a large military contingent to this mission, reaching a peak of approximately 2,000 Canadian Forces personnel in 2004 (CBC, November 9, 2006). Specific tasks performed by Canadians included regular street patrols, cooperation with Afghan and other international authorities on security issues, assistance in the operation of the Kabul International Airport, and assistance in the reconstruction of the Afghan national armed forces.

For more information on Operation Athena during the period 2003-2005:

Department of National Defence: Operation Athena – The Canadian Forces Participation in ISAF

The nature of Operation Athena changed dramatically in 2006, when responsibility for security in southern Afghanistan was transferred from the United States to the NATO-led ISAF. Canada, in turn, committed its military contribution in Afghanistan to this new ISAF mission. As a result, Canadian personnel under Operation Athena were transferred from the capital city of Kabul to southern Afghanistan, with their primary base located in the southern city of Kandahar. As of August 2007, approximately 2,500 Canadian Forces personnel served in the Kandahar phase of Operation Athena (Department of National Defence, 2007).

This change in mission has been significant. The capital of Kabul is a relatively safe and stable theatre of operation. In contrast, Kandahar and the southern region of Afghanistan is a much more volatile area, with increasing levels of Taliban activity. As a result, the mission of Canadian Forces personnel has shifted away from defensive operations in a relatively small urban area, to conducting full-fledged combat operations against anti-government elements across a large region. This, in turn, has led to a dramatic rise in Canadian casualties. From 2002 to 2005, eight Canadians were killed in Afghanistan. In 2006 and 2007, following the initiation of operations in Kandahar, 63 Canadians were killed (CBC, August 30, 2007).

For more information on Operation Athena and ISAF Operations post-2006:

Other Canadian Forces Operations

In addition to Operation Athena, Canada is involved in two further missions in Afghanistan. These missions are much smaller in size and are orientated towards military training and reconstruction efforts.

The first of these is Operation Archer, which is Canada’s contribution to the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom.The purpose of Operation Archer is to assist in the re-forming and rebuilding of Afghan security infrastructure, including the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police Force. As of August 2007, there were 30 Canadian Forces personnel assigned to Operation Archer, based primarily in the Afghan capital of Kabul (Department of National Defence, 2007).

For more information on Operation Archer:

Department of National Defence: Canadian Forces Operations in Afghanistan

The third main mission is Operation Argus, which is providing a team of strategic military planners to support the Government of Afghanistan. This team, formally referred to as the Strategic Advisory Team – Afghanistan (SAT – A), is embedded within Afghan governmental departments; it works closely with Afghan officials in the development of national defence strategies and programs of implementation. As of August 2007, there were 15 Canadian Forces personnel assigned to Operation Argus, in addition to a Canadian International Development Agency officer, advising on development issues (Department of National Defence, 2007).

For more information on Operation Argus:

Department of National Defence: Canadian Forces Operations in Afghanistan

It is also important to note that elements of Canada’s elite special operations unit, Joint Task Force Two (JTF2), have also operated in Afghanistan. JTF2 is proficient in counter-terrorist operations, surveillance, close protection, and other specialized military activities. The precise nature and duration of their operations in Afghanistan, however, is largely unknown.

Duration of Canada’s Military Role

Canada’s military presence in Afghanistan has been extended several times since the Canadian Forces were first deployed to the country. Canada’s first military mission, which was initiated in 2002 as part of the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom, was only intended to last six months. In 2003, however, the Canadian government, under Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, recommitted military personnel to Afghanistan under Operation Athena, which was only to last until August 2004. This Operation was later extended, until the summer of 2005, by Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin.

In 2005, the Martin government re-committed Canadian Forces to Afghanistan, this time in support of the ISAF mission in southern Afghanistan. Under the Liberal government’s plan, the deployment in southern Afghanistan would begin in February 2006 and last up to one year in duration. In January 2006, however, a new government was formed under Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. In May 2006, the Harper government extended the mission another two years, until February 2009, following a close vote in the House of Commons.

As of September 2007, the Canadian military role in Afghanistan is set to end in February 2009. However, it is not absolutely certain this will be the case. Canada continues to receive pressure from the United States and other NATO countries to maintain its forces in Afghanistan. Moreover, the Harper government has indicated its preference to keep troops in Afghanistan until the country is stabilized (CBC, March 13, 2006). Much, however, will depend on the outcome of the next federal election in Canada, and the level of support among Canadians when it comes to extending the military mission.

Canadian Development Role in Afghanistan

Political, social, and economic development initiatives

In addition to its military role in Afghanistan, the Government of Canada has also played a significant role in the reconstruction and development of the country. The following section offers an overview of Canada’s approach to development in Afghanistan, as well as a summary of some specific programs.

Overview of Canada’s Development Approach

The Government of Canada states that the general objective of its Afghan development initiatives is as follows:

“Canada is in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected government to help build a stable, democratic and self-sufficient society. Alongside the UN, NATO and our other partners, Canada has committed to help the people of Afghanistan realize their vision for a country that is secure and at peace with itself and its neighbours; economically self-sufficient; prosperous, with the capacity to deliver fundamental services such as water, health care and education; and governed according to the rule of law” (Government of Canada, Overview, 2007).

Here we see three key areas of development: political, social, and economic. On the political side, the goal is to create a stable and democratic society. This includes seeing Afghanistan achieve peace within the country and with its neighbours; promoting a democratic system of government; and governing according to the rule of law, rather than under a system where national and international law is disregarded or not enforced. On the social side, the primary task is to help the country provide fundamental services to its citizens, such as water, health care, and education. Finally, on the economic side, the goal is to help Afghanistan become economically self-sufficient and prosperous. The basic idea is the domestic Afghan economic should be able to provide for its citizens, rather than being economically dependent on foreign aid.

Also important to the nature of Canadian development initiatives is the Afghanistan Compact, detailed earlier. The Compact provides a framework for coordinating the work and resources of the Afghan government and its international partners, in addition to establishing expected results and timelines in the areas of security, development, and governance. The Government of Canada is a signatory of the Compact, and uses it as a foundation for its own development initiatives in Afghanistan.

See the Introduction to Canada in Afghanistan section of this article for more on the Afghanistan Compact.

Organization and Cost of Development Initiatives

In pursuing its developmental initiatives, the Government of Canada utilizes a broad range of departments and agencies. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (with direction from the federal Cabinet) is responsible for the overall coordination and policy direction of Canadian initiatives. Other key government actors include the Department of National Defence, the Canadian International Development Agency, Correctional Service Canada, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Government of Canada, Overview, 2007).

As of September 2007, the Government of Canada has committed a total of $1.2 billion for reconstruction and development in Afghanistan. This includes monies spent by the Government since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001, as well as future monies committed by the government until 2011 (Government of Canada, Overview, 2007). In comparison, Canada is projected to spend approximately $4.3 billion on its military operations in the country for the period 2002 to 2009 (CBC, June 27, 2007).

Specific Development Programs

Since it began its development initiatives in 2001, the Canadian government has contributed to a broad range of specific programs. The following provides brief introductions to some of the programs to which Canada contributes (current to September 2007).

For a comprehensive and updated summary of Canadian development initiatives in Afghanistan:

Government of Canada: Rebuilding Afghanistan
Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund: Established in 2002, the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF) is one of the major instruments through which international aid dollars can be coordinated to fund priority services offered by the Afghan government. Canada’s contribution to the ARTF helps support the costs of daily operations of the government and contributes to two national programs for economic and social development: the national microcredit program and the National Solidarity Program.
Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team: In 2005, Canada assumed responsibility for the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT). Over twenty PRTs operate throughout Afghanistan with the mandate of assisting the Afghan government in extending its authority, rebuilding the nation, and providing services to citizens. Canada’s 330-member PRT includes military, police, diplomatic, and development personnel, and is based in the city of Kandahar in southern Afghan province of Kandahar.

For more information on the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team:

Government of Canada: The Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team
Department of National Defence: Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team
Justice/court system: Since 2002, Canadian assistance has supported capacity building in the Afghan justice system. This includes programs in support of the Supreme Court, the Attorney General’s Office and Ministry of Justice; training for judges, prosecutors, public defenders and court administrators; and legal aid programming (Government of Canada, Facts on the Ground, 2007).
Police services: Canada has participated in the reconstruction of Afghan police forces. This includes initiatives such as mentoring, training, funding salaries, building police stations, and providing equipment and uniforms. As of September 2007, 35 Canadian police trainers had been deployed to Afghanistan (Government of Canada, Facts on the Ground, 2007).
Correction services: Correctional Service Canada advisers have been deployed to Kabul to help professionalize prison and detention services with the goal of building a safe and humane prison administration with operations and practices that meet international standards (Government of Canada, Facts on the Ground, 2007).
Healthcare: Canada has assisted in the immunization of more than seven million Afghan children as part of a polio eradication initiative. A $5 million contribution made in October 2006 is supporting the further immunization of 350,000 children in Kandahar province. Women’s Wellness Diagnostic Kits were distributed by Canada’s Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) to Kandahar University’s Medical Program. The PRT also donated medical supplies and linens to the Afghan National Police hospital in Kandahar (Government of Canada, Facts on the Ground, 2007).
Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration: Prior to the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, the country had been at war for over 25 years. Consequently, one of the first measures taken was to demobilize the over 63,000 Afghan soldiers who had fought during the war. To this end, Canada has spent close to $21 million in support of this process since its involvement began in 2003. This funding is helping former Afghan soldiers reintegrate into civilian life, be it opening small shops, working on the destruction of mines, becoming teachers, or farming.

Sources and Links to More Information

List of article sources and links to more on this topic

Sources Used for this Article

“In the Line of Duty: Canada’s Casualties.” CBC. 30 August 2007. 04 September 2007. <http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/casualties/total.html>
“Afghanistan, By the Numbers.” CBC. 27 June 2007. 04 September 2007. <http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/bythenumbers.html>
“Timeline of Canada’s Involvement.” CBC. 9 November 2006. 04 September 2007. <http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/timeline.html>
“Operation Athena: The Canadian Forces Participation in ISAF.” Department of National Defence. 27 August 2004. 04 September 2007. <http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1228>
“Backgrounder: Canadian Forces in Afghanistan.” Department of National Defence. 14 August 2007. 04 September 2007. <http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1703>
“Overview of Canada’s Contribution to the International Mission in Afghanistan.” Government of Canada. July 2007. 04 September 2007. <http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/afghanistan/library/overview-en.aspx>
“Canada’s Contribution to the International Mission in Afghanistan – Facts on the Ground.” Government of Canada. July 2007. 04 September 2007. <http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/afghanistan/library/factsonground-en.aspx>

Links for More Information

The War on Terrorism and Canada's Involvement

Greg Farries — Mon, 28 Oct 2002 00:00:00 -0700

Chretien and His Opposition to the War in Iraq

Greg Farries — Tue, 10 Sep 2002 00:00:00 -0600

John Manley Speaks about Canada's Response to the Terrorist Attacks in the United States

Greg Farries — Wed, 09 Jan 2002 00:00:00 -0700

John Manley: As Canada becomes more and more connected, Mapleleafweb.com and Web sites like it are becoming increasingly important tools for educating a growing number of Canadians on the issues of the day. Not only do these tools inform, they are also easily accessible forums that contribute to the political debate in this country.

I am delighted, therefore, to have this opportunity to participate in this Mapleleafweb interview.

Maple Leaf Web: Should Canada offer military support in addition to Operation Apollo?

John Manley: In addition to the already 1,700 men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces actively involved in the campaign against terrorism, Canada is sending approximately 750 soldiers, comprising members of the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry (3 PPCLI) Battle Group and a reconnaissance squadron from the Lord Strathcona’s Horse, to Kandahar as part of a U.S. Army task force. Their mission will include a number of tasks ranging from security operations for delivery of humanitarian supplies to the conduct of combat operations. Canada is also actively supporting NATO’s own contribution to the global campaign against terrorism.

MLW: Does Operation Apollo conflict with our perception of Canada as an international peacekeeper? Why?

John Manley: I would argue that our involvement in the Coalition campaign against terrorism is in fact very much in keeping with Canada’s excellent reputation for advancing international peace & security. The military action in Afghanistan is an act of self-defence that is being undertaken under the auspices of Article 51 of the UN Charter. The Taliban regime rejected the peaceful option, preferring instead to stand on the side of terrorism. Osama bin Laden himself has stated his intention to continue his campaign of terror. It is for these reasons that Canada is a member of a military coalition which, working within the bounds of international law, will continue to take action against the global terrorist threat.

MLW: Besides military support, what else can Canada offer to the international conflict over terrorism?

John Manley: Canada recognized early on that the campaign against terrorism would need to be multi-faceted in character and comprehensive and integrated in approach. It requires a long-term view, which encompasses action on the humanitarian, political, diplomatic, economic, financial, legislative and military fronts. Priority one for Prime Minister Chrétien and our government in addressing this crisis has been to protect the safety and security of Canadians. In Canada, we have announced new funding and new personnel for enhanced security, law enforcement, and intelligence activities. We have passed legislation in Parliament to deter and disable terrorist organizations, to provide new investigative tools to law enforcement and national security agencies, to support more effective prosecution of terrorist crimes, and to ensure that Canadian values are preserved through stronger laws against hate crimes and propaganda. Other laws have been introduced to strengthen the government’s ability to improve the safety of Canadians, to prevent terrorist attacks and to respond swiftly to future threats. We have also developed approaches to ensure the readiness of Canada’s counterterrorism response capability, including response to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats. We have worked closely with our provincial, territorial, and private-sector partners to enhance protection of the country’s critical infrastructure. We have also moved swiftly in cutting off sources of financing for terrorists.

Our obligations in the aftermath of September 11 extend well beyond Canada’s geographic limits. A key complementary objective through these last three months has been to provide assurance to our neighbour, to our allies and to our many global partners that our solidarity is as substantial as it is complete. We have worked within the G8-of which Canada has now assumed the presidency for 2002-as well as in the United Nations to develop effective, concrete measures to defeat terrorism. We have cooperated closely with our NATO allies, and we have consulted and raised consensus in groups as diverse as APEC, the Organization of American States, the Commonwealth and La Francophonie. Canada has pursued an active bilateral diplomacy with its global partners, including key front-line states like Pakistan and India, as well as with Middle Eastern countries and others. We are also actively engaged in addressing the extreme and very urgent needs of Afghanistan, particularly now that the Taliban are nearly gone. Since September 11, Canada has provided $16 million in humanitarian aid to provide protection and assistance for Afghan civilians, including refugees and internally displaced persons.

In the recent federal budget, Canada allocated an additional $100 million to address the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan.

MLW: How should the persons responsible for the September 11th terrorist attacks be prosecuted and punished?

John Manley: The case involving Osama bin Laden, his Al Qaida network and the Taliban regime poses new questions for international justice. Canada is advocating a patient and measured approach that is consistent with international humanitarian law and open to development through consultation.

MLW: In this time of crisis, what would you like to say to the people of Canada?

John Manley: I think Prime Minister Chrétien said it best when he commented in the House of Commons:

As always, we have not picked this fight. As always, Canada is on the side of justice and right…. the road ahead will be long. But our victory will be complete!

Joe Clark Talks about the Terrorist Attacks in the US and their Impact on Canada

Greg Farries — Mon, 29 Oct 2001 00:00:00 -0700

Mapleleafweb.com: Should Canada offer military support in addition to Operation Apollo? Why?

Joe Clark: Canada must be ready to do all that we can to support our allies, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with them in the fight against international terrorism. Unfortunately, this government has done little to ensure that the Canadian Forces are equipped with the tools that they require to do their job. On the contrary, under the watch of this government, the defence budget has been repeatedly cut. Neglect and under-funding are indisputably eroding Canada’s ability to fulfill its defence commitments.

The Progressive Conservative Party has called upon the current government to increase funding to the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces immediately in order to maintain current capabilities and implement proposed long-term capital programs. We are committed to providing funding to maintain adequate strength levels, quality of life initiatives and the procurement of much needed new equipment. These are the keys to a reasonable defence policy.

The Liberal government proclaims proudly that they have cut the fat from government spending. However, it seems clear, that the federal government has cut at the underlying muscle and bone. At the same time, the Liberals have increased commitments, opening up a larger and larger ‘commitment-capability gap’. The divorce between policy and economic realities creates a dangerous situation for the men and women of the Canadian Forces.

MLW: Does Operation Apollo conflict with our perception of Canada as an international peacekeeper? Why?

Joe Clark: There can be little doubt that the events of September 11th are going to have a lasting and profound effect on how we live our lives. In many ways we in North America lost our innocence. We have always felt safe in our country; for the most part we have not had to witness the horrors of war, famine and epidemics on our soil, and we have been able to offer hope to people wanting to start new lives away from fear and violence.

As I am sure you will agree, Canadians do not want to live in fear. We need to stand together to defeat terrorism and we must have a focussed public debate on what steps we as a country have to take to counter the fear that terrorists have sewn. This is not a job for the governing party alone, nor is it a job for those closest to the Prime Minister. To this end, I have encouraged the Prime Minister to fully engage Parliament in finding Canadian made solutions to the challenges facing our nation.

Canada has a proud tradition of being peacekeepers and peacemakers and without a doubt we all would have liked to have seen a peaceful or diplomatic solution in bringing the person or persons responsible for the terrorist attacks to justice. Unfortunately, to date, diplomatic efforts have failed; and as of Thanksgiving Sunday Canada has joined in military strikes against strategic targets in Afghanistan. The Progressive Conservative Party and I fully support Canada’s strong and active role in the International Coalition and wish to extend our high regard for the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who will take part in this common front in the fight for freedom and democracy.

There can be no doubt that we are living in dangerous and troubling times and now more than ever we must ensure that the needs and voices of all Canadians are not only being heard but listened to as well. The fight against terrorism will not be won unless all Canadians regardless of race, colour or religion are united in this resolve. Only by working together can we ensure our safety and security.

MLW: Besides military support, what else can Canada offer to the international conflict over terrorism?

Joe Clark: Canada must stand ready to offer whatever support that it can in the fight against international terrorism. This includes diplomatic support, sharing of intelligence, and legislative changes to ensure that Canada does not become a haven for international terrorists. Canada is in a unique position to be able to offer many things that neither the United States nor the United Kingdom, with their past and international perception, can. This includes diplomatic links, through the Commonwealth and La Françophonie for example, that give us ties that can be used to build diplomatic support.

MLW: How should the persons responsible for the September 11th terrorist attacks be prosecuted and punished?

Joe Clark: Those responsible for organizing and supporting the terrorist attacks of September 11th need to be brought to justice, held accountable under the rule of law. Since these crimes were against the United States, on American soil, then logically American law should apply. Perhaps the precedent of the Lockerbie tragedy can be utilized if necessary - with the suspects being tried in a third country under American law.

MLW: Does the proposed Ant-Terrorism legislation go far enough to protect Canadians and discourage terrorist activities in Canada? If so, why? If not, what else needs to be done?

Joe Clark: Bill C-36 represents in many ways a good first step in making some much needed changes to address the needs that September 11th made all too evident.

After the tragic events of September 11th, all security procedures will need to be reviewed and new ideas fully considered. Suggestions to curtail air travel and improve security checks will have to be examined. The needs of security have become increasingly important in the wake of these attacks.

The federal government has to look at everything from Canada’s immigration laws to airport security. If there are gaps in our system we should find them quickly and fill them quickly. It is our responsibility and our duty. We need to stand beside our allies, beside the United States and Europe and others, in this fight. Canada can do much to tighten airport security, border controls, and immigration screening procedures, as well as increase the budget of the RCMP, the Canadian Forces, and its intelligence-gathering agency, CSIS, which is responsible for counter-terrorism.

Bill C-36 is a very comprehensive, if somewhat complicated, extremely important piece of legislation. I will be looking forward to reviewing this legislation at the committee level, where we will hear from experts and from those who may very well raise concerns about civil liberties. However, I believe an initial reading of the bill indicates that it has sought to strike a careful balance between civil liberties and the protection of Canadian citizens.

There are concerns with respect in particular to the preventive arrest provisions of the legislation. These provisions will have to be coupled with training and with follow up from municipal, RCMP and military police to ensure that there is no abuse of this element of the legislation. As well, there must be resources attached to this type of legislation, if it is to be made effective. Clearly there has been an indication on the part of the government that this is forthcoming.

My colleagues and I are tentatively supporting the legislation. We look forward to participating at the committee level to look at some of the gaps that the legislation seeks to fill. Other countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia and the European Union, have taken steps in this direction to comply with international conventions and to comply with this new threat that came to fruition on September 11th, but has been with us for a long time.

Obviously this type of legislation goes a long way toward giving our law enforcement community, our defence and internal security the tools they will require to embark on this lengthy and in many cases extremely dangerous venture to combat international terrorism.

The bill itself has safeguards for parliamentary review. Some have suggested that a sunset clause of sorts might have been preferable. However, a parliamentary review in three years certainly gives parliamentarians and Canadians an opportunity to experience the full effects of the legislation.

We share the sentiment of all Canadians that the preservation of peace, order and good government is the primary objective behind this type of legislation.
We look forward to reviewing, as I said, elements of the arrest provision. Investigative hearings are another element that is some cause for concern. We will look at the investigative tools themselves to see how far they will go and how far they might be carried out in the pursuit of curtailing terrorism in this country.
We look forward to working with the government and with all members of the opposition in the pursuit of this very lofty but extremely important activity which we are undertaking at this time to combat terrorism in this country and abroad.

MLW: Should Canadians worry about their rights and freedoms if the proposed Anti-Terrorism legislation becomes law? If not, why? If so, what should we be concerned about in particular?

Joe Clark: We do indeed have some concerns with the legislation as it is currently written. The concerns raised by the Privacy Commissioner and the Information Commissioner should be heeded. Although I support the need for strengthened legislation to combat terrorism and I understand the need for certain government secrecy in matters of national security, Canadians should be concerned with the loss of the right to information affecting their lives, which is held by the government. Both Mr. Reid and Mr. Radwanski have indicated that Bill C-36 goes too far in excluding disclosure of information to Canadians. They were clear in condemning the attempts at secrecy by this government. The proposed amendments to Section 70 of the Privacy Act and Section 87 of the Access to Information Act would give the government over reaching powers to refuse disclosure of information. This power could easily be abused by a Liberal government that does not have a good track record for openness and accountability.

They now seem to be using the threat to public security to justify a Cabinet clamp down on the free flow of information. A permanent removal of the powers vested in these two officers of Parliament - these two officers who challenge the government’s use of information — is not necessary given the safeguards that are already in place. Other countries such as the U.K., the U.S.A. and Australia are not taking such extreme acts of secrecy, nor are they requesting Canada do the same — contrary to the Justice Department’s assertions. The privacy aspects of Bill C-36 will nullify the powers of these independent officers of Parliament. As a result, future public attempts to attain government information and accountability could be rejected and hidden behind the broad language of these amendments.

MLW: What other initiatives should governments and citizens take to discourage hate crimes against Arab or Muslim Canadians?

Joe Clark: I want to echo very strongly the sentiment that has been expressed by many Canadians; that an essential element of our free society is that we judge people on their character and accomplishments, not upon where they come from, not upon their colour and not upon their faith.

The people who committed this atrocity are extremists. That is who they are. We must be very careful that in responding to this crisis that we do not create new victims or blame whole communities for the acts of people who in any society would be judged extremists. To be clear and for the record; all of us know that no one is more shocked or more offended by this atrocity in the United States than members of the Canadian Arab and Muslim communities. No one is more offended than they are. They are Canadians.

I have been extremely troubled by the reports of anti-Muslim activities in Canada and the United States. I believe that it is our duty to make it abundantly clear that this is unacceptable. Canada should not and will not tolerate these actions. Canadians, no matter their origin, are all members of our society, and as such they are equally outraged by the tragic events of September 11th.

MLW: Should Canada harmonize its immigration and customs policies and systems? Why?

Joe Clark: Canada must take steps to ensure that its laws do not allow the country to become a weak link on the North American continent. We must ensure that we take steps to address the security concerns of the United States in the wake September 11th. Otherwise, the United States may take it upon itself to address its security needs at the Canada-U.S. border, which will in turn fundamentally affect the $1.5 billion worth of trade that traverses the border every day. The Canadian economy could become another victim of September 11th if we do not take action.

However, it is important to remember that security and sovereignty are not mutually exclusive qualities. Rather, without security, sovereignty cannot exist. Canada should take steps, of course, to address the concerns of the United States, but we must do so in a way that reflects the needs, interests and values that are important to Canadians. Adopting American policies wholesale is not necessarily the only solution available. We must be ready to explore all of the available options and alternatives.

MLW: In this time of crisis, what would you like to say to the people of Canada?

Joe Clark: It is not often that we recognize a turning point in history. But we are a different world than we were before September 11th, when hijacked planes were flown deliberately into crowded buildings, at the throbbing heart of a superpower, with the explicit purpose of killing innocent people, and breaking the confidence of societies built upon freedom and order.

Our hearts go out to the individuals and families - including far too many Canadians - who have been struck directly by this terrorist tragedy. The direct victims started their day on that Tuesday, as we all did, expecting the ordinary. And suddenly, without warning, without reason, they became the innocent victims of a terrible, premeditated strike against order and humanity.

We have all suffered personal losses, but this goes beyond the experience of most civilized societies, and we can only offer our deepest sympathy, our prayers, and our determination to ensure that, while terrorists can take lives, they cannot destroy free societies, or our faith in our ability to prevail over the most brutal instincts of human kind.

This is a challenge in which Canada must play a leading role. Our sons and daughters died in these tragedies too. But even more than that, at our best, Canada’s role in the world has been to ensure that order prevails. Canadians have done that in war - in Europe, and Korea, in the Gulf. We have done it in peacekeeping, and in diplomacy. We have been leaders in establishing rules of orderly trade, and high standards of human rights. We have earned a reputation as a nation that stands in the front line of defending and advancing free societies.

Canada must exert that leadership now. We must look honestly at home at weaknesses in our own arrangements - whether at our borders, or in our airports, or anywhere else - and we must act urgently to correct them.

And we must stand firmly with the United States, and with Europe, and with other nations who are organizing now international responses to this provocation.

Canada is not and cannot be neutral on these issues. They reach to the heart and core of our history and our nature as a nation. As leader of my national party - as leader of a coalition in Parliament - I assure the government of our full support, if they act boldly.

Sometimes events present nations with opportunities, which we can accept or put aside. But this is more than that - this is an obligation, which Canada must grasp.

The technology of terror didn’t change. What changed was the understanding of what terrorists will do - and where they will do it. Their target was not the thousands of people who died - except that they chose deliberately institutions that symbolize the vigour and self-confidence of modern Western economic and defence systems. And they chose deliberately the kind of trained and accomplished individuals whom the world would never otherwise consider victims.

But the real target of these terrorists - as it usually is — was the sense of security that is essential to any successful society. The purpose of terrorism is, quite precisely, to show that no one is safe. It seeks to explode the order and the confidence that are the basis on which most of us live our lives, and take our risks, and make our assumptions about what a civilized society offers and requires of us. In striking that target, the attacks both succeeded, and they failed.

They succeeded in creating a shock felt round the world, and in stimulating an immediate panic, and a lingering doubt, about the individual security of each of us and each of our families and friends. Each of us does feel less safe, more exposed, than when we woke on that Tuesday morning.

Less safe - but more determined.

And that is where the terrorists failed. They had hoped to expose the weakness of free and ordered societies, which they believe to be materialist, complacent and selfish. Instead, their terrible attacks have revealed a strength of free societies - a resilience, a rationality, a responsibility.

What we are seeing in the long lines of volunteers at blood banks, and in the people going back to work in places that so recently were targets, is more than just compassion or courage. And it is more than clenched-fist determination - more than just a defiant proof that we cannot be threatened or cowed.

Much more importantly, it reflects the values that we have always claimed free systems nourish — the optimism, the activism, the balance in resisting a rush to judgement and, most of all, the palpable sense of personal and community responsibility. In such a material and self-indulgent world, one sometimes wonders whether those values will erode. Now they have been put to a shocking test, and they seem robust.

But if, ironically, the terrorist attacks have proven the strength of the values they deride, those attacks also demonstrate how much the world has changed, and how urgent it is for us to ask how prepared we are for this new world.

You will know that the Canadian Intelligence and Security Service - CSIS - has a mandate to monitor threats to Canada. Let me quote from their report released June 12, 2001 - less than three months before planes ploughed into the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre Towers:

"Terrorism in the years ahead is expected to become more violent, indiscriminate and unpredictable…. There will likely be terrorist attacks whose sole aim would be to incite terror itself. A hardening attitude, and a willingness on behalf of certain terrorist organizations in North America, reinforce the belief that Canadians, now more than ever, are potential victims, and Canada a potential venue, for terrorists attacks."

The Prime Minister has been too cautious and faint hearted in his remarks. It is still not clear where Canada stands on crucial questions like tighter border controls and what kind of military action the country would be prepared to take.
This was an attack not only upon the United States, but upon all democracies. What other world leaders have made clear, and what the Prime Minister should have made clear to all - is that in the wake of these attacks, we are all threatened, we are all "Americans" now. Rather than indicate that Canada was not immediately threatened, the Prime Minister’s response should have been - like the Europeans’, especially the British - that this was an attack on all free, democratic countries.

The federal government has to look at everything from Canada’s immigration laws to airport security. If there are gaps in our system we should find them quickly and fill them quickly. It is our responsibility and our duty. We need to stand beside our allies, beside the United States and Europe and others, in this fight. Canada can do much to tighten airport security, border controls, and immigration screening procedures, as well as increase the budget of its intelligence-gathering agency, CSIS, which is responsible for counter-terrorism.