Evidence of meeting #44 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was afghan.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

First, the government closed four missions this year. Only four, that is all. All the other closures occurred as a result of decisions made by the previous government.

These decisions are made very much to try, as I said, to realign the priorities of the government, to consolidate the services that are made available through one large consulate, as opposed to, in some cases, having two or several within a country.

Many of the decisions around the opening of consulates or honorary consulates or an entire embassy are currently under consideration. There are countries that come to mind, countries like Yemen, for example, where we are yet to decide whether we can justify, given the amount of business and the amount of Canadian presence in that country, going forward with opening consulates or embassies right now. We're still assessing the need and will continue to do so. It's a rolling process. It isn't fixed in time.

With respect to budgets and priorities, I do note that in this budget there is $60 million more placed in the global commerce strategy, which is all about negotiating trade agreements and reinforcing Canada's presence in parts of the world where we want to increase our current standing. There was also, as I mentioned in my opening and as has been discussed here, an increase of $200 million to the amount of our assistance in reconstruction and development in Afghanistan.

There are other initiatives, in some cases with regional specific implications, such as the Asia-Pacific gateway project that's taking place on the west coast. We hope to have a similar initiative take hold in Atlantic Canada. This is money for enhancing infrastructure. A $52 million funding announcement was made in this budget for the 2008 Francophonie summit in Quebec, which I know you are very interested in.

These reflect government priorities. They're a reflection of need. They're a reflection of the capacity we have to meet the priorities we've set. We continue to do that, and we continue to constantly respond to circumstances. Lebanon was one such example, but we have seen others, such as the response in Sri Lanka to the tsunami. We have seen responses to issues like pandemics, issues like increases in consular traffic, which have, indeed, been very challenging for the Department of Foreign Affairs. The number of Canadians travelling now, working outside the country, or living outside the country clearly brings about a set need and recognition for Canada to be able to expand our reach.

How and where and when we do that are dictated by the circumstances and dictated by the budget that is made available for this department. I continue as not only a minister in this department and one other, but also as a member of the Treasury Board, to make representations that I feel reflect that need and the government's response to that. So we are constantly under pressure. We constantly receive requests from other countries and provinces and from members such as you, who identify areas in which we have to invest.

There is no one silver bullet or one magic formula or solution that is going to meet every single, solitary need. We have to try to meet the priorities and respond in a way that we feel is responsible to Canadians and responsible to other countries to whom we owe an obligation, and other countries, in particular, that we've identified as priority areas.

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I would like to ask you a question. I know that here at this committee we have been studying Afghanistan; we've been doing reviews of our work in Afghanistan. Today's committee is televised, and I know a lot of Canadians want to look in at our committee as we talk, because they learn then about Afghanistan.

A couple of statistics have been of some interest to me. For instance, since the rebuilding of Afghanistan we've had 4.6 million refugees return to that country. I think a lot of Canadians picture refugees as basically showing up with nothing other than the clothes on their back and perhaps a horrific story to tell. These refugees who are returning are returning because of hope. They have hope and they're going back to a country that they've left. Are these refugees going back with perhaps some capital they can invest to build the country, or are many of them returning to be fed and looked after because they have nothing? That's one of the questions.

We know in Afghanistan that the per capita has doubled, the Afghan economy has tripled. We even heard today about its significant growth, and people are working. Maybe also give us just a bit of information on who these refugees are.

For my own interest's sake, 6,000 kilometres of road have been rebuilt, built, or refurbished. I have a hard time getting ten miles built in some parts of my constituency. Who is doing this? Are these Afghan crews that come in? Is it our army that's helping to do that? Are we contracting road crews from other countries? Who actually is doing this?

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

It is predominantly done by Afghans, but of course some of the heavy equipment that is required for the excavation, just as it would be in Crowfoot, requires the assistance of the military. It requires the assistance of construction crews, designers, and engineers.

It ties into the question of who are these four million to five million Afghans who have returned. Well, they're professionals. They are engineers, doctors, and academics.

The foreign affairs minister for Afghanistan lived in Germany for 10 to 15 years during the Taliban regime and now has returned and entered public life. That can be said of other members of President Karzai's government. These refugees are ordinary men, women, and children who fled an oppressive, horrifically violent government to try to raise their families and pursue their career ambitions elsewhere. Many of them now are anxious to return, and have returned, yet more continue to flood into the country.

Let me just give you some other statistics in line with the 6,000 kilometres of road: 4,000 new houses and shelters have been constructed; 63,000 soldiers have been disarmed, and many of those same soldiers and combatants are now being recruited into the service of their country, either through policing or the professional Afghan army; almost 5.5 million children, one-third of whom are girls, are now getting an education in school; 4,000 medical facilities have been opened; and 23,000 community development projects have been approved, of which 10,000 have been completed.

Many other institutions of government in terms of departments are taking shape and expanding their reach. Women occupy 25% of the seats of the parliament of Afghanistan. Per capita income has doubled. The Afghan economy itself has tripled in the past few years. These numbers don't really speak to the human impact that this is having in the country: the confidence, the hope, the feeling that there is a future there. That's exactly the type of tangible proof of progress that we need to underscore but never become complacent about. All of it is still fragile and very much dependent on our ability to keep this progress going to preserve, to have, and to hold what is currently there, and to build upon that base.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you.

The last question will have to be short.

I want to remind the committee to stay. We will hopefully adopt the report filed from the steering committee.

Madam McDonough, for just a few moments.

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Notwithstanding some important progress that the minister has reported, I'm sure, Mr. Minister, you're aware of a report that has recently been circulated based on a March 2007 survey conducted by Senlis Council and reported “On a Knife Edge”. This report has documented that Afghans increasingly believe that the international community is losing Afghanistan to the Taliban. In southern Afghanistan, more than one quarter of those interviewed—27%—were willing to openly admit that they support the Taliban. The Senlis Council predicts that it would be considerably higher if it weren't for the reluctance of people to participate. I suppose we don't know that for sure.

I guess my question goes back to your earlier indication that there is no way to engage directly with the Taliban; they're a terrorist organization. Yes, there may be some side discussions, but in terms of bringing them to the table, bringing them into the genuine peace process, I took away no real optimism that this is being confronted directly, that there is that kind of commitment to engagement. If in fact there's support for the Taliban, which seems to be increasing in Kandahar, based on several reports—

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Madam McDonough, can we have the question, please?

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

—it indicates that this is a really significant number of people. One is left to wonder if the plan is that if it's not possible to engage them, the only way we're going to win is if we kill them. That's such a stark notion for people that I guess I'm asking the minister if he would address what these findings indicate and what the government's prepared to do about it.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you, Madam McDonough.

Very quickly.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

I'll answer very quickly, and I'll speak further to Madam McDonough about this.

The Senlis report is very disturbing in some of its proclamations. But I want to point out for you—because I inquired specifically about the size of the survey, for example, and I wanted to know where the people were from who were giving these observations and making these very stark statements—that the survey polled only men, and it was in a very specific area of the country. It was only in the southeastern part of Afghanistan and at a very short period of time that they based those observations and those declarations, if you will—the development activities that are under way.

It underscores that yes, there are huge challenges, and I'm not sitting here today before you trying to put a sunny face on a situation that has been completely stabilized or saying that we're near the end of the road as far as the progress that's yet to be made. But the fact is that we are doing these things, and you've heard the figures and you've seen it with your own eyes, Madam McDonough, and you would see more if you went back today. There's enormous progress, real progress that we can point to.

Yes, much more has to be done, and perhaps in a more coordinated way. There are other NATO countries that have to be brought into this exercise, I would suggest, in a more fulsome way, and it falls to me and others at diplomatic fora to impress upon them the need to continue to do the work, particularly in the south. But if you take a report like this that focuses on a relatively small group of people, men only, in one corridor of the country, in one area that does not reflect the entirety of the success of this mission, the success of the work that's being done there, yes, it paints a much more depressing picture, but I would suggest that's not the correct picture. It's not reflective of the real picture, and the progress and the optimism and the hope and the future, I think, that exists for Afghanistan, which is positive.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

I want to thank you, on behalf of our committee, for being here for a two-hour session, for answering the questions, all four questions. We appreciate your time.

I would ask our committee to stay very briefly. The bells are ringing. The vote will take place in about eight minutes.

We have a report from the steering committee, and this report will help us plan for next week's meetings. You can read the recommendations from the steering committee.

It was agreed that the committee will sit from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Thursday, rather than its usual time of 9 to 11. This is to accommodate a visitor who will be with us. Do we have consensus on that?

5:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

We do.

It was also agreed that former Ambassador Smith, along with Dr. Barnett Rubin, visit on March 29. Are we agreed?

5:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

There is consensus.

It was agreed that the meeting on March 29 be televised, if possible. Are we agreed?

5:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

There's consensus.

It was agreed that the members would submit a revised list of witnesses on Afghanistan. Agreed?

5:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

It's agreed.

It was agreed to invite the Minister of National Defence to appear before our committee, and that's agreed?

5:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

We have consensus.

It was agreed to discuss the draft outline for the draft report on democratic development this Thursday. Agreed?

5:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

We have consensus.

Is it agreed to invite Walter Dorn to appear on Thursday on the situation of Afghanistan?

5:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

The one committee meeting will be over the lunch hour. Do we have agreement that we can ask our clerk to bring in some sandwiches for that day?

5:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.