Afghanistan Committee on Feb. 7th, 2022

[Dr. William Maley]

There are a couple of points I would make.

One is that diplomacy is important in this respect, with Pakistan but also with Iran. Iran is a very significant destination for people exiting Afghanistan at the moment. Three days ago, there was an article published in The New York Times that suggested that up to a million people were on the move in southwestern Afghanistan in the direction of Iran, just in the last four months. That means it's highly likely that there will be a number of extremely vulnerable people there who would probably need resettling, not least because Iran is not a party to the 1951 refugee convention and knows no duties under that convention to those who are within its borders.

The other point I'd like to emphasize is an emphatic endorsement of the point that Ms. Oates was making about the status of the Taliban as a terrorist group. If one looks at it not from an emotional point of view but purely from an analytical point of view, they tick every box that you need to tick in defining a group as a terrorist group. Under the circumstances, it's very important that diplomacy not be conducted in a way that normalizes their participation in international society. That would have wider ramifications for other groups that see that kind of thing happening. That's—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Dr. Maley. We are over time.

Thank you, Mr. Ruff.

I will go now to Ms. Damoff for four minutes, please.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Dr. Oates, first I want to thank you for everything you've been doing in Afghanistan.

I have been attending the dinner party in Oakville for about 15 years, starting long before I was a member of Parliament. I think it was in March 2012, one of the last things we did in the “before” times, when you expressed concerns at the dinner party about the negotiations the United States was in with the Taliban. You expressed concerns about the direction the country was going and the challenges you were facing at the time. I remember feeling sick hearing what you were talking about.

Not all people can leave Afghanistan. You've talked a lot about the importance of getting women out, but they can't all leave. You've been doing work on the ground for 20 years. Fixing legislation is a priority for the government, but I guess my question is, assuming that we are able to get around the issue of getting aid directly to the folks you're supporting in Afghanistan, are you going to be able to deliver your education programs, and is there anything else we should flag in order for you to deliver the programs you're delivering in Afghanistan?

[Dr. Lauryn Oates]

Yes, we have not stopped delivering programs. We've continued to do it, but in a much adapted format. We've had to be creative and pivot things, but we are still delivering. We are fortunate to benefit from an ICT infrastructure that allows us to do that right now. Many people can still access the Internet, and we have other tools for those who can't, where we can use technology as a shortcut to get to people and make sure they can still get education.

We are a bit exhausted because, on top of that, we're also trying to respond to the emergency and the fact that people still need very basic things like food, as well as education. We're also trying to evacuate and protect the lives of our staff. If the government lifted that off our shoulders, that would allow us to do even more, so that's one of my key priorities. Then we could get back to our core business of focusing on the rights of women and girls and making sure they're protected.

Just to come to your first point about the negotiations, and to build on something Dr. Maley said as well, this is not just an issue about Afghanistan and the security of that region. The moment the U.S. started negotiating with the Taliban, this was a signal to groups like the Taliban, like ISIS, like Boko Haram, and this was very encouraging for them.

Even for people who perhaps don't really care about the fate of women and girls or the moral perspective here, they should care from a pragmatic perspective what this means for like-minded organizations in the world that are watching carefully how we're responding to the Taliban, and the risk of normalizing them.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Afghanistan has one of the highest rates in the world of people living with disabilities. About 80% of Afghans have a disability. That impacts the number of women who are heading up households, because their husbands have lost their legs from a land mine, for example, so they're the sole supporter. You touched on that a bit in your opening comments, about the number of women supporting households.

We know there's a crisis in Afghanistan right now, but I'm hoping that we can put a focus on the people with disabilities and the impact on women and girls being able to provide a livelihood and support their families.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, but your time is up.

Now I have Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe for two minutes, and then Ms. Kwan for two minutes.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Two minutes is not a lot of time.

First and foremost, I would like to thank all the witnesses who took part in this meeting tonight. Their participation is key.

I will be quick. I'm going to ask an open question for all the witnesses.

What is your top recommendation, the one you'd like to see in the committee's report as a top priority?

[Ali Mirzad]

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to answer this very important question.

In my opinion, the two most important suggestions we could make have already been brought up during the meeting.

The first would be to eliminate all requirements around documents that must be provided, which are really just technical procedures. For example, you can't expect someone in Afghanistan to be able to fill out immigration forms if they have no electricity or Internet access or they are under fire or being whipped by the Taliban. So those procedures need to be waived.

Also, it would be a great help if people were not required to have refugee status without exception. Many Canadians would like to get people out of Afghanistan and bring them here, but they can't do that because it's not possible to get refugee status in this case. That's the second suggestion.

As for the third, I'd say that we need to have a diplomatic relationship with neighbouring countries, such as Pakistan, and use our relationships with our allies to maintain a presence on the ground and be able to provide a way out for Afghans.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Mirzad.

Do you have—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

Your time is up. I'm sorry.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thanks to all the witnesses.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Ms. Kwan, you have two minutes, please.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

Actually, I just want to build on that. The requirement of a UNHCR refugee determination is prohibitive. People cannot get access to that. Should the government waive this requirement?

I will go to Ms. Oates, Mr. Maley and then Ms. Nasiri.

[Dr. Lauryn Oates]

Yes, it needs to be waived.

I have heard first-hand accounts of people who have been attempting to get that status for months. They've reached a safe country—or a relatively safe country, in any case—like Pakistan and they can't get that. Their visas will run out and they'll be back. That's very important.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

Let's have Mr. Maley, quickly, and then Ms. Nasiri.

[Dr. William Maley]

I totally agree with that.

It becomes a theatre of the absurd if Canadian or Australian resettlement, or whatever, is hostage to the bureaucratic efficiency and the resource endowments that some third agency may or may not manifest. I think that should be replaced with a much more efficient system.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Ms. Nasiri, go ahead.

[Khalidha Nasiri]

I agree with my two colleagues, absolutely. It would be very impactful if instituted immediately. The immigration minister is certainly empowered by legislation—I believe it's section 25.2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act—to make exemptions and essentially fast-track people at high risk based on his judgment.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

We've done it before, as you presented. We can do it again. It is certainly required for this situation.

Mr. Mirzad, you raised the issue of the government in private sponsorships. The limitations related to the group of five.... It is impossible, because people have to get refugee determination to even apply. Should the government open up the privately sponsored refugees for all the streams and waive the requirement?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Ms. Kwan, your time is up. I appreciate that, but I have to be very strict on this one.

On behalf of all members of Parliament, I would like to thank the witnesses for the excellent input they provided. If you want to submit anything in writing, you are welcome to do so.

Also, on behalf of all the members, I would like to thank the clerk, the analysts, the interpreters and of course the technical team for staying overtime for 15 minutes to help us.

Thank you. All the best.

The meeting is adjourned.