Afghanistan Committee on June 18th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Pierre Lemieux]

Thank you, Mr. Brodeur.

Mrs. Barbot, you have seven minutes.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Thank you, gentlemen, for coming to meet with us this evening. I have briefly glanced at the document which I believe comes from the department. I am not sure exactly where it came from.

One of this committee's objectives is to get real answers and clear information. The words “Canada directly supports” appear throughout the document. The figures in the document are mind-boggling. For example, under “Education”, it states that “close to 6 million children (one third of them girls) are enrolled in school in 2007-2008”. A little lower down one reads that 9,000 teachers were trained.

What exactly is Canada doing and what results have been achieved? This question can be answered with simple figures or simple objectives—in some cases, it is not possible to provide figures—so that we can provide this information to the people in our ridings.

I am sorry to say that a brochure like this is of no use to me whatsoever. The information is lost in I don't know what context. I don't know who is involved and I am unable to say what Canada is doing. I know that one of the objectives was to better inform the public as to exactly which projects Canada was responsible for, the role our country is playing, the objectives and the results.

Last week, Mr. Maloney told the committee that 50 schools would soon be built. I asked him what we had built to date. I am still waiting for an answer. In order to understand what it means to build 50 schools in Afghanistan, I need to know our capacity. If we are building 50 schools in I don't know how much time, in addition to what we have already... In short, we are talking about simple things like that. However, that is not what I see in this document. Listening to you, I don't get the feeling either that we will get this information. This is all starting to sound rather obscure to me. I don't mean to undermine your presentation, but you are saying things that don't appeal to our intelligence or our ability to understand.

I don't know if I am the one who has misguided expectations, but is it possible to get specific figures or clear information on what is happening there?

[Stephen Wallace]

Thank you for your question.

Madam, Mr. Chair, allow me to clarify the results document before you.

For example, there are references to various program results in education, as you mentioned, and the economy. With regard to both those programs, Canada provided direct support to Afghan activities which a number of countries were supporting, but in which Canada played a lead role. As I mentioned previously, we are the main donor country for the national education program. This program has allowed the number of students to increase from 700,000 to 6 million, and we are now going far beyond that.

As the main donor country, Canada is devoting its efforts to expanding the school system, including within Kandahar. I can tell you that there are exactly 337 schools in Kandahar at present. In districts where the new Canadian priorities are being applied, we will build some 50 schools, in addition to the 337 already there. This work has already begun. We have very concrete data in this regard.

Microcredit is another example. The results summary will allow you to see that under microfinancing programs, we now have nearly 500,000 clients, two-thirds of whom are women. Canada is the top microfinance program donor. In other words, we are able to describe the problem in very concrete terms. We are talking here about a dollar or a dollar and a half per day per person. Through this program, small projects worth $100 or $150 are able to go ahead, which means that a domestic or community economic activity can go forward. This is a very concrete Canadian success story and the success rate in terms of repaid loans is 96%.

We keep close tabs to ensure that the amounts invested and the results obtained correspond. The June update that we have provided will be presented to Parliament along with our quarterly report. This is a concern that we share fully and we wish to be very clear, not only at the national level, but also in Kandahar itself, where we are obtaining very clear and detailed results. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pierre Lemieux]

Mrs. Barbot, you have less than one minute.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

That is all, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pierre Lemieux]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Dewar, you have seven minutes.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you to our guests for appearing this evening.

I want to touch on the numbers that you put forward about the change in the focus on Kandahar. You said the focus changed from 17% to 50%. Who made that decision to shift from 17% to 50% in the aid focus?

[Stephen Wallace]

This is part of Canada's new engagement strategy for Afghanistan that was tabled in Parliament on June 10. That is a government decision taken in full consultation with Government of Afghanistan authorities and others.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I find it surprising that my notes show us to have had roughly $180 million tagged for Kandahar that we weren't able to spend there. At least that's the information I received from CIDA officials when I was in Kandahar. My question is, if we're not able to spend the money that was already tagged for Kandahar, if we can't get other partners to engage with us in development projects in Kandahar, and if security is still an issue, how is it that we're going to be able to go from 17% to 50%?

[Stephen Wallace]

We've actually never had a target for Kandahar. What we have been able to accomplish in Kandahar at this point with the 17% of our resources, for example, from last year, you see in the results profile on that Kandahar map before you.

What we have now for the first time is—

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I don't mean to be impolite, but you said you've never targeted. I have here what I was briefed with, that CIDA has committed $180 million in Kandahar. Is that not the case?

[Stephen Wallace]

No. I don't know where that figure comes from, but it may be a cumulative figure since our overall engagement in Kandahar began. In my view, that would not have been either a target or an annual figure.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

These are documents that I received from CIDA when I was there. So you can understand where my question is coming from.

[Stephen Wallace]

Yes.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

If you want to commit more money and we haven't been able to invest the money there, there is a dilemma.

[Stephen Wallace]

I quite understand the question. My sense is that it's probably a cumulative figure.

Here's what we have that is different, going forward.

One, we have a very focused set of priorities for Kandahar in areas that deal with things such as the delivery of basic services by public institutions to citizens, basic services in education, basic services in infrastructure, basic services in economic growth, and a clear focus on meeting humanitarian needs of refugees, of displaced persons, of the most vulnerable populations with respect to medical services. So we have a very clear set of focused priorities.

Two, we have a number of signature initiatives that are at scale, are visible, are direct, and in the case of the Dahla Dam, for example, will involve a three-year effort, probably somewhere in the range of $50 million. The issue with respect to the building of the 50 schools is another initiative where the investment is at scale, direct, and visible, in the range of $10 million plus.

Polio, and being able to finish the job on polio and work towards the eradication of polio, where the majority of cases in Afghanistan are in the south, is actually a $60 million program that will reach seven million children, 350,000 in Kandahar.

So these signature projects come with an investment program and a sense of scale and a direct effort, alongside our targeted priorities, that we believe actually constitutes the basis for being able to deliver on that target.

That said, this is an ambitious target and it's a target that is not without risk. It is a target that is being conducted in a security environment that is shifting as well. In order to be successful here, we will have to stay very focused on this one. We will have to be able to deliver very particularly and in a flexible way on these objectives and stay the course, including things such as devolving to local authorities and strengthening people on the ground.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you for your answer. I only have seven minutes.

[Stephen Wallace]

Thank you very much. I've finished that answer.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I know you're very enthused about what you do and I appreciate the work you do. I honestly do. I just want to get back to my concern about the commitment and the shift. It's a political decision, so maybe I should be asking the folks across the table, at least the people they work with.

My concern is that when I was in Afghanistan, the MPs were very explicit with us about making sure that more of the aid was going to Afghans. The MPs were also concerned that we not pick winners and losers. The MPs were concerned about the message it sends to other people in the country if there is a shift of aid to the south--because there are challenges, no question, in the south.

I'd like to turn to what has been mentioned in your brief, the ANDS. I was surprised when I talked to the MPs, when they told me—and this goes to governance and the buy-in from Afghans—that the Parliament and members of Parliament had never seen the ANDS and didn't have any input to the ANDS.

[Stephen Wallace]

Thank you very much. I'll ask my colleague to follow through. Those are really pertinent questions.

I think what is very clear that needs to be said right at the outset is that what we are doing in Kandahar and our effort in Kandahar is thoroughly rooted in Kandahar priorities that are explicitly part of the process within the Afghan government, both nationally and locally, at determining what they believe is most important. What we are responding to is directly related to those priorities.

Water security, basic education, services for citizens, the opportunity for jobs and growth through local infrastructure--these are the kinds of things, time and again, that have come out as Afghan priorities, to which we are responding.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

It's quite surprising that you've mentioned in your brief that were using the ANDS as well as the compact--

[The Chair, Conservative, Pierre Lemieux]

Mr. Dewar, I'm sorry, you're out of time.

We will move over to Mr. MacKenzie, for seven minutes.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you to the members for being here.

The irony is that my friend talks about the Afghani MPs not knowing what was going on. We've had 28 technical briefings in this place, which MPs are welcome to attend, and they can ask questions. Regarding some of the questions that are being asked here, I think the people watching at home should know that we do have the opportunity, as members of Parliament in this House, to get a great deal of that information.

When I looked at your sheet--and my colleague mentioned something about the information not being there--I thought Canadians don't necessarily know the good things that Canada is doing in Afghanistan. My initial thought was that this would make a great placemat in a lot of restaurants in Canada, because I think it does give us a great deal of information.

The other thing I think you can probably tell us a great deal about are issues of governance and so on in Pakistan. If you look at it, they started at zero in 2000 or 2001. For them to be where we are as a western democracy or where many other parts of the world are is a big move from where they've been. What can we do in those areas to help them and help Canadians understand where the Afghanis need to come up to a higher level than they are at? They are probably years away from being a western-style democracy, if they ever get to be one, but I think it's only fair to give credit to the Afghanis, as they've come a long way.

What can we do to assist them?

[Stephen Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Everyone is impatient. We want to make as much progress as possible. Afghans are impatient at all levels as well.

I think it is really important to know that in 2001 Afghanistan, in many respects, was worse than poor. When you are one of the poorest countries on the planet in per capita income terms and you have gone through 30 years of conflict and oppression that have destroyed all of your assets, then you have a triple jeopardy that you're coming back from. You're coming back from poverty, conflict, and destruction at the same time.

We have seen some very good progress in some areas. We talked a little about education, about some of the health programs in which basic coverage has gone from 8% to over 80%, and about micro-financing reaching half a million Afghans. This has been a phenomenal story.

There is so much more to be done and so far still to go, given the starting point, that we have to be very clear about what we can and cannot accomplish. This is where I believe the six priorities we've talked about come into play. They focus on the fundamentals: stronger security, basic services to citizens, humanitarian assistance to the most vulnerable, building national institutions, Afghan-Pakistan border relations, and political reconciliation. By providing a direct and sharp focus on the priorities that matter going forward and enabling Canada to concentrate its efforts across military, civilian, government, and Canadian partner alliances to be able to make further progress in the areas that need to be looked at, we believe we can make further progress building on what's been done so far.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pierre Lemieux]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Keddy.