Afghanistan Committee on June 4th, 2009

[Elissa Golberg]

As I said, we did have about 13 NGO partners that we worked with, along with a panoply of UN agencies. Obviously we also work closely with the ICRC. Then there were some private companies. Development Works is an NGO, but not, if you understand what I'm saying. They also do some for-profit work. And CADG, Central Asia Development Group, is a more private-sector-oriented company that we did a lot of infrastructure work with, the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development work. So there are some risk-tolerant partners, but it is a challenge. They need to take into account the personal welfare of their staff.

One of the things we would do on a regular basis with all of our partners is we would sit down with them and map out the parts of the province they felt very comfortable going to, the parts of the province they didn't feel comfortable going to unless they had a guarantee from the community that they would be provided with security, and then the parts of the province they weren't willing to go to. That helped influence the discussions we would then have with our Canadian Forces and ISAF partners about the areas they needed to be focusing on to help build up the confidence and the perception of security amongst the partners so that they would be willing to work in those areas. The same is true for the Afghan line ministries. We would also do that sort of anecdotal perceptions-of-security mapping exercise with the line ministries because they also didn't often feel comfortable going to certain areas of the province.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Did you see some progress in your 11 months there?

[Elissa Golberg]

I saw progress in some areas. I saw declines in others. It also depends on the time of year. Certainly the height of the fighting season is not the time when you want to necessarily be pursuing some of your larger-scale initiatives. That's the time of year when you should really be planning and lining things up.

In Kandahar City, we made a lot of progress in the year that I was there, if you also count the suburbs of it, and even in Zhari and Panjwai, which are very difficult, as this committee knows. In Panjwai proper and Bazar-e Panjwai, we saw that small city blossom. In the time I was there we went from having pretty much nobody living and working there to having about 200 little shops. So it very much depended. And then we were able to bring partners in. But it's an ongoing dialogue that you have to have with people and a very transparent conversation about security risks.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

You mentioned working in an integrated manner, not just coordinated. Ultimately, it's about the Afghans working in an integrated manner with each other in their own country. Can you comment on any progress you might have seen in the Afghans' ability to understand and operate in that integrated manner, not just with the allies but with themselves, between their own departments?

[Elissa Golberg]

Yes. People have a perception that there aren't structures functioning, but there are. There are a few areas that I can point to. We had a weekly security meeting that would occur that the governor would chair, and the heads of the 205 Corps, the provincial police, the border police, and the NDS were all expected to be present, as well as me and General Thompson, for an integrated conversation about security threats and security concerns.

There was a similar meeting that would take place on development matters every two weeks with all of the relevant Afghan line ministries that were present within Kandahar, as well as the UN and the NGOs.

There was one committee that I saw improve over time, which was the Provincial Disaster Management Committee. That was, again, a committee that brought together the relevant Afghan line ministries, as well as district leaders, who had concerns that would arise, obviously, in terms of contingency planning, whether that was for floods or for droughts, or as a result of situations of conflict that would arise, as we saw in the Arghandab last summer.

So there are structures that exist that bring the Afghans together. It's still a work in progress. They certainly recognize the need for cooperation. Voter registration was another example where all of the relevant security components had to work together in order to have a successful voter registration exercise. It is something that they know needs to be done, but the challenge that we tend to run into is the capacity deficit. It's that they're not deep within the various line ministries. You'll have a director at the top, and then maybe one or two officials, but as you go further down into the bureaucracy you don't necessarily have the depth to be able to have that integration at the working level everywhere that you would need to have.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

This question may be better for Mr. Brodeur. It's a tough one about the challenges post-2011. What do you see as the biggest challenge to continuing our efforts for reconstruction, development, and capacity-building beyond 2011?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

It will have to be a very short answer. I apologize.

[Yves Brodeur]

Two seconds. The challenge will be there. Again, it's hard for me to predict what the world will look like in 2011, but I think one can assume that security will remain. Is it going to get much worse or a lot better? It's hard to tell at this point in time, but that will remain, I guess, a very important factor. As the Prime Minister said, we will remain engaged on the construction and diplomatic side of things.

To me, personally, sustainability is the big thing—how to actually help support the Afghans beyond 2011 to maintain the gains they have achieved so far, for which they have paid a high price, and how to really try to bring this to the next level. I'm quite confident that we'll be able to do that, but it's a long-term project.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Good. Thank you.

Over to Mr. Rae.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, both of you.

To make it simple, I have two questions, and you can figure out who's going to answer them and how to divide them up.

The last page of the government's report from yesterday—the quarterly report—refers to the question of political reconciliation and how difficult that's proving to be. Quoting from the report, the statement is:

...we are supporting efforts, especially in Kandahar, to build confidence and capacity in local communities for future reconciliation attempts.

Perhaps, Ms. Golberg, because of your work in Kandahar, you could fill us in on what is really involved in that effort of political reconciliation.

[Elissa Golberg]

Our overall approach to reconciliation—and I'm sure both Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Brodeur have mentioned this before—is obviously Afghan-led, particularly at the national level.

As it cascades down to us at the provincial level, it's about trying to find opportunities. One of the things we've focused on, in the first instance, is supporting the provincial council. The provincial council is one of those forums that brings together various segments of society to have conversations on a regular basis about issues that are of concern to communities. That's a key forum. And we've spent time reinforcing both the infrastructure for the provincial council, so there's actually a proper place where people can meet--as you know, this is an important part of these processes--but also the management of the provincial council.

The second area that we've spent some time working on was the governors-led jirga process. Governor Raufi and Governor Wesa both indicated an interest in establishing a jirga process that would bring together the tribal elders. Governor Raufi had a more expansive vision for it. He wanted not only the “usual suspects” of tribal elders, but he also wanted to bring in teachers and religious leaders to really have a broad-based conversation. We monitored the process, but also supported him. We supported him personally, in terms of being a sounding board for him, but also being willing to provide resources out of the Kandahar Peace and Security Fund to make it happen, help them get a venue and have food, in order to have these meetings take place. A lot of what we do in reconciliation is not terribly sexy. It's about actually creating the opportunity and conditions for those conversations to occur.

Then there are other things we would do. We provided some modest support a while back to the Peace through Strength program for the office, so the office could function. Then we've done a variety of other things, including a project we've been funding with the Tribal Liaison Office that is about mapping. It's helping Afghans better understand what the lay-down is and what some of the grievances are so that they can develop conversations about these things over time.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

My next question, I hope, is not too far removed from reality. President Obama today talked about human rights. He talked about equality and how important that is. As the father of three young women, over the last 30 years, by necessity, I've become an advocate for women's rights, and I am very proud to do so. It's an interesting question as to what extent these values are perceived in Afghanistan, in Kandahar, as western values, or to what extent they're perceived or felt to be human values that they are now embracing.

Mr. Brodeur, you talked about sustainability. How do we actually move forward? How do we go forward with the confidence that the kinds of institutions that we're creating and the values that we're attempting to really have ingrained in Afghan society...? To what extent are they seen as a graft that comes from us as opposed to something that is genuinely embedded within the guts of Afghan society?

[Yves Brodeur]

This will be fast, because I know Elissa wants to come in on this, and she's the one who lived there, not me.

It is important to understand that we're not driven actually by the will to impose values. Here you could have a whole conference about what that means and what western values are compared to others. It is a very complicated debate. It's even more complex because of the nature of Afghan society, which is family-based, tribal-based, and also you're adding another layer that probably, in many ways, has some similarities to what we have, to what we know as parliamentary democracy and all its infinite variations.

It is clear in my mind, and I think it is the same for my colleagues, that we are not there trying to push values. We're there to try to help the Afghans build the society they want for themselves. They have a constitution, and if you haven't read that, it's worth spending 15 minutes to do so. It's a very short document. It addresses in many ways the kind of society in which they want to live. It's not being challenged. I think Afghans, by and large, are supporting that constitution, but they also are deeply attached to some aspects of their traditional lives: clans, families, tribes. That is very important. We try to actually keep that in mind when we intervene in the field, in terms of trying to accommodate people and helping them to strengthen their decision structure.

Sometimes these things collide, not with us but within Afghanistan itself. It's not easy, but given the complexity, they're doing a fairly good job. It's tough for us as well, because whenever you make a decision, you have to look at this puzzle from different angles; there are different angles, and you have to find the common point where all these things are converging.

I don't think they're rejecting us. I don't think they want us to tell them how to live their lives, but they certainly want us to help them build a space where they can actually have a life that is in conformity with their own values.

Do you want to...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We are just about out of time.

Mr. Obhrai, you indicated you had a point of order. Does it have something to do with the witnesses?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Yes, it does, and mine is a procedural question.

We have the assistant deputy minister of the Afghanistan task force here, so this is the best time to ask him questions. When this committee was formed and when we did the thing, the most important aspect of it was to oversee the Afghanistan mission. One of the most important aspects of that was that the committee decided we needed to travel to Afghanistan to do this. Now, I know that Greg, I, Bob, and Madame Lalonde have not been to Afghanistan. You have been, but you went there as part of the defence committee, not the foreign affairs committee. So I want to know if I can ask the clerk and the deputy minister, in reference to our trip to Afghanistan, about the logistics and all these sorts of things, so we can have an update. It is very important I think to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I understand that. I know our travel plans were discussed in camera for security reasons and so on, so this would have to be very general.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Fine. Let's just get to hear this thing. It's very important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I'm not sure if Mr. Brodeur is free to respond.

If you want to comment, sir, I know this is completely off the topic you were prepared to come on.

[Yves Brodeur]

Very briefly, Mr. Chair, and again keeping in mind what you said about the fact that this is not an in camera meeting, my understanding is--and the interest of the committee has been registered, and that goes without saying--there's still some discussion with the Privy Council Office, which actually has the lead on this. My understanding is that the request is under consideration, so you should get the signal from them quite soon about the possibility of travelling and when the best time for doing that would actually be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you for that.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Chair, I want to make a point here. It's very necessary for us to go to Afghanistan as a whole committee, to ensure the whole committee has a perspective on our mission in Afghanistan. We are doing the other report that we did from the U.S. mission in Iraq, which we're going to do in camera.

The trip to Afghanistan, with the logistics and everything, becomes a very important element of this committee, so I want to emphasize the strong importance of all committee members working together to address when we will go to Afghanistan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I certainly endorse that.

Mr. Brodeur, it is a very complex thing to get an entire committee into a combat zone. It takes a lot of effort and a lot of resources on behalf of everybody involved, not only the military but also the civilian people. We have to make sure that when we do go, it is of value, not only to Canada but to our people over there, and that it's conducted properly.

I'm not sure if that answers your question.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

My main concern here is that the committee act as a committee in this thing. I don't know if I should bring this up, but I do understand that the Liberal critic wants to go by himself, which does not create the cohesiveness that is working in this committee, because then you have somebody else's view of this thing. It can create a lot of problems. I thought we were all part of one committee, getting the deputy minister's ear on the logistics.

If my friend Bob wants to say something about it, he's welcome to say it, but I think we should be part.... Bob was part of the committee when we went to Washington. In the report we're doing, his contribution was very well done. I hope he's going to do the same thing with this thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

I would certainly hope that all members of the committee who can make that trip, when and if it happens, would be there.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

It's not when it happens: It has to happen.