Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 29th, 2007

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Okay, I'll ask my question and let Mr. Chan ask his question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Then we'll wait for both answers.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you for coming.

With regard to capacity-building at the village level, we're pumping $15 billion into Afghanistan in aid. We don't seem to have a clear handle on the CIDA projects that are there.

The last speaker certainly talked about capacity-building. What could we be doing better in terms of ensuring that the money that goes to the Afghan government, of which about 45% of what they have they can't spend, is actually going to achieve the goals that we say we'd like to see?

Mr. Chan will ask the next question.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Thank you very much for coming.

I fully understand the challenge of the capacity-building side, and also the challenge of being able to do the work you need to do under the security problem imposed by the Taliban.

I want to understand, if the PRT, the military operation, is creating a higher risk for the NGOs, can the NGOs work in capacity-building and whatever without the military participation? If there's no PRT in that region to give you the security support, is it possible for you to continue with your work as an NGO to deliver the humanitarian work and also capacity-building? Is that the approach we should take to divide the role of the military and the NGOs?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Chan.

I guess whoever wants to answer can hit their button first.

Mr. Nahzat.

[Mirwais Nahzat]

Thank you for the question.

Very briefly, how do we ensure that the aid money trickles down to the Afghan population who deserve it the most? From my discussions with Afghans on the ground very recently, I think some points came up very prominently. The first is the continued need to invest in education, particularly higher education. The unemployment rate among youth remains the highest in Afghanistan. That's one area.

Second, a lot of Afghan ministries emphasized the need to engage the diaspora, professional Afghans living abroad, to return to train other Afghans, because they have an understanding of the culture, challenges, and ways to work with Afghans.

The related emphasis should also be placed on building sustainable capacity of Afghans rather than policing. A lot of contractors, consultants who go in there, are locked in closed rooms without really leaving Afghans with the capacity. So more efforts should be put to build and provide training for Afghans, particularly in rural areas; that's where the capacity is missing.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Isch.

[Emmanuel Isch]

Thank you.

One thing I want to add to what my colleague said, and one of the points I made earlier, is that if additional or increased amounts of assistance are channelled through NGOs and civil society groups, I think we can see a more effective use of those funds, because we work in the communities. As well, without getting into a huge discussion here, there are areas of Afghanistan that are more secure and that allows us to do more activities. There needs to be greater investment in those areas where longer-term development activities can take place. I think this will allow us to see greater results and address some of the issues that were raised in the question that was asked earlier.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Isch.

Mr. Barr, our time is up, but I'll allow you an answer, and we'll give a little extra time to the Bloc as well.

Go ahead.

[Gerry Barr]

To Mr. Chan, who raised the question of the distinction between development workers and the military effort, I would encourage you to go along this line further. Yes, NGOs do wish to see greater clarity of role between humanitarian and development actors and the military.

The problem is this. When that line is blurred and when those things come together and it becomes a sort of common enterprise, as one group recently suggested, when there's a close coordination of aid with counter-insurgency, what happens is that development gets the signature of the military on it and the development itself becomes a target. Also, those who are the beneficiaries of development themselves become targets. So we undermine the objective, which is to benefit and also ensure the security of non-combatants.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Barr.

We will go to the Bloc question.

Mrs. Barbot, you have five minutes.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to thank you for once again appearing before our committee.

In reference to the current state of affairs in Afghanistan, you said, Mr. Barr, that development had been somewhat neglected. The talk is of striking a new balance in the Canadian mission, so I'd like to hear your opinion as to the impact, on the ground, of Canada's withdrawal from the war zones, in humanitarian and development terms.

[Gerry Barr]

You're right: it's a dilemma. It's hard to determine what the consequences of a withdrawal would be for the Afghan people. Security, and mainly personal and civilian safety, is very important for the Afghan people. They don't see it necessarily as being part and parcel of a possible military victory. We need to make a distinction between the two notions. In our opinion, the key message is that Afghanistan once again be at peace. According to a poll, Canadians' top priority is a return to peace in Afghanistan, and not victory over the Taliban leaders. It is a fairly old poll, but I am sure that if it were conducted again today, peace would unequivocally be the number one priority.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

That was the crux of my question. Canada has expertise in terms of peacekeeping missions. So we're talking about redirecting our efforts on what we know best, that is a mission to rebuild peace rather than to continue to wage war in the south. How will this new direction be perceived, in your opinion, by the Afghan people who, I'm sure, also need peace?

[Gerry Barr]

To answer you properly, one needs to have a military background, but from the perspective of someone working in the field of development, I can tell you that you're on a slippery slope when you pit military and development objectives against each other. It is a veritable minefield and traps abound. We did pay the price for having confused the two roles. I know that it is an incomplete answer, but I would go so far as to say that an approach must be developed that is based on separation of these two roles.

It's really a life-saving matter, actually, at this point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame St-Hilaire.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

I'd like to thank our witnesses.

I'd like to know what you think of CIDA's work in Afghanistan. You touched on this, but it is always hard for us as parliamentarians to get a concrete answer on this and to know what is really going on over there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

If nobody knows the answer to that, then you're like the rest of us, I guess.

Most of these groups are funded by CIDA; we're all aware of that. Mr. Nahzat's group had some funding, I know that.

[Gerry Barr]

I'd simply like to say that if I were the current CIDA's director I would further strengthen the development and diplomacy role under our current national formula. We have a 3D formula, but each “D” is not of equal importance. In our opinion,

the failure of CIDA has really been to not be sufficiently assertive about the development role in this equation of three-D.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

We'll get it in a second question. They've already had six minutes.

We'll go to the government. Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you very much.

You are an NGO doing development work, and Afghanistan is one of our major development countries. We've put millions of dollars in, and it is the number one priority, so it's understandable that you guys would like to look at some of the money to do what you have expertise in. However, I never hear from the development people anything about the international compact, the Afghanistan Compact, the road map that the international community has laid out for the rebuilding of Afghanistan.

You have rightly pointed out that it is crucial and very important that we support the Government of Afghanistan in building the judiciary, the police force, and the military, but most importantly the judiciary and the police force, because of the corruption and all those things. It's a long process. And the Afghanistan Compact is the effort of the international community to come over there, collectively, to build the whole society.

It's understandable that you have certain areas of expertise as NGOs and you want to focus on that, but that is not going to be the government's approach. The government's approach is going to be collectively working with the international community, the Government of Afghanistan, and all the other partners, including yourself--many of you are already there--to move collectively toward that.

So it is critically important. That's why the Prime Minister got this independent panel to come out with a report that would indicate which direction we go in. We are mired here with this business of security and insecurity. You have said that security forces have created an unsafe situation for workers. During the period of the Taliban and all those things, you just couldn't do anything out there in that part of the world.

Yesterday I saw a movie. I recommend that everyone see The Kite Runner. It was good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Most of us read the book.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

You had time to watch a movie?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

The première was last night. So when it does hit the screen, please go and see it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

The Kite Runner.