Evidence of meeting #5 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd 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

Clerk of the Committee  Mrs. Angela Crandall
Gerry Barr  President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council for International Cooperation
Lina Holguin  Advocacy Officer, Oxfam Quebec, Afghanistan Reference Group
Emmanuel Isch  Vice President, International and Canadian Programs, World Vision Canada, Afghanistan Reference Group
Mirwais Nahzat  Program Officer, World University Service of Canada, Afghanistan Reference Group
Stefan Lehmeier  Coordinator, Canadian Peacebuilding Coordinating Committee, Afghanistan Reference Group
Graeme MacQueen  Associate Professor, McMaster University, Afghanistan Reference Group
Gerry Ohlsen  Vice-Chair, Group of 78, Afghanistan Reference Group

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Bonjour, mes collègues.

This is the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, meeting number 5, Thursday, November 29, 2007.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108 and a motion adopted by the committee on November 20, 2007, we will continue our study of Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

We are very pleased to have with us here today Gerry Barr, from the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, who is no stranger to this committee. We've certainly appreciated his input over the years on other bills and other studies we've done. Also, we have Emmanuel Isch, World Vision Canada; and Lina Holguin, advocacy officer, Oxfam Québec, who also has already appeared before our committee.

Forgive me if I mispronounce some of these names, but we also have Mirwais Nahzat, program officer, World University Service of Canada; and Graeme MacQueen. I don't see him here, but perhaps he is in the back.

They're coming later. Good.

So we welcome you here this morning.

Before you begin, I have a couple of announcements for our committee.

First off, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be available to meet with the committee next Tuesday, from 3:30 to 4:30, on issues of Afghanistan. We aren't able to have this meeting during our regular scheduled slot, so just be aware of that.

For the second hour, Angela, have we made the switch of times?

11:05 a.m.

The Clerk of the Committee Mrs. Angela Crandall

Yes, we have.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

So this would not be a new time?

11:05 a.m.

The Clerk

It's a new time for the committee.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

All right, we've switched over. For the second hour, we have already agreed to meet with the Canadian Food Security Policy Group. So this is a change of time.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

We're not sitting at eleven?

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

We will not sit at eleven. This meeting will be changed to 3:30 till 5:30.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

On Tuesday.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

On Tuesday.

Take note of that, as it does not mean an extra meeting. We will just cancel the first meeting, and we'll take it from the 3:30 to 5:30 slot.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB

Why don't we adjourn and go to listen to Mr. Schreiber?

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Secondly, the minister from CIDA will be available to meet with the committee on Tuesday, December 11, from 3:30 to 4:40.

Now, this would be an extra meeting, because on that day, if you recall, we are going over to the University of Ottawa, which has their international conference at the Chateau Laurier, so that time is taken.

So you can reflect on this a little bit, and we can maybe discuss it later in committee business.

That being said, my intentions today are to cut this off at about five minutes to twelve and bring in our next group. They will be cut off basically at a quarter to one, and then we will have committee business. So those are my intentions for today.

Madame Barbot.

11:10 a.m.

Bloc

Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC

Mr. Chair, I'd like us to come back to the scheduling issue just to make sure everyone agrees and has understood. It was glossed over a little too quickly for my liking.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

We'll go over it at a later date; I don't want to take any more time away.

We have one group here today.

11:10 a.m.

A voice

They're all part of the Afghanistan Reference Group.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Good. We will move into the first round.

We welcome you folks again. We apologize for our announcement time. The time is yours.

How many different presentations will we have?

11:10 a.m.

Gerry Barr President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council for International Cooperation

Seven, Mr. Chairman.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

All right, continue. And then we'll go into the first round of questioning.

11:10 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council for International Cooperation

Gerry Barr

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know most of the committee. I won't introduce myself again. I'll just say that today I'm here with a number of civil society organizations that have come together as a network called the Afghanistan Reference Group.

The group will offer a range of perspectives on Canada's role in Afghanistan. Not all of these perspectives may be common perspectives, but they do have in common the fact that they are rooted in on-the-ground experience in Afghanistan and other conflict zones around the world.

We've been asked to share our thoughts on Canada's mission in Afghanistan, including CIDA's role and approaches to establishing a lasting peace.

Our first recommendation for you is to sharply reorient Canada's role in Afghanistan to emphasize development and diplomacy, and to treat negotiating humanitarian access as a top priority.

Why? Well, it's because Canada's integrated three-D or whole-of-government approach has been skewed toward the military and has served to militarize peace-building and humanitarian and development assistance. It's a fundamental flaw in an integrated whole-of-government approach, and it has serious implications on the ground for the delivery of aid and for the prospects for peace.

The last two years have seen an increasing shift towards putting security first, on the assumption that development will follow. Security is, of course, naturally important, but it cannot come at the expense of development and diplomatic efforts. Indeed, the way in which we are currently pursuing security efforts is hampering the effective delivery of aid. There continues to be a troubling blurring of lines between the international development efforts and the international military efforts.

One of the most disastrous ways this is playing out on the ground is as growing threats to aid workers. This year alone, at least 40 aid workers have been killed. On top of that, 76 humanitarian workers were abducted, and 55 humanitarian convoys and 45 humanitarian facilities were attacked, ambushed, or looted by gunmen. Clearly, the majority of victims are Afghans. At the same time, there is an increasing reliance on Afghans to deliver aid, because the security situation is so precarious and because internationals are seen as part of the military effort against the Taliban.

The current situation is the worst agencies have had to cope with. We are talking of organizations that have been active in Afghanistan for decades, through the Soviet era, the mujahedeen, the Taliban, and even the 2001 ousting of the Taliban by U.S. forces. In almost 30 years of war, only now has the threat to aid workers reached these kinds of levels.

Aid worker insecurity poses a major challenge in at least two ways: first because, if aid workers are threatened, abducted, or killed, they are of course unable to deliver assistance; second because aid agencies have to decide whether their staff are able to operate with reasonable levels of safety.

The more aid staff are targeted, the less likely it is for organizations to actually engage in programming. In both instances, it means that aid can't reach those in need, and that has severe repercussions on the country's ability to make vital progress in development.

According to Afghan sources, female aid workers are particularly affected and are having an even more difficult time in being able to do their work—with obvious implications, of course, for many of those in the beneficiary population who are among the most vulnerable Afghan women.

In response to this dire situation, some will suggest and have suggested that the military should take up the role of delivering humanitarian and development assistance. CCIC and its members, including those active on the ground, say this will only make a bad situation worse.

It's imperative that Canada refocus its efforts to place humanitarian access at the top of its agenda and to support a more concerted effort in development and diplomacy. Speakers today are going to offer some practical alternatives on how development and peace can be supported in Afghanistan.

I'd like to introduce you now to Ms. Lina Holguin, the policy director of Oxfam-Québec.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you, Mr. Barr.

Welcome again, Ms. Holguin.

11:15 a.m.

Lina Holguin Advocacy Officer, Oxfam Quebec, Afghanistan Reference Group

Mr. Chair, members, I'd like to begin by thanking you for having given Oxfam-Québec the opportunity to give its perspective on Canada's role in Afghanistan. I'll be speaking on behalf of Oxfam Canada today also.

Oxfam has worked in Afghanistan since the early 1990s providing humanitarian and development assistance. We currently have operations in Hazarajat, Badakhshan, and Kandahar, and we fund local organizations across the country.

I will focus my presentation on three areas: the protection of civilians, the role of the provincial reconstruction teams, and community peace-building.

On the protection of civilians, the manner in which international forces are prosecuting the war has caused far too many civilian casualties, at least 1,200 this year alone according to Human Rights Watch and UN figures. The high proportion of civilians killed has occurred in international forces' operations.

The high proportion of civilian casualties can in large part be attributed to air strikes, which occur in Afghanistan four times as frequently as in Iraq. Searches conducted by Afghan and international forces also have on a number occasions involved excessive use of force, destruction of property, and/or mistreatment of suspects.

Thousands more civilians are casualties in another sense. On top of the 130,000 long-term displaced people in Afghanistan, recent fighting in the south has displaced up to 80,000 more. The war has affected people's ability to farm, forced the closure of education and health facilities, and curtailed the availability of humanitarian relief workers.

Canada, therefore, should reorient its military approach. Protection of civilians must be the top priority in order to minimize the killing and displacement of civilians and the destruction of civilian property. Canada must ensure proportionate use of force and advocate for the same with its allies, particularly in regard to air strikes and house searches.

Canada should sponsor a new cross-sector body to monitor and investigate civilian casualties, destruction of property, and alleged abuses, and ensure timely and sufficient compensation is paid to civilians who have suffered from military operations.

Canada must help people remain in their villages and help respond to the needs of those forced to leave, providing them with protection, support for resettlement, and long-term assistance.

On the provincial reconstruction teams, these teams were set up as an interim structure to facilitate a stable and secure environment. They have since overstepped that mandate to engage in extensive short-term development and relief work. Communities appreciate any help they can get, but PRT projects are too often driven by the desire to win hearts and minds and fail to fulfill the minimum standards of good development or humanitarian practice. These rapid-impact projects usually lack community participation, and as a result are inappropriate or unused. The development process needs to be owned and led by Afghan communities. PRTs are no substitute for long-term development work, and the military has neither the expertise nor the staying power to engage in it.

PRTs also blur the distinction between the military and aid workers, placing our staff in considerable danger and reducing our ability to operate. Association with the military has also turned PRT projects, such as school buildings, into targets.

Canada's PRT should be refocused. PRTs should exist only where security conditions make them absolutely necessary. They should concentrate on achieving security, stability, and law and order, which is their primary expertise. They should engage in relief activities only where lives hang in the balance and no civilian alternative exists. They should not engage in development work.

In accordance with the interim status of PRTs, Canada should develop an exit strategy for its PRTs, with downscaling and closure plans for when areas become comparatively secure.

On the issue of community peace-building, almost all efforts to build peace in Afghanistan have occurred at the level of national politics. The capacity of Afghan communities to resolve their own disputes and to build and sustain peace has largely been neglected. The recent deterioration in security, particularly in the south and southeast, is evidence that top-down approaches are by themselves inadequate without parallel, nationwide peace promotion in communities. A participatory, bottom-up approach to seeking peace can strengthen the communities' capacity to resolve disputes and conflicts, develop trust, and promote inter-ethnic and inter-group dialogue as a basis for peace.

Existing community peace-building programs implemented by Afghan and international NGOs, including Oxfam, have been highly effective, but they benefit only a tiny proportion of Afghans. Canada and other donors, therefore, should significantly expand support for NGOs and civil society actors carrying out such work and they should promote the development of a national community peace-building strategy.

Finally, peace in Afghanistan cannot be achieved without improving the lives of ordinary Afghans. This requires strong leadership by the Afghan government and substantial and long-term commitment on the part of the international community, including Canada, not only to secure development progress, but to halt the spread of insecurity. Canada can play a crucial role in pressing all players to meet the challenges that Afghanistan faces. Millions of lives depend upon it.

Thank you.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you.

We'll move to our next presenter, Mr. Ish.

11:20 a.m.

Emmanuel Isch Vice President, International and Canadian Programs, World Vision Canada, Afghanistan Reference Group

Thank you.

I'd like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to make known our point of view and to put forward some comments and analyses. We know that you are addressing many different issues and we'd like to take advantage of this opportunity, over the next couple of minutes, to give you our viewpoint and recommendations regarding Afghanistan.

Like the Canadian government, we as NGOs also want to contribute to helping realize an Afghanistan that's peaceful, stable, and self-reliant. World Vision, as a child-focused agency, has a particular interest in the plight of girls and boys and their families and communities. We want to make sure they have a brighter future in this country after many years of turmoil and poverty. All of us as NGOs here share the same hope and aspiration.

There are a number of issues I want to raise today, and I will focus on three particular recommendations.

World Vision and other NGOs present here today have various levels of involvement in Afghanistan for ourselves. We've been operational since 2001 in the northwest part of the country. We are involved in various programs in the areas of agriculture, livelihoods, food security, nutrition, health, and water. We are currently assisting over 500,000 people and operating on roughly a $17 million budget. Our six-plus years of being on the ground have given us the opportunity to interact at different levels, but especially at the grassroots level, and to gain an understanding of the realities that exist on the ground in that particular part of the country. We've learned this also through operating in similar environments in other parts of the world, including Darfur, south Sudan, Sri Lanka, the West Bank, and so on.

I'd like to briefly preface what I'd like to emphasize today by having a bit of a distinction about the context of humanitarian assistance and what this means.

When we talk about humanitarian assistance, what we're really referring to is saving lives and alleviating poverty. When we do this, it must be provided in accordance with issues of impartiality, neutrality, independence, and humanity. When we talk about long-term development, especially in the context of Afghanistan, we're talking about a much more complex set of processes that involve a community-based, long-term approach, but one that is also focused on building the capacities of individuals, communities, and the local and national governments. Ultimately the goal is to see these communities become self-sufficient and productive, and it is in this framework that I'd like to make my recommendations this morning.

Our first recommendation is that as you consider ongoing Canadian support for development work in Afghanistan, we would recommend strongly that funding decisions and supports be primarily driven by needs and priorities identified by the Afghan people, especially within the communities where they reside. This means for us that there has to be a broad strategic approach with an overall country perspective in mind, ensuring that results are happening at the grassroots level.

What we are seeing over the past two to three years in Afghanistan is that donor resources have been unevenly distributed, often favouring areas of high poppy cultivation or regions of so-called heightened security, and this uneven distribution has created and probably worsened grievances that have existed historically in communities but that have now been heightened as a result. Often the failure of development actors to ensure that the quieter provinces in the north and the west receive a tangible peace dividend has played into the north-south fault line within the country and contributed to an increase in security that we are seeing in more and more parts of the country. Poverty levels are extreme throughout the country, so for us it's critical that all parts of the country receive tangible benefits from international and community support, and we encourage Canada to do that as well.

We want to make sure as well that donor funding not only is more equally distributed, but also is not primarily focused on urban centres, as often there is little trickle-down within the grassroots. We want to make sure that the population, wherever it is located in the country, gains confidence and hope that they will also benefit from international and government aid efforts. I'm not suggesting that Canada should support programming in every province or district of the country, but certainly that the bilateral assistance should be more evenly spread as a result of the comments that I made, and again I want to emphasize community base and grassroots.

Second, we would like to further emphasize that Canadian aid strategies should recognize that development funding delivered in partnership with NGOs can often be the most effective and sustainable way to fight poverty, and this also applies to Afghanistan.

Right now, we estimate that less than 15% of humanitarian development funding is channeled through NGOs and civil society groups in Afghanistan, which means the rest goes to the multilaterals, such as the UN or the World Bank, or to private contractors. We often see some leveraging capacity that we have as NGOs, which those larger institutions don't have, especially in terms of our ability to interact and relate and sustain our presence in local communities. I think that gives us a comparative advantage in terms of our ability to implement activities, but also to show results from those activities. As well, we are often able to work in areas the large institutions are not necessarily able to work in. Sometimes, the cost of assistance through a number of NGOs may be a bit higher, but we have to again take into account the benefits as a result of that as well.

Just to offer a quick word on military involvement in the context of developing assistance, we increasingly note the trend to channel more resources through military actors, including the provincial reconstruction teams. While well-intentioned, the military too often employs approaches that don't actually cultivate community ownership or capacity-building or allow them to engage in a longer term. We have to balance the need to get some quick activities or a job quickly done with the need to have a longer-term, sustained presence.

Finally, the last point I want to make is that sustainable development needs stable local governance. Canada's approach to developing Afghanistan should support the development of strategies that can build up subnational governance structures. We often refer to some issue-related corruption and lack of capacity in that country, and we're aware of it, but what we would like to see happen more is that there be more investment in the capacities of local governments and local communities.

I myself witnessed this when I travelled to Afghanistan a few months ago and met with different ministries in the areas where we work. They're very much understaffed and they have a lack of capacity. We need to invest not just at the national level but also within the communities so that the local authorities can more effectively provide and deliver services to their own people.

That's an issue we need to be more aware of. It's what we refer to in speaking of investing more in subnational capacities for the government. As World Vision and I'm sure others who are present in this room have seen through our work, as we invest more in local capacities, we can see some more tangible benefits at the end of the day.

In conclusion, I just want to state that contributions and commitments that Canada has made towards Afghanistan are important and need to be recognized; however, such initiatives must be more evenly spread, supported by actors who guide the experience and power Afghans at different levels, especially locally within communities, and be implemented according to Afghan community needs and priorities. Only if we channel our assistance to Afghanistan with those principles in mind will long-lasting, positive development take place in that country. I'm sure we need to recognize that Canadian aid commitments will probably be used more effectively if we take this broader approach.

At the end of the day, what we can see is that Afghan children, families, and communities that we work to assist will have a brighter and better future.

Thank you very much.

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you for your presentation.

We'll move to Mr. Nahzat.

November 29th, 2007 / 11:30 a.m.

Mirwais Nahzat Program Officer, World University Service of Canada, Afghanistan Reference Group

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As an Afghan Canadian, it is an honour for me to share with you my personal reflections on ways to achieve lasting peace in Afghanistan. I feel equally obliged to openly underscore the complex challenges, achievements, and unfulfilled dreams of impoverished Afghans.

Afghanistan has achieved remarkable political, social, and economic progress since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Born and raised in Afghanistan, I personally never experienced peace, but consistently encountered images and daily realities of poverty, bloodshed, conflict, and human vulnerability. After fleeing from Afghanistan almost 15 years ago with my family, I returned to my native country in October 2007, in order to assess first-hand some of the major challenges and changes in ordinary Afghans' lives. It was a rewarding and eye-opening opportunity to return to a destitute society that was gradually recovering from the legacy of war and neglect. However, we also know that rebuilding Afghanistan remains an extremely daunting task.

I would underline the four crucial challenges that merit your particular attention.

First, as outlined, Afghans are increasingly becoming disenchanted and frustrated with relentless deterioration of the overall security situation in Afghanistan. Afghans do continue to perceive security as the most striking challenge for the nation. My colleagues today have eloquently addressed the issue of security. But allow me to add a pertinent question to the analysis, and that is to say, what is the perception of Afghans about the overall security? The answer to that question appropriately would indicate that Afghans are fed up with the incessant showering of bullets, aerial bombings, and increasing risks of civilian casualties and to properties.

They advocate for a more comprehensive, multi-faceted approach to security, namely, an emphasis on personal security. From a human development perspective, personal insecurity means persistence of human rights violations, injustices towards women, the growing narcotics trade, institutionalized corruption, land mines, and land disputes. Long-term prosperity and stability in Afghanistan, the region, and globally are not possible without addressing these interrelated challenges of personal security in a balanced and coordinated manner.

Secondly, nearly 70% of Afghanistan's population of 30 million is under the age of 25. In spite of the international intervention in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban, Afghan youth, according to the United Nations, remains largely disenfranchised, under-skilled, highly neglected, and worse, without a clear voice on their own behalf. If the international community continues to underestimate the severity of youth vulnerability, the Afghan youth will most certainly be exploited by drug lords, war lords, and extremist elements with irreparable consequences to national, regional, and global peace and prosperity.

Thirdly, a protracted quarter century of conflict and instability combined with the symbolic existence of fragile and dysfunctional state institutions have contributed tremendously to the lack of human resources in Afghanistan, something my colleague just emphasized. During my recent trip to Afghanistan, officials of Afghan ministries and representatives from Kabul University and civil society organizations explicitly identified sustainable capacity-building and investing in Afghan human capital as the most crucial components missing in development assistance in Afghanistan. The lack of capacity is particularly of grave concern in rural areas, where an overwhelming 78% of Afghans live. Over the years, significant resources have been concentrated in mostly urban centres like Kabul, fueling the urban rule and divide among Afghans.

Fourth and finally, the plight of the chronically vulnerable population in Afghanistan remains alarming. For instance, Kabul, also known as the capital of widows, is home to approximately 30,000 to 50,000 war widows. There are over 70,000 street-working children across Afghanistan. Afghanistan's adult literacy rate ranks among the lowest in the world. Only 12% of women are literate, compared to 34% of men. WUSC, CARE Canada, and the partners in this room today are working with these vulnerable groups.

For the sake of time, I will offer three recommendations that Canada should consider as we determine our role in the future of Afghanistan.

First, Canada should provide additional resources for achieving the development goals identified by the Government of Afghanistan, while underlining aid effectiveness in line with the Paris Declaration. Greater pro-poor contributions should be made specifically towards job creation, capacity-building, alternative livelihoods, and community-based initiatives, effectively bridging the urban-rural divide in Afghanistan.

Second, Canada should support enhanced participation of Afghan youth in governance, development, and socio-political processes. Special mechanisms should be put in place to engage the largely neglected Afghan diaspora in Canada's development efforts.

Lastly, Canada should continue to strengthen its partnership with trusted Canadian NGOs in order to assist the Government of Afghanistan in achieving its development goals. Most Canadian NGOs are highly effective, cost-efficient, and have the resources to connect the Canadian public with the development efforts in Afghanistan.

In conclusion, dear committee, saving Afghanistan is, I believe, within our grasp and we owe it to Afghans and to the Canadian public to leave behind a meaningful legacy of Canada in war-battered Afghanistan.

As an Afghan Canadian, I urge you to remember the plight, problems, and dreams of the people of Afghanistan as you make your decisions. Thank you.

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you, Mr. Nahzat.

We will go into our first round of questioning. Again, I remind you of the timeframes.

Mr. Wilfert, we're going to try to cut the first round of questioning down to about four minutes so everyone gets a question.