Evidence of meeting #8 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.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Minister, one thing you should know is what the ambassador said, in fact, when I asked him. It's from the blues here: those work. But what he also said was that it was Afghans who were providing the security, and not the military.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
That's what I'm saying; that the balance we see in the PRTs and what we're hearing is that we seem to be putting too much emphasis on the military and defence and not enough on the other components. I guess I'd just like you to look at that a bit more.
I have one minute?
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
If I may, there is one last point. I only have a little bit of time here.
Regarding the police—this is very important—you'll know that Mr. Rubin presented today at the conference. One of the things he pointed out in a recent publication in Foreign Affairs is that one of the challenges in Afghanistan is police. One of the foreign mujahedeen commanders, Din Muhammad Jurat, has become a general in the Ministry of Interior and is widely believed—including by his former mujahedeen colleagues—to be a major figure in organized crime, and responsible for the murder of a cabinet minister in 2005.
He works with US Protection and Investigations, a Texas-based firm, and provides international agencies and construction projects with security guards, many of whom are former fighters with Jurat's militia and current employees of the Ministry of Interior.
My concern is, if we're relying on ministers of the interior, and we know there is corruption within the Karzai government, are we confident—and perhaps this is to Minister Bernier—that the relations we have and the training we're doing are with the right people? If these incidents are happening, then clearly we have a concern about who our partners are--at least I would, if that were the case.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Dewar.
We'll give Minister Oda the opportunity on the first portion, and then Mr. Bernier, if he wants to respond as well.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Bev Oda Conservative Durham, ON
I want to have an opportunity to complete my response, sir.
As I say, this is a very complex and challenging project that we are committed to. How, when you say “balance”, do you measure balance? Balance is ensuring that we can move, the progress being made, the improvements that are being seen by the Afghan people, in such a fashion that our objective will be reached. And that is a strong, self-sustaining country where the people will now take ownership while ensuring that their children continue to be educated, that the health care systems will be sustained, that they will maintain and demand continuance of the democratic government, and that their human rights are going to be established.
In order to do that, when we ask how we are moving these things ahead, we're being very flexible; we're trying to be as adaptive as possible, working with our partners.
When you're just going to take numbers and say “balance”, how do you measure balance? I wouldn't necessarily say to get hung up on that; I would ask how you measure the progress.
Thank you.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Maxime Bernier Conservative Beauce, QC
Yes, I will be very brief.
The topic of my colleague's question relates to rebalancing the mission. We can call it 3D or the comprehensive governmental approach. What is important, in fact, is what the government does. All departments of the government work together closely to achieve the same goal, to keep to the agreement we signed in January 2006.
That being said, I would simply like to point out that this debate is healthy and important. I am pleased that the question is being asked, because we will have a report from the Manley group, as I was saying earlier. We will then be asking parliamentarians whether they want to do only development, and less security. All those questions will be debated in the House, in Parliament.
I note that some members of the committee have firm positions, and so I assume that the debate in the House will be very interesting. We will see then what the House decides regarding the future of the military mission in Afghanistan.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Minister Bernier.
We'll go into the second round, and I remind each member that the second round is a five-minute round.
Madame Boucher, vous avez cinq minutes.
4:40 p.m.
Beauport—Limoilou Québec
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Status of Women
Good morning, everyone.
I will be splitting my time with my colleague, Mr. Kramp.
Ms. Oda, some people have recently said that the status of women in Afghanistan has not progressed, despite the promises made after the fall of the Taliban. If I am not mistaken, the NDP says that we should withdraw our troops from Afghanistan. Although it talks and questions our humanitarian efforts, it does not seem to have a concrete plan.
Ms. Oda, how are Afghan women benefiting directly from Canadian aid? What evidence is there to show Canadians that they actually do have access to the money that is intended for them?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Bev Oda Conservative Durham, ON
Merci.
I'm very happy to have the opportunity to report to the committee on the progress we've made and the difference we've made in the lives of women and girls in Afghanistan. As I said in my presentation, one of the key successes is enabling them access to formal education, where they represent two-thirds of the children attending schools. The education and literacy has improved. There's mobility now. As I said, I was in Afghanistan, and you recognize the fact that you see Afghan women, young women and girls, going to school, in the streets, going shopping, walking down the streets, and then you recognize that this is a significant change in the lives of those women.
The other part I can report on is the improvement of the health care they're receiving. In fact, we have seen a four times increase in the access of women to childbirth attendants. Consequently, with improved medical care and access to medical care, we've been able to reduce the infant mortality by 22%.
The Afghan women, I would suggest, are like all women around the world. They're very entrepreneurial, very industrious, etc. We have contributed $56 million to date to the microfinancing facilities, the MISFA facility. The majority of people accessing that facility, as I say, are women. They are now earning an income for their families. They are establishing businesses. On top of that they're repaying those loans at a 90% rate.
We are also supporting their agricultural efforts with our programs that support livelihood--livestock, seeds, and fertilizer. We see improvements there. Many of the women, of course, are the caregivers in their families, so that they're able to not only participate on an increased level but actually to contribute significantly.
One of the things I'd like to speak to is to recognize that when they have the opportunity, they participate in elections. They participate as voters. To me, that shows they are concerned about their futures, when 43% of the 6.5 million Afghans who voted in the last election were women. They had been denied that previously under the Taliban. Not only that, but 25% are parliamentarians right now. As I said, that's a very successful indication.
The women I've met and the women I've seen are very active. They're learning in some very small projects, very simple embroidery projects. We all shared an opportunity to look at the outcome of the silk scarves that they're making. When you go there, you'll see how entrepreneurial they are.
I think one of the things is to basically understand that there's a recognition of the basic rights of women, their basic human rights--protection against violence, ability to have free mobility, access to education, access to democratic process, access to literacy, access to facilities that are taking better care of their health and consequently the health of their families as well. There's a saying that if you want to ensure that the people are educated, you educate the women, and the women will ensure that everyone gets educated. Of course, the same goes for health care. The same also goes for respecting basic rights. I think we've made a significant difference, along with our partners.
I will point out that we're planning to have 35 CIDA staff in Afghanistan, but we're working along with over 1,300 other development workers through our partnerships, NGOs, and multilateral partners.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
December 11th, 2007 / 4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Raymond Chan Liberal Richmond, BC
Mr. Chair, because of the shortage of time, I'll state my two questions to the ministers, and then I'll share my time with my colleague so that he can put questions that he may have as well.
Ministers, welcome to the committee.
We've been hearing witnesses, and there are two questions that come to my mind that are very important. One is along the lines of the approaches that we are taking as a government on the Afghanistan issue. I believe the 3D approach would work; however, we have to be very practical, very smart in manipulating the 3D efforts that we make. Witnesses have told us that there's no military solution to this issue. The one D that I think we're missing right now is the diplomatic one, which is the political process.
Can you update us on any political process that you are conducting right now in Afghanistan? We're told that the political process that we need is to first initiate some dialogue amongst all the stakeholders, the different religious sects, the different ethnic groups, and even military groups within Afghanistan. We need to get them into a dialogue, and after the dialogue has started, we need to get them into negotiations for a political settlement. I'd like the ministers to tell us what kind of process and what kind of success we have had, and if there is any approach along that line at all.
The second question I want to ask is on the effort. Every witness who has come to this committee has been telling us that both the military and development efforts that we're putting in as a whole, either by the UN or NATO, are not nearly enough to deal with the problem at hand. I would therefore ask the ministers if they believe there are some countries that are willing to double or triple their military efforts or development efforts on this Afghanistan problem, and where they would come from.
With that, I would like to share my time with my colleague.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Very quickly, because we have to leave time for them to answer the questions in your five minutes.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Mr. Chair, I'll be very brief.
Ministers, you have both pointed out that Canada has put a lot of effort into building and developing a legal system in Afghanistan. We know the government in Afghanistan was elected by over 40% of the population, or perhaps a little bit more than that. We know Afghanistan supports the rule of law. We also know that a diplomat has found himself in some difficulty in terms of poppy eradication in that country.
Minister, considering these tests that you have put before in almost every other nation, but including in Afghanistan, if a Canadian were sentenced to death in Afghanistan, does the minister believe Canada would in fact intervene to request clemency in those kinds of circumstances?
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Maxime Bernier Conservative Beauce, QC
Thank you.
On the question of Canada's position regarding negotiations for a lasting peace process in Afghanistan, and negotiations with the Taliban, I would point out that we support the national reconstruction process. That process is based on recognition of all groups in Afghan society, and this is very important; all social actors, under the legitimate authority of the Afghan government.
It is up to the government of Afghanistan to decide how and with whom it intends to establish a lasting peace in Afghanistan. It is a sovereign, democratically elected government, and it is responsible for its actions. We hope, as President Karzai said a few months ago, that the people with whom the government might have discussions will respect the legitimacy of the government's authority, and thus of the Afghan constitution and the rule of law. If negotiations were undertaken by the government of Afghanistan with people who respect the Constitution of Afghanistan and who renounce violence, it would be better for the international community.
The international community has to make sure that the agreement it signed with the government of Afghanistan is honoured. We have until 2011 to ensure that the country is safer and more secure and is in the process of sustainable economic development. We are working to train the police and the Afghan army. We want Afghans to be able to take over. Ideally, in the near future, and I will not set a date, they should be able to take over and have a government for which assistance from the international community would no longer be needed. I dream of seeing this become reality, but I am also aware of the challenges that await us. Together, we will meet those challenges.
As I said earlier, in terms of governance and the work of the United Nations with our partners, we will make sure that the agreement we signed can be carried out and that the objectives we have adopted will be achieved, because under the 2006 agreement, there are a number of objectives that have to be achieved. This is work for the long haul, but each time we meet, we ensure that the results set out in the 2006 agreement are being achieved, so that ultimately that government will be legitimate and will be able to take over on all aspects.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Minister.
The one question that perhaps you didn't respond to so much was the specific one by Mr. McTeague, the legal—
4:50 p.m.
Liberal