Evidence of meeting #28 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was education.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Chief Operating Officer, War Child Canada
Can I say something in, like, six seconds?
4:10 p.m.
Chief Operating Officer, War Child Canada
Very interestingly, in Afghanistan, we have some direct results that show—just to speak a bit to the comprehensive nature of this—a significant decrease in corporal punishment in the communities where we focused on the education of the mothers. This is about the linkages. As mothers were educated and corporal punishment went down in the household, then, over time, it also brought it down in the broader environment for children. It's very interesting, actually.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
That was slightly more than six seconds, but still pretty close.
4:10 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Dr. Hsu, it's good to have you here. The floors is yours for seven minutes, sir.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to find out a little bit more about a comment that Dr. Nutt made about the need to expand the definition of emergency relief to include things like, I presume, creation and maintenance of safe spaces, literacy, and education, and this other aspect of building community capacity.
I want to try to understand this from the point of view of what the federal government would do differently, what policies would change, who in the federal government would do what differently. I'm thinking ahead to what the committee report might be and how the government might react to the report.
What ideas do you have on what the federal government should be doing differently—what part of the federal government, and what should they be doing differently?
4:10 p.m.
Founder and Executive Director, War Child Canada
Thank you for that.
There have been some changes taking place with what used to be CIDA, and what's now DFATD, in terms of how we view what's normally called IHA, international humanitarian assistance. Normally if there is a crisis, for example in Syria, there will be either a request for proposals and there would be a certain amount of funding that is announced that will go to support the humanitarian effort in that part of the world.
In recent years we have seen a greater willingness to look at what would normally be considered non-emergency activities—education, literacy, protected environments for children, safe spaces, that kind of thing—as activities that will be included as part of those funded. Historically, however, the priority and the preference is still to do announcements that have a higher per capita, lower per cost yield, focused on basic needs—food, water, shelter, blankets, vaccinations. And there is a reason for that. I mean, it's understood that obviously you need to make sure that people are well before they can engage in these other pursuits. We fully understand that. But by not including, in that emergency strategy, education, both formal and informal; literacy, both formal and informal; activities for youth, both formal and informal, we are missing an opportunity at that very early stage of a crisis to actually create a more protected environment for girls.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
So are you saying that the federal government, when it specifies how it's going to spend emergency aid money, should specify that? And is there a minister responsible for that?
4:10 p.m.
Founder and Executive Director, War Child Canada
No, I think what should happen is that it should be more receptive to including financial support for those kinds of activities. At the moment, often when those announcements are made, the decisions have already taken place that it will be Red Cross for this and MSF for that. Those are wholly legitimate, but it is a missed opportunity, absolutely.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Whose responsibility is it in the federal government, do you think, to make a change?
4:10 p.m.
Founder and Executive Director, War Child Canada
Where are those funding decisions made? It's the Prime Minister's Office, it's Foreign Affairs, it's CIDA, it's....
This is not just now; this has been going on for the last 15 years. We've been on the front lines of having conversations, internal and external, with CIDA to get them to expand the definition of what they would consider to be emergency humanitarian assistance. So it would be that.
I would add to this, too, that in terms of what other things the government can do, one very obvious one would be to sign and ratify the arms trade treaty, which is something that I frankly think is long overdue. There's no good reason not to do it. We do know that the reduction in the proliferation of small arms has a very beneficial effect when it comes to reducing the ongoing threats of violence to women and children globally, but particularly in unstable environments.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Okay: so get that treaty taken care of.
From the body language here, I'm guessing that maybe our other witnesses might want to add something.
4:15 p.m.
Chief Operating Officer, War Child Canada
No, I would just totally concur. I think part of it has been that there has been some ongoing dialogue of late between what has been the traditional humanitarian arm and the more long-term development arm. I think it's really a struggle in terms of what is the bridge between the two, what does that bridge look like, and how could the government seek to understand the type of funding mechanisms that would somehow bridge the two? Because very traditionally, they've been quite separate.
What we know, when we look at the millennium development goals, is that the failure to meet a lot of those goals has largely been because a majority of the extreme...those who are categorized as in extreme poverty, and also the conflict-ridden states, where the majority of the populations are living. Those are the exact contexts in the exact states that will receive bursts of short-term humanitarian funds, including UN pooled funds, etc. But there can be huge lapses between those bursts and when a more stabilized source of funding comes in. Then you can see very easily the return to conflict and how these situations become very cyclical and very protracted.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Founder and Executive Director, War Child Canada
[Inaudible--Editor]...and still pooled emergency funds. It's all six months to one year. We're engaged in livelihoods, we work with youth. We know that engaging those young people in those employment opportunities dramatically decreases the likelihood that they will participate with militia groups or be recruited by militia groups. Yet when you have these short bursts of six months to one year, you cannot sustain or lock in the kinds of changes you're talking about.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
So the federal government should be looking at Darfur and looking three to five years out, and looking at how it could perhaps make good use of resources from Canada in the longer term. Is that a fair statement?
4:15 p.m.
Vice President, International Programs, Right To Play
I'd also say, in line with that, is the example of Dadaab. You have a generation of children who have grown up in that camp, and when the crisis hits, the attention is there, but they are forgotten. The opportunity that exists in that camp for the future of Somalia is right there. But again, our organizations are very stretched.
I'd have to echo, in terms of what we would do differently, that in this case it is about making sure that child protection is central to humanitarian funding, and that Canada, which is a generous donor to World Food Programme and UNHCR and UNICEF, demand that child protection also be made central to their intervention.
Further, a new opportunity that exists right now is the fact that trade and development are within the same ministry. Opportunities for collaboration on long-term development issues and on child labour issues are there as well. The government helping us come together as an NGO community and through the private sector—there's an interesting opportunity for us.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you very much.
That's all the time we have, sir.
We'll move to Mr. Anderson, five minutes, please.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
I want to ask the opposite question that Ms. Brown asked you. She asked you when you get engaged, and I'm wondering: do you, or when do you, get disengaged after you have gone in? Do you stay where you are and expand, or do you actually disengage and then move on to somewhere else?
I'm interested in what both your organizations do.
4:15 p.m.
Chief Operating Officer, War Child Canada
In the case of War Child, for good or for bad it demonstrates a reality on something we've been emphasizing over the course of this afternoon. That is, most of the situations where War Child has been are over 10 years now because most of those situations are protracted conflicts. We've gone through quite a few ebbs and flows in terms of active conflict and lesser so.
For the organization, ideally the decision on the disengagement is when there's local capacity—the local partners who have been part of the capacity-building strategy with the organization and the work on the ground—and when the light is there that they are going to continue with the work themselves, and that they are sort of ready to move forward. In most of the countries where we are now, that capacity hasn't been possible yet because of the continuation of the conflict. But there have been other situations, certainly, where that decision has presented itself, and it really comes down to believing that the local community's capacity has been set to continue the work themselves.
4:20 p.m.
Vice President, International Programs, Right To Play
I think for us it depends on the setting. Our goal every day is to work our way out of a job. We can do that in many communities where we're building the local capacity, and we have these local coaches, these local volunteers.