National Defence Committee on May 11th, 2010

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

When should the DART be used, or not be used?

[Mia Vukojevic]

As I said, it was used perfectly in Pakistan. It was there really quickly.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

The circumstances, not specific.... What would they...?

[Mia Vukojevic]

Extreme emergencies where the capacity is exceeded with very specific, strategically chosen elements of assistance. So rather than dishing out the parcels, which any of the civilian organizations can do, strategically using them in coordination. If the UN is coordinating, they coordinate not just us, but the military as well.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

I will give the floor to Mr. Boughen for five minutes.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you, Chair. I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Payne.

Let me add my voice of welcome to you, Madam. It's good of you to share part of your day with us.

I'll make a couple of observations first. I like your phraseology when you say peacebuilding rather than peacekeeping, because it seems to me that war is raging in a number of areas where we have people going in. There's no peace. It's a conflict area. We're trying to build peace, but we're not keeping any peace because no peace exists before we land there.

I think warfare has changed some, and we see that with Afghanistan. As you say, people are there. You feel they may be on your side. I'm sure our troops felt the same way, but one of them got hit with an axe in the head during some talking about how to supply some needs for those folks. So it's a little bit dicey there. When there's no uniform you can't tell if people are the military or not.

How do you see the distribution of whatever you're going to distribute if you're not going to involve the military, if you're not going to have the assurance that someone's going to get what they need and someone isn't going to rip it out of their hands and take it because they're bigger and tougher and have two guns instead of one? How do you see that happening?

[Mia Vukojevic]

There are no perfect answers. As NGOs, we've often been accused of having portions of humanitarian assistance end up in the wrong hands or not reaching the people. We sometimes make really difficult choices.

Even putting aside current places like Afghanistan, I can give you the example of the natural disaster at Aceh, or of situations where we bring the supplies and food by helicopter into a place, and the helicopter is being received by the armed group there, who insist we hand it over to them. We hand over assistance to them and they say they will distribute it. We can't really believe them, for one. We shouldn't be giving assistance to militaries anyway, but the only choice we have then is to leave. So what we do in those situations is try to negotiate with them. It sometimes works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes we have to pick up and leave. But it sometimes works in a way that they allow us to do the distribution in the place. It's still not guaranteed that some of them that come as civilians will not use the food afterwards. One method we use is to look for the woman that's heading the family, so a wife and mother, to distribute food and other assistance. Usually that works.

Oxfam is fortunate, in that we rarely do food assistance; we usually do water and sanitation. There is not as much competition for water and sanitation as there is for food by the armed groups and armed factions. But then there are attempts to use our assets: our warehouses are robbed and so on. It's a constant juggling of those things. We've had to increase our investment in security. For example, as I said for Somalia, as soon as something happens to any of the agencies, we suspend activities. Nobody's going in. Nothing is happening for a couple of days. It's unfortunate, because that means civilians suffer, but it's the only way for us to ensure, at least to the maximum extent possible, that the assistance is not being misused.

I hope that answers your question.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Yes, that's fine.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

You have one minute. Do you want to use your time right now? No? Okay, we'll come back.

Monsieur Paillé.

[Pascal-Pierre Paillé, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you for joining us.

When a humanitarian or other type of crisis unfolds, does Canada ever intervene unless its actions are coordinated with the UN? Does Canada ever decide to deploy troops and vessels to a given area without going through the UN, for example?

[Mia Vukojevic]

I don't know of many cases, actually, for Canada, in particular--other governments, more so. I think even the Afghanistan mission has been sanctioned by the UN as a UN-approved mission. It's not a UN mission, but the UN has had a UN Security Council resolution. So I don't know of a case other than the Kosovo intervention.

[Pascal-Pierre Paillé, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

As I understand it, in most cases, when an NGO dispenses humanitarian aid, the civilian population views this help in a more positive light, because it is not being provided by armed soldiers. Do you understand what I'm saying? Is it your experience that when a clearly identified NGO is dispensing aid instead of armed soldiers, in most cases, the distribution process is more effective and seen in a more positive light? Can you confirm that?

[Mia Vukojevic]

I think it's definitely perceived more favourably, especially in the cases where an NGO has already been present on the ground, and these are most cases. When we just fly in, there is the same problem with perception, especially with lots of people flying in, but when we're already on the ground there is a definite difference in perception in terms of our objectives, our aims. They simply know us. We've been around for a long time, so the credibility question is definitely easier for us.

There was another aspect you asked about. Was it just perceptions? Perceptions, definitely, and you see that all the time.

I think there is also a difference.... You cannot apply it universally, so when the crisis is extremely huge, like Haiti, then people don't really care who's giving them assistance. If they need medical assistance, then they need medical assistance, and they're not necessarily selective about who is saving their lives. I think the biggest advantage for us is that we've already been on the ground, so they know us. We're civilians. We talk to them. We live with them. We live in the community. We usually talk their language. Most of our staff is national staff, so it's very different, I'd say.

[Pascal-Pierre Paillé, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

So then, in essence, are your saying that it would be in the interests of the Canadian military to try and influence the UN, to improve coordination and international efforts, rather than focus on military considerations? I'm talking about the direction of our Canadian military.

[Mia Vukojevic]

Definitely. I would agree with your statement. I would also say, however, that there are cases where military action in the form of peacekeeping or other observers and staff may still be necessary. The United Nations may be able to prevent lots of crises and lots of bad situations by better coordination, by prevention activities, by diplomacy, and so on, but I think there would still be a number of crises where military operation will be necessary as part of the peace operation.

Does that answer your question?

[Pascal-Pierre Paillé, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I would like to know how Canada is perceived on the international stage for its humanitarian efforts? In your opinion, i there one country that Canada should emulate in terms of its involvement and coordinated efforts and respect for the roles of the various stakeholders?

[Mia Vukojevic]

Canada has an excellent reputation for its humanitarian work internationally, but it's mostly due to the efforts that Canada puts into the United Nations humanitarian efforts, coordination, and so on, and through its NGOs. Nationally, it may be different because of the images that you see, but very few people internationally and within the humanitarian system and the community see the Canadian military efforts as a significant contribution, and universal judgment within the civilian humanitarian community is that they are extremely expensive. The U.S. cost is 40%, when the military implements humanitarian activity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll give the floor to Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope you weren't insulted by my comment earlier.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

No, it's all right.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

All right, thank you. Anyway, I'm sorry if I did insult you.

Ms. Vukojevic, in looking at the quick impact and quick collapse in terms of the provincial reconstruction teams and in listening to some of your comments that if you work with the military certainly it appears from the other side that in fact that is not the best situation.... If we look at some of the work that the PRT did in Afghanistan and the building of schools and a number of those things and the infrastructure that has been put in place, would any of the humanitarian organizations have been able to do that without the military?

[Mia Vukojevic]

I think so, if the military was securing the place. I don't think the military has much to add in terms of building the school, getting the community together, organizing them, and thinking about the longer term and the needs and where a school should be. They definitely have better logistical capacity, and they can secure the place, if you know what I'm saying. I'm not saying the military should never do it; I'm just saying that the process of building the school is not just putting the building up.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I understand.

[Mia Vukojevic]

It's the steps before. It's getting the community to feel that they own it, that it's theirs, so that they are protecting it, rather than never using it or not caring if it gets blown up.

That would be, in my books, more development. And humanitarians have made so many mistakes over such a long period in learning how to do good development that I think if the military is doing it, at the minimum it shouldn't be repeating our mistakes, thinking that by constructing the building you've solved something. For that community, there are implications for costs, who the teachers are, whether the girls can go in, how long it's going to run, who's going to pay the cost, does the community feel that it's its own, and so on.

I'm not saying this because the military can't do it. If the military decides to do it in that way, they can. I'm just saying that I'm not sure it's the most effective way of using military assets.