THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 25, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met with video conference this day at 4:15 p.m. [ET] to consider foreign relations and international trade in general.
Senator Peter M. Boehm (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is Peter Boehm. I am a senator from Ontario and the Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
[English]
I invite committee members who are participating in today’s meeting to introduce themselves.
Senator Ravalia: Good afternoon and welcome. I am Senator Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Greene: Stephen Greene from Nova Scotia.
Senator Richards: David Richards from New Brunswick.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba, Quebec.
Senator M. Deacon: Welcome back. Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Boniface: Gwen Boniface, Ontario.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I welcome you all and, in addition, Senator Kutcher, who is not a regular member of the committee and joining us today. I welcome everyone who is watching us on SenVu across the country.
We begin on a sad note. As colleagues know, we lost a great senator today. Ian Shugart passed away this morning. We had a minute of silence for him in the chamber earlier. He was a great senator, a great Canadian public servant and a good friend to many of us. We will have an opportunity in the Senate in the future to give him the tributes that he deserves.
Colleagues, we are meeting today under our general order of reference to discuss consular management in emergency situations in a general sense, but, obviously, the minds of many are focused on what is happening in Israel, Gaza and potentially Lebanon, as well as what’s happened in the past in Afghanistan. Afghanistan will be the focus of our second panel today.
To discuss this matter, we are pleased to welcome, from Global Affairs Canada, Julie Sunday, Assistant Deputy Minister, Consular, Security and Emergency Management.
[Translation]
Also with us is Sébastien Beaulieu, Director General and Chief Security Officer, Security and Emergency Management, and Canada’s former ambassador to Tunisia and Senegal.
[English]
Thank you for being with us. Before we hear your remarks and proceed to questions and answers, as usual, I wish to ask members and witnesses in the room to please refrain from leaning in too closely to your microphone or remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff and others in the room, who would be wearing the earpiece for interpretation. Of course, that’s what our interpreters do; they have the earpieces.
We are ready to hear your opening remarks, which will be followed by questions from senators and your answers.
Assistant Deputy Minister Sunday, you have the floor.
Julie Sunday, Assistant Deputy Minister, Consular, Security and Emergency Management, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also acknowledge the passing of Ian Shugart, a former colleague to us at Global Affairs Canada. It’s a profound loss for Canada.
It’s an honour to appear before this committee today to discuss Global Affairs Canada consular management in emergency situations. I’m joined by my colleague Sébastien Beaulieu, who is the Director General for Security and Emergency Management. He charts this path alongside me as we deal with a world of many crises.
I will speak today about three topics: first, our framework for delivering consular services; second, our emergency response model; and, third, our ongoing and emerging challenges.
Global Affairs has a dual mandate as the lead department to manage international emergency responses and as the department exclusively mandated with the delivery of consular services to Canadians overseas.
[Translation]
We have 178 missions in 110 countries, in a global political climate that is constantly evolving and is often difficult.
[English]
The first tool in our consular tool kit is communication. We want to very much avoid having consular cases in the first place. To do this, we’re very focused on our online travel advice and advisories, or TAAs, which are updated 24-7 to give Canadians the information they need to make good choices about their international travel. We also offer the Registration of Canadians Abroad, or ROCA, which we use to communicate directly with Canadians in a specific location via email and text. We use social media and our departmental websites to get useful and timely information to Canadians.
[Translation]
In some cases, unfortunately, not enough information is provided and Canadians need our assistance.
[English]
Global Affairs Canada considers all consular clients important, and aims to deliver consular services in a consistent, fair and non-discriminatory manner. We deliver consular services under what is called the Crown prerogative, also called the Royal prerogative. This is the power of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as representative of the Crown, to decide whether to provide consular assistance to a Canadian abroad and to what extent. Section 10(2)(a) of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, also known as the DFATD Act, specifically sets out the minister’s responsibility to conduct all diplomatic and consular relations on behalf of Canada.
[Translation]
As stated in our Canadian Consular Services Charter, which is available online, we are committed to providing consular services efficiently and diligently to Canadians around the world.
[English]
Our ability and success in providing consular emergency assistance are constrained, in many instances, by the laws and regulations of other countries, as well as by the level of cooperation offered by the local authorities and supporting organizations.
It can be additionally challenging in cases where the Canadian has more than one nationality, or is travelling with family members who do not have Canadian citizenship.
A crisis like the current situation in Israel and Gaza, or the one we managed this past spring in Sudan, puts our network to the test. Our ability to fully support the Canadians affected can be limited, especially in a war zone or a location where we have no office, for example.
Global Affairs Canada leads the whole-of-government response to emergencies abroad. Each crisis is unique, but we have structures in place to respond, and we adapt as needed.
To ensure coordination in a crisis situation, we will create an interdepartmental task force, bringing together our tactical emergency response teams at headquarters and in our missions in the affected region, plus other relevant federal government departments and agencies with international mandates.
The department has a robust Standing Rapid Deployment Team, and we continue to evolve these programs to equip these team members to be resilient, both physically and mentally.
The Emergency Watch and Response Centre of Global Affairs Canada monitors situations abroad and provides after-hours consular services — that’s 24-7.
[Translation]
Communication with citizens is an essential part of preparing for emergency situations and taking effective action.
[English]
We promote early efficient communication to enhance risk mitigation and to increase public trust.
During a crisis, Canadian citizens are kept informed through our TAAs; through ROCA emails, if they have registered, and text alerts; and social media.
Reaching Canadian citizens during emergency evacuations in a conflict zone is extremely challenging due to telecommunications outages, and we’re working to modernize our approach to client communication in order to reach Canadian citizens efficiently in times of crisis through a number of different communication channels.
Established federal partnerships with the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada have a significant impact on our ability to deliver in a non-permissive environment, like Sudan, for example, where we no longer had personnel on the ground.
[Translation]
In some cases, our crisis response can include helping Canadians depart.
[English]
In the event of an emergency such as an evacuation, we will prioritize Canadians for assisted departures, but, under our Canadian Consular Services Charter, assistance may also be extended to permanent residents; immediate, non-Canadian family members; and sometimes citizens of other countries as part of mutual cooperation agreements.
When determining the eligibility for assisted departures, we follow the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which defines family members. Eligibility in such cases would be for transportation assistance to a safe third location, and not necessarily to return directly to Canada.
Complex crises over the past three years have broadened the emergency management role both organizationally and federally, as international events are increasingly interlinked with domestic issues. As well, expectations and scrutiny of our work by clients and media continue to grow, as does pressure from groups to expand our services.
[Translation]
The clients we help in emergency situations are no longer limited to Canadian citizens alone; we also assist permanent residents and non-Canadian family members.
[English]
Given the frequency of complex crises in recent years, the department has worked hard to strengthen key partnerships with traditional departments, such as the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the Department of National Defence and Border Services.
We continue to adapt and improve our structures and systems to respond to complex cases and challenges, including crisis management. At the same time, we recognize the increasing demands on our network, and continue to work to ensure our duty of care to our employees, who are at the front lines of our consular and emergency response.
Let me turn now to the current crisis: The current situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories is an example of the increasing complexity of international crises. Since the onset of the crisis, our missions on the ground in Tel Aviv and Ramallah, and more widely throughout the region, have been providing consular services to Canadians. Our 24-7 Emergency Watch and Response Centre in Ottawa has responded to 9,670 inquiries since October 7.
Given the complex local situations, our assisted departure arrangements have been different for each area.
[Translation]
To date, we have helped more than 1,600 Canadians, permanent residents and their family members leave Israel by air. There has been a total of 19 Canadian Forces departures from Tel Aviv to Athens.
[English]
As was communicated by Minister Joly on Saturday evening, we have been closely monitoring the demand for flights out of Tel Aviv. Now that many Canadians have successfully left Israel, the demand is decreasing, and commercial options out of Tel Aviv are more available.
The last scheduled assisted departure flight from Tel Aviv took place on Monday, October 23. Canadian Armed Forces aircraft will remain in the region on standby to rapidly respond, should conditions change and the demand for assisted departures increase.
We have also been assisting the departure by land of Canadians, permanent residents and their family members from the West Bank into Jordan.
For the Gaza Strip, the Rafah border crossing remains closed to foreign nationals seeking to leave. We are continuing to communicate directly with Canadians, giving them the latest information regarding the situation and windows for possible exit at the border crossing. We’re working hard with our allies, the UN and governments in the region to ensure that Canadians will be able to take advantage of this window when that border opens.
Adding to this complexity is the emerging situation in Lebanon. There continues to be insecurity at the southern border with Israel, and, as we saw with protests and violence in Beirut last week, the situation in Lebanon continues to be unstable.
In 2006, Canada evacuated more than 14,000 Canadians from Lebanon, and deployed hundreds of officials to support the efforts. Finance Canada estimated the cost of the evacuation at over $90 million. We now estimate that there may be more than 50,000 Canadians in Lebanon. We advise against all travel to Lebanon, and, for those Canadians who are already in Lebanon, we strongly advise that they seek commercial options to leave as soon as possible.
Whole-of-government planning is actively taking place to prepare for all possible scenarios. We have pre-positioned our Standing Rapid Deployment Team officers in the region, and stood up an emergency response team focused on contingency planning for any assisted departures that could be required from Lebanon.
This is a concrete example of how responding to the potential demand for support in crises is increasingly challenging, especially in a current multi-crisis/poly-crisis environment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That completes my remarks. I would be pleased to take some questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Assistant Deputy Minister Sunday.
Colleagues, as you know, we’ll have a maximum of only four minutes each for the first round, which includes the question and the answer. As usual, I encourage you to be precise and concise in your questions so that we can get maximum answers. We’ll go through the list. If you have an interest in asking, please indicate your interest to us.
Senator Boniface: Welcome back, and thank you for the work that you’re doing. It’s sincerely appreciated by Canadians.
Can you speak to the advancements within Global Affairs since the previous Lebanon evacuation in 2006? How do you see yourself from preparation? What did you learn from that process?
Ms. Sunday: That’s a great question. Every crisis is different, and we always learn from crises. We have had many over the past few years, but, for every single crisis, a significant in-depth review happens.
One of the main pieces that we’ve taken away from our previous experience in Lebanon is to ensure that we have really good communication. The minute that we understand there could be a risk, we’re communicating that to Canadians because our best advice is always for Canadians to take that information, and then to make decisions that allow them to move to a safer environment.
About a week ago now, we issued very direct travel advice — some of the most direct travel advice I have ever signed off on. That advice is very much in line with how we are assessing the broad context. We commit to trying to give that evidence-based advice to Canadians, and to communicate it across all of our platforms. Of course, it’s on our web page. We are sending it out through ROCA messages for those on our ROCA list.
We have over 17,000 Canadians in Lebanon who are registered on the ROCA. That’s a good number, but it’s not everyone. Our minister has also been raising this when she’s doing media.
The first lesson is to try to prevent extensive assisted departures, which are complex. They are usually happening in a non-permissive, hostile environment. It’s very difficult, and it’s hard on everyone to move in an environment where their safety and security could be at risk. That is one of our key take-aways: It takes a lot of communication.
Second, it is working with our international partners. Let’s just say that we don’t want to be competing for resources when we’re working on multinational-assisted departures or evacuations. We have worked collaboratively with all like-minded partners over many years to work through what the planning could look like if there were another situation in Lebanon. Multinational cooperation is huge, as are information sharing and intelligence sharing.
Third, we need good whole-of-government collaboration. Of course, that happened in 2006 as well, but we have been placing increasing emphasis on this in the past few years. For example, we embed the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency and the Department of National Defence who are with us in our Emergency Watch and Response Centre right now; they’ve been there for a few weeks, allowing us to work as efficiently and effectively as possible. We have very good relationships there.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I think I will let Ms. Sunday continue explaining our cooperation with our partners because the U.S. government announced a week ago that it had reached an agreement with Israel and Egypt to let Americans out of the Gaza Strip at the Rafah crossing. Has this announcement been acted upon?
Ms. Sunday: We are now working with all the countries in the region who are involved to ensure that Canadians can exit at that Gaza Strip crossing as soon as it is possible. We are working with the United States and all members of the Five Eyes, but also with countries in the region such as Israel, Egypt, and so forth, to try to understand the process and plan how we will receive those Canadians. We are trying to work closely with all our counterparts to get the Canadians out.
At the same time, I would say it is a very difficult environment. We were happy to see humanitarian assistance enter Gaza, which was a prerequisite for letting out individuals from all countries. We are nonetheless still in a situation in which everyone, all countries, are planning and hoping that we will be able to help our citizens get out, but no one has left Gaza as of now. So it is very difficult right now.
Senator Gerba: In those circumstances, what training do your teams on the ground have and what particular challenges are they facing on the ground?
Mr. Beaulieu: We have a number of trades from the foreign service on the ground, including consular officers who are trained to assist Canadians. We also have a network, an emergency preparedness management program. This is a new professional group at Global Affairs who are responsible for security issues and emergency preparedness.
In crises such as this, a number of different teams are mobilized, including IT services to assist with support, information management and communications. So it is a multidisciplinary response.
We also have teams — Ms. Sunday mentioned the rapid deployment team. Those people receive training to provide first aid in hostile environments and to deal with a range of aspects of emergency response.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. I’d like to acknowledge that Senator Woo of British Columbia has also joined us.
Senator Ravalia: Let me begin by applauding you and your team for your dedication during this particularly volatile global situation.
Could you provide me with some information on the diplomatic and political efforts that are being made by Canada and our partners to ensure the safety and security of locally engaged staff — who I suspect are probably quite vulnerable in these situations — including engagement with host governments and relevant international bodies?
Ms. Sunday: We’re very connected to ensuring the safety of our staff and our locally engaged staff at missions. The security posture of the mission is something we watch very carefully. When we are concerned, we sometimes will reduce staff or, for example, have dependents leave certain posts when we think the conditions are less secure. In our worst-case scenarios, we will have everyone shelter in place, if there are significant concerns.
With all governments in every country that we’re in, we emphasize the importance of ensuring that our staff, writ large, are safe. Again, that is a priority for us, but it’s certainly also a priority of our minister. That is something to which we pay very close attention. Thank you.
Senator Ravalia: Given the current situation, what criteria do you use to determine how someone becomes an essential staff member in, say, Tel Aviv or Ramallah, inside the Palestinian authority?
Mr. Beaulieu: At each mission, we have mission emergency plans which are reviewed constantly against the reality on the ground. These plans, obviously, need to be validated against reality, but also against the personal circumstances of the individuals. It depends on the type of crisis and on the employee’s personal situation — whether they have family at home to take care of or whether they’re single parents. That may affect their ability to respond and to fit within one or the other of the categories: essential or non-essential.
We’re also mindful of different people reacting differently — at different stages of their life or of their career — to different stressors and situations. All of that comes into consideration when a head of mission decides at a particular juncture that there is a need to draw down on resources and reduce the footprint. Those elements come into play to determine who should be deemed essential and be part of the effort, and who should be offered an evacuation.
Senator Coyle: Thank you, again, to our witnesses who are here enlightening us. I keep thinking about our tour of the Emergency Watch and Response Centre. It helps me now to visualize what is going on. When we were there to visit, thankfully, it wasn’t busy. I’m trying to imagine what it looks like now.
My first question is about that. I probably should know this, but I don’t: Regarding the relationship between what goes on at the Emergency Watch and Response Centre here — which is the 24-7 facility — and the missions abroad, what is at interplay? What does that look like at this moment — in this crisis — in the Ramallah office, in the Tel Aviv office, maybe in the Cairo office or in Beirut; I’m not sure where else.
Ms. Sunday: That is a great question. I love going up to the floor where our Emergency Watch and Response Centre is right now because there is a real energy to it. Every day, it’s amazing to see dedicated public servants working. Some of them have day jobs and they’re working overnight. People are committed, and you feel it. There are maps and everything up, and people are on calls. There is a lot of activity going on. You may think, “How do we manage this?” There are big numbers; we’ve already had over 100 people in there during this crisis.
Part of it is that we have a real structure to how we do things and how we connect to the missions. We try to reduce and deconflict everything so we’re as efficient as possible.
There is a really crucial meeting — and I mention it because it happens every morning — that involves all the government departments. It’s led by our incident commander at the Emergency Watch and Response Centre. There is a set agenda, and they go through that agenda. On that call, we have people from the missions from Tel Aviv; the ambassadors from Ramallah; our permanent representative; Egypt; Jordan; and Lebanon. We hear and get all that situational awareness, and then we start to understand the following: Right now, we’re still doing assisted departures in the West Bank. How is that going? We’re getting all that colour. Do we need to be concerned? We have mission security people on. Do we have security issues that we need to be worried about here based on what we’re hearing? It’s a very efficient way to get a lot of information in. Then, we’ll have the Canadian Armed Forces give their update. We have the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Transport. It’s an amazing call.
I’m not supposed to be on it, but I usually dial in quietly because you can get such rich information. Mr. Beaulieu and his team are leading that. That starts our day.
Of course, everyone has been up for quite a while already in Ramallah. We then work through all the issues as the day goes on. We have very specific planning meetings. Right now, we have an Egypt group working on how we support the Gaza movement. There is a lot going on. At the same time, we’re there if those missions need us in the middle of the night. They know that they can call Mr. Beaulieu or me, and we are ready to mobilize and to support them.
We all have access to each other. When a crisis starts, it often takes a few days to kind of figure out your battle rhythm, but it works incredibly well. The room that you saw is what pulls that glue together because everybody in that room has a specific role.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Let me only add, as the person who was sitting in Assistant Deputy Minister Sunday’s job in 2006, we were using conference call methods then. That was before Zoom, Microsoft Teams and all of that. I think taking advantage of the technology, and how it has advanced, is a very important element.
Senator M. Deacon: Sometimes you have to come back to those techniques, too. Thank you both for coming back to meet with us.
Like my colleague Senator Coyle, I’m also really grateful that we had a chance — through our study work — to come to your doors, and to be so welcomed and to ask so many questions. I have to say the colour of that, as Senator Coyle has mentioned, is incredibly helpful right now — I do thank you for that — for the timing.
I’m going to ask a question that is related to India and the situation that is upon us there. Of course, we know that there are so many crises today — I heard you use the word “poly” — that we face globally.
Regarding our diplomatic issue with India, 42 diplomats were recently expelled from that country. I’m interested to know how consular services have adapted both here and there. Is there now, basically, a logjam of consular services? What does a move like that mean for Canadians in India who find themselves in trouble and need help from Canada?
Ms. Sunday: That’s a good question. Obviously, it has an impact on a mission to have reduced staff. That being said, we — with consular — are able to support consular 24-7 from Ottawa. There are actually certain situations, for example, during the war in Ukraine, where we, in the initial phases — because the mission was dealing with a lot of other issues, and we temporarily closed our mission there — will pull all the consular services back to Ottawa, and run it from our Emergency Watch and Response Centre, our op centre, here. There are moments where people can, for example, need an in-person meeting. We will prioritize if people are missing documents, et cetera, to be able to support that, but we can manage a lot of the consular issues remotely.
The key piece is for people to be able to access us. This is why if missions are not available, the call will come to us in Ottawa, and we’re able to support it.
It’s essential that Canadians have 24-7 access to consular services.
Senator M. Deacon: I’m a bit reluctant to ask this question, but I’m going to. Thinking back a bit, it wasn’t that long ago that we had March 2020 on our radar with the pandemic. I know it’s not at the forefront of your mind 24-7 right now; however, it was something that we had to respond to with trying to get so many people home from so many different parts of the world, as well as isolating and following and being smart.
When we step back and we go “poly,” I’m curious about some of the key learnings from that, which may or may not help you with the work you’re doing now — or for the possible next time.
Ms. Sunday: Thank you. I think that’s a great question.
The scale of the pandemic was significant. That being said, the Emergency Watch and Response Centre was the hub where about 60,000 Canadians were repatriated. One thing we’ve gotten extremely good at is figuring out, for example, how to deal with flights and those types of issues. We can do that very quickly now.
The other piece I would say is that it created a really deep structure. It also created an increased knowledge base in our department because we pulled people in. We trained people. We have a lot of people now who understand what it is to work in a crisis. Since I’ve been in this position, it has been a different kind of crisis. It’s been more wars and conflict, and that’s what we’ve really seen for the past, I would say, two and a half years now.
With those situations, the other piece that we’ve learned to do extremely well in that environment is work with our allies. I’m in daily contact with my Five Eyes consular partners right now. Mr. Beaulieu has a group of security leads in not just the Five Eyes countries, but also beyond — it’s a larger group. We talk to the United Nations, from a security perspective. From the crisis, security and consular sides, we are incredibly well integrated and share information. We saw this, for example, during the Sudan evacuation, where it truly was a multinational evacuation. Canadians got out on German flights. Americans got out on Canadian flights. It was the following: “There is space on this plane. Who are you trying to —”
The Chair: I’m afraid I’m interrupting because we’ve gone over time on that segment.
Senator Richards: Thank you for being here. You pretty well just answered my question about how well coordinated you are with our allies if there is a crisis on the ground. I was just wondering about that.
I remember back in Afghanistan where we weren’t totally coordinated. We had a real problem, and I remember that a Dutch flight took many of our people out, which was great of them.
I was fortunate enough to be in Ramallah — Senator Ravalia was there as well — and to see the Canadian soldiers, and how absolutely efficient and wonderful they were in doing the job they had to do, while being absolutely selfless in doing it. But they are limited, and there are only a few of them.
If there were a crisis in Ramallah — which there could be — how safe would the personnel be there? I wonder about that. I wonder, of course, about extracting people from places like Lebanon if Hezbollah and Israel happen to have a conflict.
Are we well coordinated with our allies in Lebanon and in places like Ramallah?
Ms. Sunday: I would say, yes, absolutely. We’re sharing information. Right now, in the West Bank, Canada was the first to do an assisted departure from the West Bank to Jordan. We were the first to take Canadians, but we also took Australians out with us. We have been figuring it out.
This past week, we’ve had a lot of conversations and a lot of interest from our allies, the Five Eyes and others to learn from us in terms of what we’re doing there to be safe and secure in order to be able to do it. That being said, we will often reach out to our allies when we don’t understand, or if we see something — but we’re not sure how significant it is — and we want to triangulate. That discussion is constant and ongoing.
In some very difficult moments, we have been able to get the support of our allies when it really mattered. One of those examples is when we had to evacuate our mission in Sudan, and the United States supported us in that evacuation.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much. That leads to my quick second question. In Canada, we really do not have the heavy equipment to do the job that we have to do in foreign circuses, if we need to get people out — do we? We really don’t have heavy military equipment for lifting people off the ground like the United States or Britain does.
Ms. Sunday: I think we have what we’ve needed to respond, and, from what I’ve seen, right now the Canadian Armed Forces have mobilized quickly to be able to support exits from Tel Aviv at a time when nobody was flying in, and it was extremely difficult to get people out of Israel.
If there is an opportunity for us to support others exiting — and we have had Australians and New Zealanders on those flights if there has been space — we do that. We support each other when we need to, but certain countries are more present in different geographic areas, and it can take time to get there.
I view it more as an issue of all of us collaborating strategically where we have resources.
Senator Richards: I just want to add that I’m not questioning the competence or the greatness of the Canadian Armed Forces. I’m just talking about certain planes and heavy equipment that we need to do the job. That’s all.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. I just want to add to Senator Richards’s comments.
Our big challenge in 2006 was that the runway in Beirut was inoperable, so we were forced to look at renting boats and leasing boats out of Cyprus, and that was a particular challenge. We ended up competing with some of our friends, notably the Australians. In the end, we collaborated, so I find it very gratifying to hear that there is greater collaboration now between friends.
Senator Kutcher: I have two questions if I have time. First of all, thank you — I’d like to echo my colleagues — for the incredible work that you’re doing. It’s so important for all Canadians, and sometimes you’re underappreciated.
That’s what my first question is about. During the recent weeks, we have seen substantive criticism, mostly on social media, of the work that the Consular Affairs Program, or CAP, has been doing. It may have been, in part, politically motivated, but it may also be because some Canadians have a lack of understanding of how the CAP works in crisis situations.
I’m wondering what kind of communication strategy you have to inform Canadians — particularly the Canadian public — of how the CAP works in crisis situations, and whether or not you have a coordinated response to incorrect information that is being spread about your work.
Mr. Beaulieu: We have a communications office, obviously, that responds to media questions, and seeks to correct the record when the information may not be complete.
In terms of reaching out to Canadians, we have an increasing number of tools to get the information to them in a timely fashion. There is, sometimes, disinformation or misinformation out there, and facts on the ground change constantly. We have to decide — as the manager of the consulate and the emergency response — when we feel that we need to correct information.
A few evenings ago, there was talk of the Rafah border opening. We informed Canadians that maybe it was going to be open, and that they would need to be ready. In the end, it did not open, and then the next day, there was a rumour again. We need to always calibrate our communications, but clearly our intent and our ability is to communicate proper information in real time to Canadians.
Senator Kutcher: You are responding in a systematic way to some of the incorrect information.
I have a question on your intelligence sources, and the comprehensiveness and sufficiency of the intelligence that you are getting to allow you to prepare for what is possibly coming in the next 24 to 72 hours, particularly right now with very volatile situations in a number of parts of the world.
How does that work? Are you comfortable enough with the information that you get so that you can be properly prepared?
Mr. Beaulieu: It’s a bit awkward to comment on the specific elements of intelligence in this grouping, but be assured that it is part of our tool box, and that we are looking at it internally within the Government of Canada and with our closest partners and allies. We use that, as well, to try to anticipate crises or developments within crises.
Senator Kutcher: At this time, you are comfortable that the information you are getting is giving you enough to be prepared?
Ms. Sunday: Maybe I can jump in here, too. We’re always taking multiple sources of information, and then cross-checking them all. When you’re in a crisis — and I’ve experienced this a few times — where there is a lot of information, you talk it through with all the key people.
Sometimes it’s intelligence, but sometimes it’s just real, in-the-field observation and the piecing together of discussions — this person spoke to this person or that person. It’s about coming to a common understanding. That’s the most important thing in a crisis. Everyone is having this sometimes hard discussion to figure out our common understanding of what’s going on, and how we mitigate our risk there to be able to actually do something in the way we want to do it. If we can’t do it that way, how can we change paths?
For us, safety and security are our top considerations for the Canadians whom we’re helping. We have to constantly work in an environment where we have a lot of discussions. We check and cross-check so that we can mostly agree that “Okay. Yeah. That’s what’s going on, and that’s why we can do this.”
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’ll now proceed to the second round.
Senator Boniface: For the ROCA — I’m getting the acronyms down; I’ve been here a long time now — what are you doing to increase the number of Canadians who sign up? It seems there’s some hesitancy around people signing up.
Ms. Sunday: We message a lot by saying, “Please sign up for the ROCA if you’re in this area,” because it enables us to get the most current and most direct information out to people. If we change our travel advice, we push that out on the ROCA. If we’re helping with assisted departures somewhere, we give out information that says, “If you want our help, then you need to call us and give us more specific information.” It’s a great tool to get that information out.
I have heard, anecdotally, that there are sensitivities sometimes. Some people don’t want to sign up or give over their information. It’s a relatively light touch in terms of registering, and, again, it really is just an information tool.
If people want to move from just giving information on the ROCA to actually needing our help, then we want them to call our Emergency Watch and Response Centre. We need to take their information; we need to know where they are, their passport numbers and things like that. That’s a more specific discussion.
The ROCA is absolutely an important tool for communication. It is a huge opportunity. We really encourage all Canadians to sign up if they’re travelling.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I would like to get back to the issue of people who are hired locally. In a context such as this, the committee will be conducting a study, we have seen the importance of those employees at our missions. What will really happen to them?
Do you sometimes consider putting them on an evacuation list? It is a war zone, after all, and those employees are very susceptible to being threatened, for all kinds of social reasons. What will happen to them locally?
Mr. Beaulieu: You make a good point, and that issue is at the heart of our concerns at the missions. Employees who are recruited locally, for emergency response in particular because they are familiar with the terrain, know the stakeholders and often know the possible trajectory of developments. We support them with safety information, telework accommodations, and I can say that as a result of the pandemic, we have developed those tools which in some cases mean that employees do not have to go to and from the embassy or the mission on days when the conditions make such trips difficult.
We have adopted those flexible approaches and you referred to the risks that people sometimes take when they work for the government. We try to protect them well and, in some countries in particular, not to expose them to work that might involve human rights issues because that can put them at risk locally.
That is a constant concern. I attended the head of mission training before they left this summer and that is one of the things we stressed, that is, our responsibility to local hires and including them in due diligence and safety training. This is a conversation that involves the whole department.
Senator Gerba: Knowing that they are not always in secure zones, is it even safe for them to work from home right now?
Mr. Beaulieu: We make adjustments according to the circumstances. We do not ask them to telework if that places them in danger; we consider that.
Senator Gerba: My question is whether they are safe or whether they also need to be evacuated, along with Canadian nationals.
Mr. Beaulieu: Some of them feel the need to leave. In the case of Ukraine, for example, a number of individuals applied under Canada’s visa program, left Ukraine and came to Canada temporarily.
Senator Gerba: That is offered to them.
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes.
[English]
Senator Coyle: I want to go back to an earlier question from Senator Gerba around — hopefully soon — bringing out those Canadians who are stuck in a really rough situation in Gaza.
You mentioned that, I believe, a couple of days ago, it looked like maybe it would happen — and so people were notified. I’m sure it was a rush to cross that narrow crossing that happens to be the possible safety valve for people.
Do we have a sense of whether those Canadians are congregating there, basically waiting by that location so that they will be ready? Are there any supports in place for Canadians who may be in that limbo situation right now, as they try to wait it out — as the trucks are going in, but nobody is getting out?
Ms. Sunday: Certainly, we have been watching that border extremely carefully. We did, at one point, have a sense that it would open. We have never communicated to Canadians to go to that gate yet.
That being said, we have informed them that our sense is that the opportunity could come quickly; we don’t know how long it will be open. In view of Israel asking people to move south in Gaza, we encouraged people to move south in proximity to the gate. We did have security concerns. That’s why we have not directed Canadians to go to the gate until we have confidence that gate will open, and that they will be able to cross it.
What do I know? Well, look, people are in a really difficult situation right now. We reach out. We have been conducting calls with everybody in Gaza just to check on people’s well‑being, and to see where they are. We know it’s difficult. There are issues with charging phones, issues with telecommunications and broad issues. It’s very challenging. We know that some of the Canadians are working together in groups.
For our part, we need to work intensively — which we are — with Egypt, with Israel and with any regional governments that have sway there, as well as with the U.S., to ensure these Canadians, and their family members, and permanent residents will be able to cross that border.
We have a team dedicated to that, both here and in Egypt. We have reinforced our resources in Egypt to be able to support that exit. It is our sincere hope that happens very soon.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Colleagues, we only have about four minutes left, and two senators want to ask questions. I will ask each senator to ask their question in turn, and then turn it over to our witnesses for a response. If you can be as precise as you possibly can, that would be great.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. We hope for the same — as you just mentioned — as soon as we can possibly see that. It’s so very important.
My question is a tiny one, and it’s a carry-over from my question in the first round. Can you comment on the number of learnings you have? The collaboration with other countries is essential. We’ve talked about the Five Eyes for a long time now. If the Five Eyes are to be reviewed, is it the eight years, or are we finding, truthfully, that we need to expand that piece to do the job? It filled a great role. They’re like countries, but do we need to make the Five Eyes a little bigger?
Senator Richards: Thank you again. I was out of the room for a minute, so you might have answered this — and I might have missed it — but do we know approximately how many Canadians are in Gaza? There are many thousands of women who are expecting in Gaza. Do we know if there are any Canadian women who are expecting children? It seems to be a terrible time to be in Gaza. Do you have any information on that?
Ms. Sunday: We have just over 400 Canadians in Gaza, and we’re very focused on those Canadians. I do not know if we have anyone expecting, but we do deal with what we call complex consular cases, which is trying to ensure that our most vulnerable clients are able to move through and be assisted across that border.
On the Five Eyes, it’s an incredibly important group. There are different activities. Everybody has their Five Eyes counterpart. It’s an easy group to share information in — part of that is because we also share intelligence. That being said, we have worked really hard over the past couple of years to build out our relationships with many different partners. We’ve been working a lot more with France, with Germany and with others on a variety of different files.
Mr. Beaulieu, I don’t know if you can add to that. Wherever we can support each other and increase our ability to leverage our partnerships to increase positive outcomes for Canadians, we will do that.
Mr. Beaulieu: I have a colleague who says that you can’t surge networks. You can surge many things, but not networks. Those are important.
The Chair: Thank you very much. This was a very rich session in terms of the information that you provided to the questions being asked. On behalf of our committee, I would like to thank Julie Sunday, Assistant Deputy Minister, and Sébastien Beaulieu, Director General and Chief Security Officer, for all your work and that of your team, and for taking the time to join us today. We are proud of the work that you do for our country and the service that you provide Canadians. Thank you.
[Translation]
We will now go to our second panel to discuss the situation in Afghanistan.
[English]
Joining us now as witnesses are Weldon Epp, Assistant Deputy Minister, Indo-Pacific; Tara Carney, Director, International Humanitarian Assistance; and Alice Birnbaum, Deputy Director, Development, Afghanistan Program. Thank you for being with us. We’re ready to hear your opening remarks. As per usual, senators will then ask their questions, and we will get your answers.
Mr. Epp, you have the floor.
Weldon Epp, Assistant Deputy Minister, Indo-Pacific, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
[Translation]
Hello, everyone. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to discuss the situation in Afghanistan. My colleagues and I appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this update.
Let me begin by expressing my condolences to those who have been impacted by the devastating earthquakes that hit Herat province in the past two weeks. Almost 1,500 people have been killed, 90% of whom were women and children. In a country in which 29 million people already needed humanitarian assistance, a disaster of this magnitude only compounds the tragedy of human suffering.
You invited me to speak about the situation on the ground in Afghanistan. Although we no longer have representation in Afghanistan, Canadian officials have continued to monitor the situation through our regular contact with partners, including the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, Canada’s Special Representative for Afghanistan, and the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Afghanistan, whose valuable anecdotal evidence paints a deeply distressing picture.
In over two years since the Taliban takeover, we have watched in horror as democratic institutions have been eviscerated, the free press has come under attack, and public schools have reportedly been converted into madrassas across the country.
[English]
The Taliban have reintroduced torture, public floggings and executions. They’ve dismantled the justice system and replaced it with sharia courts run by hardline, all-male clerics. They’ve arbitrarily arrested peaceful protestors. The Hazaras and other religious and ethnic minorities have increasingly come under attack, and members of the LGBTQIA+ community live in fear of the death penalty for the crime of being who they are.
We have watched the Taliban systematically erase Afghan women from public life, regularly announcing new decrees which deprive women and girls of even their most basic rights. Girls are still barred, for example, from attending school beyond Grade 6, and women are barred from many workplaces. These two factors have led to a rise in forced child marriage, in particular, child labour and the sale of children and body organs. Women describe themselves as prisoners living in darkness, confined to their homes. To quote the UN’s Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Afghanistan at the last Security Council debate, “Suicide is everywhere.”
Although Afghanistan is no longer experiencing active violent conflict, the security situation remains volatile. Transnational terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, continue to maintain a presence in Afghanistan. Daesh’s local affiliate, IS-KP, has expanded its presence and, as recently as October 13, carried out a bombing of a Shia mosque, killing seven people while they were peacefully praying. The potential for Afghanistan to become a haven for transnational terrorists remains a real concern for Canada, our allies and neighbouring countries.
The social and economic costs of the Taliban’s actions will set Afghanistan’s progress toward achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals back by decades.
Canada has not watched in silence. Our condemnation of the Taliban has been consistent and unequivocal. Just last month, Canada co-sponsored a high-level event on Afghan women and girls’ education at the United Nations, together with Indonesia and Ireland, where Minister Joly delivered strong remarks calling for coordinated action and accountability. We have been very active at the UN and other fora — as a leading voice — calling for a coordinated approach and tough messaging.
Despite the many operational challenges, Canada continues to provide much-needed assistance to the Afghan people. Canada contributed over $143 million in urgent humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan in 2022 to help provide emergency food and nutrition, health services, emergency shelter and protection and so on.
Canada also provided $70 million in development assistance in 2022, helping to prevent further deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan by supporting, among other things, polio eradication; reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health services, including gender-based violence services; and community-based education for women and girls.
In conclusion — and in just a few minutes — recognizing it’s not possible to cover all the myriad challenges facing Afghanistan under the Taliban, we’re happy to elaborate on any of the points I have raised, or any other questions and comments you may have for us today. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Colleagues, just like for the last panel, we’re looking at four-minute questions and answers for this panel, so please keep your questions fairly concise so that we can get a maximum answer.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you to you and your staff for being here this afternoon.
On September 28, Pakistan announced they would expel all refugees and undocumented migrants. Some estimated that number could be as high as 1.7 million Afghans being sent home. Never mind that Afghanistan is in no position to absorb this number, many who would be returning home would certainly be at risk because they’re the ones who escaped from the Taliban in the first place. Some are young enough to have been born as Pakistan babies, and never set foot in Afghanistan, leaving them immensely vulnerable to exploitation.
Are we, and other allies, working with other allies to try to do what we can to prevent this from happening?
Mr. Epp: Thank you for the question. This is an issue of ongoing concern that we are monitoring very closely. We continue to have ongoing and active dialogue with the Pakistani government to better understand their intentions and their operational planning in this regard.
Our officials in Islamabad continue to be working closely with our like-minded partners — including with the UN agencies, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or UNHCR, and the International Organization for Migration, or IOM — and are looking at coordinated engagement with the Pakistani government. We have an interim caretaker government in Pakistan at the moment, but it has recently re-established itself. We now have clear leads and clear ministers, and we are coordinating with our partners and with the UN agencies to best understand how to advocate on behalf of Afghan refugees. As you describe the situation, it is very much the case. This could affect many people. There’s a lot of uncertainty in the community. We have raised it in Ottawa with the Pakistani government, but we’re looking at how we can coordinate an approach to better understand and clarify the intentions and the operational approach, and avoid outcomes that wouldn’t be in the interests of the people, of Canada or of other parties.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. We first heard that on September 28. Listening to you today, there’s lots of communication and collaboration in trying to think about this and plan for it, but, at this moment, no action — as far as you know — has started?
Mr. Epp: No. We have raised our concerns already and have asked for clarification, both here and in Islamabad bilaterally —
Senator M. Deacon: I meant the threat of Pakistan to start expelling — that hasn’t started yet?
Mr. Epp: No, to our understanding, it has not yet. We will continue to monitor that closely.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you very much.
Senator Coyle: I have a couple of questions that I’ll put out quickly. First, as you know, we passed Bill C-41 back in June. You know all about that, so I won’t delve into what that’s about. What impact is that bill having in terms of the flow of non‑governmental aid into Afghanistan at this point? It’s not a bill just for Afghanistan, but I’m curious as to what is happening there, as well as if we’re monitoring and if we’re seeing any increased flow of aid as a result of that bill.
Second, it makes me really sad to see the situation in Afghanistan. I used to go in and out of Afghanistan. I represented Canada and other donors on the board of a microfinance group there. You talked about who you are allying with because we don’t have a representative there, but who are we seeing? Are we seeing any other international influencer there making any headway with the Taliban government in terms of some kind of suasion toward moderating some of their stances? I’d be curious about that.
Mr. Epp: Thank you for the questions. I’ll start with the second question first. A couple years in, we are increasingly concerned that we don’t see any signal that the Taliban authorities, particularly those leading from Kandahar, have any intention of responding to any of the measures, or the leverage, or the dialogue they have with certain partners, to moderate their own policies or moderate their own approach.
We were speaking about this earlier in the week with representatives of the Aga Khan Foundation who, as you know, have an incredible presence on the ground and a lot of insight. Whether it’s organizations that have on-the-ground presence or those who are continuing to track from outside, we are not seeing any sign of response to an appeal toward moderation, to partnerships or to meeting the minimum conditions that most international organizations would have, for example, schooling beyond Grade 6, and so on. It is a very bleak picture.
At the same time, the situation is uneven across the country. It remains the case that both for our partners from the UN system and for some of the international non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, on the ground — who have been able to find ways to mitigate and still deliver programming in a way that respects sanctions from the UN, et cetera — there is a high degree of unevenness in application of diktat from Kandahar. The possibility to continue to work with local communities is a little encouraging coming from Kandahar.
In regard to your first question in terms of the effect of the bill, it’s early days. We have a lot of interest being expressed by NGOs in leveraging the provisions to be able to plan to do more than they’ve been able to, but, at this point, those organizations that have already put in place mitigation — the Aga Khan Foundation, et cetera — are on the ground and continue to work. The regime for authorizing exemptions through the bill is still being finalized by Public Safety, so it’s to come. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Richards: Thank you for coming here. I’m not saying anything new here, and I’m not criticizing Foreign Affairs at all. It’s a bad position. Telling the Taliban of our concerns is like the police in Quebec telling “Mom” Boucher and the Hells Angels of their concerns. It has the same kind of resonance to them. They’ve entered the Dark Ages here.
Since outside forces have such little effect on their policy, are any agencies — that you know of — inside the country working toward some kind of normalization in the country, or has it all been taken over by the Taliban and other militant groups? Is there any hope of little girls being able to go to school after Grade 6, for instance?
Mr. Epp: Thank you. I totally understand the spirit of the question. It is incredibly frustrating to watch, again, the imperviousness toward any reasonable appeal for a humanitarian approach. That being said, without trying to overstate any optimism that we have, we are seeing that when you get outside of Kandahar, and when you get into some of the regions where command and control from Kandahar seem to be weaker, the implementation of fiat, and of restrictions, on the possibility for women — for example, to work in pre-existing roles in agencies or in health and education sectors, in particular — is less actively enforced. Again, that means many of our partners have found that they’re able to continue — and want to continue — to work as long as they’re able to engage, particularly through the delivery of services in health and education. Those are the areas that Canada is actively supporting, as well as gender equality. There is the possibility to deliver services to women, to engage women and to have women in these organizations, but the policies coming out of the Taliban are going in the opposite direction and, at this point, haven’t been fully realized on the ground.
Senator Richards: Thank you for that. Women have escaped into Pakistan — one was a soccer team, if I remember correctly — but they’ve been sent back. A lot of women have been sent back to an uncertain fate, or maybe a certain fate.
You’ve said that you were working within the parameters of Pakistan to help Afghan people, but is Pakistan playing two sides against the middle here? Do you know?
Mr. Epp: Again, it’s a complex question. I decline to comment on Pakistan’s foreign policy objectives with respect to Afghanistan, but it is clear that — as one of the immediate neighbours in, historically, one of the areas where the borders are the most porous — the Pakistani government and the people of Pakistan have supported it for a long time. Let’s say there’s a large resident population of refugees from Afghanistan that goes back a long way, but it has increased significantly. Pakistan is a developing country with a lot of pressures and some uncertain governance.
In the context, by the policy driven by national interests, or their perceived national interests, and by the weakness in the border areas of security and delivery of their own national programming, Pakistan will continue to be a key partner for us, for example, in addressing our offer to bring forward refugees to Canada and in delivering services. We also work with the Pakistani government in identifying ways in which we can support women and girls from Afghanistan outside of Afghanistan. However, it also remains the case that the humanitarian pressure on Pakistan from the huge number of Afghan refugees will always be a tough challenge for the government domestically.
Senator Richards: Thank you.
Senator Boniface: Thank you again for being here. You mentioned the $143 million that Canada has put in. Can you give us a sense of where that money goes and how it finds its place — where it is intended to be — as opposed to being intercepted along the way?
Mr. Epp: Sure; I’d be happy to. I’m just giving a heads-up to my colleague Ms. Birnbaum, who is the real expert, to add a bit of flavour here.
The $143 million in humanitarian funds is one tranche, and we can speak to that. To give one concrete example, by pre‑positioning that support and by working with UN agencies on the ground, when earthquakes happen in Herat, we don’t have to go through a regime to get permissions and authorizations. The response can be quick. In effect, we’re already supporting victims of that earthquake.
With respect to the bilateral aids, it’s about $70 million during the same time period, largely in three categories: health, education and women and girls. Ms. Birnbaum, I would ask you to give some concrete sense of the projects and the kind of partners that we have.
Alice Birnbaum, Deputy Director, Development, Afghanistan Program, Global Affairs Canada: Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. As Mr. Epp mentioned, we’re working primarily in health, education and women’s and girls’ rights and empowerment. In the education sector, for example, we’ve been able to support community-based education which, as the name implies, involves small schools that are set up within the community so that girls and young children don’t have to travel very far from home to go to school.
We’ve been able to work around some of the restrictions that are imposed by the Taliban because, as Mr. Epp mentioned, there are more moderate Taliban members — the further away from Kandahar that you go — who also agree on the importance of education for girls, for example. They are collaborating and cooperating with our partners on the ground to allow those kinds of activities to continue.
That’s an example in the education sector, but your question was about the $143 million in humanitarian funds. Perhaps I will turn to my colleague Ms. Carney who manages our humanitarian aid.
Tara Carney, Director, International Humanitarian Assistance, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you for the question. On the humanitarian side, what we do across contacts, including Afghanistan, is make sure that we work with partners who have the mechanisms in place to ensure they can actually deliver, and pivot that delivery as the situation changes. Part of that means pre-positioning, but it also means choosing partners out of the UN system, like the World Food Programme, UNICEF and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, or OCHA — this is their skill set, so they’re able to work within it. When we choose NGO partners, we choose partners who have established relationships and links in the community so that they’re actually able to deliver. We don’t give money to anyone but trusted partners, which allows us to ensure that they know our priorities and work within them. It’s about finding ways to have women in their workforces that don’t contravene rules, but it might look different in location A versus location B. Again, it’s an adaptability that we see in Afghanistan — that we don’t necessarily have to see everywhere else — but it’s partners who have built their business on this skill set.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you for being here.
Humanitarian organizations that are currently operating in Afghanistan have recently announced that they will have to cut back some services due to a lack of funding. The International Committee of the Red Cross and the World Food Programme are examples.
Are we reaching a point where we need to rethink our politics? Do we need to, perhaps, start some sort of direct engagement with the Taliban? Historically, we’ve used honest brokers, like the Qatari government, as a go-between to open up communications, but are we at the point where, if we continue to isolate ourselves diplomatically from the Taliban regime, we will leave the broader Afghan population more vulnerable than ever?
Mr. Epp: I appreciate the question. In some ways, it’s a million-dollar question on the file, and a very valid one. It’s a question that will keep coming up; it’s not a one-and-done answer.
I would say — and you’re aware of the government’s position, but I’ll restate it for the record — we don’t recognize the Taliban’s de facto authority over Afghanistan, and we continue to believe that only an Afghan-led political process can really achieve an inclusive, real, stable form of governance for the Afghan people.
That’s not what’s obtained today, and it is the case that, as we’ve already been describing, notwithstanding the Taliban being the de facto authority, our ability still remains to reach — and to, I would say, keep the candle lit — the communities that we’ve invested in as a country, along with organizations, government and otherwise, for many years now. That possibility remains, and our ability to continue to work meaningfully through the Aga Khan Foundation or UN agencies remains the case.
But, as a matter of policy, it also remains the case that until we have, on the other side of the table, a party that’s willing to recognize even the most basic rights of more than 50% of the population, it is not the policy of the Government of Canada to change our position and recognize, or legitimize, the Taliban in any way.
That can change, and the question will continue to be asked for good reasons, but, at this moment in time, there is no intention to shift toward that position.
Senator Ravalia: Given the context of a poly-crisis world — sorry, I’m quoting from our previous speaker — and a significant number of our resources now going to other conflicts around the globe, do we have the capacity to fill in some of the gaps where we see a diminished humanitarian response from a variety of international organizations into Afghanistan?
Mr. Epp: From where I sit, from a Canadian point of view, and in terms of what Canada brings to the table, it’s important to look at not only the volume, but also — as you’ve put it, senator — the gaps. It’s the right question to ask and an ongoing conversation.
One of the gaps that Canada, as a country and as a nation, did respond to quickly, and has been able to largely deliver upon — it’s ongoing — is the repatriation of Afghans who are in danger of staying in Afghanistan, and providing ongoing pathways for Afghans who can leave the country to come to Canada.
Of course, we have many partners who contribute to humanitarian outcomes — other partners are even from the G7 and from the region — but who don’t have the tradition or the policies of welcoming the volume of refugees that Canada has, or for providing other pathways.
As a nation, if we’re looking at the overall picture, Canada has already contributed significantly in certain categories — being the seventh-largest or tenth-largest donor today — but also by doing other things that partners can’t, such as using our immigration and refugee resettlement programs to meet some of those gaps.
Senator Woo: Good afternoon.
As a corollary to Senator Ravalia’s question, can you give us a sense of the anti-Taliban forces, both within Afghanistan and the government-in-exile outside of Afghanistan, and the prospects for a group of these anti-Taliban forces to make any progress whatsoever in — “returning to power” is too big an idea — effecting change in Afghanistan?
Mr. Epp: I’ll be quick to confess that I won’t be able to provide much of a window into that. I can tell you that the ongoing discussions that we have here in Ottawa, as well as through our Special Representative David Sproule, continue to map and listen for those early signals. Our special representative was recently with other members of the G7, discussing common approaches — not only to the Taliban, as such, in Afghanistan, but also to those longer-term questions of “What next?” or “When?” That will, of course, remain a very active area of interest.
But, for the time being, including with the closest neighbours — whether it’s China, Pakistan or Russia — we see no signals that the largest partners and neighbours of Afghanistan are undertaking any sort of diplomacy that would see a change in the regime in Afghanistan. It’s hard to imagine a scenario where that change could happen without pressure — not from Ottawa, but from Beijing, Islamabad, Moscow, Ankara or somewhere closer.
Senator Woo: I will follow up and ask about the diplomatic representation of Afghanistan around the world, and whether the Taliban is making any progress in terms of converting the representation from the old, deposed regime to the new management.
Mr. Epp: In that regard, we do understand there has been a sort of handover in some offices around the world, where the Taliban have now been replacing previous pre-Kabul takeover members of the republic. That’s not the case in Canada — I assure you — but that does seem to be a process that is under way.
I’ll check, as colleagues might have details on the scale, but it is the case that it’s happening.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you all for being here.
The UN summit of 2023 noted that Afghanistan was now the most regressive country in the world for women’s rights, and also two thirds of the population needed humanitarian assistance just to survive. We all know that there are substantive concerns about funds that are sent for humanitarian aid being diverted for the Taliban’s purposes.
In terms of Canada’s humanitarian aid, how are we ensuring that the money sent is actually getting to the people in need? Do we have a way to determine what percentage of those funds constitutes leakage?
The next part of my question is this: What is the role of the hawala money transfer system in Afghanistan, as well as how it relates to humanitarian aid and how it may be involved in delivering aid?
Mr. Epp: I’d like to ask my colleague Ms. Carney to take this question. She leads on International Humanitarian Assistance.
Ms. Carney: Thank you for the question. It’s a good question in that we always need to be quite careful when we’re working in contexts that are some of the most challenging in the world in terms of diversion. The first line of defence that we have against that is we only work through trusted and experienced partners.
We have robustness in our agreements with those partners that puts all of the contingency planning up front. Working with the World Food Programme and UNICEF, they understand that this is a donor concern — Canada’s and beyond. It is a piece they are looking for. That’s not to say that it’s a zero-risk endeavour, but it is heavily monitored and heavily mitigated in every interaction that does happen.
In terms of leakage, while there may be some, there are reporting functions that are required for these organizations within their own institutions — on which we sit on the governance boards habitually — and there are also reporting requirements to us if, and as, there is diversion, fraud or criminality that is discovered in programming.
To be very frank, we don’t see it any more in Afghanistan than we would see it in most other contexts, and we don’t see a lot because these mechanisms are quite robust, as the concerns are very well noted.
That being said, the other piece that is at play is Bill C-41 — as it went through — which does also recognize that to be able to deliver humanitarian assistance, by virtue of having to work with the populations, there will be some interactions. This is not a financing of terrorism in any respect. It’s just another angle that our partners are also paying attention to, as they are implementing these programs and diligently monitoring these programs.
Senator Kutcher: Is the role of the hawala money transfer process in Afghanistan related to these things?
Ms. Carney: The issue of the hawala system is part of the humanitarian picture. As a first instance, humanitarian partners will always try to bring in money through traditional methods. In a context like Afghanistan, that becomes challenging when formal banking systems actually might be a higher risk in some cases. Again, with an eye to the diligence that’s going to be required, they’re not used loosely. They’re not used in partnerships that haven’t been pre-existing or strong.
It is a piece of the overall picture to make sure that the funding that is needed — for the two thirds of the population who do require assistance — is able to actually get in to deliver that assistance.
Senator Kutcher: I am not sure you answered my question. We know that hawala is unable to be monitored, and yet how do we know that the Canadian humanitarian aid, if it gets into the hawala system — which it must — is actually going to where it needs to go?
Ms. Carney: To be clear, our partners are required to report to us on every dollar that they spend of ours, and how it’s been used. We’re confident that with the money that we give, they will be reporting back against how that money was delivered.
The Chair: Thank you. I think I can speak for my colleagues around the table that, over the past while, the number of emails and requests that we’ve received from Afghan citizens inside Afghanistan, as well as some in Pakistan and some in other parts of the world, has gone down. We’re not receiving as many, but we were for a long time.
I know that Global Affairs Canada set up a task force as well after the collapse of the government in Afghanistan. We don’t have anyone here from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, but they were doing the same thing. We received, and I still continue to receive, messages from Afghans who, in some way — it may have been tenuous — were connected to Canadian operations at the time when we were very present, whether it was with the Canadian Armed Forces, with development projects or with other partners, and maybe working in bigger projects where we had other donors working with us.
I’d just like a sense of where this stands now. Is this program still moving along? Do you still have a task force set up, and what is the prognosis?
Mr. Epp, this one’s for you, I think.
Mr. Epp: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of quick answers, and then I’ll elaborate a little bit.
The first answer is, yes, we still have a special team, and they work within my branch. They are committed to managing the referral process, which is ongoing, under what is called the Special Immigration Measures Program. That is where — for Global Affairs Canada and the Department of National Defence — our input into the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is to do the back-end homework once we receive requests for participation in this program before there is an invitation to apply, which comes from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. We do the due diligence of verifying by demonstrating, where we can, that connection, even if it is tenuous, and understanding the connection — and we provide the information to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. That work continues.
During that process, those referrals have been among other sources of referrals that have gone to the commitment that the government made to resettling 40,000 people, including Special Immigration Measures Program referrals.
That team continues to work. It is the case that we still do receive and still have extant expressions of interest, and those are still being processed.
The work to address those expressions of interest in the programs that the Government of Canada has provided — and also to work within our network in Afghanistan, and the network in Canada of people in touch with Afghans, as well as Afghans outside the country, to provide other channels of safe passage to Canada — is ongoing. It’s quite active, and we have regular coordination calls with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and other partners to coordinate on that. They lead on it, but we are very much actively branched in.
The Chair: Is there coordination with other countries and other governments as well? In many cases, people will be expressing their interest to others as well.
Mr. Epp: Yes. There is indeed. We work closely with close allies, like the American government, on achieving our own and their targets. We’ve worked with other partners, but we’re also working with countries that are not necessarily close allies yet affected by these outflows: Pakistan, the U.A.E. and others. In some cases, they are hosting large populations of Afghan nationals who are in limbo, so we work with those governments.
I have only made one trip this year to the region, but it was to Pakistan with my colleague from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, specifically to have two days of very intense meetings with the Pakistani government. In a way, although it may be a drop in the bucket of the number of Afghan refugees who remain in Pakistan, Canada — being one of the countries that’s been the most active at facilitating onward passage to Canada — is also in the interest of the Pakistani government and some of the regional governments. We continue to seek ways to work with them to meet our own policy objectives, but also to address their concerns.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Richards: I’m just wondering if the world has decided to turn a blind eye to Afghanistan. I know that you’re talking about humanitarian aid and all of that, but the things that are going on in Afghanistan are atrocious, and we know they are atrocious — half of the brainpower in Afghanistan can’t be used, and we know that.
We’ve had 20 years of a fight — a horrendous occupation that didn’t work — and I’m just wondering if a fatigue factor has come in, and people have just turned away.
I know that you probably don’t know that across the board, but can you give me some sense of that?
Mr. Epp: It’s a very important question to continue to ask because it’s one of our concerns. It’s a shared concern that — the poly-crisis that another senator mentioned earlier — the pressure on governments to deal with emerging challenges elsewhere takes us off our game, or takes our attention off of what was, for Canada, a major investment and a long-standing commitment to the Afghan people.
I would say, for Canada, that is not the case, and I say that speaking not only from the position of being an official in the government, but also as an official in the government who is continually seeing the amount of ongoing interest within Canada — by Canadians, veterans, members of our non‑governmental community, former diplomats and the large community of Canadians quite apart from the diaspora, who continue to pay close attention to what is happening in Afghanistan. This is, from my point of view, a powerful and remarkable thing that behooves us to leverage in order to keep not just Canadian attention but also global attention on these issues.
That is why, just as an example, Minister Joly felt it important to use the platform of the United Nations High-level Week and the events around that to — among the many issues our foreign minister could have chosen to focus on — focus on bringing attention to that. I have been with her in many bilaterals with countries in the region, or countries that are majority Muslim, who should continue to pay attention. It’s a regular conversation topic — including with close partners who work with Canada, such as Indonesia — to explore ways to address some of the challenges to Afghan women for those who are outside of Afghanistan, even when we can’t do so inside.
Therefore, I take the comment and question to heart, and I think it’s one that we ask ourselves. But my own reflection is that, as a whole, Canada still has its attention squarely on Afghanistan. I think it will be our challenge to continue working with others to keep that the case.
Senator Richards: Thank you.
The Chair: Before we go to Senator Deacon and Senator Kutcher, I just want to ask a question as well. It might be a little unfair.
There are some very large global actors who are not exactly on the periphery here. When I joined the Foreign Service many years ago, there was an entity called the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union went into Afghanistan and did not do very well. They were there for a long time. Of course, China is increasingly an important global power in terms of its strategic importance.
I’m wondering whether you will have any comments with respect to the current situation in Afghanistan and, looking ahead, the role of these two major powers. It’s no longer the Soviet Union, of course. It’s the Russian Federation — Russia — and China.
Mr. Epp: That’s an excellent question, Mr. Chair, in the sense that I think for the interim, and for the countries that you mentioned, the primary lens through which they would look at developments in Afghanistan is a lens of stability and — obviously different from Canada — not a lens of values, or necessarily even international or universal human rights values.
With that primary lens of stability comes a couple of things: The first is that the past history of those countries in seeing some degree of security risk to their own interests emanating from Afghanistan — and there are various responses to that over the years — is very different between the two, but it’s extant nonetheless. There are concerns about maintaining stability, but also who is providing the stability, and what they are doing within Afghanistan that may put security at risk across the border in these two countries.
Second, there’s a fairly transparent interest in the opportunity of stability to further develop economic opportunities that accrue to those countries, such as access to critical minerals and access to economic development of primary goods within Afghanistan that they can benefit from. This positions both of those countries and members of the P5 to increasingly have a stake in Afghanistan in the same way that, for a previous period, many Western countries were 100% able to work within Afghanistan and work with the Afghan government — which is no longer the case. There’s a bit of a void, but there is also a stake that comes with that void, and we need to think very creatively about how we can maintain dialogue — let’s say — with, at least, one of those two countries, at this point in time, in a way that understands their own interests and where we may see those interests overlap.
That’s, perhaps, an indirect way of answering a sensitive question. I think the situation is fundamentally different than it had been, but in ways where it would be a mistake for us not to pay close attention to how decision makers in both Moscow and Beijing see the upside, if you would, of a stable polity on their border, and to track how they develop their own national interests with that in mind.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator M. Deacon: This question might be under the classification of sensitive, but I’m very curious about your perspective — recognizing that I might, perhaps, be referring to another government lane of work that we’re talking about — on the importance of the forgotten, and how the language is used in a variety of ways. This is going back to my colleague Senator Richards.
When Canada agreed to bring in folks from Afghanistan, they set a target number. We all heard that. That target number isn’t close to being reached. There are still a lot left there. Along with that, there are challenges, for sure. I can use Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, but I’m not trying to pick one area. However, that area was really challenging for getting folks into Canada — the things that they need. I worked with over 100 families over an 18-month period. I tried to learn what the roadblocks are, and what makes this story unique versus Ukraine and others.
My question is this: From your perspective — from Canada’s view — are we still really ambitious about trying to reach the targets that were first indicated of the numbers coming into Canada?
Mr. Epp: I think the simple answer is yes. The information that I have, senator, is that Canada is very close to reaching a milestone — I would say it’s not “the” milestone to resettle 40,000 vulnerable Afghans. That commitment remains one of the largest in the world and remains ambitious. In that case, the milestone was to try to do so by the end of 2023. Again, I think we’re close. That program still remains active and open, and we were talking about how we can coordinate Global Affairs Canada and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to work on that.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is going to have to be the respondent to the question of what is next, but we do know that there will continue to be pathways for other categories of Afghans. This program is specific to those with a connection to Canada who are still in or fleeing from Afghanistan. However, there will continue to be pathways for other Afghans and former Afghans to move to Canada. As I said earlier, in the matter of what ambition Canada brings to the equation that other countries cannot, one of the most remarkable areas is what we can provide in terms of a welcoming home to those who don’t have another place to go.
I would say that for that one program, that one milestone is approaching, and it was quite an ambitious one for any government around the world. The ongoing commitment, which is important beyond what we can do within Afghanistan, continues to be salient.
The Chair: Senator Kutcher, you will have the last question.
Senator Kutcher: Wealth generation in Afghanistan, for centuries probably, has been, in large part, based on heroin production. After the Taliban took over, there was an idea that they would deal with it, which they didn’t. They are now global exporters of heroin.
How does Canada deal with this global heroin production and exportation? Are we working with our allies? What kind of law enforcement do we have to look at? How are we following its distribution through cartel channels from Afghanistan? How much of it ends up in Canada?
Mr. Epp: I will be happy to confess my lack of capacity to answer some of the sub-questions. In terms of how much ends up in Canada, I will defer to colleagues from the Canada Border Services Agency or elsewhere. I wouldn’t want to pretend I have knowledge of that.
I do have some notes on your question. I’ll look at them for a moment, and also give Ms. Birnbaum a heads-up because she’s our lead on the development programming, which has been addressing, or encouraging, the replacement of the production of heroin. As you know, senator, this was part of ongoing programming until the Taliban retook Afghanistan and, of course, has been made much more difficult by that.
When Canada and partners talked earlier about what kind of programming we’re able to do, notwithstanding broad restrictions on our engagement with the Taliban, one of the criteria for looking very carefully at what programming does or does not do is to avoid participation in illegal, criminal and human rights abusive activity. I know that this continues to be an area of concern.
Ms. Birnbaum, I don’t know if you have anything specific you want to add to the replacement of heroin production through the programming of our partners.
Ms. Birnbaum: Thank you, Mr. Chair and senator. I don’t have too much to say on that. The biggest proportion of our bilateral program goes to a multilateral fund called the Afghanistan Resilience Trust Fund, which has a number of sub‑projects in a number of sectors, including in agriculture and food security. Most of Canada’s funding that goes to that fund is actually focused on the health project and some education, but, in the food security and livelihood portion of that fund, there is work being done on that issue to build the capacity of local farmers to choose different crops.
Senator Kutcher: We know that’s not working, and we also know that a lot of heroin is coming out of Afghanistan. What is Canada doing to deal with the outpouring of heroin from Afghanistan, and are we working with allies to police it? Are we dealing with cartels? We all know where the smuggling routes are. How is that working?
Mr. Epp: I’d be happy to refer the question to our colleagues from the Canada Border Services Agency in terms of their international cooperation on the ground. I do know this is one of the many themes that our Special Representative David Sproule is in touch about with other special representatives, many of whom are located in Doha — but, precisely because we don’t have a diplomatic presence on the ground, they’re close. Some other partner countries do continue to have conversations with the Taliban regime — although we do not on a regular basis — to look at issues to attract these.
In terms of the actual policing, how do we try to obtain that policy outcome while having no active tool kit? We don’t have active engagement with the Taliban regime directly, nor would we want to be providing funding to them through their security services.
Absent that, it ends up becoming much more of an outside‑the‑border intervention in smuggling, et cetera, and I would have to defer to colleagues from the Canada Border Services Agency in particular.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’ve come to the end of our time, so, on behalf of the committee, I’d like to thank our witnesses from Global Affairs Canada: Weldon Epp, Assistant Deputy Minister, Indo-Pacific; Tara Carney, Director, International Humanitarian Assistance; and Alice Birnbaum, Deputy Director, Development, Afghanistan Program. Thank you for joining us. It was a very comprehensive overview. We will be looking at Afghanistan again — in fact, tomorrow — but this has helped us a lot in our consideration.
(The committee adjourned.)