Evidence of meeting #39 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was business.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Ms. Brown, that's all the time we have.
A quick answer, Mr. Haga, and then we're going to move on.
4:45 p.m.
Director of Advocacy, Engineers Without Borders Canada
You hold us accountable.
4:45 p.m.
Director of Advocacy, Engineers Without Borders Canada
You should continue to. We have a responsibility to be accountable. We cannot do it all. We don't claim to be able to do it all. It's absolutely vital and core to Canada's development strategy that we engage governments and other large stakeholders in the development scene. We have mechanisms built into the cash-on-delivery model that would allow us to maintain transparency, even if you're not engaging directly with a Canadian NGO.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you.
I'll just mention that a week from Wednesday we're going to have Gavin McGillivray, who is the head of the private sector department of DFID, the Department for International Development, in Great Britain. There may be a chance to follow up on some questions on this with him a week this Wednesday. It may be an opportunity to ask what their thoughts are and how the pilot is going.
We're going to come back over here, and Madame Laverdière is doing to start us off. I think she's going to share her time, five minutes.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I find the idea interesting, but it raises questions. It doesn't cover everything, because when you're measuring results, if you're talking of graduating students and the number of schools being built, it's very good, but we also know that the basis for development, including for business development, is stability, which means democracy, institutions, a legal framework. When we're talking about transparency, often it comes with éducation populaire, mass education. People start asking their government for accountability. In those instances, it's very difficult to measure results, in particular, in everything that touches on democratic development and those kinds of issues.
Would you agree?
4:50 p.m.
Director of Advocacy, Engineers Without Borders Canada
In a word, yes, I would agree. I think that cash-on-delivery aid is part of a greater focus on results. That being said, the idea in terms of how other aid models work is not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, because there are other things, and democratic development might be one of them, where this model is not suitable. It's important to bear in mind that it's not applicable on everything. That being said, it could be applicable on several things. There are a lot of studies that have been done in the last two years that would suggest there are real opportunities to apply this model to the area of child and maternal health. We know this is an area in which Canada has led, and it's worthy that we investigate that further. Access to water is another area in which there have been suggestions that this type of investment could be valuable, but it's not in everything. It's too early to say that this is going to address all the challenges you spoke to.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you for being here.
I will continue along Ms. Laverdière's line of questioning. Before deciding to support the cash on delivery aid, I suppose Engineers without Borders Canada held some discussions and weighted the advantages and disadvantages. Could you share with us some of your concerns regarding that approach?
4:50 p.m.
Director of Advocacy, Engineers Without Borders Canada
Thank you for your question.
It's true that we have spent a great deal of time looking at this issue—in fact, the last two years. As a little bit of context, this is something that as an idea has been developed over the last four years. It originated from some of the top minds on development issues, from something called the Center for Global Development, which is a very interesting think tank in Washington, D.C. They developed this idea in tandem with a number of governments throughout the developing world that have been extremely supportive of this. So it's critical to say that this isn't just a group of westerners saying maybe it's an interesting idea. There are a lot of people in senior ranks in developing countries who are saying that they want this kind of responsibility given to them in order for them to attempt to manage more and to be more accountable to their own development projects.
That said, I'll note that some of the things we have thought about are similar questions. They have been raised by some of you as well. How is it that you truly ensure that a government is held to account on this? One of the key features of cash-on-delivery aid is that you need to have third-party verification of results. You don't just take the word of the Government of Ethiopia, and you don't just take the word of the British government. You must have third-party evaluation done, though there are a lot of in-betweens that need to happen to get there, so there are some concerns about that.
I think there are concerns about the idea that this will be a new, flashy, and sexy idea that will be taken and applied absolutely everywhere too soon, again leading us down a rabbit hole of putting too much money in an idea that isn't going to work everywhere. So the context is vital, and as an NGO and as a government we have a responsibility to apply this only where it's suitable.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you very much.
We're going to finish off with the last questioner of the third round. Mrs. Grewal, you have five minutes.
June 4th, 2012 / 4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Nina Grewal Conservative Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Haga, for your time and your presentation.
I understand that your focus is to work with members across the country to improve Canada's international development policy through the coordination of political engagement activities, raising public awareness through your organization's policies towards developing countries, and advancing the recommendations of your organization.
This committee has heard heart-wrenching stories and testimony about poverty, abuse, and corrupt governments in our international community, so I would like to ask you this: what is the best way to halt such corruption and abuse?
4:55 p.m.
Director of Advocacy, Engineers Without Borders Canada
That's a great question.
Just to add a personal angle to this, when I was 19 years old I lived and worked in east Africa, in Tanzania. Every day I would get on a minibus and go to work, and we would pass through two or three police roadblocks. Each day, at each of those instances, the driver would have to pay off a little bit of money to the police officer in order to be able to pass through. There are many reasons why that is the case. They are deeply complex. In many respects, I understand why the police officer wants to take just a little bit on the side. They are not even getting paid enough necessarily to take care of their families. So these issues of corruption are not easily solved. Often there isn't solely one person to blame for them.
With respect to the idea that we're speaking about right now, cash-on-delivery aid, I think it attempts to solve as best it can the issue of corruption. It is not the sole focus of why this is an interesting model. At the end of the day, this is about a result, and the result is what matters.
The thinking is that if a government is going to achieve that result, collusion and corruption are less likely to have taken place, because if they have taken place, then we should not have evidence at the end of the day that the result was achieved. As I said, third party verification that is extremely thorough needs to be in place to have some checks and balances to ensure that moneys have been used properly.
Another key attribute of cash-on-delivery aid is that it requires that the government—of Ghana, for instance—needs to make that contract and all of the details of that contract publicly available. That way, the citizens, the Ghanaian media, the Ghanaian parliamentarians, whoever it might be, can see and access that information readily and can hold their government and their leaders to account on what they are supposed to be delivering to their citizens.
That is actually an innovation and an improvement upon which a lot of aid has traditionally worked. It's not going to solve all corruption, but we believe it is certainly a step in the right direction. It gives more incentive, quite frankly, because a government isn't going to get money unless they're able to deliver that result. They all of a sudden have a lot more reason to really focus in hard on ensuring that they're delivering quality services for their people.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Nina Grewal Conservative Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Do you feel that such actions are appropriate for the private sector as a single actor, or should we pursue a multilateral approach with other institutions?
4:55 p.m.
Director of Advocacy, Engineers Without Borders Canada
I think there are different ways of doing what we call a “pay for performance” style of aid, results-based. I'm sure many of you are aware of or have met with members of the GAVI Alliance, which is around vaccines and ensuring that.... This is a similar approach in some respects. You're paying for particular benchmarks being met.
There are, of course, many private sector players who are involved in these types of schemes. In many respects, that is a vital community to engage. In the case of cash-on-delivery aid, the real focus that's put on the government we would be engaging with in this contract is choosing for themselves what is the best pathway to success. What that really means is that if they believe that engaging a private sector partner to achieve that result is the best way to success, then that's what they should do. If it means that they engage a Canadian non-governmental organization to help them achieve that goal, that's what they should do.
At the end of the day, the idea is that the result is what matters. What people at a community level, at a country level, receive in terms of services—that's where the rubber hits the pavement, and that's what matters.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
That's the end of the third round.
We have a fourth round if we want it. Does anyone from the NDP have any questions? Are there any other final questions? All right.
Mr. Haga, thank you very much for being here today. We'll let you go....
Did you have anything, Mr. Dewar?
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Yes, I have a question, Chair.
Thank you to our guest for his work and for his presentation today. It was terrific, as usual.
Chair, regarding the schedule and the agenda, we have the supplementary estimates coming through. I just wanted to ask, since I guess part of our committee role and responsibility is to hear from ministers, about the opportunity to have the Minister of International Cooperation and the Minister of Foreign Affairs come to committee regarding the supplementary estimates. So the request is to see that we invite them to committee, if we can do that, as per our responsibilities as a committee.
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
I can respond quickly. My understanding—and I checked earlier today—is that the estimates have already been reported back to the House.
