Foreign Affairs Committee on March 31st, 2015

[Joel Spicer]

I'll have a kick at it and then pass it to corporate memory, because Mark has been with us for a very long time.

It is beyond that. Those may be some of the things we're known for, but if you look at supplementation, then you also need to look at fortification of foods. Whereas in Canada I think we've taken for granted the fact that most of our food has been fortified for the last 50-plus years, in many countries, with the way their systems are set up, this is not the case. The Micronutrient Initiative also works very closely with private sector actors at the country level to ensure that fortification is taking place, that we are providing technical support to government, and other inputs like that to make sure that we're scaling up. That's an area in which some of the greatest gains are waiting to be unlocked as well.

It's important to remember that the Micronutrient Initiative was created in 1992 out of the World Summit for Children. That was a long time ago. So while vitamin A and salt iodization have been kind of the watchwords, things have expanded since then significantly.

Mark, maybe you have some other details to add in terms of what we do.

[Mark Fryars]

Thank you, Joel.

I would add that we do focus upstream as well. As we were speaking just now about the Tanzanian case, integration of health and nutrition in other sectors in planning is very important. We have a catchphrase within the Micronutrient Initiative, “no missed opportunities”, because what we see happening is that sometimes health services may be provided, but we need to educate the planners to say that they could actually include nutrition. We do a fair amount of work in countries right at the apex, right at the decision-making part of the tree, advising what could be done, what effect it could have, and what the return on the investment is. There's a sort of no-missed-opportunities piece.

In addition to the points that Joel made on supplementation and fortification, we recognize that there are many people in the developing world who are essentially beyond the ready reach of health systems or the ready reach of commercial markets. We're looking at ways in which we can also help them. It's not in Tanzania, but in Ethiopia where we're working on looking at what people are growing, what people have access to, and whether we can put this together in different ways to enhance the nutritional value of the foods that are given to children. At the same time, we can help people understand that children do need their own dish and they need their own food, just as if you had a grandchild or a child, you'd be feeding them their own food. There's an education piece and a dietary diversity piece as well, in addition to the supplements and the fortified foods that Joel has mentioned.

[Joel Spicer]

Just to close, Mark, one of the unique aspects of the Micronutrient Initiative is that it works on evidence generation, on the support for guidelines for countries to use when new evidence comes into play, and then on scale as well, not just on one piece. It's that connection.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Garneau.

That's all the time for the first round. We're going to start our second round, at five minutes.

Mr. Schellenberger, please lead us off.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you very much for your presentation this morning. It's been encouraging.

In your presentation, Mr. Spicer, you stated that Canada has been a long-time leader on nutrition. Can you elaborate further on how Canada might harness this recognized global leadership on nutrition to influence others in a way that can have transformative impact for children?

[Joel Spicer]

Yes, I'd like to echo something that my colleague Helen Scott mentioned earlier about the need to bring unusual partners together, academics and program people, as well. That would be one of them.

Basically I would say there are three ways that Canada can have a greater impact in terms of using its influence. That is, bilaterally, multilaterally, and with geopolitical blocs, engaging with them in different ways.

By bilaterally, what do I mean? I mean, let's do an inventory of these countries where children are most vulnerable to issues like malnutrition and beyond. Let's cross-reference that list with the countries with which we have the best bilateral relationships, as a starter. Let's work with our counterparts. Let's activate our diplomatic trade and development capabilities and encourage countries to go the extra mile and invest more of their own resources. Number one, that's the easiest one.

Let's boost Canadian NGO and international partner expertise that's already on the ground and make sure they're working with local partners to identify appropriate solutions at the country level. If more support is needed, let's influence our allies to provide some matching funding as well, because other donors and foundations and partners certainly aren't shy when it comes to calling Canada for support for issues they're working on. That works both ways.

Multilaterally, consider all the investments that Canada has in terms of board positions and financial investments in the World Bank, the Global Fund, and the UN system. If we use this influence to ensure greater coordination—because as my colleague Mark was saying, there's still too much of a siloed approach, and we're missing opportunities for children—and focus on better delivery for adolescent girls, pregnant women, newborns, and children in particular, which is where the real damage is being caused, that's another way we can make a difference.

Finally is the geopolitical impact. We've talked about the Francophonie and the Commonwealth where Canada has a standing in both, but there are other geopolitical blocs where we have strong diplomatic relations, strong trade relations. We may not be a member, but they nevertheless may have significant resources and influence.

One example of that is the Gulf Cooperation Council. If you consider United Arab Emirates, Qatar, for example, and Kuwait, these are countries with a great deal of resources and they're proving that time and time again. Their scale is up, but the opportunity to engage with them, to do something for children, hasn't yet been fully harnessed. I think Canada is ideally placed to be a catalyst for that.

One note on that piece is that the Gulf Cooperation Council countries are the main drivers, the leaders of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, 57 countries that have among them the highest child protection issues in the world and high malnutrition rates. There is a way to build more momentum in favour of children, and I think Canada can do a lot more to lead that charge.

Let me stop there.

Thank you for your question.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you.

What are the sources of funding for Micronutrient Initiative?

[Joel Spicer]

Our primary source of funding is the Government of Canada, but we have 14 donors, and we have had 14 donors over the past five years, including foundations like the Gates foundation and the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, CIFF, the Izumi Foundation, and the World Food Programme. We work with UNICEF very closely as well. But, as I said, our primary source of funding is the Canadian government at this moment.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

While you currently operate in 15 countries, what strategies are you undertaking to increase the reach of your organization to other locations?

[Joel Spicer]

At the moment we have operations that are in 70 countries, but we have basically 12 country offices, a major hub in Senegal for Africa, and another hub in Delhi for Asia. There are really two things that we are doing to expand our influence.

One is with a new president, it's normal you come in and ask a lot of questions that annoy your staff, and I think I've ticked that box so far in the first year. There are nods to my left. One of the questions I asked is, why are we where we are? Is there a reason that we shouldn't be in these places where we are not? Is it just organic evolution? One of the things we've been doing is a deep dive on the updated facts. What is the damage being caused by malnutrition in these countries?

Tanzania is one of them. We don't have a country office there, but in our geographic scoping exercise that is an area where we're looking at as well. There are a number of countries where we're thinking of expanding our operations.

More to the point, we feel we can have a lot more impact as well by looking at those other delivery platforms, whether they are multilateral, whether they are other NGOs, and saying to them that they are doing a great job reaching some extraordinarily vulnerable people with nothing to do with nutrition, and they need it, so what could we do to work with them to leverage their delivery platforms at marginal cost and get a much bigger bump? What you're going to see from the MI over the next months and years is a lot more strategic engagement to influence and to leverage some of the bigger players. I think we're well positioned to do that, particularly in nutrition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

I also know that you have been able to partner with some business people as well, some corporations, to help leverage some of your products, which has been nice to see.

Thank you very much, Mr. Schellenberger.

Madam Laverdière, it's over to you for five minutes.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have just a quick note to start with. I thought that your comments on the bilateral, multilateral, NGO political approach were very pertinent, so note well taken. If you're wondering why you are where you are and if you are in the right place, having lived in Senegal for three years, I think it's a great place to be.

Anyway, that being said, I have a quick question again for Madam Scott.

Can you tell us if all the funds announced last May by the Prime Minister at the conference in Toronto have been allocated this year?

[Helen Scott]

I will attempt to answer that question.

All of the funds, the $3.5 billion, have not, to my knowledge, all been allocated. I know there have been a number of announcements, but $3.5 billion worth of funds has not been allocated.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Okay. Do you have any idea what kind of percentage has been allocated?

[Helen Scott]

I couldn't. I could do a rough back-of-the-napkin calculation but....

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Or maybe if you have this information later on you could submit it to the committee.

[Helen Scott]

Sure, that's actually not difficult to do—not off the top of my head, though.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I have a point of clarification, Chair.

The money that was put forward, $2.5 billion, was for 2010 to 2015. All of our money is allocated, and we are 80% spent out of the 2010 to 2015 amount. The rest of the money will be spent by the end of 2015. This new tranche of money is for the next five years.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Anyway, any information you could provide to the committee later on on actual provisions and money allocated, from your point of view—I'm sure we'll get numbers also from the government—would be much appreciated.

Thank you.

[Helen Scott]

Sure.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I have a question for all of you.

I want to know if you think that the needs of youth and women are sufficiently addressed in the post-2015 agenda and the SDGs, sustainable development goals, and if there are specific topics that Canada should pursue and promote in the upcoming negotiations for what is left of it?

[Helen Scott]

We'll go from the opposite direction.

The challenge is that we've created this sustainable development goal system that's just this massive number of goals, and there are 173 targets. Children and youth are within those targets, but there aren't specific goals relating to women, newborns, and children in the way there were with the millennium development goals.

The worry is that it will get missed. We're talking about mainstreaming gender here, mainstreaming the importance of investing in our children. The worry is that if there aren't specific targets focusing on maternal and newborn and child health, and on survival and thrival as Peter would say, then we'll miss it.

[Joel Spicer]

I would echo those points, and also say that there is a consistency in terms of where Canada has led.

For example, the World Health Assembly targets on nutrition—obviously, I would talk about nutrition—are well established. Canada was a driver. All countries have signed up to them already. To not have something that is so directly impactful on women's and children's lives in the sustainable development goals would be a colossal missed opportunity.

If you want to think about development, women are the engine of development—this is well known—and until we remove the brakes from this engine.... I believe that one of the major brakes and greatest causes of injustice in the world is the rate of malnutrition among women in particular. There are 500 million women who are anemic. Some 40 million pregnant women have severe anemia. It is impossible to unleash the engine of development while it is constantly struggling to reach its own potential and have its own energy.

That's just one piece. I would dovetail back to what Helen said, that it's broader than nutrition, but there needs to be a definitive focus on maternal, newborn, and child health, at a minimum, in my view.

[Caroline Marrs]

I can't help but echo what my colleagues are saying.

As we discussed briefly earlier, I'm a big fan of gender mainstreaming. A lot of people, a lot of feminists, work on gender mainstreaming, and we know it's absolutely critical. The danger always is that when you mainstream gender then you start to lose a bit of focus on some of the issues that are specifically faced by women, young women, and girls.

With regard to the SDGs, seeing a goal on gender equality obviously is something we're very interested in. We're lobbying hard for mainstreaming of gender in the other goals as well, so that's really important.

At the risk of adding specific targets—because I think maternal health, yes, and nutrition for women, young girls, and young women, yes—we would advocate and we have advocated a special target on violence as well. In terms of causes of injustice, I don't think we need to have a competition about that. There are many, many different challenges and human rights violations that young women and girls suffer.

I would definitely lobby with my colleague for a target on nutrition, for sure. From our perspective and the work we're doing—the knowledge hub—we're gathering a lot of evidence. We're working with a lot of partners. In talking about a brake on development, violence against women is a huge brake.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you. That's all the time we have.

We're going to finish off today with Ms. Brown.

You have the last draw for five minutes.