Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 28th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Just on the point that Mr. McKay makes, you're coming from the Department of Foreign Affairs. You've been in the department for some time; that's why you're here today.

If a government is moving toward the 0.7% of GDP, and if there is a very strict definition of what counts to reach this plateau, which all parties at this committee said is important that we work toward, are they going to want to spend a lot of money on very good projects as we are right now--that is ODA-able, if it can't be categorized under the ODA definition? What I'm saying is, do you think there's going to be the will to carry on these very good programs?

Mr. McKay says we can still do it, but speaking from a department side--you've been in the department in other governments--they're going to want to be able to include this to reach that plateau, aren't they?

[Michael Small]

Mr. Chair, let me try to respond without being speculative, because I don't believe that's my role as an official, but to comment on factors that certainly have been at play and that I think you might want to take into account.

One is that the existing definition of ODA as defined by the 30 countries that now are members of the OECD--and I think about 25 participate in the development assistance committee. That's out there; that's defined. It's a moving target; it gets renegotiated. It progressively gets expanded and has been over a number of years, certainly in the last ten years, largely in response to many donors' desires and not just Canada's alone, as the nature of development assistance changes, particularly to factor in more peace and security-related issues, to enable donors to count some of their expenditures that are related to the goals of development assistance as ODA. That will happen regardless of how Parliament chooses to legislate and how governments choose to act under the act.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

About 20% of your aid is not ODA-able now. Is that correct?

[Michael Small]

In terms of international assistance, I will have to check. I can give you that number before the end of the meeting.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Somewhere in that neighbourhood. I don't have to be precise.

[Michael Small]

Absolutely, international assistance is given that is not ODA-able. I will give you a very specific example, and we can elaborate a bit more. The assistance that Canada gives to the AU peace mission, the peacekeeping operation in Darfur, is assistance to a military operation. That falls outside the definition of ODA.

In answer to the chair's question, yes, I think there are two forces at play. One is that under broad Canadian foreign policy there's going to be a strong desire to contribute to new and innovative forms of stabilization and reconstruction in promoting peace and security. That's why I cited that little piece from the G-8 communiqué, which is all eight of the world's leading economies and countries involved in this. At the same time, there is also a strong desire to make sure that when the public is concerned about when there's an interest in seeing ODA-GNP ratios, and other donors count everything they're entitled to spend as ODA, you also do so. That's a reflection vis-à-vis your own public and vis-à-vis other OECD members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Small.

Madame St-Hilaire.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like you to tell us a bit more about what you just said; I want to be sure that it isn’t a translation problem or poor comprehension on my part.

From reading you, we gather that you are not very enthusiastic about this bill, but we don’t really understand why. I heard your answer to Mr. McKay’s question. In fact, you want international official assistance to stay as it is, while respecting the Millennium goals of reducing poverty.

Does the department reflect the government’s position, that is, that official development assistance is also used, non-transparently, for military or security assistance? Is that what you meant?

[Michael Small]

If you don’t mind, I’m going to answer in English, because I speak a bit slowly.

It's also easier, for me, frankly, to think through.

My fourth point was that certainly in the area in which the Department of Foreign Affairs is currently programming, which is largely peace and security, those programs have a number of objectives.

Poverty reduction is not a central objective of those programs. Some of them do contribute to poverty reduction. Many of them have an indirect connection. I think if you provide better security to citizens, or you promote human rights, or you reduce crime and help states become more efficient in using the resources they have, that will contribute, ultimately, to poverty reduction.

So in part to expand on my earlier comments to Mr. McKay, a line can be drawn back to poverty reduction, but what I want to put clearly on the table, because I think it's in the spirit of this discussion, is that the line is not going to be a direct one. It's nowhere near as direct a line as would be a project, let's say, that's meant to provide nutritional supplements to poor people or an infant care program.

Governments will have several different reasons and kinds of broad-form policy objectives that are also now recognized, and have been for some time, as being legitimate uses of official development assistance as determined by all the donor countries through the OECD. Using a poverty focus--and it depends on how strictly you want to draw it and how tightly you want to draw that line--means that in Canadian official development assistance, Canada would choose, under this act, to draw a connection to what it chose to consider official development assistance that is tighter than the latitude that other donors give themselves and will continue to give themselves, regardless of whichever direction the Parliament of Canada chooses to go.

I'd like to invite my colleague, Monsieur Tellier, who's been sitting here patiently, to also respond.

[Alain Tellier, Deputy Director, Security and Privileges and Immunities Law Section, Department of Foreign Affairs]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’d like to add a few comments on the question you asked about certain activities that should or might be regarded as official development assistance. You also raise the question of whether the act risks having an impact on certain projects meeting the definition given in this development assistance act, but not necessarily meeting the poverty-reduction criteria, which are applied later. Sections 2 and 4 of the act talk about sustainable development and human rights.

I heard Mr. McKay earlier.

I will take the same opportunity to seek clarification. You were saying that the objective is not to block any activity, but for some of this activity, if it doesn't meet the poverty reduction test, it should be paid for otherwise.

Looking at the structure of the bill, I am wondering if that is indeed the effect, if it corresponds to development assistance, if it is an activity that corresponds to the definition. If you look at clauses 2 and 4, they seem to be saying that if it is development assistance and it does not meet the test, then it cannot happen. I am wondering if it could even happen using other money, because it would, in any case, fall under the definition of development assistance, and you have a provision saying development assistance has to contribute to poverty reduction.

Maybe it is not an intended effect, but maybe it is an effect of the bill as drafted currently.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'll give you extra time. I gave the Liberals some extra time, so you'll get some extra time.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you very much. I’m not sure that it is any clearer; you need to be clearer in your statement.

In fact, you would like the notion of official development assistance to remain vague. Is that it?

[Michael Small]

I would say not—

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

We can’t say it like that, but that’s what you’re implying.

[Michael Small]

I would say that the broad definition of “official development assistance” that's been negotiated by the OECD is one that Canada is comfortable with. We have participated in those negotiations. We see it as reflecting the reality on the ground, where you can be pursuing peace and security objectives as well as development objectives at the same time, often with the same project, but not always. It also corresponds with the interests and objectives of other aid donors too, who are responding to new forms and new situations that they encounter.

The kind of programming that Canada does in Haiti, which I'm sure you've discussed at quite some length in this committee, is a very good example of that. It's a classic poor country to which Canada has always provided development assistance, and I'm sure we will always, into the future. Given the security environment, that now includes quite a component of things that are aimed at restoring public order and building security institutions. Much of that, currently, is considered development assistance and contributes, in this form, I would argue indirectly, not directly, to combatting poverty, which is the greatest challenge facing that country.

So to try to answer your question directly, yes, I would argue that there's a good case for the broad definition that's currently recognized of ODA by the OECD and that Canada has worked under up until now.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

How could we begin to give to something else, when we’re far from achieving the objective of 0.7% of the GDP?

In your presentation, you say, and I quote:

The Committee will wish to avoid asking the Minister responsible for these contributions to certify that these international organizations recognize a made-in-Canada standard for how they spend the ODA portion of their budgets.

Why?

[Alain Tellier]

By referring to international organizations, including multilateral organizations, we wish to draw attention to the fact that, though Canada is an active member of these organizations, it is not always able to assert its views and have them accepted by the whole group.

Canada is a member of a number of organizations. As such, it has certain obligations, such as making financial contributions. If it must make a financial contribution and if decisions concerning the use of this contribution are made by all the members, or after the transfer of funds, it may be difficult for Canada to make an advance commitment on the way such funds will be used.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Thank you for those good questions, Madame St-Hilaire.

We will go to the government side, Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing here today.

Recently we've been doing quite a bit of work on analyzing or studying democracy, and what can be done on foreign assistance in the area of democracy and good governance. You mentioned Haiti before, and it's very obvious that there's a lot of work to be done in that country too. And I share in some of the concerns that perhaps you would not want to see some of that good work fall by the wayside by want of a little more definition on it.

So am I to understand from your statements here today that the basic definition in the act—and very clearly I read that it's the purpose of the act to ensure that all Canadian development assistance abroad is provided with a central focus on poverty reduction—is very constrictive and that perhaps it could even be strengthened by mentioning democracy, human rights, maybe environment, some of these things, so that at least this would broaden it a bit to be sure to include some of those? Certainly I think it's well understood that if there is a democracy under way, good governance is there, and ultimately that will help the country, help the people, and help to reduce the poverty.

Is it your contention that it would strengthen this bill to perhaps have the basic definition broadened somewhat to include some of the basics like democracy?

[Michael Small]

Certainly for at least the last twenty years, Canada's development assistance, and that of other countries, has had those goals--democracy, human rights, environmental strengthening--as objectives. If that became incorporated into this act explicitly, as part of the definition, it would facilitate reporting more of the assistance that's presently given as directly meeting the stated goals of the act. That could help square existing programming and the goals that those are meant to serve with the stated aims of the act, that's correct.

I would like to respond to the last question, if I may briefly. I can certainly, in a subsequent round, provide other examples of how international organizations pursue activities that are not poverty focused, even if they are part of the ODA portion of what we contribute.

I'll just pick one small example. The Organization of American States, 100% ODA-able, has a significant, not a large, but a tangible cultural program. That's not poverty focused, but it's considered part of the overall work of the organization, and it does catapult towards our overall ODA numbers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Do you believe that would be in jeopardy?

[Michael Small]

When it comes time, I assume we're going to continue to be a member of the Organization of American States. I assume the member states will continue that program. When it comes time to report, and it's 100% ODA-able, the minister in question would have to explain to the committee that this is how international organizations work. They determine their overall goals and whether the majority of members want to carry on that program. It doesn't directly contribute to a poverty alleviation focus.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Small, you mentioned the international definition of ODA. Is it in transition? Is there movement to try to broaden that definition? In what direction do you think the upcoming definition would be going--in the simplest of terms?

[Michael Small]

If you take as the definition the one that is negotiated at the OECD, on average, it would be about once every three years, when the OECD reconvenes.

At an earlier point in my career I participated and contributed to an OECD working group on conflict, peace, and development, which brought forward a series of important guidelines to help guide donor activity and aid activity in conflict situations. That has since been translated by the statistics committee into changing and widening the number of activities that donors can count as ODA. Most of the growth in that area has been due to changing forms of peace and security-related assistance. It is certainly not everything that governments do in terms of promoting peace and security. I gave the example of the African youth force that is counted as ODA. The line is drawn. It's a negotiated line, but it's definitely been widening in the last ten years.