Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 27th, 2007

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you very much.

There are so many questions one could ask. Thank you very much for being here. I'm going to try to ask three quick questions with what time is available.

I think a lot of us struggle with the notion of balance, because even with yesterday's announcement, I guess Canada goes from having about 10:1 or 9:1 in military expenditures versus diplomacy and development to now having 8:1 or 9:1. So I guess I'm curious about the notion of balance as it relates to Canada's contribution.

Second, while it's true that about 12,000 U.S. troops have now come in under ISAF, there remain, as I understand it, some equal number, 12,000 or 13,000 U.S. forces, who continue to be under Operation Enduring Freedom. That's without any agreement with the Afghan government—and you stressed the importance of the Afghan government in all of this—and without any authorization from the UN. I'm wondering if I could ask you to comment on that.

Second, we keep hearing that we're winning, we're winning, we're winning. But I just want to put forward statistics provided by the International Crisis Group that would indicate that in the first nine months of 2006 there were over 3,700 deaths—that includes militants, security personnel, and civilians—which is a fourfold increase. According to U.S. military estimates, there were 139 suicide attacks in that full year of 2006, up from 27 the year before. Roadside bombs doubled, and direct attacks by insurgents using small arms, grenades, and other weapons increased to 4,542, which is almost a fourfold increase.

So it's very difficult to grasp the notion that we're winning. I wonder if you could comment on the fact that when we see these statistics, when we hear these reports, it doesn't seem apparent to us that the military strategy in which Canada is primarily engaged is really a winning strategy.

The third thing is that it's very surprising to me that neither of you has mentioned anything about the very extensive amount of corruption. There was not a mention of warlords. This has been a huge concern for civilians with whom we've had contact, as well as for NGOs that have experienced the horrors of this.

With respect to poppy elimination—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We have to give them some time to answer, Madam McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Yes.

I think it was Rubin who said to us that at the moment, the poppy eradication approach simply enriches warlords and impoverishes farmers, families, and their local villages.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madam McDonough.

Go ahead, Mr. Alexander.

[Christopher Alexander]

I give one line to each, Chair.

On balance, you're absolutely right, the ratios are what they are. Everyone feels the paradox that this represents. But I have to emphasize that the sort of commitment that Canada has now made and that other countries are starting to make in development and reconstruction puts us at the very outer limit of Afghanistan's capacity to absorb assistance and reconstruction. You cannot spend $1 billion just on a whim. You have to put it through an institution, which has to be accountable. There has to be monitoring and evaluation. I think we are now challenging the system to work at the maximum of its potential.

Operation Enduring Freedom no longer exists. It was discontinued, essentially, when NATO took responsibility for the entire mission. Most of the troops outside of NATO command are training police and training the army. Only a small group are engaged in counterterrorism activities under pure U.S. command, but that is with Afghan government support, and it's governed by very specific arrangements with the Afghan government. It is also under a UN mandate in that the U.S. is still operating under its right of self-defence, which was recognized by all members of the Security Council in September 2001.

Are we winning? We are having military success and we are seeing development. But no, we have not set conditions to bring peace and security to Afghanistan. We have more work to do. As James said, leadership structures of the Taliban--the Hekmatyar group, the Jalaluddin Haqqani group--which are to some extent present in Pakistan, will need to be removed for victory, if we can call it that, to be achieved. This is a point that has been made by U.S. military commanders and many others.

On corruption and warlords, when we talk about governance, we really are talking about those issues. They are big problems. More needs to be done. The UN is championing an innovative disarmament program, called the Disbandment of Illegal Armed Groups, that will seek to collect many more weapons and much more ammunition in Afghanistan. I'm very proud that Canada is a supporter of that. We are also very committed to the action plan for peace, justice and reconciliation, which will seek to hold warlords and others accountable for the crimes of the past. It's very controversial in Afghanistan, but very popular in society itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Appathurai.

[James Appathurai]

Chris has said most of it. I would say one thing. I think this number of 9:1 military spending to development is a red herring, because militaries cost a lot of money. It doesn't mean that you are necessarily disproportionate. Basically, to fly an Apache around and fire off weapons in support of our troops costs tens of thousands of dollars. That's the way it is.

So I'm a little bit wary of this comparison, that you spend a lot of money on the military and less on development. They're just different animals. To be frank, I don't think it's a relevant comparison.

The anti-terror mission that the U.S. is doing, the intelligence-led targeted operations against terrorist leadership--as Chris mentioned, it's not called OEF--has to be done. Someone has to do it, and the Afghan government fully supports it. They want this done, and so does the UN. So I think we can't shy away from the important work that the U.S. is doing. That is important,

That's all I'll say. Chris has said the rest.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Appathurai. Our time is up, but I do have one very quick question for you.

You talked about the indicators--are we winning, is it winnable? The indicators show that socially the people are much better off than they were then. There is a level of health care. Poverty is being fought. There are 17,000 reconstruction projects under way.

Can you give me a very precise answer as to the number of NATO troops that are involved in the mission? We keep hearing 30,000 or 35,000. You've indicated that there have been countries that have stepped up, largely because of Canada's lobbying for other countries to come on board.

What is the number?

[James Appathurai]

The number as of today would be around 37,000. I can tell you that the number in the south, where Canada is, has grown over the last 18 months from 1,000 to 12,500. There's been a 12-times increase in 18 months in the south, where Canada is deployed. They all support each other. So this idea that we're there by ourselves is not right. There are nine countries there, 12,500 troops, out of a total of about 37,000--that's just NATO ISAF--as well as 8,000 or so U.S. doing mostly training, as Chris points out. That's not counting the 30,000 Afghan National Army, growing towards 70,000.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much for your attendance. It has been great to have NATO and the United Nations with us today.

We will suspend for a moment or two to allow our guests the opportunity to leave. I think they're heading to another committee.

We'll invite the FCM to make their way to the table, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll call this meeting back to order for our second hour.

We have the privilege of hearing witnesses in regard to our study on democratic development. This study is drawing to a close, and we have very few witnesses left to appear on this. We certainly look forward today to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Gord Steeves, the first vice-president; and to Brock Carlton, the director of the International Centre for Municipal Development.

We thank you for being here today. We look forward to your comments.

We'll take a first round of comments and then we'll go into the first round of questions. I noticed that you were here for the last round of questioning, with the witnesses who were here just prior to you, so you understand how this works. I govern with a fairly heavy hammer today because we also have a number of pieces of committee business that we have to discuss.

Welcome here. We look forward to what you have say.

[Gord Steeves, First Vice-President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson.

As already introduced, my name is Gord Steeves. I'm actually the acting president now of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, just by virtue of the way things have worked out.

I'm joined by Brock Carlton, who's our director of international policy and development. Also in the room are our acting CEO, Jean-François Trepanier, and Richard Smith, our policy director.

As you may or may not be aware, members of the committee, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is an organization that represents about 1,500 municipal governments from coast to coast to coast in Canada. Our membership represents, by extension, around 90% of the Canadian population. The way our organization is structured, our primary purpose is policy advocacy and development on behalf of municipalities in Canada. We also have two other main arms of our organization, which are sustainable development and obviously international development, which is the purpose for our being here today.

The process I'd like to follow today, Mr. Chairman, is for me to make some comments and then pass the baton over to Brock Carlton to finish up, if that pleases.

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to appear before your committee today.

Democratic development is an important concept that requires reflection and understanding. Democratic development in foreign countries requires diligence and commitment, as well as a focus on practical issues that can improve people's lives and give them an opportunity to see, in practical terms, why democracy improves quality of life.

As acting president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and as a councillor from Winnipeg, I am, as we all are at this table, an expression of the Canadian democratic experience. In the next short while, we'd like to share with you our views on democratic development. Particularly we want to share with you our belief that democratic development cannot be achieved without attention to local government and local governance.

In the next few minutes, we will talk about what local government does, the trends that affect our world view, and how Canada, though FCM, has responded and could respond better to the need to focus on local governments as a key factor in democratic development overseas.

Before turning to our presentation, I would like to leave you with one thought. As you may be aware, the very first expressions of democracy in Canada can be found in our municipalities. Saint John, New Brunswick, our first constituted city, was founded in 1785, and Montreal held its first local election in 1833. A Canadian expression of democracy, our values and principles have been built through the experiences of cities and towns across the land and throughout our history, and as you will see, a focus on local government and local governments is a practical and successful way of sharing our democratic values and our Canadian principles throughout this world.

When talking about international development, we need to first talk about local governments and local government as it relates to democratic development. UNESCO defines governance as the rules, processes, and behaviours by which interest, resource, and power are exercised by society. Our belief is that local governments have several features that are key in any democracy. As you may be aware, local government--and I'm sure we have some former members of local government representing even on this committee--does create a public space for citizens to engage in the decisions that affect their community.

We think that at its base it does a great job of promoting the inclusion of women, ethnic minorities. and other under-represented groups in the democratic process. We think because of the closeness, it helps build trust and confidence in its local institutions. It helps ensure the relevance and sustainability of local institutions to people's daily lives, and it creates an enabling environment for development. It also provides for stronger local partner and intergovernmental dialogue coordination and cooperation.

We also believe that effective local governments cannot be realized without a strong, transparent, and accountable local government to help create the rules and processes locally and to act as a facilitator amongst local groups in channelling resources and power for local governments.

Local government, as opposed to other levels of government, has the ability to engage local power holders, policy-makers, practitioners, community groups, and local governments. It has deeper roots into the social, political, and economic reality of these communities, big and small. We believe it's a little more accountable, transparent, and representative of the local communities. It helps to mobilize resources and assets from within the communities and delivers concrete services and results on-the-ground in areas that have the most direct impact on people's lives. It also has the ability to replicate successes for community-wide benefit and creates municipal networks for knowledge sharing to replicate those successes across other regions and other nations.

Having established that local government has a key role to play in local governance and therefore democratic development, we turn our attention to these issues within an international context, and what we are seeing is that rapid urbanization places tremendous pressure on local governments to deliver all sorts of different services. We find the capacity of local institutions to deliver services is critical to achieving a lot of the UN millennium development goals, and cities and towns are proving to be valuable assets and key drivers of national and international prosperity. Cities and towns, however, are aware that the greatest social challenges are situated. Effective local government is critical for the strong social and economic interdependence between rural and urban areas.

The environmental footprint of urban areas is expanding. In urban areas, which represent only 2% of the land mass, we're actually seeing that about 78% of the GHG emissions are coming from those small areas.

There are some key issues that characterize how the municipal government is responding to this context. I think it is important that the committee be aware of some trends that we've been noticing.

The first is in policy and program coordination. Local government networks are springing up to facilitate a lot of the global action. United Cities and Local Governments--or UCLG--Commonwealth Local Government Forum, and the Association of Francophone Mayors are just some examples of these organizations that are sprouting up to improve the networks amongst local governments.

We're seeing greater sub-national support for governance. Donors--the World Bank, InterAmerican Development Bank, UNDP, and DflD--are increasingly supporting sub-national levels of government, and I think we saw a pretty stark and graphic example of that in the tsunami-affected areas of the world, post that tragedy.

Municipal governments are proving to be international actors. Cities worldwide are acting by themselves and going global in terms of trade promotion, attracting investment, immigration, innovation, cultural and political exchanges as well as international cooperation. You've seen the examples of cities like London, and what they're doing in terms of becoming world leaders in transportation; and cities like New York, and some of the things they've done in terms of security without the assistance of state or federal governments. Even in our own country, Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver are becoming entities unto themselves.

The Canadian response to this international context has been to work with our municipal governments through FCM for the past 20 years. We currently manage 10 programs in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Our annual program budget is currently $12 million, employing 35 staff. In 20 years we've worked in 44 countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean, and we are currently working in 18 countries as we sit here now. We are involved with more than 2,500 municipal volunteers and, currently, 15 volunteer municipal practitioners for each calendar day.

I can tell you anecdotally right now that in addition to municipal volunteers, our projects also bring in community resources. One example I would leave you with is Drayton Valley, Alberta, where they're working with the country of Tanzania. In addition to building capacity for municipal government, the community groups from Drayton Valley are supporting an AIDS orphanage and are helping to establish a community foundation so that others can channel money to the community with the security that it will be managed in a transparent and accountable manner.

This, Mr. Chairperson, is the model that's been replicated in city after city, town after town, community after community right across Canada. The federal government is using municipal resources to leverage all of the capacity those municipalities have to offer, communities that are teaming up with local Rotary Clubs, Jaycees, and Knights of Columbus and providing all of those types of resources to developing regions in a concentrated, accountable, and very real fashion.

With that, I would ask Brock to say some words as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Steeves.

Mr. Carlton.

[Brock Carlton, Director, International Centre for Municipal Development, Federation of Canadian Municipalities]

Thank you. I'd just like to spend a few minutes talking a bit more about how we actually work, and offer a few comments about some lessons learned. Then, as requested, we have some recommendations that we think the committee should consider.

Gord was talking about some of the community-to-community relationships, but I'd like to stress that the work we do is more than just about communities and municipalities working together. We approach a country and we work with that country at a national level in terms of a strategy and then build the community-level and municipal-level initiatives within that strategy.

If I may, I will paint a bit of a picture of Ghana as an example of a country where we have a focus. FCM as a national association in Canada has worked with the national association in Ghana. Together we have developed a strategy for local development in Ghana. It's not our FCM strategy; it's the national association's strategy in Ghana. Then within that strategy we would work with our members, and the Ghanaians would work with their members, to identify specific municipalities that would work together in the kinds of municipal partnerships that Gord was just talking about a few minutes ago, where municipalities, within the context of the national strategy, would establish formal relationships on a two-year cycle. And they would work on very practical issues, such as financial management, solid waste management, any of the key issues that municipal governments do in their communities.

What's really important here is that we don't build stuff, we don't build roads, we don't build bridges or solid waste sites; we're really working on the governance elements. So we'd be working with the municipal government, with the council, on how to manage a municipal government more effectively, how to engage their community in more effective local democracy and local governance, so that what the municipality actually does is in concert with the objectives and interests of the society at large. It also is really an important element for creating some equity and engaging the impoverished and the marginalized groups in the discussions about how a municipal government works in those communities to serve their community interests.

All of this is done within the national framework, so if a country--for example, Ghana--has a poverty reduction strategy paper or a national development strategy, our work fits within that national context as well. As Gord said earlier, inevitably as municipal governments in Canada are engaged with partners overseas, the communities in Canada get involved and they work together with the communities in Ghana or in the other countries where we work.

We've done this for 20 years, as Gord said. We've learned a lot of lessons and there are some lessons we would like to point out to this group.

First of all, for effective democratic development, for effective governance, one has to work within the system that exists. So as I was describing a few minutes ago, we come in, we're working with national and local partners, we're working within the context of national government programs and strategies, so that it's inside the system. It's also working with the existing institutions, so that we as Canadians are not creating new institutions; we're supporting the strengthening of existing institutions and supporting their capacity to respond to the needs of their community.

We also believe this kind of work is not fast. It takes time. You have to build relationships, so there are long-term commitments required. When our municipalities get involved in their development work, as I mentioned earlier, it's a two-year cycle, but typically these cycles go several times over. So at the end of two years there's an evaluation process, there's a realigning of that partnership between the two partners, and then they continue. And some of them have continued for 10 or 15 years. It's very much a long-term approach to development.

What's really fundamental in this, however, is that we are talking about partnerships between practitioners, between sectors. So in some of the development language, one could call it communities of practice related to municipal government. We're bringing the sector of municipal government in Canada to work with the sector of municipal government in Ghana, or Guyana, or wherever it happens to be. It's not just about technical assistance of someone with a particular expertise coming like a consultant to do some work. It's about the municipal government and its community working with that municipal government in that community. These relationships are much more than technical exchanges. They're really about partnerships between Canadian practitioners and overseas practitioners to solve problems that are identified amongst themselves as priorities.

Another element of this is the peer-to-peer approach. When we are working overseas, we are not bringing development professionals who go to Uganda for two weeks, do a nice report, and then they're on an airplane to some other place for another report. We're bringing the folks who do the work here in Canada, and they're volunteering their time to go and sit down with the folks who do the work in Kampala, or in Nairobi, or anywhere else where we're working. They're the people who really do the work. They are bringing the real Canadian experience. They're not saying, we do it in Canada the way it should be done and you should follow what we do. What they're saying is, we have a certain experience and we in Canada have come to a certain place in our development because of that experience, and because it's so practical, we can work through and help solve your problems in your context in the way that makes sense in your community. It's very much a practitioner-based approach.

It also very much stimulates a collaborative learning experience. In the networks that Gord was referring to earlier, the United Cities and Local Governments and the Commonwealth Local Government Forum, etc., there are a lot of venues for this global sharing of learning and exchange that creates the mutual benefits that are so important in this kind of partnership.

In closing, Mr. Chair, we're suggesting four recommendations for this committee to consider.

One, there needs to be recognition that sub-national groups, municipal governments in our particular case, are really important in democratic development. Democratic development isn't just about parliaments and legal frameworks at a national level; it's about the system and local governance, and municipal governments that are an important part of that system.

The second recommendation is that we think it's important that the programming done through the Government of Canada via CIDA empowers Canadians to be involved in this work, so that Canadian municipal governments or Canadian practitioners in democracy can be working with their colleagues overseas in very practical ways. This is really important.

The third thing we think is important is that not only is it necessary to engage Canadian organizations in what happens overseas, but we think CIDA and other departments of the Government of Canada that work internationally need to be ready to engage Canadian organizations like FCM in some of their thinking and strategies and policy development about Canadian positions on these issues with respect to overseas development and other Canadian interests. FCM and other organizations have something to contribute to the Canadian debate about Canadian positions on these issues.

The last recommendation I would like to bring to your attention is a document that has been circulated to the committee. We call it the global program for local governance. We're suggesting that this is an approach that would enable FCM and the Government of Canada to work together in a much more coherent collaboration around sharing Canadian municipal experience, local governance, and local democracy internationally, as opposed to the current arrangement, where we're working with CIDA on a variety of projects, but there's no continuity over the long term. Projects come, projects go, but there's no long-term strategy or long-term perspective on how to engage the municipal sector in Canadian interests overseas. We're suggesting that supporting this global program would facilitate a coherent approach to engaging Canadian municipal government and Canadian international interests overseas.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Carlton and Mr. Steeves, for being here.

I find this quite fascinating, and you're to be commended for the work that FCM does. We knew there was something you were doing out there, but to hear how you're working with other global organizations and with municipal governments in some of the recipient countries--we applaud you for that.

It does say in your briefing that FCM and its partners, representing a global network of municipal governments and associations, are proposing the new unique program, the global program for local governance. Is the Canadian portion the $12 million that you received already? That's the Canadian portion? All right, thank you.

Madam Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much. My colleague and I are going to share the time since it's so limited this morning.

First, I want to say that I think your recommendations are great. Too often we're all in different government levels, all off on our own with very little coordination happening. I agree with all of your comments about how we're going to be more successful with the resources we have.

When we're talking about the challenges, and you outline them here, what do you see as the biggest obstacle for you to enter into a long-term arrangement with the government?

I think my colleague wants to ask another question, and then you can answer them both within our five minutes.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Judy.

Thank you for coming. I didn't realize that municipalities were playing such a big role in these countries, but it's great to hear.

I have a couple of quick questions. A figure of $12 million was mentioned. Perhaps you could give us a quick breakdown. Could you tell us where that comes from?

How do you pick your projects? That would be my second question.

Also, are there other countries that have municipalities engaged like you are?

I guess my final question would be about youth. Do you see enough Canadian youth involved in the projects?

[Gord Steeves]

Maybe I'll take a stab at a couple of those issues. I'll talk about the picking of the projects, and I'll ask Brock to talk about the money and the technical--where everything is coming from.

From a municipal perspective--and maybe as politicians we can all appreciate that there's some inherent difficulty with the idea of a municipality and a federal government working outside of their own country--obviously, as a municipal government, there's tremendous pressure on our resources, as there is tremendous pressure on your resources. And oftentimes, in terms of picking the projects, it's an expression of interest within the community and it comes from a grassroots development within the community.

For example, in the city of Winnipeg, our twinning and our partnership with the city of Kampala, Uganda, had a component of a specific Ugandan community, which maybe wasn't as connected to local governments as it ought to have been, and that helped force it. There was also the issue of the HIV laboratory in Winnipeg, with which I'm sure you're all familiar. Those two synergies, I guess, provided the base on which Winnipeg could rationalize working with the federal government, through FCM and CIDA, for the funding to go to Kampala. That's an example of how some of the projects are built.

I'll turn it over to Brock to talk about the funding points.

[Brock Carlton]

Okay.

Perhaps I can pick up on that question and say that if one steps back from the local level and looks at the projects we end up doing or the different countries we end up working with, a lot of those decisions are made around the analysis of the context within the local countries. What does the democratic set-up look like? Do municipal governments have a sufficient mandate to do things, so if we're going to work with them they are able to take that capacity and then deliver effective services? There is an analysis. It's not unlike the analysis CIDA would go through in identifying the countries it works in.

As for the question about the biggest obstacle to achieving the global program for local governance, in a nutshell the biggest obstacle is CIDA, but I have to caveat that, because I can't leave that unexplained. Part of it is that CIDA isn't organized in a way that easily accommodates this kind of idea. We're suggesting we take all the different work we're doing for different countries and bring it together under one coherent umbrella. This is very difficult for CIDA to do, because it's so divided up into its regional desks and its country programs. Even right now we're trying to work a deal with CIDA that brings some Africa work into a broader framework, and it's a very difficult conversation with CIDA.

The second part of the response is that CIDA doesn't have this kind of money within the partnership branch for local government. CIDA is still very much a rural-based organization, and they're trying to make this shift, but it's very slow.

On the comment related to the $12 million, this global program for local governance is an attempt to rationalize some of the work we're doing into this coherent program, as I mentioned. The $12 million is built on an understanding of the existing budgets, where we're assessing the amount of activity required through travel, etc., but not covering volunteer time. It's built on our experience of how to knit together a global network and work locally in the municipalities, work nationally with the national associations in selected countries on each continent, and then bring these players together to a global level to help that sharing.

We're going to Europe in a week and a half for a meeting with other organizations like FCM that do this work--typically the Dutch, the British, a little bit of the folks from Belgium, the Norwegians, the Scandinavians, and to some extent the French. But there are really only two countries in the world that do this significantly, and that is Canada, through FCM, and the Dutch, through FCM's equivalent organization called VNG. When we get together anywhere, it is understood and recognized by all our peers and the World Bank and others that Canada and the Dutch lead in this field of engaging municipal government in international cooperation.

The last question was about youth. There is some work done with youth, particularly through the HIV/AIDS programs in Africa. We're working with some local programs that engage youth in soccer leagues or other kinds of sports activities that then could be used as venues for education on HIV/AIDS, in one particular case, but there is also some work done on other ways of integrating into the communities. As much as possible, we run an internship program where, through CIDA funding, we can get people in their mid-twenties who are aiming toward careers related to our work--urban planning, architecture, that kind of stuff--and engage them overseas as interns on six-month placements in the places where we work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Carlton.

We will go to Madame Lalonde et Madame Deschamps.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Good morning and thank you for coming.

This is the first time I have heard an explanation of what it is you do. I would like to know how you distribute CIDA's money for this program amongst municipalities. I imagine that French-language municipalities are more involved in francophone countries and that other municipalities are more involved in English-language countries.

My second question is out of curiosity. One of your slides is called "Lessons Learned in Democratic Development". In it, you say:Focus on institutions and processes, not individuals, when developing capacity;

What exactly do you mean by that?

My third question is of another order. I notice that you focused more on the advantages that Canada would derive from your program rather than any possible disadvantages. Is it possible that you did so with a view to being able to better sell your involvement in under-developed countries?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame Lalonde.

Monsieur Steeves.

[Gord Steeves]

If you don't mind, I will answer in English. I apologize, but my French is not great.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

We're used to it. At least, you can understand.

[Gord Steeves]

I want to answer the first question.

How do we distribute the money?

I'll ask Brock to back me up on this, but primarily I think the program is made available and the information distributed by FCM, which looks for the initiative to come from the municipality itself for specific reasons or initiatives or synergies existing in that given community, like the Winnipeg example I just laid out. Having Winnipeg working in Kampala on an AIDS-related project made a lot of sense because of the blood laboratory that existed. That was our experience.

Brock would have broader experience on that.

In terms of the focus on process, not on individuals, what that means is—