Foreign Affairs Committee on May 31st, 2006

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Spinoffs.

[Dr. Yasmine Shamsie]

We found it doesn't seem to happen that way. In other words, the detrimental effects of this strategy and the fact that food prices more than doubled have actually hurt more people than the small number who are making that wage. In other words, the effects of the strategy at that time, in the 1970s and 1980s, had many more detrimental effects. There just wasn't any evidence....

It's the same thing with housing prices that went up. All of a sudden, people quickly moved to Port-au-Prince to take advantage of possible employment, which increased the cost of housing there.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Isn't that a normal progression of society?

Look at what has happened in China, where it was mentioned in a periodical that the average wage for a factory worker there is now $120 per month. But relatively speaking, there's no hunger in China, people have housing, and they have all of the necessities of life on that $120. I would think it would be a very worthwhile goal to achieve.

Maybe $2 a day sounds ridiculous to us here, but $2 a day that leads to $4 a day for trained workers is apparently a sustainable living. I would think it would be an immediate goal. You're already talking about an average wage of less than $1 a day.

It would seem to me that $4 a day would be a 400% increase in a sector that seems to be willing. Gildan has opened up two new manufacturing plants there for up to 5,000 people. I would think it would be very beneficial to encourage that sector throughout.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We're pretty well right out of time. I'm going to be fair to all, so we're going to go to Ms. McDonough.

If you can incorporate that answer into another question, go ahead, Ms. McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Actually, I'm interested in pursuing more or less the same issue. I see the direct link between what you're both talking about as well.

I want to ask two very specific questions. I've just come back from the parliamentary group that went to Haiti. Again and again it was explained to us that one of the reasons for the massive police corruption, quite apart from the past history, is that it's not uncommon at all for police to be working for months and months with no pay, and that given the choice of not feeding your family and receiving bribes to feed your family, it's fairly understandable why people take bribes and engage in corruption. I see it as completely linked to the issue of economic development.

The second thing is that although I think most of us would agree that the participation of civil society is actually quite important both in terms of genuine economic development and in terms of human rights protections, I was actually quite alarmed by what looked to me as a fairly deliberate kind of strategy to generate civil society organizations--and I say that in brackets--that were actually both business-driven and driven by U.S. interests, to have actually a fairly exogenous kind of force that was speaking on behalf of Haitians.

I asked, where is any indication of a trade union movement, which often is quite important in standing up for human rights? Absent. Where is any indication of primary producers, of peasants who are organized as small producers? Absent.

I'm wondering if you could comment on that, because it seems to me that both of those need to come into play if the two major concerns you've brought to our attention are in fact to be addressed.

[Dr. Andrew Thompson]

I think you're quite right on a number of fronts.

In order for Haiti to shed the label of being a fragile state, state institutions need to be strengthened. This includes the police force, and it means making sure there are funds available so that wages can be paid on time.

A second component of a vibrant society--no question--is a vibrant civil society. There are quite a number of NGOs and civil society groups working in Haiti right now. Many of them are faith-based groups and are doing some very important work in Haiti. These groups should be encouraged to continue what they're doing and their efforts should be supported. They are definitely a part of the solution.

[Dr. Yasmine Shamsie]

I think you bring up an interesting point, which is what I call “the building civil society agenda”, which I'm very nervous about, because when we're building civil society, what we're actually doing is propping up certain social forces in countries, which then affects the political balance of power. Who we build up has a political consequence. I think that's really important.

One of the things I would say is that Canada, when it supports civil society groups, needs to know and understand who they represent--do they have a popular base?--and really research this. I think the NGOs that work in Haiti, which are mostly Québécois--Inter Pares, Development and Peace, Oxfam-Québec, and so on and forth--are very connected and have been there for a long time, and I trust who they fund.

But I have to say it is difficult, because it has become an industry, a way that people make a living now, to become an NGO. It's really absolutely essential that we know who we are funding and that we, I have to say, fund the right groups. We know we're going to be altering the balance of social forces on the ground. We need to alter them in the right direction--groups that support human rights, women's rights, labour rights, and so on and so forth.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I'm sure you didn't mean it in this sense, but what I saw was a lot of funding of the right groups, not so much of the left groups, or the progressive groups.

[Dr. Yasmine Shamsie]

Yes, well--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You just had to correct that, Ms. McDonough.

[Dr. Yasmine Shamsie]

There was a study done in 1991 by Bob Maguire at Trinity College that showed that international donors--including Canada, the IDB, all the big donors--proportionately selected elite-driven NGOs for support over popular-based NGOs. This was a strategy after Aristide was first elected; he showed it through the different groups. So we need to be aware of that, who we are funding.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Van Loan, for five minutes.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

The point of our study is to try, through the lens of Haiti, in particular, to look at Canada's interventions, because we had a whole lot of them in a whole lot of different ways over time, and determine what works and what doesn't work.

My question for both of you is this. Can you point to what Canada, in its interventions, has done wrong or has done poorly, either in the recent past or in previous interventions before that? Obviously in previous interventions we must have been doing something wrong, because we keep coming back, and the record keeps replaying.

[Dr. Andrew Thompson]

My comment isn't directed solely at Canada, but rather at the entire international effort.

One of the problems with the 1990s and the intervention that took place there—Secretary General Kofi Annan has made this point on several occasions—is that the constant scaling back of the international presence throughout the mid- to late 1990s really meant that any reform efforts, be they police reform or judicial reform or penal reform, really were never given a chance to take hold. In my presentation I said there really can't be any quick fixes with Haiti. So my criticism of past efforts would be that perhaps we ended our involvement prematurely. Again, Secretary General Kofi Annan has made this point to the generals.

[Dr. Yasmine Shamsie]

I would agree with that. I just want to reiterate what Francine Lalonde has said. In terms of what we've done, we did poorly in the past. CIDA applied what I would call strict conditionality to Haiti in 2000, trying to alter its good governance policies and so on, and its macroeconomic policies. What CIDA found in the 2004 studies is that this strict conditionality, i.e., pulling aid away in order to change Haiti's behaviour, actually contributed to the intense political instability we saw in 2004. As Andrew pointed out, it didn't produce the desired reforms that we were trying to advance--police reform, judicial reform, and so on. Money dried up. So I think pulling out and using that kind of conditionality was not effective.

I think CIDA has learned from that. Its most recent strategy paper also outlines that it plans to be much more patient in terms of the way it looks at its work in Haiti, in expecting a little less and so on in terms of how things are going to shape up.

Once again, I would like to be able to respond to Mr. Goldring. I think we don't spend enough on the rural sector. My contention is not that we should abandon export processing zones, but I think to focus on that as the engine of development for Haiti is as erroneous as focusing on the agricultural sector as the engine of growth. What we have done as donors is completely abandon the agricultural sector. We're hoping that this export sector is going to be enough to take in the other eight million people who are left and that they will somehow jump on board with this plan.

I certainly want to say that I'm not advocating abandoning it. I'm saying it will not be successful as a development strategy for an island where most of the people are still in agriculture and where food security is the problem and so on.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I was going to say I keep asking the same questions. If the answer from both of you is to stay longer and that the international communities shouldn't pull out, and it's not just directed at Canada, how do we get others to stay engaged? Canada carries a huge share of the freight. As I pointed out yesterday, the Spanish have already pulled out their military commitment to keep the peace there. So how do we keep others engaged?

[Dr. Andrew Thompson]

Perhaps I could just go back to one point from the last question. One of the things that weren't done in the 1990s was a sustained disarmament program, and that is something that could be done. In terms of keeping Haiti on the international agenda and making sure that many stakeholders contribute to Haiti's growth and that Canada continues to raise the case of Haiti in international forums, that's where I think diplomacy comes in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Wilfert.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Shamsie, you mentioned that ending poverty will not occur without a strong and sustained plan that targets the rural areas. One thing we seem to have not talked about today is the issue of political culture, development culture in Haiti, and obviously a reliable partner. It has to be the government. You cannot impose a non-Haitian solution on Haiti. First of all, do you see a partner in Haiti? Do you see the beginnings of any kind of plan that could be coordinated with donor states such as Canada?

The theme I always like to talk about is empowerment at the village level. Clearly, in Haiti the fact is that you may have a national election, as you did in Afghanistan and some other places, but we learned a lot in Cambodia about commune elections and doing it right at the local level.

From my perspective, I would like to know how you see that type of engagement building from the ground up, which will then lead, in my view, to some of the other areas you talked about in terms of good governance, environment, education, etc.

Through you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Thompson, Ms. Shamsie.

[Dr. Yasmine Shamsie]

I completely agree with a bottom-up approach, and I think it's interesting---and you might be aware of this fact--that in Haiti there are local elections for CASEC, and even though Canada promotes democracy and we are $30 million in there on federal elections, we are not really in there when it comes to local elections. The local elections have drawn about 10% of Haitian voters.

I agree with you, this is absolutely essential for community development and so on. We should also be supporting those electoral processes, helping Haitians get those off the ground as well, which we haven't done in the past since the new constitution of 1987.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Wilfert.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Following that theme, I think the question is, why aren't we doing it? The fact is that you're not going to be able to empower people unless they have economic opportunity. At this stage, what do you suggest are appropriate vehicles to do that? We know the state of agriculture. We know that people have migrated to cities and have found no jobs and have turned to crime and other activities. Obviously there is no fix.

Dr. Thompson talks about how you have to be in it for the long haul and how patience is a virtue, but the question is that often in donor countries people don't have a lot of patience. How do you measure this to be able to at least get some markers on the table in a way that will continue to say here are some minor successes that we can build on and therefore continue the flow and maybe get the Spains and others back into the equation?

[Dr. Yasmine Shamsie]

I think there have been success stories in Haiti that have then not been supported--for example, the work of CECI in Quebec. They've done excellent work in the agricultural sector. In fact, they were awarded from the World Food Programme an award in the mid-1990s for their work on food security and so on. CIDA dropped that project later. There have been success stories, and we just need to support those and encourage more of them. That's one point.

I want to very quickly say something about diplomacy and how to keep others engaged. Canada doesn't have the biggest voice internationally, but on Haiti we have a voice. People listen to what we say because we have had a long-term engagement in that country, because of the francophone nature of Canada, and because we've put our money where our mouth is, and so on. I think we can build that kind of coalition to keep other players there, but I also think Canada needs to put Haiti higher on the docket.

We've given $2 billion to Afghanistan. I could list five reasons why we should be in Haiti, but I can't list that many for why we should be in Afghanistan. I'm not saying get out of that, but I'm saying it makes sense for us to be there. We have a strong voice there, people listen to us there, we can be a leader when it comes to development in that country, and we should be there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

A very quick one to Mr. Van Loan, and then we go back to Madame Bourgeois.