Foreign Affairs Committee on May 4th, 2010

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I have one last quick question, Mr. Chair.

NGOs and civil society are on edge, and have been for the last year or so. There have been funding issues--NGOs, for example, that have not received any funding.

Planned Parenthood has had funding from CIDA since the early 1980s, I think. I was wondering, can we expect an announcement soon on Planned Parenthood and CIDA's support?

[Margaret Biggs]

I'm not really in a position to comment on proposals that are currently under review, and that's one that's under review.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Okay.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're now going to move to the second round. I think we're going to have time just for two additional questioners.

Mr. Lunney, five minutes, followed by Dr. Patry.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

At the recent G8 meeting just a few days ago in Halifax, which is preparation for the event coming up in June, I noticed that part of the communiqué that came out mentioned that the Minister of Health from Mali was with the ministers there. The ministers “commended those partner countries that are investing directly in building effective health systems in order to make integrated primary health services available at the community level”.

When I go back to the remarks in your opening statement, Ms. Biggs, you mentioned part of the data that came out: three million babies dying in the first week of life, nine million children in the developing world dying before their fifth birthday. The causes, largely preventable, include pneumonia, diarrhea, malaria, acute malnutrition, measles, HIV.

To the question from my colleague Mr. Abbott a few moments ago on micronutrients, there was the response about the impact of zinc in helping to mitigate diarrhea. You mention in your report some successes that Canada has already had. I picked up on Mali, because in western Mali we have a program training health care workers. That has had the kind of impact where now over half the births are attended by a trained health care worker. In Guatemala we are working with the faculty of obstetrics and gynecology. I believe we have trained 700 health care workers there to assist in births. Another success was working with UNICEF on vitamin A and iodized salt.

I wondered whether you might take a moment to expand on any or all of those types of initiatives that have proven very effective in helping reduce child mortality and improve maternal health.

[Margaret Biggs]

Thank you.

Maternal and child health are the focus of a number of our bilateral or geographic programs. You've drawn attention to one of them in Mali. The Mali health minister was with us in Halifax. We can't do the whole country necessarily or the western part, but we have supported the training in one region, the Kayes region, in terms of skilled birth attendants, which has made a significant difference in the number of assisted births and therefore the reduction in child mortality in Mali.

Another component we're working on with the Government of Mali as part of their overall health systems plan is on broader health care human resource planning and skills and training so they can extend this across their country.

We also have extensive maternal and child health programs in countries like Tanzania, where we work with the Government of Tanzania and their Marie Stopes International particularly around maternal and reproductive health. Again, we've had significant success there.

We also work in Mozambique to support the overall implementation of the Government of Mozambique's health system. One key component is around maternal health, again around the training and provision of skilled health workers, local health workers for both maternal health and attended births, and for child health.

We also work in Bangladesh, particularly focused around the rural poor and their health services. As you know, we've done a fair amount of work around maternal and child health in Afghanistan as well. That's partly been about the polio eradication initiative, but we have also helped to build the obstetrical facilities for the Mirwais Hospital in Kandahar, which provides gynecological and obstetrical assistance not just in the city but across the region. So it's very important.

It is an area where CIDA has a lot of strength to build on, a lot of expertise to build on, both in terms of what's happening on the ground in terms of maternal and child health and in terms of nutrition. I think the area of nutrition is going to have its day now that everyone recognizes that it's an underlying contributor to not just mortality but also diminished development and life chances for children.

As we would know in Canada, in terms of the development of children and their cognitive development, we can really make a difference in terms of the futures of these countries if we really focus on nutrition. Very simple nutrition packages for mothers and children on the ground, delivered in a timely way, can make a world of difference.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you.

You mentioned packaged interventions. For so many of these things, actually, you can do a little piece here and a little piece there, but if you roll them together, they can really have a much greater impact. One of the things the ministers picked up on was safe drinking water and sanitation as well as nutrition. I know that CIDA does a lot of good work making sure that clean drinking water is available. I am also aware of areas that are devastated by AIDS. A lot of children are growing up without parents for this reason. But I know that in some areas where they work with orphanages and they get these kids on good nutritional diets, fortified with a good mix of vitamins and minerals--these kids may test HIV-positive but they're not active-AIDS kids--they grow up very normally.

I wonder if you would care to comment on any of that work CIDA is doing in those areas.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Just give a quick response, and then we are going to move on.

That is all the time you have, Mr. Lunney.

Go ahead with your response.

[Margaret Biggs]

Okay.

On the packages issue, one of the outcomes of the meeting in Halifax, where WHO representatives were there with us, was that they will work with us to develop guidelines that everybody can use in terms of what needs to happen on the ground. WHO, the FAO, and UNICEF are also working on nutrition guidelines so that we actually know the five or six or seven key interventions that need to be bundled together to really save people's lives. Once we know what they are, let's package them up. Let's make sure that everybody has the same guidelines. Let's use the same scorecard, and let's measure success the same way. That's how we're going to make a significant difference around the world.

In terms of HIV/AIDS, a key issue in terms of maternal and child health will be to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS from mothers to children. We know that there is a 40% chance that children will have the virus transmitted and that we can reduce that to 5% with key interventions, both for the mothers and the children, using retroviral treatments. We are already doing that. One of the things we are doing in Tanzania with Mary Stopes International is on the prevention of maternal-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS. And we can do more of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

We are now going to move over to our last intervention.

We're going to start with Dr. Patry. I believe you are going to share your time with Mr. Pearson.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Biggs, for being here this morning.

Let us talk about the maternal and health initiative. Let us also talk about the child health initiative because both are very important. If you are looking at child health, it is dependent on maternal health because if the mother thrives, then she is in a better position to look after her children.

In the 2009 G8 summit, partners have committed to $20 billion over three years for sustainable agricultural development. In 2002, in Kananaskis, in the context of the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, Canada committed $1 billion out of $20 billion over a 10-year period.

I have two brief questions for you. Do you know how much is going to be committed at the next summit? Knowing that Canada has dissociated itself from a number of African countries, will that G8 initiative benefit to all developing countries or will it be to the benefit of a limited number of countries and to the detriment of others?

[Margaret Biggs]

The Prime Minister will outline the actual specifics of what Canada's contribution will be. He will do that in and around the G8 summit at the end of June. I don't have those details.

As I indicated, the ministers and the government have indicated that they will put new resources towards this initiative. It will be focused on the countries...as you can see in the G8's data, we need to focus on the countries, and the people, where the needs are greatest. Some of the needs are greatest in countries in Africa, so I would expect that there should be a specific focus around Africa. As I indicated earlier, the government has already met its commitment to double its assistance to Africa. That was done last year and again this year. I think that will continue with the maternal and child health initiative. Based on needs and evidence, there would have to be a significant component that would go to sub-Saharan African countries.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I just have a quick question.

Thank you for coming, the three of you. I appreciate it very much.

I have so many questions, but I will ask just the one. The Globe and Mail editorial this morning talked about the Woman Deliver conference in Washington, which is in June. There will be 3,500 experts on child and maternal health there. President Obama will probably be there. Ban Ki-moon will be there.

Canada has not yet signalled its intention to go to that. Obviously, we are leading the G8 shortly. CIDA has to be there. That commitment has to be there.

Do you know if there is any intention for us to go? Why would we not be there? What would be the reason?

[Margaret Biggs]

Thank you, Mr. Pearson.

To be honest, I don't have any details on that, so I would have to get back to you on that issue. Thank you.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I want to thank our guests for being here today. We appreciate you guys taking time to be here.

I'm going to suspend the meeting for now. We'll get our new witnesses up.

Thank you once again for being here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we will continue with our meeting.

We have today Dr. Francis Deng, United Nations Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, Department of Political Affairs.

Dr. Deng, it's an honour and a privilege to have you here today.

I would just encourage any members who haven't had a chance to look at Dr. Deng's biography to do so. He's been a distinguished diplomat here as the ambassador to Canada from Sudan and he has been involved in a number of different things, as well as being the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs for Sudan, amongst many other things.

Certainly, sir, we're glad to have you here. You have a short statement and then I believe we're going to go around the room to ask some questions. Because of other commitments, you will be leaving us at twenty to one, so if we could go with the statement, then we'll try to get as many questions in as we can.

Dr. Deng, welcome, sir. The floor is yours.

[Dr. Francis Deng, Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, Department of Political Affairs, United Nations]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's always a great pleasure to be back in Canada.

Someone asked me the other day--having been a special representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons, and now on the prevention of genocide--why they always give me such difficult mandates. This mandate is obviously recognized as being very difficult, some would even say impossible. I say it is a mandate that is impossible but must be made possible.

I think we can all say that humanity must be united to prevent and punish genocide, but in reality we know that genocide is generally recognized only after the fact. While it is occurring or unfolding, there is a tendency to deny it, not only by the perpetrators, but by those who would be called upon to step in and do something about it. Because it is such a sensitive issue and difficult to manage once it has blown up, I believe prevention is absolutely critical early on, before positions harden into denial.

For me, prevention also means defining the problem in a manner that we can easily understand and manage. That's why I have focused on seeing genocide as an extreme form of identity-related conflicts, whether these identities are defined, according to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, as national, ethnic, racial, or religious groups, and perhaps even other factors of identification.

It is not just that we are different that causes conflicts; it's the implications of those differences in terms of access to sharing power, wealth, resources, services, employment, and the enjoyment of rights of citizenship. As a special representative to the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons, I went to many parts of the world. I was always struck by how acutely divided these societies were, with some, considered in-groups, enjoying the rights and dignity of citizenship, and others, marginalized, discriminated, excluded, and denied the rights. Sooner or later there is bound to be a conflict in that kind of a situation. When it occurs, you have the disadvantaged being the victims of the more powerful.

If this is our understanding, then I think the challenge is really how to manage diversities constructively, with means to promote a sense of equality, a sense of belonging to the nation, a sense of enjoyment, a sense of dignity as a citizen, as a human being. I believe that no country worth self-respect, respect by others, and legitimacy can say that we want to deny citizens their rights.

I must say, having served in this wonderful country for years, I was always very struck by your system of managing differences and diversities--your multiculturalism philosophy. I travelled around the country in many places and saw how this was playing out.

I see this as a challenge for government. It also means that the first layer of protecting--or, as you say, prevention--is a responsibility of the state. I believe very strongly that unless we work with governments, unless we challenge the governments to constructively manage their differences, we cannot succeed. We cannot come from outside and dictate solutions that people from within do not see as the national vision.

That's why, when I was at Brookings developing the Africa project, the post-Cold War assessment of conflicts in Africa, I emphasized the shift from seeing these conflicts as proxy wars of the superpowers during the Cold War period, to reassigning responsibility by seeing problems in their proper context, as regional or national, and reassigning responsibility to that of the state in the first place, supported by the international community if it lacks the capacity. And only in extreme cases, where the governments fail and people are suffering and dying in large numbers, will the international community be called upon.

But that is a tough one, because if there is any capacity at all to resist, however limited, intervention can be very costly. Therefore, as Boutros-Ghali used to tell me, the problem that the Third World fears intervention, that is a misplaced concern, because in most cases, when the going goes rough and there are threats associated with intervention, the opposite is often the case, rather than the threat of intervention.

The most constructive way is to work with governments on the three pillars of their responsibility for their people, supporting them to build the capacity to be able to protect their own people, and various ways, short of military intervention, of actually getting the international community to be more involved to fill the vacuum of responsibility where that exists. I think it is a challenge for countries that have the capacity to be supportive of countries that are lacking, whether it is projecting the kinds of strategies and models that we can take as models to emulate, or whether it is projecting practices that can divide and lead to genocidal conflicts of identities that we should avoid.

That is the way I'm approaching this mandate. I see my role as that of a catalyst for others with the capacity to do what needs to be done.

I should say that I have a very small staff. I'm glad to say that one of those very dedicated staff members is a Canadian citizen, sitting next to me, Kelly Whitty.

I'm looking forward to our exchange of views on this. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Dr. Deng.

We're going to try to get one round in. We have about 20 or 25 minutes, so we're going to try to keep it to around seven minutes each. That will give you about half an hour. I'm going to keep you to that.

I'm going to start with Dr. Patry.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Merci beaucoup.

Thank you very much, Mr. Deng, for appearing this morning.

Last week the committee met with Mr. Gareth Evans, the former foreign minister in Australia. He came for some other issue, but he is a co-chair at the United Nations, and a co-author of The Responsibility to Protect. What is your understanding of the current implementation at the UN level of this “responsibility to protect” doctrine? That's my first question.

Here's the second one. In 2009, Senator Roméo Dallaire and the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies cooperated to produce a report entitled Mobilizing the Will to Intervene. It included recommendations to the governments of Canada and United States. What is your opinion about it?

Thank you.

[Dr. Francis Deng]

Thank you.

In a sense you could say that the responsibility to protect is the result of the evolution of the notion of sovereignty as responsibility. Some studies have documented the link between what we try to do at Brookings and the responsibility to protect.

Close to three years ago, when I first came to New York, my colleague, the adviser on issues related to the responsibility to protect, Edward Luck, and I were talking to permanent representatives and mission members in New York. The overwhelming response from these particularly third world country representatives was almost a denial of the fact that the responsibility to protect had been accepted as a concept. People would say that what we had agreed upon was a framework for further discussions and that it had not been accepted.

The reason was that when we speak of these three pillars, the last pillar, which calls for military involvement--and even then, after other measures have been attempted--was taken to be the essence of the responsibility to protect. So our task was to really disabuse people of that kind of misinterpretation of the concept by emphasizing the responsibility of the state, support for the state to build its capacity, and only when the state is manifestly failing, with disastrous consequences for the civilian population, would the international community consider several phases of getting involved, including, as a last resort, the military response.

The Secretary-General had a report this year, which was debated by the General Assembly. I think we have seen a tremendous shift from this initial reluctance to go ahead with R2P--the responsibility to protect--to accepting it with concerns. The question is how to address the concerns of countries that feel this could be abused as a tool by more powerful states of the global north to intervene in the global south. Those kinds of concerns have been significantly ameliorated by our emphasizing the first two pillars. But they still need to be addressed.

I think this is connected with your second question, the will to intervene. It is true that if you have a Rwanda or you have genocidal situations that history tells us all after the fact, if we relive those situations, I doubt that there will be many who would say we should not develop the will to intervene. That last resort, when all fails, I think is to be borne in mind. But my emphasis is on early prevention and on cooperating with the governments concerned as a national responsibility in the first place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Pearson, you have less than three minutes.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chair.

It's wonderful to have you both. It's an honour to have a Canadian at the table as well. Thank you for coming.

Mr. Deng, I appreciate that you're from Sudan. You understand about the north-south peace talks that took place, which culminated in peace in Sudan in 2005. I'm very interested in this; when we have a region that is in this kind of situation, it seems to me that we often target so that it's the west intervening in that one country. It might be a United Nations mission or something else. To me, though, what I've always seen in my time in Africa is that the region should be a very important player.

In the south, with the comprehensive peace agreement, for instance, IGAD played a huge role in that--in getting Mr. Bashir to back off and other things. It seems to me that if we look at something like the Congo, is there a place in your thinking for, if we do practice the will to intervene, or W2I, and move in...? Because there's increasing suspicion in many ways.The south wants to work with the south and is afraid to have the north intervene.

Are there ways in which, let's say in the Congo, there are opportunities to work with the regional base that's there, that could apply pressure on the combatants or the diverse groups there to bring it to pass?

Do you see this as something that should be part of W2I?

[Dr. Francis Deng]

Absolutely, and I'm glad you raised that question. In my own work, I have emphasized the role of subregional organizations and regional organizations, and I'm glad to say that the approach I have adopted for my mandate is being well received in Africa.

I have addressed the Peace and Security Council of the AU. I have addressed the Panel of the Wise of the AU. We have developed a framework of analysis that gives us some lenses or tools for assessing the risks of genocidal conflicts in a situation. The AU is adopting them to be integrated into their early warning system.

But specifically on the Congo, when I went there, first I was warned not to talk ethnicity and not to talk genocide. When I went there, everybody was talking ethnicity. Everybody was alleging that genocide was being committed against them.

The UN forces there, no matter how reinforced they might be, have a tough job--to not only support the government and protect the civilians--with proliferating armed groups that, to be disarmed, would require, as one commander told me, expeditionary force.

But I saw that if we addressed some of the underlying causes that generate these sorts of problems, and in a regional framework, where all the interests of the countries involved, not just Rwanda and Uganda but all the regions of the country... Nyerere used to say that the problem with Rwanda and Burundi is that they're tiny, overpopulated countries surrounded by large countries with a lot of land.

So in my report from DRC, I emphasized working with the regional actors to address those underlying causes. I would say that if we range from early prevention to certain involvement that is short of military action, there's a lot that the world can do.

Some of the more powerful countries... I've just been to Washington and had very good meetings in the State Department, in the White House, and the think tanks, and all that. There's so much that can be done by the more powerful states.

For me, I think the question related to the earlier question, too, is that I cannot see the powerful countries of the world--by “powerful” I mean both economically and militarily--see certain regions of the world go into chaos and destruction and massive killing and just sit. I think there is national interest in global security, particularly in those countries that have a much deeper reach and whose interests are tied to global peace and security.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're now going to move to Madame Lalonde.