Foreign Affairs Committee on May 21st, 2013

[Nadir Patel]

I think it is in fact a very accurate reflection of how this could work in relation to international development as well. In day-to-day terms, under the current DFAIT act—the legislation for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade—the Minister of Foreign Affairs is still the “senior” minister, if you will. Yet, it works in a very pragmatic fashion. The Minister of International Trade is a full cabinet minister, responsible for all international trade-related programs and initiatives within the department. It works quite well.

Then you have the deputy minister of International Trade working very collaboratively with the deputy minister of Foreign Affairs, even though the deputy minister of Foreign Affairs is the chief accounting officer and has overall responsibility in the day-to-day management of the entire organization. You don't see this in the context of any issues; you see a very strong complementarity.

That model, which has worked well for many years both at headquarters and abroad, can certainly be applied as an example for the international development function as well. You see a lot of coherence and coordination as it relates to foreign policy and international trade-related initiatives. I think this can extend, based on some of the examples we were talking about earlier.

You certainly see, from a Foreign Affairs and International Trade perspective—to build on what my colleague was just saying—accountability for the overall Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade objectives, goals, and priorities. By bringing all of this together, that accountability element, the “single oar in the water” type of analogy, extends to the full suite of the various initiatives as well, with international development included.

Of course, there is an optimizing of performance and resources in that context as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

Madame Laverdière—

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I want to clarify something. I wanted to ensure we understood the point that we have on this side. The consultation we're speaking of—the lack of consultation—is not due to the people who are at the table right now. It is the fact that....

I challenge this premise that somehow when we were consulting on the budget, this was people coming out to talk about the changes in how DFAIT was going to be put together. I'm sorry, that doesn't wash. Further to that point is that this is exactly why we're critiquing this process.

Mr. Patel is doing a good job of being a good public servant in saying that we will be able to consult after. The fact of the matter is that this committee can't deal with that bill. It's over in finance.

So I underline this point to our friends on the government side. If you're going to do this seriously and look at other jurisdictions, do it seriously. But throwing it into a budget bill, the very point that was made by our witnesses.... We can't deal with it here. Even when our friend, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, said they'd love to cooperate.... The fact is that our hands are tied. It's over there with finance. So I really underline the point that consultation was not done appropriately—nothing to do with the people at this table.

Finally, the fact that it was put into this omnibus bill undermines the credibility of a good idea because you have not consulted. You failed to consult. You're not doing it in the right sequence. I say that with respect to the government.

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

Thank you very much.

In this respect I was pleased to see that the honourable parliamentary secretary had read my op-ed, but I hope he read the next paragraphs after the one he quoted, which lay out some of the problems we see with the current process.

Just as a note on the public consultation, indeed it's very good to consult stakeholders. If I'm not mistaken, the stakeholders said to please reverse the cuts to CIDA's budget, so hopefully we'll see that in the next budget.

Sorry, we just have this dialogue once in a while.

I have a question about the timeline.

What will be happening going forward? When will certain administrative functions be implemented? What are the next steps in the administration management of the process?

Thank you.

[Nadir Patel]

If this legislation passes as expected, then we would have the new department created as of the date of royal assent. Essentially that means there would be a number of issues for day one that need to be addressed, whether they relate to the expenditure management process, for example, or if you would have one chief accounting officer for the department, what the attestation process would be as it relates to financial management, authorities around finance, authorities around human resources, so these types of things. What is it that you need to have in place for day one? That would be the immediate focus.

In addition to that, as I indicated earlier, we are in the planning stages. That would eventually move into an implementation stage as well. During the planning stage there is an opportunity to be as informed as possible, to seek as many views as possible, whether from like-minded...or other country examples, or from our bargaining agents, or however we want to—whether we call it consultations or whatever, it doesn't matter. But there's an opportunity for us to be as informed as possible as we move towards day one.

Part of that, as it relates to day one, is whether there are any organizational structural changes you absolutely need to make, or to what extent you have some flexibility going forward. If you have some flexibility going forward, you'd want to ensure that you're as informed as you can be, as it relates to implementation down the road as well.

So our first deadline, if you will, if I can use that term, would really be around what absolutely must happen for day one, just to ensure continuity of operations. That's our immediate focus from a corporate administrative perspective. Beyond day one would be a series of other timelines, which my colleague Michael can speak to.

[Michael Small]

Briefly, we're trying to work those out.

One document we've looked at in terms of consultation advice was actually a very effective guide produced by, of all things, the state government of New South Wales. It's a guide to effective amalgamations of public sector institutions. They say large-scale amalgamations take at least a year to effect. The Canadian experience would indicate that as well. When Foreign Affairs and International Trade was united, it was about 18 months before the new structure fully came into place. If you look at other examples in the Canadian government more recently, that's a realistic timeframe.

Some things will take longer. On the human resources side it will take a longer period of time to create one culture. That's something that all of the other countries we talk to.... You can send out some early signals and incentives on how you're going to create opportunities for people with development experience to do other kinds of work and encourage people who have political and trade experience to do development work. That's something that can take a while to create, but you can send the signals out right at the start. That's some of the analyses we're doing presently.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Small, Mr. Patel, and Mr. Rigby, thank you very much for your time here today.

I will suspend the meeting for a couple of minutes so we can get our next group of witnesses set up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I want to welcome our two guests for our second hour.

We have Lauchlan Munro, director of the School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa. Welcome, sir. We're glad to have you here.

We also have Jim Cornelius, the executive director of the Canadian Foodgrains Bank. Welcome, sir, to you as well.

Professor Munro, why don't we get started with your testimony, and then we'll go to Mr. Cornelius. Then we'll go around the room, back and forth, for questions.

You have 10 minutes, sir. I'll turn the floor over to you.

[Prof. Lauchlan Munro, Director, School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you.

I will make my presentation in English, but if you have any questions, it will be a pleasure for me to answer in the official language of your choice.

First of all, like many others I welcome the legislation's clear commitment to a Canadian aid program whose objectives focus on sustainable international development, poverty reduction, and humanitarian assistance. Such clarity of mandate is a good thing, and I support it. Sustainable international development, poverty reduction, and humanitarian assistance are objectives around which all Canadians can and should rally. I hope that all political parties in Parliament support these objectives as the cornerstone of Canada's aid program.

I do, however, have a few concerns about a couple of issues, and I'll bring these to the committee's attention.

I have a few concerns about proposed paragraph 14(d) in clause 74, which says that humanitarian assistance should be delivered “in line with Canadian values and priorities”. The phrase “Canadian values” is presumably an allusion to section 3 of the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act. “[G]lobal citizenship, equity and environmental sustainability” are the defined Canadian values in that act. But the statement is vague, and it misses the essential point, namely that humanitarian assistance must be allocated impartially on the basis of objective need.

I believe the legislation should rather require that Canadian humanitarian assistance be delivered in line with internationally accepted humanitarian principles and humanitarian law.

I am a little dismayed that this important piece of legislation is part of a larger budget implementation bill. I believe that clauses 174 through 199 of the budget implementation bill are important enough that they merit consideration by Parliament as part of a stand-alone piece of legislation. As I said recently in an article in the Ottawa Citizen, we now have the opportunity to refound Canada's aid program for a generation or more. I think that all-party consensus on the refounding of Canada's aid program is possible. It is certainly highly desirable, in my view. It would be a pity, if the refounding of Canada's aid program did not receive all-party support simply because the law refounding it is encased in a larger budget bill that has provisions that prove unacceptable to one or more of the opposition parties.

While the bill's emphasis on poverty reduction and humanitarian assistance are welcome and appropriate, they come with certain risks, which need to be acknowledged.

The objective of poverty reduction lends itself to an interpretation as short-term interventions, such as building schools, digging wells, and providing emergency relief supplies. These have been part of my career. They are certainly part of Canada's current aid portfolio and should continue to be so. But if we are to take seriously Canada's commitment to pursue sustainable international development, our aid program must pursue its objectives over the short, medium, and long run. Our aid program must help build capacities and systems so that developing countries can increasingly help themselves. The success of such efforts cannot be judged by the usual short-term management metrics. We are fighting 20-year problems with five-year projects and annual budget cycles.

Furthermore, in order to work well in the long run, Canada's aid program must include strong research, policy analysis, and evaluation components, so that it is always learning and improving. Our aid program must build the capacities of our partners in the developing world to do such research, policy analysis, and evaluation, so that they too can constantly learn, improve, and develop their own skills, capacities, and systems. This is the key to truly sustainable poverty reduction over the long run.

Let me add a word about the private sector and our aid program. The private sector is a big part of what has made Canada the rich and pluralistic country it is today. Canada's aid program can and should include the private sector when it promotes the objectives of poverty reduction, sustainable development, and the promotion of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. We can find win-win-win solutions whereby Canada's image abroad is burnished, Canadian companies make a decent profit, and private investment reduces poverty, protects the environment, and respects human rights.

It is not in our national interest to have Canadian companies engage in corrupt and illegal practices abroad, nor is such misbehaviour consistent with Canadian values. Canadian policy, whether through trade promotion or aid, should never encourage such misbehaviour.

I have a word on aid effectiveness.

Legislation is important for setting objectives and principles to be followed, but legislation cannot and should not try to cover everything. Some things are very important for the effectiveness of Canada's aid program but do not appear in this legislation. To name two pressing issues that are hurting the effectiveness of our aid program one can cite the excessive centralization of control in the minister's office and the related apparently ever-reducing speed of decision-making at CIDA. I hasten to add this is not the fault of our good public servants.

The result has been that large amounts of the aid budget are unspent at the end of the fiscal year, large needs are unmet among our aid recipients, and many very good small Canadian charitable organizations are experiencing cashflow difficulties since they depend on speed and clarity of decision-making when they choose to compete for government funds in competitive calls for proposals. This slowness due to increasing centralization in recent years comes on top of already existing administrative and financial processes that can only be described as cumbersome to begin with. If we are truly interested in aid effectiveness this is the first frontier.

Finally, donor countries have been merging and demerging their aid and foreign affairs ministries off and on for decades now. The evidence from several studies suggests that neither the merger of the aid and foreign ministries nor their demerger is inherently a superior model. What matters for the quality of the aid program is the clarity of the mandate, the political will to make the aid program work—and that often means letting the managers manage—and pressure from civil society, the media, and parliamentarians to make it work and to keep it working.

With this legislation we will have gone a long way forward in getting clarity of mandate. The task ahead is to ensure that the other two elements, political will and political pressure, are present as well.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Professor Munro.

We're now going to turn it over to Mr. Cornelius.

You have 10 minutes, sir.

[Jim Cornelius, Executive Director, Canadian Foodgrains Bank]

Thank you for inviting me to testify before this committee. I might struggle a little bit because I've just had some eye operations and don't have new glasses to make it all work, so I hope my print is large enough here to follow my own text. Otherwise, I may be less coherent.

I'll give you just a quick introduction. I'm the executive director of the Canadian Foodgrains Bank, which is a partnership of 15 Canadian churches and church-based agencies working to end global hunger. We're celebrating our 30th anniversary this year and have worked closely with CIDA over those 30 years.

Prior to becoming the executive director at the Foodgrains Bank, I spent 15 years working in the field of international development and humanitarian assistance. During this time I had considerable engagement with Canada's international aid program, including managing a CIDA bilateral program in the Horn of Africa.

I'm also presently serving as the chair of the board of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, which is the national association of Canadian organizations involved with international development and humanitarian assistance.

Let me begin by saying that I'm agnostic on whether the amalgamation of CIDA and DFAIT is a good thing or a bad thing. I must admit that I'm saddened by the thought of the CIDA name and brand disappearing after 45 years. While CIDA's reputation in Ottawa has not always been high, it has generally been well perceived among the Canadian public and internationally, and has been part of Canada's positive brand in the world. This is something of value that will be lost in this amalgamation process, and I think we need to name that.

Nevertheless, in my view an effective international aid program can be delivered through a separate international agency such as CIDA or as part of a Foreign Affairs department. Both models are viable. There are potential benefits and real risks related to each approach.

Given that the decision has been taken to amalgamate CIDA with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, I will focus my testimony on steps that are necessary to protect and enhance the integrity of the aid program and on how this legislation can contribute to the delivery of an effective aid program.

There is always a risk that the development objective of reducing poverty in developing countries gets subordinated to Canada's trade and diplomacy objectives, compromising the effectiveness of the aid program in reducing poverty. The amalgamation of Canada's aid program into the department that is also responsible for trade and diplomacy heightens this risk.

Canada's international aid program started in the 1950s, long before CIDA existed, with the provision of surplus Canadian grain to countries facing high levels of hunger and poverty. Those were the first aid programs. It was an effort to combine helping people facing hunger and poverty while also supporting the fortunes of Canadian farmers. We have learned over the years that while this dual purpose type of aid can make a difference, it is often much less efficient and effective. That is why aid donors are increasingly untying their aid and why Canada recently completely untied its food aid. It's also why there is greater emphasis on being clear about the purpose of the aid program and not trying to accomplish too many potentially competing and sometimes inherently incompatible objectives.

As I travel across this country speaking with thousands of Canadians, a consistent message I hear is that many Canadians care about those living in poverty in developing countries. They take personal actions to do something about it and they expect Canada as a country to respond to the needs of the world's most vulnerable people—those facing crisis, trapped in poverty, oppressed, neglected, and forgotten.

This concern transcends political ideologies. I remember a few years ago meeting with a group of farmers in a church basement in Saskatchewan. Sitting on my left was a farmer active with the Reform Party at the time, and on my right another farmer active with the NDP. I began exploring with them what was bringing them together to work on the issues of global hunger. They both shared the view that each person is of value, and that hunger and poverty robs people of their humanity, and that we have a responsibility to do something about it. Now, they disagreed on the best strategies—a legitimate debate—but they agreed that our aid efforts should be about making a difference for the poor, and that it is not about what's in it for us.

When we were meeting with farmers about the untying of food aid and explaining how this would make it more efficient and effective, most were supportive. They saw the primary purpose of food aid as being to reduce hunger and poverty, and if requiring it to be sourced in Canada was reducing its effectiveness, then they were prepared to support the change.

In our view, it is vital that Canada's aid program makes the needs of the poor and suffering central to its mandate and activities. The degree to which suffering is alleviated, that poverty is reduced, and that families and communities have access to the health and education services they require, should be the primary measure of success. I also think this is a view that is broadly shared by most Canadians, irrespective of their political ideologies.

While there is certainly opportunity to better coordinate Canada's relationship with developing countries in ways that contribute to poverty reduction, global peace and security, and Canada's prosperity, in our view it is essential that poverty reduction be at the core of Canada's aid program and not subordinated to other objectives, and that there is a distinct aid program with a clear poverty reduction mandate.

To this end, we are pleased that the proposed legislation makes a clear reference to fostering poverty reduction in developing countries as a mandate of the department, and assigns a minister for international development and a deputy minister for international development to carry out this mandate. This legislated mandate and structure can help protect the integrity of the aid program. We would expect to see the continuation of a distinct international aid program focused on poverty reduction in developing countries.

In our view, the legislation could be further strengthened by referencing the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act. It specifies that Canadian aid must focus on poverty reduction, take into account the perspectives of the poor, and be consistent with international human rights standards.

The amalgamation also potentially increases risks related to the way that humanitarian assistance could be allocated and provided. There will be less separation between the delivery of humanitarian assistance and other foreign policy making structures. This could lead to humanitarian assistance being used as a tool to advance particular political, military, and economic agendas. It is critical that Canada retains a commitment to needs-based humanitarian assistance and that humanitarian assistance not be politicized.

In a conflict context, the fundamental humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence signal to all parties that the sole purpose of humanitarian assistance is to prevent and alleviate suffering and that it has to be independent of any political, military, or economic agendas.

The legislation could be strengthened by making reference to the humanitarian principles in relation to the provision of humanitarian assistance. In proposed section 14 of the legislation, which deals with the duties of the minister for international development, a section could be added that requires a minister to ensure Canada's international humanitarian assistance contributions are in line with internationally recognized humanitarian principles. Alternative wording might be to ensure Canada's international humanitarian assistance is provided on the basis of clearly identified needs. The current wording in proposed section 14, linking humanitarian assistance with Canadian priorities, is problematic. It would be better to treat humanitarian assistance separately.

Finally, the minister for international development is rightly given responsibility for ensuring the effectiveness of Canada's international development and humanitarian assistance activities. This responsibility could be strengthened by referencing adherence to commonly accepted principles of aid and development effectiveness.

In summary, we are pleased that the proposed legislation makes a clear reference to fostering poverty reduction in developing countries as a mandate of the department and assigns a minister for international development and a deputy minister for international development to carry out this mandate. It could be strengthened by making reference to the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act; adding a clause to ensure Canada's international humanitarian assistance contributions are in line with internationally recognized humanitarian principles or are provided on the basis of clearly identified needs; and making reference to adherence to commonly accepted principles of aid and development effectiveness.

Thank you for your attention, and I welcome any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cornelius.

We're going to turn it over to the opposition.

Madame Laverdière, you have seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you ever so much to you both for two extraordinary presentations. Really, I am nearly speechless, and it doesn't happen that often.

To start with, we are in general agreement that what is at issue here is not so much the merger. To merge or not to merge is not the question here.

I hear, again, a common point in both of your presentations with which I fully agree. In particular, regarding humanitarian assistance, we need to keep that separate from Canadian priorities. It has to be based on international standards, humanitarian principles, and international humanitarian law. I fully agree with that.

On a number of issues you've mentioned, I could go on and on. Also, on the need for a full discussion, this is so important. It's such a rare opportunity to discuss the whole mandate of the minister and the department. As you will guess, we fully agree that this shouldn't have been done through a budget implementation bill. We need long consultations to do things properly.

I have so many questions. I'm sorry, I'm losing track of them.

One point, Mr. Munro, that you made was about the very slow process in the approval of projects and programs due to the centralization in the minister's office. What we seem to note is that as centralization is increasing, as you were saying, the speed is slowing, and it also presents a problem of transparency because a lot of people are saying that they don't know what the criteria are any more. It's very difficult to evaluate on which basis a project is or is not approved.

Could both of you expand a bit on this?

[Prof. Lauchlan Munro]

I'd say a couple of things. Number one, when I made that remark, it was not a pointed remark at this government. Similar trends were visible under previous governments. I'd like that to be understood.

Development and international development cooperation is a risky business. It's a business. It's full of risks and uncertainties. The two risks are different. You know the probabilities; the uncertainties, you don't. It is time that parliamentarians had an adult conversation with Canadians about risks and uncertainties, and international development.

I know the international development business. I have been in that my whole career and love to sell it as a series of easy wins. Give to us and we'll feed this child, and the child will become well nourished magically. I have worked in east Congo and South Sudan, and places like that. It doesn't work that easily.

At the same time, we've had a series of public management measures under this and other governments, and not just in Canada, where basically we've been telling public servants to be ever more risk-averse. We're not letting the managers manage, as we did a decade or two ago. We're piling layers and layers of governance and risk management terms, and extra approvals on top of a layer of political oversight, which is normal and natural in our parliamentary system.

Maybe we should look at it the way the private sector might look at this. Look at the venture capital industry. Venture capitalists invest in between 10 and 20 companies and expect maybe one or two of them to work out. They expect 18 or 19 failures, but the two that work, work so big, that the venture capitalist makes money.

Maybe Canadians aren't quite ready for that high failure rate, but let's have an honest discussion about doing some things in a difficult and risky terrain, where not all of them will work, but we'll take appropriate measures to safeguard public money, learn our lessons systematically as we go through, and improve. That is the way to make bigger returns in the long run. That might be an interesting way of refounding our aid program, and I hope would be one that would find wide, all-party support.

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

Do you have anything to add or...?

[Jim Cornelius]

I think anyone involved in this work needs reasonably speedy and clear decision-making processes because it's difficult to plan, if it's unclear, when approvals might be coming forward. So anything that can increase the predictability and speed with which decisions can be made will certainly lead to better results. It's very difficult to operate in an environment where it's unclear when approvals might be granted and how long the process is going to be.

These I understand. I think Lauchlan does a good job of explaining why it's more complex with all these layers on top of it, but efforts to improve that would go a long way to enhancing and improving results.

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

Very briefly, Mr. Cornelius, you told that story about reform and not being in agreement. If I understood well, being in agreement about wanting to make a difference for the poor and aid shouldn't be about what's in it for us. With that in mind, a lot of people have reacted rather negatively to the current minister's comments that international assistance, that CIDA, would be about opening new markets for Canada.

Do you still think that the majority of Canadians generally still have this long-term and selfish view of what Canada could do in the world?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Cornelius, that's all the time we have but I'm going to let you have a quick response.

[Jim Cornelius]

Those whom I talked to are very clear that they see the aid program as being about making a difference for the poor. We have many other programs that deal with Canada's interests. That's not to say that the development of the economies in the countries in which we're working does not provide benefits to Canada in the long term. As long as the aid program is not subordinated to these other objectives, there can be complementarity. We need to keep our eye on the ball.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Dechert, you have seven minutes.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony and sharing your expertise with us this morning.

Mr. Cornelius, given that the Foodgrains Bank is a faith-based organization, I guess being agnostic is something that's pretty rare for you. But I'm a little confused because I read a report by QMI Agency, which I think was taken from a press release issued by the Foodgrains Bank last week, the subtitle of which is “Foodgrains Bank supports amalgamation”, and it goes on to read:

At the Foodgrains Bank we support this legislation. It will guide the amalgamation of Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) into the new department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.

You're quoted as saying:

We are pleased that reducing poverty in developing countries is clearly specified as a responsibility of the Minister for International Development, and that the legislation puts the Minister on equal footing with the Minister for International Trade. We are also pleased that the Department’s vital responsibility for providing humanitarian assistance during crises is specified.

I take it the hairsplitting is that you're agnostic on whether the amalgamation is the right thing to do but you think the legislation we're looking at today does a good job of putting forward the amalgamation or bringing together the two departments so they can continue to address Canada's priorities with respect to international development. Is that correct?

[Jim Cornelius]

Yes, I think you've captured the nuance there. As politicians around this table, you'd be well aware that what's written in headlines and what you say are not always the same thing. We have been very clear. We weren't saying we had a strong view on whether the amalgamation was good or bad. But given that a decision was taken to amalgamate, then let's make sure we get it right. We think this legislation has some of the key things in place. There's a clear focus on poverty, there's a mandate, there's a minister with a clear mandate, and there's a deputy minister.

We think those things are important structural issues that we can support.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I would take it then that it would be a good idea for all members of Parliament to vote in favour of this legislation because it does the right job in merging the two departments.

I understand the Canadian Association of International Development Professionals apparently have said that:

...the intent expressed in Thursday's budget to enshrine CIDA's work and the position of the Minister in law. This can only strengthen and raise the profile of development assistance as a strong reflection of the importance Canadians attach to supporting underdeveloped countries.

Are you a member of the Canadian Association of International Development Professionals?