Foreign Affairs Committee on May 21st, 2013

[Vincent Rigby]

Not at all, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.

Really, I can't add much to what Michael said, just a couple of points. This is definitely an emerging trend, and so as we look around at our development partners and other donor countries, a lot of them have gone this way. I've had a chance over the last few years to talk to a lot of my colleagues around the world. To just echo the sentiments expressed by Michael, it has been very much a good news story. This has been about increased synergies, increased coherence, as the budget stated, and it has been a success story. Even in those agencies where they still have independence, as is the case with USAID and AusAID, they report up through their secretary of state or through their foreign ministers. So there is even some integration in that regard.

I guess the only other thing I'd say is that there's no one-size-fits-all. They all do it a little bit differently. So one of the great advantages we have, coming to this a little bit later, is that we can take a look at the lessons learned, where perhaps they would have done things a little bit differently, and we can apply that to our experience here. It actually puts us in a very strong position, moving forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Ms. Brown.

Mr. Easter, welcome to the committee, sir.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It's nice to be here. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentations.

One key question is—and yes, this is happening in other countries—what will the impact be at the end of the day with the combining of foreign affairs, development assistance, and international trade. Is trade more emphasized than aid? Do we lose some of the key priorities when it's all under one department?

Ms. Brown talked about the money that's been spent here and there, and that's fine. It's really nice to put some money into assistance, but if it isn't over the long haul.... I've had some experience with CIDA and farmers helping farmers and that kind of thing in countries in the past. Aid is all about the long haul, and how it can reduce poverty and help with human life.

Mr. Rigby and Mr. Patel, in your opening remarks you both seemed to emphasize Canadian values. One of the concerns I have with the government is that they haven't outlined their vision, whether it's in trade—today it's CETA, tomorrow it's TPP, and I guess this week it's Pacific Alliance with the Prime Minister being down there—foreign affairs, or aid.

Could you both spell out what you're saying when you talk about Canadian values? We all think of Canadian values as different things.

[Vincent Rigby]

Perhaps I can take a first crack at that, Mr. Chair.

When we talk about Canadian values, I'd say a couple of things. First of all, in the ODAAA, as we call it, the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, we have a definition of values. There are references to inclusion and equitable development, those sorts of things. That's one place where you're going to find a definition.

When we talk about values from the perspective of Canadian foreign policy and development, we talk about things like democracy, freedom, human rights, the rule of law. Those four are usually bunched together.

I mentioned earlier the notion of compassion, which I think kicks in when we're talking about humanitarian assistance.

Broadly speaking, that's how we would usually define values.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

You would agree, Nadir, with the nod of your head, but we can't see that in the record.

[Nadir Patel]

I would agree with the comments of my distinguished colleague. I wouldn't add anything more than that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thanks, Nadir.

Mr. Rigby, you mentioned the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act. I think one of our concerns is that it's supposed to be overarching legislation, an umbrella over what we do in aid.

How is this combining of the departments going to ensure that the principles and objectives in that act are specifically laid out so that the new minister in charge of CIDA under Foreign Affairs is going to have to follow what the overseas assistance development act suggests, or is it there?

[Vincent Rigby]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What I'd say is that, first of all, the ODAAA is still there. These are two separate acts, obviously, but I also feel that they're quite complementary. I think that's a good thing. Central to the ODAAA is making poverty alleviation the core component of our development efforts. You see in Bill C-60, in the new legislation, very clearly, that poverty reduction and sustainable international development is the key responsibility of the minister.

The second condition in the ODAAA is to make sure the perspectives of the poor are taken into account. A couple of the responsibilities of the minister in the new act are to make sure that he or she fosters relations with other donors and international organizations, and also with developing countries. We're speaking to developing countries and making sure that our plans and activities are aligned with theirs. Alignment is a key aid-effectiveness principle. It is also is enshrined in the new legislation that the minister is responsible for ensuring that our aid and assistance are effective.

Finally, with respect to the third condition in the ODAAA, that our development activities be consistent with human rights. I think the specific reference in the new legislation to “values” speaks to our human rights and to our alignment with human rights. So I think that there is a great deal of complementarity between the two of them. The act is still there, and the minister will take on the responsibilities for that act.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Maybe this would be better to ask in Parliament, but is being complementary as an act enough? Should there not be direct links under this legislation?

I think all who sat in Parliament when that act was passed felt it was a great thing. But if you're going to have the poverty alleviation and the humanitarian measures spelled out in the act, wouldn't it be better to have a direct link under the changes? I refer to the minister himself. There is a concern out there in the general public, now that we're pushing assistance through some mining companies. Whether it's right or wrong, that concern is there; I hear it. For a new minister coming in at Foreign Affairs, I think it would be far better for him or her to refer to some of the things that it says in the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act. It would hold the minister to account. Moreover, it would give the minister some protection, in doing his or her job, with respect to humanitarian assistance and poverty alleviation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Wayne, that's all the time we have.

Do you have a quick response, Mr. Rigby?

[Vincent Rigby]

I wouldn't say they're just complementary. You do have some terminology that is almost identical in the two acts. Secondly, I'd leave it up to the committee whether they'd like to make a recommendation with respect to actually referencing the ODAAA in the new legislation.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Easter.

We're going to start our second round, which will be five minutes of questions and answers, with Mr. Dechert.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to each of you gentlemen for being here this morning.

I note that there's a fair bit of endorsement and agreement on this policy decision amongst diplomats, NGOs, even opposition parties.

The former diplomat, Colin Robertson, who's currently the vice-president and senior fellow of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, said, “The re-integration of CIDA into Foreign Affairs and International Trade is a sensible move.” The Canadian Council on Africa has said that it believes the amalgamation of CIDA and DFAIT, done right, will benefit partner countries and Canadians. Even the leader of the opposition, Mr. Mulcair, has said, “I think that it could be a good idea if the money flows”.

Mr. Axworthy, a noted former Minister of Foreign Affairs, said:

The move...to end the independence of the Canadian International Development Agency and move its operations into the foreign ministry is one I strongly endorse. I compliment the government on taking this step.

I even note that my honourable colleague, the NDP critic for international development, has said:

Let's be clear: placing CIDA within DFAIT is not, in principle, a bad idea. In fact, this kind of arrangement has worked fairly well in other countries, including Norway, the Netherlands, and Ireland—all respected international donors with strong records.

It seems there's a pretty strong indication among the various interested parties that it makes some sense to integrate these three departments. Through our committee's work it's become clear to us that there are many instances where Canada's trade objectives, diplomatic goals, and development benchmarks are already intertwined.

Mr. Patel or Mr. Small, could you give us some examples of where Canada's interests have merged or aligned in this regard?

[Nadir Patel]

I'll ask my colleague to start, then I'll maybe jump in, if that's okay, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Certainly.

[Vincent Rigby]

I think there's been a great deal of alignment between development and our foreign policy priorities already. I think amalgamation is going to take that next step, up our game, so to speak. If you look at foreign policy in the broad objectives for Canada at the moment—which I would say are effectively prosperity, security, and the promotion of our values—and look at some of the specific things we've done at CIDA, we've supported all of those objectives.

With respect to prosperity, this committee's done an excellent report on the private sector and sustainable economic growth. When we pursue sustainable economic growth activities in developing countries, we're pulling them out of poverty. We're helping them grow their economies. We're helping pull their people out of poverty. So that's all good from a development perspective, but we're also basically creating markets for tomorrow for our own companies and pursuing Canadian interests. I don't think those are mutually exclusive. I would suggest they're actually mutually reinforcing in a lot of ways. So on the prosperity side, I think that development has done a lot.

In terms of security and stability, I could give you all kinds of different examples, but I probably don't have enough time in terms of actual programs. On security, again, I think development helps address conflict and instability at its source. So when we do programming in the areas of children and youth, for example, or education, or health, or when we do work in the area of democracy, I think we're actually promoting stability and helping to create conditions where insecurity and instability are not going to arise.

Finally, with respect to values, again going back to my earlier answer and what our values are in terms of democracy, freedom and compassion, I think a lot of our activities there show that side. On development, take a look at our maternal, newborn and child health activities. This has really been sort of a flagship initiative for the agency over the last number of years, and all kinds of other work in terms of our humanitarian assistance, showing our compassion. Again, I think that's really promoted our values. It's helping lay the groundwork for democracy and human rights.

I think we've done a lot of good work, not only on the CIDA side but on the DFAIT side as well.

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

If I might interrupt you, Mr. Rigby, you mentioned the Muskoka initiative on maternal, newborn and child health. How will this merger further the status of that initiative, in your view?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You have 30 seconds.

[Vincent Rigby]

Absolutely.

Right now, our programming goes up to 2015, so we're more or less in the middle of a five-year program to spend $1.1 billion in new money, and $1.75 billion in ongoing money. Therefore, we will continue that work up until at least 2015.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dechert.

We'll turn it back to Madame Laverdière and Mr. Dewar.

Madame Laverdière.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As three of us will be sharing our time, I will be very brief.

My first question follows up on those I asked about the consultations that have been held.

Have professional associations and unions been consulted?

[Nadir Patel]

I think it was the day after or a couple of days after the budget that I sat down with all of the bargaining agents within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and we discussed this announcement. We have undertaken to ensure that we continue to communicate, inform, and engage our bargaining agents on a regular basis as we go forward. I know my counterpart at the Canadian International Development Agency had done the same thing very early on.

I can also indicate that the feedback from that session was very positive in that there was certainly a level of appreciation for taking the time to offer up what it is that we did know at the time. We look forward to further engagement with our bargaining agents as we go forward, and that includes the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers, the Public Service Alliance, and others—essentially, all those that represent employees within the department.

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

Thank you.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for their presentations.

One of the things that I think is surprising for many of us is not only what my colleague mentioned in terms of the process of this legislation going through the way it is.... Obviously, that is not for you to comment on. It's not your doing. But when you look at the U.K., and this was mentioned by Mr. Dechert, we don't have a problem with the idea. The importance, though, is in how you consult, who you consult, and what the terms are.

I'm trying to find out and figure out what happened here, because we have a bill that comes before us and it's a budget bill. With all due respect, when a budget bill comes forward, you obviously can't leak it unless there's a political motive. But this is about changing the department. When the U.K. and when our friends south of the border did it, there were wide consultations. Ms. Clinton took on this issue and consulted widely.

I'm trying to figure out what happened and why we're at the point where we have a transition team in place. That's great. That's important from a public service point of view. We have legislation with a ribbon on it, through an omnibus, but where was the consultation before all this happened?