Foreign Affairs Committee on May 23rd, 2013

[Paul Chapin]

The short answer is that you need a CIDA minister, a minister for international development. I'd argue that one of the failings of the legislation is that it doesn't leave open the possibility of a lot more ministers. In the British system, they have six or seven or eight in their Foreign and Commonwealth Office portfolio in addition to DFID.

My sense is that if you're talking about a $2 billion program for Foreign Affairs, and a $4 billion program for CIDA, the more political sensitivity and political control you have over that, the better.

I don't know about the limos, but I would argue for lots of aircraft to have people go to see what's going on all over the world, free and clear. With the political control, you have the prospect of adjusting really quickly. The Minister of Foreign Affairs may not always be available. There are so many standard fixtures on the international agenda every year that you'd better have a whole bunch of other ministers who can go to do things at the ministerial level—to speak for the government, to speak for the cabinet in other countries.

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

I agree with that. I think there is a deficiency right now in our presence out there, because of not having enough people. We've seen it recently in South Africa.

The second part has to do with the whole $4 billion you mentioned. It's been brought up many times at this committee—the safeguarding of poverty reduction and having that money there. I think there were different statements today having to do with expanding on the grey zones, safeguarding the ODA money, and weaknesses in the act.

How are we going to make sure that is safeguarded? Won't we have to put some amendments in there to safeguard that and to make sure we stay with our commitments and we stay with poverty reduction?

[Lucien Bradet]

Yesterday, I was at another debate. There were 200 people, and I had to defend the merger. It was a MUN debate at the University of Ottawa.

I realize that NGOs are not very much in favour of a merger, but if you were to ask me what the biggest concern of the 200 Canadians in the room was, it was where the money will go. How will we track the money down? Is it going to be for other purposes?

Paul did outline the fact that we have to look at it globally, but at the same time, the act must take care of it. I don't know how, and I've said that. I don't know how you fence that, but it should be a little more precise, both within the department and with the 30% around town who are giving money to ODA

The only way you can do it is by having a coherent policy, a strategy that is explained to Canadians, not in a speech but in a document in which we can see what's happening. It's a challenge. You don't want to restrict the movement of that money too much, but you want to make sure it doesn't go all over the place so that in five years' time you have to ask why ODA has gone down from one figure to a lower one. We don't want that. As a Canadian, I don't want that. I work with the private sector, and I don't think the private sector wants that either.

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

Go ahead.

[Paul Chapin]

If I could just make a comment, there have been some legitimate concerns since the financial crisis that ODA is going down or can go down. This has been a concern for 10 years, and ODA has doubled in the last 10 years, so I think there's a little bit of crying wolf about the need to make sure we're protecting this important budget. It's been going up for a long time, and the total for CIDA is about $3.5 billion or $4 billion. The total, according to the Auditor General, for all the other government departments takes it to $5.1 billion. That is a significant amount of money. That doesn't even talk about the $21 billion or $22 billion that DND also spends in some respects related to securing the world for Canadians.

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

You already alluded to Africa. The present government has been criticized for the lack of work in Africa and for its lack of presence. It has been alluded to that others are investing more in Africa, whether in aid or in missions. A Senate report recently came out, I think by Colin Kenny. He did a whole report on Africa. It said that we have to have more people on the ground, and we should maybe have a bigger embassy somewhere there. I'm not saying a super embassy, but we need to be involved, to be hands-on.

That being said, I think someone also mentioned that it's not just aid; it's investment. This new “super department” might give us an opportunity if the political will and this government's will are there to get back into Africa and to have some sort of presence there, not only to help this continent go through a transformation, but with our own companies and our own NGOs.

If you guys are in charge of the new department, what would you see as some of the real concrete steps that we would have to take in Africa?

[Lucien Bradet]

First of all, I want to make sure that the record is straight here. In the last 12 to 18 months, there's been a lot of emphasis by the government in Africa. I have to admit that. I remember three years ago, I was criticizing us for not being there enough. Without announcements, but through their actions, the government has done a lot more. Ministers are there on a regular basis. The Governor General has also been there twice in two or three years. Without saying that Africa is becoming a priority, as we did in the case of South America, that is, de facto, getting to be the case, and I like that very much. That's number one.

Number two, there is no doubt that the pressure of CIDA on trade and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will play a major role in shifting that. There is no question that every country in the world that has exports and investments now considers Africa a priority. It will switch some of the problems that Paul was talking about, the systems and all of that. There will be a clash there; there's no doubt about that. But the fact that they will be in the same room and the fact that there are members here who believe very much in Africa, as do other countries, I think means they will become a priority in coming years, not only for aid but for trade.

Mark Carney again, two days ago, said that Canada has to focus more and more attention on developing economies. Where are these developing economies? Maybe China is one, but definitely the up-and-comers are the 54 countries in Africa with an average growth of 5% to 6% in the last three years, which is going up.

Reason will prevail. Saying or not saying it's a priority...it will become a de facto priority. That's the way I look at it.

[Colin Robertson]

Trade follows the flag in many cases. In this case, in Africa, trade is now ahead, so I think we're going to be back in for all the reasons that Lucien has given.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you. That's all the time we have.

We're going to start our second round with five minutes.

Ms. Brown.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Robertson, we may give you the opportunity to pursue that.

I just want to first be very clear, for the committee and for people who may be reading this, that there is a distinct difference between what we do in humanitarian aid and what we do in development. I just want to read the Prime Minister's quote when he said:

But when the need is great and the cause is just, Canadians are always there.And we will always be. Because that is what Canadians do.

We have stepped up to the plate with the Sahel, with the East African drought relief, with Syria, with Haiti. With innumerable humanitarian situations, Canada has been there. We will continue.

I want to posit a slightly different theory, though, and I ask for your comment on this. Canada has had enormous contributions. In fact, we are one of the largest contributors to the Global Fund. The reduction of tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS is significant around the world. Our contribution in the reduction of polio has been enormous, and we are seeing such success there it's almost astounding. We have put money into the World Food Programme, and again we're one of the largest contributors. The maternal, newborn, and child health initiative, which is a signature project for Canada, is saving moms and babies all over Africa, in particular. What we're seeing is reduced mortality rates, increased numbers of babies who are surviving and reaching five years of age.

Does it not mean that we need to restructure our development because we actually have a reclaimed generation? For the long run, what are we looking at? We're not just dealing with getting food in the mouths anymore. We need to look at what the long run looks like in skills training and job opportunities, because we have a new generation, thank God, of young people who are alive and need hope and a future.

Do you have comments on that, gentlemen?

[Colin Robertson]

Yes, we've always had instant, immediate relief to places that have had disasters, and that's always been a key part, but at the same time, there's the whole idea of development designed to basically take us to the point where you don't have to provide development. We use all sorts of policy levers to do that.

You talked particularly about Africa and the things we do. I know that Madame Laverdière has a very good proposal she put forward some time ago in terms of providing drugs. I think that's the kind of thing that sometimes deserves a re-examination, particularly in light of, as you described it, the Prime Minister's personal commitment to maternal health and child care developments and improvements, and the real, personal commitment he has made with the President of Tanzania through the United Nations.

[A voice]

Yes, Kikwete.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Paul.

[Paul Chapin]

We're a very ad hoc country. We muddle through all the time. When you look at the approaches the people like the Americans, the British, the French, and others take, they're masters at looking at the big picture and the long picture. Quite often, in the face of people dismissing it as a whole lot of rather silly think tank product that's never going to impact anything or anybody, we're right at the other end of the spectrum. We don't look more than a few days or a year or two down the road.

One of the reasons that I have argued that we need an international fair strategy...we also need a national security strategy. Look at all the institutions we have in Canada that are supposedly working on the safety and security of Canadians. Do they have a common program that they're working on? We need to do a much better job of exploring big trends in places like Africa and Latin America, and others, and then selecting the ones that matter to Canadians. There is a Canadian interest here. The Canadian taxpayers are shelling out this money, so they're entitled to know that there's something in it for Canada, that it's not entirely altruism. It should be altruism; it's part of the Canadian makeup that we do this sort of thing. But we need to focus a great deal more, not only on that picture, but also on how we can be effective.

My time at the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre suggested that there's a great deal more we can be doing in training, building the capacity, as Colin mentioned, for other countries to get up to speed on things. I fear that in Afghanistan we're going to walk away in a year or two or three and leave a small CIDA program behind, and all the time, effort, money, and deaths that we've sustained, and the injuries that are afflicting a thousand Canadians as a result of that conflict, are just going to go for naught.

We need to be building the capacity of particular countries, and I think that's probably a better Canadian vocation than anything. When you ask the Americans or the British or the French to do those kinds of things, they bring big power or colonial baggage with them. Nobody thinks the Canadians or the Australians have an ulterior motive for helping. It's not talking about a niche. We're talking about a global program, but we need to focus that global program on the big issues that really matter, and then put our shoulder into a few of them that will really deliver results for us.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

So this is an opportunity for us to have a new look at development for the long run.

[Paul Chapin]

Indeed, I've made this point. Why have we until very recently been running a $30 million to $35 million poverty alleviation program in China? Has anybody been to Shanghai recently or looked at the Chinese military budget? It's $120 billion or something. They don't need $30 million from Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

Now we're going to move over to Mr. Dewar. Sir, you have five minutes.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses who have offered us interesting comments.

To underline, I think what they demonstrated in their testimony today, Chair, is the fact that this process we're engaged in right now is not sufficient. When you look at what other countries have done and the way they've done it, they've taken the time to do it right. I want to make that point again, as I have in previous committee hearings on this. We have an omnibus bill in Finance; we don't touch it at all. We have no ability to change or to hear from people like you to influence it. Hopefully they'll hear over there when they're having hearings at Finance.

And I say that because some of the points you've made...you have to do this right. It is about people, but it is about structure. I appreciate the fact that you mentioned that people make things work, but you can also have structures in the way of people doing good work.

I'll start with you, Mr. Robertson, and I think, Mr. Chapin, you talked about this as well. When you have this kind of approach that we've seen in the U.K., certainly with the model I know, aligning your development aspirations with your foreign policy, is it not absolutely critical to have a foreign policy that people can understand? I say that because I think that's the dilemma right now. I say this without prejudice, believe it or not. After we lost our seat on the Security Council, one of the things I put forward at the foreign affairs committee was to let this committee have a conversation with Canadians about what our foreign policy should be. I would challenge anyone around this table to tell us exactly what our foreign policy is. Where do you find this anywhere on the Foreign Affairs website? You'll hear speeches, you'll hear comments like we're in favour of freedom and democracy, as if anyone isn't.

What is the challenge if you don't get your foreign policy articulated first in this equation, because if you don't have an articulated foreign policy, will it not disrupt this approach and undermine all the good things we can see out of this model?

[Colin Robertson]

I'm reminded of a phrase of Lester Pearson, whom I greatly admired. He inspired me to join the foreign service. His view was, don't spend a lot of time studying foreign policy—this was in the context of the Trudeau review—do it. But remember, he built on a whole career and a great knowledge of foreign policy.

Certainly you have to have a combination.... Developments go on all the time. I think you as a committee have a responsibility to bring forward the policy experts from Foreign Affairs to inform you of the trends so you can make the necessary policy judgments. You don't want to gridlock our foreign affairs department in a reorganization over the next couple of years when what they should be doing at this critical time.... The world continues to evolve, as you just alluded to in other developments, China and things. You want to have the best minds—and I think you've still got a lot of very good minds at Foreign Affairs—to give you that advice so you can make the informed decisions you need.

On development, I'm not fussed by Foreign Affairs coming out.... I think that's a very healthy thing for Foreign Affairs now, because I think development concerns have not always been considered. We've heard this at the table. I think now that they're going to be an essential piece at the table, I wouldn't be afraid of this. This is what I tell my friends in development. Don't be afraid. You have a real opportunity to have a huge influence.

I lived in Hong Kong for five years. We just heard about China. The influence that Hong Kong has had on the rest of China.... The ideas are powerful. You're dealing with an ideas department, particularly Foreign Affairs. It's all about ideas. It's not so much about delivery; that's what CIDA is about. It's about ideas. I think getting all those ideas in one place: development, trade, and foreign policy are absolutely vital to.... You need members of Parliament, and particularly members of this committee, to act as stewards of the Canadian people, in a sense, to ensure that foreign policy reflects the values and interests of the Canadian people.

[Lucien Bradet]

The nature of your committee is exactly that, right?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

It should be.

[Lucien Bradet]

Foreign affairs and development, so there's nothing wrong here.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Yes, you're correct.

[Lucien Bradet]

We saw that it goes together, right?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move on to Mr. Harris.

Sir, you have five minutes.