Foreign Affairs Committee on April 21st, 2015

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I look forward to seeing more on that.

I want to go back to the whole area of democratic development. As was mentioned, there were two very substantial missions from Canada. I'm curious as to how the decision was made to go from what had been the institute we had been working with before CANADEM to another group, the Forum of Federations, and how that process worked. Was there a bidding process? How was the decision made?

[Tamara Guttman]

For all types of projects and all types of support, often a number of proposals are received that involve working with a variety of partners, whether in Ukraine or anywhere else. In the instance of Ukraine, a number of options were looked at. We have ongoing cooperation with CANADEM as well, which my colleague Dave Metcalfe can speak to.

In the case of last year's election, the proposal put forward by the Forum of Federations—actually, it was their subsidiary CANEOM—was ultimately supported and it provided a very effective mission. It's looking at a variety of options in all cases.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Just to clarify then, you're saying a proposal was put forward by the subsidiary of Forum? Was there one by CANADEM?

[Tamara Guttman]

I'm trying to recall, and I apologize if I'm imprecise, because it was some time ago. There were discussions with both early on in the process, and then a number of options were examined. Ultimately the CANEOM one was the stronger option. I can defer to my colleague Dave Metcalfe to speak better on—

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

What I'm trying to get at, to be more precise, is that there had been a departure from a previous partnership. I'm wondering why we ended up going with one over the other.

[Tamara Guttman]

Again, Mr. Chair, it's a matter of evaluating each case, each proposal, and each project going forward, and trying to find the most effective means and the best value for Canada.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Right, so there was a decision made on that basis. I'm trying to understand why the decision was made to go with this group over the other. That's all. Maybe you could follow up on that.

[Tamara Guttman]

I could provide a follow-up. Genuinely, it's that a very complete proposal was put forward. It had a number of effective components, including long-term and short-term monitoring and political analysis. It was a very effective proposal, and ultimately that was the successful one in that instance.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'm asking because we know the government proposed, in the Speech from the Throne a couple of years ago, the idea of an institute for democratic development. Sadly that didn't go forward. I'm concerned that when we're talking about democratic reform in a place like Ukraine, which is desperately needed, that we have the right capacities and also an understanding of how these decisions are being made.

I have done many missions abroad on election monitoring. I was a little concerned with some of the procedures and processes in Ukraine. I think election monitoring requires dedicated people and professionalism. If we're looking at political party development, that's a whole other area that requires a different kind of thinking and rigorous oversight. You have to be very careful when you're offering to help with political party development in a place where there is, to be fair, a fairly precarious political situation. That's something we need to look at.

Let me move on with one last question. It's about the consultations with the Department of Foreign Affairs with regard to the military complement. Maybe information on that could be provided later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We're going to finish up with Ms. Brown for five minutes.

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

Thank you so much for your presentation here this morning.

On a slightly lighter note just for one moment, Mr. Levin, only a person with an appreciation for classical music would be able to use the term leitmotif in a conversation. As a musician, I say thank you.

My question really is for Mr. Metcalfe. These days you must carry a very heavy weight on your shoulders, having responsibility for both the Middle East and Europe. I appreciate so much the work you are doing, because it is tremendous.

I was in Ukraine three years ago when the foreign affairs committee was there. I had the opportunity to meet with independent media in Kharkiv. I actually purchased $200 worth of advertising on the radio station. It was an independent radio station. They were telling us how difficult it is to have independent media in Ukraine because there just isn't the kind of revenue available through small and medium-sized businesses to purchase advertising. I supported them and said, “I don't care if all you say is that Lois Brown supports free and fair elections. I am happy with that. Say it as many times as $200 will buy.” He was thrilled to pieces that someone purchased advertising space.

I wonder if you could speak a little about what Canada is doing to help strengthen civil society organizations, because the reality is that when civil society organizations take hold, they in themselves start to touch the pressure points that are going to enable countries to move forward.

[Dave Metcalfe]

I am busy with the two different portfolios.

I'll touch on the media piece that you mentioned, because that is a very important piece. I think the last time I was in front of the committee, I spoke about the support we were providing to the media. As you say, it is a very important piece that gets the message out.

As part of the $139 million that was announced last year for programming in Ukraine, we are providing assistance to strengthen investigative reporting in Ukraine, including to regional media organizations such as the Crimean centre for investigative reporting and the Independent Association of Broadcasters.

There is support for the production of investigative TV programs on a wide range of issues of importance to Ukraine during the transition and the move toward more democratic rule. The programs produced are broadcast in different regions, including Zaporizhia and Kharkiv. In addition, we are providing workshops for skills training to journalists, including in Donetsk and Mykolaiv.

Another interesting piece is that we are working with a Polish partner to support the Crimean independent channel Chernomorka, which has relocated to mainland Ukraine since the Russian invasion of Crimea. It continues to broadcast through satellite as well as a number of media outlets in eastern Ukraine to continue covering events in the east of the country.

In terms of supporting civil society, a number of our programs are doing just that, because that, as you mentioned, is the base from which change will happen. We have a number of programs in place and a number of small projects as well, because it doesn't take a lot of dollars to get some of the results that we are trying to achieve through that. I think that's an important point to make.

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

Mr. Chair, I just want to assure the committee that it was a personal cheque I gave. It had nothing to do with my MOB.

Mr. Metcalfe, I wonder if you could speak to some of the work we are doing in judicial reform. Last summer I announced that Canada was making a contribution for Ukraine to use in training judges to deal with juveniles. So often those juveniles have been incarcerated for things we would call minor misdemeanours, but they really didn't know what to do with them or have the structures. Could you speak to that project specifically?

[Dave Metcalfe]

I can speak at a pretty high level. I know it. I visited that project and some of the work that they were doing.

It started out as a small Canadian-promoted project that used frameworks and systems and expertise from the Government of Alberta. That project dealing with, as you said, youth and how they are treated within the judicial system has now moved across the country. It started out in two specific cities in Ukraine and it is now being spread across the country. With a little bit of effort, we see these great results.

On top of the youth project you were speaking of, we are also training judges in human rights fundamentals and reducing red tape in commercial dispute resolution, which is also working toward helping us advance economic growth, setting the base for businesses to more efficiently and effectively grow and compete within the marketplace. We are rolling out legal aid to Ukrainians in need. Another important factor is the combatting of trafficking of children, which is very strong in Ukraine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

To our witnesses, thank you for taking the time today for the update.

I'm going to suspend the meeting while we get our new set of witnesses in, and then we'll get back in about five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Welcome back, everyone.

I want to introduce our witnesses. I will just mention that there was one witness who confirmed that they'd be here, but they're not here. We will get started considering the time we have here.

I'm going to introduce you all.

From Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights, we have Sandeep Prasad, the executive director.

From the Food For Famine Society, we have Maria Martini, the founder and executive director, and Mark Moore is with MANA Nutrition.

I believe you two are going to be sharing your time, so we'll start that with you, Maria.

Welcome, everyone. Why don't we get started with the presentations? We'll start with Sandeep Prasad.

The floor is yours.

[Sandeep Prasad, Executive Director, Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights]

Honourable members, I want to begin by thanking you all for the invitation to present before you today. For those of you who are not familiar with it, Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights is a Canadian organization working domestically and globally to advance sexual and reproductive health and rights. While the committee's study covers a number of specific topics relating to children and youth, I will focus my remarks on the issue of early and forced marriage and how Canada can strengthen its role to address this issue.

Early and forced marriage is a pervasive human rights violation, the causes of which are deeply rooted in gender-based inequalities, norms, and stereotypes, including traditional patriarchal perceptions of women's status and roles in society, as well as social control of women's bodies and sexual choices. Early and forced marriage constitutes one example of how these root causes are manifested in societies. Other examples include female genital mutilation and acid attacks, as well as keeping or pulling girls out of school, which of course is often a precursor to their being forced into early marriage.

Problems associated with early and forced marriage, while based in inequalities relating to gender and age, are also exacerbated by other factors of inequality such as poverty, lower education level, and rural location. After marriage in these circumstances, all of the same inequalities and forms of control continue to manifest themselves in the lives of these girls and young women as a plethora of continued human rights violations.

First of all, married girls are twice as likely to experience sexual violence, and often this violence is perfectly legal. According to UN Women, 127 countries do not explicitly criminalize marital rape and, in fact, 53 of these countries actually explicitly permit marital rape.

Second, adolescent girls and young women often lack access to sexual and reproductive health information commodities and services, including those for contraception. While part of this lack of access is certainly due to the lack of availability of these services, it is also partly based in legal requirements for spousal consent for these services, potential reproductive coercion by the spouse, and indications that services are not youth-friendly or are not geared to meeting specific health needs in a non-judgmental manner.

Currently, over 220 million women and adolescent girls who are married or in a union and would like access to a modern method of contraception do not have such access.

Third, if an adolescent girl experiences an unwanted pregnancy, she may lack access to safe abortion services and post-abortion care. Factors impacting on access to abortion services include its legality in the country in which she lives, the availability of the service, and, once again, spousal consent requirements.

Fourth, if giving birth, she might lack access to personnel and facilities that would ensure a safe delivery.

Primarily because of a lack of access to sexual and reproductive health services, including maternal health services, maternal mortality is the second-leading cause of death of adolescent girls in the developing world. This is just a small glimpse of the picture for adolescent girls forced into early marriage. Addressing early and forced marriage requires addressing these interlinked human rights violations rooted in gender-based and other inequalities.

Given the committee's focus on what Canada's role should be, I would like to offer a few thoughts on this. First of all, in terms of Canada's work at the intergovernmental level, I want to begin by commending the government's leadership role in bringing this issue to the UN Human Rights Council and the General Assembly for action by these two bodies.

Within the intergovernmental sphere, we are currently in a place, similar to the case for FGM, in which governments are not particularly defending this practice, even where this practice is widespread. In this sort of situation, the intergovernmental system can be seized upon to make tremendous advances and in turn support and spur further action to address early and forced marriage at national levels.

Canada should work to ensure that resolutions are substantive and strong and are aimed at identifying what states need to do to eliminate these practices and to address the human rights of those subjected to the practice. Doing so necessarily entails comprehensive integrated approaches that include education, health, and justice components.

For the upcoming June Human Rights Council resolution, we would urge the government to work to ensure that the council commission technical guidance on using human rights-based approaches in addressing the issue. Such a policy tool can serve to assist governments in identifying key interventions needed in order to fully implement and give effect to the relevant human rights obligations and principles.

Adding to this effort, the government should also step up its engagement in policy dialogue with other countries, both bilaterally and in its participation in the universal periodic review process. The aim should be not only to advance approaches to preventing early and forced marriage but also to challenge the interlinked violations of the rights to education, health, and bodily autonomy. That includes working with countries to reform laws, including setting a minimum age of marriage, criminalizing marital rape, and removing legal or policy barriers to health services, including spousal consent requirements and the criminalization of abortion.

With the post-2015 agenda poised to be adopted soon, we have now agreed, as part of this framework, on a robust gender-equality goal. Addressing child marriage is a part of that goal, as are numerous interlinked issues. The implementation of this goal, along with other aspects of this ambitious post-2015 agenda, will need to be financed through a mix of domestic and international resources as well as new financing mechanisms. Now, even more than with the millennium development goals, donor countries must renew their commitment to ensuring that levels of overseas development assistance are at or above 0.7% of GNI.

As part of its efforts to address early and forced marriage comprehensively, the government further needs to prioritize investment in sexual and reproductive health, including family planning. While these investments support the fulfillment of these human rights, they are also smart investments. Currently, expenses related to unsafe abortion complications alone cost women, girls, and their families a further $600 million U.S. per year in out-of-pocket expenses. Conversely, meeting the unmet need for modern contraception and achieving universal access to sexual and reproductive health services by 2030 is estimated to yield impressive returns of U.S. $120 for every dollar spent and over $400 billion U.S. in annual benefits.

As a final recommendation, the government must also look to invest further in women's and youth-led organizations working toward gender equality. Despite greater attention to gender equality, women's organizations themselves are struggling globally. Greater investment in those voices who are challenging the very gender norms and inequalities that are at the root of these interlinked human rights violations, including early and forced marriage, is a major need at this point.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We'll now go to Maria Martini to get started, then we'll come back to Mr. Moore as the last presenter.

Ms. Martini, go ahead. The floor is yours.

[Maria Martini, Founder and Executive Director, Food For Famine Society]

Mr. Chairman and members, thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

My journey began in June 2008 after watching an Anderson Cooper report from which I learned about a fortified peanut paste referred to as ready-to-use therapeutic food or RUTF.

It was being used to treat children under the age of five suffering from severe acute malnutrition. This knowledge was life-changing for me. The fact that something as simple as peanut butter could save a child's life was absolutely a miracle. My first thought was to build a factory in the country where it was needed. I spent the year researching and contacting organizations that could help me produce, package, and distribute the RUTF. I had zero success.

After getting nowhere, I looked into manufacturing this life-saving product in my own community of Langley, B.C. We soon produced 5,000 kilograms for North Korea and 15,000 kilograms for Haiti just after the 2010 earthquake. The next leg of my journey led me to Mark Moore of MANA Nutrition. Mark had just received his certification from UNICEF to produce RUTF in his brand new factory. After visiting the MANA facility in Georgia, U.S.A., we realized that they could provide us with a stable source of RUTF.

After securing our official RUTF supplier, our next challenge was to ensure an effective distribution channel for the product. We were soon introduced to World Vision Canada, which presently assists us with the distribution of RUTF through its community-based programs for the management of acute malnutrition.

To date, we have provided 17 shipping containers of RUTF to eight African countries, affecting the lives of over 17,000 children. One hundred per cent of the donations we receive goes toward the purchase of RUTF, allowing the greatest possible impact.

I would like to congratulate the members of Parliament for the accomplishments of the maternal and infant health program. It is critical that this program continue to move forward and that we as Canadians look for more innovative and creative ways to ensure its success. Together we can work towards more solid food security and nutrition in developing countries and continue to affect the lives of millions of children.

My vision is simple: that no more children die of severe acute malnutrition.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Moore.

[Mark Moore, Chief Executive Officer, MANA Nutrition]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I was honoured to sit in the public gallery in the previous meeting about Ukraine. I was impressed with the gravity of the situation and with the responsibility that is upon each of you as you fill notepads and as emails crowd your inboxes. You leave here with the weight of the world on your shoulders and more than you can possibly do to affect situations that seem out of control. Military officials testified about satellite imagery of Ukraine possibly helping. I appreciate very much the gravity of this committee and all you have to do.

To add world hunger to that, as you leave, seems a bit unfair. That's going to be a big agenda item for all of you. I want to focus specifically on the very narrow area that I have a bit of expertise in. Beyond that, colleagues from Nutriset are here. They are the world leaders in the production and distribution of RUTF and the championing of this cause. As great friends of the Canadian government, the French and the Americans sit here in unison saying this is a great thing that you can have a tremendous impact on.

My story goes back to 2007. I lived for 10 years in Africa, in Uganda. My wife is an RN, so we did a lot of health care work. Then I moved home to go to graduate school, which was in Washington, D.C. There I was fortunate enough to become a legislative fellow in the U.S. Senate. I worked in the Senate on food aid issues and sat in many meetings like this, generally in the back with a yellow pad trying to keep up and trying to support my boss.

At that time UNICEF came in. They were asking for more money. They were saying that if the Americans would get involved they could make a huge impact in global nutrition. I listened to the speech. In fact, I saw the same Anderson Cooper video that Maria saw. We didn't know each other at the time. As I watched it, I thought if this was really true and if this Nutriset product Plumpy’Nut—or RUTF as it's more generically referred to—was having this kind of impact, then the U.S. government should get involved. From the very small seat that I had as just a legislative fellow, I talked with my boss. That became a big part of my life. It wouldn't really leave me. I hope that's the case for many of you.

What's happened over the last probably six or seven years in the United States is that our food aid efforts have gotten involved in RUTF. Even though we don't provide the bulk of RUTF funding, and we provide a very small percentage compared with what UNICEF is doing, the U.S. government has now come alongside UNICEF. With UNICEF spending roughly $150 million to $160 million on the global procurement of RUTF, the U.S. government has come in with another $20 million or $30 million to augment that, which is still a short way along the path of a billion-dollar problem.

What I would like to impress upon the committee is that as you consider the Muskoka initiative, the great work that you've done, and the way forward on that in the 10 countries you are focusing on—Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Haiti, Malawi, Tanzania, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, and Sudan—in nearly every one of these countries I have had the privilege of seeing children whose lives would have been lost had they not been treated with this very simple thing.

I would also be careful to say that obviously the Muskoka initiative is much broader. Mr. Prasad had a perspective on how important all these different aspects that you will focus on are. Of course nutrition is one very narrow thing, but it does have far-reaching impacts.

There was a study last summer by the World Food Programme on the GDP of Ethiopia and the surrounding countries. Since Ethiopia is on your list, I'll give you this statistic. It is widely reported that there is a $3-billion dent in their GDP simply because of malnutrition. That's 16.5% of their GDP stunted, along with their children.

The impact you have is not just in the form of the dramatic story of saving lives. It's not just a reactionary thing. It's a very proactive thing. As the Copenhagen Consensus Center has said for years, it's the very best dollar you can spend. I know it's budget time. You're all worried about limited dollars making maximum impacts. These are some of the very best dollars you can spend.

I'll close by saying our partnership with our Canadian friends at Food For Famine has been fantastic. They are so impressive in that they have zero overhead. I've been in the field with them in Malawi, Ethiopia, and various countries, and they have zero overhead. That is unheard of.

They are simply looking for the very best and the most affordable supply of this, the biggest bang for their buck. They also want to support the sustainable and scalable production of this, whether it be in France, the United States, Canada, or any country around the world. Hopefully in the future the supply chain will be developed in developing nations and people will be able to produce their own RUTF. For those of you who are not familiar with it, it's a very simple thing. It's peanut butter, powdered milk, a little bit of sugar, and some vitamins. It's the equivalent of a glass of milk, a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and a vitamin. It's very tough for aid workers to put those things in their pocket and have them available at the end of a long day, but this stuff has a two-year shelf life. It's flushed with nitrogen to be stored and can be shipped through various supply chains, through the UN and through the World Food Programme, and other entities, to get it to children who need it.

I'll stop there. There's much more we can say, but I would be very interested in fielding more questions and talking more about the impact of our partnership and the potential impact this committee could have on saving millions and millions of lives.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Moore.

I'm going to turn it over to Adeline Lescanne-Gautier who is the chief executive officer of Nutriset. I know you have a bit of a PowerPoint presentation so we'll let you get set up and then we'll turn it over to you.

[Adeline Lescanne-Gautier, Chief Executive Officer, Nutriset]

Good afternoon.

I am going to speak in French because I am lucky enough to be able to do so. First, I would like to thank the committee for inviting us. We are flattered to be here with you today.

Nutriset is a company that was started in 1986 by Michel Lescanne, my dad. We are a family company that, for 30 years, has been working to solve problems associated with malnutrition.

We developed a product called Plumpy'Nut, now known generically as an RUTF. As a product, it is a little more complex than peanut paste. Its formula meets the specific needs of children suffering from severe malnutrition.

Here is how it all started. We began by developing what are known as therapeutic milk products with very specific formulas. Unfortunately, those formulas had to be prepared with water. That was very complicated for hospitals to do. So, in 1996, we developed a ready-to-use product. Today, 25 million children around the world use the product.

We also developed the PlumpyField network. We did not want to make all our products in France; we wanted to give the countries we were targeting the opportunity to have their own production so that they could meet their own needs.

Today, we have partners who are manufacturing the product using the same international quality standards as those in France or the United States. Those partners are audited by the same auditors and verified by the same people from the United Nations.

We have partner plants to which we transfer our expertise. The plants are in Haiti, Niger, Burkina Faso, Sudan, Ethiopia, Madagascar and India. We are very proud of the fact that, in 2012, all Niger's needs were met using local production. No product came from France or the United States. In 2012, the plant in Niger was able to meet 100% of the country's needs.

This local production has to reflect product processing in terms of the recurring demand. If those countries could respond in times of major crisis, they would be overproducing for the rest of the time. Instead, we need the ability to respond to recurring levels of malnutrition. Today, malnutrition must be seen as a childhood disease like any other, not as an emergency at any given time.

Every year, countries where we have partners, like Niger, Burkina Faso and Sudan, as well as other countries where we do not have partners, have major needs in the order of 2,000 to 3,000 tonnes of product. So there has to be a local production. This also provides the opportunity to develop a high-quality, local agriculture industry using local ingredients. With a lot of research, it is possible to use those local ingredients instead of simply using formulas that have been developed in the north.

What we have managed to do with Plumpy'Nut is fantastic; we are saving children. Unfortunately, when a child is diagnosed with acute malnutrition, it is too late. The symptoms are irreversible. I think that everyone agrees that the need is for prevention. We mainly talk in terms of the first 1,000 days, meaning from the time when a woman becomes pregnant until the child is two years old. We have been working with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for five years to develop preventative products. They have been tested in Malawi, Ghana and Burkina Faso. The results were published in Rome last week.

We now have products for pregnant and breastfeeding women and products that will prevent children older than six months from becoming malnourished. Nutrition alone is not enough. There must also be prevention. This must be done in association with WASH programs, the treatment of malaria, vaccination, breastfeeding, and so on.

We know today that those products, because of the omega-3 and other ingredients they contain in addition to the micronutrients, allow children's bodies to better absorb the micronutrients: this greatly improves their cognitive and motor development.

These products are not magic, as Plumpy'Nut is; with it, we have seen a child who was going to die instantaneously saved. Actually, you don't see anything. That is what prevention is all about. But that is where we have to start, because if we do not, it is already too late.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're going to start with Madame Laverdière for the first round of questions for seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to all the witnesses who have taken the time to come and talk to us today and have made presentations that were all very interesting. I would like to put my first question to Mr. Prasad.

First, I would like to thank you for your presentation. I really appreciated your comments on the deep causes, patriarchy especially, and on the need to respond to that situation and to give women back the control over their own bodies. Control over our own bodies, of course, includes the ability to choose in matters of sexual and reproductive health.

I think your organization has conducted studies on the number of deaths linked to unsafe abortions that mothers and young women undergo.

Do you have specific figures on that?