Foreign Affairs Committee on May 12th, 2016

[Jean Lebel]

Well, directly, it did not, because by our mandate, by our strategies, by the guidance of our board of governors, we have always remained thematically focused, because in research, as I demonstrated, one solution found somewhere can help another country somewhere else.

Research is really about solving problems, so we have to look at our approach as thematically driven, giving us the opportunity to work with countries where there is capacity, or with countries where we need to develop capacity. Through that networking, we can cross over with a focused approach, like the one that Global Affairs Canada has been developing.

Overall, I would say that IDRC programming overlaps with countries of focus for a third of its programming that is launched in a single country. But globally we have a huge amount of activity that covers multiple countries, and then we grow the pie. So it's not for us to say which country to work in or not to work in. Our approach is to say: is there a problem in your country? And if there is one, what would you like to do in order to solve it, and how can we help you to solve this problem? If the solution that is found in your country works, we will put you in a network with someone elsewhere in order to replicate or adjust this finding.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I'm pretty sure you answered the next question I have.

Can Canada's bilateral international assistance be concentrated in a selected number of countries? You said a country has to come forward and ask for help, so how does Canada decide to focus on certain countries?

[Jean Lebel]

That's not a question that I can easily answer. Your previous witness could provide a better answer.

I think that when it comes to our approach, our decisions are made on what capacity is present, what is the fit of the requests with our thematic focus, and how the delivery of the research product will make a change in the country.

We don't have a country approach; we are driven thematically. Globally, I would say that historically and still, about 50% of our funding goes to sub-Saharan African countries; 20% goes to Asia; 20% goes to Latin America; and about 10% goes to the Middle East and North Africa. There is always a bit of fluctuation, but these are the broad parameters we have been following for numbers of years and they seem to be working.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

A short question by Mr. Levitt, please.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

I think this is a short question, but maybe I'll ask you to keep it short.

What are Canada's comparative advantages in terms of international development assistance, and how can we best leverage those? Maybe, again, try to be short. It seemed short in my head.

[Jean Lebel]

I'll try to be short in my answer also, Mr. Levitt.

In the type of programming area we have, agriculture and the environment, inclusive economies, and technology and innovation are all illustrations of the Canadian know-how that has been present for a number of years.

For agriculture, we tend not to remember that Canada is a very strong agricultural country. The relationship we have internationally for research and development is huge. For this program that I was mentioning to you, there are Canadian institutions across the country with expertise that they are using with their colleagues in developing regions, and on an on par basis. It is not Canada dominating the other; it's really equal footing. Sometimes there might be a little tip of the balance. To go to the first point on your question, the Canadian presence on issues related to food security and environment matters is recognized worldwide in a number of agencies.

Second, the previous witness was mentioning maternal and newborn child health. Definitively, it was a massive investment that took place, but also, research on emerging threats and emerging diseases is an often-forgotten Canadian brand that is recognized worldwide. I was mentioning the work of Gary Kobinger. I can tell you that he is known across the world for having put this vaccine together.

Less known is the work of Canada that touches on economic policy development. In a number of situations, Canada has brought innovation to the forefront in terms of economic and financial mechanisms. We only have to think about the crisis of 2008 and our banking system. It's also an area of work where we have a number of think tanks. I think, for example, of CIGI in Waterloo, the Centre for International Governance Innovation. Over the years, it has developed a very strong capacity in financial aspects.

Science and technology is the last aspect. I'll give you an example. A few years ago, through a state visit, I was accompanying the Governor General of Canada, the Honourable David Johnston. People started to ask me how IDRC could help them to create institutions that would provide funding in their country to their researchers on thematics that we would define. Originally, we started working with 26 countries in Africa to define the types of institutions that they would like. When I presented this to some colleagues at the international level, they thought we were crazy, and that in some contexts those countries don't have the capacity to do these types of things.

We now have a $15-million program that is reinforcing the capacity of these granting councils, like those we have in Canada, to meet the challenge of the 21st century, which is, how can a national country provide small funding in order to enhance the capacity of its students—for example, at the master's or Ph.D. levels—to deliver research results that will help policy, help academia, and help business?

We strongly believe that in the next 10 years this is going to be an area that will take on a lot of importance, because the growth in many of these countries is at 6%, 7%, and 8%, and there is a desire to participate worldwide in the development of research in order to meet the challenge of the 21st century nationally or internationally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Now we're going to Mr. Aubin, please.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lebel, thank you for being here with us this afternoon and sharing not only your expertise, but especially your passion, which is very clear to us.

The study we are doing targets the countries of focus. Correct me if I am mistaken, but according to your presentation, you accept the prioritization of a certain number of countries, while stating that that is not the only way and opening the door to the importance of greater flexibility and a thematic approach.

Does your organization find it difficult to work on the ground in regions where Canada's funding is weaker, that is to say in the regions or countries that are not targeted? Does that make your work more difficult?

[Jean Lebel]

That is a very good question, Mr. Aubin. Thank you.

I also want to thank you for what you said about the passion I feel for my work. Sometimes people tell me that I have a bit too much. After 30 years at IDRC, I still feel the same passion as I did when I arrived there. I think it is important.

I will now answer your question.

I said in my introduction that it is necessary to have specific objectives, but that flexibility is also needed. I'll give you an example. During the democratic transition in South Africa, the Canadian government donated $10 million to IDRC to develop research that would make it possible to avoid a bloodbath during the first elections and the formation of a democratic government. We funded research on science, the reform of institutions, parliamentary processes and on participation in initiatives such as urban development and water management. It was a very focused approach. Aside from the development of policies and practices, this approach meant that when Nelson Mandela formed his first cabinet, more than half of the ministers received or had already received funds from IDRC, Canadian assistance. It was a focused approach that met a need at a specific moment in time, and it is important to maintain that way of doing things.

However, regarding flexibility, I want to go back to what I was saying about agricultural research. When we launched that program with the Canadian government, we had $124 million in total. We put out a call for proposals in 58 countries, I believe, and 24 of them now participate in the program. It is competitive and based on quality. It allows us to use a thematic research approach whereby tests conducted currently in South Africa, Canada and Kenya on cattle vaccination have allowed us not only to work on that solution, but also to attract the attention of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as well as that of the Canadian government. We now have a dedicated $65-million cattle vaccination program which was announced a while ago.

On the ground...

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Please conclude quickly, because I have other questions.

[Jean Lebel]

On the ground, our people stay in constant contact with the missions, whether it is a country of focus mission or not. Often, in the course of missions in non-priority countries, we are welcomed with open arms, because we offer an example of what Canada can do in these countries. So that is an added value.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

I have a second question.

I am thinking of this old saying: “It is better to teach a hungry man to fish rather than to give him a fish”. It always concerns me to see that international development is perceived as something that takes place between the north and the south.

Will your flexible or thematic approach, once established, make it possible for south-south international development to take place, that is to say can the countries we provide assistance to in their turn become development leaders? Does a thematic approach make that more achievable than an approach that targets certain countries?

[Jean Lebel]

I can't really say if that can be made more achievable, but I can say that it has been done. Since I am before a Canadian audience, I spoke about relationships with the Canadian government, but the fact is that our work is also based on the development of research on south-south development work, as well as south-north projects. I did my doctoral work on mercury contamination in the Amazon. Sometimes we have mercury contamination problems right here, and my work is also useful to Canadians who are doing similar research.

I have another example. There is at this time an organization in Chile, known as the RIMISP, which does research on rural and territorial development. That organization is at the cutting edge of research, so much so that it works with the Columbian government to help plan future rural development in Columbia, in the context of the peace process that is going on there. Chileans are providing information to Columbians. They did the same thing in Mexico for the territorial development policy the Mexican government funded by providing $100 million recently.

Those are some examples of south-south development, and the IDRC was instrumental in this through initial investments it provided to a Chilean organization.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

I think my time is up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

A short one, if you like.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

No, that's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

All right.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Lebel, I want your opinion on this. In development policy in Canada, not to mention most other democratic states for that matter, there's always been tension between, on the one hand, the promotion of what would normally be considered development goals, poverty alleviation and the like, and on the other hand the desire to promote Canadian interests. Could you talk about that tension and how you understand it, and about any advice you have to policy-makers on how to deal with that issue?

[Jean Lebel]

Development goals are evolving. I started working in the field of international development 25 years ago and we were talking about health for all and the decade of water. Then afterwards we went to the millennium development goals, and we are now talking about sustainable development goals. So development goals are evolving. I think what is important is to monitor and keep track of the commitment but also the delivery and to make sure we finish one agenda before we open another one.

Right now with the SDGs and 17 goals and 187 targets, I think we have a lot of work ahead of us. The challenge is how much money do we have in order to achieve those goals and how are we going to monitor ourselves against those goals? That's one question. It will always be an evolving story. Our thematic area represents cross-cuts that can take research and inform multiple aspects of those development goals.

The second dimension is the tension between the Canadian enterprise and development, if I am hearing you well.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I think you are hearing me well, but just to underline it, it's this notion that if Canada is putting in x number of dollars, then Canada ought to benefit in some way economically and otherwise. What do you think about that whole discussion and dialogue?

[Jean Lebel]

I don't know. I can tell you about IDRC experience. The experience has often been that at the end of the day, IDRC investment without any Canadian involvement has paid off for Canada.

Let's take the example I gave to Mr. Aubin regarding our participation in South Africa's transition to a democratic regime. There was no Canadian technology involved in this; there was no manufacturing. For a very lay person, I think it makes a difference when half the cabinet has received funding throughout its career from Canadian sources in order to accomplish research work.

I think there are opportunities that we are working on to have Canadians with know-how, expertise, technical capacity, and even innovation that can get translated in a context. The Canadian vaccine for ebola is a perfect example. It's a vaccine that was created for the global greater good. It's very difficult to make money from these vaccines. I think for Canada it's remarkable that we have been supporting this for over 15 years and that we have done the trials and we, along with many others, have stopped the spread of the disease thanks to WHO, Médecins Sans Frontières, and others.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much for speaking about that. I think it's something that Canadian policy-makers, regardless of party stripe, have to deal with and look at. It's been an ongoing debate really since the 1960s in this country.

Chair, do I have a couple more minutes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Yes.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I'm interested in the example that you gave about DDT in Mexico. We've heard in this committee, and there is an ongoing discussion within the development community as well, that as far as health aid goes, failing to engage governments on the ground, governments in power in states where the health crisis happens to be taking place, can actually take away from their legitimacy. You understand the point. You follow the point. If you're not working with them, that can seriously undermine their legitimacy.

I want to hear this from you: when you encounter health crises, which your organization gets involved with, and the government in power happens to have corruption issues, accountability issues, or transparency issues, how do you navigate that terrain? Is it a matter of dealing specifically with the NGOs that are there? How do you overcome that issue?

[Jean Lebel]

That's a very interesting question.

First of all, I think you have to know that for IDRC, having staff on the ground for over 46 years and being in contact with people is the first line of defence.

Second, we do institutionally, as many other institutions do, a very firm and thorough internal review before engaging with a partner in a country about their capacity to manage the funds. If they don't have it—not because of reasons of corruption, but it's weak—then we're going to reinforce that as part of the research process.

Thirdly, the moment we smell something that is wrong we can stop the funding. But in 46 years I think that it has been extremely rare that the IDRC has done this. We have also assessed our programming externally through the Office of the Auditor General, and in 46 years we have always had, and I touch wood, a clean slate vis-à-vis a special examination or our annual review of financials.

There is a strong accountability that comes with the expertise of the staff. It's not only about the money and giving the money, it's about following and tracking that the money is used for the purpose that it was established within the research context. That's how we have done it over the last 46 years.