Foreign Affairs Committee on May 12th, 2016

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

Thank you.

Do I have some time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

No. Thank you, Mr. Aubin.

Mr. Levitt.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you for coming in and speaking with us today.

My question is a little bit broader. I want to ask about the efficacy of the bilateral nature of the countries of focus model, particularly in relation to dealing with the impact of regional issues, for example in the Americas and Africa. Does a bilateral focus limit our opportunity for success? Would including multilaterals in the process of directing development aid be an option that might be able to achieve greater levels of success?

[Deirdre Kent]

It is something that we will need to be looking at through our international assistance review. As I was saying in my statement, there are different models of geographic focus, so it can be countries, or a mix of countries and regions, and we've had regions within our bilateral programs as well.

Similarly, we have what we call “multi-buy”. That is using multilateral organizations in order to deliver in a specific country. The global fund, for example, would be funded in a global approach, but there may be a specific sector, such as education, where the best implementer and the most effective would be to use UNICEF, for example, in a specific country.

It's that mix of tools, using local NGOs or Canadian NGOs. Of course, Global Affairs is not an implementer. Everything we do is implemented through partners of some kind, whether it's multilateral development banks, which we haven't touched on here at all but are an important part of our international assistance....

It is absolutely a question to look at. Where do you have the impact? How are you reaching the poorest and most vulnerable through these different channels? Where does Canada have an impact?

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

I was going to ask specifically with regard to the Americas whether you may be....

[Isabelle Bérard]

I was going to say that we do have a very clear example in the Americas of our ability to be able to be flexible and meet all sorts of needs. We do have what we call a “region of concentration”. It's the Caribbean region. Actually we're covering 14 countries, but it is considered a region of focus.

I'm managing nine programs plus the Caribbean program, which covers 13 or 14 countries, and I also have an inter-American program, which allows me to work with the Inter-American Development Bank and the OAS, the Organization of the American States. I'm so used to using the acronym that I've lost track.... This allows us to have a good combination of direct intervention with the government using Canadian partners, and working through multilateral organizations as well, to reach those in need in areas where we might not be at present. It's actually a combination.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Because it's an issue that's coming up in our Subcommittee on International Human Rights next week and your specialty is the Americas, tell me, where Honduras is concerned, how you reconcile some of the human rights challenges that have taken place there and grown lately with how you deal with your developing countries?

[Isabelle Bérard]

The human rights challenges in Honduras specifically?

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Yes.

[Isabelle Bérard]

Definitely, it's at the heart of our preoccupations. The ODAAA, the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, commits us to work to address poverty reduction, but also to make sure that our interventions are compliant with human rights laws. Whenever we identify an initiative that we want to put forward for approval, we do take this into consideration, for sure.

In Honduras, we are quite aware that there are issues, and we are definitely addressing those as part of our planning and thought process for identifying initiatives.

I must say that in Central America, we are thinking more and more in terms of the region as a whole, because the issues are not only in Honduras. For example, we are looking very much at the example of CICIG, in Guatemala, where there was that commission on impunity. Also, there is the OAS, which intends to establish a similar initiative in Honduras. We're following this very, very closely to make sure that these human rights issues are addressed properly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Colleagues, that's the end of the first round.

We'll go to the second round, and start with Mr. Mendicino, please.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I want to thank both of the witnesses for their testimony today as well as for the work they do in the field. It's obviously of tremendous importance to Canada's values, as well as to those countries who are in most need of assistance.

I've taken some time to read through some of the criteria that I believe apply to the “countries of focus approach”, if I could put it that way. To summarize, the three criteria, as I understand them, are as follows: one, countries are selected based on their need; two, on their capacity to manage development programs; and three, on their alignment with Canadian foreign policy priorities.

My first question is whether you think there is any paradox between the first and the second of those two priorities. What I mean by that is that if a country is in greater need, whether in terms of poverty, infrastructure, education, youth, or security—that is, in terms of any of the priorities you've identified—is it possible or likely that the more in need they are the less capacity they have to effectively manage the aid and the assistance we aim to provide them?

[Deirdre Kent]

I would say yes, that's fundamentally a challenge. The countries that can be the most in need—and I'll speak to fragile states, for example—may have the greatest difficulty in being able to take advantage of, and to see tangible results from, development assistance in the way that you would see in a more stable middle-income country. There's the question of what countries you want to go into in order to see the results, but it's also what type of programming you are then going to offer in that country.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

How do you reconcile that? How do you reconcile Canada's desire to help those countries that are in most need with the apparent obvious inverse relationship of their perhaps having reduced capacity to effectively manage the assistance we wish to provide them?

I ask the question because I think that part of this conversation, as we move into a consultation phase, which is part of the responsible minister's mandate, will no doubt include the public's desire to see accountability, transparency, and openness around the investment and the aid we want to provide to these countries. How do you close that gap?

[Deirdre Kent]

Perhaps I'll speak generally, and then Isabelle can speak to examples in her region.

It is that question of looking at what your interventions are, and the partners with whom you are working.

We spoke earlier about countries that may have transitioned to where it's more difficult to work, and where you may therefore choose not to work with the government but with civil society. In environments where it's challenging to work directly as a bilateral donor, you would work through multilateral organizations that may have the security footprint that makes it more possible to have an impact, versus our working directly in that environment. Therefore, it's the types of programming, the thematic focus you might have in a country, and the channels you are using. You need to balance that against, as you say, the very real needs, and then target it to specific populations.

As Isabelle was saying, you might target women and girls. You might be targeting refugee populations that you can access more easily, or indigenous populations, for example, as a vulnerable population.

Isabelle, do you wish to add to that?

[Isabelle Bérard]

Yes, it is difficult to reconcile those considerations. We have to make choices. When you have finite resources, you do have to make tough choices. Yes, there are lots of conversations about reconciling all those criteria and making sure that we address the needs of the poorest.

Again, in the Americas—I'll use exactly the same example I used earlier—the top 10 countries we were involved in 10 years ago are exactly the same that we are now involved with, except Brazil. But we've added the inter-American program, which allows us to have a broader reach and be in a position to meet some of the needs in areas where we had to make tough choices.

Deirdre did mention that two-thirds of our aid budget is spent through other channels, but one thing we forgot to say is that we do take into consideration, as well, what is going through other channels when we make a decision on the choice of countries. Some countries benefit from multilateral organizations, and the organizations are quite effective at meeting their needs. In some instances, you might make the choice to be involved in one country, where there is a little more support, rather than another one.

From one region to the next, it's very different. In the Americas-specific region, we do have tools to, in a nutshell, be able reconcile those issues.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Am I right in extracting from your answer, which was very helpful, you, that in large measure it will depend on the strength of the relationship between our government, our state actors, and the countries we wish to help?

[Deirdre Kent]

Can you extract that? I think we were describing one of the reasons to focus, which is to enable that strengthened relationship. In order to have effective international assistance, you do want to have a strong relationship with that government. It goes both ways. If you have a strong relationship, then you'll be able to have more impact. If you have a focused program with an alignment with the priorities of the government, and where you can play an important role at the donor coordination table with the country and with other multilateral organizations, then you can have an impact. I think it's a positive circle that you get into.

Of course, we state that need and capacity are two of the three criteria. The third, with respect to alignment with Canadian priorities, includes our values. So it does include the countries that are respecting human rights and good governance, but also where we have a Canadian footprint—a country like Colombia, for example, where we have programming through our stabilization and reconstruction task force, or where there are Canadian peacekeepers or Canadian police deployed. It's that whole Canadian presence and engagement in a country that allows us to take a comprehensive approach, and that would argue for Afghanistan also.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

I'll go to Mr. Kent, please.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thanks to both of you for your dedicated work over the years and working in various departmental incarnations in recent years.

I'd like to ask about Haiti. Six years after the earthquake, many of the major donor countries, and Canada is one of those, have become increasingly frustrated. The initial response to the disaster was very good. It was very effective, with a whole-of-government response from Canada and other places, with a lot of coordination on the ground. However, six years later, there is no political government in place for you to align with and relate to. That's part of the problem. Moreover, there are still terrible hilltop mock housing situations—slums, if you will—and the education recovery has not achieved nearly what the original targets were.

Given the buzz on the Hill that Canada will very likely, or is positioning now to, take over MINUSTAH, the stabilization force, with peacekeepers in the fall, I'm wondering whether Canada is asking, as other countries are, whether the military administration model should be phased out and a more classic development model phased in to achieve what hasn't really been achieved in the last six years.

[Isabelle Bérard]

I was the director responsible for Haiti when the earthquake happened, so I was closely involved in the follow-ups to the earthquake.

In the initial response, the Canadian engagement was massive. We supported the government and the Haitian population. We've achieved quite a lot, and I know people have been, in some instances, quite critical of the time it has taken to get to a good space, where we have actually cleared out all the rubble. We've relocated everybody. Almost 85% of the people were living in tents. They have been relocated now. The school system has been re-established, hospitals have been built, etc., so a lot has been done.

Are there issues on the political front? That's for sure, we can't deny that and the fact that there haven't been elections for four years. They tried last fall, and it didn't work out. We are very clearly pushing the government to keep their promise of holding those elections, and our ambassador in Port-au-Prince is quite involved in this and is pushing very hard with the international community on this. We issued a statement, I believe it was last week, calling on the Haitians to hold elections and make sure that things move along quickly, because we are getting impatient. This is a message that we are delivering.

Of course, we resumed our support to Haiti in 2015 after a review, but we were clear then that we were in a transition period and that we would wait until a government was in place before we would move forward with more significant support. We're still in that transition period, essentially, and are waiting for this government. That said, we're hoping that there will be a government soon. So there is work being done behind the scenes to make sure that things are moving forward.

As for the MINUSTAH, I just want to clarify that there is this rumour that we will take on MINUSTAH. Minister Dion has been very clear about that: we are not going to take command of the MINUSTAH.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

That's an absolute? In his answers to us, he said no decisions had been made.

[Isabelle Bérard]

Well....

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

If I could come back to Honduras, in those post-coup years, Canada did work fairly diligently in a variety of ways to bolster the justice system, encouraging successive governments to respond to human rights issues. Is there any leverage at all in the way that countries of focus receive their aid for us to redirect, in mid-course, our aid from areas that are proving to be less effective? Do the predictability and the commitment to longer term development handcuff you for a period of time before you can respond, for example, to the human rights problems we see today?

[Isabelle Bérard]

Within a country such as Honduras....?