Foreign Affairs Committee on May 12th, 2016

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Yes.

[Isabelle Bérard]

First, in terms of leverage, I must say that because Honduras is a country of focus and we are recognized as an important actor, we are a member of what we call the “G-16”, the 16 donors that are involved there. We are actually chairing the committee. We do have leverage and influence on what's going on within the international community. It allows us to strengthen our policy dialogue with the government, because we can come up with a line of consistent messaging. We are pushing very much in that direction to deal with human rights issues.

In terms of our ability to redirect our aid, it varies from one country to the next. It all depends on the space we have in our budget. If we do have some space, we can shift and start transitioning to a different sector. In some other instances, it might be a little more difficult. That said, if you know there is a strong desire to shift from one very specific area to the next, there are always options to say, “Well, we'll review our portfolio and see if there's room to do different things.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

We'll now go to Mr. Saini, please.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I have one question. I understand that Canada wants to focus on specific countries, but are we collaborating with any international partners to make sure that the aid is used effectively? The reason I ask is that rather than creating countries that become aid darlings or aid orphans, do we have some collaborative approach to make sure that the money we're investing has some objective without reducing, or diminishing, or overspending in certain countries?

[Deirdre Kent]

That is central for all donors. There's a high expectation of taxpayers in donor countries that the aid is effective and that works for the recipient countries as well as the contributing countries. There are mechanisms in place. Isabelle mentioned donor coordination groups, for example, at the country level, so if there are issues, you have mechanisms to deal with them. There are rigorous mechanisms in place in Global Affairs through our evaluations, but also at the multilateral level, where we are a part of the boards of directors of multilateral organizations to ensure the effective use of funds at that level. There are also organizations like the OECD Development Assistance Committee, where you're looking at the broad approaches, and the Paris principles of what makes aid effective, where it's country led, where there's predictability, and where there's transparency. Those are some of the principles and evidence that we'll want to be using as we're looking at renewing and reshaping Canada's international assistance.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I have a second question. You mentioned the sustainable development goals. Some of those goals emerge from the millennium development goals, one of which was that poverty should be halved by 2015. Now we have a more ambitious target that poverty should be eradicated by 2030. I'm wondering what metric are we are going to use, or what criteria are we going to have to make sure that we contribute to the eradication of poverty by 2030? My only scepticism is that we couldn't cut it in half by 2015, yet in the next 14 years we want to eradicate it totally. What metric and programming do we have to achieve that objective?

[Deirdre Kent]

The 2030 agenda for sustainable development goals is an incredibly ambitious target in aiming for the complete eradication of poverty. One of the interesting aspects is that, like the millennium development goals, there are specific targets and specific indicators behind all of the goals. We will be able to measure if we are meeting those goals. There will a tracking and a reporting system that is now being developed through the UN. So there will be regular progress reports and reporting back from all countries in that context. There was real progress made under the millennium development goals, and some of those goals were met, but as you pointed out, they weren't all met.

In terms of Canada's approach to implementing the sustainable development goals, that will be central to the review. The review of international assistance will allow us to look at how should we be implementing the goals by speaking to other donors, hearing from Canadians, and hearing from civil society organizations and donor countries about what is the right way to implement the goals by playing to Canada's value-added.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

The second part of that question, and the reason I asked it, was about our Canadian bilateral aid to those countries of focus that was supposed to be 80%, but in 2010 it was 47%, and in 2011 it was 39%. It actually went down. I'm wondering if you can you give us an idea why we were unable to achieve the 80% mark of the money that we were going to spend in those countries of focus.

[Deirdre Kent]

I'd need to get back to you. I'm not sure about those statistics; they're not familiar to me.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

That's okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

This is the last question.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

In terms of aid programming and developmental focus, there were certain instances where certain countries were on a list, then they were taken off a list, and then they were put back on a list. I can give you two examples. Benin and Burkina Faso were put on a list in 2005. They were taken of the list, and they were put on the list again.

I'm just wondering if there is any way we can have some consistency going forward. Do you think that's important in certain fragile states, to have the programming stabilized so that going forward, those countries can have a certain ability to achieve the objectives we want to help them achieve?

[Deirdre Kent]

Yes. As you say, a degree of predictability and sustained presence is important. I'll also say that our bilateral development assistance is one of our tools in some of these countries. In our conversations with the governments of those countries we can actually point to significant Canadian programming through Canadian NGOs, international NGOs, multilateral banks, and UN organizations.

Perhaps I'll do a little plug here for the report that comes from the ODAAA, the official development assistance report. It's a statistical report. It actually shows the full footprint of Canada's international assistance by country. You'll see there are countries that are not countries of focus or partner countries where we can actually have a significant impact and investment through these other channels. You can't look at the one channel in isolation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

I'm going to have to leave it there, colleagues.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the officials from Foreign Affairs.

Just to remind colleagues, these are the first witnesses of our study. I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to talk to some of the officials again as we work our way through this. I just want to give the officials the understanding that we may be writing you to ask some questions that we will be looking for some answers to.

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for your presentation.

There were very good questions.

We'll take a two-minute break—and I mean two minutes—and then we'll go straight to our next witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Colleagues, we'll bring this meeting back to order.

In our second hour we're going to hear from Mr. Jean Lebel, the president of the International Development Research Centre. Due to our usual struggle with time, we're going to go right to Mr. Lebel, ask him to make his presentation, and go straight to questions from there.

Mr. Lebel, welcome to the committee. We look forward to your presentation.

[Jean Lebel, President, International Development Research Centre (IDRC)]

Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, good afternoon.

It is my pleasure to appear before you today on behalf of Canada's International Development Research Centre, better known by its acronym, IDRC. IDRC welcomes the opportunity to participate in the committee's study on countries of focus for Canada's bilateral development assistance, as well as the priority sectoral themes.

Today I will address three main points. The first is focus—both how it and flexibility are important. Second is the impact of our work research that often goes beyond only one country. Third is the power of working thematically across a number of countries.

Before I get into these remarks, however, I thought it might be helpful for me to share some background information about IDRC that is relevant to today's discussion.

IDRC was founded as a crown corporation in 1970 through the International Development Research Centre Act. This legislation directs IDRC “to initiate, encourage, support and conduct research into the problems of the development regions of the world and into the means for applying and adapting scientific, technical and other knowledge to the economic and social advancement of those regions.”

IDRC's value proposition, when it comes to Canada's international development mandate, is multi-faceted and is founded on the knowledge and networks of our expert staff, achieving impacts of scale, and building the self-reliance of countries. It is also founded on our accountability to Parliament, to our board, and to our donor partners. We have been an asset for Canada's broader foreign affairs family through our 46 years of supporting innovative research, and through our engagement with a large global network of actors that helps Canada deliver on its international development priority at the same time as it builds important relationships for Canada.

What do we do? Very simply, we provide funds to research institutions driving global change. Our grantees are problem-solvers. Our model of working with them is a theme-based approach. In particular, we focus on three problematic areas: agriculture and environment, inclusive economies, and technology and innovation. Within these three areas we have a number of programs, all of which are aligned with Canadian government priorities, as well as the needs of developing countries.

In short, IDRC invests in knowledge, innovation, and solutions to improve lives and livelihoods in the developing world.

Let me now turn to the three points I introduced a moment ago.

First is the question of the focus of our work and where to work. Let's take the Ebola crisis as an example. West Africa experienced, as we all know, the largest-ever Ebola outbreak in 2014-15, mainly in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea. Canadian partners, including IDRC, were at the forefront of developing and running trials of the Canadian Ebola vaccine that saved lives and helped stop the spread of the disease. That is a major success story.

However, the less-told story is the extent to which weak health systems are at the core of why these outbreaks become crises in the first place. We see this through our approach to working on topics collaboratively and across countries. In the late nineties we funded research and capacity-building at the Lacor Hospital in northern Uganda in the region of Gulu, when an Ebola outbreak happened in 2000. These investments meant that health care workers knew exactly what to do when an outbreak of unknown origin happened. The response was driven by local teams and was extremely effective, limiting the outbreak to barely more than 400 persons.

It is important to be in the right place at the right time. But it is also important to take into consideration the long-term investment in research that doesn't deliver instantaneously. We cannot only answer crises; we also need to prevent them through long-term investment.

Second, the result of science and research extends beyond the borders of a country. When Canada, the United States, and Mexico agreed to eliminate DDT, a toxic chemical insecticide used to combat malaria, that was in the context of the ratification of the parallel agreement of the North American Free Trade Agreement. It was very easy for Canada and the U.S. since we had not used the toxic chemical for years, but Mexico was still using it to control malaria, so they faced the greatest challenge.

We worked with the Mexican government at that time to develop a new approach that could be used to control malaria without DDT. The approach was so effective in Mexico, limiting the cases to almost zero, that it was and is now being applied in many other countries in Central America. This example is an illustration of how a solution developed in one place can be replicated across many countries.

Third, I would like to share with you the power of working on a theme across a number of countries simultaneously.

For example, the Canadian International Food Security Research Fund is an initiative launched in 2009 by IDRC and the department that has now become Global Affairs Canada. The fund has so far supported 39 projects between Canada and developing country institutions in 24 countries to improve food security. That initiative does not target any particular country, but recognizes the importance of flexibility in research.

So far, the research projects supported by this fund have benefited more than 383,000 farmers in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Examples of the more than 130 innovations that have been tested include a five-disease-in-one vaccine for livestock that allows farmers to protect their livestock affordably without vaccines that need a cold chain and booster shots. It was very effective.

This program is also supporting researchers who are improving the resilience and nutritional content of pulse crops that include lentils, beans, and chickpeas, which are affordable, nutritious, and a high source of protein for populations across the developing world.

These three points that I made demonstrate IDRC's systematic approach providing the opportunity for a research-focused organization to focus its efforts and also to remain flexible within the mandate on which we are delivering.

I would like to conclude with three brief points about metrics, time, and partnerships.

Metrics allow you to measure performance through the life of a project when initiatives produce not only an outcome but also early and intermediate outcomes. It's important that when we give money, we don't wait a decade before a result happens, even when it's researched and takes time. We have a duty to measure ourselves to keep the work on track and also learn how to do course corrections and adjust.

Second, it takes time for long-term investment to pay off. Research can take up to 10 or 15 years. The Ebola vaccine that was developed by our researcher, Gary Kobinger, at the Public Health Agency of Canada in Winnipeg, started about 15 years ago. The success was present in 2015 because this investment was made and was followed through on.

We see the benefit of time in each of the examples I've provided today. DDT is the same. It took 10 years of investment before we came to have Central America free from it.

Food security is an ongoing behaviour. Our model at the IDRC has been proven successful and has attracted many partnerships, which is my third point.

One of the single most powerful demonstrations of this success is that other Canadian and international partners are joining us and empowering our work with funds to deliver on programs that carry with them Canadian values and priorities.

In fact, between 2010 and 2015, IDRC supplemented our parliamentary appropriation with more than $350 million from donors including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and governments in the U.K., Australia and Norway.

In conclusion, I believe that IDRC's experience across program areas and priority countries positions it to be an effective tool for the Canadian government. Our model is both effective and adaptable, and we look forward to helping the Canadian government deliver on its international development mandate.

Honourable members of the committee, I hope you have found these remarks informative. We have made available copies of our Strategic Plan 2015-2020 for your reference.

This strategic plan is not a glossy brochure; it's not the short summary. It is the strategic plan of IDRC that talks about knowledge and innovation solutions that measure impact at scale, support leadership of youth and established researchers, and work in partnership on substance and on funding.

I thank you for your attention and for having given IDRC and myself the opportunity to speak today. I will be more than happy to answer your questions.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lebel. It's much appreciated.

Now we'll go right to questions, and I understand Mr. Allison will start.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

In my experience with IDRC over the years, you guys are one of the best-kept secrets we have in Canada. I'm glad you're here today to tell us a bit more about what you do, as we look at development and the various issues. Your organization plays a very strategic role, from what I've heard over the years.

I only have a couple of questions for you.

You talk about partnerships and you talk about agriculture—all these things. I know you're at arm's length, that you're a crown corporation, but do you work with Global Affairs in any way in trying to figure out priorities and what countries you would look at in terms of countries?

Related to that, how do you go about picking your projects, as to where you go and whom you're going to work with, whether it's partnering with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or partnering with governments?

For my second question, I want to focus more on agriculture. You gave us a couple of examples. Tell us about some of the success you've had, in Africa or wherever it might be, and about some of the long-term effects of what you have done on the ground to make a difference in people's lives there. Pick a country, pick a particular story, anything that sticks out in your mind that's anecdotal in nature, for us.

[Jean Lebel]

In terms of your first point about working with Global Affairs Canada and our development priorities, this is an ongoing process. I would say that over the last five years, it has increased dramatically. I would qualify the relationship with Global Affairs as being at a peak in our history. Over the last four years, there has been a crescendo of collaboration. We also have a better common understanding of our role, which is a best-kept secret, and of our delivery to help the Canadian government, whichever one it is, to achieve its objectives.

It's an ongoing conversation. Our problem areas—agriculture is one—cover food security, climate change, and emerging and re-emerging disease. There is a very important relationship with the environment. With this flexible approach we can take on things that the government wants to do, while staying at the forefront of research in places where government might not be. For example, the Zika virus is something we are talking about a lot these days. We have made international investments in a number of research teams working on emerging and re-emerging disease.

Yesterday, Minister Bibeau and Minister Philpott announced a $5-million program on Zika research. What is it? We are calling on the best minds in developing regions and in Canada to work together to find solutions that can be applied, not only in one country but in one, two, or three regions. Zika is now a global problem.

As to our partnering priorities, our rationale is sound and easy to grasp. Is the partner like-minded with us? Are we going to distract ourselves and do ambulance chasing, or are we going to contribute to our core programming and our lawful mandate? If it is not a good fit, we don't do it. How do we test this? We don't do partnerships if we don't invest money allocated to us by Parliament. If a staff member has a great idea and wants a partner for it, and you ask that staff member how much money she is willing to put in from the budget, you get a strong signal about the value of the partnership.

If IDRC people are not interested in investing in the partnership, we don't do it. I can tell you, though, that in the last five years we have fundraised $350 million. That's a 1:3 or 1:4 ratio in the leveraging effect, based on the parliamentary allocation we receive on a yearly basis. In the next five years, we hope to reach $450 million. This we will use to promote Canadian values, while growing the pie to have a larger impact in the field.

Turning to agriculture, small millet in India is a hard-grained cereal. A simple dehulling machine has been developed to provide a better return on the sale of this grain. When it's purified, it gets four times the price of the unpurified grain. You need to dehull, take the hull out from the grain. A simple machine developed by a university in India, together with several Canadian universities—McGill, Mennonite University in Manitoba—has improved this process at low cost and has made it extremely powerful.

Not only that, small millet contains as much protein as wheat and maize together and is resistant to heat and flooding. It was forgotten in India, however, during the grain revolution and the concentration on major crops. Now, thanks to the research done by India and Canada, small millet has been reintroduced in India. In fact, the Indian government is putting money into research in order to expand this crop across the country. This is an illustration of our research work in an area that, years ago, was not seen as a priority, but now, after 10 years of research, is paying off.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

We'll go to Mr. Sidhu.

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

Thank you, Mr. Lebel, for being here. It's quite impressive, raising $350 million.

How many years did it take to raise that kind of money? Do you do this on an annual basis?

[Jean Lebel]

The $350 million was over the last five years, from 2010 to 2015.

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

Still, that's a lot. I applaud that.

[Jean Lebel]

Thank you very much.

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

You did mention in your statement that in your arena, it's a long-term investment. So I am wondering, did this announcement of the countries of focus for Canada's bilateral development assistance affect IDRC's international assistance programming? If it did, how?