Evidence of meeting #14 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was themes.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:40 p.m.
Prof. Stephen Brown
How long do I have?
5:40 p.m.
Prof. Stephen Brown
Is the committee aware of what these six themes are? No?
Okay, let me read them.
My understanding is partial. I participated in these consultations that were held on Friday. They were aimed at NGOs and consultants in international development.
We were given six themes to discuss, and we broke into groups to discuss each of the six themes.
The first is health and rights of women and children. I noticed that Minister Bibeau was already making announcements and press releases around specifically this wording, so to me it seems as though it has already been adopted.
The second is green economic growth and climate change.
The third is governance, pluralism, diversity, and human rights.
The fourth is peace and security.
The fifth is responding to humanitarian crises.
The sixth is delivering results by promoting innovation and improving effectiveness, transparency, and partnerships. I still have trouble wrapping my head around that one.
Part of my problem is the way this consultation took place. To me, it wasn't really a consultation. It was a sort of stage-managed way of getting us to talk about them, but because we were broken down into groups with each table addressing one of these, there was no space to actually ask why these six themes were chosen, whether these were good ideas, or whether these themes were actually well formulated.
For instance, the first one is health and rights of women and children. My guess is that they took maternal, newborn, and child health—MNCH—which was a Harper government initiative and closely associated with the prime minister, and they wanted to add sexual and reproductive rights, which is something the Liberals had talked about, so they somewhat transformed it: they changed the word “mothers” to “women” and then added on “rights”. However, if we're talking about health and rights of women and children, why just health and rights? Why not also education? What about human rights, which are in number three? Why are women's rights number one and human rights number three? There have been court cases about whether women are people, and I think that's been resolved.
To me there's. It seems to be.... You have to go into the path dependency of this. It wasn't designed to be effective; it was designed to take the old one and rebrand it and add in the thing they wanted.
Responding to humanitarian crises is something that we do. To me, it's an activity; I don't understand how it's a theme. I don't know, to go back to health and rights of women and children, whether it is different from gender equality. Is this an overarching theme, a cross-cutting theme, a separate theme? I'm not sure.
I don't know what the future consultations will look like, but I hope they will involve some space such that people can actually comment on these themes. We were told time and time again that nothing was set in stone, that everything was up for debate, but the way it was organized showed that these six themes were already decided, and off the record, people from Global Affairs Canada said that the minister was very attached to these themes. I don't quite understand what a consultative process is if the decision has already been made.
As I said, I was interested in the fact that food security was no longer there. When I asked about whether that means that Canada is no longer going to work on food security, I was told that it fits in theme number one, because women need good nutrition, especially expectant mothers, and children need nutrition too. I was told that agriculture fits under green economic growth and climate change and that food aid is an important part of responding to humanitarian crises.
That goes back to my previous point: does this make a difference or not? If we're still doing food security and we have now split it among these three themes but are going to keep doing what we're already doing, why does it matter? Why do we need themes? Why do we need to change themes?
If it does make a difference—if we are dropping food security— then can we have a discussion about that?
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West, ON
Oh, I do? Okay.
You didn't use the whole six minutes. Thanks, Mr. Brown.
This is to Mr. Munro. You talked a bit about some of the thought processes, whether it was working collaboratively among countries in terms of investments that were important or....
One thing we've talked about is the whole issue of DFIs, the development finance initiatives. Just give some of your comments on that subject. Does it lead into trying to address some of the things that we can deal with now? Are we late to the party? I know we're the last G7 country.... What are your thoughts?
That is going to be a separate study. I get that, but you talked about it in terms of the ability to deal with some of those possible infrastructure needs. Do you see it as a vehicle, or is it something else?
5:45 p.m.
Director, School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I'm not a great expert on DFIs, development finance institutions or initiatives, but let me say this.
Yes, you're correct, sir: Canada is late to the party, in that other people have had such institutions for many decades. The amounts that Canada is putting in are, I believe, a couple of hundred million dollars a year. Compare that to international financial institutions such as the World Bank, which lends $25 billion a year, and then look at the BRICS bank, which is aiming to have a capitalization of, I think, $10 billion U.S. You can imagine the leveraging of loans that you can make from a capitalization of $10 billion.
Ours may be a good initiative—I don't know—but it's small potatoes. It's also hard to do that new initiative and still make the argument that we're focusing even more, because that looks like more spread, not more focus.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thanks to all of you for appearing today.
In the previous session with UNICEF, CARE Canada, and World Vision, the last question I wanted to ask got cut off because we didn't have time. It was about the process by which countries have been put on the list of countries of focus and taken off the list. All of this seems very.... It's a mystery.
What have you been able to ascertain—this question is for all of you—in your studies of this process? It seems to me that strategic considerations have been paramount, but could you comment on that?
My second question is for Mr. Munro and Mr. Brown. Both of you have written on the over-concentration of aid being a problem with the countries of focus approach. Could you expand on that and perhaps give examples of over-concentration of aid leading to a quite negative outcome?
5:45 p.m.
Prof. Stephen Brown
I've been setting the various criteria since the international policy statement of the Martin government in 2005. That government and several other iterations started with the top criterion being where aid is needed. The second one was where it can be used the best, the most effectively. Often those first two contradict each other, because the poorest countries often have the least capacity, and those that have a great capacity to use aid need it least. For instance, China would have a great capacity to use aid to reduce poverty, but it is not a country in great need.
Often, there has been a third criterion that muddies the water even further. For the Martin government, it was an opaque World Bank score on institutions. For the last iteration under the Harper government, it was alignment with Canadian foreign policy, which I've already spoken against.
My fundamental reading of this is that these criteria could allow you to include any country that you wanted to include. They provide absolutely no guidance. They can give you some cover to say that it aligns with this one or that one, but the criteria are vague enough that you can use whatever political preference you have, and very often these are very political preferences, no matter how much people might say otherwise.
I talked to the people at CIDA after the international policy statement and that new list of 25 countries and asked if it wasn't going to be just a Liberal initiative, such that when the next government would come in, it would change that list. They said no, no, that it was not partisan at all, that they had consulted widely, that these were the 25 countries, and that everybody agreed on them. Then, four years later, the countries were changed again by a different government.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Talk about the previous decade and any interviews you've had with NGOs. Under Mr. Harper, were NGOs consulted? You touched on this point, but were you able to find any NGO that was consulted on this question of adding and subtracting from the list?
5:50 p.m.
Prof. Stephen Brown
As far as I know, there weren't consultations, either with NGOs or with the recipient countries themselves.
In 2005, when the new list was announced, a number of African countries that were dropped actually found out from the media, which created a lot of tension and might have contributed to hostility towards Canada's UN Security Council bid. My sense is that this is a very internal process, done at the highest level, and that even employees in what was then CIDA and is now Global Affairs Canada were not involved in this process.
5:50 p.m.
Director, School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Sometimes reality kicks. Correct me if I'm wrong, Stephen, but I think the very first list of focus countries from 2001—
5:50 p.m.
Prof. Stephen Brown
It might have been 2002.
5:50 p.m.
Director, School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Yes, it was 2001 or 2002. It didn't have Iraq or Afghanistan on it.
Then reality kicked in. There were a couple of major wars in those countries, and Canadian aid ramped up. Then, glory be to God, the next iteration of the list included those countries because the aid had happened already. Reality kicked in.
There are other considerations that one has to suspect. Again, there was Ukraine. One has to wonder whether Canadian electoral politics didn't play into that.
5:55 p.m.
Director, School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
That's a fact, I think.
To go to your question on over-concentration, sir, my fear isn't so much about over-concentration on a few countries, but there are one or two examples. Mr. Audet has correctly identified Denmark, and I think Norway is another case of a country that has—and they tend to be small countries, and they tend to be donor countries with little or no colonial history—focused on a few countries and a few lines of business.
The Norwegians for a couple of decades became good at peace-building, peace negotiations, and those sorts of things. It was a cross-party consensus. It lasted an awfully long time. It was cultivated by generations of ministers and also helped by a long tradition of coalition governments in those countries. You can make it work. You can make country focus work.
My point is that if you just say, “Here's our list of countries”, and even if you do focus your aid on them—and history suggests Canada makes these lists and then does something different—it's not enough just to give more aid to fewer countries. You have to address the issue of what I call the tsunami of regulations and risk management and rules and regulations. You have to decentralize to the Canadian missions in the field.
A decade ago, it was said the average Dutch ambassador in Africa had a higher spending authority than the Canadian minister for international development. You have to address those issues if your aid is going to be effective in those fewer countries you give your money to. You have to develop deep, long-term knowledge. You have to rotate the staff in Global Affairs Canada so that they spend some time on the West African desk. They're in Burkina Faso for five years and they go to the West Africa desk and they come back to West Africa later. They learn local languages and they develop deep regional or local expertise. I think if you look at the rotation patterns in Global Affairs Canada over the last 20 years, you will see that the deep cultivation of country-based expertise is the exception and not the rule.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
You touched on red tape. Could you send me an article, or send the committee an article, with specific examples, or bring it up in an answer to follow, including remarks, or whatever you want to do?
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for participating in our work. You did not beat about the bush. Your presentations were very refreshing.
My first question is for Mr. Audet.
Out study is being conducted at a very fast pace. We have only three meetings to meet with witnesses, which means that we cannot invite certain stakeholders from Quebec. I am thinking of the Association québécoise de la coopération internationale, among others.
Based on your experience as a practitioner and researcher, is the approach of international aid groups in Quebec different from or similar to the approach of groups in the rest of Canada?
5:55 p.m.
Professor, School of Management, Université du Québec à Montréal, As an Individual
I could say more or less that there are also two solitudes in terms of international cooperation, even within Global Affairs Canada. I am certain that, in this building, the situation is similar. There are networks. The difference is not in the networks but in the systems of values, traditions, and beliefs that vary from region to region in Canada. I believe that Canada's missionary past is widely acknowledged. In some parts of Canada, society has opted for secularism. In other parts, this is not yet the case. This means that the traditions within organizations are different and that our representatives abroad each operate differently.
In the past, we have noted differences in funding for organizations depending on the government and type of organization and depending on whether the organizations were closer to one government than to another. That being said, I believe that this is what creates Canadian diversity and our complementary approach. It also probably explains our diversity. The diversity of our capacities, expertise, and identity in countries around the world is demonstrated in different ways. Here, there are relationships, networks, and diasporas from, as you know, almost every country. I am not an expert in Canadian policy, but I believe that this is why, as soon as we receive requests, they generate interest. We cannot abandon countries in need. We must do something, and this feeling exists everywhere. The means to do so, however, can vary.
I would answer yes to your question. I would like to know the opinion of my colleagues from the other side of the Ottawa river, but I believe that, overall, there are clear distinctions.
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you.
My next question is for Mr. Brown.
In your opening remarks, the concept of “flavour of the month” caught my attention. We all understand that this approach is not very positive. You all seem to more or less agree that the bilateral approach is outdated and that we must consider a more multilateral approach.
Can Canada serve as champion and coordinator of multilateral organizations so that each country participating in development—not in a country of focus, but in a country where we would like to become involved—co-operates with the others to solve more problems and to prevent activities from overlapping? Can Canada coordinate an international multilateral program?
5:55 p.m.
Professor, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Absolutely.
Canada has shown leadership in the past in development assistance matters. For example, it took the lead on gender equality matters and on ways to support NGOs in development assistance programs in the 1970s to 1980s and maybe in the early 1990s. We have seen some withdrawal from multilateral forums in recent years and in the last decade. However, it is entirely possible to restore these institutions and to again show leadership. However, our approach must be different from the way we present our branding. We need to work together more and not expect our partners to act as we do, but listen to them more and work with them.
We must also remember that the attitude toward development assistance in the 21st century has changed. We must stop thinking that because of Canada's expertise and comparative advantage in certain fields, we are obligated to take care of a given need. Development assistance is no longer done this way. It does not involve simply sending Canadians who have expertise in nutrition or in another field to a given country to solve a problem. We must support the priorities of local governments and institutions. Canada signed the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness 15 years ago. We are committed to respecting the priorities of countries, to local ownership, and to aligning our efforts with their priorities. I believe that when we focus too much on our own priorities, we fail to comply with our commitment and with our new way of working together with others.
For example, if we believe that we must work in the immunization and vaccination field, it should not be because Canada has a certain expertise. If we believe that it is important and that there are deficiencies and a need for additional funding, we should not limit our support to this sector when we could, for example, contribute to Gavi or to another institution working in the field. Our view of development is somewhat outdated.
6 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you.
I have a question for Mr. Munro.
I got the sense that you cut your presentation a bit short because of time, but you were doing a great job discussing how to increase Canada's aid effectiveness. Red tape was one of the problems you pointed to. I think we could really achieve savings on the administrative end, potentially freeing up resources to make more international assistance funding available on the ground. I assume you have other ideas on how to improve aid effectiveness with the same budgets.
6 p.m.
Director, School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Everyone always looks for a magic bullet, but it doesn't exist. Like my colleague, Mr. Audet, I worked in the the sector, spending a long time over at UNICEF. We were always so glad to come to Ottawa to meet with the people from what used to be known as CIDA. Despite their constantly shifting priorities, there was always room on the list for children's issues. We had to be creative and ever mindful when writing our proposals. Back when I was a senior editor on a four-year UNICEF strategy, I paid close attention to what high-ranking CIDA officials had to say. I made sure to use the right terminology, which I think was social development at the time. We would highlight the fact that social development involved children, as the witness mentioned earlier.
That's how the game is played. Regardless of the priorities that have been set, development officers in their NGOs, in UN or other agencies, have their priorities and mandates. UNICEF will always find a way to align its initiatives with those priorities, whatever they are. The same goes for World Vision and all the others.
The biggest impact of frequently changing priorities, countries of focus, and so forth is the work they generate for the administrative personnel of those agencies. They are forced to exercise more creativity when writing their proposals, reports, and assessments. It's time to find another way to play the development game.
