Foreign Affairs Committee on May 17th, 2016

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much for coming here, all of you. Thank you for your commentary.

Ms. McGuinty, I have a quick question for you, since you brought up Chad.

I found it very intriguing that on the 2014 list of countries we're helping, Mali is on the list and South Sudan is on the list, but Chad is not on the list. Then you brought up the millennium development goals, which have now been changed into sustainable development goals.

The MDG goals were that in 2015 poverty would be halved. The sustainable development goal is that by 2030 poverty should be eliminated. If we focus on two countries that are beside a third country, how is that going to resolve itself? What do you suggest?

[Carleen McGuinty]

Well, Canada can't be everywhere. It can't be in every country, there's no doubt. We have limited resources.

I think it's about making Canada's limited resources work harder and go farther. What we've learned from the millennium development goals and what UNICEF has learned from our own experience is that if you reach the hardest-to-reach children, the most vulnerable children—those who are living in slums, those who are living in remote rural areas—you can actually reach your targets faster, and it is more cost-effective.

When I presented the example of Chad, I wanted to paint a picture showing that progress is possible with few resources. Chad is not a country of focus for Canada, but with support from Global Affairs Canada—a small amount of money—and with Canadians and with global partners such as the World Health Organization and Gavi, we were still able to roll out a massive vaccination campaign, so progress is possible.

It's about using your money smartly and about capitalizing on local capacity, national government capacity, and these multi-stakeholder partnerships. It's not about one country doing it all or one agency doing it all; it's about a number of partners at the table—the private sector, UN agencies, academics, NGO partners. You need everyone at the table working together in a concerted effort, and that's what the sustainable development goals are all about.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Do I have more time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Yes, you have time.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. McIntosh, I have a question for you.

Mr. Alba-Corral highlighted some of the criteria that his organization uses to determine which countries of focus they will focus on. Can you kindly give us a highlight or some commentary on what kind of criteria you use, just to give us an informed opinion on what we should perhaps be looking for also?

[Jamie McIntosh]

Yes. I'm going to ask my colleague, Rachel, to enumerate a little bit of what we do there and illustrate a little bit our approach that way.

[Rachel Logel Carmichael]

At World Vision, we support almost a hundred countries globally, and it is important for us to look at a constant profiling of these countries to understand better the vulnerabilities and what types of challenges they're experiencing.

Within that profiling, then, when we look at a range of countries, from the most fragile to countries that are regarded as emerging markets, we're also looking at a fragility index to see how we would rate fragility for the countries that have particular indicators.

To speak to your question, then, when we're looking at some of these countries in which we want to find out about issues of mortality, malnutrition, access to health care, and prevalence of infectious diseases, we're looking, if these exist within the country, at higher levels of fragility and vulnerability that we need to address.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you.

Monsieur Aubin, s'il vous plaît.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to each and every one of you for being here today. Thank you for sharing your expertise and, above all, for allowing us to truly understand what's happening on the ground. I have six short minutes to speak with you. So, I'm going to provide you with a picture of what I took from your presentations, and then I will ask a few questions. You will decide among yourselves how to allocate the time for your answers.

Our study deals with Canada's approach with respect to countries of focus. None of you criticized the approach vis-à-vis countries of focus, although in a very subtle and diplomatic way, you showed us its shortcomings. The people from World Vision Canada told us about pockets of extreme poverty that they could not help because these were not in a country of focus. There is also a thematic approach that is favoured by UNICEF Canada, for example.

Unfortunately, we learned from our minister, and based on the Prime Minister's approach, that the 0.7% target was too ambitious. It looks as though, in the next few years, we will continue with the same budget envelope, which is the one for international development, of which 90% is committed to countries of focus.

If this approach is not the right one or if it has to be complemented by using new thematic or more regional approaches, how are we going to make the transition? Each of your organizations has also stressed the need for long-term objectives, meaning, that we can't set up in a country for six months and then leave. How would we go about transitioning toward the objectives that you'd like to see Canada achieve based on the list of countries of focus we already have? How would we make that transition, if we need to?

[Santiago Alba-Corral]

I will answer in English.

I think you're right. We have not enough resources to go to every country, and we know for a fact that focusing resources normally has a bigger long-term impact.

I think the critical element is how the Canadian agencies are going to balance both. We need to focus in order to not be changing priorities but to be able to invest in long-term plans—those I mentioned, of 10 years or 15 years, because the kinds of changes we want to have are in many cases behavioural changes, changes in capacity of government, of infrastructure, and we cannot do these things in a four-year plan. That's going to be one way.

On the other side, we want to be able to create funding mechanisms with governments and agencies that are also flexible in responding to change.

As an example, CARE is working with the Government of Canada in many areas in Ethiopia. We have a long-term plan in Ethiopia around food security, nutrition, maternal health, microfinance. It's a very comprehensive approach, responding on a five-, six-, seven-year basis in different areas.

We've had El Niño. We've had several droughts, one after the other. We have to have mechanisms such that certain elements of the funding that was planned in a very specific plan can also be allocated for some specific needs in a more humanitarian action that actually is going to build capacity and is going to build the resilience of those communities to continue on their development path.

It is not going to be an easy journey, but it's going to be a journey of balance.

The other piece—I think World Vision was very clear—is the regional approach. Most of the issues that we are facing today are regional. Most of the strategies that most of the agencies are developing are regional—southern Africa, the Sahel, Central America—because the issues are regional. Focusing on one country is not always going to be the best way.

The other piece is going to be how we engage as Canadians with other donors and other governments in our plans and how we have that discussion, which is actually already happening in many places today, on countries and how we talk with the other development agencies to be sure that where the Canadians cannot go, the French, say, can go.

I think these are the three elements that we have to have under consideration to achieve the goals that we want.

[Jamie McIntosh]

I think looking at the ecosystem of what different nations within the international development community have to offer and trading off with one another to ensure that we have good coverage are important considerations, .

Some of it is about the kinds of interventions, the kinds of development assistance that you transition to. Even with World Vision's own work, we're looking at certain contexts in which we may have started off with the humanitarian provision of emergency supplies and transitioned over to longer-term development.

Some of those countries that are now nascent or emerging economies were actually able to transition. Instead of doing programmatic things, we've done some system strengthening, and now we're moving to a monitoring and advocacy approach whereby local community actors are able to capture the gains to ensure that children's rights are protected, upheld, and enforced. It may be a light approach rather than a complete divestment—staging this over time, but following that “heat map of need” and looking at the needs of individual human beings caught in these situations wherever they may reside. I think Carleen mentioned it best.

That transition is going to be difficult. It's going to take learning and it's going to take a lot of dialogue and getting some of it wrong while having the courage to say that we have to do things differently, we have to adapt, and we have to do it more rapidly than we have been able to in times past.

[Carleen McGuinty]

Do I have a moment?

The one thing I would add to comments that have been made concerns the focus on resilient development.

If Canada moves out of a particular country, it will be important to ensure that the country has the capacity to withstand future shocks. We know that there are climate change disasters, that there is increasing political conflict, and that crises are more protracted, so we need to make sure that they have the capacity to withstand these shocks and rebuild themselves more quickly.

The way that Canada has already been doing this and should continue to do it is to invest in system strengthening. That means investing in the health system and investing in the protection system. If that system is in place, if it can go from the capital and have some sort of outpost that reaches the most remote areas, then we can ensure that communities have a chance and have a system they can count on, and that means that the government is working.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you.

Mr. Miller, go ahead, please.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

A number of you spoke directly or indirectly about climate change and how that is making your jobs more challenging and difficult, and you alluded just a few seconds ago to to a requirement for more flexibility. You think of the immediate impact that the droughts have on immigration, conflict, and access to food.

I would like you to touch on that at some length. Develop that theme and describe how Canada can best leverage its assets. Obviously there is some cross-pollination between the Ministry of the Environment, the foreign affairs department, and international aid and some of the challenges you see in your specific jobs in the near future.

Thank you.

[Carleen McGuinty]

I'll take the first crack.

What UNICEF has seen is that children are the ones who are most affected by climate change, particularly marginalized children. Their families don't have the capacity to withstand these shocks. Children who are already food-insecure now no longer have access to food. It is too expensive, or the crops have been wiped out. They might be displaced from their families. There are a number of issues that present themselves. We have more communicable diseases, more malaria, and more diarrhea. The impact on children is tremendous.

What we have seen work well is to invest in disaster risk reduction—for example, building disaster-resilient schools. In Bangladesh, for example, with very low cost and local materials, we are investing in an aquifer recharge system, which makes sure that in the coastal area, where they are hit by cyclones.... Now the cyclones are coming back more frequently, and these vulnerable communities didn't have access to potable water. The salt water kept contaminating it. Now we have this recharge system that enables them to keep that potable water despite the cyclones, and they now have access to it regardless of what is happening in the country.

What we want Canada to do with its significant climate change investment is, first, make sure it reaches children. If you are going to be doing some major infrastructure projects and clean energy projects, make sure that children's rights are taken into account. Make sure that these big infrastructure projects are clean energy projects. Make a difference in children's lives. Children are not all living in major urban centres. Perhaps they are living in the slums or perhaps they are living in remote areas. Make sure that they have access to clean energy and safe sources of energy.

Second, make sure you are taking into account the risks that children face with some of these infrastructure projects and clean energy projects. We can displace communities. Make sure that you take their rights into account.

Those are some of the things that Canada could do. I have a paper on that, which I would be happy to share.

[Santiago Alba-Corral]

If I can also answer quickly, we had a similar conversation at CARE International, a high discussion, and we came to what we call SuPER food systems. SuPER food systems are sustainable, productive, equitable, and resilient. That is what we are trying to do with intervention.

One of the key elements, of course, is gender inequality. We know that the gender gap in agriculture and food production...we could produce almost 50% more food than we produce today.

We know that climate change is real for more farmers today. We also know that the small farmers are feeding almost 70% of the population of the planet, so any intervention, any support that we provide in that area has to target those elements of food.

The other element is how food is used, the utilization component. We really know, and I think it is clear, that any nutritional program has to target the first 1,000 days, the under-five. This is the area where we are going to have an impact that is going to go beyond the intervention and really cut the cycle of malnutrition and poverty.

Then, working with civil society, we need to strengthen the capacity of civil society to be able to engage with markets, to engage in training and education with their extension services. We cannot be supporting and strengthening the capacity of governments or the ministry of agriculture if we don't work at the same time to strengthen the capacity of the civil society, or we will have what we have in many African countries: a division between where the knowledge is and where the needs happen.

Those are some of the elements. We are happy to share with you some of our SuPER principles, which we have already shared with the Government of Canada.

[Jamie McIntosh]

One of the things that we endeavour to do at World Vision is to listen to the communities and see what ideas are being birthed in those contexts and then try to take them and replicate them elsewhere. There are some interesting things that could be considered for investment, things like looking at replacing coal stoves with cookstoves. We have different opportunities to increase the health and livelihood of individuals in their context, where you're addressing the adverse impact of the pollutants that are being released and finding new products in that way.

In one of our communities they've worked on reforestation. They had done reforestation in the past, and then people just came in and stole the trees or harvested them prematurely. What we've seen is that one community resorted to naming the trees after children in the community, and that's helped to create an enhanced sense of ownership and stewardship and has kept a focus on the benefit to future generations. There are some ways that the communities are adapting in their own local context, and we can try to help strengthen them.

Another aspect could be looking at financing so that communities are resilient with the crops that they harvest and are able to hold on to them for longer in order to get them to market in ways that will benefit them economically as well.

These are a few different aspects.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you.

That's the end of the first round, colleagues.

Now we'll go to the second round. We'll begin with Mr. Levitt.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Good afternoon. Thank you for your presentations.

The ultimate goal of Canadian international development is getting the money into the hands of the people or groups who need it most on the ground, but there are many obstacles that can get in the way of that goal, such as civil unrest and conflict in the countries of focus, state corruption, red tape at the NGO level, or a lack of strong local grassroots networks that can get the money into the right hands.

What other challenges are there, and how can we best design this program to overcome some of those challenges?

[Santiago Alba-Corral]

Thank you for the question. I think it's a critical question, actually, that we have to look at.

You were mentioning probably four pillars of the main challenge that we all face as agencies and governments. I think it's also an internal challenge to not always be able to clearly predict where the funding is being invested and how it is invested.

When we are talking about needing to have long-term plans and having to be clear about the envelope for funding, that really doesn't help to build the long-term development and sustainability that we want. If we keep moving to more of a project approach, where we fund a small thing here and small thing there, we are going to be excessively splitting up the level of accountability that we have to follow up on.

We have to be able to have a clear investment, a clear plan; that's why the focus has to be about where the investment has to be. It will be easier to minimize some of these issues because we will be able to identify those countries where we are going to focus on how to strengthen transparency and accountability within the government, those countries where we are going to work on strengthening the civil society, or those countries where we can really have a more honest conversation with partners about where their overhead is going, because right now the level of unpredictability that we have in funding mechanisms, I think, hasn't really helped us much.

I hope that answers your question.

[Jamie McIntosh]

I think you've enumerated a number of concerns that do soak up a lot of the aid investment dollars.

I think one of the aspects is counterbalances, or checks and balances, in having resources not just go to one level of government or to one NGO or to one multilateral. It helps with some of that. What we should have is a co-operative spirit. Some of those competitive metrics keep us all honest.

What we found is that we are able to work with local community actors. Whether it's at the national level, at a regional level, or a local level, we try to identify the power actors all along the strata who can be influenced to do what's right and to ensure best value for dollar in their community context. As we identify them, they're able to advocate for better impacts for their community.

One of the things we found helpful is something we call Citizen Voice and Action, which empowers local actors. They may say, for example, that they want to ensure better development outcomes in education in their community. The breakdown is that maybe they have teachers and they have books, but the calibre of teaching is not up to snuff or the teachers don't even show up, even though they're paid for.

They are able to band together and advocate with the local government, or even at the national government level, to say these things are not being upheld. It's like giving them a microphone or a megaphone they can use to advocate for those things.

We're trying to do that at different levels. We may identify at one level.... I remember that in China I was approached by a local official who said, “We weren't keen on working with you at first when you came to our community, but we saw your concern, your care, and the impact on children in these communities, and we realize as party officials that we wanted to replicate this in other areas.” That changed it from a combative relationship to a collaborative relationship.

I think stitching that together is one of the ways we can do this. Whether it's an NGO community, government actors, civil society, or faith-based actors, there are different capillaries that can get development into areas to address the real needs of men, women, and children.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis, please.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for being here.

I'd like to start with a question for the representatives of World Vision.

You talked about a fragility index you have, and within that an assessment of the relative vulnerability of countries.

I've asked a number of witnesses, and I'm curious for your thoughts on how human rights play into that, how that plays into your fragility index, and the situation of religious, ethnic, and linguistic minorities. How does that affect your assessment of the need for aid, and how does that inform the approach you think should be taken uniquely in those situations?

[Jamie McIntosh]

I think what is partly being pointed to is the need to be attentive to various aspects of vulnerability and poverty. This is multi-dimensional.

Anywhere there is a marginalization of a particular community—be it an ethnic or a political ideology, or a religious minority—we need to be attentive and sensitive to those fissures and fault lines. Entire communities can be segregated or left out of the development based on, for example, belonging to the wrong ethnic tribe. Those concerns certainly are embedded within the view we need to take.

We want to ensure development assistance is centred on human beings and is stripped away from all of those other trappings. It's about individuals in those communities, so we need to look at those practices that might prey upon someone's difference within those communities and ensure that it is part of the index.