Foreign Affairs Committee on May 19th, 2016

[The Chair (Hon. Robert Nault (Kenora, Lib.)), Liberal, Bob Nault]

I'd like to bring these hearings to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we'll continue with our study of the Canadian government's countries of focus for bilateral development assistance.

Just for the information of colleagues, the department put this out yesterday. It's the international assistance review discussion paper. If you haven't had a chance to look at it, I recommend that you have a peek at it, because it's the beginning of the department's review, which of course will dovetail into our discussions here.

This afternoon for the next hour we want to hear from the Canadian Foodgrains Bank, the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, and Oxfam Canada.

I'd like Jim Cornelius to do his presentation. We'll go to Fraser after that. Then we'll go to Kelly and her colleagues.

Please start, Jim.

[Jim Cornelius, Executive Director, Canadian Foodgrains Bank]

Thank you very much for providing this opportunity to appear before this committee and share our perspectives on the effective delivery of Canada's development assistance.

Let me begin with a brief introduction. Canadian Foodgrains Bank is a partnership of 30 Canadian church bodies that are working together to end hunger. We have deep roots in the Canadian agriculture and rural communities. We are the Government of Canada's primary Canadian partner in the delivery of its food assistance into contexts of crisis and acute food insecurity.

We also work, though, with communities and households facing chronic hunger, supporting their efforts to develop more productive and resilient livelihoods. Last year we were able to provide support to over a million people in over 35 countries.

I grew up in Kisii, in Kenya. I have worked on issues of development for most of my life and career. I'm encouraged by the substantial progress that I have witnessed over these years. When I go back to Kisii, a rural part of Kenya, I see huge progress in that part of the country compared to when I was a small boy.

That same progress I see in many parts of the world. Globally the rate of extreme poverty has fallen from 35% in the early 1990s to less than 10% today. That's a very short time in the context of human history. We have seen significant progress in many other social indicators. I'm persuaded that development assistance has made a critical contribution to this progress. It is by no means the only contribution, but it has made critical investments and contributions.

I was recently at a funeral for a women named June Deacon, a Canadian teacher, who spent most of her working life working on the education of girls in the Kisii area. I've run into many girls who have benefited from her service. The contributions they've made to the development of that country are substantial.

While we celebrate this progress, we're deeply conscious that the work is not done and that we must make sure that no one is left behind. Also there are serious challenges and risks facing the world and the communities we work with, which could see progress that is being made halted or even reversed. Climate change is already disrupting and threatening the livelihoods of the smallholders we work with. We're seeing that because we often work in marginal areas where this is having a big impact.

The status quo is not going to get us where we need to go. As we chart the road ahead, I'm persuaded that there's still a critical role for development assistance in helping us collectively achieve the ambitious sustainable development goals that the world has set for itself.

In this regard, I welcome Minister Bibeau's announcement yesterday of a public review and consultations to review Canada's international assistance policy and funding framework. We understand that this committee's study on countries of focus will contribute to this policy review. My comments today are presented in this context.

From our perspective, a review of the countries-of-focus approach must be built on the principle that Canada's official development assistance is expected to contribute to the reduction of poverty. That's the primary objective as specified in the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act.

We are delighted to see that the broader policy review initiated yesterday is committed to finding ways for Canada's international assistance to be focused on effectively helping the poorest and most vulnerable people. As long as any framework regarding countries of focus keeps this core principle of poverty reduction central to its purpose, I think there are various ways such an approach can be effectively framed and deployed. There's no one sort of magic solution in that regard.

From our understanding, a key rationale for having the countries-of-focus approach is to respond to the criticism that Canada's aid was too spread out and fragmented. It was thought that concentrating Canada's bilateral aid in fewer countries would improve the effectiveness of the aid and give Canada more leverage with partner countries.

We're not aware of any evaluations that have been conducted that substantiate the case that a countries-of-focus approach is actually leading to more effective aid programming. We've been interested, but have not seen any such evaluations. The studies may exist, but we certainly haven't seen them.

However, we do accept that a program that focuses on a smaller number of countries is more efficient for delivery in terms of field staff and processes. With fewer places for field staff work, there don't need to be as many staff to manage it, and that is a positive thing.

There are benefits to having more predictable and stable funding at a country level over time, which the countries-of-focus approach can facilitate. So that's a positive.

However, given the modest volume of Canada's aid at the country level, even with the countries-of-focus approach we're skeptical that this leads to substantially more leverage in terms of engaging those countries themselves. We would argue that a more important issue is the level of Canada's overall aid program. A significant increase in Canadian development assistance will be needed for Canada's voice to carry more weight in international circles. Simply focusing reduced aid, resources, in a few countries will not be sufficient.

While there is merit in identifying countries of focus, we would argue that this should not become a rigid programming framework with percentages and dollar targets. The world and the circumstances that we are facing are changing too fast for these types of rigid formulas.

This is particularly the case in dealing with fragile states, and the fragile context, which if not addressed, could turn many countries into fragile states. There must be flexibility to address these evolving contexts without having to go through a formal change in the countries of focus. If it's a very formal process, it makes those types of changes difficult. If 90% of bilateral funding must go to countries of focus, this can considerably constrain needed action as the world evolves.

Also, there are often times when regional approaches are needed that do not fit neatly into specific bilateral country programs. The Syria crisis right now is a good example. Jordan is a country of focus. We can provide assistance to Jordan, and some of the hosting of the refugees. But Lebanon is not, so that puts constraints there. They're both facing similar challenges.

What criteria should guide the selections of countries of focus?

As noted earlier, the first and overriding criteria must be levels of poverty. However, we recognize that most of the poorest people in the world often live in middle-income countries. While those countries have domestic resources that can and should be mobilized to reduce poverty and social needs, we can see a legitimate role for Canada to be involved in some of these countries.

However, we think that the level of funding doesn't need to be at the same level as in countries that have much fewer domestic resources. It can be smaller amounts of funding more carefully targeted to help that country use its own resources to effectively reduce poverty.

We also see value in maintaining longer-term programs with existing partner countries; not changing all the time, but staying with some of the same partners over an extended period of time. In cases where partner countries have successfully moved to the status of middle-income countries, there would be some value in maintaining some level of bilateral program to further support progress being made.

Nevertheless, in our view, the largest amount of bilateral aid should go to countries with the highest rates of poverty and more limited domestic resources to effectively reduce poverty.

One of the dangers we see in a countries-of-focus approach has been the temptation and desire, at times, to force other funding streams at the department to be aligned with the countries of focus. The argument has been that this will lead to more coordination and synergy in Canada's aid program. We think this approach could actually reduce the impact of Canada's assistance being provided through other funding streams.

For example, Canada has had a long-respected, responsive program that has supported the work of Canadian NGOs. The diverse civil society groups supported have built expertise in various areas and have developed deep partnerships in many parts of the world over long periods of time.

If Canadian civil society is told that the only programs Canada will fund must be aligned with the bilateral countries of focus, and the particular thematics the government has at that time, it will foster a culture of simply going where the money is, chasing the government's constantly changing countries of focus and priorities, rather than civil society organizations building long-standing, focused priorities in their area of expertise.

In our view, fostering a robust Canadian civil society with its own priorities and areas of expertise contributes to effective programming and provides a visible Canadian presence in many countries around the world where there may not be a bilateral presence. When the government countries of focus or thematic priorities change, as they have and will, there will be already existing Canadian expertise, knowledge, and capacities in the new areas.

In our view, the countries-of-focus approach should be limited to the bilateral program.

We think having some thematic priorities is also an important way for Canada to increase its impact and influence. As an example, Canada was able to extend its global impact and influence through the focus on maternal, newborn, and child health. This allowed for the development of expertise and the exercise of Canadian leadership in some key areas.

Many of the actions required to address development in the current environment go well beyond specific country programs, so there is merit in developing some thematic priorities and having funding flexibility to support these types of initiatives. We have been strongly supportive of the current sectoral theme focused on increasing food security. When looking at issues of poverty and vulnerability, population groups facing hunger are often among the most vulnerable, and any time surveys are done among the poorest populations in the world, issues related to food are usually one of the top priorities named.

In reviewing the background discussion document for the international assistance policy review, we note that of the three existing priorities, the theme of food security is the one that's seemingly disappeared as an independent policy area. While the elements of the food security theme can be captured under the other policy areas outlined, there is a risk that important food security issues get lost in the new framing. It will be important to lift them up under the different policy areas during the policy review.

This is particularly true in the case of agriculture. Our major concern is that the important issue of agriculture development, particularly for smallholder farmers, could receive even less support. Already Canada's support for agriculture development has been declining. Extreme poverty and high levels of vulnerability are still concentrated in rural areas among population groups that often depend on agriculture in various ways for their livelihoods. These households and communities are also facing new threats related to climate change. It will be vital that agriculture feature prominently in the new international assistance policy, and it could be effectively featured under the policy area looking at clean and sustainable economic growth and climate change. Economic growth in the agriculture sector has been shown to be significantly more effective in reducing poverty than growth in any other sector of the economy. Agriculture will be one of the sectors most affected by climate change, and it also needs to be part of the solution. I would urge this committee to lift up the importance of agriculture development in the new international assistance policy.

Thank you for your attention, and I welcome any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. Cornelius.

We'll go to Mr. Reilly-King for his presentation.

[Fraser Reilly-King, Senior Policy Analyst, Canadian Council for International Cooperation]

Thank you very much to members of the committee for inviting the Canadian Council for International Cooperation to appear before you on this study on countries of focus. As Mr. Nault and Jim have mentioned, the study is very timely, given the launch yesterday of the international policy review.

As many of you know, CCIC is Canada's national association of civil society organizations or CSOs, working globally to achieve sustainable human development. Our 80-plus members represent a broad range of CSOs working on international development and humanitarian assistance, from faith-based and secular organizations to co-operatives and unions to professional associations.

I want to go straight to discussing the study, the countries of focus, and their effectiveness.

To have impact on anything, some degree of focus is necessary. Canada now has 25 countries of focus, and this reduced number of country-to-country partnerships, a shifting from I think around 47 countries to 25, was in fact welcomed by the OECD when it conducted its peer review in 2012 of Canada.

However, as members of this committee know, the geography of poverty has shifted. Poverty is pervasive not just in low-income countries but also in low- and upper-middle-income countries. In fact, many estimate, and I think somebody referenced this in committee hearings on Tuesday, that around 70% of the world's poor live in middle-income countries. Furthermore, inequality is getting worse, both within and between countries.

What are the implications of this and other considerations for this study? I have 10 brief points that I would like to make for the committee to consider.

First, there is no perfect mix of countries. In my perspective, Canada has a well-balanced mix of fragile states, least-developed countries, and low-income and middle-income countries. From our perspective, don't change it, but do learn from it.

As I think Jim has suggested and maybe CARE the other day, the committee, for example, could recommend to Global Affairs Canada to conduct an ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the countries-of-focus model, highlighting outcomes both intended and unintended. As far as I'm aware, nothing of that type has been done to date.

Equally, we might want to go further and give some thought to how we engage with regional institutions, so that our efforts in countries of focus are reinforced by these regional synergies—such synergies are important, and this is a point that came up, I think—ensuring that, since countries operate also in regions and sub-regions, we ask how we can ensure that there's stability and security in those regions and that our efforts in countries aren't lost by regional instability.

Second, as Jim and many others have pointed out, the focus of our efforts should be less on poor countries and more on poor people, regardless of where they live. In fact, as Jim has also noted, the principal purposes of Canada's official development assistance as defined by the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act are to reduce poverty, to promote international human rights and their realization, and to respond to the voices of the poor.

This focus is consistent with the minister's mandate to focus on reducing poverty and inequality and also consistent with the newly created Office of Human Rights, Freedoms, and Inclusion that was announced yesterday.

Third, as the new 2030 agenda for sustainable development in the sustainable development goals or SDGs has signalled, we must leave no one behind. This means that we must focus our efforts not just on poor people but on the poorest and most marginalized: women and girls, people with disabilities, indigenous people, the urban and rural poor, and the people who are discriminated against because of their caste, religion, ethnicity, or age. Again this is consistent with the minister's mandate.

Fourth, a thematic focus may be helpful, but our priorities must be self-reinforcing, both within our approach to development in the framework of the sustainable development goals, but also within the department, in all of Global Affairs Canada, and across government. The new SDGs challenge us to move outside of our silos, pushing for both stand-alone goals and cross-cutting objectives, such as on women's rights and gender equality and, I would argue also, on climate change. This will require new ways of working and thinking, new collaboration and partnerships, in a whole-of-government, whole-of-Canada strategy, if you will. Our development endeavours must be reinforced, not undermined, by our diplomatic and trade efforts.

Fifth, we must be responsive to people's needs and realities. A focus on specific countries or themes should not be to the exclusion of evolving human needs. Regardless of the focus chosen, there should always be some flexibility to account for unanticipated developments.

How? I would suggest that the government should work with a diverse range of actors in developing and implementing Canada's international assistance. If, for example, Canada's multilateral approach is to support cohesion and stability at a regional level, its bilateral approach could be more focused and directive, along the lines that Jim was suggesting, and then its approach to civil society could be more flexible and responsive. This is also in keeping with the government's civil society partnership policy.

What we need, then, is a diversified portfolio of tools and approaches that will reduce risk and enhance efficiency in our response.

Sixth, and this is very important, it's about their priorities, not ours. Alignment with developing country priorities, democratic ownership of these priorities, and harmonization of our efforts with other donors have been recognized over the past 15 years as key determinants of effective delivery of aid. Developing country governments and their CSOs are generally best placed to understand the realities of their own citizens.

We need to support their solutions, not promote ours. Yet Canada's 2012 peer review by the OECD noted how far Canada had fallen from aligning its support to the priorities of the countries in which it was operating. That same year, Canada allowed its aid effectiveness action plan to conclude without developing a new one.

We need a new action plan, and we need country partners, not us, to lead the way in defining their priorities for implementing the sustainable development goals.

Seventh, it's not just about governments. The 2030 agenda has emphasized that all development actors have a role to play—civil society, parliamentarians, local government, the private sector. Accordingly, Canada must rebalance the recipients of Canadian ODA or aid away from the strong bias in favour of multilateral institutions of recent years towards a clear balance between multilateral, bilateral, and civil society, among others. In fact, in its 2012 peer review the OECD underscored the importance of strengthening civil society organizations in Canadian countries of focus.

Eighth, and again I can't underscore this enough, ensure predictability. This speaks to my point about there being no perfect mix. Let's stick with our existing mix of countries. In recent years, frequent shifts in the countries of focus, in my view, have made Canada a liability. Sustained and long-term investments in partners will not only generate greater impacts but will generate greater predictability. As the OECD has noted, such predictability can allow Canada to support the reform and strengthening of country systems so as to improve the management of public administration and public funds more broadly.

Ninth, bring the Canadian public along. Investments in public engagement and a strategy for the government will not only help connect this universal SDG agenda for the world with Canadian realities, but will build the public's understanding of the complexity of international development and in turn build their support for our endeavours.

Tenth, and this is my final point, walk the talk. Greater impact comes not only with greater country or thematic focus, alignment, and responsiveness, but with increased and targeted investments that reflect Canada's ambitions. In 2014 Canada was among the top three donors in just nine of its 25 countries of focus. We've calculated that an additional $60 million could make Canada a top three donor in half of its countries of focus, based on 2014 numbers. Similarly, if women's rights is a priority, you might be surprised to learn that Canada dedicated only $5 million per year to women's rights organizations in 2014. By contrast, that same year Norway dedicated $120 million.

To summarize, the countries-of-focus model is one tool by which Canada can focus its bilateral international assistance partnerships, but as with any tool, we need to use the model well in order to maximize its effectiveness. It should be a tool that is balanced with other tools, issues, and players in multilateral efforts that can address regional needs and dynamics as well as with responsive programming that can be championed by civil society partners.

Our overarching emphasis must be upon reducing poverty and inequality, upon the poorest and most marginalized, and upon people—their needs, their rights, their assets, their abilities, and their priorities.

We must be consistent and predictable as well as flexible in our approach, and we must match our policy priorities across the government both at home and overseas to our practice with commensurate investments in countries, institutions, themes, and above all people.

Thank you for listening. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Oxfam Canada.

Ms. Polzot, go ahead, please.

[Christina Polzot, Manager, Program Development, Quality and Knowledge, Oxfam Canada]

Bon après-midi tout le monde.

Honourable members of the standing committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.

My name is Christina Polzot, and I'll be testifying in conjunction with my colleague Kelly Bowden.

Oxfam is part of a global confederation and movement for change working in more than 90 countries to mobilize the power of people against poverty. Our mission is to build lasting solutions to poverty and injustice with the focus on overcoming inequality and improving the lives and promoting the rights of women and girls. Oxfam's origins date back to the mid-1940s when our organization was formed to support struggling women and girls during World War II. Since our origins, the geography of poverty and inequality has significantly shifted, and our modern day organization faces new challenges that require flexible and mixed approaches to build a just world without poverty. Therefore, we welcome the Government of Canada's review of its international assistance framework and this committee's study on the countries of focus.

Oxfam is heartened to see the significant improvements in global poverty levels achieved over the last two decades, during which 660 million people have risen out of poverty, but we are also troubled by the significant growth and the divide between the rich and the poor that has happened over that same period, both within and across countries, and by the continued discrimination against women and girls, which remains a fundamental challenge to eliminating poverty.

Allow me to expand on these two critical issues—inequality and women's rights. According to a recent Oxfam report entitled “An Economy for the 1%”, most countries have higher inequality today than they did a few decades ago, and an estimated 73% of the world's poorest people now live in middle-income countries. Since the year 2000, the poorest half of the world's population has received just 1% of the total increase in global wealth while half of that increase has gone to the top 1%. Had inequality within countries not grown during that period, an extra 200 million people would have escaped poverty. Today's extreme economic, social, and political inequalities undermine growth and progress. Inequality keeps poor people poor and powerless, and weakens the capacity of economic growth to eradicate poverty. Inequality creates deep social problems and denies people dignity and voice. That in turn deepens social frustration and the likelihood of conflict. Unequal societies are more vulnerable to economic shocks as well as to the impacts of climate change. So despite the very clear link between poverty and inequality, development efforts have failed to address inequality.

Even in regions and countries where significant poverty reduction advances have been achieved, such as in Zambia, there remain significant populations living in pockets of extreme poverty. Despite this, Canada decided to end its bilateral assistance program to Zambia in 2013, and due to inequality, extreme poverty in Zambia has increased from 64% to 75%. One of the most serious and pervasive forms of inequality is discrimination against women and girls, which remains one of the most fundamental obstacles to the eradication of poverty.

According to the UNDP, the majority of the 1.2 billion people who live in extreme poverty today are women and girls. Women and girls do 60% of the world's work and produce half of the world's food, yet they earn only 10% of the world's income and own only 1% of the world's property. Women are most affected by the impacts of climate change, and violence against women has been identified as one of the key reasons why development is lacking.

These complex and interconnected trends around inequality and women's rights give rise to some clear implications for Canada's bilateral development assistance. It is not possible to effectively tackle poverty without also tackling inequality, particularly gender inequality. Therefore, addressing inequality should be a core objective of Canada's development efforts.

Herein lies the opportunity. Inequality should be the lens that guides where Canada focuses its bilateral development assistance.

Given that the world's poor and most vulnerable are found in diverse types of countries, particularly in ones where inequality is high, Canada should take a mixed approach and focus on a mixed portfolio of countries. In other words, Canada should focus on working with the poorest of the poor regardless of where they live, whether they are fragile states, least-developed and low-income countries, or middle-income countries.

Using inequality as the guiding framework, I'd like to speak specifically about three aspects of Canada's bilateral development assistance: first, the need to tailor our efforts to the different types of countries and contexts of operation; second, the importance of championing an overall thematic approach more than a country-based approach; and third, if the current countries-of-focus model is maintained, then there should better balance between the percentage of Canada's bilateral development assistance targeted toward those countries versus other countries.

Let me first address the issue of taking a mixed approach. Those who live in least-developed and low-income countries face distinct challenges and should be a focus of Canada's bilateral development assistance. In these countries, we should focus our approach on promoting social policies around health and education, with a particular focus on women and girls. Three-quarters of the world's poor now live in middle-income countries, where we need to adopt a broader range of development approaches, including a focus on civil society strengthening, protecting civil society space to hold governments to account, and the empowerment of women and marginalized groups, including youth.

We know that creating and implementing good public policy is crucial to closing the inequality gap. This is why ensuring a strong civil society in middle-income countries is so central to the inequality problems in those countries. Existing inequalities are worsened in conflict-afflicted countries and regions, where already marginalized people, particularly women and unemployed youth, are further marginalized. Inequality in fragile states and regions drives a lack of social cohesion, which in turn deepens social frustration and further increases conflict and social instability. Addressing inequality plays a key role in addressing the root causes of fragility and instability.

Given the vulnerability of people caught up in crises, and widespread evidence of sexual violence against women and girls in these contexts, Canada's humanitarian approach in fragile states and regions should focus on the protection of all people from serious human rights violations, particularly the protection of women's rights and of civil society space. This approach is consistent with the SDGs' commitment to “leave no one behind”, and with the objectives set out in Minister Bibeau's mandate letter.

Our second recommendation is that the Canadian government focus its bilateral development assistance around an overarching thematic approach rather than a country-based approach. Canada's global program on maternal, newborn, and child health has provided evidence of success when applying a thematic approach. Defining Canada's thematic priorities should be based on current and emerging needs, sectors most relevant to the SDGs, complementarity with other donors, and dialogue with partners in the regions and countries of engagement. Canada's overall sectors of focus should also reflect and draw on our core competencies within the development assistance program, should integrate a measure of longevity to ensure predictability of funding, and should mitigate frequent changes in focus that are disruptive to partners and to the communities with which we work.

Based on our current analysis, and the core historical competencies of Canada's development assistance, we suggest that its overarching thematic focus be on gender equality, with particular emphasis on promoting the rights of women and girls. Canada has shown great leadership on these issues in the past and has made significant contributions to country-level partners through the provision of technical expertise in country via gender advisers and through Canada's gender funds, which were a flexible and locally based funding mechanism for women's rights organizations overseas. These approaches, which are consistent with Canadian values, are a testament to our historical leadership on women's rights and gender equality.

Lastly, we recommend that if the countries-of-focus model is maintained, there be a reduction in the proportion of Canada's overall bilateral development assistance that is targeted toward those countries. There should be more flexibility in the system that allows for responsive and innovative programming.

This is especially important for Oxfam and other organizations, as Jim was explaining, that are committed to long-term partnerships and capacity-building of local civil society organizations as key agents in tackling inequality. This type of work requires flexible, stable, and long-term funding regardless of the country. As such, our recommendation would be that there be a greater percentage of funding earmarked for non-focus countries in support of local partner capacity-building and regional approaches that address shared challenges across borders.

In conclusion, Canada should focus its international development assistance and that focus should be on the poorest and most vulnerable, regardless of where they live. Different types of development approaches will be needed in different countries enhancing innovation, responsiveness, and collaboration. Canada has the opportunity to show leadership and demonstrate commitment to making inequality and women's rights as mission critical in rendering Canadian development assistance more effective.

This testimony would not be complete without stressing that agenda 2030 and the SDGs should be our guiding framework, as well as the spirit of the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act. As you can see, there are many opportunities, and I thank you for allowing me to share some of them with you today.

Thank you, and we look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you very much, all three presenters, on behalf of the committee.

In the short time available to us, colleagues, we'll go straight to questions, and I'll start with Mr. Kent, please.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you to all of you and thanks to your organizations for the wonderful work that you have all achieved in and beyond countries of focus and for the straight talk today. Very often NGOs in testifying in policy considerations tend to walk a very discreet middle path, not wanting to be offside from the ultimate policy decision that's taken.

Given the political ingredient in development assistance for either natural disasters—Haiti, the earthquake, a very significant part of our funding envelope, both bilateral and otherwise, has gone there—Afghanistan, which in the current year is the largest recipient; and for your suggestions that the focus be on poverty where it exists, not on impoverished countries. I'm just wondering, for the purpose of the country of focus bilateral aid envelope, whether 25 is too large a number. Should it be smaller with a better division of resources to focus on the countries of focus? I'd like to ask each of you, and if so, 15 countries, 20 countries?

[Fraser Reilly-King]

As I said in my statement I don't think there's a perfect mix in the number of countries. The real importance is predictability and consistency. Canada changing every four years which countries it's working in is not helpful to the international community. You all know this very well, but as a government you need to know where your revenue is coming from, especially if it's aid; you need to plan budgets. It's much more helpful if you can plan for five years rather than not knowing if you're suddenly going be dropped because a new government has been elected in Canada.

My emphasis would be on sticking with the existing list of countries of focus. But I think also, as Jim has suggested, if Canada wants to have an impact, then it's going to have to increase the amount of money it dedicates to those countries of focus.

[Jim Cornelius]

Yes, I agree with Fraser. I don't think it matters whether it's 15 or 30. We have a list. Stick with what we have right now. Saying 90% of aid resources have to go to that list gives very little flexibility in the bilateral system unless there are significantly more resources there. That's where I have concern, it's more with that 90% number, saying it has to go to those ones. I don't see sufficient flexibility there. I wouldn't want us to suddenly say we're going to come up with a whole new list. That's one of the dangers of changing governments that we all wrestle with from our end because they have to do something different from the last guys. Sometimes just building on what the last guys have done makes good sense from our point of view.

[Christina Polzot]

We would reinforce the fact that we need to target the poorest and most vulnerable regardless of where they are, whether they're in Haiti or in Afghanistan or in other countries. I would also say that in some countries it is possible to do more with less, so it's really about what we do in those countries rather than where we work. Oxfam has done a lot of work in Guatemala, for example, which is not a country of focus. We've done a lot of work on violence against women and girls, on changing attitude norms and behaviours that underpin violence against women and girls, and because that's behavioural type change work it's long-term work, but it doesn't require a lot of resources, and it's very critical and important work. It's not work that requires infrastructure and a big investment. So in certain contexts, you can do a lot with less money, particularly in contexts where you can harness and build upon local capacity, work with local governments, and work with local stakeholders that are present in those contexts as well.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

I have just a very brief second question. Do you believe that there needs to be greater education of the Canadian public both by government and by organizations like yours to look at middle-income countries rather than simply the LDCs? The material that people receive in the mail, whether email or snail mail, generally emphasizes LDCs rather than the middle-income countries. I know that Canadian Foodgrains Bank, for example, has significant projects in India, which is not a country of focus but which has incredible poverty. Is it a matter of education? Again, to play to some of the testimony we've heard in the past, should Canada, with an awareness of what other countries are doing with development aid, better pick the number of countries it's working on and focus on those areas of focus in those countries or those regions?

[Jim Cornelius]

I spend more time talking to the public than I do to members of Parliament here, although I enjoy this very much. One of my jobs is to talk to the public, and they're interested in poverty. Most of them don't know which country is an LDC and which is a middle-income country and all that. In the public mind, Calcutta is a poor country at one level. So from the public's point of view, it's about people living in desperate situations which they want to see something done about. It is up to us then to talk about what needs to be done and the best way to work. Let's use the case of India. People talk about India being a rising tiger with all its domestic resources. We completely agree that India has huge domestic resources that it should be more effectively using to address poverty in that country, absolutely. But the work that we often are engaged in is in fact working with local groups to engage their own governments, and their policy-makers, to help build up confidence in the marginalized groups, in the castes who feel that by nature they are not destined to live a better life. So you work on those attitudes and things. That's the work we can do that can then shape what happens with domestic resources. A big bilateral aid program may not be what's needed, but working with groups like ours or others in that context might be. I think the public is focused on poverty, and if the government focuses its efforts there and frames it that way, the public doesn't make all the other distinctions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you.

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

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

Thank you, everyone, for coming today.

One of the mysteries of the countries-of-focus approach—and I think it's a mystery not only for me but for colleagues around the table—is how states are actually selected for the countries-of-focus list, and taken off the countries-of-focus list. Have any of your organizations been consulted when this happens? I was quite interested particularly in the Zambia incident that you talked about in 2013. Did Oxfam hear from the Government of Canada on that? Was there any consultation at all? That question extends to everybody starting from Oxfam on down.

[Christina Polzot]

I'm speaking from Oxfam; we were not consulted. I wasn't with Oxfam at the time when the original countries-of-focus list was developed in 2009, I believe. I don't think the consultations were extensive; and definitely on dropping Zambia from the countries-of-focus list, we were not consulted.

Maybe, Fraser, you can speak to previous consultations.

[Fraser Reilly-King]

I believe that in fact most NGOs weren't consulted, and most of the countries that got dropped were also not consulted.

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

Even though your NGOs are on the ground, working, know the terrain well, there is no consultation, none at all.

[Fraser Reilly-King]

Exactly. You may have long-term partners there, and you've just learned that you're not going to be able to renew programs.

But I think the surprising thing was the reaction for many of the high commissions and embassies here in Canada when they learned that their countries were dropped as countries of focus through a press release.

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

Mr. Cornelius.

[Jim Cornelius]

No, we were not consulted. It was very much an internal process. It was as much a mystery to us as to you, and I have never spoken to anyone who was able to give me really good insight into exactly how it happened.

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

We're very happy to have the opportunity to consult with you today, at the very least.

[Fraser Reilly-King]

Sorry, can I quickly add just one thing?

One element that's very important in your aid relationship, and this is as true for civil society organizations as countries, is aid exit, if you want. It's part of our code of ethics for our members. You need to let the partners that you're working with know that you have a plan for eventually getting out of the country or getting out of the partnership, and you plan for that exit so that they can build their capacity, build their resources.

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

You're saying the lack of consultation has actually forced NGOs to inadvertently violate their own code of ethics.

[Fraser Reilly-King]

I guess you could say that, yes.