Foreign Affairs Committee on May 31st, 2016

[Denis Côté]

It's difficult. When CIDA and Foreign Affairs were fused, I worked for the Canadian Council for International Cooperation. A lot of people were opposed to the fusion. We felt that it depended on the end purpose of this fusion. If the purpose of these three entities was to pursue Canada's commercial interests, that fusion did not seem like a good idea to us. However, if their goal was to pursue development objectives, that was another story.

I know that it is still new. It has only been a few years since the three services were brought together. I know it is difficult to mix commercial interests and development objectives. I don't have any specific suggestions to make about that. However, we would like to ensure that the signature of trade agreements does not adversely affect the development objectives we have set for those same countries.

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

Mr. McGill.

[Hunter McGill]

When you're thinking about Canadian interests, I think it is important to cast them at the proper level. Canada depends a great deal on global peace, security, stability, and prosperity. If we can align our development co-operation activities in that way, then I would say yes, we should be thinking about those interests. However, they are also interests that apply equally to our partnered developing countries.

If we want to get a bit more specific about that, and you mentioned trade terms, I don't think that's appropriate. There are other vehicles in place and being considered that can support Canada's international trade objectives and that are much more appropriate for those purposes.

As we look at the issue of Canadian interests, perhaps we should think about Alexis de Tocqueville's comments back in 1838 when he talked about self-interest properly understood. That is where you think at a global level about how our interests are best served by contributing.

Mr. Côté spoke about global public goods. We think about how we contribute to the promotion of those global public goods because they are in our interests as well as being in the interests of partnered developing countries. If you pushed me a little further on it, that would be the route that I would go. We have other tools at our disposal in Canada to advance our trade interests and our other economic interests. In respect of these global public goods, these macro-level interests properly understood, a development co-operation program has to think much more globally and, dare I say it, much more altruistically, than in a rather narrow sense.

I hope I am not misrepresenting his position, but Mr. Côté used a term that I wish I had spoken about as well, and that is policy coherence for development. That means making sure that our national policies take into consideration the concerns and interests of developing countries. When we develop our trade policies, when we go into these mammoth multi-stakeholder trade negotiations like the TPP, when we look at our international investment policies, when we look at our international migration policies, we must always hold them up to the light and examine them carefully with respect to what kind of impact they are going to have on developing countries.

It doesn't make sense for us on the one hand to channel funds through our development co-operation program, and on the other hand adopt national policies and implement programs that in effect cancel the value of those development co-operation investments. It's a very rigorous exercise. It's not at all a comfortable exercise, particularly at the political level, because it can involve some very difficult choices.

In my experience at the OECD, when I did a peer review of Sweden in 2006, the Swedish government in the previous year had implemented what it called a policy for global development. This was a program of policy coherence for development. It meant that every ministry as they brought macro-level policy proposals to the cabinet had to show that they had properly screened them for their potential impact on developing countries, as well as their impact on domestic issues in Sweden.

The Swedes admitted that doing this was both politically brave and practically difficult, but not something that they would back away from. They were committed to moving it through because they saw this as being in Sweden's interests. They wanted to ensure that Sweden's efforts in international development co-operation, which take into account development assistance as well as other measures, didn't bounce off one another and end in no real positive meaningful result.

It's a very significant thing, and I hope, Mr. Chairman, that your committee will at some point be able to engage with that because I think there are many of us in Canada who would appreciate very much the opportunity to take part in such a discussion about policy coherence for development.

I apologize to the member because he asked a fairly simple and innocuous question, and he got a rather longer answer than perhaps he expected.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. McGill. It's good to get a thorough answer.

We'll go to Mr. Aubin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank our guests for taking part in our meeting and sharing their expertise with us.

My first question is addressed to our three guests.

I would like you to give me a short answer, because in my opinion that is what the question requires.

I was surprised once again to hear Mr. Côté say that to his knowledge, there is no study demonstrating the effectiveness of the countries of focus approach. However, it is the very purpose of our study.

My question is very simple. Does one of you know a study, for instance from your international partners, that demonstrates the effectiveness of another approach, whether it be a thematic approach, or one that focuses on regional or geographic concentration? For my part, I note that we seem to have made an ideological or philosophical choice that does not seem to produce specific results in terms of effectiveness.

Is there another approach that is backed by serious analysis?

[Denis Côté]

Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity of doing that research. I don't know of any, but there may be people who have studied the question more in-depth.

[Hunter McGill]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Aubin.

Based on my experience at the OECD Development Assistance Committee, I can tell you that the topic never comes up, because there is no conclusive information on this. Among the member countries of that committee...

[James Haga]

I would jump in with—

Oh, sorry.

[Hunter McGill]

Go ahead, James.

[James Haga]

Thank you.

I would just jump in by saying, of course, that now [Technical difficulty—Editor] perhaps people have not really been paying enough attention to delving into the questions of whether or not this is truly something that can be aligned with a more effective approach. In fact, very little has been done to really address the question of the effectiveness of various aid programming around the world. Anyhow, that [Technical difficulty—Editor] gets at a kind of deep and substantive agreement on what effectiveness really does mean. I think it makes logical sense to think about some type of focus. To me that word comes to bear in thinking not only about countries of focus, but a commitment to stay the course and to do something over a period of time that is sustained so that you can actually learn something, so that you can not only understand the geopolitical dynamics of the country or a given sector, but you can be influential in that stage, and you can give your people on the ground an opportunity to actually develop [Technical difficulty—Editor]—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

James, we're losing you.

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

Perhaps you could finish what you were saying, Mr. McGill, while we re-establish communication.

[Hunter McGill]

Yes. I simply wanted to add that among the member countries of the Development Assistance Committee, the DAC, there is Ireland, with 14 partner countries, Denmark, with 17 or 18 partner countries, Switzerland with more than 100 partner countries, and Sweden, with between 90 and 100 partners. The topic is never broached. The concern of the DAC is effectiveness. Whether we are present in 14 or 114 countries, the issue is whether we implement programs based on the needs of the partner countries.

Thank you.

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

The other thing I have heard often since we began this study is the importance of flexibility in our approach. However, the countries of focus approach we have right now concentrates the vast majority of funds on the countries that were chosen, which leaves very little room for flexibility. Even if the total financial envelope were increased, we would still be allocating 90% of the funds to the chosen countries. Rather than reviewing the list of countries, we should review those funding percentages so that we could have more flexibility.

The other element most stakeholders agree on is the length of the interventions. We hear about 5- or 10-year horizons, or a generation, as you said in your opening remarks.

How do we withdraw from a country of focus? We also have to ask ourselves that question. Even at the end of a generation, which is probably 10 or 15 years now, we know that everything is not going to be settled, that the situation will not be perfectly rosy, and that people will always ask us to continue.

So, what do we do to withdraw from a country and to give ourselves this leeway with our budgets, so that our international aid is more nimble?

You can all speak to the topic, including Mr. Haga, if he has returned.

In the meantime, go ahead, Mr. Côté.

[Denis Côté]

First, you asked whether we should review the percentage rather than the countries of focus in the region. In fact, I would say that both have to be reviewed. As I mentioned in my presentation, the 90% seems high to me. We have not done any studies to see what percentage would be more appropriate, but it seems to me that if we only have 10% left to respond to emergencies, that is not sufficient. Official development assistance is often asked to be reactive, but with a 10% margin of manoeuver it will be difficult to react. There's work to be done to review both that percentage and the countries of focus. I think both can be done.

You asked how long interventions should last, and how we should withdraw. That is not an easy question. The ultimate objective of official development aid is to reach a point where the country no longer needs it. Ideally, we should withdraw when we realize that we have reached a certain level and that the aid is becoming less useful. In practice, I know that that is not always the case, but I have no other ideas to share on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. Aubin.

I'll go now to Mr. Saini, the last member on the round.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, all three of you, for participating. I have one general question for all three of you.

One of the criteria we've heard from most of the witnesses is to assess the capacity of a country to actually receive and use the aid. To me, this seems like a bit of an endless loop. You need to have capacity in order to receive the aid, but the country may not have the capacity to build without that aid. Can you please highlight how we might do proper capacity building and make sure the countries are able to receive, allocate, and use the aid effectively?

[Hunter McGill]

I'm a little nervous with the question.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I was nervous asking it.

[Hunter McGill]

I don't think there are any general statements that one could make this afternoon that would be particularly useful to you. Each case is a particular case, and it has very much to do with the perception and the analysis of need, and the value of the role of an external player like Canada in a given partner country.

It suggests that perhaps, as I indicated, in a particular partner country, because of existing Commonwealth links or some similar links through La Francophonie, Canada could play a role in assisting with the development of democratic institutions and democratic processes in that country. If Canada could, say, go beyond just the national level in terms of elections and processes and go on to regional and even municipal political processes, which many experts are suggesting it is really becoming very important to do, this is an area where Canada might, through its dialogue with our partner country, reach an agreement on how we could be useful. There is a very clear need, as articulated by the partner country. As Monsieur Côté said, we could be part of the dialogue and we could draw upon our not insignificant expertise in this country. We complain a great deal about political process in this country, but it actually works quite well, and other countries do admire how we run our processes, and so this may be something that we could do.

That, in fact, would be an area where the capacity of the country to receive might be relatively limited initially, but through a very carefully formulated and phased-in program of assistance over 10 years, Canada could come to play a very useful role and could help contribute to the creation or the strengthening of what are essential building blocks for these countries, as they are in their own democratic process. However, it would very much have to be that country's own articulation of how it saw the assistance from Canada being most useful. By having a long-term engagement with that country, if there were hiccups, which there would inevitably be, then we would be in a position to have quite an open, direct, and honest dialogue with our partner and say, “Wait a minute. This isn't going the way it should or the way it could best go.” We would be able to have that dialogue, rather than sort of saying, “Well, we've had cases of electoral corruption, so that's it; we're going to suspend the whole program”. That really puts at risk the entire previous investment, and it really doesn't advance the understanding of your partner as to the depths of your concern and how rectification measures might be taken.

I apologize for spending quite a bit of time on the issue of democratic process and democratic development, but I've been influenced quite a lot by Donald Savoie's books on what government is good at, and Mariana Mazzucato's work on what government is good at. I'm linking these kinds of activities also to what James Haga was saying in terms of how development assistance can help create appropriate conditions and a good enabling environment for other players, such as development finance institutions, such as some of the multilateral financial institutions like the International Finance Corporation, or the World Bank itself to come in and play their role. We get kind of a convergence and a collective effort. You're quite right to talk about the issue of there having to be careful, deliberate and sustained investment to build these capacities so that all of this happens and brings about the results that everyone hopes for.

[James Haga]

I'll just weigh in, if everybody can hear me on that end.

I think the bar that we set for ourselves is that a government must have the capacity to manage and deal with all of this influx of donor money and aid money. If that was our bar, I think we wouldn't have very many partners with whom we could have a relationship of providing aid. I think that's the unfortunate reality of the sort of measure that I and others appearing today have spoken about in terms of being able to go and use it where it is directed at the most poor and marginalized. I think we have to get over a bit of the discomfort, frankly, of working within countries where there are less effective, or in other cases virtually ineffective, governments.

I want to also add a different angle to this question. There's a long-repeated story—I don't even know if it's true, but it definitely rings true in my experiences working throughout Africa for the past 10 years—of the Tanzanian finance minister saying that he would spend three days at each meeting with donor partners, and two days being the finance minister. Now, he was a very smart man and there are many smart public servant officials within the Tanzanian government, but the sheer level of confusion and mixed priorities among the myriad different countries and donors operating in any one different country at the time is, in and of itself, contributing toward an ineffectiveness, simply because the amount of hours and people time that is used up and sucked up trying to meet way too many competing demands that, frankly, don't have coherence, is a big part of the problem.

I think that's something which, as a country, we have to be the most catalytic, how we can be most effective in solving problems with our dollars. In a unique way, we should think about how we don't end up honing host country governments in a fundamentally different direction so that they end up trying to please their donors as opposed to implementing important development initiatives for the benefit of their citizens.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Colleagues, that will have to do for today. The hour goes by way too quickly.

On behalf of the committee I want to thank Mr. McGill and Mr. Côté, and in particularly Mr. Haga for sticking with us until midnight. Some of us stayed until past midnight last night in the House of Commons, so it's always good fun.

One of the things I would suggest, because these are short discussions, is that based on our conversation if there are any other ideas or recommendations you want to make, please feel free to pass them on to us. I agree with you, Mr. McGill, this is a longer discussion we need to have. I think one of the things we may do as a committee, after the government puts forward its new program, is to revisit it and see how effective it is, because that would be helpful for us as well.

On behalf of the committee, thank you very much.

We'll suspend for a few minutes and get ready for our next presentation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Colleagues, I ask this meeting to come back to order.

Mr. Robinson and Mr. Benn, I invite you to please take your seats. It's always nice to see Mr. Robinson again. He and I were colleagues for a number of years, so it's a pleasure to have him here.

Colleagues, we're going to hear from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. As I said, Mr. Robinson and Mr. Benn will make the presentation on behalf of the Global Fund. I'm going to quickly turn this over to Mr. Benn so we can get into some good dialogue as well.

Welcome to the committee. It's always a pleasure to host you. The floor is yours.

[Dr. Christoph Benn, Director, External Relations, Global Fund To Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria]

Thank you so much.

Honourable Chairman, Svend and I are really delighted to be here to speak to you today about the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. It's a great pleasure. We've been doing that regularly over the years, but there is also a particular reason that we were very keen to speak to you this year. Many of you will have seen that a few weeks ago, on May 9, Prime Minister Trudeau announced that the Government of Canada would host the fifth replenishment conference of the Global Fund here in Canada in Montreal on September 16.

First of all, we want to express our deep gratitude to the Government of Canada. This is a great step, and we are absolutely excited about that. In any replenishment any organization does, probably the most important step is to find a host willing not just to organize the meeting, but also to support that organization politically to reach out to other countries, and that's exactly what the Government of Canada is doing.

We just had the G7 Summit in Japan, and we were pleased that in the declaration all the G7 leaders called for full support for the fifth replenishment of the Global Fund. Clearly, Prime Minister Trudeau and his whole team have played a very critical role in that. We are very grateful also to Minister Bibeau, who not only attended our preparatory conference in Tokyo, but already has been reaching out at many different opportunities to speak to other governments about the Global Fund.

We had a great event just last week at the World Health Assembly in Geneva, where Minister Bibeau made two other significant announcements. We also want to emphasize the theme of innovation in this replenishment. One of the key innovations that the Global Fund has developed is an online procurement platform that will revolutionize how countries can procure and purchase commodities.

The Global Fund spends about half its resources, that is about $2 billion per year, helping countries to procure and purchase drugs and mosquito nets to prevent malaria, and other commodities, and now they have an opportunity to do that online, which is much more transparent and direct. It is cost effective. It will save up to $250 million over the next few years and will also significantly cut down the time from placing an order to receiving the commodities. Canada has kindly agreed to support this initiative with an additional contribution.

At the same event, Minister Bibeau also announced that they would support the Stop TB Partnership, which is not part of the Global Fund, but it's an essential partner to promote the fight against tuberculosis in the world, and Canada would support that partnership with an additional $85 million, which is a great step.

I would also like to recognize the long-standing advocacy of vice-chair Dean Allison for tuberculosis, because if you look at the three diseases that the Global Fund is carrying, AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, tuberculosis may be the most neglected among the three, but by no means less important than the others. TB is now the infectious disease with the highest mortality rate in the world, with increasing resistance.

This joint effort is very much welcomed, that Canada joins not just the Global Fund, but also the specific fight against tuberculosis, one of the most important infectious diseases.

There are many reasons why we want to express our deep appreciation for Canada's leadership on global health, tuberculosis, AIDS, and malaria, but then also for the replenishment conference that the government will be hosting here. Prime Minister Trudeau also announced at the same time that Canada would increase its contribution to the fifth replenishment of the Global Fund by 20%.

We thought you might need to know about this Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria that Canada is supporting so strongly. It's not just since this announcement that Canada has been supporting the Global Fund very strongly. Over the years Canada has been a key supporter, involved in the creation of the Global Fund. It has supported the Global Fund over all the replenishments, and through all the various governments there has always been multi-party support in Canada for the Global Fund. We deeply appreciate that. This is an issue that many of your colleagues in Parliament and in the government have supported over time, and we're very grateful for that.

I'll say just a few words so that you understand what this organization is that Canada is investing in, and what we expect as we move toward this big conference in September in Montreal.

The Global Fund has been created by all the member states of the UN, by the G7, and by other bodies to help low-income and middle-income countries to address the most dangerous infectious diseases in the world: AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. You have to think of that as a pool of funding where governments from around the world, the private sector, private foundations, and wealthy individuals like Bill Gates and others put their money together so we can in a more effective and efficient way support countries that without this support would not be able to implement life-saving programs in their countries. We support them in prevention, care, and treatment, and it has had extraordinary results over the last 14 years since the Global Fund was created.

Infection rates from AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria fortunately have gone down. That was part of the millennium development goals, and for the three diseases we can report between 30% and 50% reductions in mortality, and millions of people are receiving these life-saving treatments. We can say that by the end of this year, 22 million people will be alive because of this investment. It's a concrete outcome that is measurable, that is direct, that is concrete, and that the Global Fund manages as a public-private partnership without having country presence in a cost-effective way.

It's an instrument that has received support throughout the world. We are asking for $13 billion for this fifth replenishment that Canada is hosting. You might say that is a lot of money, and there is no doubt that it is a lot of money, but fortunately, because of the support we have, we are confident it will be a great event. The largest donor has always been the United States of America, and they pay 33% of whatever money that others provide. That is generous support that amounts to more than $4 billion for replenishment.

The European Commission has already made its commitment of a 27% increase, and at the G7 summit the Government of Japan committed $800 million, which was an astonishing 45% increase in yen terms.

I hope you would feel, while Canada is hosting, there is great support and confidence that these countries have in the Global Fund, otherwise they wouldn't make these investments. We will work with the Government of Canada and others, and also with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, who is the former chair of the Global Fund replenishments, to make sure many countries, but also corporations and foundations, will come to the event, and we'll be able to mobilize the $13 billion.

With that, this would be an important step to implement one element of the sustainable development goals that the world agreed upon last year, namely, to end AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria by 2030. You might say that's a very ambitious goal and it is, but it is possible and it is feasible. Never before would we have been able to say this is achievable, but because of the progress made, and because infection rates have already gone down so much, we say, yes, we can do that, but the next few years will be critical. It's not something that we can postpone, or that we can shift to 10 years from now.

The next few years will decide whether the world can come closer to that goal. That's why the replenishment conference hosted by the Canadian government will be so important for that. We're working hard to make that a full success, but we wanted to thank you as well as members of Parliament for your support, because without your support over all the years these successes would not have been possible. We wanted to make sure you're fully aware of this process and are engaged in this process.

We're happy to answer any questions you might have, so that you know what Canada is supporting here and what the world is investing in.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. Benn.

Mr. Robinson.