Foreign Affairs Committee on June 2nd, 2016

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you so much for being here today, and thank you for your work in the field of international development.

I will be asking my questions in English.

because it will be easier for both of you.

We just had testimony from two individuals who had a very different approach. They are focusing more on a smaller group of countries with smaller specific themes so as not to dilute efforts. I want to get your thoughts on that approach, because what you're explaining is pretty much keep the status quo: 25 countries, spread the wealth, spread the assistance, and so on.

I'm wondering if we're going to be able to make a meaningful difference in terms of addressing specific themes by having that spread of countries. Could you elaborate?

[Wendy Harris]

I think it's not about the number of countries but about having the flexibility to assess the level of readiness in a country or a region and then to deploy resources in that area.

For example, we work in five countries in West Africa, but we work in agribusiness with an organization called AFEX, and AFEX has the scope of 17 West African countries.

We started working with AFEX through their individual members and their regional offices, but we were able to tell there was strength and possibility in the organization to scale up those results we were getting on a local basis and to move it into their regional hub and then to the head organization.

For us, it's about the flexibility to start operations on the ground when the context is going to support impacts.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you.

Madam Guindon, would you comment?

[Evelyne Guindon]

Our perspective would be first and foremost on that notion of partnership. It is very much about the long-term accompaniment that is required, and the notion that we have to remain flexible and to look at the humanitarian long-term development and the building of resilience together. In order to do that and to do it well, that notion of nimbleness has to be there. When we focus only on a certain number of countries, that limits us.

The notion is that we, as a country, don't have limitless pockets. We, as organizations, want to be able to focus. We want to build that expertise. We want to build on Canada's expertise. As volunteer-sending agencies, we lean on what Canada is very good at. You talked about the sectors where we have strengths; these are the volunteers who step up with that added value.

I think what we need to do is not get too bogged down by the notion of the number of countries, but focus on the quality of the partnership, and most importantly on the long-term view to be able to have results. Working in these short-term grants makes it difficult at times to do that.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

We didn't hear much today—and it's something that's my background—about the importance of education. I'd like to get your thoughts on that, because we didn't hear a lot of today about giving that capacity to other nations to develop on their own. Could you elaborate on that?

[Wendy Harris]

From CESO's perspective, it goes to the interconnectiveness between economic autonomy and the power of choice, in this case to invest in education.

I'll give you an example. In Tanzania we work with the Tanzanian Federation of Cooperatives, which is the national organization that runs all the co-operatives and individual co-operatives. One that we work with is called the Nuronga Dairy Women Cooperative, and they're an amazing entrepreneurial group of women. They built their co-operative and ended up being able to produce in quality and quantity enough that they can sell. They can invest the proceeds from the sale into things like better housing.

One thing that was amazing was the transformation in terms of education of the younger generation. They were able to build schools and they were able to support the children in going through them. I think they had a 100% graduation rate from primary school and a 95% graduation rate from secondary school. The next generation will be very different, because that economic investment was made, and education was absolutely key.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Thank you very much, and it was great to have you sitting at our committee today. That ends the first round, and we have time for two more interventions.

We're going to back to the Liberals with Mr. Saini, please.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much to you both of you for being here today.

I have one specific question, because it seems that both of you in your testimony....

I know, Ms. Harris, you intimated during your comments about local collaboration, sustainability, and the owners of the impact that one of the choices we have as a committee is to determine how we would choose a criterion for the country of focus, and one of the current criteria in place is the ability to accept and utilize foreign aid.

It's a conundrum, because without foreign aid you can't build capacity. Do you think that should be a criterion? The reason I ask the question is to prevent any kind of aid orphans from being created.

[Wendy Harris]

We're talking about development. If there is a circumstance in which aid is needed, I think that is more straightforward. It is delivered.

When you're talking about development efforts, I think that engagement and commitment from local clients is key. It makes the difference between sustainable and non-sustainable impact. For us, the criteria would be in looking for successful local solutions that we can help build, scale up, and expand to other regions.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

You're talking about a system that's already in place as opposed to creating a new system.

[Wendy Harris]

Ideally, we would use local expertise to identify solutions we could scale up. The other way it can be done is seeing the local potential. It might be at an earlier stage, when the structure isn't there. We might come in and help build the structure, such as a co-operative to bring women together who are producing shea butter, and work with them as a unit to improve their purchasing and marketing power.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

This is like Moroccanoil. Are you talking about financing also? Do you arrange that, or is it just intellectual or business help, as opposed to microfinancing?

[Wendy Harris]

Our direct program is organized on business fundamentals, mentorship, and business coaching. We work with local microfinance organizations to build local capacity so that loans are available to owner-operators.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

To those who are already on the ground...?

[Wendy Harris]

Yes.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Ms. Guindon, as a pharmacist I wonder how you deliver medications and the expertise to use them. How do you educate the public? What kind of formula do you use?

[Evelyne Guindon]

We have a variety of programs. We don't actually deliver equipment or medication. We transfer skills.

A program we are now launching is Midwives Save Lives. We are working with the Canadian Association of Midwives, our key partner. Their expertise is midwifery and building a midwifery system in Canada. They'll be working in four countries. We'll be working with government entities and civil society organizations to help build midwifery associations of a similar nature in the countries where we'll be working.

There will be midwives who will be transferring the practical, concrete skills of midwifery. Some of the most modern of these are in use in Canada, because our system is so new. They'll also be working on governance. As organizations that are going to be setting standards at the country level, they will need a good governance system. They'll need people who understand filing systems. There will be a variety of technical help, along with volunteers and our own technical assistants. We will work to build the system. The system for us includes not only government partners but also civil society partners, working side by side.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

We're going to finish off with Mr. Kent.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, and my thanks to the witnesses for your testimony and advice today.

Ms. Harris, I'd like to come back to the point you made about reluctance to take countries off the list or change the amounts of funds going to countries still on the list.

You talked about end strategies. I know NGOs tend to be discreet about their advice on specific countries and whether or not they should stay on the list of countries of focus, because this advice could contradict the decisions made by the government. Should government begin thinking about developing a completion strategy, as opposed to an abrupt-end strategy, to conform to whatever the new criteria would be under a new list of countries or regions of focus?

[Wendy Harris]

My short answer is no. My longer answer is that I look at it from the perspective of the individual clients within the country we're working in.

For example, about a year ago we finished a six-year program with the partnership branch, and we started a new one. We graduated one of our clients, a chamber of commerce in Colombia. Speaking of Colombia, there are still lots of needs in Colombia, as well as huge inequities, so it's not a country to take off the list. It is a client that has built its skills and experience to the point where it can function on its own, but I think it's a little messier than countries that are ready to graduate. I think it's about really designing those exit strategies honestly at the beginning of programming.

I'll give you a very quick example. We had a bilateral in the Philippines working to support small- and medium-sized enterprise development, so our VAs, our volunteer advisers, would go in as business coaches. A few years before the end of the bilateral, we set up a local CESO. Staff or volunteers were local national Filipinos, who then could continue the business coaching after the bilateral was dismantled.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Ms. Guindon, I'm not sure if you were here for all of the previous witnesses' testimony, but there was a suggestion from one that if Canada were to be really daring, it might focus specifically on two countries—Haiti and Afghanistan—where there are still existing challenges, although there have been substantial improvements in terms of education, security of girls and women, and maternal, infant, and child health.

I'm just wondering what you would think about emphasizing or prioritizing, as per their example, two countries out of whatever the eventual countries of focus list might be, and really, perhaps with new funding, focus on those two countries, whatever the perceived downsides or risks might be.

[Evelyne Guindon]

I'll give you a diplomatic answer to that, because I'd say that it would be great to be daring and it's important to be focused. As a nation, I think we owe it to ourselves, but most importantly we owe it to the people whom we are aiming to serve. To be daring, I think we should do what Canada has always done in the world, and that is to share our excellence in the best way we know how.

I would like to speak on behalf of the more than 16,000 Cuso volunteers who have served. In early days, I think the volunteers took in a lot more than what they were ever able to give. What we have seen from that, and what I have seen through my career in working for non-Canadian entities, is the unique touch of Canadian expertise in so many countries where the need has been greatest. Whether it was Biafra in the 1960s or Vietnam decades later, we were always there at the right time. I would want to make sure that we were and that we would continue to do that. “Daring” to me would mean something a little bit different, and I think there are many other ways in which we could be daring.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Kent.

To our witnesses, thank you very much for your great testimony today.

The meeting is adjourned.