Foreign Affairs Committee on June 7th, 2016

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

Madam Riseboro, you touched on the geographic concentration. I want you to expand on whether it is important that geographic concentration be applied to the international assistance that Canada provides through multilateral organizations. I'm pretty sure that the answer's going to be yes. If it's yes, in which countries and sectors is Canada most likely to be able to achieve results from its spending?

[Caroline Riseboro]

Let me start by saying that I think it's obviously important that we focus on a number of countries, but we can't spread the funding too thin. In the past we've had more than 80 focus countries. I think right now between 20 and 25 would likely be a strategic investment, because that number would allow us to have impact and to take a transformative approach to have a lasting impact and to achieve lasting results.

As for funding multilaterals—obviously I think my colleagues would concur, because we've had these discussions within the sector—it's important that Canada make bilateral funding arrangements, fund multilaterals, and fund Canadian civil society organizations. The reality is that a lot of times the multilaterals look to organizations like Plan International and those represented by my colleagues here to actually do the implementation on the ground.

Oftentimes, we are not afforded the right overhead costs to be able to do some of that, so we have to be able to match that funding with private donations by Canadians. The reality is, under the current environment, we are not seeing private donations growing at all, so there is more pressure on us if we don't receive funding both bilaterally and from multilaterals.

In terms of focus, again I would say it's important that we focus on vulnerable populations as opposed to on a specific theme. However, I will say that Canada has led in the area of gender equality. This is a commitment that this government has made. Again, I go back to taking an evidence-based approach, which continues to show that women and girls continue to bear the brunt of poverty. They also present a significant opportunity, because investing in women and girls has proven to be one of the most effective ways to break the cycle of poverty.

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

If I heard you right, of the 80 countries you work in, you're recommending focusing on 20 to 25? You touch one country in Africa, but it's more likely that you'd like to work in 20 to 25 countries out of the 80? Is that what the answer is, not all 80?

[Caroline Riseboro]

In terms of where we specifically work, right now we are doing a global review to understand where Plan International should focus, based on the changing nature of our globe. In the past, I think we've seen Canada's bilateral assistance focus on 80-plus countries. It's focused on between 20 to 25. We would recommend that deeper approach of 20 to 25.

We also are asking ourselves the same questions as a global INGO.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

I assume you're making that comment based on the funding that's available now?

[Caroline Riseboro]

Correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you.

Mr. Aubin, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome all the witnesses appearing before the committee today.

My first question draws on Mr. Fryars' opening remarks.

If my notes are correct, you said you have helped 500 million people in 70 countries. It is rather difficult to align these 70 countries with Canada's 25 countries of focus. It is clearly a much larger problem. You also said something I am very interested in, namely, that we should perhaps take a approach based on the targeted problems rather than targeted countries. For your part, Ms. Riseboro, you talked about the need for flexibility in the determinants.

My question is for the three witnesses.

Shouldn't we review our international aid? Two avenues are available to us right now, and they are not mutually exclusive. We could increase the amount of international aid, meaning that 90% of our aid would continue to go to the 25 countries of focus. The other avenue, since we cannot indirectly break off our relations, is to look to the medium term and move to a more thematic approach or an approach based on countries of focus.

[Mark Fryars]

Thank you very much. I hope I understood most of the question. Forgive me if I reply in English.

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

No problem.

[Mark Fryars]

If I understand the question correctly, you're looking at the scope in which we've been able to achieve results, which is spread over really quite a large number of countries. That is because we focus on one key issue. You can imagine a long, thin line across the globe where we can provide one or more critical but essential benefits to a very large number of people. This allows Canada to have a significant impact through that kind of multilateral approach.

But I would agree with my colleagues here that in order to build systems, you have to go deeper than that in selected countries. I quite like the number of 25 countries. I think that echoes what I said myself about being there for the long haul, being there for a sustained period, in order to make a significant difference. As countries go up and down in terms of their ability to build systems and move forward, having a trusted partner, who can have a voice that is listened to, is pretty critical.

To answer your question, I think it's really about balance. I think we need the three streams, but you need flexibility in between them as well so that you can follow where you're getting the best results with the investment you're making. In terms of “political direction”, shall we say, for international development assistance, give flexibility to the department to look at that in a very constructive way and focus on delivering the best results to Canadians for their investment.

I hope that answers the question.

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

Yes. Thank you.

Ms. Riseboro, do you want to add to that?

[Caroline Riseboro]

If we focus on too large a number of countries, then yes, it's very difficult to have a sustainable impact. This is why we're suggesting keeping the current 20-to-25 country approach. That being said, though, under the framework of the SDGs, it's not only a country approach but really a focus on the populations that are most vulnerable. Going back to the evidence, it could very much be a thematic approach around girls and women that our ODA could take.

The other issue, though, is that currently 90% of our bilateral funding goes toward priority countries. Given the fragility we're seeing around the world, the protracted crises, it may be that we want to decrease that percentage and increase the percentage of flexibility just given the nature of what's happening around the world right now in terms of crises becoming more protracted and more reoccurring.

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

Thank you.

[Marlen Mondaca]

Maybe not just to echo my colleagues, though I fully agree with everything they have said, I think it's also about building on the historic strength of the Canadian government's investments in ODA. Over the last decade or so, we have made significant investments and strides in the maternal, newborn, and child health file, for example. It would be a shame to see that thematic focus derailed by decreased investment. I think that in order to be able to scale up and have impact in the long term, we want to stay the course in some thematic areas where we have had those historic investments.

I do think it is a delicate balance between being geographically focused in order to continue to generate evidence and focused on building and sustaining impact in some of the countries where we've historically worked. It's also recognizing that if we are to reach the most deprived and the most marginalized, we do really need a shift in terms of strategy. That might mean changing some of the mechanisms of financing and how we do financing for some of the work that we do.

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

Thank you.

Do I have time for one more?

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Mr. Saini, go ahead, please.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Fryars, I have a question for you specifically. Being a pharmacist, I'm very intrigued by your organization. How did you decide which vitamins you were going to concentrate on? I understand some of them, but can you give me an understanding of how you chose specific ones?

[Mark Fryars]

It's really a question of which ones have the most significant mortality and morbidity impacts and where we see a lot of deficiency in populations. We have worked very closely over the last 20 years with the World Health Organization to characterize populations in which there are public health problems related to vitamin and mineral deficiencies. We've come out with—you could say—a top five or a big five, of vitamin A, zinc, iron, iodine, and folic acid. However, they're not the only ones. We're seeing the importance growing and, frankly, we're learning more from the evidence every day about the different ways in which vitamin D interacts with the system or B-12 does, and these different things. It's not to rule out the other ones, but we very much go where the biggest impact on mortality and morbidity is seen.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I was going to suggest vitamin B-12 and vitamin C.

Outside of that, I want to talk about something a little bit more globally minded. Even in Canada 20 or 30 years ago we knew the population was not getting the requisite amount of their daily vitamin intake, so we fortified foods to make sure that in some ways the population got the bare minimum.

I think maybe five or 10 years ago there was a French company that came up with a product called Plumpy'Nut. I don't know if you remember.

[Mark Fryars]

I do.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

The intriguing thing about that product was that it could provide the carbohydrates, proteins, and fats; but you could also fortify it with vitamins.

[Mark Fryars]

That's correct.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

So you'd be killing two birds with one stone. You'd be providing food for nutrition, but the micronutrients that were depleted could also be added at the same time.

I'm sure that in an organization like yours, when you're dealing with different parts of the world, access and delivery might be challenging. You could kill two birds with one stone—the nutritional part of it would serve the malnutrition factor as well as the nutrient-depletion factor. Do you see that as being part of a—

[Mark Fryars]

That's a very good question.

The situation we face is complex, because some people do consume food, but it just doesn't contain much nutrition, although maybe it contains some of the other macronutrients they need. For those, we do need to fortify the foods if we can. We can fortify condiments like salt and we can fortify wheat flour, maize flour, vegetable oils, and all kinds of things for really just a few cents. For example, the cost of fortifying wheat flour per person per year is about seven cents, so if they're getting a great enough quantity of food, you can add nutritional value to it there. That's one segment of the population.

However, those in another segment of the population are simply hungry. They just don't have enough food at all. Plumpy'Nut—and, if I recall, in the Plumpy family there are several products—also replaces some of the other nutrients in addition to the micronutrients, but there the cost is very different. The cost per child per year for Plumpy'Nut is around $50 U.S.

You can see the cost differential. If you are trying to serve the needs, there are 180 million children in need in Africa alone. That's an awful lot of emergency and therapeutic feeding you would do for that population.

Now, if you could mobilize the resources, that would be great, but, if we treat this as a market, we're actually looking for the right solutions for the different segments of the market that have slightly different needs.