Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 9th, 2017

[Julia Gillard]

Thank you very much.

We do face a very immediate challenge on funding. We are entering into our replenishment cycle. GPE last asked the donor community, both the countries and the philanthropic community, to replenish GPE funds in 2014. We raised about $2 billion. We will hold another replenishment event, either very late this year or very early next year, so that we have replenished funds to undertake the new strategic plan that has been described to you.

That means that this is a very critical time for us to be putting the case for change in education to donors and partners, both traditional friends like Canada and new potential donors around the world. We do think that we come to that task in the circumstance where there is a rising global focus on education and a lot of momentum for change in education.

It was very telling to me, and pleasing to me, when I sat in the United Nations General Assembly and watched the sustainable development goals be adopted, that when the UN Secretary-General finished his speech, the first person to speak afterwards was Malala from the public gallery. I think this very structuring of the event told us that there was a realization in the global community that unless we were educating children, particularly girls, and meeting the courage of a child like Malala with the opportunity to go to a quality school, we would be failing the development agenda.

In this circumstance, we think that what we do, as well as what other organizations do.... I would point particularly to the newly structured fund Education Cannot Wait, which is specifically for education in emergencies and in humanitarian crisis and conflict. This is a moment when the global community will focus on the better resourcing of education right across the board. We will be here in June for our board meeting, but we will be in continuous dialogue with the government and the Parliament of Canada about its consideration of its further support for the Global Partnership for Education.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you very much.

You also mentioned a few countries that are in a conflict situation or are facing great difficulties, such as Mali and Haiti, where you are doing critical work.

You also work with refugees. I'd like to know what that entails. Since your work often revolves around school systems, it's bound to be more complicated in the case of refugees.

[Julia Gillard]

Thank you.

For understandable reasons, the world's political attention tends to go on refugee questions when refugees are moving into developed countries. For example, the very major refugee inflows into Europe have received a great deal of media and political attention. However, the vast majority of the refugee population is in low-income countries, and more than 60% of the world's refugee population is in GPE countries, the 65 countries that we serve.

We work with our developing country partners to help them have plans for schooling and resources so that they can include refugee children's education in their education systems. When your own education system is under a lot of stress and strain and you're a very poor country, that is a very difficult thing to do.

For example, a very poor country such as Chad, which has a great deal to do to keep developing its own education system for the children of Chad, actually approached GPE when it started to see major refugee inflows into Chad so that we could provide assistance to enable them to offer the refugee children a place in school. It was an incredible act of generosity off a very impoverished base, but then something that we were able to work on with them. That's our main focus at this stage on refugee children.

We are very supportive of the new fund Education Cannot Wait, which is specifically dedicated to children in conflict and crisis. We will be working with Education Cannot Wait to see what more can be done in the immediate humanitarian circumstance, but then to get continuity from the humanitarian response into the longer-term development work.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I'd like to ask another question.

You talked about countries covered by the Global Partnership for Education. Are you considering the possibility of increasing the number of countries where you operate?

[Julia Gillard]

Our focus will remain on low-income countries and lower middle-income countries. We think that's where the greatest need is and the greatest challenges are.

I'm continuing to serve as a member of the international commission on education financing, and I'd commend that report to the committee. When you look at that report, there is some very compelling information about the patterns of aid flows for education. When you unpack aid flows, you find that quite a lot of international aid is actually for post-secondary. It's provided by countries in the form of scholarships for people to come and study in their countries. Australia does that, and obviously it has merits for the individuals involved. However, it does mean that when you look at the amount of funding that is flowing to school education, it is low.

When you unpack which countries it's going to, GPE does stand out as the organization that is most specifically focused on the poorest. So we will continue that mission of focusing on low-income countries and lower middle-income countries.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Madame Laverdière.

Mr. Levitt, please.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Ms. Gillard and Dr. Mundy, thank you very much for your testimony. I know you've had a couple of busy days in Ottawa, on the Hill. It's great to have you here this morning before you return home.

In terms of Canada's four-year, $120-million support for GPE, I'm glad to see there's a large portion of the funding committed to basic education and also important funding for teacher training so that these children continue to receive quality education.

I'm also interested in the smaller areas of contribution, the 2% and 3% of the funding that's committed to democratic participation in civil society and also general human rights education. Could you give us a bit of detail on the types of initiatives that GPE undertakes and its impact on education in those areas?

[Julia Gillard]

I'll open on that, and Dr. Mundy may want to contribute as well.

The essence of the GPE model is that we work with the country to develop a country-owned plan for schooling. In doing that, we look to the governments for leadership because at the end of the day, governments run the vast share of the education system, and have to have a plan for schooling for every child in their country.

We have an inclusive planning process that includes civil society representatives, so we do provide resources to civil society groups in developing countries so they can participate in those planning processes through what we call a local education group. Their participation in that local education group we think strengthens planning, because they bring the knowledge from the ground about what is happening and what is on people's minds—the minds of parents, for example.

The local education group is then also involved in stock-taking the implementation of the plan to make sure that things are on track. That, for us, gives us some greater coverage and contestability of information about whether the plan is being implemented well and properly. It may be that a government genuinely believes that a plan is on track, or it may be that a government wants to say to the world that a plan is on track, whereas the civil society group that is at work on the ground can point to and surface information about things that aren't going so well. Then we can work with the country to correct course.

We think there is a general advocacy role for civil society in developing countries for more resources into education, but we also think there are these very specific roles to strengthen the planning and the implementation processes, so we resource through our civil society education fund for that.

[Dr. Karen Mundy]

We support the civil society coalitions in 62 of our 65 developing country partners. These coalitions play a vital role in social accountability for results in the education sector. They engage in budget-tracking exercises to help lower corruption and fraud in the system. They play a very important role in representing the voices of marginalized populations. We think that's one of the unique pieces of GPE's approach, and of course we focus on the government and a government system, but we understand that system has to be widely owned. It needs broad stakeholders around it to ensure that its performance is such that marginalized children are reached.

You asked about general human rights education and how GPE promotes it. We invest quite heavily in curriculum development and in the production of learning materials. Those materials are vetted to ensure that they have good-quality focus on human rights. But I think we cut at a different level on the human rights issue. We are committed to inclusive education, to education that includes children with disabilities, that addresses the needs of girls and other marginalized populations. At the level of the sector plan, we're very emphatic about the need for inclusive education. Inclusive education by definition is about the right of children to an inclusive education.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I want to come back to something you said, Ms. Gillard. You're operating in some fairly hot spots. I want to use Burundi as a very quick example, because our subcommittee on international human rights is just completing a study on it at the moment.

You talked about country-owned and about country leadership. You've had a situation in Burundi where since the beginning of the 2016 school year, the Burundi government has shut down education for over 80,000 students. We heard that testimony in our hearings.

How do you operate...? Other countries are examples of ones where you're probably facing some similar challenges, and they're significant. How do you deal with or continue to perform your mandate in the face of a country where there will be no leadership and you will in fact be running against a very significant headwind?

[Julia Gillard]

That's a good question. Obviously, this work is complex and very context-specific. Our model is one where, in countries where we are providing an implementation grant, we appoint a grant agent. It may be the World Bank, UNICEF, Save the Children; it can be one of the bilateral donors that's at work in that country. The grant agent manages the funds and the disbursement and obviously ensures that things are on track, as well as having these local education group processes.

We find that's difficult, but we find that gives us the oversight and fiduciary accountability that we need. It is not a panacea for all problems. There are times when circumstances get too difficult, so that it is not safe for the sorts of agencies that are grant agents to maintain their personnel within country; or when, even with the strongest of advocacy, a government is determined to not do the right thing. GPE, like the rest of the international community, has to face those challenges and do the best we can. We have managed to keep working even in some environments where other bodies have withdrawn or ceased to be active. We've continued to work, for example, in places like Yemen and South Sudan. We have shown an ability to keep some things going, even when the local environment is very hot and very difficult.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. Levitt.

We can come back to it, Dr. Mundy.

I'll go to Mr. McKay now.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to both our witnesses.

It is good to see, Ms. Gillard, that there is life after politics. You are demonstrating that quite admirably.

In another life, I authored a bill called the “better aid” bill. It said three things: that Canada's aid had to be for poverty alleviation, that we had to consult those who were to receive that aid, and that it had to be consistent with international human right standards. It also said that, within six months of every government year-end, there had to be a metric published that in fact we complied with the better aid bill. The previous government showed no great enthusiasm for complying with that metric, in part because it's difficult to actually measure aid effectiveness.

Given that all governments have a kind of flavour du jour that they want to put forward their aid to do particular policy goals, how do you set up your relationship with a recipient government so that you have a metric going in and a metric coming out? And are there occasions when you actually come to the point where you're saying this is not effective use of donor dollars?

[Julia Gillard]

I'll defer most of that to Dr. Mundy. I think she might want to make a comment, too, on our work in hot environments.

From the board perspective, I just did want to say this. We work with countries on this planning task of generating an education sector plan. Then for the low-income countries, that comes forward for consideration as to whether we would make a grant based on that plan. In order for us to say yes, we've got to see increasing domestic resources and we've got to see robustness in the plan. And there have been times when the board has been hard-headed enough to say the plan that is being brought before us isn't good enough and we won't make a grant based on this plan, so it's got to be done again with improved quality. So in that “going in”, to use your phrase, there is a willingness at GPE to be a very hard-headed about where we will invest funds and not do it against unsatisfactory planning processes.

Karen will be able to address the rest of the question.

[Dr. Karen Mundy]

I think the focus on aid effectiveness makes the most sense if it's partnered with a focus on development effectiveness. Development effectiveness requires country ownership, but it also requires country responsiveness to clear metrics and outcomes.

GPE introduced a results-based financing model in 2014 at its last replenishment and we're still learning how to use results-based financing as a lever and an incentive for developing country partners.

Every country receives a 30% tranche of its total allocation in a results-based form. That results-based form requires the country to select a clear metric in three areas: learning, equity, and efficiency. They must, then, report on that metric. It is validated by external validators and they receive a payment for that result.

We've only introduced it now in about one-third of the countries we work with. They have not yet reported on results, but I have every confidence that when countries do not achieve their result, if they do not achieve it, we will stand firm in the use of the results-based financing. We will not deliver the financing unless the result is achieved.

At the same time, we work very hard to encourage governments to select results that are attainable and to ensure that in their plan they've costed the right interventions to achieve the results they set out in their RBF. It's not in anyone's best interest not to deliver the financing to governments, but what we want to do is help governments to become more focused on owning and delivering on results in their sector plans.

That's our model. It's perhaps unique. We had a scholar looking at our results-based financing model recently, and he said, “If I look across the wide range of organizations doing results-based financing, you're the only organization that is trying to leverage a whole system through results-based financing. You're not just targeting one item or one program and then paying for that result. You're actually trying to encourage a strong system. You are requiring governments to select indicators that will lift the entire system up.” So I think it's quite unique to us.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I once attended a lecture by Bill Gates in Washington. He is not an inspiring speaker, shall we say, but on the other hand, his content is just amazing. He has two great initiatives: one, international health; and the second is education in the United States. To the great consternation of the education establishment in the United States, he has really shaken things up, because the outcomes of dollar per educated child are really poor in the United States.

I was wondering whether you had any association with the Gates foundation. There may be others, but at least they have done a lot of thinking about whether the application of dollars is actually effective.

[Julia Gillard]

We certainly have a relationship and exchanges with the Gates foundation. I think as recently as last week, Dr. Mundy was in dialogue with one of the specialists and technicians at the Gates foundation, so there is exchange of thinking and ideas.

The Gates foundation doesn't, at this stage, invest in education for development. The focus of their education work has been in the U.S. domestic education system, and of course they've been profoundly transformative in their investments and approach for AIDS and for vaccinations. The work that the Global Fund and Gavi do has been really transformed by Bill Gates and Melinda Gates becoming the kind of philanthropic donors and partners that they are today.

We do collaborate with both Gavi and the Global Fund because of this joined-up issue of health and education and everybody's increasing perceptions that we need to do more together. But there isn't co-operation with the Gates foundation on education for development directly, because the Gates foundation is currently not in the business of being a major donor or philanthropist or driver of change in the education for development space.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

We'll go to Mr. Kent.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for your presentation today and for the great work you do.

I have two basic questions. One, is there a GPE standard with your partner countries? I know that most of your focus is on primary and elementary education, but in respect of secondary school levers, do you have a GPE standard, or do you work to the standard of the partner country?

Second, my generation was relatively well educated without digital benefit, but the computer today is very much a reality in the developing world and certainly in the developed world. Do you have a digital dimension to your assistance, or is that something that would come from other funding agencies?

[Julia Gillard]

I'll answer the second question. On the issue of standard, I might call on Dr. Mundy.

Because our work is country-specific and country-led, the digital component differs from place to place and differs because of levels of development. In many of the countries in which we work, we're working with schools that do not have electricity, do not have connectivity, don't necessarily have running water, don't necessarily have bathroom facilities for children. So there's a limit. It doesn't mean that there is absolutely no difference that can be made by technology. Some of our teacher training and teacher support could still have a technology component, but they're not at the stage where you could conceptualize every child having a device and every device being serviced and used properly. Other countries are at different stages and they are very interested, particularly in dealing with challenges of remoteness in their own countries through leveraging the benefits of new technology. If that's appropriate and forms part of their education sector plan, then we would work with that as a key educational development.

[Dr. Karen Mundy]

I'd like to say a little bit about innovation, because in a way your question referred to innovation, as did the question about our work with the Gates foundation. As a partnership, this year we will be developing an innovation strategy, and one of the areas we are very interested in is the ability to leverage digital innovation, perhaps less at the level of the individual classroom and more at the level of the system. We think there are opportunities to digitize and to get information about service delivery. Is your teacher in the school or not in the school? For example, using SMS, we think there are opportunities for teacher education through digital formats.

When I met with the Gates foundation last week, we discussed some of the innovation areas where they are considering—they have not decided, but they are considering—investments in education. We discussed some of the areas where we might have a common interest in working on innovation.

GPE is a partnership-based organization very much focused on the core principle of development effectiveness, which is country ownership. We think it would not be appropriate to that core commitment to set an international standard and then impose it on countries. On the other hand, we believe that countries need to measure learning outcomes in order to track their own progress and, even more important, in order to target resources to those whose learning outcomes are weakest. Invariably, those are the children who are most marginalized. Those are girls. Those are children with disabilities.

Our goal in our sector planning process, which we support in our grants, is always to ensure that there is a good metric of outcomes for all children—not just the smartest children but all children—and that learning is the focus of those metrics.

Internationally, with SDG 4, we know that to measure outcomes against the SDG 4 goal there is going to have to be some kind of global learning measure. GPE partners with the UNESCO Institute for Statistics based in Montreal and supported generously by the Canadian government. It is developing a sophisticated way of ensuring some equivalency in the grade 5 or grade 6 test levels that are gradually growing across GPE partners so that we'll be able to say how effective an education system is against meeting a common learning-outcome target.

It will take a few years for the equivalency mechanism to be developed. In the meanwhile, GPE continues to encourage every country to test its students for learning outcomes, not so much as a stick, but more as an opportunity to look at how to target resources within their systems to achieve good outcomes for all children.

It will be an exciting day, I think, when every country has a nationally owned litmus test of the success of learning outcomes in its system and when those learning outcomes can be looked at for lessons in improvements across our partnership.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

We're going to run a little bit over time here, but not too much, and everybody will get a chance to ask their questions.

We'll go straight to Mr. Saini, and then to Mr. Kmiec.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much to both of you for your very important testimony today. It was a pleasure meeting both of you yesterday evening.

One thing about education that has been part of the main theme of your opening remarks and part of your questioning is the importance of education for women and girls. Part of that education also has to do with health education, when you're talking with young girls about sexual reproductive rights.

I'm sure you are aware of the 1984 Mexico City proposal—or the “global gag order”, which is the other way it's known—a policy that was initiated by Ronald Reagan. You have Republican presidents who institute that gag order, and then you have Democratic presidents who rescind it.

In the first few days of the Trump administration, you now have the imposition of that gag order again, but this time the gag order is more global in reach, which has affected aid organizations that are working, and that I'm sure in many cases are partnered with you. My question is, how will you be able to effectively conduct your work? Is there a problem with the partnerships that you formed on the ground? I'm sure that when you go into any fragile society, it's not just education, but also health, and you've integrated your systems with those health organizations. How is that going to affect your work going forward?

[Julia Gillard]

You raise an incredibly important issue. From the point of view of GPE, I don't see the recently issued executive order impacting our work, because, by the very model we've described to you today, we are not an organization that is funding an individual to go into a school to do education on sexual health and reproductive rights and potentially transmit information that would get them into trouble with the new executive order.

Our model is different, with a systems-wide approach and systems funding. We do know that keeping an adolescent girl in school is a protective factor against early marriage and early pregnancy. But while schooling is an important component, it's not the only component. Many of the organizations that do the other components—that actually offer direct advice to women and girls about their sexual health and managing their reproduction—will clearly be impacted by the approach of the new administration in the U.S.

GPE hasn't issued a formal statement on any of this, but as a personal observation, I think it's to be deeply regretted. I think the evidence is very clear that when women and girls can't access good-quality information, ultimately what you end up seeing is women dying as a result of early pregnancies or unmanaged sexual health questions. If they had the benefit of information, they would be able to make their own choices and avoid some of these very tragic outcomes.