Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 9th, 2017

[Dr. Karen Mundy]

I think that where we are making investments in sexual and reproductive health is in the literacy of the girls themselves so that they can access information. We do have some investments that touch on the development of a curriculum in social skills and life skills areas, but I don't think those investments would draw any scrutiny under this new gag order.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

The other point you raise, which I think is a very important point that is not spoken about too often, is the concept of the madrasah schools, which are being funded by very rich countries in parts of the world where education is most important, especially in rural or remote areas. When you go into a country, especially fragile countries like Malawi, Yemen , or Mali, how do you compete in that space?

You have education that is somewhat backward in that area, which is presented as being important for them. You come into a space where you want to provide education with numeracy and literacy. How do you compete in that space, especially with traditions and hierarchies that have a legacy behind them for many years, when you want to provide something that will change the structure, organization, and forward thinking of that community? What tools do you have? What skills do you use to show the people that what we're trying to do is far better and more progressive than what has been an establishment of the past, especially when the influence is from rich countries, specifically around that region?

[Julia Gillard]

Once again, this is a complex question. It does very much depend on the context and the attitude of the government.

To give you an example that I personally saw in Senegal, which is now a lower middle-income country, GPE has worked there with the government, and they have specifically in their education planning determined—I think they call them “darah” schools rather than madrasah schools, but it's the same concept—that they will reach out to those schools and seek to regularize them in the system. If they are regularized in the system, they will qualify for some government funding.

In that context, my sense is that those schools were not so monied and resourced by outside interests that the government funding would be not attractive to them. The schools did want the government funding, so they were prepared to do the registration and compliance work that would get the funding. The lesson from that, I think, is that many of these questions are questions of political will, government regulation, and system structure, and they are the very things that, through the GPE approach, we work on.

In context, while some of these schools might be very well resourced, I do agree with you there is a competition-style problem, but at the end of the day, governments can regulate and structure systems, including systems for non-government schools.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. Saini.

We'll go to Mr. Kmiec now.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thanks to both of you for this presentation. It's been interesting to learn about what your organization does.

I was talking to my colleague, and one of the problems that all of you in international organizations have is that governments make commitments, and you expect them to follow through, with the funding to come at some point. I say that you're all in the collections business, because at some point you're going to come and ask for money, or what you've said publicly that you have to account for. As a former politician, you know that's the bane of our existence.

I was looking at your website. I am curious about the status of donor contributions. You have a document there which says that as of September 30, 2016, Canada's contribution is still outstanding. There is $45.5 million U.S. outstanding. Is that still the case today? If it is, why is that? What are your plans going forward in terms of new contributions?

[Julia Gillard]

Canada, at our last replenishment, made a four-year commitment—that's my understanding—with monies being disbursed from Canada to us over the time period. Canada's contributions are being received on time and as expected.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Can you talk more about this replenishment? Both of you have used the word “replenishment” at different times. How does that work? I notice that all of your donors are governments except for one foundation, the Children's Investment Fund Foundation. How does replenishment work? Could you explain this concept?

[Julia Gillard]

We have recently added some other philanthropic organizations that are supporting particularly the knowledge and technical exchange work that Dr. Mundy oversees. We'll have to make sure the website catches that.

The way replenishment works is that we do create a moment.... For example, I know that Canada recently hosted the Global Fund's replenishment event. We do create a comparable global moment whereby we ask key partners to come forward and make pledges for our replenishment cycle for the years to come. At the 2014 replenishment, we had governments make pledges. We had developing country partners also pledge and indicate what they were going to do with their domestic resource mobilization. We did, at that replenishment event, receive a commitment from CIFF, the philanthropic organization that you've pointed to.

We've had a very good track record of governments honouring their commitments, so we haven't been in the unhappy circumstance where pledges have been made and people have let us down in large numbers. We have been able to program expenditure. We'll be looking to have hosted a replenishment event of that kind of dimension either late this year or early next year, and we'll be asking governments to make pledges.

The ability of governments to do that obviously varies. Some governments are able to make multi-year commitments, and Canada has done that. Some governments, because of their budget processes, are only able to make one-year commitments and give you an indicative figure for what they might be able to do in the year beyond. The U.S. tends to be in that situation because of the nature of its budget processes. The maximum stability for us with the multi-year commitments is obviously very highly valued.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kmiec.

Colleagues, I think we'll leave it there this morning. This has been a very interesting and helpful discussion.

Honourable Julia Gillard and Dr. Mundy, on behalf of the committee, thank you very much for this very helpful presentation.

Julia, most of us, of course, are politicians still working, and it's always nice to see an ex-prime minister doing great work. We very much appreciate your taking the time with us this morning.

Thank you very much on behalf of the committee.

[Julia Gillard]

Thank you very much for having us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Colleagues, we'll take a five-minute break and then we'll go in camera for three pieces of business. It shouldn't take us more than a half an hour.

Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]