Foreign Affairs Committee on Dec. 1st, 2020

[Thomas Bollyky]

Again, I apologize for the connectivity issues. My written testimony was provided in advance, so people should refer to that.

We make two recommendations.

In terms of the system, we suggest setting up a hospital-based sentinel surveillance system. The reason for doing so is that in outbreak after outbreak, the affected member states have been slow to report their findings. That's not specific to the coronavirus pandemic; it happened around SARS. It happened around Ebola in recent epidemics. It's happened over and over again. We need other sources of information to identify risks as they emerge.

It's also particularly important, because WHO member states are likely to be more reluctant to report, given how many countries have imposed travel restrictions on nations once they have reported. The economic consequences are likely to make them less likely to report.

There is a gap in the health system.

Did you have a question?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

If you set up an autonomous watchdog system for hospitals to look at health policies set-up in individual nations, who is the group going to report to? Who is the group going to be responsible to for its own transparency and accountability?

[Thomas Bollyky]

This is a hospital-based sentinel system. It wouldn't actually evaluate policies. It would collect information on an ongoing basis about unusual hospitalizations.

We actually have a similar system around famines. There is an internationally funded system that reports indicators on famines into a database that allows for an independent assessment of risks. This goes straight to member states. It would still provide information to WHO and member states, and would be an additional source of information, other than the self-reporting nations.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

There would be no ability for it to have teeth at all.

[Thomas Bollyky]

It's not around enforcement. It's around a new indicator of information other than nations simply self-reporting when they have an outbreak, which is what we largely rely on now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bergeron, you have six minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you very much.

I would like to thank our witnesses for being here with us today. I'll begin with Mr. Bollyky.

During the pandemic, we saw that the solidarity systems put in place by the international community completely fell apart. It became a free-for-all among states around the world, in terms of getting access to medical equipment.

In the September-October issue of the magazine Foreign Affairs, you and Chad P. Bown from the Peterson Institute for International Economics warned us about "vaccine nationalism".

In light of what happened in the early months of the pandemic, do you believe that we are succeeding in avoiding the "every man for himself" approach we have seen so far?

At the last G20, world leaders agreed to guarantee affordable worldwide access to vaccines, but there were no clear measures set out to accompany this commitment. But instead, an astounding percentage of the vaccines have been cornered by western countries. I don't have the figures with me, but I've seen them.

How do you see things playing out in connection with the pandemic?

[Thomas Bollyky]

I think it's unclear currently. There are two [Technical difficulty—Editor]

The first is that the multilateral initiative, Covax, to further fair and equitable distribution of the vaccine, is underfunded. It is particularly underfunded in the resources it needs to build up the infrastructure, and it has been underfunded for distribution in countries. It is also underfunded with regard to the resources it needs to purchase advance doses. That's the first sign of concern.

The second is that many nations, my own and Canada included, have entered into large [Technical difficulty—Editor] purchase agreements for vaccines, which are inherently rivalrous with the multilateral initiative. They compete with it in the sense that they use up resources that otherwise might go to the multilateral initiative. They also reserve scarce vaccine manufacturing capacity.

There is a possibility that nations that have secured a significant amount of doses will be able to share them once they've addressed their own needs. It is unclear in terms of the time frame in which that will happen, and that may also depend on which vaccines succeed. The mRNA vaccines that are the most likely to be approved require a cold chain that we have not funded in nations to establish, so those are not going to address global needs. The question is, will other vaccines also generate the information they need to achieve regulatory approval? We don't know the answer to that yet.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you very much.

I understand that things may somewhat unclear, particularly about how the western countries will share their remaining doses once they have met their own requirements. And we still don't know what the schedule will be and how the vaccination process will be carried out in Canada. I found the following figures: according to Oxfam International, 13% of the world's population has already cornered approximately 50% of the planned doses.

My next question is for Professor Audet. I find it very interesting that developing countries have been less affected than OECD countries by the direct impacts of the disease on health.

Is there an explanation for this state of affairs?

[François Audet]

Yes, definitely, but these remain speculative. As you know, we are talking about real-time research. The data, to which many people have access just about everywhere, report low mortality and hospitalization rates. The data on mortality are particularly interesting.

The explanations vary, however. Some suggest environmental issues that may be climate-related. A similar phenomenon was observed here in Canada. Things were different in summer than they were in winter, for example. Other factors may be tied to natural immunity and certain populations, though this remains to be determined. Such immunity may also be related to vaccines or treatments previously received for other diseases. Many countries of the south have experienced other pandemics. There was widespread vaccination of these populations and they may have developed a resistance to this type of coronavirus.

Some issues are essentially related to community or culture. There are far fewer contacts between people in rural areas than in urban communities. This is also true of Canada. I don't want to make broad generalizations, but much of Africa is rural. In the big cities, the epidemic may be somewhat more pronounced. But the fact remains that mortality is lower. Age category is another important factor. As we know, older populations are more seriously affected by this disease. The age curves in the south show that generally speaking, their populations are much younger than in Western countries.

Those are the explanatory factors that remain to be identified and confirmed as time goes by, once the science has got there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron and Professor Audet.

The final round for this panel will go to Ms. McPherson for six minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our presenters today. This has been fascinating and very interesting for me.

I did have a number of questions, and I know I won't be able to get through all of them in the time I'm allotted.

I want to follow up on something that my colleague Mr. Chong brought forward. He talked about how unrealistic it is to get to that point of 7% and about the historic low spot we find ourselves in at the moment with our overseas development or official development assistance. Right now the international development sector is asking for 1% of COVID spending that is happening in Canada to be committed to our overseas efforts.

I'm wondering if Dr. Percival could talk about the importance of ensuring that we have a substantive contribution and commitment and that our contribution is not just words, that it's not just this verbal ambition, but that it's an actual reality. I'd like her to speak to that and also maybe what the consequences for Canada and for the world would be if we're not able to have an ambition that is higher than where we currently are.

[Valerie Percival]

I think it's clear for anybody who is looking at the COVID pandemic and particularly its impact in the most fragile and most vulnerable places around the world that this is a really critical moment. As Professor Audet mentioned, the immediate health impacts are not what was feared in many of these contexts. He also mentioned in his testimony that the indirect impact of not acting robustly now has the potential to be devastating for a lot of these countries.

We know there will be economic disruption. We know there's already social disruption. We know there's been interruption to school programs. All of these combined effects may fuel conflict. I listened to previous testimony from other witnesses, like Mr. Beasley, who emphasized that point. I think it is really critical that we engage robustly and sufficiently nimbly to show leadership.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I think one of the things you mentioned is the burden of getting through some of the bureaucracy to get some of the funding is massive problem and something that one would think we could deal with quite quickly.

I would ask Mr. Audet about that. One thing you spoke about is the impacts if we are not able to share the vaccine across the world in an equitable way. I've read articles that say we are looking at an increase of 30% morbidity if we don't do it fairly. For me, that's heartbreaking. As Dr. Percival said, that is an incredible failure of the international community and an indictment of all of us.

For those who would not be moved by this incredible loss of life, could you talk about what the economic impact on the global economy would be if we have to wait two, three or four years for certain regions of the world to be vaccinated?

[François Audet]

It's a huge macroeconomics issue. I don't think very many researchers have the recipe for it today. Just look at Canada's economic statement announced yesterday.

We're still operating on hypotheses and have very few reliable data about what the planet will look like in six months. So very humbly, it's very difficult for me to tell you where we we'll be in five years.

One thing is certain, and that is that the context is globalization, in which economies are closely bound together. All of Canada's provinces, north, south, east and west, are linked in value, supply and export chains. These days, we know full well that if one region of the world is suffering, the rest of the world will have problems. I believe that's the big lesson we've learned from globalization. On the other hand, when all is going well, it's going well everywhere

If we fail to take rapid and strong action right now, the long- term impacts of the pandemic will pull us all into a serious maelstrom. I believe that it's going to be very difficult to envisage, whether in terms of mortality, violence against women, major economic issues, possible wars or displaced populations.

Remember that only nine months ago, the most urgent matter was climate. It's still there. We musn't forget that our planetary challenges will overlap.

The crisis created by the pandemic needs to be resolved quickly. The short-term vision of a balanced economy can't be allowed to reduce international aid. At the very least, it's essential for humanitarian and development aid to be maintained. That's a given.

Unfortunately, I would not feel comfortable about speculating. There's not enough information available at the moment.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

That was a very smart answer. It was very similar to what I was looking for.

Certainly I also understand the need for us to have a response that is both immediate and ambitious, as well as that long-term response. I really appreciate what you said about that and how important it is that we look at the long tail that we know this COVID vaccine will have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Ms. McPherson, I'll have to stop you there in the interest of time.

Thank you very much for that last round of questions.

On our collective behalf, I'd like to thank our three expert witnesses this afternoon.

Thank you very much for your evidence and your expertise.

We know we have limited time, but we're grateful.

We will let you disconnect now and we'll perform a sound check for our second panel and then resume very shortly with that discussion.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Welcome back, colleagues.

For the benefit of our new witnesses, I would encourage all participants to mute their microphones when they're not speaking and address their comments through the chair.

When you have 30 seconds left in your questioning or speaking time, I will signal with this yellow piece of paper.

Interpretation services are available at the bottom of your screen through the globe icon.

I would now like to welcome our second group of witnesses.

We have Mr. Idee Inyangudor, the vice-president of Wellington Advocacy, testifying as an individual.

We also have Dr. Ruby Dagher, adjunct professor, School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa.

Mr. Inyangudor, I will give you the floor for five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Idee Inyangudor, Vice-President, Global Partnerships, Wellington Advocacy, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee, for inviting me to appear before you today. Greetings.

I am coming in from Lagos, Nigeria. It is about 10:27 p.m. here. It's an honour to get to talk to you folks about what's happening on the ground in a developing country, as well as to field your questions in my area of expertise. I'm glad to do so.

Before I go any further, since this is the first time I'm getting to speak to her since her election and to see her now in a new role, I want to extend congratulations to an MP who I worked with very closely in the past.

MP McPherson for Edmonton Strathcona, congratulations again on your election. It's good to see someone from an international development background now making policy as well, so thank you for that.

I think the reason for my being invited here is more on the private sector side of things than on the practitioner or impact of development co-operation side. I did have the honour of serving as the director of policy to three different international development ministers in the previous government, and I have had the opportunity of seeing how Canadian aid and Canadian foreign policy impact developing countries around the world.

I'll focus my comments on three main areas: food security, gender-based violence, specifically women, peace and security, and the last part of my talk will be on Canada-Africa relations.

Suffice it to say, I sat in on the last panel, and I think you also heard a lot from other experts. There's no doubt we are facing an unprecedented global crisis. It's affecting everybody. It's affecting people here, although not as severely as one never would have expected or would have thought initially. Definitely, its impacts on global development and on the global economy are obviously unprecedented, as well as its impact on the private sector, especially the private sector economy of smallholder farmers and small and medium scale entrepreneurs in developing countries. The impact is going to be great, and we can't overlook that.

With regard to food security, the UN Secretary-General recently warned that COVID would disrupt the functioning of food systems, resulting in health and nutrition consequences and a severely underfunded and under-seen impact on mothers and babies, especially in developing countries. The pandemic has exposed an already vulnerable system in the sense of food security, and this is going to continue. The UN 2020 global nutrition targets have been slowing already. At this point, there is absolutely no way we're going to meet them without having a lot more boldness, a lot more ambition and accelerated progress towards meeting those goals.

There is also gender-based violence. Much like in the Ebola outbreak, which some people have spoken about today, instances of violence against women increase during emergencies. This is no different. In fact, this is being called the hidden pandemic.

I'll move very quickly to the third point, which is Canada-Africa relations.

The pandemic and the response to this has to.... It's a good time to reset our relationship with Africa to provide the kinds of infrastructure and framework that allow for better co-operation between businesses, and to enhance the markets here. When the pandemic is over, the bigger issues will always be how will people survive here and how will the market strive....

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Mr. Inyangudor.

I will now give the floor to Dr. Dagher.

You have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Dr. Ruby Dagher, Adjunct Professor, School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, thank you for the invitation to talk to you about this very important subject we are looking at today.

From what I understand, you have already heard from many experts and representatives of UN organizations, as well as international and Canadian civil society organizations about the human impact of COVID-19 in fragile and conflict-affected countries. The human toll of this pandemic is significant and heart-wrenching, and as you have heard over the last few sessions some groups have paid a heavier price than others.

Today I would like to talk to you about a subject related to the COVID-19 pandemic that has not received much attention.

COVID-19 has tested the capacity of every country and every government in the world, including Canada. Studies have shown that the quicker a government reacts in implementing appropriate measures, the lesser the impact of COVID-19 is on the country or the areas that are controlled by the government. What most of these studies assume is the capacity of the state to do so. More crucially, though, what they take for granted is that the government and the state institutions themselves have the legitimacy in the eyes of their population to do what is necessary to control the pandemic.

Based on significant research that I and others have done related to legitimacy in fragile and conflict-affected countries, we now know that while people value democratic norms, systems and structures, the ones who are finding it hard to survive and who are facing a bleak future tend to care more about their survival and their immediate needs, at least in the short-term. The entity that tends to respond to their plight and that people perceive to have a visible impact on their daily lives earns legitimacy, or what we call performance legitimacy.

As a person who was born in—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Dr. Dagher, I'm sorry to interrupt. Interpretation services are asking you to slow your speech down a bit. They're having a hard time catching up. You'll have an opportunity to elaborate as we go into rounds of questions.

Thanks so much.

[Dr. Ruby Dagher]

Thank you.

As I was saying, as a person who was born in and lived through a civil war, worked in international development for the Canadian government on conflict-affected countries and has done significant research on these countries, I can tell you first-hand that this type of legitimacy is very important. It is often confused with clientelism, and the crisis that it causes is often misunderstood to be one of corruption. However, it is real and it has significant impact on the goals of building a legitimate and stable state, especially as it relates to the work that Canada is doing in these countries.

Turning back to COVID-19, without legitimacy, the best public health care systems and policy responses are likely to bear minimal fruit. What we now see in many fragile and conflict-affected countries is this double-edged sword at play. State institutions lack the capacity to respond throughout the country, if they wish to do so. They often lack the legitimacy, in the eyes of at least a segment of the population, to impose the rules. This possibly leads to the following five main outcomes:

First, the government has to use violence to pacify the population and force them to follow the rules, if they care.

Second, the various leaders, even those working in the government or the state institutions, use this pandemic to fuel conspiracy theories, or join the battle by providing their own support and services, earning legitimacy themselves.

Third, local organizations step into this vacuum and give guidance, and help to support the population and keep it safe.

Fourth, large international organizations step into the fray to either support local organizations or act as a replacement of the government and local organizations.

Fifth, citizens themselves self-organize, support each other and help the fight.

I'll quickly mention Lebanon. When COVID first hit, the state was very slow to react. People reacted and the rest followed. People believed the government. When the state started to get involved, people then thought it was a conspiracy theory, because the state wanted to end the revolution. People stopped believing in the existence of COVID-19. Then the leaders started taking over. These leaders are in the government. They started providing the services, which then, again, made the state look more impotent, and made them look strong. That played into the whole legitimacy dynamic of the country regarding the support and power for these leaders.

The other interesting part of this situation is that any actors, including international NGOs, are also involved in contributing to the transfer of legitimacy between groups. Their replacement of the state and local organizations, and their direct or indirect influence over the plight of these local organizations transfers this legitimacy away from local organizations and local actors, which tends to also exacerbate the legitimacy crisis inside the country. This is something we should not take lightly. This is something that Canada has to focus on, especially in situations that are fragile, and in conflict-affected countries that don't have the capacity.

It's a balancing act. We have to take action on all fronts. We cannot ignore the role of local organizations and the issue of legitimacy. If we withdraw legitimacy from these groups, we will cause more harm in the long term than in the short term.

Thank you for inviting me and giving me an opportunity to speak about this very important subject and to share my expertise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you so much, Professor Dagher.

We have time for a full first round of six minutes, and then probably a truncated second round of some very quick back-and-forth exchanges.

The first six-minute intervention goes to Mr. Morantz.

The floor is yours.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses today. Your testimony is very compelling, and alarming, frankly.

I want to start with you, Mr. Inyangudor.

We've heard the point made a number of times that Canada's development assistance budget has actually dropped by roughly 10% from the level it was under in previous governments, from about 0.3% of GNI to about 0.27% of GNI. I want to tie this in to your comments about the economic relationship between Canada and Africa, and particularly around how you would evaluate the effectiveness of Canada's record at targeting our development assistance to projects that are the most economically productive.