Foreign Affairs Committee on May 8th, 2024

[Andy Harrington]

Allow me to try that one.

As an organization, we are non-partisan. We've worked with governments of different stripes for decades. I think we've already had some conversation today about the 0.7% and about how we're failing to reach the 0.7% commitment to ODA. That has gone up and down during different governments. At the moment, it depends on the figures you look at, but we're looking at around just over 0.3% that we're at.

If we were to see that fall even lower, we would see very significant consequences in three ways: first, for the people we work with in the most fragile contexts; second, for Canadian engagement and the desire to be involved around the world; and third, in the ecosystem of development agencies themselves. You can't just ramp up. If we decided next year we wanted to go higher, we couldn't just ramp up and say, “Right—go out and do this work”. We would find our own sector ravaged in the ability and expertise that we have.

I think it would have fairly drastic consequences.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I appreciate that. I also appreciate your context and position in the conversation.

Do any other witnesses want to answer the question?

[Philippe Dongier]

Go ahead, Mr. Côté.

[Denis Côté]

I would just like to remind everyone that tax dollars also fund Canadian civil society organizations working in international development. They don't have a lot of funding sources. These groups don't generally get funding from private foundations. A significant portion of their funding comes from official development assistance, so that would have a significant impact on the sector. A number of organizations would probably disappear in no time, in addition to the consequences—

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Côté.

I have a question for you. You mentioned the Office of the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise, the CORE.

Do you have anything else to add with respect to CORE that you didn't already say in terms of its importance? You spoke about the investigative power that you'd like to see it have. Do you want to add anything else to your testimony and how it relates to Africa?

[Denis Côté]

Over the past 10 to 20 years or more, mining companies, including Canadian ones, have often been accused of human rights violations in Africa and elsewhere. This is a major problem.

Canada created this office, which has tremendous potential to investigate these allegations but doesn't currently have the tools to do so. We would like Ms. Meyerhoffer to have those tools. She herself has said in recent months that she needed the tools to be able to conduct these investigations fully. Otherwise, the results are not conclusive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

Next we'll go to Mr. Bergeron for two minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Given the little time I have left, I won't dwell on funding for small and medium-sized international development organizations, which tend to be more present on the ground than large organizations. As Ms. McPherson said, we need to strike a better balance when it comes to funding for multilateral organizations, which are still important, large organizations and small and medium-sized organizations.

Mr. Côté, I would like to go back to the part of your presentation where you recommended quickly passing legislation on corporate due diligence for human rights and the environment to give the ombudsperson for responsible enterprise real investigative powers.

Would you say that they adopted Bill S‑211 on forced and child labour, which only requires companies to make voluntary declarations, and created this ombud position just to ease their conscience?

[Denis Côté]

I would say that, unfortunately, the act enacted by Bill S‑211 doesn't do what we would like a due diligence law to do, which is more than just a reporting exercise. We would like it to cover all human rights. Unfortunately, that's not what this act does.

The act doesn't require companies to take action, either. Basically, the act requires companies to check if there's forced labour in their supply chain, but it doesn't necessarily require them to take measures to correct the situation if they do find forced labour issues.

When the new ombud office was announced, it was supposed to have the powers we'd asked for. Members of the coalition I'm involved in were at the announcement. Unfortunately, in the months that followed, the powers that had been announced disappeared from the ombudsperson's mandate, their job description. We want to see the ombud get those powers back, because the ombud can't investigate companies and get to the bottom of things without the power to request reports and testimony from the parties.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

We now go to Madam McPherson.

You have two minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Côté, I've tabled a bill, C-263, that would actually give the CORE ombudsperson the tools that were promised to us very many years ago. So if anyone's interested in looking at Bill C-263, that's the bill that I think would actually fix the CORE ombudsperson.

I have to say, though, I am frustrated when I listen to this. I listened to the information that you're giving us, Mr. Côté.

I listened to what you've been saying, Mr. Harrington, about the complexity of Global Affairs. I was a member of TaFIE, the Task Force for Increasing Effectiveness, about seven years ago and we were having these same conversations. We were talking about why we needed to fix the exact same things that we're still talking about fixing.

What is the barrier from your perspective? Why are these things so difficult for governments to actually fix?

Mr. Harrington, I'm going to start with you.

[Andy Harrington]

I would, first of all, say that Global Affairs is full of very good people trying very hard and I would also say that the way that the things are structured, the way that the departments are structured, really doesn't allow for a lot of cross-fertilization.

The first thing I would say is one of the things that has to be done is to really look at the structure of Global Affairs Canada. Until that's done, it's actually really hard to make these changes because people are entrenched in their own silos. I understand that in my own world as well, but that would be a key thing for me, really looking at the actual structure of the overarching organization. I think that has to be addressed before we can actually start to address some of the key issues that are causing these [Inaudible—Editor].

The second thing I would say is there's a lot of risk aversion. So as we think about the work that we're doing, there's risk involved. Things are ladled on top to avert that.

I'll pass on to my colleagues at this stage.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

And I would just really quickly point out that when you talk about risk aversion we're all told within the sector that we need innovation—

[Andy Harrington]

Exactly.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

—and innovation requires risk.

Mr. Côté, sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I'm afraid we're over the two-minute mark.

[Denis Côté]

Yes—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Very briefly, Mr. Côté, in less than 30 seconds, please. Sorry.

[Denis Côté]

Okay, thank you.

I agree with the points Mr. Harrington raised.

There's one more thing I want to say. I worked with Global Affairs Canada, so I know there are lots of extremely competent and dedicated people in that department. That's not the problem. However, moving people from one position to another makes it very difficult to establish long-term relationships with agents. People always have to start over, which makes the whole process take longer. When people aren't familiar with the organizations, they have to start over every year. That's another factor that slows things down a bit, in addition to what Mr. Harrington mentioned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Côté.

So now we go to Mr. Aboultaif.

You have three minutes, sir.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Harrington, you said that we need to be strategic. We need a strategic approach, not a piecemeal approach.

Do you believe that Canada has a piecemeal approach toward Africa? Could you elaborate on that a little bit? I may have following questions too.

[Andy Harrington]

I believe we do, actually. I do believe that we haven't had a thought-through strategic approach to the continent as a whole or even to the regional side. I think we view things often country by country. I also don't think we've had a cohesive holistic strategy in terms of how development can interface with trade and diplomacy, and even in the peacebuilding context of defence as well.

These things all underpin each other. Until we can actually come back to a place where we have a cohesion between how these things work and we're not operating in individual silos—which often face cuts or this bit is accelerated while that bit is decelerated—I'm not sure we're going to have a cohesive strategy at all. It has to be holistic.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

We have more competition in the region than ever and different competition, not from our allies but from the other side, like from Russia and from China.

What do you recommend we should focus on so we can be effective because we know that there are barriers to doing certain things and certain development projects in the region?

What are the top two things that we should do, either regionally or in product offering, let's call it?

[Andy Harrington]

In terms of regional, I would say my colleagues have talked about the Sahel and I would add sub-Saharan Africa to that. These are areas that are often resource-rich. They're areas where Canada could benefit, but we can't benefit without actually being engaged in the well-being of the local population, which is where development comes in so importantly. We can't do the work we're doing, the work we want to do, without having a good name there.

If you go to many of the countries that many of us would go to, you will see a huge amount of Chinese influence and a growing Russian influence there. You do not see Canadians there. We have to be present in order to be part of what is actually going to be an African century in many ways. So I think I would say the key thing we should do is to be present with all aspects of a holistic strategy, without letting go of the need for development. Build stability in those countries and you will reap rewards in all sorts of ways across the world.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Do you feel that the current approach by the current government for the last nine years—and I'm not asking you to be partisan on this, I just want to clarify this—has been effective? What can be done, as I said, to turn this business case into a more reasonable and effective one?