Foreign Affairs Committee on May 22nd, 2024

[Jonathan Papoulidis]

It can truly be a whole-of-government approach where the defence side, the humanitarian side and the development side are all looking at what kinds of capacities can be strengthened for resilience in their spectrums and then coming together to address those collectively.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Your second recommendation dealt with a country platform approach. One of my concerns, and it's been expressed by others around the table, is that Canada will need to focus in its approach to Africa, as we look at the intersection of defence, diplomacy, development and trade. We will need to focus on our strengths and the intersection of needs or where we can best help.

Would taking a country platform approach help us focus as to where we should be putting our efforts?

[Jonathan Papoulidis]

I believe the short answer is yes because it's a one-stop shop. It's a place where people can come together—governments, societal stakeholders and partners—to decide what the top priorities are, what everyone is doing in that space and how Canada can contribute in a way that builds coalitions and that helps us punch above our weight because we're contributing thought leadership, policy leadership and programming leadership in a place that's far more efficient. This is also the case where Canada might not be in a particular country or might have attachés. When the country platforms meet, the attaché can be present in those meetings and be privy to information that they wouldn't ordinarily get in a more fragmented environment.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

How does that work? There are 54 countries in Africa, and there are 27 missions. Can you again go over it? I'm not quite following the intersection of a country platform with our existing framework there.

[Jonathan Papoulidis]

The country platform is in a place, like Mozambique, where you have all the partners that come together with government. They set policy standards. They look at troubleshooting what's happening in a country. They look at where their resource gaps are, where their bottlenecks and political issues are, or where the sector reforms are. Canada, if it chose to invest more in Mozambique, would invest more in that country platform, which it's already doing, as a way of strengthening the entire response to the country and as a way of pinpointing and focusing where Canada can best serve. If you don't have a country platform, it's a very fragmented aid environment, as you probably know. There are lots of projects and lots of bilateral communication with ministries, and you don't have that collective push for a better future.

What we see in Rwanda, as a mature example, and in Somalia, as an emerging example, is that these platforms make a huge difference in actually moving the peg forward.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

I'm going to get one question in for Mr. Moyer.

You basically stated in your Senate testimony, a month or two ago, and here, that Canada—relatively speaking, and I don't want to put words in your mouth—is not exactly trusted right now on the continent. What do we need to do, as opposed to say, to regain or to earn that trust from our African partners?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Keep your response to less than 20 seconds.

[Nicolas Moyer]

In fairness, I don't think I used the word “trust”. I think Canada remains trusted. I think we're less visible than we were, and I think we have changed our priorities so much over the years that we've lost a lot of the capital that was built in years prior. There's a lot that should be considered about how we can show up in ways that are lasting and how we can leave an impact on those with whom we engage.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Next, let's go to MP Oliphant. You have four minutes.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses in both panels. It's very helpful.

I'm going to focus on Mr. Moyer.

I want to give you a little time to expand on what you said, because everything you said I thought was extremely important about the partnerships and moving our models of engagement towards those situations. In my sense of moving from a dominant model of development towards a commercial development of investment, engagement and employment, there are some things that Canada could do to help establish that framework in a partnership way.

I want to give you some time to think about the kinds of things that Canada is good at doing, that we could add capacity in, to improve the opportunities for investment, engagement and employment in Africa, to gradually reduce assistance and increase the ability of Africans and African countries to feed themselves and the world and do other things.

[Nicolas Moyer]

Thank you very much for the question. There is so much to say with respect to that. I think making choices is difficult.

Thank you for pointing out a theme that I think is very important, the one of partnership. Partnership is a deceptively simple concept, especially when between organizations people change. It's really finding ways to centre the decisions we make, as a country and as organizations, around the interests of our counterparts and not just our own. To be long-standing partners means understanding the interests of others. Part of setting our priorities should be understanding the priorities of our counterparts and really understanding what their needs are.

At a policy level, that presents a certain different set of dynamic challenges. When we come to the great aid that we might provide through the FIAP, for example, how can it be consolidated in a way that represents the kind of interest that government is asking us to prioritize? There are ways to marry those two considerations, I believe. I do think that investment in a relationship does matter over time. I do think we've had an approach of kind of parachuting in. We have to think differently. I talked about volunteer co-operation. Where are exchanges today that might be thinking about things in a different way, about relationships on another playing field?

Now, when you talked about a process to move our relationship from an aid relationship to a trade-based relationship, we have to think strategically about our engagements. Where does Canada already have ties and added value? How can we strengthen relationships between universities in areas where Canada already has strengths? That's the kind of strategic thinking that could have long-term real beneficial value, because we could marry the interests of our partners with our own.

I think that's the only avenue by which we get to defining priority countries or thematics, because fundamentally there are so many different things to choose from and so many tables to be at. I think we all know that this is the biggest challenge Canada faces in terms of decision-making. As Canadians, we want to be at every table, and rightly so, but in many respects, we have to make those choices based on where we'll have the greatest impact. I don't think it's necessarily about our own interests. It's also about our partners' interests.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I would just add that one thing the African Union has been clear with me about is that Canada should be very up front about our interests too. They've been very clear: We don't want you to come and help us; we want you to say what you want from us and what you expect to get.

They're looking for that kind of equal eye-to-eye relationship.

[Nicolas Moyer]

This changes the dynamic of a relationship. You can really talk partnership in that case.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I was going to give some time, but I think we're out of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

Mr. Bergeron, you have four minutes, sir.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses, once again, for illuminating our study on the role Canada should play in Africa over the coming decades.

I'm going to address you in French, Mr. Moyer, if that's all right.

[Nicolas Moyer]

Yes, it is.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Fine.

Last February, you testified before the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade as part of its study on Canada's interests and engagement in Africa.

I always get the impression that we're two steps behind the Senate committee on just about everything.

You pointed out that despite a period of strong ties, Canada’s history over the past two decades in Africa paints a picture of disengagement, to the point where, in some places, its influence has all but disappeared. You also pointed out that Canada only has missions in two‑fifths of Africa’s 54 countries.

I should add, since we're talking about a new type of partnership, that over the past few decades, Canada has signed free‑trade agreements with countries on every continent except Africa. To date, not a single free‑trade agreement has been signed with an African country.

There's a lot of talk about Canada's typical commitment on the international stage, and I get the impression that Canada itself isn't quite sure what its approach to Africa is. In our discussions with government officials, we talked initially about a strategy for Africa, similar to the Indo-Pacific strategy. Then, it was more like a policy for Africa, then a framework for Africa, and now we're not sure what to call it.

Can you shed some light on what Canada's approach to Africa is and should be?

[Nicolas Moyer]

Thank you for those references.

I would say that it's not up to me to decide on Canada's approach in Africa. However, I do think it's very important for Canada to clarify its intentions, as was said earlier, and to maintain those intentions over time and over the long term.

That's really the difficulty we're seeing today. It took years for these relationships to develop. I lived in Ethiopia in the early 2000s, and I often heard a saying that went something like this: “When things aren't going well here, fortunately, they're going well in Canada.” The Canadian flag was recognized on bags of humanitarian assistance that were distributed. Unfortunately, that isn't the image we necessarily want to project, but a brand image was developed, along with a sense that Canada was present.

Whether we like it or not, we lost that with the disappearance of the Canadian International Development Agency, or CIDA. It wasn't reinvented. Our potential competitors on the geopolitical stage are flying their flag, so to speak, on existing major infrastructure projects, at the request of those countries, in Africa.

How can we ensure that we serve our own interests, where they intersect with our partners' interests, and that we have visibility and credibility in relation to those commitments? Finding the answer to this question could help resolve the situation.

On the other hand, I would say that Canada has its own unique strengths in terms of equity, gender equality, human rights and governance systems. This is an integral part of our identity. Canada can also be a partner when it comes to accessing other markets.

That said, the question is whether we should give priority to Africa. As you said yourself, we haven't made Africa a priority. Are we in a position to do so? That's a question we have to ask ourselves. I think the demographic and economic arguments clearly show that we should make Africa a priority. If Canada doesn't, it's totally abandoning any future global progress.

I hope that answers your question.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Yes, that was an excellent answer.

In fact, I don't think Canada has a very clear idea yet of what it wants to do about Africa.

You talked about “flying a flag.” We heard from a number of witnesses, including Mr. Côté of the Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale, or AQOCI, who told us that in terms of official development assistance, Canada gives priority—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

We're out of time.

Mr. Bergeron, did you want to pose one quick question?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

Canada provides most of its development aid through international organizations.

In your opinion, is that one way of doing it, or should we “fly our flag,” to use your expression?

[Nicolas Moyer]

We have to be careful when talking about “flying the flag.” I believe that Canada must first recognize what contribution it's going to make. We also have to be careful about where we fly the flag and how we use it. Aid is not necessarily a marketing tool.

In the past, most of Canada's humanitarian and development assistance was provided through the United Nations and other multilateral organizations. The contribution made by those bodies is essential.

In fact, it's often an easy choice for Canada. Accountability is simpler; we can simply hand over the money, reports are sent to us and civil society channels are often overlooked. Those channels have always been an easy way to demonstrate greater added value, which is associated with lower costs and a very good investment. What's more, they showcase Canadian expertise and strengthen direct relationships. Too often, government takes the approach that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to cut you off. We've gone considerably over time.

For the final question, we'll go to MP McPherson, for four minutes.