Foreign Affairs Committee on Dec. 9th, 2025

[Stephen Brown]

—making a distinction between French-speaking Africa and non-French-speaking Africa?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

No. I would like to hear you talk about disengagement in general first, but if you have anything to add regarding disengagement in francophone Africa, I would be very happy to hear it.

[Stephen Brown]

Thank you for your question.

As I said in my remarks, there is this idea of “consistent inconsistency”. We turn to Africa when we want to show that we care about poverty, for example, or when we want a seat on the UN Security Council. That sets off numerous missions by ministers, prime ministers and governors general. Then, if we don't win a seat, the missions stop, and we are seen as unreliable partners, since our commitment to Africa is not stable and long-term.

We are starting to rediscover Africa a little bit right now. There is talk of critical minerals, but it's very self-centred. If it's balanced, it will usually be met with respect, but when it's too focused on our own agenda, Africans realize that Canada is acting in a very self-serving manner. They realize that Canada is not interested in long-term partnerships, but simply the profit we can gain.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Incidentally, you mentioned Canadian mining companies several times. There have been a few committee studies on the Office of the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise. I don't know if you are familiar with this institution. What I've been told is that it clearly lacks clout. The office's mandate itself and funding are completely inadequate.

Given that we do business through our mining companies, wouldn't improving the situation at the Office of the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise be a way to improve our image and the situation on the African continent?

[Stephen Brown]

Absolutely. The reputation of Canadian mining companies is damaging Canada's reputation in Africa and elsewhere in the world.

In addition, there seems to be an inability or lack of political will to do anything about it. We have been talking about this for more than a decade. There used to be a special adviser on corporate social responsibility. Then there was the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise. That position is now vacant, and the government is giving no indication of what it intends to do next.

The danger of this race for critical minerals and natural resources in Africa and elsewhere is that it abandons not only issues of ethical conduct, but also issues of consistency with international standards and internationally recognized human rights.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

You pointed out a paradox in Canada's Africa strategy. You said that it seems to indicate that we want to improve our presence there, but at the same time, we are following in the footsteps of the Americans, who have reduced funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development. We are also following the path of Europe, which is reducing its international development funding. And don't forget Japan, which is slashing nearly 100% of its budget.

How can Canada present this type of strategy for Africa and then announce $2.7 billion in cuts to development aid over the next few years in its latest budget?

[Stephen Brown]

I am wondering the same thing. Now is precisely when we should be making our mark. If we truly want to demonstrate that Canada is a reliable partner and ally to African countries, now is the time to increase our support for this continent, in the form of development aid, but also in other ways.

However, as you pointed out, the signals we are sending right now indicate quite the opposite. That is why I said earlier that I am very confused about the government's current policy direction.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

You're not the only one.

I would like to ask Ms. Higgins a brief question about the government's policy direction.

Many people are concerned about the government's fairly explicit link between international trade and development assistance. According to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for International Development, who is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, there is no cause for concern and no reason to intrinsically link these two issues.

However, development aid should be one thing and international trade should be another. Some overlap is good, but that should not necessarily be the priority or, in any case, the government's vision.

Is the government somewhat off the mark on this issue?

[Kate Higgins]

This comes back to my point about policy coherence. There is absolutely a risk that we are focusing too much on.... We have to take a coherent approach to our development and our foreign policy. We need to be thinking about trade and investment, absolutely, and we need to be thinking about international assistance, diplomacy and defence in a really coherent way.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Brown, in your opinion, what is missing from the government's current approach? What is missing from Canada's Africa strategy, which seems to have been scribbled on the back of a napkin?

[Stephen Brown]

I feel that prioritization is missing. What I mean by that is a better idea of what we're going to do, what we're not going to do anymore, what we're going to focus on. It's like a list of good things.

As I said earlier, most of these are excellent ideas. They deserve to be recommended. However, there needs to be some clarification of priorities and how the various elements can be streamlined.

We have talked a lot so far about policy coherence, but what kind of coherence are we talking about exactly? Is it coherence for Canadian interests? Is it coherence for poverty reduction? Not only do we lack coherence, but we don't know what the goal of this coherence is.

If the goal is to advance Canada's commercial interests, it would be best if Canadian aid wasn't tied to trade policy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

We'll start the next round of questioning with MP Kramp-Neuman.

You have five minutes.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Thank you.

To reflect on the last 40 minutes or so, these are some of the statements I've heard: confusion regarding strategies about how much Canada plans to do differently; being unable to deliver on what the government has announced; a lack of policy coherence; it's critical that we change the narrative; Canada has lost interest in being a leader; sleepwalking into deployment; and delivery, defence, drones and diversification. Lastly, what caught my ear was that cuts put the ambition for an Africa strategy at risk, speaking of the $2.7 billion in cuts in international aid.

Ms. Higgins, the government, and particularly the Prime Minister, has tried to position itself as a multilateral, progressive and international partner when it comes to defence, yet on the international development front it seems to be doing the exact opposite, swapping its previous feminist lens for a more isolationist policy that would not be welcome in Washington, Tokyo or Budapest.

In your opinion, how will the Prime Minister's decision to slash aid affect our standing with international allies and NGOs?

[Kate Higgins]

Following the budget, Cooperation Canada released a statement, with more than 100 organizations that stood behind us, expressing disappointment at a time, as I said, of escalating humanitarian need, but also at a time when Canada is seeking to diversify its partnerships globally. One of the policy tools in our tool box is international assistance. As you said, slashing aid at a time when we are seeking to diversify our relationships and foreign policy posture, from our perspective, did not seem the right move.

As you have rightly said, other countries are slashing aid budgets. Obviously, with our neighbour to the south, the very fast dismantling of USAID has had devastating effects across the world.

Let me be very frank. We are aware that we are facing fiscal constraints as a country. There are very real affordability challenges that are facing Canadians, yet our point is that at less than 2% of the federal budget, this is a very strategic and sound investment for Canada to be making at a time when we need to be diversifying our foreign policy relationships, engaging in a very complex geopolitical context and really stepping up. We are not expecting Canada to fill all of the gaps left by countries like the U.S. retreating, but we do think it's important that we do our fair share. Our position is that slashing the aid budget by $2.7 billion was not the right move at this moment in time.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Perfect. Thank you.

In the interests of time, I will switch gears a little, but it's still in relevance to your testimony. It speaks to the reports of the terrorist attacks against the school in Sudan, in which the WHO chief confirmed that 114 people were murdered, including 63 children, by the Rapid Support Forces.

Could you speak to the destructive forces that nations like the U.A.E. are enabling when they support destabilizing terror groups like the Rapid Support Forces, and to the way the Rapid Support Forces carried out this most recent targeted attack?

[Kate Higgins]

I can speak to why, in this very complex moment, Canada needs to be engaging and stepping into peacebuilding efforts in countries such as Sudan. I think that's absolutely critical.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Do you think Canada should be engaging economically with nations that directly act against our foreign policy and international development goals?

[Kate Higgins]

I think Canada needs to be careful and take care in the types of relationships that it's building globally. At a time of very challenging geopolitical context, we do need to be balancing our economic interests with really not forgetting our values and the commitments we have, as a country, to human rights, stability and peace around the world.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

What particular levers, from a legislative perspective, can we pull to let them know that this is not okay?

[Kate Higgins]

I think that's something I would have to come back to you on.

As I said, the importance of policy coherence is absolutely critical. This is why we have been, in the context of arms exports, for example, providing some very concrete recommendations to the government, including around launching a review of the Export and Import Permits Act. Instituting post-shipment verification, removing destination-based exemptions and strengthening the use of certification controls for military exports are absolutely important. We don't want to be in a situation whereby arms that are associated with Canada are finding their way to conflicts such as those in Sudan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you. We're out of time.

MP Rob Oliphant is next.

You have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses.

I'm going to encourage you to keep pushing the government. At times like this, I wish I were a witness rather than a questioner.

I also wanted to state clearly to the committee that I obviously have a vested interest in this strategy, having worked on it for two years and having had modest success with it. It obviously isn't everything I pushed for, and I will encourage you to keep pushing for its actualization in government policy.

I want to point out that I'm very pleased that the Conservatives are starting to find value in development and assistance. In the last campaign, they actually promised to cut billions of dollars in foreign aid to shore up defence. If there has been a change of heart on that side, I'm very pleased.

I also want to talk a little about—and it's perhaps an overused word—the nexus between trade and development.

I'll probably talk too long. I usually like to ask questions, but I'm motivated to say a few words. A core part of the strategy is to move from dependence and charity to mutual benefit and mutual prosperity, not tied aid. I would point out that there's a big difference between mutual respect and mutual benefit and tied aid. Tied aid has not proven to be beneficial to either country. It doesn't work to stimulate development in the countries that are the objects of the aid, nor does it really stimulate the economy of the country that is providing the aid. It's inefficient, it's expensive, and it doesn't work. Mutual benefit talks about looking at countries eye to eye and recognizing the opportunities.

Maybe the first question, after a long preamble, would be about the opportunities we have for bringing together our development world and our trade world to promote economic well-being in Africa as a strategic measure. I need to couple that with saying that if you don't know the answer to some of the questions you're asked, I have answers for them. You be the committee, and I'll be the witness somewhere. We'll have a cup of coffee, and I can talk about our new Africa trade hub. It is up and running, and it is a place where we are changing the way our trade commission works.

We do have an enhanced presence on the continent. It's not enough yet, but we are also continuing to look at risk and at Canada's role in risk reduction to help businesses want to develop their footprint on the continent. Obviously, we have chosen Benin to upgrade our mission to an embassy. There was an attempted coup on Sunday. Let's be realistic about the problems on the continent without overemphasizing them.

This is a continent of opportunity, but there are risks. There are about 30 conflicts being waged on the continent right now. We're not naive, but we recognize that if we don't act today, we won't be there in 10 or 15 years, because we'll have missed a window that's opened, and other countries will be there.

I would love to be a witness. Let's delve in a little bit on that nexus between trade and development and mutual benefit, which is different from tied aid.

Perhaps, Elise, we can start with you.

[Elise Legault]

Thanks.

One of the good things that came out of this strategy is the pivot towards a more mutually beneficial relationship. A lot of the language was very positive on that. As you mentioned—and as other officials from Global Affairs Canada mentioned last week when they were here—it's because we heard that's what a lot of African stakeholders and leaders want. They want an equal partnership. They want trade and commerce. To your point, and maybe in answer to Alexis's question earlier, I think trade and development should work together. It is a positive development to integrate trade and development better.

However, there are pitfalls. Tied aid is a pitfall we don't want to fall into. We also have to remember that trade is a two-way street. We often hear Canada talking about trade, and that's normal. We say, “Well, we want to export our products to the continent.” That's true, but it's also about promoting and buying African products here. We're trying to look away, sometimes, from our neighbours to the south in terms of products we want to get. For example, we don't want to get orange juice from Florida. South Africa sells excellent orange juice. We can look to that. It's the same with things like coffee and chocolate. Supporting African countries develops greater value addition.

Let's not get into tied aid. That just doesn't work. Let's remember that trade is a two-way street. It's not just about pushing our things. Let's also remember that, although we want to see trade and development more closely integrated, not every development project is about trade. If you're providing humanitarian assistance, you're not there to make a business deal. You're there to save lives and provide assistance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you.

Next, we'll go to MP Brunelle-Duceppe.

You have two and a half minutes.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to follow up on that, Ms. Legault.

Yesterday, we had a meeting on a completely different subject at the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. We heard from François Audet, a very well-known professor who told us that economic growth in certain areas does not necessarily guarantee prosperity or an improvement in people's quality of life because it can be exploited by corrupt authorities or criminal groups.

When we say that we need to do more trade or that international aid is important, do we agree that there is a way of doing it that must be relatively ethical and supervised, or, in any case, that ensures that certain criteria are met?