Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue 17 - Evidence - June 6, 2007
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 6, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-293, respecting the provision of official development assistance abroad, met this day at 4:08 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Peter Stollery (Deputy Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, I see a quorum. I would like to welcome everyone to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Today, we are continuing our study of Bill C-293, respecting the provision of development assistance abroad.
[Translation]
Today, we are pleased to welcome back two witnesses whom we welcomed in 2005, when we were conducting our study on Africa.
Our first witness will be Mr. Gerry Barr, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation. The CCIC is a coalition of Canadian voluntary sector organizations working globally and seeking to end global poverty, and to promote social justice and human dignity for all.
[English]
Mr. Barr is accompanied by Aaron Freeman, a part-time professor in the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa, who will answer questions with him.
We will then hear from Molly Kane, Executive Director of Inter Pares, a Canadian social justice organization working in Canada and around the world to create understanding about the causes and effects of poverty and injustice and to support actions that lead to positive social and economic change. We have had Inter Pares before the committee several times and have had some fruitful testimony.
Welcome to the Senate of Canada. I am not Senator Di Nino. I am Senator Peter Stollery, the deputy chairman. Senator Di Nino is occupied at the moment.
Mr. Barr, you have the floor.
Gerry Barr, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council for International Co-operation: In the Make Poverty History campaign of which I am a part, along with being part of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, CCIC, there is a phrase, "Not just more aid, but better aid too." It is, for us, the better aid part of the proposal that this bill addresses.
Many Canadians and non-governmental organizations, NGOs, in this sector and those who are working around the world, hope that Canada can do better on the foreign aid file. This bill brings clarity and constancy of purpose to aid spending that is the beginning of accountability. We cannot have accountability on aid spending until we have clear purposes against which we can set that spending, in order to evaluate its impact.
That is why NGOs support it, and they do so broadly. That is why the Make Poverty History campaign and the Micah Challenge campaign in Canada support it. They represent hundreds of thousands of Canadians citizens who are hopeful that this bill will pass. The bill sets the right standard for official development assistance, poverty reduction, respect of international human rights standards and particularly the respect of the ideas and priorities of those who are actually living in poverty.
Senator Andreychuk asked why poverty is the purpose. When it comes to international development assistance, poverty has always been the purpose. It was the purpose when Mr. Pearson fashioned the 0.7 per cent of gross national income, GNI, target in 1969 in the Partners in Development: Report of the Commission on International Development. It was the purpose when the UN General Assembly met in 2000 to craft the Millennium Development Goals. They spoke of sparing no effort to change and alleviate the dehumanizing effects of extreme poverty around the world and committed member states to using their resources to fight poverty.
Poverty has always been the point for donor states. How does it impact in practice with donors? Senator Dallaire spoke yesterday about the Development Assistance Committee, DAC, within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, and the concept of pro-poor economic growth. It is important because what we are after in development is not just growth that works, but growth that works for the poor. When we are spending aid on facilitating trade arrangements or working on infrastructure that may promote economic development in a country, the justification and the key test for it is whether or not this has helped pro-poor economic growth. This is not just economic growth, which of course can happen indifferent to issues of equity or distribution of wealth.
Donors use aid in many ways and also problematic ways. There are trends that come and go. There are uses that are sometimes perverse. Donors sometimes use aid to incent trade agreements in trade deals that are not in the interest of developing countries' economies but to sweeten the deal and get to agreement. Tied aid siphons off dollars in aid spending, because of expensive sourcing in donor countries, which is unnecessary and reduces the value of every aid dollar by 35 to 40 per cent. Sometimes aid is used for good purposes, but which are not relevant to reducing global poverty, such as applying it to the settlement costs of refugees in Canada. That is a good thing to do and Canada ought to do it, but it does not reduce global poverty.
Bill C-293 has measures that effectively say that if it will not reduce global poverty and does not meet identified standards, it will not count as aid. Nevertheless, you may want to spend it as a country and there may be resources you want to apply, but that is not aid. If it is not aid, do not call it aid. It is a "truth in advertising" feature and promotes confidence in the file if we are clear and open about what we are doing with aid money.
The bill says that Canada will develop programming approaches informed by consultations and discussions with Canadian civil society and international agencies, such as the World Bank and recipient partner countries. That is a good requirement and ensures Canada will take account of global discourse on development as well as imperative needs of developing countries' economies.
Minister Verner is cited in today's Embassy newsweekly as saying that the consultation provisions of the bill will gum up the approval process at Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, and make it impossible for projects to be improved. I hope that is an inaccurate description. It is not a direct quote. It is a description of her position. I hope it is inaccurate, because it is not true that the consultation provisions will have that effect.
Senator Segal: How do you know that?
Mr. Barr: I know it because there are many acts that set out the statutory duty for consultation.
Senator Segal: They often use the word "may" and not "should."
The Deputy Chairman: We have to let the witness make his presentation, Senator Segal.
Mr. Barr: The senator is correct. Many acts do use the word "may," but many acts do not. Many acts set out a mandatory duty of consultation. Here are a few examples: the Aeronautics Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 — to name just a few. Consultation is frequently a required feature of public policy and programming in Canada, and it should be that way when it comes to foreign aid. It is important that the act does not set out the nature of the consultation; that is up to the minister involved. The language of the bill does not require the minister to consult on each and every decision, though some law does create exactly that kind of requirement. The bill requires the minister to consult on the provision of development assistance and that plainly can be on a programmatic basis as easily as on individual decisions. It is up to the minister to decide. The point is that there is consultation and that will benefit program planners who can make decisions in the right of the real needs and opportunities that emerge in those consultations. It will build confidence among Canadians and non-governmental organizations involved in those consultations.
The reporting features are extremely welcome. They bring together all in one place and at one time, a range of reports, many of which are already produced but at different times and which do not afford the opportunity to see aid altogether in one place.
The act also requires the release of a statistical report on the disbursement of official development assistance within 12 months of the end of the fiscal year. That is important because this reporting requirement really does help aid analysts. CIDA is currently about two years behind, 18 to 24 months from the end of the fiscal year, on the release of its statistical analysis and without those numbers it is extremely difficult, almost impossible, to get an accurate fix on the nature and scale of Canada's aid commitments. That is important.
It is probably at the root of some of this controversy in the last two days that emerged in Germany about doubling aid to Africa and what the base year was and what CIDA's performance was. In fact, it was not until yesterday that we learned Canada's performance in 2005-06 was $1.7 billion. We did not know that previously. There was no basis for judging whether or not Canada was on track, other than the reassurances of officials.
These are useful, good, practical proposals in the bill, and we support it unambiguously.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Barr, for a very good and brief presentation.
Molly Kane, Executive Director, Inter Pares: It is heartening to see the committee's continued attention to the challenges of development. I also would urge you to consider the advance this legislation would represent in improving accountability and the impact of Canada's development assistance. For those of us who have been monitoring Canada's aid and development policy, this legislation has been a long time coming, and we are very pleased it has reached the Senate for study.
We are also concerned that it be adopted because the bill has required a very careful process of consensus building around the elements of the legislation. They are all essential components of a package — that is focus on poverty reduction, aid being carried out from the perspectives of the poor and the focus on human rights obligations. In fact, many Canadians would be surprised to know this legislation does not already exist. If you ask most Canadian people what aid is for, that is what they would say. They would support aid being used to advance poverty reduction.
I might take a slightly different view of the purpose of aid, until this point, from my colleague in that poverty reduction might have been the stated purpose for aid, but we know that the history of aid especially in sub-Saharan Africa, which this committee has studied, has often contributed to problems in governance reinforcing elites and propping up governments. This occurred when aid was used for geopolitical purposes, not directed toward poverty reduction as its primary focus and when there has not been accountability for the public to measure how aid is being used.
It is important we recognize poverty reduction as the primary purpose and provide a framework in which we can assess its impact and our spending.
There has been, in the last five to six years, much effort to improve aid effectiveness among the OECD countries in its delivery. Some of the principles being advanced are good governance and local ownership. For those goals to be reached, it is important that aid be directed toward those purposes. Without a focus on poverty and without a framework of accountability, it is easy to believe that the continuing diversion and misuse of aid within a context of fragile democracies would continue.
The other principle is the question of human rights. Canadian citizens would assume we are already supporting human rights. We are signatories to human rights conventions, we have international obligations to respect human rights and we want to uphold international standards. Poverty is both a symptom and cause of human rights violations. Without addressing the gross inequality in developing countries we will never improve governance. People must have the means to participate.
Development aid as we all know, and as you know from your study on Africa, is not sufficient to bring about democratic development or to end poverty. However, it is essential. Done badly, it can do tremendous harm. Done well, it can leverage lasting change. We know that from our own experience in Canada. International aid is a form of international taxation that can be used to invest in public, social and economic infrastructures. Without this aid, it will be difficult to bring some of the other changes about that have been talked about in terms of better trade relations and debt cancellation. These are all parts of a whole that need to be looked at in a comprehensive way.
We represent a community of organizations in Canada that are linked to Canadian citizens and to people who support development through their donations and taxes. We must take into account and be accountable to people on the ground, who are citizens trying to bring about democratic development in their own countries, and respect their perspectives in terms of our own public spending and policies.
Senator Segal: I wanted to pursue the consultation notion. Would governments of recipient target countries be amongst those consulted in your view? I want to ensure I understand that correctly.
Mr. Barr: The bill says governments. I assume that could include recipient countries as well as donor states.
Senator Segal: Let us assume we had this as a statutory provision and a future minister of another political affiliation had withdrawn support from Zimbabwe because it was a repressive, fascist regime. However, let us say that the Zimbabwe ambassador says, "You have given the money to some NGOs with which we do not agree. Perhaps they are running Christian charities on the ground, helping people in difficulty. You have a statutory provision here to consult. You just violated your own law." If they take a legal filing against the minister to stand in the way of that grant, would you feel that was a general improvement to our capacity to distribute aid to those who need it in support of poverty reduction?
Mr. Barr: I would like to share my time with Mr. Freeman on this response.
Aaron Freeman, Part-time Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, as an individual: The key issue is the validity of the interpretation of the duty to consult. We have a possible interpretation under the wording of the act that could require consultation with everyone on every dollar spent. More importantly, are there other valid, unchallengeable interpretations? Would it be a valid interpretation of that section for the minister to consult at the programmatic level as opposed to the every-dollar-spent level with a limited number of stakeholders who are affected by the decisions? This may or may not include governments.
If the latter is the case, then the scenario that you have just described does not get the minister into any hot water. Would you agree with me?
Senator Segal: I appreciate that. We all understand the capacity of officials to draft the regulations or the definitions that give the statute life in essence. We also understand that while our various courts are sorting their way through the reasonable definition of proposition, counsel for an NGO that the government of the day had cut off for some reason is petitioned or has taken legal action, a writ of mandamus or god knows what else; counsel for the Crown has responded and the matter has to sort itself out over time. In the interim, someone might say we are taking CIDA, which operates now in a ponderous, slow fashion, and we will make it glacial. That is not our intent; I am speaking about an unintended consequence.
Do you think we could achieve the purpose of consultation — which I do not believe anyone on any side of this table would be opposed to in any way — if, in the statutory definition, we had some clarity? I am always troubled about officials and the courts sorting this out in a fair way. They may indeed.
Mr. Freeman: I am not suggesting that.
Senator Segal: From the point of view of the consultative purpose, which is both noble and compelling, the notion that we might find a way to define it in a fashion that produced less risk to the normative program going forward in support of the goals stated in this bill does not, if I understand what you are saying, trouble you fundamentally.
Mr. Freeman: I would see it as completely unnecessary, because the litigant that you are describing that would try to gum up the process in the way that you are describing would not get their foot in the door. If you look at how this provision is worded and the intent of Parliament — which is where courts will look — it is very clear from the intent and drafting that this is programmatic consultation. If you look at other statutes, such as the Pest Control Products Act, that do intend very specific consultation on specific decisions, they have specified it. They have said: You must consult on a decision. It is very clear.
In this case, the minister must consult on official development assistance. If you delved further beyond the text into the drafting of this provision and the debate that happened in the other place, you would see quite clearly that the intent was not to consult on every dollar spent. The intent was very clearly at the programmatic level. The case law would back that up.
Senator Smith: When I hear witnesses, I like to have a feel for who they represent. I have heard a little about the Canadian Council for International Co-operation and Inter Pares. Tell me a bit about the membership, whether they are broad groups, how they are funded, and what input you have from people who have first-hand experience in this area.
I do not mind if it is three people sitting around on Monday nights having a beer over a kitchen table; I would just like to know who the council represents.
Mr. Barr: The Canadian Council for International Co-operation, CCIC, has been around for about 40 years. It is a central body, a membership-based organization, with about 100 non-governmental organizations, large and small, from all across the country, that work actively in international development cooperation. These are people engaged in many countries around the world. They include everything from the Red Cross, World Vision and Oxfam down to very small groups specializing in policy areas and working on development education or global citizenship within Canada on international issues.
We have regular work on the policy side, looking at issues of quality and quantity of Canadian aid. We work with working groups of the council and reference groups, and try to reflect carefully the position of the sector on issues of the type we are talking about today.
NGOs very broadly support this legislation and have historically supported these kinds of objectives, and we are trying to reflect that. We are supported by membership dues as well as by the Government of Canada through CIDA.
Ms. Kane: I was introduced as being from Inter Pares, which is a member organization of CCIC, but my perspectives come from a broader network. For five years, I was the chair of the Africa-Canada Forum, which is a working group of CCIC that brings together about 40 member organizations working in Africa. Our focus has been to create a forum where we can look at our own practice in a critical way, and also look at policy issues affecting Africa.
I am also on the board of an African organization called the African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes, ACCORD, which is based in Nairobi and works in 18 African countries with a staff of about 500 people. I get my sounding from the way some of these issues are looked at in Africa.
Senator Smith: Mr. Freeman, you are here on your own, as an individual?
Mr. Freeman: I have been working as an adviser to CCIC on this file for a couple of years. I teach at the University of Ottawa in the Faculty of Law. As of the fall, I have been the policy director of Environmental Defence, but I am not here in that capacity.
Senator Corbin: This bill concerns the provision of official development assistance abroad. What is wrong with the way CIDA operates these days, it being one of the chief dispensers of development aid for the Government of Canada?
Mr. Barr: How much time do you have, senator?
The Deputy Chairman: Not too much.
Mr. Barr: In a nutshell, the experience of NGOs around the world, as well as those in Canada, is that aid is best provided by donor states through institutions that are focused on that mandate, and CIDA is one such institution. In principle, we believe CIDA is the way to go as a strategy for furnishing aid.
We believe the institution has been weakened by continually having junior ministers, who are there for very short periods of time, pass through, each of them bringing signature ambitions to the file. This causes variance and change from minister to minister in the focus of the agency, or may do so. Much energy is spent, in any event, on these things.
We believe that the institution has been weakened by not having a statutory mandate. The Senate report on Africa reflects on the question of statutory mandate. That would be a good thing. It is not precluded by the bill before you now. This is a much more modest effort, just setting out the focus of aid spending, regardless of who spends it. Aid is spent, of course, through the Departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Department of Finance Canada as well as CIDA.
In recent years, CIDA has been focusing much more sharply on aid effectiveness. Much work has been done in that area, some of it very good. There are some weaknesses in the approach taken by CIDA to date, notably, an inadequate appreciation of the role of citizens' organizations, social movements and non-governmental organizations — both north and south — and their role in the overall development project. There has been a strong tendency recently in the direction of budget support.
On the other hand, it is important to support the capacity of developing country states to function as agents of development. That was undermined sharply in the recent decade and a half by structural adjustment programs that stripped away some of the competencies of developing country states to function as agents of development, so there is a mixed report on that.
Ms. Kane: I agree with everything Mr. Barr said. The question of the continuing conditionality of aid being linked to the larger policies of the Bretton Woods Institutions remains a problem for CIDA setting out its own direction. Sometimes they are in contradiction with some of the goals we might have for democratization and for building capacity in democratic institutions.
Senator Corbin: When you say "we," are you speaking for yourself?
Ms. Kane: I refer to Canada. In our stated goals, which are sincere, we want to support countries where there is good governance. However, often policies of the international financial institutions override parliaments, courts and citizens' organizations, which can create blocks to democratization in a development process. That needs to be looked at in terms of CIDA harmonizing our aid with the poverty reduction strategies that are imposed by the International Monetary Fund.
Senator Corbin: I presume that, because of their interest, the witnesses may have read the National Post story in this morning's paper entitled "Afghan anti-drug program stalled." Canada is a participant in that program. The money comes from CIDA.
If you have seen that story, could I have your comments with respect to how CIDA's money is used not necessarily to relieve poverty but to try to reach other aims of a geopolitical nature?
Mr. Barr: I have not seen the story.
Senator Corbin: Apparently it is a mess. CIDA cash is tied to a program that is just not working because the structures are not in place.
The Deputy Chairman: The question that our witnesses posed is whether that is really a development program, whether that is where development money should be going. From the tone of what the witnesses have said, that is how I would have understood it.
Senator Di Nino: Mr. Barr, you commented that your budget is partially funded by CIDA. Can you tell us what your operating budget is and how much of it is CIDA's?
Mr. Barr: It is roughly $2 million a year. More than 80 per cent of our funding comes from CIDA and has done so for decades.
Senator Di Nino: Would you have an idea whether other NGOs or organizations such as yours have a similar relationship with CIDA?
Mr. Barr: We are much more dependent on CIDA than most non-governmental organizations. World Vision Canada, for example, raises vastly more than it generates from CIDA by way of participation in its programs. Other NGOs are different; some are dependent. There is a wide range of "normal." I cannot give you a statistical breakdown, but I could certainly undertake to find it for you.
Senator Di Nino: We can ask CIDA that question when they come. That may be a better way of doing it.
You sent out an email, I suspect, to a large number of people, urging them to urge the Senate to pass the bill.
Mr. Barr: Yes.
Senator Di Nino: That is a large market that you have to send it out to. You made a comment in the email that looked familiar to me. You made a comment that suggests that Canada's obligation be consistent with international human rights obligations. Clause 4(1)(c) of the bill reads, " . . . consistent with international human rights standards."
The word "standards" may potentially create a problem for Canada, and it may have to deal with treaties or conventions that it has not signed. That is an opinion, and we will ask them.
Was your intent to alert us to a different treatment for that clause of the bill?
Mr. Barr: "Standards" is the better word. International human rights obligations are typically the obligations that nation states have with respect to their own citizens under the treaties and conventions to which they are a party. The standards are on their own, as it were. When it comes to aid programs being rolled out in a way that is consistent with standards, with respect to human rights conventions, "standards" is probably the word that is best used.
Senator Johnson: You have advocated for an advisory committee appointed by the minister to advise on the mandate and provide a performance assessment of CIDA and then the other ministries involved in the aid disbursement.
In the House of Commons, there was also a petition process that was removed from the bill. What is the rationale behind that idea, and what is your opinion of this legislation without it?
Mr. Barr: The rationale behind the idea was to set up a mechanism for consultation that would be helpful to the minister, which could be put together largely at her discretion, and create a regular framework for consultative discussion. As you know, this was taken out in the committee process in the House of Commons, largely in response to a Speaker's ruling that a mechanism of that type, on an ongoing basis, did have some cost implications and because of its cost implications was inappropriate for a private member's bill, given that the government indicated it was unprepared to agree to the provision.
It is one way of getting at the issue of consultation, but not the only way, of course.
Senator Johnson: Its author, the MP John McKay, said this legislation has been amended significantly. Do you have any more comments about the changes? Is there anything else you would like to see in the bill that currently is not there?
Mr. Barr: There were two principal elements of the bill as it first arrived in the House of Commons that were taken out. One was the advisory committee to the minister.
I should say, by the way, that the minister does from time to time create expert panels of advisers. I am on one, and it has been in existence now for more than a year. There are precedents for that sort of thing.
The other element that was taken out was a mechanism that would give effect in some respects to the provision about taking respectful account of the perspectives of those living in poverty. It was a provision that would allow citizens in developing countries to petition CIDA if they thought aid was going in the wrong direction and would generate a review and some reflection about whether programs needed another look.
That, too, was taken out, on the basis of the prospect that it would generate costs and, therefore, was inappropriate in this bill.
On your question about elements that we would like to see in the bill, it does modest things. It is ten paragraphs, as one senator said, four pages. It sets out a criteria standard for the minister to consider — whichever minister makes aid decisions — and some reporting mechanisms. That is about it. We are comfortable that it is a major step forward, and if it can be achieved, it is a terrific step forward. The fact that there is some measure of parliamentary consensus of all parties in the thirty-eighth Parliament, in any event, on the elements of the standard is important. Those elements have frayed somewhat as the bill has come closer to passage, but it is important that they be kept together.
We are confident that they go in the direction of an effective, rights-based approach to development that would improve Canada's development program.
Senator Johnson: It has occurred to me that the central focus of this legislation, namely, poverty reduction, may be too narrow for the work that you do, Ms. Kane. Is that not a concern? Your website states that you are currently working on issues of migration, citizenship, violence against women, peace and democracy, control over resources, health, food, sovereignty and democratic economy. That goes far beyond reduction of poverty. Can I have your comments?
Ms. Kane: That is a good question. We had a long discussion internally about whether we could support this legislation because of our views on some of the problems in reducing development in international cooperation to poverty reduction. The addition of meeting human rights standards and the perspectives of the poor, for us, was the necessary element to see there is a greater good in ensuring that aid is geared toward poverty reduction and also to bring some of those discussions into a public forum; these are questions that should be examined. There should be parliamentary accountability so that citizens can exercise their own rights.
There may be things we would do as an organization that would be outside poverty reduction, and we would take responsibility for those. Not everything we do needs to be funded by the Canadian government or through official development assistance. We are a charitable organization. As long as we carry out work with charitable purpose that does not contravene those requirements, we are comfortable with that. We see the larger problems that are created by aid not being accountable. We are just a tiny drop in the bucket.
Senator Johnson: I understand that part. You are very involved, so I thought you might have had some discussions on that within your own group.
You also provide counselling for women who have been brutalized through state-sponsored violence. Funding to this is important. Your website also says you believe this is important as well. Having a healthy community means repairing damaged people. I worry that this type of work may be adversely affected by this bill.
Can you speak to that or is it the answer that you just gave me?
Ms. Kane: I believe the answer is similar.
Senator Johnson: You do so much work with women.
Ms. Kane: We do. We know that women make up the majority of the poor in the world. Addressing issues of inequality and poverty has a direct impact on the lives of women, and we need to get their perspectives. That needs to be integrated into any approach we take to eradicating poverty.
Women experience problems not directly related to poverty. As a social justice organization, we will continue to work on those issues, and I believe that our supporters will continue to support us.
We are concerned about the use of Canada's public assistance in the world and Canada's role in the world as an official donor, which is related to what we do but is not the same thing.
Senator Johnson: Mr. Barr, do either of you have any comments on that?
Mr. Barr: I am comfortable with Ms. Kane's response. Gender work is essential to poverty eradication strategies. A rights-based approach to development is essential to gender work. Much poverty is about citizens taking on voice as rights holders. Poverty is not by accident; it happens because of a social relationship that needs to be challenged, and those who need to challenge it are those who are living in poverty. As Ms. Kane has said, effectively two thirds or more of those people are women.
The Deputy Chairman: We have dealt with that point reasonably thoroughly. I would like to recognize the sponsor of the bill, Minister McKay, who is sitting at the back of the room.
Senator Mahovlich: Canada has recently been criticized by Bob Geldof. I am not sure if he realizes how our system works, how CIDA transfers money to the organizations. He sounds as though he is an expert, and people listen to Bob Geldof.
What do you think of that?
Mr. Barr: I am not an expert on Bob Geldof's awareness, but at a certain level it is probably important to say that the criticism Canada gets internationally is, in many respects, due. Canada is a laggard as a donor. It is chronically slow on the uptake. The current policy of 8 per cent annual increases in aid spending going forward will not take Canada anywhere near the .7 target by 2025, let alone by 2015.
In our estimation, Canada's current strategy will put us, in 2010, by way of example, at essentially .33 of gross national income, which is where we are today. We are stalled. We need new energy and a new strategy for reinvestment in aid. We need things such as Bill C-293, legislation that will give clarity, purpose and consistency to our approach in development assistance.
It is often difficult to hear Mr. Geldof's commentary, but Canada needs to know that it must do better. We have one of the most robust economies in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, and even in the G8, yet we are a laggard when it comes to aid spending. There is no plausible excuse for that performance.
Senator Mahovlich: How many countries are you associated with that do not have good governance? Do you help the poor in those countries? Does Canada give them any help, or do we stay away from countries that do not govern themselves properly?
Mr. Barr: Canada frequently responds to the problem of providing aid in countries where governance is problematic by working through non-governmental organizations and civil society groups, which is not a bad way to go. It is fair to ask whether it is wise to focus only on countries that have good governance. This is the developing world and situations can turn on a dime. It is not for no reason that there is arrested development. It is a challenging environment. If we make good governance an absolute requirement of participation in those economies, we may be writing off very large numbers of people who are in extreme need.
I would be careful about that approach. It is obviously important to promote good governance, to value it and look for it, but I am not sure I would make it a first condition.
Senator Mahovlich: Transparency would be more difficult.
Mr. Barr: Transparency is also difficult, yes.
Senator Smith: Zimbabwe has the lowest score in terms of good governance. Should NGOs be dealing with Zimbabwe?
Is it awkward for you to talk about this?
Mr. Barr: No, not at all. One would be careful about giving budget support to Zimbabwe. The right way to go is probably to look for civil society actors who can deliver effectively on the ground.
Senator Smith: Therefore, NGOs but nothing to do with the government?
Mr. Barr: That would be my approach.
Ms. Kane: We sometimes have different definitions of "good governance." If we are speaking about governance strictly in terms of government institutions, it can be problematic to choose countries based on good governance. That is a shallow surface at which to look. For example, Ethiopia was on the donor list as a country of good governance for some time, but then the government started putting people who disagreed with government policies in jail. These people were often told that, because the government had been selected as a good governance country, they did not have the right to protest, that the country had already received the seal of approval from the international community.
Even in contexts where the government is functioning well, there is no reason we cannot also support citizen organizations to deepen governance, to deepen a democratic process. That is not restricted to NGOs. It can be supporting a free press and all kinds of institutions that have not had the space to develop under some of the regimes that have existed for decades.
The Deputy Chairman: When we were in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the Prime Minister asked if we could write him a cheque, and we were talking about quite a large sum of money. Just after we left, the riots broke out and they started arresting people. The committee is quite aware of the situation that existed about a year and a half ago.
Senator Merchant: I am listening carefully trying to decide how I will vote on this.
We have a letter in our binder written by the leaders of the then opposition. The government has now changed. What does the current government think about this legislation?
Mr. Barr: It is best to ask them, but it is fair to say that the principal objections raised about Bill C-293 in the House of Commons, namely, the advisory committee and the petitioning function in the bill, have been addressed in committee. There were other concerns raised during the committee process in the House of Commons and they, too, were addressed.
I have heard about two concerns from government source. One is the consultation question, and I have tried to address that. Though the minister seems to have settled on that point, the impediment that is being imagined is not there. We are confident of our substantial legal advice on that. Our reading of the act is accurate in that respect.
Second, the government feels the bill would restrict its ability to use foreign aid in ways that could advance Canada's national interest globally. That is probably true. It does restrict that. Our rejoinder would be; it should be restricted. This is, after all, aid. It is not for all purposes, and there should be restraints on its use. Globally, it is money held in trust for the world's poor. It needs to be applied to that purpose. If Canada wishes to spend on other files, it may, of course, do so. There is nothing in the bill that will restrict other spending on international cooperation that goes after other purposes. Canada's ability to spend aid money ought to be focused. When we speak about focus, we are talking inherently about restrictions; there are restrictions and there ought to be.
Senator Merchant: There is good government and good politics. Sometimes it is confusing when people are speaking about these matters. When they change positions, they look at matters differently. Is this legislation good politics, good government, or both? How do you evaluate this particular bill?
Mr. Barr: This bill is a modest bill that is not a bill of lists, rather a bill of core ideas. It sets out three core ideas about aid spending. It creates the first conditions for more effective accountability in aid spending. Therefore, it is a modest bill. It does what a private member's bill can do. It is a very useful contribution to Canada's overall circumstances with respect to development assistance. Although it does not cost a penny, the bill will have the effect of improving the quality and effectiveness of Canada's aid spending.
Ms. Kane: Canada having more of an impact on development assistance will also have an impact on how Canada is seen abroad. The sincerity and thoughtfulness of our intention will be appreciated. There is much cynicism in developing countries about why donor countries engage in development and assistance. People have seen the results of aid being used for other purposes. Canada will be seen to be sincere in its efforts to direct its aid to its primary purpose and to open a public process of accountability to ensure that we stick to that. There is no guarantee by legislation that everything will be resolved. However, it does provide a framework to improve.
That will be appreciated internationally, and Canada can do much with that kind of influence in the world.
Senator Segal: I wanted to get your views again on the "uni-focussed" poverty alleviation process. I am not in any way speaking for my colleagues. My colleagues, who were part of the Africa report long before I came to this place, over a two-year period collected testimony from over 400 witnesses at 80 different locations in Africa, Europe and elsewhere. My understanding of the testimony they heard was that it was very clear about Africans saying that they do not want aid. They do not want poverty reduction. They want trade and fair opportunity to compete. They want to earn their own way out of poverty. They do not want aid to be perpetual. In fact, they want to be self-sufficient.
Therefore, my concern about that type of uni-focus, and I would like your comments on that, is that we may, in fact, be perpetuating precisely — for all the right reasons, I do not for one minute question the nobility of the sponsors purpose in this respect — the kind of focus that will make it more difficult for CIDA to respond to different circumstances in different ways that are timely, efficient, effective and hopefully likely to produced real progress. This progress would allow us to say that these couple of countries where we put a large amount of money and worked with many great organizations on the ground are now beginning to head up toward those OECD development levels in terms of income per capita and maybe we can redirect our funds to another more needy country, in other areas and not just poverty reduction. I would appreciate your reflection on that.
Mr. Barr: Ms. Kane will wish to comment as well. Senator Dallaire spoke to this in an interesting way yesterday. He focused on the question of pro-poor economic growth as opposed to just economic growth per se. The issues of equity, distribution of wealth, are the preoccupations of aid and poverty reduction strategies in aid. The question is not the type of activity. There are no types of activity per se that are excluded when we have a poverty lens. We need to draw the line between the poverty reduction purpose and the activity.
The concern about not having a sufficient range of possible involvement is not well-placed.
Senator Segal: CIDA, to their credit, does spend a large amount of money on judicial training for the purpose of having honest judiciaries, well-trained, capable of understanding and advancing the administration of justice in support of human rights, in support of the role of an independent court system. Without being extreme, someone could say: What does that have to do with poverty reduction? Why would you be spending money in country A to train the judiciary when you should be spending money in country A on poverty reduction, because we have a law now that says poverty reduction is the focus?
Does that trouble you at all?
Mr. Barr: That question may well be put to a minister who comes before a Parliament with the report provided for in the bill, and it will belong to the minister to draw the line between that activity and poverty reduction. If that minister can do it, all well and good; if that minister cannot, parliamentarians will give him or her a grilling. That is the right way for it to happen.
Ms. Kane: There is nothing in the bill preventing that. We are not saying that all poverty reduction activities have to have a direct impact today on a poor person. That would sort of be a cartoon of the kinds of restrictions that we want to put on aid. In a country such as Ghana, for example, the livelihoods of farmers are an essential part of poverty reduction. There is no farmers' organization that I know that will say that the reason people do not have livelihoods as farmers is that there is not enough aid. They would need to know that it is actually the trade rules that protect their livelihoods and allow development to take place in a way that would reduce inequality in Ghanaian society.
There are many instruments of developing agriculture and the type of social and legal infrastructure that will allow them to exercise their rights that could be supported by aid.
I do not believe that by restricting the purpose of aid, we are saying that aid is the solution to poverty. We are saying that as an instrument in addressing development goals, its purpose should be restricted.
Mr. Freeman: It is important to put into context what this act does and what it does not do. I cannot speak specifically as to whether judicial training would be within or outside the scope of reducing poverty as it is set out in the act, but the act provides a lens. It provides a check that the minister has to go through. There is a fair degree of deference that is afforded to the minister in that regard; it says that if the "minister is of the opinion," in clause 4(1) of the bill. That provides a good amount of deference for the minister to administer programs, not even to reduce poverty but to contribute to poverty reduction. It is a check. The minister has to be able simply to say that in his or her opinion, there is a sufficient link between this project and this program and poverty alleviation.
There is ample room for a wide range of development activities within that. Even if that is not the case, judicial training might be a good thing for the Government of Canada to be doing within the international assistance envelope but not within the aid envelope.
Senator Corbin: It bothers me that we are told that this bill has been the result of a consensus, yet today's government did not support the bill. I do not know why, but we will ask the government spokesperson when they come.
Nevertheless, you seem to say that the bill is not perfectible. You seem to be happy with the bill as it now stands, even though it was modified quite a bit from its original version. I believe it can be perfected even more.
It bothers me that it has the appearance of a stand-alone bill. It is not tied with other government or private-enterprise efforts to help Africa and the rest of the needy world to pull itself up by the bootstraps. There is no mention in here of an involvement of Canadian public enterprise. That matter ought to be addressed.
I cannot speak for my colleagues, but I will do my best to have included in this bill a broader range of players. I will not argue that the bill, in terms of its moral Charter aspect, is something I can live with. In terms of accountability, I have fought for that over the years. However, in terms of poverty reduction, I do not believe you will go anywhere fast, the way this bill is written. There are other ways of dealing with the challenge. I would like your comments.
Mr. Barr: On the question of consensus, I would grant you that the consensus has frayed as the bill has come closer and closer to standing as law. However, it is certainly empirically the case that the roots of these principles are in consensus. All parties supported this in the thirty-eighth Parliament several times, both in committee and in the House of Commons, through voting. We feel that is very important.
To the extent it remains as something which is supported cross-party, that is important from our point of view. It would be terribly important if the bill were amended and sent back to the House of Commons, where that consensus question was called into play once again. Anything that diminished the consensus might actually endanger the possibility of the bill surviving. This is a delicate matter.
We feel the bill is a major step forward, without a doubt. It would be terrible if we allowed the best to become the enemy of the good and for some reason made changes that would throw the bill into jeopardy in a process where debate could go on for a long time in the House of Commons.
The Deputy Chairman: I would like to thank you for coming.
The clerk reminded me that the riots had started in Addis Ababa before we got there, and I was phoned because the ambassador thought it was too dangerous for the committee to come. I am the person who authorized us to go, and it worked out very well.
The committee adjourned.