THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 5, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met with videoconference this day at 10:30 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to foreign relations and international trade generally; and, in camera, to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 18 and 27 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
Senator Peter M. Boehm (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is Peter Boehm. I am a senator from Ontario and the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
I will now invite committee members participating in today’s meeting to introduce themselves.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
Senator Ravalia: Good morning and welcome. Mohamed Ravalia from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Harder: Peter Harder from Ontario.
Senator M. Deacon: Welcome. Marty Deacon from Ontario.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle from Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
Senator Wilson: Duncan Wilson from British Columbia.
Senator Al Zaibak: Mohammad Al Zaibak from Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, senators, and welcome. I’d like to welcome anyone who is watching us across the country on Senate ParlVU this morning.
Colleagues, it is International Development Week, and we are meeting today under our general order of reference to discuss international development in the current global climate.
I’d like to acknowledge that Senator Adler of Manitoba has just joined the meeting.
Today, we have the pleasure of welcoming, again, from Global Affairs Canada, Christopher MacLennan, Deputy Minister of International Development; Leslie Norton, Assistant Deputy Minister, International Assistance Partnerships and Programming Branch; and Catherine Jobin, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy, Policy and Public Affairs Branch.
I’d like to acknowledge that Senator Martine Hébert of Quebec has also joined the meeting.
Before we hear opening statements and proceed to questions and answers, I have a housekeeping comment. I would like everyone present to please mute notifications on their devices. At yesterday’s meeting, I detected some notifications. I know exactly who the perpetrators were, and they were senators, so let’s ensure we have them turned off.
Also, please observe the instructions on best practices related to the use of the earpiece and the microphone. They are on the desk in front of you. We want to ensure that there is no audio damage to our dedicated technical staff and interpreters.
Christopher MacLennan, Deputy Minister of International Development, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you very much, senators and chair. Good morning to the members of the committee.
Thank you for having me here today. I am very pleased to be here again, especially during International Development Week, which comes this time of year every year.
Last month, in his speech at Davos, Prime Minister Mark Carney aptly described what is happening to the world order when he said, “We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.”
We see this rupture in the way the economic integration of states is now leveraged to gain strategic advantage. We see it in the way multilateral tables have become arenas of competition rather than cooperation, and we see it in the way that international law is increasingly ignored.
It is against this stark backdrop that international development is also going through more of a rupture than a transition. Significant work remains in developing countries to address the impacts of extreme poverty, to enable economic growth and to advance human rights, but many of the hard-won development gains of the past 25 years are stalling under the weight of debt, conflict and climate impacts.
At the same time, total amounts of official development assistance are on the decline.
[Translation]
These dynamics are very important to developing countries. The current disruptions, whether geopolitical, economic or climate-related, are hitting developing countries hard, especially low-income and fragile states. These crises do not stop at borders. We know all too well that instability related to conflict, public health crises and economic uncertainty in developing countries can directly affect the security and prosperity of Canadians.
[English]
Not surprisingly, the global aid system or architecture, largely designed for a different era of cooperation, is struggling to keep pace. Multiple initiatives have emerged seeking to reform this architecture to improve its effectiveness and adapt to the realities outlined in the Prime Minister’s speech. Canada is actively engaged in these efforts across the United Nations, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, which sets the international norms and standards for development cooperation, and the multilateral development banks.
This work to enhance the efficiency, impact and overall strategic purpose of development cooperation and the international aid architecture is expected to remain a priority in 2026, including under France’s G7 presidency.
[Translation]
As the Prime Minister has stated, Canada has the ability and responsibility to help shape a more resilient and cooperative world order based on human rights, sustainable development, solidarity and sovereignty. That’s how we’re looking at our development efforts going forward.
[English]
Canada’s international development spending has grown significantly in recent years to respond to global crises, from the COVID-19 pandemic to Russia’s war of aggression on Ukraine. However, in today’s fiscal climate, it is more important than ever that our international development efforts be strategic and focused to achieve maximum impact with a more constrained budget. Budget 2025 announced a reduction in aid funding by approximately $2.7 billion over the next four years, returning spending to a more sustainable pre-COVID level.
At the same time, the government will be taking a pragmatic and principled approach to international development — pragmatic in defining how and with whom we work. This means being more strategic in our multilateral engagement and placing greater emphasis on deepening bilateral relationships where Canada can advance shared priorities, including economic and trade priorities. Not all partners will share our values, but many share key priorities. We’re prepared to work in ways that reflect those realities and focus on mutual interests. We will be pragmatic in how we advance our development priorities, using the full range of tools at our disposal, including concessional finance and innovative approaches to mobilize all sources of development finance to maximize impact.
And, of course, the government’s approach will remain principled, grounded in respect for human rights, the importance of gender equality and a clear focus on poverty reduction. These will remain core to all of our efforts going forward.
[Translation]
The government will strengthen and diversify partnerships that support economic resilience and stability. The government continues to support bilateral partners as they face instability, develop their economies, strengthen governance and build climate resilience.
In the same spirit, the government remains committed to providing life-saving humanitarian assistance in times of crisis, and will continue to work with partners to respond to global challenges, such as climate change, infectious diseases, peace and security.
Canada remains resolutely committed to multilateral institutions, but its future engagement will be more focused. Canada will ensure that the institutions it supports are effective, aligned with its strategic objectives and able to deliver results quickly and at scale. This is a commitment to help shape a modern multilateral system that reflects current global realities and advances Canada’s strategic interests.
Despite the challenges, there is also opportunity. Partner countries are seeking relationships that respect their sovereignty, support their priorities and give them space to grow. Canada is well positioned to be that partner. Our goal is to ensure that Canada’s development commitment is meaningful, strategic and reflective of the world we want to build together.
[English]
I look forward to discussing how we can advance these priorities, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. MacLennan. Before we proceed to questions, I would like to recognize that Senator Woo of British Columbia has joined the meeting.
Colleagues, as per usual, you have three minutes for both questions and answers, and please be as concise as possible so that we can extract the maximum answers from our witnesses.
We are starting with the committee deputy chair, Senator Harder.
Senator Harder: Thank you for your opening comments. I want to expand on your reference to France’s G7 presidency because there are a few of us around the table who have some history there. In the issues that you’ve identified — debt, climate and health — generally speaking, the catalyst for Canada’s increased efforts has been coordinated with like-minded countries at the G7 first, but that’s not the institution it once was.
How can the G7 with France put some energy back into identifying collective action in a catalytic way? Is there any appetite left?
Mr. MacLennan: Thank you very much, senator. That is a very good question. It’s a question that the new government had to face almost immediately upon taking power and issuing its Speech from the Throne last year because, as we know, we were the host last year.
The approach that the Government of Canada took over its G7 year was to find and have a pretty laser focus on those parts of the G7 agenda where we thought the eight jurisdictions could come to an agreement. It was a very difficult year because, as was noted, with the arrival of the administration of President Trump, there were some pretty significant differences of opinion on certain issues, including climate change and international development. It was particularly difficult to build out our agenda to do that.
One of the things that we did do was we moved the international development ministerial meeting to the fall. Because of the timing of the year, in any event, we allowed the leaders to have a first discussion, and then where the leaders were able to agree, we took that and then we built that into the international development ministerial meeting. It was the only multilateral meeting last year on international development where the United States attended, which is a big deal.
There was a clear emphasis on maintaining the best of the G7, recognizing that there are now emerging issues that there are clear differences of opinion on.
For the French this year, we’ve been working very closely. If you permit me, I’ll allow Ms. Jobin to speak as well. She’s our senior development officer, actually, for the G7. But it’s pretty clear that the French have an ambitious agenda. They are seeking to place an emphasis on the question of the future of international development because it’s a critical issue, along with a number of other ones. It’s going to be a challenge that is probably more akin to different types of tables before, where you have a significant difference of opinion around those tables, but we’ve been able to keep those tables functioning as well. I think we’ll have to adjust.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’re well over the three minutes, so we’ll keep Ms. Jobin in reserve because I think this topic will come up again, if that’s all right.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you to our guests for being here today. You know that we’ve been meeting with a lot of international development people this week. It’s an important week, and you know their anxieties, their concerns and their asks, because announcements and cuts are quite strong, and we’ve tried to listen as best we can.
One of the announcements made yesterday was by our Secretary of State (International Development) Randeep Sarai. He gave an outlook to The Canadian Press on what Canada’s international assistance could look like in the coming years. One approach he mentioned a few times was utilizing private funding to bolster our development presence, including the federal government’s development finance institution FinDev Canada. I was hoping you could share with us any examples of private capital and how it’s been utilized or could be utilized in a development project.
Mr. MacLennan: The best way to describe it is: For a number of years, it was pretty clear that the financing needs that developing countries had far outstripped anything that was possible with official development assistance, and everybody understood that. That led to following the Addis Ababa Action Agenda in 2015. It was the recognition that we needed to find ways to engage the private sector in ways that would contribute to the goal of official development assistance, which is to reduce poverty.
We created tools like FinDev Canada, as you’ve mentioned, that look to find those things that are fundamentally a private sector activity but are critical to reducing poverty.
For example, with our climate finance, it’s heavily focused on renewable energy and the creation of sustainable energy grids. Access to energy is critical for lifting any country out of poverty, but that’s fundamentally a private sector activity: to build an energy grid and to run it effectively.
Organizations like FinDev Canada and our own climate finance working with multilateral development banks have financed projects where maybe the risk levels were a little bit too high for traditional funds to go into, and it’s a way of crowding that resource into places that maybe would not have otherwise been able to attract private capital on its own.
There are other lower-level examples as well. A really good example would be lending to women smallholder farmers, often the last to be able to receive financing. Why? Because local banks and local credit unions either don’t have the capacity or don’t take the risk. So we’ve worked with, for example, local credit unions in parts of Africa where the goal was to provide them a backstop for their fear of loss to enable them to actually lend very small amounts to local smallholder farmers, largely women, as an example.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you for being here with us today. The special economic measures applied to Syria remain an obstacle with respect to any private sector involvement in developing the country or in helping with the redevelopment and rebuilding of Syria. It also remains the reason why humanitarian aid continues to flow from Canada, but the Special Economic Measures Act, or SEMA, remains an obstacle with respect to Canada’s desire to help the country develop. We seem to be the only G7 country that has not fully lifted SEMA, and I’m wondering whether you could share with us the status and the progress of the government’s efforts in totally lifting SEMA instead of providing temporary permits.
Mr. MacLennan: I’ll be frank: I don’t know the most recent updates on where we are in lifting the actual sanctions. But over the course of a year, the changes have been phenomenal. As everybody remembers, even as late as last December, it was not foreseen that Syria would transition so quickly out of the previous Bashir regime.
We’ve lifted the most important impediment — which had been the listing of the organization where it was now the de facto government — from our Criminal Code. That creates incredible impediments to doing anything other than humanitarian assistance, so that is actually one of the biggest pieces that is critical in order for us to start thinking about how we move beyond humanitarian assistance and start moving into more traditional development responses in Syria, as well as the recognition of the importance of the reconstruction that is required, being able to use some of the tools that I just mentioned in working with the private sector, which has a keen interest in being able to move in.
We’d be happy to give you an update from the teams that are responsible for sanctions, when appropriate.
Senator Al Zaibak: Other countries in the region, including Gaza, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Lebanon, remain in need of huge development support and assistance. Where do these countries I mentioned stand with respect to our priorities for international development?
Mr. MacLennan: Yes, I would say there are two ways of looking at it. The first way is what we attempt to accomplish through our multilateral investments. Canada is a supporter of a large number of multilateral organizations in providing core support along with other countries so that they can act at scale in each of the countries that you were mentioning. Primarily, it’s in the humanitarian global health space but also in support of education, for example, through organizations like the Global Partnership for Education.
At the same time, we have dedicated bilateral programming and humanitarian assistance. I should mention that it’s been a little while since I’ve been here, but our humanitarian assistance program is fundamentally built on where the needs are proportionately around the world. We distribute our humanitarian assistance based on where the needs are. In those countries where humanitarian assistance is required, it gets a proportional amount of Canada’s humanitarian assistance in response.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Woo: Thank you for being here, and one of the areas where the need is the greatest is surely Gaza.
I’d like to ask you what the government is doing to prevent the impending deregistration of international NGOs working in Gaza and the West Bank, apart from statements that have been made, because if the deregistration goes through — and it may well happen within the next few weeks — the humanitarian crisis in Gaza will be even more severe than what we’re seeing today.
Mr. MacLennan: This has been an ongoing issue of deep concern for the Government of Canada, and the Government of Canada has joined numerous statements with G7 partners.
Senator Woo: Numerous statements.
Mr. MacLennan: The ability to actually change course and direction is very difficult in terms of what Canada can do.
What we do is we use our diplomatic tools to the best of our ability to call out when we think that access in terms of humanitarian assistance is not being respected, like we did just recently when we joined a statement very clearly calling out the destruction of the UNRWA headquarters in East Jerusalem. And we use our diplomatic tools to call out and work behind the scenes as well to try to facilitate aid flow into Gaza, whether it be impediments based on which organizations are registered or the stoppage of goods from crossing into Gaza because of dual‑use restraints and the like. I mean, at this stage, it’s what is in our capacity to do.
Senator Woo: What about sanctions? Are we considering sanctions on Israel? I note that we’re reluctant to lift some sanctions on Syria. How about that diplomatic tool?
Mr. MacLennan: I’m sorry, senator. I’m not responsible for the sanctions part of the department that is doing that. I’m not aware of any sanctions that are currently being prepared.
Senator Woo: What are we doing to prevent what could be a catastrophic humanitarian disaster in Cuba because of the extreme sanctions by the United States on the Cuban regime?
Mr. MacLennan: I’m sorry, what are we doing to —
Senator Woo: Ameliorate an impending humanitarian disaster in Cuba because of American sanctions on that island. You talked about humanitarian assistance in proportion to the need.
Mr. MacLennan: Right.
Senator Woo: Cuba is facing a severe humanitarian crisis. You understand the context. What are we doing to ameliorate that situation?
Mr. MacLennan: We would respond proportional to the need with the tools that we have in place, which is to work with those organizations that are already there on the ground, including UN organizations, and we would flow funds to support that.
Senator Woo: Are we doing that?
Mr. MacLennan: Absolutely, where it’s necessary, yes.
Senator Woo: Are we doing that in Cuba?
Mr. MacLennan: I’ll ask Ms. Norton —
Senator Woo: What are we doing in Cuba to deal with the humanitarian crisis that is emerging? That is the question. Not that we would, in theory, do something.
Leslie Norton, Assistant Deputy Minister, International Assistance Partnerships and Programming Branch, Global Affairs Canada: There are no specifics. The UN has gone through the hyper-prioritization of humanitarian needs globally, given the current context. There is no humanitarian response plan for Cuba that I’m aware of. To note, though, because of the context, we have provided support more through our multilateral partners in the areas of the renewable energy transition and climate resilience as well as nutrition and food security. It’s been looking more at the development context and not the humanitarian context.
Senator, when and if there is a humanitarian crisis, over the last many years we’ve responded to natural disasters in Cuba on a regular basis. When there are needs and they come out through an appeal, either through the Red Cross movement, our NGO partners or the UN, then we will respond.
The Chair: Thank you very much. It’s an important point, and I think Ms. Norton said it quite correctly in the sense that when there is an international appeal — it could come from the government of Cuba to the United Nations — there are these triggers and formulas that come into play. At least in my experience, Canada has always stepped up. But it’s a good point.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much for being here today. If I could also acknowledge the presence of Alison Krentel, who is here, for all the work that you do on the neglected tropical disease file. Thank you so much.
I wonder if you could comment on how the development sphere has adapted or become increasingly vulnerable since the dramatic USAID cuts, compounded by reductions in development aid from the U.K., Germany and, in fact, our own reduction. I’m particularly interested in what feedback you’re getting from humanitarian aid groups on the ground, specifically from the health perspective and sub-Saharan Africa in particular. Thank you.
Mr. MacLennan: There’s no sugar-coating that the removal of multiple billions of dollars out of the system is having a significant impact across a number of sectors, including in the global health sector.
Ms. Norton just mentioned one of the things that is a pretty significant change: Every year, the United Nations issues its humanitarian assistance appeals for the globe. Ironically, this year, they’re requesting less money, and they’re identifying fewer number of people to serve, and the reason is because they’ve moved to a very different model in terms of prioritization. They’ve recognized that the money is just not there, and it’s called the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, or OCHA. The coordinator has made the decision that they’re going to have to be hyper-prioritized on what they focus on. In his own words, we’re going to walk past the hungry to help the starving. So it’s a very stark situation we’re facing.
There are two things that are being done to respond to that. One is to seek out even greater efficiencies where they are possible. There’s a tremendous amount of reorganizations that are taking place at the United Nations and among our humanitarian partners to prioritize and also to find ways to streamline. And then the second one is there are many larger ongoing conversations right now about how the system itself and the architecture may need to be reset.
The health sector has a tremendous amount of fragmentation in terms of the number of international organizations, for example, that exist. Are there ways to reduce that fragmentation that would allow the same amount of funding to go further because you could have fewer overlapping mandates and fewer organizations with back offices that have to be supported? We are in the midst of it is the thing to say, and that speaks to why the French have added it to their G7 agenda as an explicit issue that they want to discuss.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to our witnesses for being with us. This is a very important topic, and it’s never good news — I don’t believe — to see our international assistance envelope cut, particularly in light of the big cuts we’re seeing from very significant international assistance partners from around the world.
Having said that, I completely understand why it’s important, whether there are cuts or not, to be strategic, focused, efficient and, most importantly, impactful. Impact is what it’s all about on the ground, and we’re also looking more at the impact back here in Canada. You’ve been clear about that.
I’ve been working in this field for a long time, and I agree that it’s really important to water the flowers and not the weeds. I’m curious: What sorts of decisions are you looking at in terms of geography, in terms of sector and in terms of types of partners and also in terms of partners here in Canada, because there is a huge apparatus beyond Global Affairs Canada working in this field?
Could you speak to those things?
Mr. MacLennan: I would probably make two specific points, and Minister Sarai said this yesterday or the day before, and it’s reported in the press.
When we think about where we are in terms of where our current portfolio of spending is, the reductions that are going to begin will begin in the fiscal year 2026-27.
When you compare that to where we are now, one of the things that we are going to see some small reductions in, ironically, is going to be, obviously, in our bilateral programs, like where we are in the world geographically.
There is a tremendous need for Canada to rethink its global footprint, and that’s going to mean a little bit more concentration in their geographies and where we are. One of the things that we’re looking at is how we can better use regional programs to maintain the flexibility to act in countries where Canadian assistance can have an impact and is needed without necessarily having the full apparatus of a dedicated country program with a dedicated budget over longer periods. We’re looking for ways of how we can maintain while, at the same time, finding efficiencies to enable us to adapt to the reductions.
The other place quite honestly — and it’s much more difficult — is in the multilateral space. I would say that over the years, Canada only supports the very best of the multilateral organizations. Those have been very difficult conversations as to how we can identify places for savings, and in some of the circumstances, we’re just going to have to make some difficult choices and try to minimize the reductions that are required. Because, quite honestly, almost to a one, they are all the ones that have stood the test of time for the last 20 years.
As a result, what we will probably be doing is kind of picking and trying to minimize where we can in terms of individual reductions.
Senator Coyle: Canadian partners?
Mr. MacLennan: We have not identified anything in terms of specific reductions for Canadian partners. Canadian partners receive a significant amount of funding through our bilateral programs, so the overall reductions in the bilateral programs will have a slight impact in that regard.
But one of the decisions that was taken was that we would not, actually, end any operational projects, and we would organize our reductions over the course of three years to align with the sunsetting of individual projects so that we would see through the work that we have already been undertaking.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Last November, I believe the government or the Prime Minister announced that Canada’s foreign policy is no longer feminist. I would like to hear your thoughts on how this has impacted the feminist national assistance policy which, I believe, provided that 15% of all bilateral international aid had to be directed to gender equality. Did the announcement effectively cancel this policy? What are the real impacts of the government’s decision?
Mr. MacLennan: In fact, if you read the policy closely, a lot of it is about how we deliver our program. The policy is based on a foundation of aid that the Government of Canada has been developing for several decades, in which gender equality has been a focus of our program. We do this in two ways: either by targeting our programs and projects to address inequalities, or by assessing the needs of women and girls within each project using a process to maximize the impact on gender equality and minimize negative impacts. Those aspects of the policy will simply continue. Human rights and gender equality remain a priority for us.
Senator Hébert: Is the requirement to provide 15% of all aid still in place?
Mr. MacLennan: We have always used those targets, but not necessarily as a requirement from one year to the next. When you have targets that are percentages, they are very difficult to manage over the course of a year. However, we have always aimed for a proportion of the programs. The 15% you’re talking about relates to projects that are directly targeted. I think we were in that range last year. It was 15% plus 80%, for a total of 95%, and we were at 97% last year.
Senator Hébert: Okay.
How has this change in government direction that the Prime Minister announced last November affected our actions regarding women’s rights internationally? What has been the impact of the government’s statement that, from now on, Canada’s policy will no longer be feminist? Have there been any impacts as a result of that statement on the assistance we provide internationally in that regard?
Mr. MacLennan: We are in the process of analyzing the full aid package.
Unfortunately, the biggest impact has been cuts to our budget. The second most important impact is Canada’s position in the world and the need to build economic relations with developing countries that could be future trading partners, but also to meet the various facets of our security needs. We’re reorienting all of that right now. However, I can tell you that when it comes to gender equality, that will always be part of what we do because the processes within the department are there and will remain.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Wilson: You started to answer a little bit of this with Senator Woo’s question, but given that the United Nations is expecting that in 2026, about 240 million people worldwide are going to need life-saving support, how does Global Affairs Canada prioritize, or what criteria do you use to determine where our support is going to go, particularly in the context of some of the financial constraints we’re seeing?
Mr. MacLennan: For sure. Ms. Norton is our expert on humanitarian assistance, and she will do a much better job than I would.
Ms. Norton: Each year, the United Nations launches a humanitarian appeal for the conflict situations around the world. Our NGO partners also approach us, appealing for funds for certain contexts. At the same time, the Red Cross movement will also launch appeals for contexts which are conflict driven.
What we do is we will use these three pieces and do our internal analysis. We know what our humanitarian budget is each year, and we will then proceed to allocate based on a fair proportion — taking into consideration the hyper-prioritization that the UN is currently undertaking — across the main humanitarian crises.
There are the major hot spots that most people look at, from Gaza to Ukraine to Sudan, as a few countries that we’re all very familiar with, but we also make sure that we look at the protracted crises and the forgotten crises that are also not being considered.
In that way, Canada tries to ensure that we’re responding to all of the major crises around the world. That’s the approach we take. We try to line it up with the calendar year of the United Nations so that in the first quarter of the calendar year, which matches the last quarter of our fiscal year, we come out with our allocations to our partners.
What that underscores is that we are perceived as a quality donor because we provide funding in that first trimester when, for instance, UN partners or the International Committee of the Red Cross require funding at the beginning of the calendar year.
The Chair: I’m going to ask a question. Mr. MacLennan and I have had this discussion a number of times, both in committee and outside. I’m going to direct it to Ms. Jobin because you did not get a chance to explain the future in terms of the work that you are doing in policy development on international assistance.
When I was sitting in Mr. MacLennan’s job, the thought leaders were the U.K.’s Department for International Development, or DFID; the United States Agency for International Development, or USAID, more because of the sheer volume that the Americans could bring; and, of course, our Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, or DFAIT, has been amalgamated, as was the Canadian International Development Agency, or CIDA, and the Australian Agency for International Development, or AusAID. We would get together at events or at the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD in Paris or at Tidewater conferences. There was a lot of thinking about the future.
The future is now, and it’s very difficult because of the U.S. pullback. I’m wondering if you could give us a curtain raiser on the work that you’re doing in two minutes.
Catherine Jobin, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy, Policy and Public Affairs Branch, Global Affairs Canada: Okay. You started, senator, by setting out the context of your own tenure in the deputy minister role. That was probably taking place during the great era of the Sustainable Development Goals, which was the overall frame. The donors that you have listed exercised leadership in that context.
A couple of things have evolved. First, I wouldn’t forget the important leadership role of what we used to call emerging donors or donors who have an alternative method of entering into partnerships and how we’re seeing this in fora like the UN and also the G20.
As it pertains to the more traditional donors, it’s those who are members of the OECD Development Assistance Committee, which is essentially the standard-setting body for what is quality traditional official development assistance. There are a couple of exercises. Some of them are multilateral or third party convened.
First, the OECD Development Assistance Committee has launched an exercise to think about the fundamentals of what is official development assistance and how to recognize flows that are peripheral but still important. There was a concept that Canada was a leader in pushing toward, which is called Total Official Support for Sustainable Development, or TOSSD. There is a thought process around the future of the OECD Development Assistance Committee and what high-quality official development assistance means for donors in this day and age.
It is true that all major donors — such as the United States in a fairly transformative or radical way and also the U.K., Germany and France, where there were also some budget announcements — are choosing to reduce their international assistance budgets in the context of geopolitical turmoil and usually against a backdrop of needing to invest domestically as well as in defence and security.
There are also some broader multilateral exercises. UN80 is one where international development issues are present, but there are also some high-quality third party-convened exercise. I would quote the Future of Development Cooperation Coalition which is being mobilized out of the United States but also out of the Global South’s partners to reimagine based on principles what development cooperation should look like.
And we’re expecting this to —
The Chair: I have to interrupt because I’m breaking my own rules here and going beyond. Thank you.
Ms. Jobin: Maybe that is what I would also highlight in these conversations.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’ll continue that discussion. Colleagues, we only have a few minutes left because later in the meeting, we are going in camera as well. We have five senators who have put up their hands. Would any of you five want to yield?
Senator M. Deacon: I will be brief. Thank you very much. It’s been amazing listening to all three of you today. Thank you for that.
I want to hear a little more from you, Mr. MacLennan. Those are strong words: What is impactful? We need to look at things differently and step back while things continue to proceed at alarming rates. This is a disruption to your organization, to the staff, to the functions, to the units and to how this is all going to work.
For us to hear today, can you give us a sense of when you will be able to come back to the table in front of a microphone and say, “Here is what we look like now. This is why, and this is how we’re proceeding.”
Mr. MacLennan: I would love to have an answer to that question that I could give you honestly.
If I just take a step back, I would say that within the context of the Government of Canada, the last year has been incredibly consequential in terms of rethinking the following: how we should be using not only the international development tool as part of the foreign policy tool kit, but also all parts of the foreign policy tool kit; the trade diversification strategy, adjusting to what the Prime Minister has described as a world with hegemons and how we have to work better with other middle powers; and then our international development assistance tools and where they fit in all that.
Just that would have been a tremendous amount of work for us. To have figured out how to do it would have taken us a while, and we would be thinking it through. But we’re doing that in the context of the entire architecture itself being under the microscope and evolving. We don’t control that.
We can have a role as a middle power. I think this is one of the things that the Prime Minister was referring to when he said that we need to work with like-minded countries and other middle powers that have shared interests where we want to see things held.
An example of that is the global health system. We understand that the elements of the global health system that we have put into place are incredibly important for reducing poverty and helping those affected by infectious diseases and children under five years old who are dying of preventable causes, but it is actually also critical for Canadians’ health security. We learned that clearly in 2020. We have a role to play in building that. But all of that is currently under reconstruction.
Both what Canada chooses to do and where we will be in the world will have to be in measure, in part, adaptive to where this new development architecture discussion continues to go.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: That was a good question. Mine sort of builds on that, and it is really in sync with it.
As we are trying to respond to this new world order, we’re not sure where everything is going to land, but we have identified that we are a middle power, and we want to ally ourselves with other middle powers, et cetera. I’m just wondering: Instead of us always responding from development assistance to the cuts, is there a thought leadership effort within and outside of Global Affairs Canada looking at how to reposition this whole way of working with our partners — maybe it’s different partners in different parts of the world, et cetera — in order to fortify and be a real player in this new alliance of middle powers around the world?
Mr. MacLennan: The quick response to that is there is not a single table or a single alliance. As is often the case when you’re going through these periods of rupture, there are a lot of different tables, organizations and groupings of countries that start emerging and are trying to deal with these issues. Ms. Jobin mentioned there are a number of places where these discussions are taking place.
The G7 would have been, in the past, a prime table for those discussions. Even in the heyday that was mentioned, we were keenly aware that the Nordics were not at the table. And they represent a huge portion of the global official development assistance. Exactly. Not to mention, there are the emerging donors who are non-OECD countries.
There is going to be some variable geometry — to use a term that is pretty popular these days — required as some of these things occur.
My assumption is some of these tables will fall away. There will be one or two that actually really take hold, as this is the place where the discussion is taking place. I would say, right now, Canada is hedging because we’re taking part in all of them, and we’re going to make sure that we are shaping them to the extent that we can, while recognizing that one or two of them will probably emerge as the key ones in the future, but we will already be there. We will be at the table, as they say.
Senator Coyle: I am looking forward to hearing further.
The Chair: Thank you very much. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank Deputy Minister Christopher MacLennan, Assistant Deputy Minister Leslie Norton and Assistant Deputy Minister Catherine Jobin for being here. Thank you for the work that you do. Thanks to your teams. It’s all in support of good causes and good work for the people of Canada.
For our second panel, we welcome, from Cuso International, Nicolas Moyer, Chief Executive Officer; and from Cooperation Canada, Kate Higgins, Chief Executive Officer.
[Translation]
By video conference, we welcome Béatrice Vaugrante, Executive Director, Oxfam-Québec. Good morning and welcome.
[English]
We are ready for your opening remarks. We will begin with Mr. Moyer, followed by Ms. Higgins and Ms. Vaugrante.
[Translation]
Nicolas Moyer, Chief Executive Officer, Cuso International: Good morning. I would like to begin by thanking the committee for this invitation to appear before you during International Development Week.
This is a time of great global upheaval. It is clear that international cooperation is no longer simply a matter of values. It is also becoming essential to protect countries’ influence, their economic interests and their ability to face an increasingly competitive world.
As the Prime Minister noted in Davos, this represents a significant challenge for middle powers such as Canada. Countries that do not act strategically run the risk of having their interests defined by others.
The partnerships that Canada builds today will shape its credibility and economic outlook for decades to come.
This committee’s sustained focus on international affairs reflects this reality. Your recent work on Canada’s engagement in Africa, for example, highlights the importance of long-term partnerships and strategic consistency.
[English]
Cuso is a witness to the impacts of international development cuts worldwide on lives, communities and front-line organizations like ours. We strongly disagree with the direction this represents as countries turn inward and turn away from shared global development ambitions. Yet this moment of cuts also represents an opportunity for Canadian aid. Scarcity forces choices, and those choices can either dilute the impact of that aid or sharpen it.
Canadian aid is, first and foremost, about reducing poverty, strengthening institutions and expanding opportunity. But it is also true that when designed intentionally, principled development cooperation can support Canada’s broader economic and strategic interests. When development operates separately from foreign policy, programs are fragmented, objectives are narrow and opportunities to reinforce Canada’s broader interests are missed.
The result is rarely failure. Indeed, Canada has some wonderful and impactful development programs. But the result is often underperformance in the form of missed opportunity.
Canada’s flagship Volunteer Cooperation Program, or VCP, offers a clear example of this. It is Canada’s largest and longest-running development platform. Over the decades, it has mobilized tens of thousands of highly skilled Canadians and partnered with thousands of institutions in over 100 countries.
The VCP — as it is often referred to — builds skills, strengthens institutions and creates durable people-to-people relationships. As Canada’s only participatory development program, it also reflects what partners value: credibility, continuity and long-term engagement.
Yet the VCP — like most of our international development programs — has been designed as a stand-alone development instrument rather than as a shared platform that could also intentionally reinforce diplomatic objectives and, where appropriate, perhaps even trade objectives. Its broader strategic value is unrealized because its design reinforces silos.
I provide this example simply to illustrate that when development, trade and foreign policy operate on parallel tracks, Canada leaves value on the table, both abroad and at home.
That is why program design matters as much as funding levels. Our global peers have learned this, and most of the dozens of countries with international volunteer cooperation programs — countries like Norway and Australia, to name a few — align their volunteer platforms with diplomatic and economic objectives.
Intentional strategic program design would also help Canada address two clear opportunities that I’ll quickly mention today.
First is visibility and recognition. Canadians invest heavily in global causes through Global Affairs Canada, yet our contributions are often diffused and lack in visibility. Better integration of aid with other foreign policy objectives could strengthen attribution, reinforce brand Canada and make our presence clearer to partners and publics alike aligned with our values.
Second is the Canadian experience and know-how. Canada has deep expertise in dozens of critical sectors which can be better leveraged. Development programs and Canadian partners can create pathways for that expertise to be shared responsibly in ways that respond to local partner priorities while reinforcing Canada’s reputation as a reliable, values-based partner.
At Cuso, we work with hundreds of companies on inclusive workplaces, training and sustainability, creating tens of thousands of lasting jobs for underserved communities. We believe in economic development.
We also know that aligning development with commercial interests is not simple, not automatic and not always appropriate. Development cannot simply become a delivery mechanism for Canadian firms.
Yet it is equally unrealistic to insist that there is no connection between principled development and Canada’s economic interests. When done carefully and transparently, development can strengthen markets, institutions and workforce capacity in ways that support long-term win-win economic partnerships.
Canada faces a choice with its limited aid spending: to continue spreading limited resources across many well-intentioned initiatives or to make deliberate design decisions that concentrate effort, deepen partnerships and maximize long-term impact.
If designed intentionally and delivered coherently, international development is a strategic asset whose potential has yet to be fully realized — one that delivers lasting results for people abroad and provides tangible value for Canada.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms. Higgins, please go ahead.
[Translation]
Kate Higgins, Chief Executive Officer, Cooperation Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of Cooperation Canada, the independent national voice for international cooperation, which represents more than 100 Canadian development and humanitarian organizations.
[English]
We have heard it already today, but I will say it again. As Prime Minister Carney said at Davos just two weeks ago, “We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.”
My message to you today is quite simple: In this moment of global rupture, international development cooperation is not peripheral to Canada’s national interest; it is, in fact, central to it. Canada is operating in a world that is more competitive, fragmented and crisis prone than it has been in decades. Geopolitics are more contested. Conflicts are intensifying. Humanitarian needs are growing, and development gains are stalling or reversing in some cases. Human rights and democracy are under attack.
These changes have devastating consequences for people and communities on the front lines, but they do not remain distant. They cross borders quickly, shaping global stability and directly affecting Canada’s security, prosperity and opportunities.
In this environment, Canada must lean into its role as a middle power, advancing its values and interests not through coercion but through influence, through credibility, through trusted partnerships and through principled engagement. One of the most effective tools we have to do this is development cooperation.
This week is International Development Week, and representatives from more than 60 international development and humanitarian organizations have been here on Parliament Hill, meeting with parliamentarians, including many of you. Thank you for your time and your interest.
Our message this week has been clear: Development cooperation is not charity. It is a strategic investment in prevention, in resilience and in shared prosperity. It helps address shocks before they become crises — before climate impacts undermine food systems, before food insecurity fuels unrest, before instability hardens into conflict and before displacement accelerates. It strengthens the foundations that prevent these spirals by supporting basic and critical services, inclusive governance, economic opportunities and community resilience. It supports peace and democracy by advancing human rights, gender equality and accountable institutions. Honourable senators, this matter is not only for our partners abroad but also for Canada.
What specifically do we do at this juncture? What are the most important priorities for Canadian development cooperation in this moment?
This week, our discussions with many of you and other parliamentarians have focused on three priorities. First, as Canada reorients its foreign policy as a middle power in a more fractured and competitive world, international development must be leveraged — alongside diplomacy, trade and defence — as a key pillar of Canadian influence and impact.
We’ve heard from our Global Affairs Canada colleagues today about the many initiatives that are taking place to reimagine the future of development cooperation, and we would encourage Canada to lean in and, where appropriate, play a leadership role.
Second, Canada must ensure a significant portion of Canada’s international assistance stays focused on poverty reduction, human rights and the communities most at risk. This will mean concentrating a large amount of our precious aid dollars in lower-income and fragile contexts. These are the places where the needs are greatest, where the risks are highest and where other forms of financing, including private capital, are least likely to reach.
There are ways that international assistance can expand economic opportunities and strengthen our diplomatic relationships — and Nicolas Moyer has given some great examples — but let’s ensure that our aid stays true to global best practices, our values and our legislation, including the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act.
Third, if we are to remain genuinely true to our values, Canada must uphold international humanitarian law and strengthen principled humanitarian action. The horrors we see unfolding in the world must not be allowed to become a new normal.
To conclude, Canadian civil society organizations are ready to do our part. We’re globally recognized for delivering high-impact humanitarian and development results. We are not naive. We are not nostalgic. We are principled. We are pragmatic. We know that like any system, the international cooperation system needs to modernize and evolve. We are ready to innovate. We are ready for new partnerships, and we are ready to change.
To conclude, the question is not whether Canada can afford to invest in international cooperation but rather what are the consequences of not investing?
I welcome your questions, and thank you for the time.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms. Vaugrante, you now have the floor.
Béatrice Vaugrante, Executive Director, Oxfam-Québec: Thank you to the committee for the invitation and for your attention to this matter. I hope that people still aspire to a world where the rule of law is alive and well. Achieving that, however, will require new strategies that benefit the greatest number of people.
International cooperation based on equitable partnerships must be one of the key foundations of this long-term renewal. Reducing inequality is at the heart of Oxfam-Québec’s mandate, including its humanitarian work and development projects, as well as work here at home on the systemic causes at the intersection of economic, climate and gender inequalities.
I must say that I am proud of the positive impact of Canadian aid entrusted to Oxfam-Québec, and especially of all the work done with local partner organizations in 26 countries. We foster entrepreneurship and steady revenues, especially for women. We make health and sexual and reproductive rights services and information accessible. Our work strengthens democracy, civic space and social stability. Relief is provided in increasingly complex and protracted humanitarian situations.
Oxfam-Québec also informs and mobilizes young people in Quebec as well as a growing audience, fostering a culture of solidarity and power of the people. The international cooperation sector has been undergoing a welcome change for a number of years, and examining the sharing of resources and powers and the impact of Canada’s assistance is a good thing.
The sector is also undergoing a forced change. The drastic cuts to the USAID budget a year ago have caused and will continue to cause deaths, although the $50-million budget announced two days ago is good news. Neither Oxfam-Québec nor Oxfam America are funded by USAID, but the incredible size of such a key player affects the entire humanitarian ecosystem, since projects rely on solidarity co-funding among organizations.
I was in the Democratic Republic of Congo in July. The budget cuts came at the height of the armed violence and forced displacements. The Oxfam office in that country was forced to stop providing water and sanitation to more than 400,000 displaced people in the Goma region.
G7 countries, including Canada, reduced their official development assistance by 28% between 2024 and 2026. That is the biggest cut in 50 years. The Government of Quebec has even cut subsidies and signed contracts, even though the funding was already committed. These decisions mean lives lost and futures cancelled.
Here are several suggestions for how development assistance can contribute to global security, stability and prosperity. For Canada, let’s bring the middle powers together in the north, and also especially in the Global South, to make international assistance an important pillar of international cooperation.
Less chaos and more democracy and entrepreneurship will also help economic partnerships. We have to build on Canada’s commitments. Here are three of them: maintaining the 10-year commitment for sexual and reproductive health, strengthening civic space and democracy. Economic poverty creates hardship, but political poverty creates anger. We must continue to provide vital funding for flexible and predictable humanitarian assistance and actively respond to other international commitments, because they have an impact on international assistance, climate finance, sustainable development goals, reducing inequalities, global taxation and, of course, unwavering support for international justice.
For Global Affairs Canada, or GAC, with whom we have a good and open relationship, we need to clarify the trade and development assistance nexus together. Of course, working with private sector partners is a good thing, but not always. We must not abandon people in fragile countries. We must support the scale-up and blended financing of economic development projects for NGOs. Finally, we must develop the humanitarian, development and peace nexus that is still too much in silos in our country. And, of course, we must continue GAC’s transformation to be flexible, agile, localized and transparent as to collective impact.
Our sector must continue its transformation, work much more effectively together and show Canadians the impact of our work with GAC.
There are three pillars of foreign policy, according to Minister Anand: defence, economy and values. Those values must be demonstrated right away. We are counting on this committee to make sure of that at a time when the expectations on Canada are much greater.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Vaugrante.
[English]
Colleagues, I would ask you to be precise with your questions, as always.
Senator MacDonald: Something that was discussed in late January was the funding issues for the United Nations. I guess there are a lot of fees being withheld, including 95% of the fees being withheld by the U.S. What is the implication here for the UN if this money doesn’t come through? What is the future of the UN if the dues aren’t showing up to keep it going? I haven’t heard anybody talk about it yet —
The Chair: Is this a question for everyone, senator?
Senator MacDonald: I think so, yes. I am curious how it affects everybody.
Ms. Higgins: Thank you for the question. As we heard this morning, the international development system is in a massive period of rupture, including deep underinvestment. There is a UN revitalization and renewal process that is ongoing. One of the messages that I wanted to bring to this committee and to the discussion is I do think there’s a role for Canada to play in reimagining what that multilateral system will look like and reimagining what the development cooperation system can look like.
I think there is an opportunity for us to work with other middle powers, including emerging economies who are part of those middle powers, to really think through what could be the future development cooperation system. It is a time where we are having to reimagine what the UN system will look like and the role it will play. There will be huge implications financially, as you noted, for the UN if these fees don’t come through. But it is an opportunity for us to reimagine, and I hope Canada can really lean in and play a leading role intellectually by resourcing through our deep expertise across the ecosystem — government, civil society and academia — to reimagine what the system should look like.
Mr. Moyer: Thank you for the question. I can’t speak to the exact implications for different agencies, and the multilateral system is one that’s going through great review, as has been shared.
There is questioning that I think is important about where we put our precious resources, and this is going to be one of the fundamental questions for Canada to resolve. As we’re shrinking budgets, we’re being faced with choices from one place to another, and the challenge is that they are all places worthy of investment, including in the multilateral spaces.
I can’t speak to the impacts beyond that.
Ms. Vaugrante may want to add.
[Translation]
Ms. Vaugrante: There are major impacts in terms of organization and logistics. We rely heavily on UN agencies, and especially our local partners, to do the work.
In the DRC, for example, the United Nations helps us with air travel. Now, services are going to be drastically reduced. That will reduce travel, so it obviously has an impact on meeting our targets. That’s a practical example of logistics, but it’s essential for working together.
It’s an ecosystem. When 40% of international assistance disappears, including that from USAID, when funding also disappears so radically for UN agencies and when public development assistance also disappears for NGOs, that means that the entire ecosystem has to be redefined, not just one organization at a time. Our local partners are the most affected. In the DRC, for example, local organizations are disappearing. The biggest ones may survive, but that’s what we don’t want. On the contrary, we want to strengthen local organizations in the south.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you very much to you all for being here today. Ms. Higgins, the asks at the end were really well articulated by the teams this week. That was a really concentrated effort. I’ve been thinking about the folks who have been on the ground. I think you were all here for the first hour, but I mentioned some comments made by the Secretary of State (International Development) earlier. One comment he made in an interview with The Canadian Press was, “Ottawa wants to focus its international assistance efforts on countries that can generate economic spinoffs for Canadians.”
That’s a quote. While I understand it, I also find it a little bit concerning because I can appreciate the realpolitik around this world that we increasingly find ourselves in today, but there are so many development programs I think about where, today, you can’t necessarily draw a direct line of benefit to the donor country.
I would like your thoughts on this. What areas of development do you anticipate might fall off as we pursue a what’s-in-it-for-Canada approach?
I’m opening it up to all of our speakers today.
Mr. Moyer: It’s quite clear that Global Affairs Canada is interested in what they’re calling a trade-development nexus. We’re hearing this in all places and all ways. There is not yet a clear demonstration of what that means, and that is a challenge where those directions have to be understood.
There’s a trade-off involved in this. Frankly, it’s great that you’re asking the question, because our aid must be serving to lift people out of poverty, and it must be focused on its objectives to feed and support those who are most in need. I think we do that with great parts of our assistance. Think about how our humanitarian assistance is delivered, as was explained earlier by one of the witnesses. The challenge of the economic benefit, however, is one that we need to wrestle with, but it is a longer-term consideration.
I would posit that, for example, Canada’s engagements in supporting Korea in its redevelopments after the Korean War eventually led to them becoming the eleventh-largest economy in the world, and it led to us having a free trade agreement where we trade more with them in any given year than we ever gave them in aid. It is a good demonstration of the long-term value of investment, partnership and development in another country.
The challenge is tying these things too closely together in the short term. I would argue that it is not obvious that Canadian companies can immediately be part of the development equation. I would really hope that in the discussions around this particular topic, we’re able to be sensitive to separating out these two issues, while acknowledging there is an overlap. We will have to make decisions about where we engage in the world. And I think this is the biggest thing that our governments have historically been challenged with. Canadians want to be involved in many things. If we can make some choices about the regions we want to be engaged in and about the thematics that matter most to us, then in the long run, we can really see the kinds of benefits from partnerships that would come and contribute to our economic well-being and our allyship around the world around a range of global causes that we espouse.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’re out of time on that segment. I’m assuming that your two colleagues would have very similar views and might be in agreement with what you have said.
Senator Coyle: Great appreciation for our witnesses and your very thoughtful and, actually, thought-provoking presentations to us here today. You are bringing a lot of credibility to this very important sector, and the fact that you’re so forward-thinking is really good to see.
My question is on two things. First of all, what’s your involvement, as the Canadian international cooperation community, with other like-mindeds in other countries, be they in the Global North or the Global South, and what are you doing together to move the conversations that are happening at those multinational levels? When Canada comes and talks to its peers at the G7 and other places, what is happening there collectively?
Second, what is happening back in Canada? I don’t think the Canadian population has a clue about what you’re all doing. They know what they’re donating to, and there are a lot of them out there, but they don’t really know what is happening and how important the work is. I’m curious about it reaching back to Canadians.
Ms. Higgins: Perhaps I can start with the first part of your question, Senator Coyle.
We are taking this opportunity, and we have a long-standing history in working with what we will call sister platforms and coalitions around the world. For example, we work very closely with Forus, which is an organization that hosts platforms from the Global North, including countries like Canada, and also the global majority in order to co-strategize, to work together and to exchange knowledge, best practices, strategies and tactics on the future of development cooperation and our roles as coalitions.
We’ve also been taking the opportunity, specifically over the last 18 months, to work very closely with donor platforms. For example, last year, we invited my equivalent from the U.K. and the U.S. to be in Canada to share best practices.
The final thing I would say is that development and advocacy are sometimes a long game. We had the privilege as Cooperation Canada of chairing the Civil Society 7, or C7, last year during Canada’s G7 presidency. We hosted a number of civil society leaders here in Canada, where we engaged with Global Affairs Canada as well as the diplomatic community and the G7 sherpa around civil society’s vision for the G7.
I think a really important lesson from that is while we were not able to make as much traction as we had hoped at the G7 Leaders’ Summit, we did a lot of very important foundational work that now means: As the French are seeking to open conversations around international development as part of their G7 presidency, global civil society is very ready to be propositional.
Maybe I’ll leave it at that and see if my colleagues have comments on how we’re engaging Canadians.
Senator Woo: I’d like to pick up on Senator Coyle’s question about public awareness and support.
What can you tell us about the level of public support for international cooperation, particularly the public’s reaction to the cuts that have taken place?
I worry a bit that in a more fractured world, we actually become more insular. Despite all the rhetoric, we end up becoming more insular, and we also take licence of what the Americans and the Brits have done as a way for us to do the same thing — in other words, to cut development aid — and to do it in an environment where the public actually says, “That’s what we should be doing.”
Give me a sense of what your read is, and tell us what you think can be done to bolster public support for the sorts of good work that you’re doing.
Ms. Vaugrante: Thank you, senator, for your question.
I think there are definitely inequalities within Canada as well. Not everyone is thinking about international development, especially if you’re stressing about where to live or how much food is costing in your budget. We perfectly understand that it’s probably not on the radar at the moment for many people.
Still, there are ways to speak to Canadians. I’m very glad to tell you about last year. At Oxfam-Québec, we raised the number of supporters by 26% for what we do in international development. We use appropriate language, especially appropriate listening skills, and we organize online spaces and physical spaces to exchange and to welcome people into international development, specifically younger generations. We work a lot with youth.
I often say to Mr. Moyer and Ms. Higgins that as a sector, I think we are a bit to blame as well to speak often when the budget is not here and to be vocal, rightfully, but also not to be vocal enough to demonstrate the impact: fewer cows in the world, fewer pandemics, people living with dignity and everyone wants a job. In the Global South, they don’t only want aid; they want good jobs as well as jobs for women. There’s a lot of talk about jobs for male-dominated sectors, such as infrastructure, technology and mining, but what about the care economy? Women want jobs as well, and they should not be poorly paid.
There’s a way to speak, and I’m positive about the demonstrations that have happened this year.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Last November, the Prime Minister said that Canada’s foreign policy would no longer be feminist. Have you felt any impact on the ground on the measures taken with regard to vulnerable women in various countries? I’d like to hear your thoughts on that.
Mr. Moyer: I’ll try to be fairly brief. A distinction has been made between international policy, foreign affairs policy and international assistance policy. The international assistance policy has not changed, as far as we know. It remains the guideline. Our dialogue with the department has nonetheless changed a lot. We talk a lot about trade and development now. What we hear though, and certainly in civil society, we make every effort to uphold the values of the feminist international assistance policy, especially as regards gender equality, which is a deeply Canadian commitment in our organizational strategic engagement programs. This speaks to a greater challenge: the polarization of debate in general on so-called feminist values. The language must not become polarized and prevent us from doing the work we’re doing.
That’s one of the risks of politicizing the sector. This announcement was public and widely noted, but it still does not seem to have had a major impact on the programs. I hope it won’t affect Canada’s programs in other countries.
[English]
Ms. Higgins: I will be brief.
We have developed extremely high levels of expertise in the ecosystem — in the government, in civil society and in the academic space — and amazing global partnerships on gender equality.
To be brief, regardless of the direction that our foreign policy and international assistance goes, I think, as a country, we should really hold on and continue to lean in, draw from and leverage that extremely high level of expertise that we have on gender equality.
[Translation]
Ms. Vaugrante: Thank you. I wanted to emphasize that we have not yet seen any radical action that would be at odds with a commitment to equality. Senator, as you may have noticed, the “F” word is becoming less and less accepted and acceptable. That is unfortunate because I think Canada can be proud that we had this feminist policy. It is a strong commitment, hence my request also to maintain the commitment to reproductive rights and sexual health for women, among others. It’s crucial that we remain on that path.
Senator Hébert: Thank you.
The Chair: Likewise.
[English]
I was a bit involved in the development of that policy a few years ago, and I’m glad to see that networks have been established across the world so that there will be some continuity as well, whether it is institutional from the governmental side or not. The work continues, and it’s very important. Thank you.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much to our witnesses and for the remarkable work that you do.
In an era of donor fatigue, global chaos and rapidly increasing needs in humanitarian aid, you have all reflected on the word “opportunity” in the face of current rupture. I wonder if you could each give me an example of an opportunity that you envisage in the current climate. Perhaps we can start with Mr. Moyer.
Mr. Moyer: I will say that this is a hard one, but I do think there’s the opportunity of looking at reform of our system here at home and how Global Affairs Canada makes its decisions around program funding. The fact is that for partners, working with this department is long and difficult, and it relates to business processes.
It is my view that this has been a long-standing issue. It’s hard to work with Global Affairs Canada as a partner. There is a lot of room for us to look at that carefully in terms of how we can do better.
Ms. Higgins: I would wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Moyer around the opportunities for reform.
Another opportunity is for us to really lean into building new partnerships and being creative about how we leverage global civil society, private sector, government and different types of institutions to move forward in this new era. Disruption forces change and transformation, and if we can have space and the ambition to build new partnerships and new multisector-type partnerships, I think that is absolutely an opportunity.
We will need the reform processes that Mr. Moyer talks about to roll out. There is a real opportunity for that reform, and Canadian civil society is absolutely ready to work with the government to make that happen.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
Ms. Vaugrante: Thank you for the question.
On the partnerships, especially with the Global South, it is important to hear them. The system served them, but most of them are also saying, “Yes, there are deep systemic challenges,” so working with the Global South voices to find a solution is key.
Yes, let’s work outside our bubbles. Even the sector itself is very competitive, so I’m hoping, within Cooperation Canada, we can really open doors [Technical difficulties] within our sector as well. Then it’s about trying to find who is good at what and working together. We should always be pairing up and doing work together.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
I’ll give you an example. Yesterday, I met with the Global Financing Facility, which deals with maternal and child health in the most needy countries. They work closely with the World Bank. What came out of that conversation that really impressed me is that their current partnerships are very much developed for ensuring that the donor countries are equal contributors in whatever development programs they establish. Perhaps that’s one way forward in terms of the disruptive nature of what has to happen in the future. Thank you.
The Chair: I will allow one quick reaction to the comment, please.
Ms. Higgins: I agree that those are the types of partnerships we need to be seeking to build and engage in.
Senator Adler: I have only been with this committee a short time, but it’s been long enough to notice the obvious: My fellow hard-working Canadian professionals are almost always reluctant to call out the white elephant in the room. We know what the white elephant is, and we know what his name is. Since we’re most concerned, in this particular session, about feeding the hungry and giving medicine to the sick, I ask myself and all of you: Do we think that the reluctance to call out the white elephant will help the sick and the hungry of the world?
The Chair: Are you naming the white elephant, for clarity?
Senator Adler: For the record, I’ll name the white elephant: It is the President of the United States. That position used to be known as the leader of the free world and also the leader of the humanitarian world.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Ms. Higgins: I think Ms. Vaugrante explained in a really compelling way what the direct and devastating implications of the immediate and shocking USAID cuts were to the people who are in the most vulnerable positions. The way she described it is really important for us to think about: The international aid system and humanitarian system are ecosystems that rely on each other. Think of it almost like a body and the skeleton was pulled out when USAID made those cuts in such a drastic way.
You’re absolutely right to name it, and it has real implications for people’s lives. There’s the logistics example that Ms. Vaugrante gave, which is actually moving important emergency food from one place to another now cannot move because the logistics are not in place to make that happen.
The impacts have been devastating. The way this happened, in my view, was completely irresponsible. Yet now we need to look to the future and ask ourselves how we will reimagine that system so that we are able to meet those people who are in the most dire humanitarian circumstances. What role is Canada going to play in reimagining what that system will look like so that we are able to ensure emergency humanitarian aid can continue to flow and reach those people who are in such dire need?
Senator Adler: What frustrates me — and this isn’t about me — and what frustrates those of us who look at this is that we’re all aware of something called a news cycle. The USAID story took up, perhaps, a piece of one news cycle. If there isn’t a concerted effort to remind the world about what is missing, what ends up missing is food and medicine.
Mr. Moyer: We agree with you on that. Ms. Vaugrante?
Ms. Vaugrante: Yes, over 500,000 people have been killed over the last year because of that. I don’t know if you read The Lancet analysis about the effects and the impacts: About 14 million people are at risk of dying because of the cuts. It might be less because two days ago, we finally agreed on a $50‑billion aid budget in the U.S. Let’s do everything we can to help U.S. civil society to fight back. They fought back, and Congress agreed on that envelope, but let’s not wait for that. Let’s really organize ourselves and make sure that we can be working together.
It is definitely killing people. Those are lives. In the next future, that will not happen. That’s what we’re talking about. When I saw The Lancet evaluation, it’s a very credible scientific journal saying that it will be 14 million people in the next five years, and it hardly made the headlines.
Let’s be shocked. I agree with how shocked you are; I am shocked as well. We can make that noise even louder.
Senator Adler: Can we, then, put it on the public record that the “white elephant” in the White House, through his actions and inactions, is killing people every day around the world?
Ms. Vaugrante: My colleagues at Oxfam America are saying it quite loudly.
Senator Adler: Thank you.
The Chair: This is a public meeting, so what you have said, senator, is in the public record.
We’re coming to the end of our panel. There are no more questioners, but I have a question.
I was struck by something that Ms. Vaugrante said earlier about the need to think outside of bubbles. All three of you are leaders in civil society. You work as partners with the Government of Canada. You have your international connections that are, in some cases, institutional and in specialized agencies of the United Nations, for example, but also with other countries.
If you are of the view that this is an important hinge moment, to use a phrase, how can you work more closely together with those colleagues who are like-minded in different countries to provide a united front and united approach?
We’ll start with Ms. Vaugrante since you mentioned thinking outside of bubbles.
[Translation]
Ms. Vaugrante: Obviously, at this time, it is my duty to take action. I am taking the lead everywhere in the Oxfam confederation that we are part of. It is good to be part of an international confederation so you can hear the voices that are working with other sectors.
Here in Quebec and Canada, I am reaching out to financial players first, and asking them to help us understand how finance works. I have some wonderful small projects with women entrepreneurs who develop projects, but they really need to be scaled up. I’m looking for financial resources from banks, financial players and asset managers, asking them: “Help us. Do you want to help with ESG? This is the time. You can help us, and we can help each other.” So we need to go to the companies that need to work on their economic, social and governance criteria, and so on, in order to access capital.
Above all, we need to approach businesses in a world full of disinformation and misinformation. Research observatories and universities must also be approached to obtain strong data in order to make decisions on truly comprehensive analyses. It takes a lot of time to make decisions based on data analysis. Let’s also get artists involved and other people who have helped us, including with regard to Gaza. There are ways to be very creative, specifically to demonstrate our impact to the Canadian public.
[English]
Ms. Higgins: In terms of working with colleagues and other middle powers as we look into the future, which I understand is part of your question, we are seeking to do three things.
We are seeking to work with others to understand what is working well to engage publics. How do you engage Canadians? What are others doing that is working to engage people on the importance of international cooperation in this really important moment? How can we learn from each other across different countries around what works?
The second is: How do we need to change ourselves? As organizations and civil society that are in the Global North, we do need to shift power more to the front lines of action. What does that mean? What is our comparative advantage as Canadian organizations in this moment, and what does that look like? A lot of learning and efficiencies can be gained by learning what others are doing and understanding what is working.
The third brief point is really around joint-up advocacy strategies. I will use the G7 as an example because we have been speaking about that. How can we ensure that, as civil society, our advocacy approach seeking to influence the G7 is coordinated across capitals and is bringing the perspectives of the global majority — who are deeply affected by the decisions made at the G7 — into those conversations? Those are three examples and ways that we are really trying to learn from each other, build efficiencies and actually drive influence and impact through those collaborations.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I will give the last word to Mr. Moyer.
Mr. Moyer: All the comments were incredibly helpful. As representatives of a sector that is socially minded, we have tremendous ambitions for what the world could be. We will not let go of those ambitions. We will hold on to those wherever and however we are, despite the fact that resources are less available today and maybe for a little while. It’s forcing us to talk to others.
I want to amplify some points: talking to companies about their roles, as those are really evolving and shifting; and making connections in ways that we can bring the Canadian value-add to things. Think about the reconciliation agenda in Canada and the relationships with Indigenous Peoples around the world and the unique value we can bring in terms of building bridges in those ways.
We have tremendous sectors in Canada that can be part of this ambition for a better world. Think about our education sectors and all they bring in their collaborations around the world. There are other actors we need to be engaging with. There is a certain dose of realism in this particular moment which I cannot forgo a reference to. Our business models are being challenged. I talk about peak aid having been last year. What does that mean for a sector that has grown for 40 years? We have to look at ourselves carefully in terms of business models. We have to talk about coalitions and coming together in a moment of crisis because that will be how we will find ways forward, and we’ll also have to be thinking about mergers, integrations and partnerships to be more efficient. That’s going to be really hard for all of us as social sectors. These are not easy things for us to do.
The Chair: Thank you very much. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank Béatrice Vaugrante, Kate Higgins and Nicolas Moyer for joining us today. We all admire the work that you’re doing and the contributions you make. I dare say we’re probably going to have a future conversation with you as well.
Colleagues, please stay in place. We will go in camera in a moment to discuss Bill C-15.
(The committee continued in camera.)