THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 25, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 4:15 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to foreign relations and international trade generally.
Senator Peter M. Boehm (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good afternoon. 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 now invite the committee members participating in today’s meeting to introduce themselves.
[English]
Senator Adler: Charles Adler, Manitoba.
Senator Ravalia: Welcome. Mohamed Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Welcome. Amina Gerba from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo from British Columbia.
Senator Wilson: Duncan Wilson, also from the spectacular province of British Columbia.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario. Welcome.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: I’d like to welcome all senators and all who may be watching us across the country on ParlVU today. I would also like to note that, a bit later on in our proceedings, we may be losing some of our senators because the Aga Khan is in town and the Governor General is hosting an event.
Colleagues, we are meeting under our general order of reference to discuss Canada’s international assistance priorities. Today, we have the honour of welcoming to this committee, for the first time, the Honourable Randeep Sarai, Secretary of State for International Development. Welcome, Mr. Secretary, and thank you for taking the time to be with the committee today. He is joined by the following officials from Global Affairs Canada: Leslie Norton, Assistant Deputy Minister, International Assistance Partnerships and Programming Branch; Cheryl Urban, Assistant Deputy Minister, Pan-geographic Affairs Branch; and Geoff Black, Director General, International Assistance Policy and Strategic Cooperation Bureau.
Before we go to the secretary of state’s opening statement, and questions and answers, I would like to ask everyone in the room to please mute your devices so we don’t hear notifications.
Mr. Secretary, we are now ready to hear your opening remarks, which will be followed by questions from senators. You have the floor.
Hon. Randeep Sarai, P.C., M.P., Secretary of State (International Development): Thank you, chair.
[Translation]
Thank you, members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear today.
[English]
We are witnessing a rapid change in the global landscape. Global needs are rising, while geopolitical competition and conflict are reshaping our international engagement. Conflicts in the Middle East and Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine are stark examples of how global instability is reshaping the international order, forcing us to reconsider how our foreign policy tools, including international assistance, can strengthen our sovereignty, security and economic resilience. Humanitarian crises, from mass displacement in Sudan to the ongoing war in Gaza, are stretching global assistance systems to their limits. Aid budgets, in Canada and globally, are under mounting pressure due to evolving donor priorities and growing development needs.
We need to be honest about that reality, its challenges and what it demands of us. It means using our resources more deliberately and strategically, while remaining focused, agile and forward-looking in how we deliver impacts.
In that context, Canada will continue to prioritize humanitarian assistance and work with trusted partners to ensure that life-saving aid reaches the most vulnerable, guided by the needs on the ground. Alongside this, we are reshaping our approach to development assistance to strengthen economic resilience and build partnerships that deliver lasting benefits for both partner countries and Canadians.
In that spirit, I’d like to highlight three priorities that are shaping how we adapt our international development assistance to this new reality: strengthening our development trade nexus, mobilizing new sources of finance for development goals and clearly communicating to Canadians why international development matters, both abroad and here at home.
First, and where appropriate, we are bringing our development and economic tools into closer alignment. In practice, this development trade nexus means focusing a part of our development assistance on a more targeted group of countries, where deeper engagement can strengthen economic partnerships, support country-driven priorities and deliver meaningful results.
[Translation]
This approach reflects the needs of many developing countries.
[English]
In my travels, partners have emphasized the need for economic opportunity over dependence, for investment, decent jobs and pathways to long-term prosperity. Just recently in Kenya, I saw our Canadian partners working with local aviation companies to establish an aircraft maintenance technician centre, creating jobs for young women and men, building critical skills and strengthening the aviation capacity needed to deliver aid across East Africa. Because these are Canadian-built aircraft, that work also supports good jobs and economic opportunities here at home. These investments bring clear, mutual benefits, strengthening local resilience and economic opportunity in partner countries while reducing risks and shocks here in Canada.
Across the board, partners have been clear: They want Canada to work with them as true partners, bringing our expertise in areas like clean energy, agriculture and inclusive growth aligned with local priorities.
My second priority is to advance efforts to mobilize all available sources of finance to address development needs. Given the scale of today’s global challenges and the physical constraints that donors are facing, it is essential that we leverage our aid dollars strategically to mobilize new sources of financing for development. By expanding Canada’s development finance toolkit, including through FinDev Canada, and partnering with the private sector, we can attract additional capital and unlock innovative solutions.
[Translation]
By expanding Canada’s finance toolkit, including through FinDev Canada, and partnering with the private sector, we can attract additional capital and unlock innovative solutions.
[English]
I have seen the power of private partnerships and their potential to amplify development firsthand. For example, by working with Canadian companies and local partners on mineral exploration and mining projects, Canada is not only mobilizing investment and creating jobs, but also building stronger communities and reinforcing our position as a global leader in responsible mining.
We will also continue supporting countries in their efforts to strengthen public finance and governance systems, thereby supporting conditions needed for private investment and economic growth. With global aid in financing systems under strain, we’re working with partners to reduce fragmentation, strengthen delivery, empower local leadership and ensure our shared multilateral institutions are fit for purpose. Done well, these approaches stretch resources further, spur innovation and sustain development outcomes long after grant funding ends.
My third priority is engaging Canadians on the importance of international development. Canadians want to know their tax dollars are making a real difference, especially as global issues, from food security and climate shocks to health threats and supply chain reductions, increasingly affect families here at home. To sustain a strong international development program, we must maintain public trust and the social licence that underpins it. We need to show how our efforts contribute to global stability and prosperity, support our economic interests, strengthen our security and reflect the values Canadians expect us to uphold. Ultimately, we need to show our investments and deliver tangible results for partner countries and Canada in the long run.
While my emphasis today has been on the trade development nexus, mobilizing resources for development financing and communicating with Canadians, I want to be clear that the government’s commitment to poverty reduction, supporting vulnerable communities, empowering women and providing humanitarian assistance in times of crisis remain steadfast. Likewise, supporting global health and climate action will continue to be priorities, and gender equality will remain at the centre of what we do.
Honourable senators, the changes we are making are grounded in values, pragmatism and partnership. We have a clear purpose to ensure Canada remains a constructive, respected partner and that Canadians see the value of this work in their daily lives.
I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Secretary of State Sarai.
I’d like to acknowledge that Senator MacDonald of Nova Scotia has joined the meeting.
I would also like to inform colleagues that while we have a 90‑minute panel today, the Secretary of State must leave us at 5:15, and the officials will have the pleasure of staying behind for another half hour to answer any questions that we may have.
[Translation]
As usual, colleagues, you will have a maximum of three minutes each in the first round, including questions and answers. Therefore, senators and witnesses, please be concise. We can always have another round if time permits.
[English]
Senator Ravalia: Thank you for being here. Let me express my gratitude to you for the work that you’re doing under extremely difficult conditions at the moment.
Secretary Sarai, Budget 2025 outlined a $2.7 billion recalibration in international assistance, but there remains limited clarity on the reference point used to calculate these reductions. Greater transparency on the forward-spending profile would help us clarify the scope and implications of these decisions for Canadian partners and affected communities.
Can you clarify what spending level the $2.7 billion recalibration is being measured against and what this means for Canada’s international assistance levels over the next few years?
Mr. Sarai: Thank you, Senator Ravalia.
The government is taking a deliberate, long-term step to improve efficiency and deliver better results for Canadians. The CER, Comprehensive Expenditure Review, announced in Budget 2025 would generate government-wide savings of up to 15% over three years. The department is now implementing those measures to achieve the approved savings. As part of those CER measures, the government has introduced a $2.7 billion reduction in the international assistance envelope over the next four years, returning to a pre-pandemic level.
I think you’re probably asking for clarity around some sunsetting programs, like climate finance. The government is still deciding on those programs and how we’ll move forward. Those decisions are yet to come.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
Are you collaborating with any of our international partners, given the fact that countries like the United Kingdom and Germany have also seen reductions in their international aid programs?
Mr. Sarai: Absolutely. We’re working with countries in the Gulf that have expressed an interest in collaborating with us on many initiatives. We’re looking at those. Those are new countries that have come to the table. We’re also looking at a lot of private foundations, from the Gates Foundation to the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation, as well as collaborating with different countries that have traditionally done international development in different ways that are open to opportunities to work with Canada. That’s been absolutely a new direction that we’re looking at. That’s the best way we can move forward to offset some of those losses in aid dollars.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Welcome, Secretary of State, and your entire team.
The proliferation of Canadian instruments in Africa — particularly in the areas of diplomacy, public assistance, funding, development and business support — raises questions about the coordination and readability of Canadian action on the ground. This includes the implementation of Canada’s Africa Strategy, which just celebrated its first anniversary.
What concrete coordination mechanism exists between EDC, FinDev Canada, diplomatic missions, trade commissioner services and international assistance programs in Africa?
[English]
Mr. Sarai: Great question, senator. I was with you celebrating the one-year anniversary of Canada’s Africa Strategy.
To emphasize the importance of it, I’ve been to Africa four times in less than 10 months, on the continent, from the west side of Ghana, to Egypt, to Tanzania, to Ethiopia, to South Africa and now Kenya. Our commitment is very strong.
FinDev Canada is opening an office in South Africa, showing how we’re doing our work through blended finance and concessional lending. In South Africa I saw firsthand that FinDev was funding port infrastructure projects so that supply chains can be resilient. That infrastructure helps support 600,000 tonnes of goods to go in and out of South Africa’s ports. We just finished something in Kenya, which I mentioned earlier in my opening remarks, whereby we’re training 2,000 aviation technicians. This is in collaboration with the Canadian college to work with a flight school and flight training in Kenya.
These are the types of mutual benefits that we’re doing.
We have also funded an increased amount — by $138 million, I believe — to the African Development Bank, which helps leverage, I think, 11 times that amount in order to lend out to climate finance initiatives, whether that is solar power assistance, on the grid or off; renewal energies; and other projects. Our commitment is very strong working, and we are working in such programs.
There are additional agricultural programs we’re doing, using the International Development Research Centre, or IDRC, one of Canada’s organizations in research and development to help find better ways to do agriculture; getting women to participate in the agriculture sector; getting them higher yields; and, in some cases, even getting them mechanized machinery, like tractors and tillers, so they can get even higher yields with less of a physical burden on their work.
We will continue working with the African Development Bank, the African Union, FinDev Canada and other partners — bilateral agreements with those countries.
Senator Coyle: Thank you, again, to all of you for being here, particularly you, Secretary of State Sarai.
My life was international development work before I came to the Senate, so it’s really important to see the new directions. We’ve seen new directions many times over the decades that I’ve been involved in this field, and I understand the stretch that needs to be made right now — I think everybody does — and the importance of what we used to call “watering the flowers, not the weeds,” so the “flowers” will grow, bloom and achieve good things. I commend you for trying new ways to do that.
I’m curious about your third area, which is communicating with Canadians. It’s so critical. Canadians don’t really have much of a clue, to be honest, about what Canada is doing. Some of them might be donating to some NGOs, which is a good thing, so they see through that little window, or they might hear some bad stories — or they heard bad stories maybe 20 years ago about the rusting piece of equipment or something, and it’s changed their mind about how bad development is.
I’m curious what you will actually do to engage Canadians.
Mr. Sarai: Good question.
I think a lot of faith-based groups and people who do it through the goodness of their hearts — those communities that donate — know what we do in international development and humanitarian assistance; it’s aiming to get to those who are possibly cynical because of what they’ve read or seen before. New immigrants, when they come to the country, don’t have an opportunity to learn what we do. They go straight to working and making ends meet, and they, therefore, don’t know even why we do this.
One of the programs I’ve started is called the LIFT project. It’s a small program enhancing an existing program by $10 million, so it’s about $38 million. It will help small diaspora communities, rotary clubs and church groups do small- and medium-sized projects abroad. If it’s program funding, say they put in $5,000, we will put in $20,000, four times that amount we would leverage. They can go to teach vocational or business skills to a community abroad that they want to host. If they want to do something more “bricks and mortar,” they can sponsor a school or a medical clinic, which is one to one, up to $600,000.
The other thing I’m trying to highlight is that when diaspora communities celebrate their Vietnam National Day or Independence Day in the Philippines, they find out about the work we’ve done there. Most of them only hear the headlines, which are Ukraine, Gaza and maybe Sudan, but they don’t know that we’ve done a lot of work in the Philippines, Ghana, Syria, Pakistan and Lebanon; the countries they have come from.
I am highlighting those whenever we go. I’m trying to encourage senators and members of Parliament to do the same as we get invited to a lot of these events. It’s a good opportunity. My office would be more than happy to share that data for each state we have contributed to and supported.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I think we’ll take you up on your offer. I think it would be very useful to all members of the committee, so thank you.
I’d like to acknowledge Senator Al Zaibak of Ontario, who has joined the meeting.
Senator Wilson: This builds a little bit on your answer to Senator Gerba’s question.
Given that I don’t have the background that Senator Coyle has in this area, could you maybe illustrate for me the difference between the approach that we were taking versus the more targeted approach that we’re taking now, using examples that are tangible stories that would allow me, as a newbie to this subject area, to better understand how we’re acting differently?
Mr. Sarai: First, there were a lot more dollars in the system, especially prior to USAID cuts. The Europeans and, quite frankly, us as well — everybody has had to tighten their belts. Canada was able to sprinkle a little bit everywhere in a lot of multilateral programs.
Now, to give you a more tangible thing, let’s just take Kenya. Prior, we might have done a development project where somebody wanted to fund vocational training or support girls and young men from marginalized communities to learn something. They might have just said, “We’ll teach them welding or teach them how to be millwrights.” It wouldn’t necessarily have any contribution or connection to what Canada was already doing there in terms of trade. In this case, De Havilland is a Canadian airplane manufacturer, and, believe it or not, every 20 minutes, a flight from Kenya that takes off or lands is a Canadian plane, so they need technicians. Normally, the development side and the trade side at our embassies would not necessarily talk or coordinate with each other. Development would get a proposal and see that it is a good and tangible one, and they would approve and get it funded. Trade would be thinking that, “We would love to sell de Havilland planes here, but, unfortunately, Kenya doesn’t have any aircraft technicians, so they won’t buy these planes; they have technicians for a different type of plane.”
So, we’re trying to have the two talk to each other.
It’s not mutually exclusive, but where there is an opportunity for trade and development to go hand in hand, they’ll talk to each other. A development officer in Kenya and Nairobi can say, “Hey, I have a college that wants to do technical and vocational education and training, or TVAT, and it costs this much.” Trade will go, “Well, de Havilland is trying to sell 20 more planes, but they’re having a problem getting aircraft technicians. If you can help train aircraft technicians, that solves the problems.” They get great, highly paid, skilled jobs — skills that are needed.
Before, that did not happen. That’s the fundamental change in that respect.
In blended finance and others, that’s a new thing. I think it’s new in Canada, and new in the United Nations. Prime Minister Carney, in his previous roles, really pushed this at the United Nations to get it. A lot of the projects need that initial boost of funding, which is not bankable. A normal bank might not do. Say it’s solar panels in a rural area. Once Canada gives some concessional lending, a bank gives the other lending. Once it’s proven and has a power purchase agreement and has been doing well, they don’t need government assistance the next time; the bank just goes and funds it. That’s the second part.
Those are the two, and I’ve already explained the third in terms of how to engage Canadians.
Senator Woo: Mr. Sarai and officials, thank you for being here.
Does the new approach, where you have a stronger link between trade and development, change the way in which you operate in the field? I’m thinking about the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives, or CFLI. Is that going to be given more attention — maybe more money or decision-making authority?
Mr. Sarai: We’ll try to coordinate it where we can on those initiatives with the trade side. If there are Canadian investments or Canadian projects — an extraction project, a mining project — if they are there. In terms of whether we will be able to give more money to them, it’s tough to give more money to any programming. We’re in a belt-tightening mode, but we are looking at those types of projects very keenly.
Senator Woo: Is CFLI under development, or is it under the trade side, just to be clear?
Cheryl Urban, Assistant Deputy Minister, Pan-geographic Affairs Branch, Global Affairs Canada: I think, technically, it’s under the mandate of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but it’s programming, and we’ve been very deliberate in the oversight of the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives to ensure it’s well coordinated with our policy on international assistance. We make sure it dovetails. It provides a bit of a different function because its strength is that because it is smaller funds, it is more flexible and used mainly to deal with very local needs and to work with organizations that are smaller in scale.
Senator Woo: That was really my question because those small-scale, immediate and local needs are often very high visibility, so they provide the kind of profile that you are looking for.
My other question is about the education-development nexus. You have already talked about training of aircraft technicians in Kenya. One of the things that jumped out at me from the Auditor General of Canada’s report on international students was not the people who stayed behind. It was how we undershot international students coming to Canada and how that may be an ongoing problem for us. Do you think about foreign students in Canada as part of the development portfolio, if I can put it that way? I know it is not your ministry, but how do you think about that?
Mr. Sarai: That’s a good question. It is not technically in my portfolio, but there is a program where international development plays a big role, and that is with the World University Service of Canada, or WUSC. We sponsor one of the refugee camps in Kenya. We give scholarships to the brilliant students who have been raised in refugee camps. But they have to qualify at Canadian standards and get admitted to a Canadian university. If they do, in this case, 70 will be coming to Canada to study, and they will be able to stay in Canada afterward.
The real success I have seen was during International Development Week. I got to travel across the country and see a lot of them who have jobs here but are giving back, starting their own NGOs to help the countries they left to give a lifting hand to those left behind. I think there is an important role, whether it is through trade, education or scholarships. We do a little bit of both. We bring some to Canada on these scholarships that are very exclusive and limited, but we also train a lot of them through WUSC and other programs, as well as through technical and vocational education and training in their host countries.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you all for being here. It is a pleasure. On Monday, we had a Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs meeting, and Professor Michael Byers appeared to discuss procurement. He said:
. . . it is also important to realize that the government has reduced funding for overseas development assistance and diplomacy in order to prioritize defence spending, and that is completely wrong-headed. . . . You have to look at this as a package, and we have been driven into this frenzy of spending by the demands of Donald Trump. That’s not how we should be making national policy.
I think he speaks to a growing belief that the government might be abandoning altruistic soft power in favour of “What is in it for me or you?” development. Do you see any place for soft power that may not create immediately measurable returns in this era of value-based realism?
Mr. Sarai: I think there is a huge play for soft power and diplomacy in development work. In every state I visit, I have the opportunity to meet ministers, sometimes the prime minister, president or head of state. Their appreciation for what Canada has done for those developing countries is immense. Whether that is the Philippines, Vietnam, Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia or Ghana, they are all extremely appreciative, and it opens the door for further trade talks that we have going forward. That is why Prime Minister Carney has kept the budget for international development in line with everything else.
Yes, there is the Comprehensive Expenditure Review that went across the board, but as opposed to a lot of other countries that have had big cuts to their development funding, in particular, I think in Canada, we have only done it consistently across the board on all of them, showing that we value this in an immense way. That’s why we are continuing to do the development and trade nexus, focusing on that and using development as a way to use soft power to help us with our trade opportunities at the same time as we are alleviating poverty, helping women and girls and boosting health initiatives and results, particularly with regard to transmissible diseases. We’re doing it all at the same time.
I completely agree with you. There is an immense benefit to soft power. In fact, if anything, our branding has been a little weak. We are very modest. We are Canadian. We don’t put massive star-spangled flags on it. We do put flags on our items, and we should probably put them on more. The countries really appreciate what we have done. You see the impacts.
A prime example is when I was in the Philippines in Bohol Province. They took us on a boat ride to show us the biosphere that we are helping preserve. They said, “By the way, these boats were done by the Canadian International Development Agency 20 years ago.” It is a tourist draw now; it’s a whole industry. The whole area exists as these big barge-like boats that serve food, et cetera. So it created a whole ecosystem and an industry for people. I think the recipient partner states really value the international development we have given them.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you, minister, for your leadership in advancing a more integrated approach to international development. My apologies for missing your opening remarks.
Minister, can you give us an example of where private capital has been successfully mobilized to deliver development outcomes? And what role should institutions like FinDev Canada play within Canada’s broader development approach?
Mr. Sarai: I gave one example for FinDev Canada earlier. In South Africa, they have invested in port infrastructure and port supply chains. Another one we saw that was really great is one I call the cinnamon story. In Vietnam, we gave $20 million to Equitas, and the other $80 million they raised on their own on private capital, orange bonds et cetera, so there was a pool of $100 million funding many projects. One of the projects was a cooperative type of arrangement for a cinnamon processing plant where women who used to grow cinnamon on their farms, grab the bark, sell it to middle men for very little money and not be told the true value of the cinnamon now sell it to a local establishment. They get a high value. They get to work in that same factory in the off-season, processing it to high grades to international standards, including pharmaceutical, food grade and cosmetic standards. They get a high yield. I saw firsthand the improvement in their homes and lives. This is a tangible example. They get a good return. I think Canada will probably get its investment back, which will go to the next project.
Others we have done were for renewable energy with similar types of metrics, so $20 million from us and $80 million in private capital for a total of $100 million to do five renewable energy projects. In that case, I believe they were in Indonesia, where they do solar, wind and wave power. The second time, they might use blended finance or concessional lending of ours. The third time, they were joking at dinner and said, “We did get an offer from you, but the bank gave us a better rate, and we are sorry we didn’t take it from you.” I said that’s exactly what we want. We want to push you the first time, and if it is a bankable project after that, you can carry it out on your own. These are the types of projects we do using blended finance and partnerships.
The most recent is a Tim Hortons project. Tim Hortons has committed $20 million, and we have put in $20 million for a $40-million project helping five countries in growing, selling and setting up a co-op for coffee beans in five different countries. The coffee farmers get higher yields and better prices, and we, in Canada, get a good, stable supply chain of coffee to make sure all our morning caffeine intakes are adhered to.
The Chair: Thank you. That gives “double-double” a new meaning altogether, doesn’t it?
Senator MacDonald: Minister, good to see you. I want to get back, in general terms, to the amount of money we send out of the country for foreign investment and foreign support. Just looking at the numbers, I see it is about $12 billion a year on average. It varies. It was $8.5 billion about five years ago, then jumped up to about $16 billion in 2022 when we started giving money to Ukraine and about $12 billion in 2023-24. It is an average of about $12 billion a year.
What systems do we have in place to ensure that we know where the money is being spent, how it is being spent and that it is not being embezzled? I have never been convinced we have gotten the information we need on these things.
I will give you one example. Friends of mine are Cuban and live in Halifax. We gave about $8.5 million to Cuba about a month ago for food and support, and then we found out that the government seized the food and is selling it. They don’t want this food going to the government of Cuba. That works against the best interests of the Cubans. The Cubans want some freedom.
How often is this happening, and what are we doing about it?
Mr. Sarai: Thank you, Senator MacDonald.
The government ensures that its international assistance is effective and is responsible through rigorous due diligence and accountability mechanisms. In fact, we sometimes get critiqued that it is a very rigorous system to approve and validate. We assess the financial capacity of our partners. That is a key part of our due diligence. Performance monitoring and, in some cases, results-based management are central to the government’s approach for tracking and maximizing. We have very vigorous and transparent reporting mechanisms and learning opportunities.
That is not to say it never happens. Of course, there is the potential for that to happen, but the systems that Global Affairs Canada has in place are there to ensure it is a rigorous system. Sometimes, we also get critiqued about why we use multilateral systems. A lot of times, it is because they have developed systems. It is not just Canada’s system watching them; a multitude of countries that have contributed to the program funding are also monitoring it.
I trust our Global Affairs Canada folks. They have very high standards. We are trying to do some efficiency in that, but without compromising any integrity of where our dollars could add value, because I value that Canadian taxpayers’ dollars must go to the right places and be used for the right reasons and not be exploited or abused.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you, Minister. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimates that nearly 240 million people around the world will require life-saving humanitarian assistance starting in 2026. Has Global Affairs Canada analyzed the impact of the planned cuts to the international assistance envelope on Canada’s ability to respond to this humanitarian crisis? What criteria are used to determine the type of assistance Canada will provide starting in 2026?
[English]
Mr. Sarai: That is a very good question, senator.
The international development landscape is rapidly changing, while development needs continue to rise. Against that backdrop, efforts are under way on multiple fronts: to reform the international aid architecture, including at the UN, so that it is fit for purpose; Canada is actively engaged on development system reform, working alongside others to ensure more effective aid and to ensure efficient international aid architecture is there; and to leverage all sources of development financing.
Quite frankly, I think it has come to a point where we have to help the most vulnerable first and then work our way up. It is a tough choice. I have seen firsthand at a UN refugee camp in Kakuma, Kenya. They have done the same measures: the allocations of food are based on the most essential needs so that those who have no ability to work and have the most needs will get a little more rice, lentils and cooking oil, while those who can work will get a little less. Those who are working receive even less. Unfortunately, that is probably the realistic answer, but I’m an optimist, and I hope, with that architecture change and some of the new contributors to development, that we will be able to get over this in the long run. In terms of now, I think it is based on the idea that the most vulnerable and needy should and will get their needs assessed first.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you. I would have liked to hear your perspective on the balance between international aid and defence. We were talking earlier about the fact that international aid is being reduced to increase defence spending. What do you think about parity between international aid and defence budgets, given that we will have to rebuild what has been destroyed by weapons?
[English]
Mr. Sarai: International development is vital for peace and security. When you see high unemployment rates, poverty levels increase and diseases go rampant, that’s when you get radicalism, unrest and violence, particularly violence against women and children. As important as defence is for Canada, international development is also very important. That’s why I don’t think we are compromising international development in any regard, and we will continue to put in the efforts and finances behind it to make sure we can alleviate those levers that cause unrest. I think they go hand in hand.
The Chair: Thank you. We have come to the end of round one. This is usually when the chair asks a question, and I am going to do so.
Mr. Sarai, I was interested and encouraged by what you said in your opening statement about a continued commitment to gender equality in our international assistance. I know your department has worked assiduously on a Feminist International Assistance Policy, or FIAP. It goes back a few years, but it has continued.
Has there been a retreat in that area? There have been some media reports that the commitment has decreased somehow, in particular, on the important issue of sexual and reproductive health and rights, or SRHR.
Mr. Sarai: Thank you, chair.
Gender equality is at the core of Canadian values, and we remain committed to the empowerment of women and girls, including sexual and reproductive health rights and ending gender-based violence through our foreign policy and global partnerships. Canada is deeply concerned by the rising hate and violence targeting women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ people and the intense polarization of gender equality issues in the multilateral fora.
Working with women’s rights organizations is one of the most effective ways to protect and advance gender equality, because they often have lived experiences and, therefore, are the best placed to effectively address inequalities within our own communities.
When it comes to FIAP, I think the only approach we are doing differently is to be more flexible in terms of our outcomes. The previous FIAP had a quite rigorous framework around it, so we are continuing to use the principles of FIAP and using a gender-based analysis lens but allowing a little more flexibility into our program — that was the input we received from stakeholders, including those working in that area.
The Chair: Thank you very much. That is encouraging.
I will inform you all that the secretary of state has about 15 or 18 minutes left before he has to leave.
Senator Coyle: We have talked about the brave new world of international development. This world has been shifting on its own without Canada necessarily shifting, so we are catching up to where the world is. Civil society, internationally and across Canada, has been a really powerful engine for innovation and for impacts, as well as for attracting and leveraging sources of funding.
I’m from civil society. Many years ago, we were dealing with the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation — you name it — and creating equity funds to do microfinancing and all kinds of things. This is a very valuable partner for Canada, both Canadian civil society and their partners around the world.
Could you talk about how that fits with the new vision and operation of Canada’s international assistance policy?
Mr. Sarai: You are bang on. We need more work and support from civil society, and they have stepped up. I was just with the head of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria the other day, and they have said their percentage for the fund, internationally, has increased from the private sector. I think about 11% or 12% of their funding of the $12 billion that they have raised is from the private sector, which is several per cent higher than the last round.
When it comes to us, we are also seeing that. Many private foundations and civil society groups are stepping up to increase that.
That’s why we’re using Canadian financial institutes like Desjardins, which has an NGO arm that is working really well. We’ve been approached by some of these international new states that want to contribute and also want to do microloans and collaborate with some of our financial institutes to administer those.
Senator Coyle: Are those Canadian civil society organizations?
Mr. Sarai: Yes, like Desjardins and others, yes. Absolutely, yes. Definitely, the Mastercard Foundation is another one. It gives a lot and contributes a lot. We’re looking at more and more.
The good thing is that Canada has a good brand and reputation where non-Canadian civil society and foundations also want to work with Canada in that regard. We should be very proud of the work Canadian groups and the Canadian government have done in the past.
Senator M. Deacon: Mr. Secretary, you gave an interview with The Canadian Press in February, mentioning that the cuts to Global Affairs Canada’s development branch could be offset through efficiency, such as by using AI. I wonder if you can elaborate on this comment. Is AI being adopted in the international development field already? If so, what will it look like at this point?
Mr. Sarai: Yes, we are using technology. There’s a new Grants and Contributions Transformation Initiative, or GCTI. It’s modernizing and streamlining the management and delivery of grants and contributions at Global Affairs Canada to make the process more responsive, efficient, transparent and accountable.
This is part of the red tape reduction to create more high‑performing organizations. It’s in the works as we speak, and we’re trying to make it simpler for grants and the processing of those grants. In my next appearance, I will probably have better feedback to say how that is going. It’s definitely part of the process that we’re doing to make it more efficient.
One of the reasons I launched Canada LIFTs is because it is also a program for smaller grants so that more Canadians can participate and do it with less paperwork in a simpler manner. The Inter-Council Network can help facilitate the implementation of those grants. We are looking at using AI, technology and partners to make the process a lot more efficient.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. I look forward to seeing something over time.
Senator Al Zaibak: I’m intrigued by the most recent free trade agreement between Canada and Indonesia, whereby development funding is used as an incentive to open new markets and grow trade for Canada with such countries.
Can any of the planned $2.7 billion reduction to the international assistance envelope be redirected to open new markets and contribute to growing our trade in a way that is consistent with our plans to diversify and decrease our dependence on a few strategic partners?
Mr. Sarai: I’m not the Finance Minister, and I don’t have the liberty of allocating how the funds that might have been saved can be used.
What I can say is that Canada, through its international development, is using some of its dollars to help implement those programs. In Indonesia, we are giving some of the funding in order to implement our free trade deals. That means regulations, assistance at borders and customs, getting them to understand how the systems work, regularizing product licensing and trademarks and whatnot. We do a lot of work in terms of feasibility studies. For example, for energy, if a country wants to implement a nuclear strategy to have nuclear reactors or small modular reactors, or SMRs, in their country, which Canada is great at, we may fund the feasibility study of those to help the country implement them.
Similarly, in the same context, we may fund assistance to help set up regulations on, for instance, having nuclear technology in their country so that they have the framework for those. We are doing a lot of that background work in order to increase trade for them, which usually involves regulations, sometimes legal framework, training, technical and vocational training, regulations, building codes and others. Those are the types of things through our development pool of funds that we’re able to assist them with. They seem to have a great impact in terms of trade opportunities and deals that come right after.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you.
Senator Woo: This question is technically also for the Finance Minister, but operationally I think you are the right person. It’s about the new multilateral development banks and our attitudes toward them.
First of all, are we going to work with the Inter-American Development Bank, or IDB, again, given we have a recalibration with China? How are we thinking about the so-called Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, or the BRICS-led bank, the New Development Bank? I understand we have a new foreign policy that’s called “variable geometry.” It would seem to me that two of the biggest variables are the BRICS-led bank and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, or AIIB. It would seem to me that we would be missing an opportunity if we didn’t find ways of connecting with them.
Mr. Sarai: Again, I won’t be able to answer. Those are the privy of the Finance Minister, but the banks that do fall under me — the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and the Caribbean Development Bank — are ones we are supporting. We are giving them, in many cases, more funding in order to leverage more lending. We are giving more guarantees. The African Development Bank was a good example, where $138 million of a guarantee can give almost $1.2 billion, which is an 11-time lift; a $1.6 billion in lending ability for them. Those are the types of work we’re doing.
As to the two banks you mentioned, when you can call in the Finance Minister, you can probably ask him and see. I haven’t seen any directional changes yet on those in my portfolio.
Senator Woo: Is there any thinking going on within departments, especially with new developments? Maybe the AIIB, I understand, is one step removed, but the new development bank, it would seem to me, is akin to the AfDB, the IDB and the ADB.
Mr. Sarai: In our world, it hasn’t come about yet, but we’re always looking at new opportunities to create different avenues to help those that need a little bit of a boost, as well as to improve our trade. All opportunities are always on the table.
Senator Wilson: Secretary, this is a question we’ve talked about with previous witnesses on the topic of international aid. The withdrawal of so much U.S. aid from the global ecosystem of aid, if you will, has obviously left a huge gulf. We’ve had many conversations with people about what that means and what the effect of that is. I’m sure you have observations in terms of the work you’re doing. Canada can’t be everything to everyone, so we have to be focused on what we’re doing. What is happening? Are we seeing others step in to fill that gap, or are we just seeing smouldering embers that are one day going to turn into a big fire? I’m curious.
Mr. Sarai: We had our first G7 development ministerial several months back when Canada hosted the presidency, and we hosted that at the World Bank in Washington.
At that time as well, there was a lot of ambiguity about whether the U.S. was coming back into development or not. We had a very robust discussion among the G7 counterparts, at least agreeing on what should be done on issues that we all agree on, and the things we may not agree on, at least not bicker about those. Let those who want to do the work in those areas where some don’t want to do it, and where we all agree, do it together. That was good. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. committed over $4 billion to the Global Fund, which was the first time there was an announcement from the U.S. I think they have had some MOUs. They’ve finally created a new department in terms of humanitarian assistance. They’re doing it a little differently; I think they’re doing it more with bilateral arrangements with different countries. We’re watching that. Hopefully, that will be of some assistance and help alleviate that gap. It won’t be able to alleviate the entire gap; it was an enormous envelope. We’re all looking at different avenues.
Some of the African countries that were also recipients, traditionally, are also stepping up on their own, saying that they have to figure out their own health care initiatives. They are seeing they need to step up. Those, like Sudan, that are the most vulnerable will still require our assistance, and we’ll do it.
We’re always looking at new avenues. Like I said, the Gulf States have said they will step up. Currently, they’re in a different situation right now, so I can’t update regarding that. They have indicated, though, that they want to work with Canada to work in many of these places.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: To follow up on the question I asked earlier, does Canada intend to set aside a fixed percentage of international aid for humanitarian assistance?
[English]
Mr. Sarai: As a percentage, I’ll be candid and probably say, “No, I don’t see it as a percentage.” We are one of the largest donor countries on a per capita basis around the globe, I think. That is evident from everyone we’ve met; whether it’s the recipient countries or our partner countries, they really appreciate the work we do. We are also are in a very unique position where we accept refugees and settle them in our country. Currently, in the world, there are very few countries that are still doing that. Even Australia has reduced theirs. The U.S. has reduced significantly, and I think Germany is only really dealing with those who are coming to their shores as opposed to resettling the thousands they used to from settlement camps.
We have always been pushing above our weight, percentage-wise, and I think we will continue to do that. However, as a percentage of GNI or GDP, I don’t think there’s a firm commitment in that regard, but we will continue to pound above our weight, I think.
The Chair: I’m going to ask the last question, and it’s really a follow-on of Senator Wilson’s question.
A few years ago, when I was involved in international development, the thought leader was the Department for International Development, DFID, the British development agency, which was then rolled into the Foreign Office. We did the merger with CIDA in 2013, and the Australians have done something similar. The U.S. has managed to destroy USAID and is rebuilding some sort of an entity within the State Department. Both DFID and USAID, in their time, were also thought leaders in certain areas.
We’ve kept our levels relatively high. There’s a bit of a dip and some reapportionment, of course. Is there an area where Canada can show leadership? Is there a niche area we can call our own as a middle power pushing forward, to take a little bit out of the Prime Minister’s speech at Davos? Could we work more with the Nordics, for example? Are there areas where we could find a way forward where others could emulate?
Mr. Sarai: Great question. I think it could be the Nordic countries, as well as Great Britain, where Baroness Chapman, the minister responsible, has been a very good ally of ours. I think most of the G7 countries really want to collaborate and work, and have similar visions to us.
There are a lot of leadership roles Canada has, particularly on the rights of women and girls; we have been a real leader, globally, and really respected in that regard. That pertains to the climate, as well. There’s probably a lot of potential in terms of renewable energy, particularly in the continent of Africa, where 60% of its population doesn’t have energy. We could be a leader.
I think the way we’re doing things in this direction is going fairly well and leading to a lot of trade opportunities and economic growth in those countries. We’re focusing a lot on some South Pacific countries, which have large populations, huge growth potential and which have a massive appetite for energy as well as agriculture products and technology exchange from Canada. I think if we work on that lens, it’s good.
You are right: There has been a transformation. CIDA had a great brand. I still hear about it everywhere I go. “This was a CIDA project. It was a great project.” Getting a GAC project is a bit of a nuance. Branding it takes a while, but I think the country and, at least, the stakeholders really appreciated it. Whether the folks on the ground have effectively found out it’s Canadian funding that’s doing it, that’s a little harder to evaluate. I think third parties might be able to evaluate that.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Secretary of State Sarai, on behalf of the committee, thank you for joining us today. You alluded in one of your answers to a return to this committee. It’s on the record, so we will ask you to come back. Thank you very much for your time.
We will now continue for another half hour with just the senior officials from Global Affairs Canada. I know senators have more questions.
Senator Wilson: This is actually a followup on your last question to Secretary of State Sarai: I’m intrigued by the idea of thought leadership in this space. Is there an area where we should be, or are thinking about being, a thought leader in this space?
Ms. Urban: I would just say that, with Canadian international assistance pivoting a little bit in the way we do things — and the minister spoke about a trade and development nexus — I think it does provide an additional opportunity for Canada to leverage the expertise we have as Canadians. For example, we have strong expertise in agriculture. We have really strong education systems. If we are now doing more international assistance by leveraging those industries, they could be areas we increase and specialize in.
Leslie Norton, Assistant Deputy Minister, International Assistance Partnerships and Programming Branch, Global Affairs Canada: I will just add a few points.
We’re well known internationally for our global health footprint in SRHR. I would suggest that we have a commitment to continue to program and have a footprint in SRHR, although it will be a smaller footprint, which we have to acknowledge.
We will remain very committed to providing humanitarian assistance going forward. Canada also has a really good track record of development finance, and this is the climate finance piece where the minister spoke about renewables.
I also want to mention, as we are looking at the changing dynamic internationally, the aid architecture is also under great change. Canada has a chance to undertake some thought leadership in that area as well.
Senator, someone had mentioned working with the Nordics, for instance. There are a number of mini coalitions that exist. We have our own language in the world of international development. We have this group called Utstein. It’s a group of like-minded countries who banded together years ago to work on a range of issues in international development. Canada is currently chairing that.
We are actually looking hard at the UN system and what they call the UN80 Initiative, which reflects the great changes that are currently happening in the UN system. We are looking at all opportunities to try to see if there are coalitions of like-minded we can work with and try to bring this thought leadership together and work with fewer resources currently, but continue to provide some leadership.
Senator Coyle: I have so many questions. I’ll try to focus.
I’m completely supportive of the development trade nexus and, of course, continued support for humanitarian assistance. Then there’s all this important middle ground in between in terms of governance, security and moving people out of poverty, so they’re in a position to participate in that airplane mechanics course. You know what I’m talking about. What are we doing there in that middle ground?
Ms. Urban: I think that we will continue doing the many good things that we’ve already been doing, which is when we’re determining in the countries where we operate and undertake development, what are the needs of that country? What is the specific development context of that country? Then responding. We’ve increasingly been working in a localized way, so we’re doing a lot more in the grassroots area.
While international assistance may be looking increasingly at doing additional trade and development nexus, that doesn’t mean it’s a departure from the very good work we continue to do.
Ms. Norton: On the security side of things, we also have a number of peace and security things in the department under the authority of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Those programs will continue as they try to address a whole range of new security challenges and hybrid threats.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: The federal budget calls for cuts to funding for the development of global health programs on the grounds that Canada’s contributions have grown disproportionately compared to those of other countries and financial institutions.
I have two questions on that. Is this proportion much higher because of USAID’s withdrawal, given that this agency was the main contributor and that this sector is the one most affected overall by the cuts?
What are Canada’s new global health priorities now?
Ms. Norton: If I may, I will try to answer your question, senator.
If we look at the sectors most affected in terms of international development, they precisely have to do with health. As you were saying, the United States was the biggest funder in this context and in this sector. However, it’s not that they have completely withdrawn; rather, they have changed their approach.
The Secretary of State mentioned that the global fund will continue to receive funding from the U.S. government, but the Americans have adopted a different approach in the health sector, where they are negotiating bilateral memorandums of understanding with countries where they used to have a different approach. Now, they are trying to ensure that health is also funded internally by the countries in question.
So, yes, health is the hardest-hit sector. Yes, you read the paragraph that was in the budget.
Given our commitments to health — since cuts had to be made across all sectors, and precisely because we were contributing a larger share to global health efforts — we also made cuts in this sector.
Senator Youance: What would the priorities be?
Ms. Norton: The priorities will be the same as before. In any case, we haven’t received any indication of potential changes yet.
I should also mention that we are currently discussing all this, given that we are approaching a time when our budgets will be much smaller. At some point, we had to realize that we would be less able to do what we were doing back them.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you very much. I have a question about the advancement of health and the rights of women and girls around the world.
In 2019, the government announced a 10-year commitment to this area of work from 2020 to 2030. We just finished the halfway mark. I wonder if you can provide any updates on the project’s progress. I noticed the last annual report I saw came out in 2022-23.
Ms. Norton: Senator, your question is incredibly timely because I was just reviewing recently the report of our 10-year commitment and how we did. Our last year, I believe — I could be wrong, but I think it was 2022-23. The report shows that we did meet our commitment. I think our challenge will be going forward with the reductions, as the minister had mentioned.
Senator M. Deacon: Are you able to elaborate on that at all, what those challenges you think will be going forward, given all of the moving pieces around us?
Ms. Norton: I think the denominator will be a lot less. In fact, I think writ large it will be very difficult for us to meet all commitments across the board with a much smaller denominator.
Senator M. Deacon: Earlier with the secretary, we asked a little about AI and budgets and things like that. You folks are on the ground a little more, so I am interested in your feedback on the current and planned reductions in departmental spending across the government. How is it shifting international assistance funding programs and priorities? Have you had to shift to — I won’t put ideas — I wouldn’t want to do that, but I hope you know what the question is.
Ms. Urban: Certainly. If you look at it from an operational perspective of how our department operates and the people within our department, already we are seeing our staff using AI regularly in their day-to-day business. It makes their work more efficient.
For example, AI is being used to help them do reporting. We do a lot of reporting where we have project team leads who go out, look at a development project and report back to headquarters. When it previously would have taken them a long time to draft a report about that, AI can help them to draft that report quickly. Also, AI is going to allow us to take numerous reports, synthesize them, and then do extra analysis. This could make doing development analysis and decision making on where to prioritize much more efficient and even more precise.
AI can even help us when we look at how the world is changing with evolving conflicts today. We can use AI to help us determine where we think there might be development impacts in the next six months because of what’s happening today and then start to do planning so that we can manage our resources. I would say that AI is already starting to transform the way we do business in a very real way.
More generally, because it allows us to prioritize our resources, the key to delivering effective commitments is not to have them spread out. Some of the challenges in the past were having resources in areas that were not a priority. The key for us after the Comprehensive Expenditure Review is to make sure we smartly take all the resources we have and allocate them to our priorities.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Woo: Have there been any significant changes in the way we define what qualifies as official development assistance, or ODA? I’m thinking about how the U.K. has counted all of its spending on asylum housing within the U.K. as ODA. Have we done anything like that?
Geoff Black, Director General, International Assistance Policy and Strategic Cooperation Bureau, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you for having me. It’s my first time at the committee, and it’s been a pleasure.
There is an active global conversation, in which we are participate, about the definition of ODA, how it is counted and who participates. Some of my colleagues have spoken about the reform of the international system and the various initiatives under way. We joke internally that it is a bit of a cottage industry right now. There are a number of thought leaders, to your point, Mr. Chair, for example, the Gates Foundation, ODI Global and the Center for Global Development, trying to think through what ODA is going forward. We think it’s going to be a feature of the G7 presidency of France this year to take a hard look at the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee and whether it continues to be fit for purpose in 2026 and going forward in terms of how it measures ODA and how it counts.
Domestically, within our department, I don’t think it is an active topic of conversation to the same degree, but we are trying to shape the global conversation through some of these various initiatives.
Senator Woo: Have we changed our definition? Are we including items that are spent domestically? I’m not talking about staff but the way the U.K. has done.
Mr. Black: There are elements of domestic spending that are counted right now. It has not changed materially in recent days. We have been a leader in a certain framework, and this is probably something, Mr. Chair, you were involved with. We put out to the world a number of years ago a new framework for counting, not development assistance but international assistance generally, to better include private flows, the role of the private sector and some of the philanthropy in the world. This is the work we’re trying to advance, including through the OECD Development Assistance Committee as well.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I will ask a question and then go to Senator Coyle for the last one.
The question is for Assistant Deputy Minister Norton. You have had a lot of experience in the multilateral system. You have been our UN ambassador in Geneva. How seriously is the system threatened by U.S. withdrawal? We can talk about the World Health Organization and what that means, but more generally, in a systemic sense, is it time to really panic, or is this UN80 Initiative something where a number of countries are going to band together, the small coalition, to save the UN?
Ms. Norton: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I used to call you deputy because I also reported to you. Just to give some background there.
Senator Woo: Please call him deputy.
Ms. Norton: I learned from the best.
In many instances, the UN multilateral system is under threat, but it is not only from one source. When we look at the cuts across the board, they come from many like-minded member states at this time. For many years, during the time I was in Geneva, there was polarization that had already begun before my time there, and it increased rapidly. I think we have just hit the tipping point where polarization has probably hit the peak that it has been at in our living memory, so I think it is imperative for member states who still believe in a multilateral system — and we are one of them — to continue to work to make it a more effective and efficient organization.
When we think about UN80 at this time, it is quite interesting because there are three different baskets of initiatives that are under way. They are called work streams. They are very poetic in the UN. They are looking at efficiencies in the UN Secretariat itself. They are also looking at reviewing the mandates, and as they’ve been doing that, they realized they have over 40,000 mandates created by member states. We had a fine art of creating mandates, as you know, but we never had an exit strategy or a way to sunset them, so they are also reviewing those and trying to find a way to exit the plethora of mandates.
The third work stream is program and structural realignment. That is where we are seeing a lot of thinking around merging some organizations. Again, part of it is for efficiency, and part of it is to look at duplication. I think where we are going to make a difference as we go forward is in looking at some of the common elements and services among the organizations.
In the humanitarian remit, they are also undertaking a humanitarian reset. They really are trying to look at the provision of humanitarian assistance in theatre as a case in point. They are trying to ensure that the UN World Food Programme, UNICEF and UNHCR all use one supply chain to get all humanitarian needs in theatre.
There is a lot of work under way, but we are at a tipping point. I think it is imperative that all those committed to the multilateral system continue to work hard at keeping the system alive but also improving it and making it more effective and efficient.
The Chair: Thank you. I appreciate that answer.
Senator Coyle: I appreciate what you just said too. Thank you for that because the integrity of the system is so critical to the trust for so many who are investing so much and so many who count on it. I really thank you and applaud you for the work that you and others are involved in there. It is absolutely critical.
I have two questions. One is a longer answer, probably.
For the first, when we were talking about AI earlier and the secretary of state talked about efficiencies created in your systems for you, I’m wondering if those efficiencies are also going to improve things for your partners because you know you are notoriously costly and difficult to work with. I’ve been on the other side, as have many others. You know this, and I know you don’t like this either. I wonder if these AI efficiencies will work out for your Canadian and international partners.
My second question is about geography. We have not talked much about geography today. I believe, from what I was reading, that it is Ukraine, Ethiopia, Haiti, in that order and then others. I’m curious whether important countries like Haiti will continue in the mix and at what level. Those are my two questions.
Ms. Norton: The secretary of state mentioned the Grants and Contributions Transformation Initiative, or GCTI. What is really important about that is that we recognize that there is a lot of frustration expressed by our partners about working with our department. They talk about some of the difficulties of working with us just in general. They speak about the length of time that each step takes. They also talk about our numerous complex systems.
We heard them, and that’s why we launched GCTI. It is a six‑year program, and we are not yet midway, but we’re in our third year. We are trying to replace these outdated systems, reduce admin burdens and improve the partner experience. In order to get there, we have actually had partners embed people in this initiative so that we can work on areas that impact them directly so they can provide feedback on that.
The intention is that it is going to be integrated digital tools that have standardized processes that are going to lead to quicker decision making, better data and results tracking.
From the officers’ side, the intention is they will get to spend more time on substantive issues and not on the process, because it is very challenging when we do a call for proposals, and what we need to do is comparators across all of the proposals brought in. You can imagine what a huge lift it would be if we are able to have an updated system. That’s where we are going, and that’s the intention.
Ms. Urban: Yes. To answer the question on geographic focus, this is always something within the department that we are looking at. We are always examining where should Canada be? Where are the greatest needs? It is always an ongoing process.
With international assistance evolving, and a little bit of a pivot toward more economic development in some places, and the trade and development nexus, you will see some adjustments so that we can be in places where we can have that mutually beneficial win-win type of arrangement and so there will be some level of focus.
At the same time, we will still be in places where we have been because we are guided by where there are large levels of poverty and extreme poverty. We are also guided by areas in which Canada has a legacy of leadership in that area and has a lot of development results to build upon.
Finally, I would say that Canada’s international assistance is also guided by our foreign policy priorities. So if you look at the countries that you examined, you have Ethiopia, which has a large population and actually large levels of poverty. Ukraine and Haiti are big foreign policy priorities for the Government of Canada, so those priorities continue to guide where we are.
The Chair: Thank you. We have come to the end of our time. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank Assistant Deputy Minister Norton, Assistant Deputy Minister Urban and Director General Black for being with us today, and for accompanying the Secretary of State in the earlier portion. We are grateful for your expertise and the work that you do for Canada. Pass that along to your dedicated teams both here and abroad, please.
Colleagues, we are going to meet tomorrow morning in this room at 10:30 to discuss something very topical, and that is the situation in Iran.
(The committee adjourned.)