FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 28, 1997

• 0909

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): I call the meeting of the committee to order.

We have with us this morning Ms. Betty Plewes, who is the president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation and I might say, without getting too chummy, an old friend of this committee in the sense that she certainly had experience with it and was many times before us in the last Parliament. With her is Mr. Brian Tomlinson, who is the senior policy analyst.

Members, I just draw to your attention this book, The Reality of Aid 1997, which has been distributed to most members. I had a look at it. On your behalf, I'd like to congratulate Mr. Tomlinson for his participation. I know he wrote part of the introduction and the Canadian section and it's an excellent work. It's all there in very readable, very easily accessible information. I think you're doing a real service, both for our type of committee and for the aid community generally, to have produced such an excellent book. Congratulations.

• 0910

Without any further comments on my part, Ms. Plewes, did you want to start with introductory comments?

Ms. Betty Plewes (President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council for International Cooperation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. Again, continuing the line that the chair has started, we don't wish to appear too chummy either, but we've always had a very positive relationship with this committee. This doesn't mean that we've always agreed, but we've felt very free to have open and quite insightful exchanges with the committee.

We're appearing before you today on the occasion of the launch of The Reality of Aid. This is the fifth time this report has appeared. It is a unique undertaking by a global coalition of non-governmental organizations based in the OECD countries as well as non-governmental organizations based in southern countries.

CCIC, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, which I represent, is the umbrella organization for non-governmental organizations that work in the field of international co-operation in Canada. We have about 100 members. We write the Canadian chapter of The Reality of Aid and we have also contributed to the introductory chapters, which lay out the trends in OECD countries. Brian Tomlinson, who is here with me today, is the author of the Canadian section.

The purpose of issuing this annual report on aid in OECD countries is to build knowledge and understanding of development assistance countries and to increase public scrutiny of our aid programs. The second purpose is that we want to enter into dialogue with policy-makers in order to improve policies and practices in OECD countries.

Today we're going to highlight some of the key messages of the report. I think you have had an advance copy of the book and we also have press releases and backgrounders, which are available in both French and English. We have a couple of additional charts, which we have circulated today.

There are three key messages in this report. The first is that collectively we are failing to meet the most critical global challenge of our era, and that is the eradication of extreme poverty. Secondly, we want to emphasize that aid does work, but it requires a clear strategy and targeting to achieve results. Thirdly, aid results depend on its coherence with a broad range of foreign and international economic policies, and that's why we're very pleased to have an opportunity to discuss with the foreign affairs committee the results of our study.

The first message is that we are failing to address the critical issue of the eradication of poverty. We need improved international development co-operation to eradicate poverty and promote poor people's rights. The reality in northern states, however, is quite different. Northern states and institutions are failing to demonstrate political will and leadership, despite making the right words and commitments in many international fora over the last five or six years.

The evidence on the quantity of aid is stark and overwhelming. In 1996 total aid from OECD countries fell by U.S. $3.8 billion to U.S. $55.8 billion. This is the decline in real terms of 4.2% from 1995. The aid amounted to only 0.25% of the total OECD gross national product, which is the lowest level since 1950. The international target is 0.7%.

• 0915

In terms of Canada's aid performance, Canada is losing its status among the most generous and committed members of the donor community. The 1996 contribution of 0.31% of Canadian GNP is the lowest in 30 years. It moved Canada from our traditional position among the top five or six to eleventh. This is the middle of the pack of OECD countries and far below the average country effort of 0.4% of GNP. These OECD figures don't yet take into account the 7% cut this year for 1997-98, and the projected 8% cut for 1998-99. The trend in Canada is dramatically downward.

The second message: Reversing this decline in dollars is not an end in itself. What matters is how we spend this money, in other words, what is the quality of our aid program.

I want to reiterate that aid can and does work. Some of you have travelled overseas. You've seen Canadian aid projects, you've seen Canadian non-governmental organization projects, and you know that aid can work. But it has to be targeted to meet basic human needs and it has to give real opportunities to people living in poverty to improve their own situation. It also has to be embedded in a foreign policy that supports the same goals of poverty eradication, both in the donor countries and in the recipient countries.

We have been making progress. If you look at UNDP and UNICEF figures you can see that since 1960 the child death rate in developing countries has fallen by one-half. Malnutrition rates have declined by almost one-third. The proportion of children not attending primary school has fallen by more than one-half. This is dramatic improvement. However, we are in serious danger in this last part of the century of losing many of the gains we have made over the last 40 years. For most of the poorest countries, the social indicators in the 1990s have gotten worse. There are incidents of infectious diseases that we had wiped out earlier. Tuberculosis, cholera and yellow fever—we see increasing incidents of these diseases.

Environmental crises are expanding in scope, as we see with the fires in Southeast Asia, and humanitarian crises are on the increase. We also see global inequality, both within countries and between countries. The average per capita income in the G-7 countries in 1965 was 20 times that of the poorest 7 countries, but in 1995 it was 39 times. The gap between the richest 20% of the population and the poorest 20% has been widening. According to the UNDP, for every dollar of income received by the poorest 20% of the population, the richest 20% have seen their share more than double, from $30 in 1960 to $78 in 1994. But what is even more worrying is that this share has grown by 28% in a mere three years, from $61 to $78 during a time of unprecedented growth, investment in trade with open economies and increased globalization.

Some believe that the market alone and dramatic increases in private investment in the south will replace the need for aid, but surging financial flows in the 1990s will not raise all boats equally. Of the $110 billion in foreign direct investment in 1996, 73% went to 12 out of 108 developing countries. Sub-Saharan Africa received only 4% and most of that went to three countries: South Africa, Nigeria and Egypt. Growth is often concentrated in a few urban areas. The market alone is no substitute for well-targeted development co-operation.

• 0920

I would also like to underline that the poor are not a special minority to whom resources will eventually trickle down. There are 1.3 billion people who still live on less than $1 a day—that's a quarter of the world's population. An astounding 4.3 billion people, three-quarters of the world's population, live on an average of less than $2 a day. In fact, globally the poor are a majority.

It is well within our reach to eliminate the most extreme conditions of poverty during the next 10 years. The United Nations Development Programme challenges the international community to find the additional $40 billion in annual investment to meet the basic health, education, sanitation, and housing needs of the world's population. Another $40 billion would eliminate extreme poverty.

What is missing in this area is leadership and political will. The administrator of UNDP, James Speth, said in the 1997 Human Development Report that:

Poverty is not to be suffered in silence by the poor. Nor can it be tolerated by those with the power to change it. The challenge now is to mobilize action—state by state, organization by organization, individual by individual.

The third message I want to bring to you is that aid alone cannot bring about development. The critical importance of policy coherence between our foreign and domestic policies and in the conduct of our international economic relations is crucial.

Reconciling positive human rights initiatives—the concern for child labour or peace-building activities—with the overwhelming priority to promote Canadian trade and investment is an issue for us. How can regional trade agreements in the Americas and Canada's priorities in the international financial institutions be made consistent with our policy goals for poverty eradication? In this year's Reality of Aid there are examples of where policies of OECD countries are in contradiction with each other: in the arms trade, in the agricultural trade, and in the environmental targets that are missed.

Some examples from the economic realm where Canada is implicated include the multilateral debt initiative. This is an initiative to help the poorest and most indebted countries. Despite initial progress, G-7 countries such as the United States, Germany, and Japan are reportedly holding up the implementation of the multilateral debt initiative for the most severely indebted low-income countries. At best, only 6 out of 41 highly indebted countries will benefit by the year 2000.

The lack of recognition of the special needs of developing countries, particularly the poorest, in the last round of the GATT, in the World Trade Organization, and in the proposals for the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the MAI, are of concern to us. During the 1990s the share of these countries in global trade continues to decline. For Canada the record on coherence is mixed. The treaty on anti-personnel landmines is an example of policy coherence where political leadership, collaboration between NGOs and governments assured effective results for hundreds of thousands of affected individuals.

The promotion of Canadian trade and investment interests to the exclusion of other interests have also created problems. A particularly striking example of policy incoherence was the move by the government in the autumn of 1996 to rescind part of its own environmental assessment legislation to permit the sale of CANDU reactors to China, based on a $1.5 billion EDC loan to China. Just recently the EDC approved loans relating to the Three Gorges Dam in China, a project rejected by the World Bank and by CIDA that will displace millions.

Finally, I'd like to come to the issue of what are the options for change. In our report, The Reality of Aid, there are three imperatives: the need to target our aid and implement policies and commitments to the poorest; the need to integrate our international policies so they do not work at cross-purposes; and the need to create a positive outlook for resourcing our aid program.

• 0925

Aid works. Our colleagues in southern countries have stressed the importance of aid that empowers people living in poverty to create opportunities for themselves; assures participation in all stages of aid projects; makes commitments over the long term; and facilitates greater donor co-ordination, but where recipient governments and non-governmental organizations in recipient countries set the framework and the priorities for donor consortia.

We need to improve our capacities and commitment for undertaking serious reciprocal policy dialogue. We live in a world where we have global problems: poverty, environment, peace, refugees, human rights.

These are not problems of the south. They are global problems that need mutual solutions where countries in the north and countries in the south work collectively to solve these problems.

We need to improve our governmental mechanisms for assuring greater learning and policy coherence. All of us need to better understand the trade-offs and impacts of policy choices. We need to strengthen the voice of the poor in Canadian foreign policy-making through CIDA, non-governmental organizations, and parliamentarians. There are a variety of proposals as to how we might do that.

Poverty-reducing programs need to be guided by a substantial knowledge base and by enhanced policy, research and evaluation capacity. The global issues and culture branch in the Department of Foreign Affairs has a key role to play in the promotion of policy coherence around sustainable human development.

Finally, we need to create a positive outlook for sustainable human development. We cannot have a coherent long-term public foreign policy when the resources are constantly cut and when there is no certainty about the future. We are recommending that the 1998-99 planned cut of 8% be rescinded and that an outline for a specific timetable for rebuilding the aid program be developed.

I want to return for a moment to the landmines example. During the past year the Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs exercised sustained and energetic leadership on the landmines treaty. It is this type of high-profile energy working with NGOs, citizens groups and parliamentarians that is essential for achieving global human development and poverty eradication.

I look forward to a discussion on some of these issues with you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Plewes.

Mr. Tomlinson, were you going to add anything, or are you ready for questions?

Madame Guay.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Ms. Plewes, I'd like to congratulate you for your presentation. I have three questions and I think I will ask all three right away so that there's a chance they will to be answered.

However, I want to say first of all that the fact Canada has now slipped to the 11th position with less than 0.31% of its budget going to international assistance should be a matter of great concern, since Canada has always been a leader in this field and has even bragged about its commitment. When you think that this country is making huge savings in its UI fund and elsewhere, that it will soon reach a zero deficit and is about to cut 8% more, there must be something we can do.

I have some questions for you, Ms. Plewes, and I am going to list them. First, if the Chrétien government sets aside only 0.31% of the GNP for development assistance, in your opinion, how much money would be missing from the development assistance budget that the NGOs need to do their work properly?

Second, to maximize the value of each dollar invested in development assistance, how and where do you think government should target its priorities for development assistance?

Lastly, Ms. Plewes, we all know up here that CIDA has lost a significant part of its budget because of the fiscal restraint policies of the liberal government. Since there is little money left for development assistance, do you think that it would be more effective in the future for the money to go directly to NGOs and not from government to government as it is presently done?

• 0930

Thank you.

Ms. Betty Plewes: Thank you, madam. To start with, I must say that even though I represent NGOs, I find that there is a key role for government. NGOs are not able to do everything that needs to be done to promote the eradication of world poverty.

[English]

On the other hand, it is very important that government-to-government aid be well targeted and that it be targeted towards the poor. I also have to say that there isn't a formula for doing this. The poor in different countries have different needs, different capacities, different abilities to make use of aid, and it depends also to a very large extent on the receptivity of the recipient country.

It's very difficult for governments to work with governments in the south where they abuse human rights or where we know that aid does not get to poor people. In those cases we have to be clear that we can use other channels. We can use multilateral channels sometimes through the United Nations, the UNICEF route or UNDP, and in other cases we can use non-governmental organizations.

One of the problems with globalization and the emphasis on market values has been the undermining of the role of the state. Our colleagues in the south still see an extremely important role for governments in setting the framework for development. It's also very key that our own government, when it's negotiating treaties like the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, when it's participating through its executive directors in the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund, promote coherent policies which lead to the elimination of poverty.

We can't do that as NGOs. We need to create a series of international institutions that can support and regulate the new globalized market. While I am of course enthusiastic about NGOs—we do very good work through the members in small-scale projects, in humanitarian assistance, in advocating for human rights, in monitoring international policy—there is a key role for the state.

I'd also like to add that there is a key role for the private sector. This is not something that civil society and government can do on their own. The private sector has to see its social responsibility as well as its economic responsibility. There are many discussions, which we've also had with this committee, around environmental controls, around labour standards, around social programs, which the private sector is increasingly coming to understand are part of doing good business.

Coming back to the first question, which relates to the amount that should be directed through NGOs—

[Translation]

I'm sorry, I didn't really understand your first question.

Ms. Monique Guay: I wanted to know how much money you need but that you don't have to do a really good job in international assistance.

[English]

Ms. Betty Plewes: We think we should be moving toward the 0.7% of GNP. This is an internationally agreed upon standard which was set in 1968 or 1969. In the short term we want the 8% cut to be rescinded and we would like the government to lay out a five-year plan with reasonable targets in order to rebuild the aid budget. We're willing to work with the government in establishing what those benchmarks might be over the next five years.

This is not an enormous amount of money we're talking about. The proposed cut for next year is an additional $150 million. That comes on top of cuts since 1991-92, which will lead to a total cut in the aid budget of 40% if the next cut is implemented.

• 0935

You can't have an effective aid program where you're cutting and adding. In addition to cutting the aid budget, we have added other responsibilities to the aid budget. We have added $5 million to support Radio Canada International. We have added $10 million for a peace fund. We have added $5 million to train the police—via the RCMP—in Haiti, and there are a number of other costs that departments are offloading onto the aid budget.

It's not that these are bad things to do. These are valuable things to do, but when we load all of these things onto the aid budget we create the conditions for failure for aid. It cannot be everything to everybody. We need a program that is more clearly focused, and if we keep cutting as well as adding additional responsibilities, the public will become confused about the purpose of the aid program and we won't be able to demonstrate success.

The Chairman: Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I commend the president and CEO of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation for the excellent report. I have a couple of comments and then I'll go to my questions.

I don't think there is any significant relationship between banning anti-personnel landmines and aid. Those are two different agendas. Of course, both of them are going in positive directions and we appreciate that, but for the purpose of aid there is no significant relationship between the two.

I have a particular comment about a problem I have been wondering about for quite some time that I don't know how our aid programs are going to solve. That is the aid given by various agencies to the third world countries, or underdeveloped countries particularly, where some money flows to the corrupt dictators in those countries.

Even if the aid reaches those it is intended for, it sometimes creates some disadvantage in the long run. It creates a dependency by those countries on that particular aid, which is a short-term solution to the problem. If they need food, medicine or some other thing we provide them with that aid, but it's a band-aid solution. It gives them crutches to walk from distance A to distance B in the time period, but it doesn't help them become independent and stand on their own feet. That's one concern.

Secondly, in your report I didn't hear any definition of a yardstick to measure the effectiveness of the aid we are sending. I think CIDA and the private sector have been sending aid for quite some time and we have never evaluated and measured its effectiveness. What would you recommend or what are the steps we should take to measure the effectiveness of that aid over a period of time?

I would also like to know the approximate amount of private sector aid given annually. What dollar figure are we talking about from the private sector?

Ms. Betty Plewes: Coming back to the landmines issue, the pressure first started around landmines from people who were working with non-governmental organizations and other government-to-government programs where they saw primarily women and children losing limbs and losing their lives to landmines. That also created major pressure on the health system to provide support and long-term health care to these people.

There is quite a clear link, because unless you have peace and the opportunity to get up and go about your daily life, plant your crops, collect firewood and go to school in an atmosphere of security, there can be no development. The number of landmines that are strewn around the world in places like Mozambique, Angola and Afghanistan is so substantial, and the number of children, women and men being killed is very dramatic. This was a case where people working directly on the ground on aid programs said that unless we can address this problem, there's very little else we can do in some of these areas.

• 0940

So I guess I have a different point of view than you do, that there is no connection between this and the international treaty to ban landmines.

On the question of the effectiveness of aid, whether aid goes to dictators and whether it is corruptly given to people who don't deserve it, I think this is partially true. During the Cold War we saw that aid in fact was a weapon of the Cold War, that both the Soviet Union and the United States and other European countries used aid as a way of keeping people in one camp or the other. We did see that happen.

Today, however, with the end of the Cold War, I think this opens up an opportunity for an aid program that is in fact focused on poverty and improving people's living standards. We know who these international dictators are. It's no secret. One thing that NGOs say is that aid has to be targeted to governments who respect human rights and who are going to be able to use the aid in a way that supports people locally.

I totally agree with you that aid is not the answer and that it is a short-term solution, but it is incredibly important in stimulating and providing a catalyst for people to develop their own solutions. There are examples throughout the world where aid has helped people start small businesses, where micro-credit institutions have been established, where health centres have been established.

In the longer term, of course, we would like to see fully functioning economies with appropriate social safety net supports, where countries can produce what they need and trade internationally.

We are not there. In the short term internationally, aid is one of the few tools we have where we can directly target poverty. It is true that aid can create dependence, but we now have 35 years' experience with aid and aid programs. We have a lot of understanding of what works and what doesn't work. I think what is required is what you are saying, that once we establish a program that is clearly targeted to poverty reduction, we then need to develop the indicators of that.

There are indicators. For instance, how many children are going to school? What percentage of the population has clean water? How many people are malnourished? How many people aren't getting an adequate diet? Where is their adequate housing? There are indicators of all of these elements.

The development assistance committee of the OECD countries has established a series of objectives for the next ten to fifteen years around education and health. We need to further refine those.

So it's quite possible. I agree that some of the issues you raise are problems, but we do have sufficient knowledge now to know how to deal with some of those issues.

Another important thing is increased dialogue and discussion around these issues with the public. In that light, I think parliamentarians have a really important role to play with their constituents in learning. Many of your constituents, for example, have had experience in international development projects—they've travelled or their friends have—and they do have doubts about the effectiveness of aid. But those of us who've been able to see what well-targeted aid can do have a responsibility, in a more structured and coherent way, to raise these issues with the public.

I'm going to ask Brian to respond to the question of private investment.

Mr. Brian Tomlinson (Senior Policy Analyst, Canadian Council for International Cooperation): There isn't a clear number that would indicate the amount of resources being transferred through the private sector to international development, but there are a number of channels through which one could look.

In the aid program the private sector clearly is an implementing partner for many projects carried out by CIDA and by the multilateral aid agencies in developing countries. In Canadian terms, our bilateral country-to-country aid is about $600 million a year. A portion of that is carried on directly by the Canadian government with counterpart governments, but a larger and increasing proportion is implemented by non-governmental organizations, such as our members, and also by members of the Canadian private sector.

• 0945

There is also a special fund within CIDA, called the industrial cooperation program, in the partnership branch, which has approximately $60 million to $65 million annually to facilitate private sector involvement in development programming.

I guess there has been some progress made within CIDA at a policy level. Just recently CIDA developed a policy perspective on the role of the private sector in international development.

A concern of the development community's international NGOs has been to clarify and to make sure that the resources being transferred through the private sector are going to promote social development, and that they're not merely going to promote the legitimate interests of the private sector in expanding investment and trade, which are, I emphasize, legitimate interests, and Canada should be playing those roles internationally. But whether our aid program should provide the resources to facilitate that, a number of us have questioned in the past, and continue to do so.

The Chairman: But your organization could tell us the amount your constituent organizations transfer. I think that's a very interesting number to know. If OXFAM is giving $5 million and it used to give $2 million, I mean, we should know what the total package is.

Can nobody tell us how much Canadians generally are transferring in terms of aid, whether it be through NGOs or through government? Can't you give us a number? I think it's an important number for the committee to have.

Mr. Brian Tomlinson: Yes. I was addressing the question of the private sector alone.

The Chairman: No, it's the private aid. That was Mr. Grewal's question.

Mr. Brian Tomlinson: I'm sorry. I misunderstood.

The Chairman: His question is, how much money are we giving totally as Canadians?

Mr. Brian Tomlinson: There are some numbers. Again, it's very hard to gather statistics on this, but the Canadian government does provide a statistic to the OECD development assistance committee each year. What is interesting about that number is that it has grown by about 20% since 1992. The latest number they provide, from 1995, is about $390 million Canadian dollars. That has grown from about $325 million in 1992.

I'm not sure that captures it all. There are various estimates of resources made by the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy and collected by the charitable sector in Canada that are a bit higher than that, but I think that is an indicator that the generosity of Canadians is actually being maintained and in fact growing over this period of time during which cuts have happened in the governmental sector.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Just to follow up very quickly—

The Chairman: Very quickly; we have a lot of people on the list.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: —can we ask the president and CEO of the organization to table a report to this committee that can highlight for us the policy guidelines used to follow up the measures of effectiveness of these committees, particularly any audit that is done after aid is given, and that compares the initial objectives with the achievement rate? What are the policy guidelines, if any?

Ms. Betty Plewes: There is a whole process of evaluation within the agency, within CIDA. Yes, we could provide some of those guidelines to you.

The Chairman: We also will be hearing from the Auditor General. As part of the estimates, we do look at CIDA. The Auditor General, as you know, does review aid programs. If you're interested, we could pursue that further in the committee, because I think that's an important part of our task here.

Madame Beaumier.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.): Thank you.

I think one of the problems that has developed for foreign aid amongst Canadians is the bad publicity we received a number of years ago on megaprojects that were being wasteful. However, in terms of our foreign aid we're doing more with less. That's not to say that we don't need more money and that we can't— We've learned a lot. So I think public relations is a big problem for our foreign aid department.

I would like to know, when you're talking about Canadian aid, are we talking about EDC, CIDA— ? There are a number of branches of CIDA in this total package. I know Japan spends an awful lot of money building bridges and roads, which I'm not sure is truly foreign aid.

• 0950

The other question is debt reduction or debt forgiveness in the World Bank. I want to know how that helps the poor people. I don't have problems with debt forgiveness, but it seems to me there is a misconception that there is a lot of money in these third world countries, and a lot of corruption. The poor people don't pay taxes, so I'm not sure how debt forgiveness would work. Are we going to do selective debt forgiveness depending on the human rights of these different countries?

We're going to give you the twofold approach. When you talk about aid in the private sector, it's been my experience that businessmen are social workers. When we talk about sending aid to help economic development for Canadian businesses in these third world countries, we're not sending social workers down there to improve the human rights conditions of the people living there. Perhaps we're going to need a twofold approach whereby the money that we give for this economic development is going to have to come with some pretty heavy-duty conditions. I'm not going to name the companies, but I've read that while Canada has an embargo policy with Burma, a no trade policy, we have Canadian companies that are in fact receiving grants and assistance for foreign development and which sell their products through another nation into Burma and other countries.

I guess I've made a statement, but I'd like to hear your comments on how we can perhaps get some of those solutions. We'd like to develop trade; on the other hand, let's not do it while pretending that we're doing it for human rights.

Mr. Brian Tomlinson: I'll start by addressing some of the definitional questions that you raised at the beginning.

First of all, there is an official definition of “official development assistance”, and it is provided by the development assistance committee of the OECD. The numbers that we quote in our book—and the numbers that the government generally uses in describing its aid program—correspond to that definition, as do all of the activities of the OECD countries.

For example, in its international assistance envelope, Canada includes aid to the eastern European and former Soviet Union countries. Much of that aid is not included as official development assistance because of the level of per capita income in many of those countries. So there are exclusions by definition in that way.

Generally, the aid budget is made up of what we were talking about a few minutes ago: multilateral aid, or money that a country gives through multilateral channels; country-to-country assistance; and money that's channelled through the non-governmental to voluntary sector. As well, a country is allowed to include some imputed costs. For example, Canada provides facilities for students coming from southern countries to study in Canada, and as part of our aid program, we're allowed to impute the value of that and add it to our aid budget.

Recently, Canada has begun to include money—and it's something we've raised some concern about—that the government commits for refugees coming here for their first year's stay in Canada. So moneys for language training and those types of programs, which amount to around $125 million to $150 million, have been included in Canada's official development assistance since 1994. This is allowed under the rules of the OECD, and some countries do it and some countries don't. Until 1994 Canada did not. What we have usually done is take that money out when calculating the real value of Canada's aid program. That's not to say those programs aren't valuable in themselves, but when one is comparing particularly to years prior to 1994, it's important to recognize that has been added in.

• 0955

As for debt reduction, it is a very valuable resource for recipient countries. These are often the poorest countries in Africa, and for every dollar of debt reduction, the country has that money to invest in social programs. At the social summit in Copenhagen a couple of years ago, you might remember that there was a UNICEF proposal, a 20-20 proposal. The way it would work is that recipient developing countries would commit to investing 20% of their budgetary resources in social spending, in primary health, public health, public education, sanitation and housing projects—

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: And how is that money monitored? Is it monitored?

Mr. Brian Tomlinson: Let me finish this. The obligation was that developed countries would in turn invest 20% of their aid resources in similar programs.

Countries like Uganda are the poorest countries of Africa. While for the most part they're making substantial investments in their social sectors, they are paying huge amounts—30%, 40% and 50% of their government resources, the resources they have available—to the multilateral agencies and to the private banks holding their debt. Debt relief for those countries will free up the needed resources so that they're able to invest.

The multilateral debt initiative that we talked about earlier doesn't come free of strings. In fact, NGOs are concerned that there are too many strings attached to debt relief. A country has to go through what is called structural adjustment, and I'm sure all of you have heard of the term. It essentially means a dramatic reorganization of government finances and of the tariffs and investment restrictions that a country can impose on external resources coming into the country.

These restrictions have meant in part that the role of the state has been diminished because there have been substantial cuts to the state. There have been substantial cuts in public health and education.

So we're working at cross purposes. We're expecting that the state is going to provide 20% of its resources for those very programs, but at the same time we're insisting on conditions for debt relief that are going to further restrict the ability of the state to do that.

We need to have reasonable conditionality. We need to know that a state is not overtly breaking the human rights obligations that it has for its citizens. We need to know that citizens are allowed to organize themselves. In many countries, public education is organized at the community level and is not a federal state obligation. There's an example in the book, in India, where there's a very innovative education program of local education programs carried out by the local city and municipal and regional governments. The federal government sets only the framework and there is a direction of resources directly to that level.

So there are many ways in which one can directly monitor, such as benchmarks, but also through engagement, through the fact that social development is happening in those countries.

The Chairman: That's helpful.

Mr. Reed and then Madame Debien.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I feel at somewhat of a loss because I haven't had a chance to read this book, so to begin with, I feel I'm working at a certain disadvantage.

The Canadian Council for International Cooperation obviously does not represent all the NGOs in Canada. Do you know how many it doesn't represent?

Ms. Betty Plewes: We represent 100 of them working in international development. We represent almost all of the major ones.

There are a number of small groups across the country that do development assistance and are not represented by us, partly, I guess, because they don't see themselves as part of a national effort. These groups very often consist of two or three people, sometimes from a particular country, who want to raise money to support their region, their village or their people back home, or there are other small groups who start providing one particular service or another.

Mr. Julian Reed: I can think of a rather significant one called SHARE, which originated in the riding I served last term. It's doing extensive work in the Caribbean and in Central America. I was trying to get a handle on how much of that non-recorded aid is going to—

Ms. Betty Plewes: We have been trying to work with Statistics Canada so it will begin to capture this, because we don't have the resources to monitor it on a substantial basis. The other thing is that until recently there have been provincial councils, so SHARE is a member of the Ontario Council for International Cooperation.

The Chairman: People go down and provide services for six months in a place, but we can't even get a handle on service trade statistics, let alone this type of thing. So I understand your frustration.

Mr. Julian Reed: I have one concern I would like to share with you about what appears to be an inconsistency in position.

You talked about the Three Gorges Dam project in China and the displacement of millions. The actual figure, according to Probe International and David Suzuki, is that one million people will be displaced. I would just put it into perspective and ask if you know how many people will be displaced in China alone if the oceans rise one metre due to global warming. The answer is 95 million.

I should also ask—you do not have to answer—how many people are being displaced on a daily basis who run out of fuel wood or carbon and must migrate in order to find disappearing fuel wood.

Hydro projects like that get a very bad rap because of certain conditions that exist locally and so on. I think the same thing must have happened when the St. Lawrence Seaway was being built and people were displaced in Ontario.

I would suggest to you that when we are evaluating and are concerned about our environmental future—if global warming has any significance at all and if it does exist as a fact—it seems to me some of these projects will have a very long-term benefit for the well-being of those citizens who include some of the 800 million who go to bed hungry every night.

Ms. Betty Plewes: The question you raise about who benefits and what the long-term implications of some of these projects are is quite real. We are saying that people locally need to be involved in making these kinds of decisions. These decisions should not be made on high and then passed down when there are such major implications.

The other thing we are underlining is that the World Bank and CIDA have decided not to participate in the Three Gorges Dam, and yet with another part of our policies Canadians have decided to support the Three Gorges Dam. So there needs to be some consistency.

We have seen other examples. In the book there is an issue where the Swiss have sold airplanes that are being used to bomb refugee camps in Burma, and some of them were built with Swiss aid money. There are many examples where we are doing something on the one hand with one set of goals and we have another set of activities with other goals, and they are in contradiction. We should be aware of them. We should have informed public debate about these issues, as we are doing, and make these choices. Many of them are trade-offs. It's not a question of whether one is good and the other is bad. It's a question of, from our perspective, what promotes the elimination of poverty and raises the standard of living globally.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

I'm sorry but Ms. Guay has already had the floor, so maybe we could go to Mr. Robinson. We'll come back to you later, Ms. Guay.

[English]

Mr. Robinson.

• 1005

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Merci, monsieur le président. I too would like to join in welcoming Ms. Plewes and Mr. Tomlinson from the CCIC back before the committee. I've had the privilege of hearing from the CCIC on a number of occasions in the past and certainly welcome your very eloquent representation of the importance of Canada strengthening its position on international aid.

I might just say on the Three Gorges Dam, which is an environmental and human disaster, that it's interesting that it's not just my opinion, but in fact the current Minister of the Environment, Christine Stewart, when she was in opposition, made exactly the same arguments very eloquently against any government involvement in Three Gorges, including the EDC. So it was interesting to see the coherence in the position of this side.

I have a couple of questions, and then I'll seek some direction from the chair. On the proportion of Canada's ODA that goes to serving basic human needs, you make reference to that in your report and there's also reference in The Reality of Aid 1997. Rather than asking for details on this now, perhaps we could ask you to forward to the committee, for circulation to members of the committee, the work you've done that actually demonstrates the breakdown of what money is going to basic human needs.

I know there's considerable debate within the community, and certainly government figures are sometimes quite at variance with those of the NGO community on this issue. So I would ask you to forward to us your figures and your breakdown. I think that would be helpful for us in determining where to go.

The Chairman: On this question, I would ask that if by any chance you have a handle on how that compares with the multilateral agencies or other organizations, that would be helpful too. That was certainly something we struggled greatly with on the foreign policy review we did a couple of years ago, and I think you gave evidence on that.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson: So if we could get that information, that would be helpful.

I have a couple of questions. On this whole issue of Canada's voice internationally on human rights—and Mr. Tomlinson has made reference to it in his chapter in The Reality of Aid—the deafening silence of Canada with respect to profound human rights violations, for example, during the Team Canada visit to which you referred, and the fact that in the upcoming APEC summit, human rights and workers' rights are not on the agenda at all, the environment is minimized, and there's no forum within APEC for consultation, although there is a business council that is very active within APEC, how do you square that circle?

I wonder if you have some advice for the committee and, through the committee, for the government on that issue, of how Canada can play a more effective, constructive and positive role in speaking out on human rights violations in supporting those groups in countries like Indonesia and China and elsewhere—although certainly they're very restricted—that are on the ground often struggling against terrible odds to improve the human rights situation in those countries. What should Canada be doing in this area in addition to promoting trade and investment? It's not an either/or proposition. I'd be interested to hear from our witnesses on how Canada could be playing a more positive and constructive role.

Obviously at multilateral fora like the United Nations we would hope that Canada would speak and act more vigorously, and not abstain, for example, on resolutions on China. But how can Canada play a more effective role when we're travelling internationally in these Team Canada things?

My final question is with respect to the level of aid. The members of the CCIC will perhaps be aware that I raised a question in the House with respect to the proposed cut of $150 million for 1998-99, and certainly when we look at the trend it's deeply disturbing. Paul Martin may have declared victory against the deficit, but those who've paid the price along the way include some of the poorest people in the world.

I'm looking for guidance from the chair. I hope perhaps this committee might be able to send a message to the government with respect to this proposed cut, and I wonder at what point—and I seek guidance from the chair on this—a motion urging the government to reconsider its proposed 8% cut of $150 million might be entertained by the committee.

I'm not sure whether this is the meeting or whether it would be to—

• 1010

The Chairman: I would strongly recommend that we get through this evidence, and some more, too. As I said in our steering committee meeting, certainly the whole issue of aid is an extremely complex, perplexing and difficult one that all of us are trying to come to grips with. Certainly, I'm sure all the members would be willing to entertain any resolution, but I think it's a bit premature to move for that at this time.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Okay, but I do want to give notice that at a meeting in the near future, I intend to propose that this committee urge the government to reconsider its proposed cuts. But perhaps to the witnesses, the questions that—

The Chairman: We might appropriately wait until we hear from the minister on the estimates, because we usually get into that quite heavily at that point. You might want to bring it up then.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Sure.

Ms. Betty Plewes: On the role that Canada can play more actively in the promotion of human rights, Canada has played a leadership in a number of areas, as you know. We've already mentioned the landmines, and we extend our congratulations to the role the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs played on that. And we're also very happy with the initiative around children, children's labour rights, and the question of child sexual abuse internationally.

There are a number of things that Canada could do. In terms of APEC, through the non-governmental organization community, we were very much hoping the government would be able to support the participation of civil society organizations in a variety of ways, when the meeting was here in Canada. We thought that since the Canadian government has formed partnerships with civil society organizations in many ways, this would be a good place for us to demonstrate the importance of that partnership. To a large extent, that has not been able to happen, but we think Canada should push for civil society participation in many of the instruments of APEC. So that would be one thing.

Coming back to one of your former colleagues, when Mr. Broadbent was at the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, he started a very important initiative around trade and human rights. It was a discussion with the business community on how it can work on issues of human rights. It was an important first step, because I think the government can exercise leadership. In international fora, we can take strong positions, but we need a general move on the part of civil society organizations and the private sector in the promotion of human rights. So I think that initiative could be continued and supported.

We would like to see Canada continue to consult with human rights organizations here in Canada and internationally on developing strategies. It isn't a situation in which every human rights situation needs the same response, as you well know. There are a variety of ways in which Canada support them, and we need to develop strategies for them as they occur.

We were disappointed with the position taken by the Commonwealth on Nigeria. Canada started out very strongly on Nigeria, but is still waiting to see what happens.

As you well know, Canada did play a strong role in terms of South Africa, and we have gained. These are not losses in the long term. In the longer term, these things benefit us in a variety of ways. They benefit our national interests, so I guess it's a matter of taking some more courage and making our statements known.

We would like to see the Prime Minister make a strong statement on the humanitarian side of Canadian foreign policy. He has played a very important role on the trade and investment side, and it has paid off. We would like to see a similar kind of emphasis on the humanitarian side. In fact, we've suggested a number of times that Team Canada really should be more than Canada's business leaders and government leaders. It should include civil society representatives. Civil society representatives have many links with environmental groups, human rights groups, women's groups in Asia and in Latin America. And while it is true that certain individuals have been invited to participate in Team Canada, we would like to see that Team Canada in fact represents the broad range of international relationships that we have with southern countries.

So there are a variety of ways by which we think Canada could strengthen its performance there.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

Mr. Brison.

• 1015

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Thank you.

We recognize the global decline in the role or power of the nation state to effect change, and there's been a commensurate increase in the strength of NGOs and corporations. If you look at the Rio summit, that was largely NGO-driven. If you look at the landmine treaty, again, it was largely NGO-driven.

Canada traditionally has had a strong linkage between foreign policy and human rights, and there has been a significant de-linkage since 1993. Canadians still care. In fact, consumers care enough to demand ethically produced products from corporations. That's a growing trend in terms of the strength of consumerism.

You're absolutely right that the government can play a leadership role through the engagement of the private sector if we demonstrate to their own self-interest criteria the importance of aid and the importance of helping developing countries.

My first question is this. There are no human rights criteria—I haven't been provided with any in my briefings with EDC—for EDC investment. If there had been, we wouldn't be investing in Three Gorges or the CANDU reactors. When you see the World Bank moving more strongly toward commitments to helping developing countries under Wolfensohn, I think we need to see some human rights criteria as part of EDC's requirements. That's something I would appreciate your comments on.

Second, there is some discussion as to whether or not aid has been used to help foster trade and provide benefits to Canadian companies. While I think we would agree that this is not a legitimate use of aid, we should recognize that trade can in fact be extremely helpful in bettering the lot of citizens of developing countries.

Is there a set of criteria or tools that you feel are the best investments, in terms of social infrastructure, designed to provide access to the global economy and trading opportunities for these countries? If they are going to build wealth in these countries, it is going to be through trade.

Micro-credit is an excellent example of an instrument that can be used to improve the lot of developing countries. In fact, it can be used to improve living conditions for people in poor communities within Canada.

But micro-credit is just one instrument. I would be very interested to see a list of tools and some information on these types of tool that we can invest in with some confidence so that these would help provide access to some economic levers that would provide access to global trade.

Thank you.

Ms. Betty Plewes: In the area of human rights, it does appear to be true that the EDC doesn't have any human rights criteria, although perhaps someone on the committee knows more about this, maybe the chair. Foreign Affairs does do an annual review of human rights across government departments. So this would be one place where they would come into effect.

It's also true, though, that in the private sector there's increasing discussion about codes of conduct. One of our members, Development and Peace, has been working very directly with Nike and Levi Strauss in terms of promoting fair labour standards. One of the issues there is that we would like to see, from the NGO community, the independent monitoring and assessment of those codes. If they're self-administered, then they're not as public and transparent as they could be.

I think the area you're referring to of consumers having choice and power in terms of what kind of ethical companies they deal with is very much on the increase and will become increasingly important over the next few years. This leads us, of course, to saying that trade can, in certain circumstances, as you're indicating, increase poor people's options. But it has to be fair trade.

As for trade at the moment, the rules are controlled not by southern countries, but by the north. Such new instruments as the Multilateral Agreement on Investment is going to be extremely detrimental to poor countries. You can't be forcing poor countries to open up before their economies are able to compete internationally.

• 1020

Mr. Scott Brison: The MAI applies only to OECD countries at this point. They can join, but it doesn't apply to those countries, so it wouldn't impact.

Ms. Betty Plewes: No, but this is also evident in the World Trade Organization agreements. The developing countries are not integrated into the international economy on a level playing field.

Do you want to speak a bit more about that?

Mr. Brian Tomlinson: I think the evidence, even coming from the OECD itself on the benefits of African countries out of the last round of the GATT agreement, was that African countries were not going to benefit from the global liberalization of trade that resulted from GATT. In fact, many countries were going to suffer, mainly because of the liberalization in the agricultural area.

It's clear that trade is beneficial to countries. There's no doubt about it. Canada lives as a trading country. But often in the modern era trade takes place through transnational corporations. Many countries in the south have entered into the global market as export platforms where transnational companies set up processing facilities in those countries and produce manufactured goods or parts of manufactured goods that get integrated globally and enter into the global market.

Clearly, that employs people in those countries, mainly women—young women, usually—but often only for short periods of time. Often they come from rural areas. When they're no longer able, or for a variety of reasons are removed from the export production zones, they go back to their communities, where they have little to fall back on.

Trade in the agricultural area emphasizes export crops. I know this committee met a couple of weeks ago around issues of food security and the need for a balanced economy. You also have to produce food for consumption as well as for export. To orient your production systems solely to enter into the international trade regime, whether it be coffee or cocoa or whatever, can affect the health and well being of particularly rural populations who don't have access to land or are employed on a partial basis on large rural estates.

So these are complex issues that don't have an easy solution.

I would like to make one last point. In fact, at the Commonwealth conference happening right now there is a great deal of concern among the Caribbean nations about the ruling of the WTO around bananas and what will amount to virtually the exclusion of Caribbean bananas from the European Community. Canada and a number of other Commonwealth countries have contributed to a fund to train trade officials in the governments of the Caribbean to help improve their diversification of those economies so they're able to deal with this ruling.

But it's also an example of the operations of the World Trade Organization and the rules that have been established there that can work to the detriment of some of the poorest countries in the world. That's of concern to us.

The Chairman: Sir, you may have a very short question. There are five people on the list.

Mr. Scott Brison: We should also recognize that direct aid without criteria aimed at providing people with access to levers, i.e., social infrastructure, can actually hurt by inflating the exchange rate of a particular country and make them less able to take advantage of global trade. So we need that set of criteria to make effective decisions on recommending increases.

The Chairman: In terms of your reference to the Caribbean situation, was their ruling of the WTO against the Lomé Convention provisions for market access of bananas?

Mr. Brian Tomlinson: That's right.

The Chairman: Madame Augustine.

• 1025

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to begin by saying hello to Betty and Brian.

Thank you for the work you're doing and for making sure that my constituents know what the reality of the situation is, because oftentimes I think we need to do some public relations work. I've had individuals tell me that they have no job and no money but they see $500,000 being sent wherever. I think we need to do some work with the general public.

I want to go back to the whole issue of what promotes the elimination of poverty. We hear about micro-credit. We talk about food security. We talk about sustainable population. And in this entire discussion, the issue of population seems not to be front and centre.

We have started a parliamentary association through which we're looking at population and development. We hope to focus on a whole series of issues as they pertain to Canada's commitment in international forums.

I want you to spend a couple of minutes, if you could, just talking about what promotes the elimination of poverty and how aid fits into that whole issue of making the lives of individuals a little better than they are.

The Chairman: Excuse me. I'd just like to piggyback quickly on Mrs. Augustine's question. I was going to get this in sooner or later, so you can wait to the end or we could— this ties into Mrs. Augustine's question.

When this committee was reviewing foreign policy, I remember asking one of the witnesses—and it may have been you—about the trade flows. I said, look, the UNDP book shows that we give $60 billion a year in aid. And the UNDP book showed that the cost to developing countries, in the fact that our markets were closed to them, was about equal to $60 billion. I asked if we could just give them market access and forget the aid. Wouldn't that be better for everybody? And somebody said yes.

Since that time, we've been getting to the point where we have more than doubled the amount of trade access to western markets in the last few years. We've gone from $55 billion in aid to $300 billion in private investment now, which didn't even exist before, and you're still calling for us to go up to 0.07%, even though there's an enormous change in both the aid flows and in the amount of investment. It seems to me that Mrs. Augustine has put her finger on the problem: the population growth.

If the population growth keeps going on the way it's going now, we're going to be in the position of being in the aid business forever. And yet there's no mention in this book at all about population and its influence on the aid problem. I find that profoundly concerning. In the last five years since we've been sitting on this committee, we've seen profoundly important changes in access, in the way in which business is done in the world. Whether you're talking about Uganda or many other countries, their access to markets and the improvement in private investment has been phenomenal. I know what you mean when you say it's not everywhere, but it's phenomenally important.

It seems to me if there's one overarching issue in this it has to be population as a contributing cause. This is a very important question; at least it is to me. I don't know if it is to other members.

Ms. Betty Plewes: It is an important question, but as we've discovered over the last 25 years, all these elements react and interact in a very complex way. You can't say one issue is the determining one. There are a number of key issues.

What works in terms of reducing poverty?

First, you need healthy people, so that means safe water, access to food and adequate living conditions. Education is another need. People need to have a minimum level of education. We've seen what impact women's education has on their own health and on the well-being of their children. This is well documented in the literature. Then, as we mentioned earlier, people need to have opportunities to create businesses and work for themselves. Micro-enterprise and micro-credit have been very important elements in some areas for doing just that.

People need to be able to participate in order to determine their own problems and create solutions. We need to see poor people's organizations, for example, organizing around land reform. If people don't have access to land, they can't adequately grow their own food. We need to see that people can participate in determining their own processes and solving their own problems.

• 1030

There are other issues. Dr. Mahbub ul Haq, the founder of the human development report, was here in Ottawa quite recently talking about India and Pakistan. Why is poverty in both India and Pakistan increasing? If you look, it's partly because of the enormous part of the budget that is spent on the military. The arms trade internationally gobbles up very much of the resources and human lives that could be directed toward solving problems of poverty.

We know that eliminating poverty is not short term. We know it needs to occur over a long period of time and people need to be able to plan over a long period of time. We also know that aid has not always been directed toward poverty eradication. It's been directed toward the commercial and political interests of northern countries. This is one of the reasons it doesn't work in solving poverty, because it's not sent to try to solve poverty.

We need to be honest with ourselves about what we have done with our aid. We need to be honest with ourselves about whether our trade is actually promoting free trade or—not consistent with local labour standards—promoting environmental problems and undermining the rights of women.

I don't mean to tell you we have a simple solution for this. We don't, but we think we should start with the three premises we have given you, that poverty is increasing and there is still a major crisis. Aid works when it's targeted toward the poor and results. Aid has to be part of a larger package of policies that work toward eliminating poverty and include trade, environment, defence, agriculture as well as reform of the international institutions we've talked about.

Population is a difficult issue and it's a problem issue, but it has to be tackled along with the other issues of providing safe, healthy access for people. Once people have the opportunity to have access to health care and once women have the possibility of having access to reproductive and health information, they reduce the size of their families on their own. There's a tremendous link between women's education and the reduction in the number of children people have. It's true the increase in population is a concern, but what will help us reduce the population? It's the elimination of poverty.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Madame Debien, it is your turn, finally.

Ms. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): I want to welcome Ms. Plewes and Mr. Tomlinson.

I'd like to start by making a brief comment. I totally agree with the opinion expressed earlier by Ms. Beaumier on private investments. As she was saying, businessmen should not act as social workers. Mr. Chairman, this is a partial reply to your comment at the beginning. I fully realize that this will not solve the population problem.

On the other hand, I also follow up on Mr. Brison's remarks about investments, that there should be at least some criteria to establish whether the EDC is investing in countries where there are human rights violations.

I want to reaffirm the position that the Bloc Québécois has had for the four years I have been sitting on the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Canadian government should write a mandatory code of conduct for Canadian companies operating in countries where human rights are being violated and where their investments cannot result in filling basic needs nor eliminating poverty.

• 1035

The Bloc Québécois has had the same position for four years; it hasn't changed.

Here is the question I would like to ask Ms. Plewes. Let's assume that fortunately, the Finance Minister has selflessly decided—this is a euphemism of course—to cancel the forecasted 7.3% or $150 millions in budget cuts to public foreign aid. Which countries should be targeted for CIDA's assistance if ever the anticipated budget cuts were cancelled, taking into account basic human needs and poverty eradication of course? What should be our greatest focus when using those funds made available to CIDA?

[English]

Ms. Betty Plewes: As I've already said, the aid budget should be targeted toward the elimination of poverty. When you look at where poor countries are concentrated and where there is less private investment, it's Africa. With the development of trade blocs, APEC, NAFTA, the extension of NAFTA into Latin America and the tremendous potential for investment in these areas, Africa has really fallen off the agenda.

Canada has always had an interest and a good program of support for Africa, which has diminished fairly substantially over the last years. In fact, Canada's aid to Africa has fallen faster than the overall aid budget. So we would like to see more attention devoted to debt relief in these countries and focus on basic human needs.

The Chairman: Thank you. Madame Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): I want to apologize for coming late. I was in another committee meeting and did not get to hear your presentation, but I know the CCIC very well because I have attended a number of meetings with them in Montreal.

I'll get straight to my question about refugees over there. For many years now, we have been witnessing an increasing number of people either migrating within their own country or emigrating to other countries because of political unrest or climate changes in their native country.

I know that part of the policy on refugees in western countries is designed to admit a certain number of refugees, but also to have those refugees go home. There are first of all refugees being repatriated to their own village, but once back in their village they must start rebuilding their community network as well as their economic contacts.

My question is this. Among the groups under your umbrella, is there a policy specifically dealing with this problem? If so, do you have actual figures or at least percentages of the total amount relating to this policy, especially in African countries?

[English]

Ms. Betty Plewes: Well, in terms of refugees, we also believe that at the heart of many refugee movements, both internally and internationally, is the question of poverty. Many refugees are in fact economic refugees; they move because they are unable to develop a decent life for themselves. The other, of course, is conflict. Poverty is at the root of much conflict. Obviously there are many other elements that contribute to that conflict, so we really do believe that if you want to address the fundamental issues around the movements of people, both within their own countries and throughout the globe, you have to address this issue of poverty and give people opportunities to participate, to take control and to develop their lives at home.

• 1040

In terms of the policies and whether we have these, I don't think we have access to the numbers that you're talking about.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Is there a policy

[Translation]

that is targeted? Is there a policy that focuses specifically on this population and on your organizations' action with this population?

Ms. Betty Plewes: There is not one single policy. Each organization has its own refugee program for different African countries. There are people and organizations working in Rwanda, Somalia, Congo and Zaire. But our whole membership does not share one single policy.

[English]

Mr. Brian Tomlinson: May I add one comment here? There was an interesting example from Guatemala recently, where refugees have indeed returned in the last couple of years. In the last six months or so, there has been an ongoing consultation with Foreign Affairs and CIDA and NGOs that have been involved in Guatemala around the conditions and what makes for a good return of those refugees to their communities of origin. There are a lot of issues that enter into this on the ground. In the case of Guatemala, these refugees had been away for sometimes ten years. Their lands had been reoccupied by others. The community that was there when they left was no longer there.

I think organizations have found a number of things. First, in the case of Guatemala, there is an accord. There is a peace process in place, and there are agreements about what roles government and military and others will undertake in those areas where the refugees are returning. That's very important for the security of those who are coming back.

The other factor is participation. It is something that we mentioned in the case of development in general, but it is vital for a successful return of refugees to their area of origin. There must be avenues through which discussion can happen within those communities, within those regions, and with the various actors—be they governmental or multilateral—about the conditions they are facing and the conditions to re-establish their lives there.

So I would add those two elements as being vital: a societal agreement about the process, but also avenues for community involvement and participation at the local level.

The Chairman: Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Chairman, you are hereby authorized to keep on playing leapfrog with me as you seem to be having trouble counting your sheep this morning.

The Chairman: Mostly black sheep.

A voice: One red sheep.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Most black sheep are in Québec. Jacques Godbout even made a good movie about one of them.

I would like to tell people from the Canadian Council for International Cooperation that the Bloc Québécois will keep on speaking in favour of this level of 0.7% in the House, in this committee and everywhere else. The Bloc will constantly remind Canada that it has accepted this standard and that it has failed to implement it for too long, far too long. There is a standard and it should be implemented. If the Canadian government wants to change it, if it is of the view that we shouldn't be trying to attain that target now because there is private development assistance and other types of foreign aid, well it should do so before the whole world community. It should have the courage to question the standard before the international community.

If the government doesn't feel up to it, then it should implement its own standard and draw up a plan to make sure it will achieve this target. Other developed countries do it and they are wrestling with the same economic difficulties we are having; they share our will to reduce their budgetary deficit and to restore fiscal health.

Canada should follow the lead of the three Scandinavian countries mentioned as an example in your press release and stop pretending that it cannot achieve this goal. We will fight endlessly in the House of Commons to remind Canada of what it should be doing.

In fact, I think it is important to stress that Canada will now be spending less than 0.31% on foreign aid.

• 1045

In 1997, it is 0.28% and in 1998, it will be 0.27%, even including some forms of assistance you mentioned and that surely cannot qualify as official development assistance, because we're trying to boost those figures up with new forms of assistance.

I'd like to ask a question to either Ms. Plewes or Mr. Tomlinson. Mr. Tomlinson, I thoroughly enjoy your work and your contribution to this very informative book on the status of aid in Canada and in the world. Your participation to this whole report is indeed quite significant.

I want to know how Canada will rank among the 21 OECD countries in 1997 and 1998 if there is no change in the current trend. Will we still be 11th or will our ranking drop? This is my first question.

Now for my second question. Did your council and the other NGOs that signed the letter receive an answer from minister Paul Martin? You have actually sent him a letter recently, asking that he doesn't reduce the foreign aid budget and that he backtracks on his commitment to reduce foreign aid in the next fiscal year. Did you get an answer? What kind of answer did you receive? I want to know whether you are satisfied with the lack of response or with the answer you were given.

My last question is more general in nature. Should Canada follow the lead of the European Union in reviewing the presentation of its assistance program? The report on aid shows that the European Union has linked development assistance, trade and even debt relief in the Yaoundé Treaty, in the Lomé Treaty, in a program that was in fact firmed up by a treaty which is being reviewed regularly.

Do you think that a different and novel approach to Canada's contribution to official development assistance would be to consider following a process similar to that of the European Union?

Ms. Betty Plewes: I will answer your second question. It is quite simple: no, we have not received an answer to our letter to Mr. Martin yet. However, we are certain that we will be getting one soon.

Mr. Daniel Turp: When did you write this letter?

Ms. Betty Plewes: In September.

You are talking about the letter we sent jointly with the North-South Institute and the Manufacturers Alliance. I will ask Mr. Tomlinson to answer your first and third questions.

[English]

Mr. Brian Tomlinson: In terms of your first question, if I briefly look at my list here, there were only six countries with an ODA-to-GNP ratio of less that 0.27% in 1996. If other countries were to hold their current performance, our ranking would drop. That in itself, however, is probably an assumption that won't hold, because a number of countries are also reducing their aid programs in this coming year and in the following year. Clearly, though, we're not going to move up. The likelihood is that our ranking will drop by perhaps one or two more points.

Your third question regarded Lomé. One of the nice advantages of being involved in this project is that, for me personally, we've been engaged more with counterparts in Europe. I have a bit better understanding of some of the issues that they are dealing with at the level of the community, but also at their country levels. I think we have generally been struck by the Lomé process as one that speaks to some of the issues around reciprocity that we mentioned in our presentation. There is a formal process there in which at least the governments, and in some instances the social organizations within recipient countries, are participating in formulating together the priorities for the community's aid program with respect to particular countries and to regions.

• 1050

I think that is something we can learn from, and reciprocity is really something the council has been promoting for the reform of the Canadian approach to our relationships with developing countries. That can take a variety of forms. In the case of the Dutch aid program, they have entered into what they call development agreements or development pacts with individual countries, and again, they are reciprocal. The Dutch have obligations with respect to Costa Rica, for example—they have one of these agreements there—but there are also contributions that the Costa Ricans are making directly within Holland around sustainable issues that Dutch society is dealing with. So there is a real level of mutuality and mutual contribution there, which I think speaks to the issue of global citizenship in a real way.

The last thing I would say is a bit of an aside, but I think it ultimately speaks to the ranking issue. In the case of the Scandinavian countries and their aid performance, what has struck me is certainly the governmental commitment to achieving those targets, but it's also a deep understanding within the societies as a whole of the importance of global citizenship, for lack of a better word. That is, they understand because there has been an education system that has included education around global issues from grade 1 right through until high school. In our case, I think we would say that has been lacking in Canada, and there are a variety of reasons for this, some of which have to do with provincial-federal relations in the development of educational curricula and programs. It's easier to do and there is probably a more centralized structure there, but there is a long-standing commitment in the Scandinavian countries to engage in understanding, as a society, their role and their responsibilities in the world. That comes from thirty years of educational processes.

In speaking to the priorities of the aid program, I think we need to re-establish our aid programs' commitment to educating Canadians about the global realities that Canadians are working within, and most particularly the need for poverty eradication.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: I might add that I for one am not convinced that the people of Canada and of Québec in particular do not share this concern for a fairer global order, for a world citizenship. Do surveys not indicate that Canadians, and particularly Quebecers, are quite ready to give government the authority to invest in international development? Governments are not listening to the people when they make massive cuts in foreign aid programs.

A voice: And the awareness programs were totally abolished last year.

[English]

The Chairman: Do you want to answer that question on public opinion in Quebec and Canada?

Mr. Brian Tomlinson: I could answer it as a general comment on Canada.

I don't know the particular polling results for Quebec, but I would be surprised if they weren't the same for Canada. The polls have consistently indicated that upwards of 60% to 70% of the Canadian population values Canada's aid program, and a portion of that 60% to 70% think Canada's aid program should be increased.

But I think we also have to be honest and say that it's not accidental that the aid program has suffered some of the largest cuts in the federal process of cutting. In part, it's because that support is soft. Often choices are presented in a false way: do people support education for their children and health programming in their communities, against allocating money for external aid? Most reasonable people would answer that they want health programming and education programs for their kids.

We would contend that this is a false choice, that both are possible. But the reality has been that the media and others have played that choice and there isn't that substantive underpinning of real commitment to our international obligations that, I would argue, you would find in Scandinavian countries, where it is much more deeply rooted, where cuts also are happening because of the Maastricht Treaty process but aid programs are not being cut in the same way as we've witnessed in Canada.

• 1055

The Chairman: Thank you.

We have two more questioners, Mr. Grewal and Mr. Reed, and we only have five minutes. If we can keep the questions and the answers brief we'll stop at 11 a.m.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: My question is what is the level of co-operation and co-ordination between CCIC and other national and international agencies or organizations in terms of sharing the allocation of resources or the setting up of the objective and distribution of aid? What is the level of co-ordination between CCIC and, for example, EEC and USAID or other organizations?

My comment is that whenever we talk aid anywhere in committees or in the House, or wherever we read reports, we and other Canadians never know what is the political agenda behind the distribution of aid. In fact, the political agenda of the countries that are participating in aid is never exposed or never related to setting up the aid objective.

The point I am making is if our objective is sending the aid to people where food or medicine is not available, we are always considering the political relationship with that country. For example, we can never expect the U.S.A. to send aid to people dying from lack of medicine or food in Iraq or Libya. Similarly, the U.S.A. and Canada were sending aid to west African states, but now there is no political interest left in these countries, in those west African poor states, and the aid has been cut down and Africa has been going down the list forever.

I quote two quick examples here. For example, I have myself seen how there was political instability in a west African country called Liberia in the last few years, especially around Guinea. We noticed that 96% of the food in those countries was imported from somewhere else in the world, particularly the European and other developed countries. When there was a civil war in the country, companies stopped insuring the ships in those countries and the import of food was completely stopped. I have seen people dying from hunger and lack of medicine. There was no food. They were walking on the streets, chewing the leaves off the trees and plants and spitting out the fibre after sucking the juice out of the leaves. People couldn't walk on the street. They would sit down because they were tired and then they would stand up and walk again, sit down again because they were tired—no food, no energy—and eventually they would die on the streets. All the countries that are sending aid will cut their aid and never send aid and so people die.

I would like to know what political agenda is motivating the aid? Is it influencing internally your organization, in your planning, or are you planning your agenda and preparing your objectives irrespective of the political relationship with those countries where we are sending aid?

Ms. Betty Plewes: Obviously NGOs, just like governments, are concerned about the political situation in the country, but NGOs to a large degree are non-partisan. While they have to be concerned about the political situation in the country, many of them try to target their support towards poor people and to increasing their capacity to make choices for themselves. There are some countries where NGOs also find it very difficult to work. It has been impossible to work in Liberia for the last five or ten years. The civil disturbance there—

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I have to disagree, because an organization from France was participating whereas the other agencies from all over the world withdrew their support because of the political situation, not mainly because of the civil war. If one organization can operate there the other organizations can operate there too, but that was not the situation. The situation was the same in Burundi; we knew that the French organizations were operating but other countries were not operating there.

Ms. Betty Plewes: No. It's very awkward when you get these kinds of situations of very high conflict. Different organizations have different capacities to work in these kinds of countries. It's not necessarily related to the political situation.

• 1100

I don't know, Brian, if you want to talk a little bit more about this issue of how NGOs decide and co-ordinate their work. We are tied into a variety of international networks. We work with InterAction, which is our equivalent in the United States. This reality of aid is related to several European networks. We work closely with a number of networks in southern countries. In addition, many of our members are tied into very broad international networks.

If you look at OXFAM, for example, there's an international network of OXFAMs— or World Visions or Save the Children. These are all major international networks where people try to co-ordinate their work. As well, within developing countries, in Ethiopia or Zimbabwe or Nicaragua, there are local co-ordinating platforms where external NGOs try to co-ordinate their work.

The Chairman: You have one quick observation, Mr. Reed, and then we'll—

Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wouldn't want this meeting to break up with the assumption that transnational corporations were all big corporations. There are more transnationals that are small businesses in Canada than there are big corporations, hundreds of them, and they're growing by leaps and bounds as international trade increases. That's all I'll say, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you. I could follow that by saying that's increasing prosperity, thereby reducing poverty, and thereby—

Mr. Julian Reed: Give me another ten minutes.

The Chairman: I would like, then, to draw the members' attention to the fact that on Wednesday, October 29, at 3.15 p.m. we have a joint meeting with the defence committee and a delegation of sixteen members of the North Atlantic Council.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: The others have to be told.

[English]

The Chairman: Don't worry, we'll be sending them memoranda.

I would suggest that group A come to that, because if we have the defence committee and ourselves and 16 members of the North Atlantic Council— We're trying to fit everybody around the large table in the reading room, in room 237-C in the Centre Block, but already we have more people, so I'm calling for the A team to go to that meeting and—

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: The notice of meeting says that all ambassadors will be there as witnesses. Does it really mean that all 15 ambassadors will have the floor? It does say: "Witnesses: the 15 ambassadors." And 15 names are listed.

The Chairman: All 15 names are listed indeed, but it doesn't mean that every one of them will be addressing the committee.

Mr. Daniel Turp: They will appear as witnesses.

The Chairman: If I am chairing that meeting, I can assure you that not all of them will have the floor.

Mr. Daniel Turp: My mind's at ease now.

[English]

The Chairman: Madame Plewes, I'd like once again to thank you for coming. I know this won't be the only time you're before the committee, and Mr. Tomlinson, I'd like to congratulate you again on the quality of the report. It's extremely helpful to all of us, and it's very helpful for us to know where we fit in many of these areas. So we're very grateful to you for that, and we look forward to hearing from you again. We perhaps will be consulting you after we've heard the estimates in respect to CIDA. I think the committee, as you can tell, is very interested in getting our priorities right, and you can help us a great deal in that process.

Thank you very much for coming.

The meeting is adjourned.