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, November 4, 1997

• 0916

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.)): Good morning. I call to order the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Pursuant to Standing Orders 110 and 111, we're here to examine the order in council appointment of Maureen O'Neil, president of IDRC.

I think we'll get started, Maureen, if you'd like to make your presentation. Thank you.

Ms. Maureen O'Neil (President, International Development Research Centre): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It gives me great pleasure to meet you this morning. I will take a little bit of time to talk first of all about the process by which I was hired, as it were, to be president of IDRC.

Before that, however, I should express the apologies of the chair of our board, Gordon Smith, who was asked to appear along with me but is on his way to China, actually doing IDRC business, in some work that I will describe a bit later.

First, just a moment or two on how the president of IDRC is selected. Unlike most crown corporations, the IDRC act specifies that it is the board that will do the search that will come up with the name of the potential president, which will then be communicated to the minister, who communicates it to the prime minister and on to cabinet. So it is a process that does involve a search committee of the board making a recommendation.

I contrast that with some other agencies, many other agencies, where it works the other way, that the minister and the prime minister come up with the idea of a name and then a board is consulted. In our case—and it might be one of the only ones—it's the other way around.

I have spent my working career on the domestic policy side of government and as a public servant both at the federal level in the province of Manitoba and in the province of Ontario. During the time that I was responsible for the federal agency, Status of Women Canada, I had about seven years of sitting on a UN commission on the status of women, and I ran, at the level of public servants, our delegations to two international conferences.

Similarly, when I was secretary general of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, we also were beginning then, in the middle to late 1980s, to begin the contributions this organization has made with respect to human rights internationally.

In 1989 I came back to Ottawa from Toronto and became president of the North-South Institute, a non-governmental policy research body with an independent board of directors, although I must say, it would not exist if it were not for the financing that comes from the Government of Canada. It would have a hard time, I think, swimming alone in the unfriendly sea looking for money for public policy research. In that, it is not different from any other public policy research organization.

• 0920

From the North-South Institute, I spent about a year with the Institute on Governance, another non-governmental research organization, and then last year spent about seven months as the interim president of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, now headed by Warren Allmand.

I had been the chair of the board of that organization. When the former president, Ed Broadbent, went off to All Souls College for a wonderful year of reflection at Oxford, we had a provision in our act that permitted the directors to name one of themselves for a short period of time to fill in until a full-time president was named. I did that. Following that, I competed for this position and was selected by the board and named by the government. So that's how I ended up where I am.

I thought I would use some time, Madam Chair, to talk a bit about IDRC—what we do, what we think makes us special, what we've accomplished, and where we're going.

I think the first day I came to IDRC I attended the celebrations of Lester B. Pearson's centennial that were taking place at the building of his name. I was reminded by many people about why IDRC is an institution of which Canada should continue to be proud. The values and the needs and the philosophy that shaped it at its creation 25 years ago are as relevant today as they were at that time.

Our act was exceedingly well written. I say that to any of you who may at one time have been legislative drafters and who, in your current position, comment on legislation. Our act was well drafted. It was a creature, a child, of the end of the sixties, the enthusiasm of that decade for Canada's ability to make a positive difference in the world. That is very much reflected in our act.

Our purpose is:

To initiate, encourage, support and conduct research into the problems of the developing regions of the world and into the means for applying and adapting scientific, technical and other knowledge to the economic and social advancement of those regions....

[Translation]

The IDRC's philosophy is as follows: in most cases, development assistance can be successful only if scientists, technicians and other thinkers in the recipient countries play a key role in determining needs and designing solutions, and this is partly why the IDRC board of governors is composed of people from around the world. In other words, research and development can be successful only if it can be applied. That is why the IDRC constitutes a most valuable research and development asset for developing countries.

The IDRC is also a research and development asset for Canada since it is based here. When the Centre sets up an international scientific network, it makes sure that Canadian researchers from both the public and private sectors contribute to it. The IDRC has, for example, launched an ambitious initiative aimed at integrating the most appropriate information technologies for community development in Africa. This week, in fact, someone from the Canadian Association of Information Technology, the CAIT, is in South Africa looking for opportunities for Canadian businesses under this project.

[English]

Canada has many friends around the world because of IDRC. A few years ago we did a study that traced the recipients of IDRC support over many years. This study found that the appreciation for this assistance from Canada continued. These individuals now include senior ministers in Chile and South Africa, heads of state in Brazil and Turkey, and key research and development institutions, whether it's Benin or India or Egypt.

• 0925

What we found interesting was that those former project leaders who were interviewed said they valued IDRC as much for the contacts, the moral support, and the advice as for the money—although I do rather suspect that if there had never been any money, there wouldn't have necessarily been the contact or the moral support. We won't get carried away and say we don't need a budget, just emissaries of IDRC going around the world.

Many problems have been successfully tackled, although there's a great risk in trying to draw a straight line from support for a small research project to a solved problem, and indeed, IDRC in Canada trying to claim the credit.

The foreign minister from Uruguay recently visited Canada, and I was privileged to have some discussions with him. One of the most gratifying incidents on his visit occurred when one of his colleagues came up to me and reminded me about a project that our regional office in Montevideo is piloting, which we refer to as the EcoPlata project, where we're trying to create a multi-stakeholder coastal management zone on the all-important Rio de la Plata River.

This man said to me that IDRC has everybody sitting around the table, from the fishermen to the navy, and this is really unprecedented in his country. He felt it was only by getting all the people who really, as it were, owned a part or were affected by one of the problems of the Rio de la Plata River that we were going to find solutions.

Also, the reason Gordon Smith isn't here this morning is he's going off to the first official board meeting of the International Network for Bamboo and Rattan. This is the opening of the first international organization in China. Bamboo and rattan are critical industries in Asia and in Latin America, and we hope the research this network has supported over 15 years is going to lead to production that will threaten delicate ecologies less and reward impoverished women more.

INBAR will now be based in China, under the direction of an independent scientific board. I stress that, because we all have to examine the ethical aspects of work that is done in China. Placing INBAR there, under an independent scientific board, makes a very important statement about how research ought to be carried out. The results of this project's research will be open and available. The board is international and it is not controlled by the Chinese government. These were our terms and conditions, and this is essential to our approach to development.

We often work with other funding agencies as well as of course continually with research institutions in the south. We work in a very complementary way with CIDA as well. On the technical side, as we look back, there have been many crop yield improvements, food processing and access to water has been improved, and health status has increased.

Benefits from policy changes are much harder to identify, but I'd like to signal a couple. The support for the African Economic Research Consortium, for example, now enables first-class economic policy research to be done in Africa, which enables a dialogue among equals with the IMF and the World Bank and has led to better and more sustained policies in many countries.

In another African example, IDRC has been supporting the indigenously inspired drive towards regional integration through the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, called COMESA. Amongst other things, this activity has seen progress on monetary integration and greater intra-regional trade.

A related endeavour has responded to the call for solid arm's-length advice to the Department of Trade and Industry in South Africa by setting up a Trade and Industrial Policy Secretariat, with funding from GTZ in Germany. It too is working towards regional integration.

• 0930

And I would be remiss if I didn't mention the farsightedness that entrenched an information sciences and systems component in IDRC's programming from day one.

So where are we going now? IDRC has stood for innovation and social and economic progress, both in Canada and abroad. However, we have also had to embrace frugality—more frugality than anybody expected the institution could endure without endangering its effectiveness. We have done what other federally funded agencies have done: we've tried to lose weight without losing energy, and we've done that to the best of our ability.

We've protected our core programs while losing around 30% of our budget over five years. We've downsized 40% of the staff and 50% of management positions. Coming into what I fervently hope is the end of this process, I have to report that I find an institution in remarkably good heart. IDRC is an institution that has the right idea about development at a time when people are wondering whether there are any right ideas about development.

Canada already makes its mark in the world and earns respect through the qualitative aspects of life rather than through wealth. But our economic prosperity will also depend on a healthy global economy and effective connections to the vast markets in what have been called “developing countries”. Altruism and self-interest lead in the same direction: by helping people to help themselves, we also assist in creating new markets, new trading opportunities, and new vehicles for Canadian investments. Their future is indeed our future, and we can only do well together.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you, Ms. O'Neil.

Your qualifications and your reputation have preceded you, but there are probably some questions on IDRC.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Welcome, Maureen.

I have a few questions to ask, mainly based on IDRC. I know about the past from talking to Keith a lot, but I'd like an update.

I'm interested in canola. I am a farmer, partly, as well. I grow a new type of canola now: genetically engineered Argentinian canola. This year it produced 40% more yield than what I was ever able to get before. Having experimented with some other types of canola, that's fairly fantastic. The seed is three times as expensive as the normal canola. You have to be a bit of an experimenter to try it. I wonder how much of that technology you're involved with, and whether you help get it to Third World countries. Obviously if they could raise their production 40%, that would be pretty significant.

Do you want all my questions or do you want one at a time?

Ms. Maureen O'Neil: I'll take canola and tell me the others and I'll make a note.

Mr. Bob Mills: Okay. I'd like to hear a little bit about funding. I know your private fund-raising has increased dramatically since 1990. I'd like to have an update on how that's going and what you foresee in terms of available funding from outside government.

Also, I was interested in your comments about multi-stakeholders. I'd like you to elaborate just a little bit on that, with emphasis.

I also wondered if in China you've been involved at all with the tremendous project of moving 1.5 million people, with the new dam construction well under way. I wanted to know if you were involved in that project.

Finally, the World Bank, UNICEF, and the UN have all dedicated themselves to restructuring. I know you work very closely with CIDA. This is probably not fair to ask you, but I'm going to anyway. What do you feel is the necessity for CIDA to do some restructuring, in terms of its role in that world environment, which is all restructuring?

That's, in two minutes....

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Bob Mills: Just a few things to keep in mind.

Ms. Maureen O'Neil: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

• 0935

First of all, on canola, I knew my remarks were a little bit too long so I didn't in fact refer to canola, but let me do it now.

Canola is becoming Canada's leading cash crop. You mentioned seed from Argentina. Thanks to IDRC projects in China and Egypt, where new hybrids are being developed, there are now Canadian farmers who are using seed that IDRC has been involved in. In fact, the University of Manitoba and the Crop Research Institute of China have already used Chinese varieties to develop disease-resistant Canadian canola strains. So this kind of back and forth—you talked about the seed from Argentina, the work that Manitoba Crop Research is doing on improving strains—I think simply illustrates the importance of sharing the advances that are made on improving crop effectiveness.

We work through the international agricultural research system that the UN and others are heavily involved in, and others. In fact, IDRC was responsible in the early days of the green revolution for contributing to its creation. This sharing of scientific information around the world has, as you've demonstrated, had very practical impacts for Canadian farmers.

Mr. Bob Mills: I talked to a couple of African ambassadors and they seemed to be totally unaware of these advances in agriculture. Are you getting that information to them?

Ms. Maureen O'Neil: We hope we are, because we work through these international agricultural research organizations. The problem may also be that the ambassadors are not as connected as they might be with what is going on in agricultural research in their own countries. We held a briefing for all African ambassadors a few months ago and we talked about this work as well as their other work. We try very hard to stay in touch with that, but it may also be a problem within their own system.

On funding, we continue—and my predecessor began this in a very energetic way—to look for resources that would make up the shortfall between what our parliamentary grant had been in the past and what we felt our research programs needed in terms of resources.

As you will see in the first table on page 67 of the financial report, in the annual report, which I think is on your desks, in 1996-97 we had a parliamentary grant of about $96 million. By the way, it will go down next year to about $81 million. Along with it were contract research projects of about $25 million. We anticipate that next year the $25 million will look more like $40 million. Meanwhile our grant will have gone down to $81 million, so we're probably going to be in about the same place.

Where is that other money coming from? It is through work with other foundations. It is also through complementary work with CIDA, with Swedish CIDA, and with the development bank. This has occasioned great discussion and debate within IDRC and also, I have to say, has caused some confusion with our partners. After all, we have been part of the donor side of the table.

We have to be very careful that we're not perceived in developing countries, with researchers, as becoming a demander at the table rather than a donor. This has to be managed very carefully, and our bottom line is that we will look for increased resources as long as those increased resources are going to the main objectives of the organization, which are to increase the resource flow to researchers and research institutions in developing countries. Certainly, as you can see by the numbers, the amount of money that does not come from the parliamentary grant is going up.

While I would like to believe that there is a large amount of private sector funding of a “charitable” type available for research, there is absolutely no evidence in Canada to show that it is true. Companies do research for their own product development.

• 0940

We are involving the information industry in our work in Africa, but funding for research really does require a solid base of public funding. It can be expanded upon, but I think it would be unrealistic to expect that a sector that Canada has a hard time maintaining for its domestic purposes is going to generate a lot in the short term internationally. I think that is probably unrealistic. I wish it weren't so, but it is.

I mentioned multi-stakeholders in terms of the EcoPlata work. I can mention other examples in Latin America, in particular initiatives we are involved in that are related to mining. As you know, Canada is heavily involved in the mining sector in Latin America. Our work on community-based natural resource management aims to bring around the table in different communities people from the small villages in the area in which mining is going on, the mining companies themselves, the government representatives who are responsible for regulating the mining, and the scientists who are concerned about what the environmental impact of the mines will be.

We have had very interesting and positive participation from Canadian mining companies in some of this work. We feel that's the only way one is going to arrive at solutions that take into consideration the needs of all the parties concerned, and Canada has done a lot of work on this. In that particular example, Dr. Stephen Owen from the University of Victoria, who had been involved with environmental questions in British Columbia, is playing a very important role.

On China, to my knowledge we haven't been involved in the moving of 1.5 million people because of the dam. I will check, but to my knowledge we are not involved in that.

On the last and hard question, the restructuring of CIDA, I have felt for some time that we have expected our development agency in Canada to carry out everybody's agenda. If one reads the reports that have been prepared by parliamentary committees, we never want to give anything up. We want our development program to reflect the hopes and desires of the university sector, the NGO sector, and the business sector in Canada. We, all of us, want to play a part in development. This makes it really a challenge to manage the development agency.

I think we should all be watching very carefully for the British white paper on aid that is going to be released this week. They're going to do some very adventurous things. If any of you used to watch Yes, Minister, the minister always had to be on the lookout when people talked about adventure and courage. But they're going to do some courageous things. According to the press, in the Independent newspaper on Sunday, they're going to really cut the aid-trade linkage—remember that got them into really deep trouble with the Pergau dam a few years ago in Malaysia—and they are also publishing 100,000 copies of the summary of this document, which they are going to have in supermarkets all over the U.K. They're not leaving the communications of this to chance. Then their minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will be involved in this—which would be like having the Hon. Paul Martin out selling these ideas—are going to get on board to communicate what it is they are trying to do in the transformation of their development programming.

I think we should look carefully at that and see how they are approaching it.

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

Mr. Turp.

• 0945

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Ms. O'Neil, it is very amusing to compare the French and English versions of the text we are using to review your appointment. In French, article 111, paragraph 2, says that we are to review your degrees, qualifications and competence, while in English, qualifications and competence seem to be enough. So we only need to review your degrees in French.

However, I see that you have an honorary doctorate in law from Wilfrid Laurier University. I do not know if that makes you a legal expert, but as a sociologist, you have a background that no doubt give you the qualifications and competence to fulfill the duties of president of the IDRC. I think we need to take note of this excellent background.

I think that your presence here allows us to get to the bottom of things, as you have done, and to know what the new president wants to do with the Centre and in what direction she wants to take it.

I would have three questions and something to ask about one of your present duties that might seem to me to be incompatible with your duties as president of the IDRC.

My first question concerns funding for the Centre. I note that, as is the case for other agencies, funding for the Centre has been significantly reduced. As you say in your report, your budget has decreased by 24% since 1991 and will be reduced significantly for the next fiscal year, resulting in $8 million less for the Centre and a 4.3% proportion of official development assistance devoted to you.

I would like to know if you feel that this decrease in government funding is appropriate, and what your views are on official development assistance in general and what Canada's contribution in this area should be. Do you think that the government should meet the objective of 0.7% set by the United Nations, which it is far from attaining, since it is perhaps at less than 0.3% at the moment?

My second question deals with your contribution to funding research in Africa and in francophone Africa. I would like to know if you feel that Africa is a priority and if, in particular, francophone Africa should get more funding from your Centre.

My third question is perhaps the most important, and I would like you to think about it with us. It concerns the freedom of action of your Centre, your independence from the government. In your reports, it says that you are autonomous and can act autonomously and that you have, in the past, had dealings with States which Canada did not have a preferential relationship with.

I would like to know if it is still the case, if there are countries that you deal with that are not countries that Canada has good relations with today, and what you intend to do to maintain this autonomy, this freedom of action.

Regarding the other point I was wondering about, I would like to know what the other members of the committee think. If I understood your resumé correctly, you are still a member of the Advisory Council to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Ms. Maureen O'Neil: No, not any more.

Mr. Daniel Turp: You are no longer a member. That answers my question. It dit seem to me to be slightly incompatible with the freedom of action and autonomy of your Centre with respect to the government and the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Those are my three questions. I would appreciate your clarifications.

Ms. Maureen O'Neil: Thank you, Mr. Turp.

First, regarding funding for the Centre, there has been a very significant reduction. Because of this, Mr. Bezanson, my predecessor, undertook a major restructuring. There was no longer any question of trying to keep the same type of operation with the money available. At the same time, as Mr. Mills pointed out, the Centre started to think about a whole new way of collaborating with the various donors, such as foundations, bilateral organizations and CIDA, because it knew that many programs would not be able to be funded if that was not done.

Do we have enough money to do what we want? I believe that one never has enough money to do what one wants. But can we do useful things? Yes, I am convinced we can.

• 0950

On the question of ODA, I believe that Canada's decision to reduce its budget was possibly a very good one for reducing the deficit, but it was really a shortsighted decision. In my opinion, it is good that people are still talking about 0.7%, but I think that this talk is not at all serious because we are moving rapidly in the other direction. We have not taken the right road to get there.

I believe that it is very, very difficult to find a good argument in favour of ODA in a country where pensions and other social services are under attack. All the surveys, not only government surveys, but newspaper ones too, showed that Canadians did not want to give money for ODA if it meant cutting other services.

I think that all those working in the development field are still asking themselves what they can do to provide benefits to Canadians so that they will continue to provide funding and assistance and change international trade policies or investment policies so as to favour developing countries.

I must acknowledge that we have failed because we have not really convinced Canadians, as the Scandinavian countries have succeeded in doing incredibly well, that they should give their support to ODA. We have not succeeded in doing that here. I believe that if the government has cut ODA it is because it was possible to do so. There was not much of an outcry from the public regarding the cuts to ODA. This must be pointed out. All those interested in this area must feel a little bit responsible for these cuts.

I do not agree with them, but we have to reflect on this reality. I would really like to know the opinion of the committee members on this question. We will never succeed in having an ODA program or even much open discussion on the issues of international trade and investment if the public does not have a good understanding of the subject. The government does not react if the public has a quite different point of view.

I cannot give you figures off the top of my head for the programs in francophone Africa. I can tell you, however, that nearly 40% of the centre's budget is currently directed at Africa. We have a regional office in Dakar, very well set up, under the direction of Sibry Tapsoba, from Burkina Faso, and it is excellent. We have a very good program in place in francophone Africa. We are still trying to increase the resources we have now through the ACCT and other agencies.

We feel that it is essential to keep substantial programs in Africa. That is why we decided, even if we have fewer resources now, to restructure the offices in Africa instead of closing them. We therefore have people on site in Dakar, Nairobi and Johannesburg, who will be staying there.

On the question of freedom of action, I must point out that, even when I was president of the North-South Institute—which received almost all of its funding from the government—never in the history of the North-South Institute or in that of the IDRC has the government tried to influence policy recommendations or interfere in activities. This is also true of the IDRC.

• 0955

Half of the members of our board of directors are from abroad and half plus one are Canadians. I believe that we are independent.

There is another interesting issue as well. How must our work be compatible with government initiatives? For example, there is the question that I raised just before the meeting started: How can a research agency help authorities be open-minded and respect human rights, even if that is not the precise mandate of the Centre? We can say that it is possible, that it is one of the Canadian values that are part of Canada's foreign policy.

Personally, I am very interested in this question. But this was not asked of us by the government. Canadians require that money spent abroad be used to promote respect for human rights. But I do not think that was the question you asked.

I believe that in the IDRC's history, there is really no way that a minister... The government set the budget for the IDRC and has a great deal of influence over us, but I believe that it has never interfered in the Centre's management. Our freedom of action is ensured by our board of directors and also by the way we work. That doesn't mean that we do not try, when the opportunity arises, to work in a complementary way with CIDA. When it is possible, we do so.

For example, in South Africa, when it was not possible for the Canadian government to directly fund the ANC, then, through CIDA's assistance, and after much discussion, the IDRC decided to start working on policy issues with the ANC. I believe that this has now become something very important, because we tried, with the ANC, to work to create the bases of a number of policies on urban, economic and environmental issues.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Are there at the moment cases that are similar to that of the ANC?

Ms. Maureen O'Neil: No, but we are wondering if... At present, the situation in Burma is of great concern to us. We look at Burma and we wonder if it is possible to work with the Burmese outside Burma to stimulate change over the next five or ten years. Is it possible to do that by working with Burmese intellectuals and professors who are outside their country? But we also have to start to prepare for a government transition. We are wondering if that is possible. I do not know if it is.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Are you interested in East Timor?

Ms. Maureen O'Neil: We have not yet studied the question of East Timor. We have not done anything on that issue. I believe that it is the same sort of question.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): There are a number of people who have questions. We'll get back to you.

Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Maureen, it's really so very good to see you before the committee. I have watched you and have worked peripherally in a number of issues that you've been involved with. I have often admired your competence, and also your commitments to a number of the issues that face your organization.

I want to ask a few practical questions. I am concerned about the cuts to development assistance. I'm glad this issue was brought up, but I won't ask you to speak to that. I know that among various MPs there is a lot of support to ensure that we can do better when the opportunities arise. But what are your day-to-day challenges in the organization?

• 1000

Since you do have an international board, I also want to ask some practical questions. When do you meet? How do you bring people from across the world to meetings, etc.? How do the secretariats connect with the international board, with the head office here in Ottawa? Perhaps you could speak to those practical issues of the organization. Can you end by in some way giving us a practical example of some partnership or some complementary work with CIDA, a specific project, some way that could clarify for us exactly how you work with CIDA in some complementary fashion?

Ms. Maureen O'Neil: Thank you very much.

On the day-to-day challenges, the clearest challenge is to ensure that an organization that has lost so many colleagues over a five-year period rebuilds its joie de vivre and feels a sense of stability so that it can get to work.

A challenge that we have just dealt with is the one I mentioned earlier. There had been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing on what we were doing with regional offices. Could we afford to keep them? Could we not? Our board made the decision, and it was our advice to them that we keep the regional offices. Our credibility rests on our ability to stay in close touch with what is going on in the regions. So that's a challenge that we faced and dealt with.

The other challenge is to ensure that a program that has been dramatically changed from a sort of unidisciplinary to a multidisciplinary focus—which is easy to roll off the tongue, but harder to have work in practice—actually works and is doing what it was hoped it would do.

So these are the sorts of standard management challenges, after a major downsizing and after a reorientation of program.

If the chair of the board was here, I'm quite sure he would say that we are very concerned with improving board governance. As specified in the act, the board has traditionally met twice a year and the executive four times a year. We want to increase the number of meetings of the board to four times a year, and the executive role will be very much to establish the agenda for the board, etc.

I feel the reason we want that to happen is that the board, because it's an international board, is crucial to IDRC's functioning as a Canadian international organization, if we can call it that. The board's decisions are crucial to our work, and increasing the number of meetings of the full board is a way of ensuring that we have input from all of those members on a more regular basis. That will happen starting in January.

For those of you who have had a chance to look at the material, the secretariats were established to create appropriate vehicles in areas of high priority for donor collaboration. In fact, they were created to provide a common pot in order for UNICEF, Canadian CIDA, Swedish CIDA, and others, to put money in around a certain initiative.

One of the most important initiatives is the initiative on micro-nutrients. We've forgotten in Canada that vitamins and iodine were added to our food products years and years ago. In developing countries this is a crucial issue, and probably one of the most important in nutrition. So, for example, that secretariat is a good indication of how there can be complementarity with Canadian CIDA. Canadian CIDA is equally concerned about micro-nutrient deficiencies and recognizes that a multilateral approach is more effective than a bilateral one. It has put money into the secretariat dealing with micro-nutrients and into expanding the use of micro-nutrients by developing countries.

• 1005

That secretariat has an advisory committee that is its governing committee. In our view, sorting out and clarifying the relationship between the advisory committee to a secretariat and our board's end responsibility is a live issue on the table right now. We're just in the midst of finishing a report on the governance of those secretariats, because the IDRC can't leave itself...this may be an innovative idea, but we cannot leave ourselves in a position where we may indeed have the ultimate responsibility for secretariats. Indeed, we ensure their good financial management, but what they're doing doesn't in fact pass through our boards. You've touched on what is a very live issue right now.

We may also have too many secretariats. These were part of the restructuring of IDRC to ensure that we could do what we wanted to do. It required a lot of decisions by management that were very important and highly experimental. Over the next couple of years we will have to take stock of these and see which ones really are working and which ideas need to be thrown out. We don't make any bones about that. Interesting approaches were tried, and some may work and some may not.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Do you have a supplementary, Ms. Augustine?

Ms. Jean Augustine: I was asking for a practical CIDA idea or a complementary—

Ms. Maureen O'Neil: I mentioned the micro-nutrient secretariat.

Ms. Jean Augustine: So that's—

Ms. Maureen O'Neil: That's one. Another is another health-related secretariat, in Tanzania, where we are looking at how to improve the functioning of health systems when they are managed at the district level as opposed to nationally. Canadian CIDA has been involved—along with other donors who are involved with us—in testing a World Health Organization policy package of interventions on primary health care. We're working in complement with CIDA because, first of all, it increases the resources allocated, and CIDA is interested because what is learned from this research on delivery of health care at the district level can be applicable in many other places.

In South Africa, too, there was enormous complementarity.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): I also join my colleague in welcoming you to this committee. Your CV is very impressive. I commend your achievements. You have high expectations in your new position and I wish you good luck.

My questions are basic. Probably you have already touched on some of them, but I'm asking from a different point of view.

What are your three top priorities in this position? What are your goals from that point of view?

Second, what are your plans for increasing efficiency, transparency, and accountability?

Also, could you elaborate on the relationship between IDRC and CIDA? In your view, is there any overlap or duplication?

Ms. Maureen O'Neil: Thank you very much, Mr. Grewal, and welcome to you, too, to this Parliament.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you.

Ms. Maureen O'Neil: First of all, I should say that just before I was appointed, the board of governors of IDRC approved a three-year program framework. We do our planning at IDRC on a three-year basis, so my first priority is to ensure that this three-year program is implemented as effectively as possible.

Secondly—and of course the program won't be implemented effectively if the second doesn't happen—my priority is to address the management issues left over from this massive restructuring. You don't get rid of effectively 40% of your workforce without having to think very hard about relationships within IDRC and the management structure that has been put in place. We have to make sure everybody knows what their jobs are and they are working productively and happily to ensure this program framework is implemented.

• 1010

My third priority is to communicate to Canadians and others, starting with members of Parliament, the work IDRC is doing and hopefully to encourage others to share our excitement about the utility of Canada's support for thinkers and researchers in developing countries, who are really the people who are going to help those who are struggling to make changes in our society to make a difference.

Those are my three priorities.

What are we doing to increase efficiency? A few years ago my predecessor invited the Auditor General to come into IDRC to work with IDRC on improving its accountability. We continue to work on that. We take it very seriously. We feel we can't communicate to others what we're doing if we cannot be absolutely certain we're doing things as well as we possibly can. We took steps to invite the Auditor General in so we could be as effective as possible. We're actually about to use an instrument we developed with developing country researchers to assess developing country institutions and are going to try it out on ourselves to see whether we agree with our conclusions.

One might say IDRC is an organization full of people who spend their time researching other people's problems. Self-reflection is not something we have to struggle to find at IDRC. We're constantly worrying about these things.

On IDRC and CIDA, I think it's always important and it's a constant concern to understand what you're doing in relation to other organizations. We recently had a briefing session on Africa with Foreign Affairs and with CIDA where we presented our program just so they would be aware of what we were doing. We are now beginning another study to look at the nature of CIDA's support for research in developing countries and our own. In 1970 it may have been true that CIDA did not provide support to research or researchers. It's not true in 1997. When I was president of the North-South Institute I used to chair committees at CIDA that gave out grants to universities.

We have to understand what each other is doing. I think this is perfectly normal in the course of doing business. If CIDA is providing assistance to Canadian universities to have linkages with developing-country institutions, we need to know which institutions they are so we can maximize the effort and so we can ensure we're not tripping over each other.

The difficulty is less tripping over each other than leaving big gaps. One thing I recall from chairing this committee that ran a program called the University Program for Cooperation and Development, which had an outside board that advised CIDA and that did the judging of proposals that came to it, was that the problem wasn't so much one of duplication and overlap but of huge gaps, with very few universities putting forward proposals to work with African institutions, for example. There was a great desire to work with Asian institutions and Latin American institutions. In a sense they are easier to work with. They have more resources. So one of the things I'm sure will come out in our CIDA analysis of who is funding who in research is that Africa still requires a lot of attention; Canadian universities need more assistance to focus on Africa.

• 1015

We met yesterday with Bonnie Campbell from UQAM and heard about their fascinating experience with other francophone universities in Canada. The University of Moncton is involved as well, and the University of Ottawa, in providing assistance to African doctoral candidates to look at ways in which their research can be improved. This was a program that had IDRC support and Rockefeller Foundation support, and I know Canadian CIDA also provides support to universities in Quebec and across Canada to develop linkages.

What IDRC brought to that endeavour permitted Africans to participate in its assessment. Of the nine programs the Rockefeller Foundation financed, the one that IDRC was involved in, with UQAM in Montreal, was literally the only one that involved Africans in their evaluation. None of the others did. So IDRC's contribution is always to get the developing country's researchers to the table when programs are being discussed that have a direct impact on them.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Is there any process in place whereby we can avoid any duplication or overlapping in—

Ms. Maureen O'Neil: Oh, yes. We are constantly looking at this. We are beginning a review with CIDA to identify the nature of support for research that CIDA is engaged in to address the question you raise.

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

Mr. Reed.

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

I would also like to add my words of welcome to this committee. I'm here learning from you this morning and I appreciate your attendance.

I have two questions. One is fairly straightforward and the other is a bit more complicated and reflects some personal point of view. I will deal with the simpler one first.

My friend Bob Mills brought up the subject of production of canola. You can expand that to all agricultural crops. The gains that have been made in the production of agricultural crops, and are being made right now, are being made through the application of biotechnology rather than simple hybridization or plant breeding. It seems there is not necessarily universal acceptance around the world of this new window of opportunity called biotechnology. I am wondering if in your role and your contacts you see this as something of an inhibitor, or whether the world will get used to it. That is the first one.

The other...I will start by saying this is a personal point of view. Using a percent of gross domestic product, in my view, is a very rough and inefficient way to gauge the effectiveness of foreign aid, because you can take money by the shovelful and throw it to the wind, or you can try to use it as wisely as possible and, hopefully, make it multiply. I guess the buzz words are “doing it better and smarter”.

There are some private aid organizations in existence in Canada now that do not come to the trough for government funding very much, who have proven to be very effective in making dollars spin. The one organization that comes to my mind has its headquarters in the riding of my colleague, Chairman, and is an organization called SHARE. SHARE has been operating in the Caribbean and Central America for a number of years, and they have actually succeeded in halting, to a certain extent, the process of urbanization that is going on in so many parts of the world.

• 1020

SHARE's projects are well documented and I'm sure they are available to organizations such as yours. I wonder if you do, in a proactive way, make use of the work these organizations have done. They're now in Belize, in Venezuela, Guatemala, Colombia, and even Grenada. The word “share” is very much a part of their activity because they go into a community with agricultural expertise and sometimes livestock, provide seed for a particular area, and then the recipient community is responsible for going out themselves and taking that technology, that expertise, the livestock that result from the program, to other communities, and so on. As a result, one dollar breeds a lot of dollars, or a lot of value. I don't know if that's ever been counted or accumulated to this point, but I suggest it is a way of spending money smarter, and it has now been proven.

The question that would arise out of that is this. Does your organization in its work make use of those efforts and examine them and establish their significance?

Ms. Maureen O'Neil: Thank you.

Your first question was on biotechnology and the extent to which we would be supporting work in biotechnology in developing countries. I can't give you a list of projects we have been involved in with scientists in developing countries, but certainly over the years, yes, work has been going on in biotechnology. I think what scares people is when they see sheep cloned and things like that. IDRC hasn't been involved in that. But nonetheless, yes, indeed, we have been involved in supporting scientists in developing countries to do work in biotechnology because it's very important that they have the capacity to do that kind of thinking.

As to your point on the percentage of gross domestic product being a very rough gauge of effectiveness, I think it's probably no gauge of effectiveness; it's only a measuring stick for amount of transfer. The reason why it's important isn't because it was arrived at through some scientific calculation, because I don't think that was really the case, but it was an expression that there had to be a commitment that was stuck to in terms of how much we're prepared to invest in development.

The OECD development assistance committee report, which I think is not out yet, is an examination of the Canadian aid program and will say all sorts of nice things about the approach Canada has taken, but it's also going to draw attention to the fact that there just isn't enough going through that program. So while I agree with you that the amount isn't a gauge of effectiveness, a certain amount.... I believe more is required, not to make the program more effective—you can have it very small and very effective—but because it is simply insufficient.

The other issue—no one has raised it this morning—is how important international investment flows are and how important it is not to forget that they're going to a very small number of countries. There is no question that the way in which aid has been “delivered” or the way in which developing countries have made use of overseas development assistance, has varied enormously. Some countries, because they were more open, were better governed, made use of it much better than others. I think we're coming to a period in which there's been an unfortunate juxtaposition of countries opening up to democracy at the same time as donor countries—and this is true almost across the board, with a few exceptions, like the Netherlands and the Norwegians—have been cutting their development aid. So just as we're getting governments in developing countries that are open, transparent, accountable to their people, we have been closing the tap in terms of volume of assistance. I think that's a problem. I don't disagree with you that you can use money more effectively, but the volume still matters.

• 1025

In regard to private aid agencies, IDRC works with non-government organizations together with researchers in developing countries. I will ask whether people are familiar with what SHARE does, because that sounds like an extremely interesting example. I don't know if we have ever worked with SHARE, but I know we work with non-government organizations in developing countries and also here in Canada.

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

Madame Debien.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Good morning, Ms. O'Neil.

Ms. Maureen O'Neil: Good morning, madam.

Ms. Maud Debien: I would like to welcome you to the committee and I am personally very pleased to see you again. I also wish you the very best in your new functions.

I would like to go a little further into a question that came up around the table a few times concerning Africa. On page 7 of your 1996-97 annual report, it says that the various research programs for developing countries provide significant support for Africa.

Yet if I look at the figures mentioned further on, it says that 24.3% is devoted to Africa, that Latin America and Asia total 38% and that world and institutional activities account for 37.4%. I would like to know if you intend to continue supporting emerging countries at the same level. These regions obtain most of the research programs, whereas we know that Africa is currently the continent that needs them the most.

I would like to know what you mean by world and institutional activities. I have not had the time, unfortunately, to read the whole report, but I would ask you to tell me briefly what these activities entail.

My second question deals with programs for information technology, programs that you seem to emphasize a great deal. I am thinking, among others, of the Acacia program. You spoke of an information technology project in South Africa, and it is my understanding that South Africa is the most developed African country and could even be considered an emerging country.

In contrast, for the other African countries which are not emerging countries but the poorest countries in the world, you are talking about investing in information technologies as well.

Now, you and I both know that most people in Africa do not know how to read and write and that basic needs are not met. In Africa, there are no televisions, there are no telephones, but very many people do have radios. I think that nearly all families have a radio and that is the main means of information and communication over there.

Therefore, while recognizing that Canada and Canadian businesses have many information technology services and products to sell, I wonder if it is useful for the IDRC—and for the Canadian government in its various aid programs—to emphasize the development of information and communication technologies in countries where people do not know how to read and write and where basic needs are absolutely not being met.

I wonder about the appropriateness of promoting such projects in Africa. On page 40, there is even talk of the Internet in Africa. Am I dreaming? I must admit that I am asking myself serious questions and I would like you to make a few comments on this.

Ms. Maureen O'Neil: Thank you very much.

First of all, I should point out that for next year the figures for Africa have increased significantly. The increase is from 24% to about 38%, if we look at the budget for next year.

• 1030

With respect to the corporate activities, certain projects involve all continents at the same time. Researchers participate from around the world, not just from one continent. Institutional activities are programs linked to Canadian universities, Canadian NGOs, public education and other things of that sort.

Regarding the second question on technology and especially the Acacia program, I mentioned South Africa because we are going to go to South Africa this week, but it is a program that affects all of Africa. I should say that the same questions were asked by the board of directors last year when the program was presented. Why information technology for Africa?

As I pointed out this morning, I was not there when the project was presented. The IDRC has always supported the use of computers in its projects since the 1970s, for the simple reason that it has always been very important for researchers to have links with the world scientific community. As well, the way their libraries work has always substantially supported research.

The Acacia Program exists in all regions of Africa, but it started in South Africa, Senegal, and Uganda. We work in the political sphere with governments in the area of new technologies and also with grassroots groups, which may be schools or centres called telecommunications centres, but which are in fact a little like a store with a telephone and a computer that can be used by the whole community.

A number of trials have now been done with what we call the telecentres and with schools that can use the Internet to obtain information. People can also come, as used to be the case in Canada, to a store or a place where there is a single telephone for an entire small community. In Senegal, for example, we are working with telecentres to see how the equipment is used by people, what levels of funding are important and how schools can use their access to the Internet to get much more educational material.

There are also other projects that are absolutely fascinating. For example, women who want to sell their products in the markets of other small villages have created a small commodity market by using their cellular telephones to give the price of watermelons, for example, in one place or another, in order to avoid a long, unnecessary trip. Research is therefore being done to find out all the ways that telecommunication technologies are being used.

You also mentioned radio. I do not know if now, with the Acacia Program, research is being done on the use of radios, but in the past it was very important in Africa. Now things are moving quite quickly in that area. In Senegal, for example, where we are working closely with the government, universities and schools, there is a strong desire to have access to the Internet both on the part of researchers and schools. We are involved in a number of trials, as Quebec was, particularly in the area of distance learning.

• 1035

This week, someone from the CAIT, the Canadian Association of Information Technology, is going to Africa to see if Canadian companies are interested in community-level projects. This is an interesting experiment, but we do not know if there are companies interested in this area.

In other countries, such as Uganda, there is a great deal of interest in these new technologies. The Prime Minister of Uganda came to Toronto to the conference organized by the World Bank and CIDA to discuss ways in which new technologies can be used to contribute to development. The Prime Minister himself asked that his country participate in projects such as the Acacia project.

The same is true for Mozambique. It may seem far-fetched when we think of this country that has so many problems. Sitting beside me were the vice-rector of the University of Maputo and the minister responsible; both of them wanted Mozambique to have access to these technologies. I know that this may seem a bit strange, but the needs exist in that country.

Ms. Maud Debien: It is not strange at all. Information technologies are first and foremost instruments of power.

Ms. Maureen O'Neil: Yes, of course, but it depends on whose hands they are in.

Ms. Maud Debien: That is quite true. In countries where leaders already have dictatorial powers, it is an additional tool of power that you are giving them with these technologies. I was talking about radio earlier. All people in Africa have a radio.

Ms. Maureen O'Neil: Yes, of course.

Ms. Maud Debien: For those people, that is the level where changes must be made to improve literacy, the level of schooling, etc.

Ms. Maureen O'Neil: Yes, that is true.

Ms. Maud Debien: People at the grassroots level have to be able to get their share of rights and eventually overthrow the dictatorial governments that are in Africa.

Ms. Maureen O'Neil: Yes.

Ms. Maud Debien: At present, you are giving extraordinary tools of power to the dictators already in place, and that is what I find appalling. I have nothing against the use of information technology in itself, because it is an extraordinary tool, but I would like to point out to you that the potential users in Africa are dictatorial regimes and that these are instruments of power that you are giving to the authorities, while we know very well that it is by educating and informing the public at the grassroots level that we are going to be able to improve things and bring democracy to those countries.

I find there is a terrible contradiction between what you are doing and the real needs of people that must be educated, made aware and informed in order to bring democracy to these countries and make them dependable and democratic. I find that there is a real problem there.

Ms. Maureen O'Neil: I would like to give a short answer.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Just a short response.

[Translation]

Ms. Maureen O'Neil: The grassroots groups we are working with are not controlled by the governments. These are NGO groups, schools, and not groups controlled by the governments. In South Africa, even if it is an emerging country, there are great difficulties because 90% of the population lives in third world conditions. However, they are trying to get everyone connected to the telephone and electricity, and I can tell you that this is an enormous challenge.

I believe that your concerns are very important, because we do not want, through our work, to put more power into the hands of dictators. Perhaps it would be helpful to have a presentation on this particular project at a later date, in view of the criticisms that you have expressed.

• 1040

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. McWhinney, short question, short answer.

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): I compliment the centre for the frankness with which these questions have been phrased. You ask, why give this money to researchers from other countries when Canadian institutions need research funds and can do the work as well or better? I remember when Prime Minister Trudeau took the initiative of founding this centre. There was absolutely no real contact systematically between universities and you might say the professional research centres in Canada with overseas institutions.

I think the phenomenon of our time is that now the direct bilateral relations exist. In fact, within the framework of APEC, the universities have already been part of the Prime Minister's tours to Asia, Team Canada, and some of them have extraordinarily interesting bilateral programs. Of course they have the research staff in numbers, and the research administrators, you don't have.

Having started something and done it successfully, do you envisage a sort of sunset law style of operation applying to you and you would be phased into the universities as a normal part of the progression of the government?

It's partly a rhetorical question, but you raised it I think very thoughtfully and very honestly here, and it's a very basic question, because everybody is competing for money: the Foundation for Innovation is in it, the universities are handling it directly, the millennium scholarships, probably universities, and so on.

Ms. Maureen O'Neil: That's a very good question. I would like to point out, though, that we have Canadian researchers involved in a lot of our work; not the majority of it, because we are there to provide support to developing country institutions.

There are some parts of the world, and certainly some countries of the world, where IDRC support now is far less needed than it was in 1970. In those countries, in that part of the world, there shouldn't be a need to rely on IDRC and Canadian universities ought to be able to make their bilateral connections with those institutions. But in other countries, in poor countries where the research establishment is very weak and it still needs external support, IDRC is very important.

In those countries that are neither one nor the other but are democratizing and are turning their attention to stabilizing and increasing the research base in their country, IDRC's work ought to be to contribute to their transformation of their research establishments from client-ridden establishments to those that are based on peer review and more openness and more transparency. So our work should not necessarily be supporting institutions but supporting the process of thinking about how you put in place effective research establishments.

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

I think this has turned out to be an extremely interesting session and we would all like to have more time. I have a list of questions as well, but as I said earlier, everyone has commitments.

Thank you very much for your presentation and for your frank discussion. I hope we will be able to have an opportunity to talk with you in more depth.

The meeting is adjourned.