FINA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES FINANCES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 30, 1999

• 1808

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order and welcome everyone here this evening.

As you know, the finance committee has been travelling across the country seeking input from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I must say that the quality of the input has been great this year. Of course, whenever people make strong cases for their particular point of view, it gives us the great challenge of making tradeoffs as we get ready to make recommendations to the Minister of Finance, and I'm sure this evening will be no different.

I'd like to bring to the attention of the members that we have the pleasure to have with us witnesses representing a number of groups: the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations, the North-South Institute, Action Canada for Population and Development, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, and the Foundation for Educational Exchange Between Canada and the United States of America.

As you know, you have approximately five to six minutes to make your presentation. Thereafter we will engage in a question and answer session. We will begin with the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations, Mr. Al Hatton, executive director.

Welcome.

Mr. Al Hatton (Executive Director, Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations): Thank you. I want to start by addressing very quickly the five questions you put out in your first note, and then I will make some other points.

• 1810

In regard to the first area, around the process of budget-making and the suggestion that I believe you made as a committee that targets be set for long-term debt, from the voluntary sector's point of view, we would rather see priority areas of social spending, looked at over several years, as a first priority, not reduction of debt, respecting that the debt obviously has to come down. If you put that out as the first thing, we would say no, that's not the first thing; reinvesting in the community ought to be first.

The second area you talked about was tax relief or tax reform. As part of the voluntary sector round table, we have been pushing for the last five years for tax incentives for modest and moderate donors. We appreciate what both the Department of Finance and the Liberal government have done for large contributions, but we have not necessarily done the same thing for small contributions.

In terms of tax relief and tax reform, we would resist the current pressure for tax cuts, coming primarily from some part of the private sector, if that's at the expense of health and social and community programs.

In terms of social infrastructure, the third big area you identify, this is neat, because I've been here for the last four or five years and it has always been about getting to zero and being modest and being patient. It's nice to see that social infrastructure is now one of the key tenets you're looking at, and we would support that.

We appreciate that in the last two budgets—two times ago, focusing on education, and the last one, on health—you have gone some way in addressing the social infrastructure. But that's pretty much the traditional infrastructure, hospitals and universities. We think there's still a big gap in terms of local, provincial, and national support for more social welfare and social service organizations. We believe that has to be the priority.

That has been a problem with the social union process. In fact the community and a lot of national and local groups have been frozen out of that. So we appreciate that both levels of government now have a framework. The real challenge now is how to engage the community and move forward.

The fourth area you talk about is the new economy. I want to come back to that, because in fact in the voluntary sector there's a huge engine of job creation and activity going on that employs 1.3 million Canadians. That's little known, and part of the process we're suggesting is much more knowledge and much more understanding of what is in fact going on in the voluntary sector, not only its social, policy and consultative contribution, but also its economic contribution.

The last point you talk about is productivity. In terms of where we sit, it's one thing to try to deal with the brain drain and even find out if there really is one, but think about this: There are seven volunteers for every staff person in the voluntary sector. If you invest in the capacity of voluntary organizations, you generate seven times as much in other output. We never seem to think about that when we talk about productivity.

Those are some of the areas you identified as of concern to you, so I have addressed those quickly.

How much time do I have?

The Chair: You still have enough time. I'll stop you when your time's up.

Mr. Al Hatton: I think we're in a very new context. In coming here for the last three or four years, we have been told in the voluntary sector, by and large, “Be patient. We have to get to zero. You guys are wonderful, but we don't have any money to invest in you.” Well, here we are again. We're not losing patience, but the fact is, then, I think it really is time to start to reinvest in the capacity of the voluntary sector. We have been watching intently the developments with the social union process. We want to be part of that, but so far there's not really a place for us there, and we're going to keep pushing.

But concurrently we've been trying to get our own act together. I've given the clerk copies of a joint report that the voluntary sector has done with the federal government, involving 19 departments. We're very hopeful that as a result of that joint work, dealing with three big areas—the relationship between the voluntary sector and the federal government, capacity building, and the regulatory framework—that will be going forward to cabinet very soon, hopefully for approval overall, and then the issue is what resources can be put into that process.

We're proposing four big areas for investment.

First, much like the private sector has talked about in the last four or five years, creating the environment where they can do business, we believe more should be put into the voluntary sector and organizations and community groups to make sure they can in fact do the work they're committed to in terms of also strengthening the social fabric of Canadian society.

• 1815

The second big area is that we totally support the move towards investing in a major way around the issue of children. The National Children's Alliance and several groups have already appeared before you. We, as a national coalition of 130 charities, support those initiatives. You know them. I won't go into detail about them, but they're very much in line with what we believe to be a key investment in the long-term development of Canada.

Third, in the last budget a lot of resources were given to health research and information, but there's still a need at the grassroots level to invest in organizations for home care and for organizations to be part of this huge infrastructure on health that's more community based.

The last area I wanted to touch on was, again, just to reinforce the idea of encouraging giving and philanthropy among Canadians, which means looking at tax incentives that encourage giving.

That's really all I had to say. Thanks.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Hatton.

We'll now hear from the North-South Institute, with the president, Mr. Roy Culpeper, and Mr. John Serieux, researcher.

Welcome.

Mr. Roy Culpeper (President, North-South Institute): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for inviting the North-South Institute to appear before the committee in its pre-budget consultation.

Appearing with me today is my colleague, Dr. John Serieux, who is our expert on third world debt. I intend to steer any difficult questions on debt to him, should they arise.

Our remarks focus on the fourth of your five themes, namely, the new economy. Indeed, we would refer to it as the new global economy, along with its implications for international development and for the 40% of humanity comprising the world's poorest peoples.

Developing and emerging-market countries face enormous challenges in keeping pace with the new global economy. There is much evidence to suggest that the poorest countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, are getting left further behind. There's also evidence indicating that in every country, rich or poor, globalization benefits some people much more than others. In other words, the gap between rich countries and poor countries is widening, while the gap is also widening between rich and poor people within countries.

Our response to these trends is not to turn back the clock on globalization—if that were indeed possible. Rather, it is to make global markets, institutions, and rules work to benefit poor countries and poor people, or at least to stop them from continuing to favour the rich.

Ultimately the people in the governments of the developing countries are responsible for their destiny, but there's much that fortunate countries like Canada can do to improve their chances. We suggest two kinds of initiatives: first, to re-ignite our foreign aid program with new resources and new commitments; and second, to continue to take a leadership role on international debt, finance, and economic governance issues. Let me address these in turn.

With regard to foreign aid, recent research indicates that properly targeted and utilized aid can indeed help recipient countries raise people out of poverty. But as committee members are aware, Canada's aid budget has been massively cut during the past decade. Roughly speaking, we have fallen from an aid program exceeding $3 billion at the beginning of the 1990s to a $2 billion program today—a fall of more than one-third.

This has greatly exceeded the cuts in all other areas of program spending. In absolute terms, Canada now allocates to foreign aid about as much as Sweden, a country one-third our population size, and about two-thirds as much as the Netherlands, which has only one-half our population. Relative to our ability to pay, measured in GNP, we are considerable less generous now than these two countries, as well as less generous than Norway, Denmark, and France. Our ODA to GNP ratio has fallen from a high of 0.48% in the late 1980s to a projected low of 0.26% this year, far below the government's professed target of 0.7%.

Now that we've turned the corner in the fight against the deficit, it is time to rebuild the aid program. We welcome the recent announcement in the Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister's more recent remarks, made during his trip to Africa, that the government is indeed contemplating a significant increase in the aid budget. We hope that the increases are both significant—that is, at least 8% to 10% per year—and sustained over several years.

• 1820

We also welcome the appointment of a new Minister for International Cooperation and a new president of CIDA. Both of these appointments auger well for reinvigorating the aid program and hopefully restoring Canada's stature as one of the world's leading aid donors.

I should note in passing, Mr. Chairman, that the International Monetary Fund, in its recent assessment of Canada's economic policy, encouraged the government to increase its aid expenditures and to move towards the longstanding target of 0.7% of GNP.

Even if it's well targeted and utilized, increased foreign aid by itself is not enough to put the developing countries and their people onto a more level playing field with the advanced countries. Equally or more important is the need to remove some serious obstacles to development and to the equitable participation of the developing countries in the global economy. This is my second point.

One of these obstacles is the debt of the poorest countries. At this year's G-8 summit in Cologne and, more recently, at the IMF annual meetings in Washington, important progress was made. Canada has been at the forefront of these discussions. Yet a number of issues remain unresolved, including how to share the financial burden among the rich creditor countries. Further steps should be taken to ensure that the developing countries will benefit from debt relief. We believe there needs to be much greater relief than has hitherto been agreed and that it should be provided more quickly and to a wider range of countries.

There is also a tie-in here with the issue of increasing the aid budget, and I'd like to stress this point. While debt relief counts as a contribution to foreign aid, we feel it is unacceptable if a significant portion of the increased aid budget takes this form, i.e., debt relief.

Finally, we feel strongly that the developing countries need to be admitted as full and equal participants to the world's economic decision-making councils. There has been much talk over the last year of the need for “new financial architecture”. For too long, in our view, G-7 finance ministers and central bank governors have dominated this discussion. Greater inclusiveness of the world's poorer countries is vital if reform of the financial system is to have any legitimacy.

We therefore welcomed the recent creation of the so-called G-20, which brings together the G-7 industrial countries, Russia, and some developing countries. We're particularly encouraged that Mr. Martin, our finance minister, has been appointed to chair this group, since he has shown considerable initiative during the financial crises of the last few years. We look forward to his stewardship of this new forum, the G-20. The North-South Institute stands ready to play a supporting role.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We will now hear from Action Canada for Population and Development, with Katherine McDonald, executive director, and Ann Burnett, parliamentary affairs coordinator.

Welcome.

Ms. Ann Burnett (Parliamentary Affairs Coordinator, Action Canada for Population and Development): Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you very much for letting us appear here today. We're doing so with a feeling of true optimism and encouragement.

We looked with great relief upon the recent affirmation of the Prime Minister, when he was in Senegal, that the ODA budget is going to be increased in the next budget, although he admitted it is not going to be a vote-getter. But if all Canadians could be made aware of the abysmal human suffering that afflicts more than one billion people, we are quite certain they would respond with their most affirmative support.

We're going to deviate from the brief that we sent to you and ask you to turn your attention to one issue in overseas development assistance. Listen to the remarks made recently by the World Bank president, James Wolfensohn. He asked:

How is it possible that in a world about to enter a new millennium, in the midst of unprecedented economic growth and technological breakthroughs, we have managed to allow alarming numbers of young women to continue dying through pregnancy and childbirth?

Maternal mortality represents one of the starkest and most unacceptable gaps between developed and developing countries, with 98% of deaths occurring in the developing world. One woman every minute dies from a pregnancy-related cause. That's four jumbo jet loads a day.

• 1825

The impact of this is most especially severe on young children. Poor maternal health care is the cause of nearly half of all infant deaths. During the first week of life, 3.2 million neonatal deaths occur each year, largely due to inadequate and inappropriate care during pregnancy.

At the UN conference on population and development in 1994, Canada made a commitment. Katherine is going to talk about that commitment.

Ms. Katherine McDonald (Executive Director, Action Canada for Population and Development): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think when we talk about commitment, about Canada's stature in the international community, and about Canada making commitments in international fora, it's very easy to brush it aside and say that it's easy to make a promise, it's easy to make a commitment, but it's harder to follow through.

But unlike many international conferences that are based on consensus agreements, the International Conference on Population and Development actually set financial targets in terms of funding, and actual goals for reducing infant and maternal mortality and increasing access to high-quality sexual and reproductive health services. It also did a lot to link the issues of the empowerment of women, the participation in political and economic decision-making by women, the gender gap between girls and boys, and improving the status of the girl child with the provision of sexual and reproductive health care.

Prior to the Cairo conference, overseas aid in this area was primarily restricted to family planning, but governments recognized that this was not doing enough to alleviate the high rates and increasing numbers of women dying in pregnancy and childbirth, and not doing enough in terms of equality between men and women.

So they set a price tag. They said they were going to expand the services and it was going to cost more. It was going to cost $17 billion U.S. per year by the year 2000. Of that $17 billion, $5.7 billion would be paid by donor countries—one-third of the full amount. Of that one-third, Canada's share, again based on GNP, is $200 million Canadian per year, starting in the year 2000.

The difficulty is that we went to the Cairo conference in 1994. We went to the UN review of that conference this year. And we're still only one-quarter of the way there. This is a commitment we made to help women, children, and families in developing countries—a very small piece of the larger development pie, but a very critical piece for women.

So I'm asking you today to consider what a world would be like if we met the goals of the Cairo conference, where women could decide when they married, if they married, when they would have sexual relations, and with whom. This impacts on the consent to marriage. It impacts on women's choices. It impacts on child marriage. It has to do with sexual relations, and that's what we refer to when we talk about sexual health. When we talk about reproductive health, we talk about women's ability to make decisions on when they have children, which connects back to the family planning issue.

If we had a world where the Cairo goals were met, we would have women and men making decisions about their sexuality and reproduction free of coercion, free of violence, and free of discrimination.

At the Beijing conference a year after Cairo, these concepts were fully integrated into the platform for action for the Beijing conference on women. We're coming up to the review on that conference this June. Women's groups are mobilizing across this country to give their input into Canada's position at that conference. It would be wonderful if this government would take the opportunity in this coming budget to do the right thing, to stand behind its commitment it made five years ago to set out a plan to reach the Cairo commitments.

• 1830

You know, I'm very proud of Canada when I go to international meetings, particularly within the UN system, where we argue and negotiate, and send wonderful people to work on language that is progressive, that is based on human rights, and that is trying to advance the international agenda. And whether we're talking about landmines, the International Criminal Court, or the sexual and reproductive rights of women and girls around the world, we do a good job. But our credibility is wearing thin as countries realize we're just not up to the mark when it comes to the money.

This finance committee is one of our institutions of democracy, one of the places where ordinary people and ordinary groups can have their say, and where you can write a report that can make a difference and can make Canadians proud of where we are on the international scene. I know, as Ann said, the Prime Minister has promised that he's going to increase the aid budget. I think this committee is a very important part of that process, and I think that taking this particular issue, a small part of the overall development agenda, as an example, would make a very important impact within CIDA and resonate very well with the Canadian public.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll now hear from the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, Ms. Betty Plewes, president and chief executive officer. Welcome.

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

We're pleased to be here this evening, and we share many points of view that have already been stated by some of the previous speakers.

The council itself is a coalition of more than a hundred organizations that work in the field of international cooperation, and over the last year we've been involved in a campaign called In Common, whose purpose is to move the issue of global poverty to the centre of the public policy agenda.

[Translation]

Your committee has identified five themes for its consultation. We would like to focus on the fourth theme, the new economy, and discuss some of the challenges facing Canada as a global citizen in the 21st century.

When we think about the new economy, the first thing that comes to mind is its global orientation. Globalization has tremendous potential to generate employment, income and economic growth. It has the potential to greatly improve the quality of life for people in Canada and around the world.

But, as the United Nations Development Report points out, the new rules of globalization and the players writing them focus on integrating global markets, neglecting the needs of people that markets cannot meet. The process is concentrating power and marginalizing the poor, both countries and people.

[English]

In fact one of the greatest challenges to human security is the growing inequity in global society, and Roy has pointed out the statistics—1.3 billion people living on less than a dollar a day; an increasing gap between the rich and the poor nations.

Within Canadian foreign policy, Canadian aid is one of the key tools we have for Canada to meet its international obligations to reduce global poverty. I'd like to highlight four key recommendations for the millennium budget that would set us on a course to a new and progressive aid program. They are: focus on eliminating poverty, restore the budget to Canada's aid program, cancel third world debt, and commit to a broader program of public engagement.

• 1835

In terms of focusing on poverty, we feel Canada's aid program over the next five years should result in at least 60% of CIDA's budget being directed to programs that directly improve the conditions and rights of poor people living in poor countries. The remaining 40% should be directed to activities that enable poverty reduction.

To achieve these priorities, there are three key areas: focus programs on meeting basic needs in a sustainable way; improve the targeting of aid to poor people in poor countries; and as part of this targeting, show renewed attention to human development needs in sub-Saharan Africa.

The budget directed toward sub-Saharan Africa has been disproportionately cut over the last nine years. As a small personal note, I was in Durban for the commonwealth NGO conference that preceded the heads of government meeting in Durban this year. While I was there, there was an article in the newspaper that said, as a result of AIDS in South Africa, life expectancy in South Africa had been reduced by ten years in the last four years. It's gone from 66 years to 56 years in four years. In Zimbabwe, the country to the north, it's been reduced by 20 years in four years. We become kind of immune to these tremendous statistics, but the toll in Africa and the needs are very dramatic.

Canada's aid program has been cut very dramatically over the last decade, and we were very pleased with the announcement in the Speech from the Throne and in the Prime Minister's remarks while he was on his African trip. But we would like to see a long-term resource plan if we're going to meet our international obligations. In this budget, we would like to see Canada set a target of 0.35%, to be met in 2005-06. This is actually only half of our internationally agreed-upon target of 0.7%, but it would require us to spend an additional $300 million a year for the next five or six years in order to meet half of the target we have agreed upon.

We think we should cancel third world debt, and Roy has spoken about that in some detail. I would just like to underline that we strongly urge that the resources for debt cancellation be additional to increases in the international assistance envelope for ODA. Although there was no written commitment among the G-7 countries when they agreed to debt reduction, there was certainly a moral understanding that this would be additional to increases in aid.

Finally, in the area of public engagement, we all know and see through our own families and our organizations that there is much more interaction internationally, on the part of the private sector, NGOs and government. We are connected in many ways internationally. Our feeling is that in order to support this kind of growing understanding on the part of Canadians about global issues, problems, and the ways to address them, there really needs to be more attention paid in the CIDA budget to public engagement.

Our proposal is that Canada should begin to work toward a target of 2.5% of CIDA programming by 2005-06 to be devoted to public engagement. Total funding at the moment for communications and development education in CIDA is about 1% of CIDA's programming resources.

[Translation]

In a speech in Winnipeg earlier this year, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien pointed out that we in Canada are blessed. He added that the United Nations has confirmed every year for five years running that our quality of life is the best in the world.

But with those blessings come responsibilities, those of being a world citizen. These responsibilities are more important than ever as the world becomes a smaller, more interconnected, more interdependent place.

• 1840

[English]

In the same speech, the Prime Minister also pointed out that the poor of this world deserve more than just talk; they deserve action. We certainly agree with this. We feel it would be appropriate now for Canada to develop a long-term plan to reinvest in foreign aid and reform foreign aid. Canada could then live up to its responsibilities as a world citizen and make a significant contribution toward eradicating global poverty.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Plewes.

We'll now hear from the Foundation for Educational Exchange Between Canada and the United States of America, Dr. Victor Konrad, executive director; and David Walker, president of West-Can Consultants.

Mr. David Walker (President, West-Can Consultant, Foundation for Educational Exchange Between Canada and the United States of America): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As unaccustomed as I am to this format, I'll see how you do it.

On behalf of the board, I want to thank you for the opportunity to participate. The Fulbright Foundation is proud of the efforts it's making in international education and helping the country develop its international knowledge strategy. The details of the brief have been circulated to you. I want to ask Dr. Victor Konrad to take you through it and then participate in the questions and answers after.

Mr. Victor Konrad (Executive Director, Foundation for Educational Exchange Between Canada and the United States of America): Thank you very much, David.

Mr. Chairman, I will address my remarks to knowledge and competitiveness for Canadians through international educational exchange.

The Canada-U.S. Fulbright Commission is Canada's official higher education link with the United States of America. We send the best and the brightest Canadian graduate students and senior scholars to the U.S. for one year of advanced research and study, so they may return to Canada with a better perspective on Canada-U.S. issues. Similarly, Americans are brought to Canada to learn about our perspectives on issues ranging from trade to cultural identity, and from health to environmental sustainability.

In order to participate effectively in the emerging global community and gain in a sustained way from international trade, Canada must produce more graduates and professionals capable of competing in an intercultural and international environment.

We are proud that both governments chose our recent board of directors meeting in Washington, D.C., to sign a renewal of the agreement to sustain our educational exchange commission. This is, in our minds, a real vote of confidence in the work and accomplishments of Canada-U.S. Fulbright and an acknowledgement that this exchange activity is crucial to advancing mutual understanding among the future leaders of our countries.

As a charter member of the Coalition for International Education, the Canada-U.S. Fulbright Commission supports every component of the coalition's proposed strategy, including a flagship scholarship program of study; abroad, incentive grants for Canadians and study-in-Canada grants for international students; reinvigoration of key full scholarship programs, like the Canada-U.S. Fulbright awards; the Commonwealth fellowships; les Bourses de la Francophonie and Government of Canada awards; investment in international research and technology transfer; enhancement of support for Canadian studies programs abroad; and building Canada's current education marketing efforts abroad.

Canada's most important international relationship is with the United States. The dimensions of the relationship are staggering, with more than $1 billion in trade every day and millions of border crossings annually. The educational exchange component is minuscule and lopsided, with less than 30,000 participants, mostly Canadians seeking advanced degrees or programs not available in Canada.

Until the Canada-U.S. Fulbright exchange program was initiated in 1991-92, nothing was being done to address the need for reciprocal and mutual understanding. Through a combination of government, private sector, and institutional support, a three-way partnership has emerged to fund 60 awards a year, half to Americans and half to Canadians.

The Canada-U.S. Fulbright Commission is a partner in the western hemisphere grouping of Fulbright exchange programs. Cooperation among the commissions is being encouraged by all governments in the region, and cooperative exchange programs in fields such as environmental management are emerging.

As Canada prepares to host and guide a range of hemispheric initiatives and meetings, Fulbright affords access, recognition and impact. Our award recipients have excelled. Aboriginal leaders have emerged from Fulbright exchange opportunities for first nations participants. Of the new assistant professors at Osgoode Hall Law School, four out of five are Fulbrighters. The primary expert on the softwood lumber trade issue is a Fulbrighter. Canada's most prominent scholars, like Charles Taylor in philosophy and Stephen Clarkson in international relations, currently hold Fulbright distinguished chairs at U.S. universities. Our Fulbright scholars are among the leaders in research on global warming and other hot issues engaging the best minds in Canada and in the United States.

• 1845

Our partnerships are successful, but the demand for future leaders and experts is high. There is simply too little Canadian investment in this forward-looking program. In contrast to the Government of Canada, which pays $350,000 U.S. annually, Germany and Japan invest $6 million U.S. and $4 million U.S. respectively. Even Mexico invests almost $2 million U.S. in its Fulbright exchanges with the United States. Our major trading partners in 150 countries worldwide understand the value of Fulbright and other international exchange efforts designed to enhance mutual understanding, competitiveness, leadership potential, and excellence in teaching and research.

These programs work to stem the brain drain, with formal agreements for students to return and incentives for scholars to share their international experience with others. The programs represented by the coalition and others that foster international exchange require investment now, before Canada falls behind even further in its competitive advantage and civic responsibility.

Why are we here? With our coalition partners, we aim to promote international education. Mr. Chair and members of the committee, we wish to enlist your support to promote our program locally and help us to recruit the best candidates and recommend funding partners. We request that you use your report to promote international education. We ask the Minister of Finance to use his budget speech to promote international education and its competitive benefits for Canada.

Finally, we urge you to increase federal spending for international education from the current level of just under $30 million to $100 million, with $2 million annually dedicated to Fulbright exchanges.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Konrad and Dr. Walker.

We'll now proceed to the question and answer session. It will be a seven-minute round.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of you for coming today and giving us your presentations.

I always have to work harder than everyone else here, because when you're all finished I already have to be organized for the questions, and I'm not always because I'm writing notes here.

I'd like to begin with the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations. You mentioned a voluntary sector capacity-building fund. Enlarge on that. What is that?

Mr. Al Hatton: Leaders in the voluntary sector have been working with the federal government now for several months. We've identified a series of areas, one around knowledge, knowledge in the sense of learning more about the voluntary sector. Statistics Canada does all sorts of research on the economy, and on different industries, but they do no specific research per se on the voluntary sector. We don't even know per se from Statistics Canada how many organizations are actually in the voluntary sector in Canada. So that's one.

Without basic information on what organizations exist and what they're doing, we are obviously disadvantaged. We're talking about 1.3 million people in Canada who work in the voluntary sector. We don't know what are their pay rates. We have no knowledge on that.

There's an issue there about burnout, because with all the cuts that have taken place at the federal level and through the provinces, a lot of the issues and a lot of the challenges that exist in the community are being picked up by staff and volunteers at the community level. But there's been no analysis of the impact of those cuts.

There's an issue of capacity. When we talk about cuts, the first thing people say is that there are fewer services for people, or someone in the community will pick it up or people will make it on their own. The fact is there's a whole infrastructure that has to be supported to ensure that volunteers are well utilized.

So we have a series of recommendations in a report that I circulated to you on staff exchanges between governments, the kind of thing you're talking about in terms of what Fulbright does, and encouraging more of that. There's a series of things in there that will strengthen the capacity of organizations to be able to remain independent and be partners with government and the private sector to ensure we have healthier communities.

Mr. Ken Epp: I have another question for you.

You indicated that you would like to see in the budget increased tax incentives for modest donors. How do your propose to achieve that? Or what would you like to see the Minister of Finance announce in the budget in February that would achieve this goal?

Mr. Al Hatton: We put forward a series of suggestions, but I don't have the direct information in front me. I can easily send that to you.

Over the last three years we've been putting forward a pretty consistent message of raising the basic rates, which now are.... For a contribution of $200, I think it's 17%, and then it goes up to 29% above that. We're suggesting those levels be increased. We have a paper on this, and I think other groups have actually made a presentation on it. I can easily send that to the committee after this. I don't have those direct figures in front of me. It's a very simple process. It's not all that bureaucratic, and it just takes the current levels and raises them.

• 1850

Mr. Ken Epp: One of the things the Income Tax Act does is allow everyone to claim they've given the $100 whether they have or not, whether they have supporting receipts or not. I sometimes think that those who can't even accumulate $100 worth of receipts are such cheap screws they probably give nothing and shouldn't have any tax deduction at all.

I don't know whether you're in a position to answer that, and I don't know whether I want this to go public either, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Al Hatton: I'd rather not go backwards, I'd rather go forward.

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes. I might be ready to propose that the finance minister might bring a little money into the coffers by cutting that automatic deduction without any documentation to support it, but that's probably aside from it.

I want to go to the North-South Institute. You keep saying don't favour the rich, stop favouring the rich, and I think you indicated that this applied not only to individuals but also to countries, as if our international agreements and the way we do our finances give an advantage to rich countries and somehow are detrimental to the poor countries. Yet from what I know, we actually give in foreign aid quite a bit more to poor countries than we do to rich countries, or am I wrong? I don't know exactly what you're saying there.

Mr. Roy Culpeper: As far as I know, I don't think we give any foreign aid to rich countries.

Mr. Ken Epp: I hope not.

Mr. Roy Culpeper: That's not even a consideration.

What I was talking about was how global markets tend to favour those who have access to technology, those who are well-educated, and they tend not to be residents of poor countries. You look at a country like Bangladesh, which has fewer telephone lines than the city of Montreal, and yet we keep on talking about how the Internet is going to transform commerce and world economic possibilities. And the fact of the matter is that, yes, potentially that's true, but in practice the poorest countries don't even have the equipment or the education to begin connecting to the Internet or to begin accessing some of the opportunities that global markets present them. That's the point I was trying to make.

Take the World Trade Organization. Of course everyone knows there's a meeting in Seattle this week. It's interesting to note that something like a dozen and a half sub-Saharan African countries that belong to the WTO don't have any representatives at the WTO in Geneva. So how can they even begin to start to compete on a level playing field with countries like Canada or the United States, with their barrage of bureaucrats and fancy lawyers who are full of research and analysis and recommendations for their ministers? That's the kind of world I'm talking about.

Mr. Ken Epp: The Canadian Council for International Cooperation and you people, and I think there was somebody else here, talked about eliminating global poverty, a very high-sounding lofty goal, which is I think well beyond the ability of the Canadian budget, even if we devoted all of our revenues to it and spread them around the world. We're a country with 30 million people, and it's like lighting a candle in a dark cave; it would give a little light, but do any of you have any plan or any ideas on how that could be accomplished?

I like the idea. I wish that no one were poor. But how do you accomplish that in practical terms? I think probably all of you at the table here today, in one way or another, except these two gentlemen over here who were talking about the education between Canada and the United States, so maybe they're a little out of this loop.... But all the rest of you, what would you do?

The Chair: Who wants to start? Mr. Culpeper, go ahead.

Mr. Roy Culpeper: I could start, and I'm sure everyone else at the table has views on this.

• 1855

Education is actually an important part of the solution, but I would argue that education at more basic levels, particularly education of girl children, is extremely important in developing countries.

But let me back up a bit. I think it's vain to suppose foreign aid is going to conquer poverty. I think foreign aid is an important part of the puzzle and can help, but ultimately, as I said in my remarks, it's up to the developing countries and their people and their governments to provide the leadership and to provide the way forward.

What our role is, as Canada, as one small donor in a sea of a large number of other donors, many of them much more resourced and well financed than we are, is that we can help by targeting our aid toward countries that have a poverty focus, both in terms of their institutions and their policies, and to encourage other donors and developing countries to behave likewise.

Finally—the other part of my remarks—aid is only a part of this picture. It's very important to recognize the obstacles that prevent developing countries from benefiting from global markets. For example, we still do not admit a lot of developing country exports into the Canadian market. We manage to collect something like $1 billion in developing country imports while we give out $2 billion in aid. Go figure. We need to remove those kinds of obstacles so as to help the developing countries and their industries to prosper and grow.

Perhaps I should ask my colleague John Serieux if he wants to say anything on this as well.

Mr. John Serieux (Researcher, North-South Institute): With respect to helping to eliminate poverty, I quite agree with my colleague that foreign aid by itself will not do the trick. No one is pretending that is the solution. But it certainly helps in very important ways.

With respect to debts, for example, our work has indicated that a heavy debt load is one of the biggest impediments to a country's growth and hence its ability to reduce poverty. Reducing that debt load gives the country the ability to use its resources in a manner that allows it to grow, and therefore in the long run to reduce poverty, and in the short run to reduce poverty by spending more on areas such as health, education, and means that directly alleviate poverty in the short run.

Mr. Ken Epp: I want to hear from the rest of you, but I have just a quick supplementary for you guys. How do you assure that those countries that get aid or that are now going to be given forgiveness for all or part of their debt haven't used it simply to buy tools of war? How do you assure that, or can you?

Mr. Roy Culpeper: Well, I think the way the donor community is thinking about aid nowadays is in the context of countries that have pro-poor, pro-development policies. It pays a lot of notice, a lot of attention to issues such as governance. Countries such as Sudan, such as Burma, are not likely to attract a lot of aid these days simply because it's recognized that under those kinds of environments and circumstances the poor are not likely to get a lot of attention.

So I think there is a recognition that the circumstances must be right, rather than imposing a lot of terms and conditions and red tape, as it were, to recognize that the countries where the conditions are ripe are the countries where poverty is likely to be reduced most rapidly.

The Chair: Ms. McDonald.

Ms. Katherine McDonald: This has been a very interesting discussion. I think the piece that Canada can do—I mean, if we reached our goal that actually Lester Pearson set, dreamed up, in the 1970s, of devoting 0.7% of our GNP to foreign aid, even then we'd still be a small player on the international scene.

But the stature we hold in terms of things like governance, issues like human rights—the landmines treaty is a perfect example of Canada's ability to get all kinds of diverse partners around the table and reach agreements. We don't go in with a heavy hand; we're well respected, I think, within the international community, both at the point of negotiating agreements and coming to terms. There is also the work that CIDA promotes, their partnership with NGOs, and all the members of CCIC who spend a lot of their time thinking about what goes into good development programs and development work.

• 1900

So I think if we just took that little bit of leadership we already have, that credit we have at the international level, and applied it to our finances, we would then have a huge amount of leverage in terms of getting good development programs in places where countries really need and want to respond to the challenges they're facing.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Plewes, would you like to join in?

Ms. Betty Plewes: Well, I think actually the elimination of global poverty is a question of political will and leadership, political leadership. We know that globally it's not a question of technology or not having the understanding about how to do it. We know it's not a question of not having the resources globally, it's the way we've allocated global resources.

If you look at how we've solved any social issues over the last 200 or 300 years, such as the question of slavery, it begins with a group of people who want to change things. It is possible, and I think Canada's contribution has been quite significant. Canada's contribution in cancelling debt—its leadership has been important there. Canada's leadership in the G-20 will be very important. We are an important player. Where it's a question of energy, political will, and vision as well as an effective aid program, cancelling the debt, doing our share in putting up our resources, I think it's quite possible.

It's true that it's long-term and idealistic, but it's possible. We know that it's possible.

Mr. Ken Epp: Well, I admire you all. I'm with you. Instead of cursing the darkness, let's maybe light that little candle and see what happens.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Madam Picard.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): I would like to thank the witnesses for their presentations and the quality of their statements. In their answers to my colleague, they have already answered the questions I had.

I want to say that I agree with their recommendation to increase spending on development assistance. I know that at the present time it sounds utopian to say that by increasing this spending we will eradicate poverty. No one can seriously believe this. However, by increasing this funding, we can contribute in other ways that will add up and be of great help to those underdeveloped countries.

Although we talk a lot about Africa, we have here, in this hemisphere, one the poorest countries in the world: Haiti. I was to accompany the Minister to Haiti, but one of my colleagues went instead. She told me about horrific things that are happening there, beyond imagination. On the other hand, she told me about the faint hope that is arising out of projects undertaken by CIDA and which are having an impact. These are small steps, but they produce results. I am thinking of those extraordinary projects called "Women and development", among others.

Canada and other countries have invested huge amounts in Haiti, again and again, without much success, but now we see some progress emerging in certain areas of Haiti.

It is very important to increase the funding for this in the next budget. I for one am committed to do what I can to make it happen and to make the Prime Minister keep his promise.

• 1905

Thank you. That is all.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have several questions.

I'd like to thank all of you for coming and bringing this perspective to the fore.

Initially, I would like to address this question to Ms. McDonald and Ms. Burnett. You talk about Canada's commitment in Cairo and the fact that $50 million a year is now being allocated, and we had undertaken to provide $200 million. Can you tell me how that $50 million currently is being dispersed?

Ms. Katherine McDonald: It's all done through CIDA. There are a couple of ways in which the money is dispersed. Part of it goes to the United Nations population fund. I think about $10 million goes to them. Another $4.5 million goes to international organizations, one being the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which works in, I think, 150 countries around the world. So those are sort of block transfers to organizations that specialize in this area and then carry out the work. The rest is based on projects that come across the desks of CIDA officers, and they approve them through whatever process they manage to come up with within CIDA.

That's actually one of the issues we have. We would like very much to see a strategy developed by CIDA, a program plan, if you will, on sexual and reproductive health issues. There's one under development for education, one on gender equality, one on the environment, and so forth. We would very much like to see that happen. CIDA in fact developed a strategy in draft form and was about to release it for public consultation, but they decided not to release it.

I think if we had a plan, we could then have a long-term vision of where the money should be going. I think the short answer is that right now it's rather haphazard as to how it's spent. It's based on chance. It's not based on good planning but on good luck, I would say, more than anything else.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Canada is one of several countries that agreed to fund this. Do we have a report card on how the other countries are doing as far as their commitments to this project are concerned?

Ms. Katherine McDonald: Yes. A report was prepared in preparation for the five-year review of the Cairo conference. It was released last January. I can send you a copy.

Canada falls about midway in the grouping of major donor countries within the OECD, and we are at about 25% of our goal. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands have met or exceeded their goals. There's variation among the other countries as well. On average, most countries reached about 35% to 40% of where they need to be. So no one is doing really well except for the four that have exceeded their commitments. We're doing below the average of the rest and certainly below the median.

Mrs. Karen Redman: So in the new report card lingo, we're developing with difficulty.

Ms. Katherine McDonald: In this report they received a grade of C-minus. They actually assigned a letter grade. If I had to assign a grade, I would consider that one to be generous.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Ms. Plewes, you're advocating that by the year 2005-06 we spend 2.5% of the CIDA budget on a communication and public engagement strategy. Can you flesh out a little bit for me how you would see that developing or unfolding?

• 1910

Ms. Betty Plewes: A portion of it would be spent in the schools. It's very important that young kids and high school students have an understanding of the global nature of our world now. So there would be an important component of that.

We ourselves have been working on something called public deliberation in three communities across the country, which is a way of engaging communities in a discussion on global issues. The topic we were working on was the impact of globalization on local communities. We did one in Cape Breton with about 200 people. It wasn't academic. The impact of globalization in Cape Breton is very dramatic.

There is a variety of other institutions, such as trade unions, the Canadian Co-operative Association, and professional associations such as the Canadian Nurses Association and the Canadian Public Health Association, that do education work with their own networks. There's a variety of programs within both the formal school system and these large organizations that have networks. Then there are many smaller organizations that do community-based activities, including film shows, delegates visiting from different parts of the world, and exchanges between Canadian farmers and Nicaraguan farmers, a whole variety of ways in which people have an opportunity to learn more about the world.

I would actually spend more money on engaging the public than on CIDA communications, but that may be because of where I sit.

Mrs. Karen Redman: If I may continue, Mr. Culpeper, you talk about retiring third world debt, and you weren't the only person to address this. In my community, as is the case right across Canada, the faith community has sort of picked up the banner of Jubilee 2000. I'm wondering if you could comment on it and how it aligns with your philosophy. You have a little bit of a caveat, I think, in how we retire third world debt. I'm just wondering if you're familiar enough with Jubilee 2000 to say whether or not that is consistent with your view.

Mr. Roy Culpeper: Very much so. I'm not sure what caveat you're referring to. We work quite closely with the NGO community, which plays an advocacy role. The role we play tends to be on the research side. John, my colleague, is our expert on debt issues.

I think Jubilee 2000 has been one of the most successful NGO campaigns in recent history. If it weren't for their efforts, I'm sure we wouldn't have made the kind of progress we have in the last few years.

The problem is that there needs to be follow-through. The NGOs can only go so far in terms of presenting their views and so forth. What we've tried to do is to focus on the follow-through.

In fact the next stage of our debt research project will be to look at a series of poor countries that are highly indebted, both in Africa and elsewhere, and to do a country case study of maybe a half dozen of those to look at the link between debt reduction or debt forgiveness on the one hand and poverty reduction on the other hand, how you go from A to B. I think it's quite important to understand how debt reduction affects poverty reduction.

The opportunities and challenges tend to be different in different countries. Some countries may have fairly good education and health systems, and others may not. Some may have relatively good governance, and others may not. Some may have natural resources, and others may not. So I think it's really important to understand what those opportunities and constraints are and how they play out in each country. That's going to be our contribution to the ongoing implementation of the debt relief plan.

John, did you want to say anything on this?

Mr. John Serieux: I'd just like to add that I think the campaign has succeeded in bringing debt to the attention of those who can do something about it. Our role at this point is to inform the effort, as Roy has explained, to make it more effective and ensure that whatever is done succeeds in accomplishing its desired end.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Maybe that's what I was referring to as a caveat. You don't want to retire third world debt and have the three richest families in the country get richer. What you want to do is make sure it's getting to the people, impacting their lifestyle, making life better, making education available.

• 1915

Mr. Roy Culpeper: Absolutely.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Those are the kinds of caveats that I think need to be in place if we're going to go forward with this.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Redman. Do you have another question?

Mrs. Karen Redman: I have one quick question to Dr. Konrad.

It really isn't exactly on the topic of your presentation, but I have two universities in my community, and they came to see me a couple of weeks ago. One of the things they pointed out was the fact of aging faculty, not only in Canada, but that it's an international problem or challenge. From your perspective, is that something we need to worry about as Canadians, and what should we do about it?

Mr. Victor Konrad: It definitely makes a much greater impact here in Canada because the size of our population is smaller. The predictions are that we will see the same kind of problem as we had in 1960s, when we didn't have enough university professors to fill our institutions. That problem was because of the baby boom, or add-on group, or whatever you want to call them. With the impact of all those students coming back, the professors retiring will cause a deficit to occur in our educational institutions that will be quite sizeable.

Universities are already concerned about that. There has been some discussion about that, but it hasn't really reached the media at this point to the degree that perhaps it should, and there isn't a general awareness of this. We're going to find that we'll be hiring people from the United States again, just the way we did in the past. I think one of the ways to prepare for that is to develop more international exchange opportunities, get more of our people out there and develop the linkages, and if we are going to have to hire from outside the country, perhaps we can hire people who are more informed about the country.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Redman.

Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Do I get a question?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Oh, thank you.

First, because no one has done it, I should welcome our guests here to the night shift.

I want to ask Dr. Konrad about the Fulbright program. Knowing that 81% of Canadian exports go to the United States, that says a lot about the relative importance of that country in the life of our country. In terms of Fulbright scholars, if you have those numbers, what proportion of Canadians on Fulbright scholarships are in the United States versus other jurisdictions?

Mr. Victor Konrad: First you have to understand how the Fulbright program operates. It's very similar to the Rhodes Scholarship program in the sense that it has a focal point. In this instance, the focal point is the United States. For Rhodes, it's Oxford University in the U.K.

Scholars from all around the world go to the United States, and Americans go to 150 countries around the world. Canada's participation in the Fulbright program is restricted to the amount we're able to invest in it. In other words, we have 60 scholars a year, half of them Americans coming here to Canada and half of them Canadians going abroad. Germany has a program of approximately 400 to 500 scholars annually participating in exchanges. Spain and Japan are a lot bigger than we are. Canada is sort of in the third tier, shall we say, of exchange programs.

That's partly due to the fact that our Fulbright program was established only after the free trade agreement was signed between Canada and the United States. Let's call it an acknowledgement of our difference from the United States at that particular point. That was when the Fulbright program was set in place.

So we have some catching up to do, but we're not catching up as quickly as the demand requires. There's a tremendous demand.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Then how are you funded now, and how is the money directed to you? Is it through a granting council?

Mr. Victor Konrad: No. It comes to us from a number of areas. We get $350,000 in U.S. dollars paid by the Canadian government, which is matched by the U.S. government, and we use that money to fund approximately 20 scholarships as well as our operating costs and our program development cost. The private sector and a number of institutions, through cost-share arrangements, provide the other two-thirds of our scholarships and fellowships. So it's a three-way partnership: the private sector, universities and colleges, and government.

• 1920

The Chair: Mr. Walker, would you like to add anything?

Mr. David Walker: I'd like to say to Mr. Gallaway that one of the major obligations of the board is to fundraise. Some of the board members have been very active in building this up. It's only been ten years, but several are at it each year. We feel we have some momentum, and both of the ambassadors, who are members of the board, spend a lot of time promoting this in their respective countries so that there's an opportunity to find the companies that go back and forth and to find the institutions interested in Canada and the United States. So it's coming along.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Chair, you might want to know that Mr. Hatton is from Sarnia originally. That's very important.

Mr. Al Hatton: So is Mr. Galloway, in case anybody didn't know.

The Chair: I wouldn't put that in your resumé.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Mr. Hatton, you referred to the fact that it has now been a couple of years since the Income Tax Act was changed in terms of making larger donations to charitable organizations. I think this question has been discussed here in the past, but it has always been deemed to have been too early to know the effect. I wonder if it's time now to ask you what the effect of those changes has been for charitable organizations.

Mr. Al Hatton: It's been actually very positive. Some of the charities have started to track that. Community foundations have been tracking it and United Ways have been tracking it, as have some of the larger health organizations and museums, and it has been positive.

I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, though. Our commitment to the Department of Finance is to do it year by year and to come back after five years to say what the impact has been. But it is significant, and in some cases it has become the largest way in which to support charities, through endowments and bequests. So it's a growing field for sure.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Ms. Burnett and Ms. McDonald, who are your members?

Ms. Katherine McDonald: We're a brand new organization. We've been incorporated for exactly a year as of a month ago, I guess. We have a two-structure membership, a very small paid membership and a much larger membership with which we communicate by way of a listserv. At last count, I think we had somewhere between 150 and 160 signed up members on our listserv. We do most of our communications though our website, which is not as well linked as it might be. We have huge hopes for the future.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: What I want to know is whether your members are individuals, or are they—

Ms. Katherine McDonald: Yes, they're individuals. Our structure is a very unusual structure—well, it's not that unusual, I suppose—in that we're trying to be cost disciplinary. There are a lot of issues addressed in the Cairo program of action around environment, development, and migration issues, as well as sexual and reproductive rights issues. We have seats on the board for people in those areas of expertise, and we also have a strong connection with the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada. They have a seat, a designation on our board as well.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Just as a further question to you, it was somehow raised by Mrs. Plewes that in terms of engaging the public in information or in educational sessions after the Cairo conference—and I think there was a subsequent Beijing conference—within this country there are taxpayers who are violently opposed to sexual and reproductive rights, education and funding. What do you say to those people?

Ms. Katherine McDonald: Well, it's difficult. First of all, we have to look at the statistics: 78% of Canadians are what we would call pro-choice; 77% of Catholics are pro-choice. The reality is that we have a very small, vocal minority of people who are very well organized, well funded, and able to really make a statement, to organize letter-writing campaigns and so forth. But we've done the public opinion polling, and we know that the ordinary Canadian, the ordinary Catholic, the ordinary priest on the ground, is not against providing sexual and reproductive health services, here or elsewhere.

• 1925

The important thing to remember is that we enjoy all of these rights within Canada—hard-won rights—and again, there is a small, organized minority who can't get anywhere within Canada, so they want to deny them to women in other countries. I find that very, very difficult. I think it's very important that people be able to hold their views on this, but not to impose them on others. By imposing these views on others, there are women who die in childbirth—600,000 every year. I just have to keep thinking of them.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: My final question is to Mr. Culpeper.

You mentioned that Canada is eighth, and I think the term you used was “in terms of generosity” in giving within the OECD. Maybe you can refresh my memory. Eighth is what? How many countries are in the OECD? And maybe you can tell me what the top amount, on a per capita basis or however you calculate it, is within the OECD.

Mr. Roy Culpeper: That ranking is according to the ODA-to-GNP ratio. It shows generosity with respect to the ability to pay—the ability to pay being GNP. So the top of that range tends to be populated by Sweden, Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark, the countries that always come out at the top in these areas. They tend to be at or above the 0.7% range. In fact some of them go up to the 1% level. The Netherlands has quite often been at or around 1% of GNP. That's why, even though with half of our population, their absolute aid is greater than our absolute aid in absolute numbers.

So it's eighth out of about 20 countries in the development assistance committee.

Oh, we've dropped to eleventh, according to Betty. It's a slightly out-of-date statistic.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gallaway.

Did you have another question?

Mr. Ken Epp: No, I just have a little statement I'd like to make. You know, while I'm thinking, my brain is working. That may come as a surprise at this time of the night.

The Chair: This happens often, by the way.

Mr. Ken Epp: We've had other presentations, not in this group but with respect to education, education funding, and the needs of students in Canada, and I just got a brain wave that I would like to put on the record. Maybe some of these people want to comment on it.

I thought that when we have this student exchange between Canada and the United States, perhaps what we could do is to offer Canadian graduates, when they graduate, a chance to earn money to pay off their student loans by doing one, two, or three years of teaching in a third world country, helping them over there, and that would be Canada's contribution not only to helping those countries promote their education, but also to helping our own students who sometimes can't get employment and are burdened with debt after they graduate. Is there a comment on that?

The Chair: Is there a comment?

Ms. Katherine McDonald: Well, actually, there is a program funded by CIDA and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade that encourages NGOs with partners in developing countries to set up internships. So there are umbrella organizations that do the coordination. I think the Canadian Society for International Health is one of those.

We had an experience with an intern, a young Canadian woman who was born and raised in Mexico but is now a Canadian citizen, who went overseas first for several months and then came back and worked in Canada. I think that transfer of experience and skills, especially when you're working with young people, is incredible, because they are able to travel and they're impressionable. So this is aimed at people under the age of 30.

Mr. Ken Epp: You call that young and impressionable?

• 1930

Ms. Katherine McDonald: Well, yes...but it's a great program.

The Chair: Ms. Plewes.

Ms. Betty Plewes: I'd like to say that while this is a very important experience for many young Canadians, and many of us who got involved in international work have had this kind of experience, the main problem in primary and secondary schools in many of the poorest countries is not a shortage of teachers. They don't have money to pay their teachers, to build schools, to provide books, and to develop curricula. So that's why, along with educating Canadians about these key issues, we're saying we need an aid program that focuses on providing basic services to people.

The Chair: Thank you.

I'd just like to say, by way of comment here, that we have this round table every year to also remind ourselves of our international responsibilities and obligations. I must say that these issues, whether in town hall meetings that members of Parliament hold or when we crisscross the country, don't often come up.

I think you've raised extremely important points. I think as an industrialized, well-off country, there's no question that we have to exercise responsibility, particularly now in an era of surplus. There's no question in my mind that we need to do better than what we're currently doing.

Having said that, and maybe I'm mistaken, there's really not much public appetite for us to push on this agenda. That is not to say that this committee doesn't care about it; it's quite the opposite. I think we need to actually push this agenda forward a little. But why do you think that is? Why is it that everywhere we go, basically, nobody talks about it? I'll tell you, this is the reason we have this round table—so that at least somebody's getting on the record to speak about this issue.

Mr. Roy Culpeper: Can I just have a first go at this? I think Betty put her finger on the key issue and that's political leadership and political will. I think members of Parliament such as you have a key role to play in talking up the issue and engaging Canadians in discussion, not simply sitting back and waiting for it to come up from the floor.

I think if you look at countries that are engaged, like the Nordic countries, like the Netherlands, there's much more activism on the part of MPs, ministers, and so forth in engagement with the public.

To be quite frank about it, I was really disappointed when the Prime Minister in Africa said that this was not a vote getter. In fact, if you probe a little bit—and again surveys show this—Canadians are very supportive of aid and development. It's just that for the past decade, at any rate, we have fallen back on our responsibilities, and we've pretended that this is really a low priority. So I think we're reaping now as we're sowing.

The Chair: Dr. Walker.

Mr. David Walker: On that point, I think it works both ways. I think people who are doing international development need the vocal support of politicians so that the public become more aware of it. The more reports like your report there are that contribute to that debate, the easier it gets.

What we come across in corporate Canada when we're talking is the number of people who haven't had part of their careers internationally. So when opportunities come up, they're sometimes hesitant to participate in international corporations, whether it's language training, personal experience, or education experience. The more they get out, the easier it is for us to dominate some areas of world trade—maintain head offices and maintain a sense of confidence.

So that's not going to come, I think, until people feel the presence of the federal government again on these issues. As they feel it's there behind them, it makes it a little bit easier for the people around this table to do their jobs.

The Chair: Mr. Hatton.

Mr. Al Hatton: I agree with both those statements. Look at what's going on now with the WTO. There's a huge concern about the impact. I mean, there are more people from the NGO community in Seattle than there are leaders of government. So think about that. Why is that?

• 1935

I know that our members, be it the Cancer Society, the YMCA, Big Brothers, or Big Sisters, are also going international, but they're not using the vehicle of the government because they're too frustrated with the processes that don't support them. They end up doing it themselves. They have exchanges. They are constantly looking at the impact of global changes on communities and on their members. There's a pile of stuff going on. Frankly, I think the political process is behind.

When you go to people and they have local needs, they're expressing them because they think maybe the political process or maybe government can respond to those—maybe. But there hasn't been much appetite to work at things globally, so they're frustrated on both counts.

The Chair: But, Mr. Hatton, that's not necessarily a negative thing. I think—

Mr. Al Hatton: No. You're implying, though, I think, that in a sense there's no interest there. It's not a question of interest; it's a question that it's what's right in front of you that you pay attention to first. Then you pay attention to other levels.

The Chair: No, I don't think that's a fair assessment of what I said. What I was saying was that in conversations throughout the country in the national dialogue we've held, it does not come up that often. The reason we have this round table is precisely to raise the profile of the issue. This is one small thing we can do.

I am of a different opinion when it comes to individuals taking charge, and I'm talking about outside of government vehicles. I see that as a very positive step towards empowering the individual. I really do.

I think technology will prove me right in the long run. Individuals are actually going to be making decisions without even consulting government. That's going to happen more in the future. In Seattle you have all these individuals maybe working outside of government parameters. I think there's a lesson to be learned, and politicians will learn it quite quickly. I'm not as negative on that particular side as it's possible to be.

Does somebody else want to comment?

Ms. Betty Plewes: I think we need to re-frame the debate. I mean, we can't engage people in the discussion around whether Canada should be spending 0.7% of GNP on aid any more. This is an old question, an old issue. We should put it behind us and get on with the issue of how we want to live in this world. People are interested in environment, in fair trade, in human rights, in women's rights. There's enormous engagement around these issues. I think we—NGOs, the politicians—have a responsibility to begin to re-frame this discussion around how Canada wants to live in the 21st century.

On a slightly less macro note, the reason there's such energetic discussion in the Scandinavian countries is that they put a huge amount of money into school programs around global issues. It pays off in a much elevated level of public discussion on these issues.

The Chair: Thank you.

On behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank you very much. It's always very enlightening in this particular round table. I think it also raises the debate to a different level. You can rest assured that the points of view expressed here this evening here will be reflected in the report of the finance committee to the Minister of Finance.

The meeting is adjourned.