[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, May 18, 1995
.0931 
[English]
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order, and I would entertain a motion of thanks to Mr. Leblanc for giving us a quorum.
As part of the budget review, we have Mr. Keith Bezanson with us. He is the president of IDRC. He's accompanied by Mr. Audet, who is the director general. I understand from speaking to Dr. Bezanson before the meeting that he had intended to have his remarks read into the record. He wasn't aware of the change of the rules. You can't do that.
So I would ask you if you'd be good enough, perhaps, to give us some short introductory remarks as to what you think the salient points are that we should bear in mind. I know the members do have questions for you. Thank you very much for coming this morning.
Mr. Keith Bezanson (President, International Development Research Centre): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I echo our gratitude
[Translation]
to Mr. Leblanc for allowing us to proceed.
[English]
I am grateful for the opportunity to be here. I think this is my tenth appearance before committees in less than four years. It's something we hope will continue with frequency so we may maintain the conversation and keep you fully apprised of what we are doing and what we're trying to do.
As you mentioned, I prepared an opening statement. We have distributed a brief information kit, which I hope you will find interesting. I hope members will find the time to read the short statement I prepared. It's less than seven pages and it does try to outline some of the strategic and key considerations that are driving IDRC in 1995 and into the future.
Let me make six points quickly, by way of general introduction.
Point one - I certainly don't need to say this to this audience - is that development is not what it used to be. It has changed, like so many things in our time have changed. Science and technology have become the undisputed driving forces, the undisputed motors of change, whether that is change for the good or change for the bad, whether it is change to prosperity or change to poverty.
We were chatting informally about economists just a moment ago with great irreverence. But those of us trained in economics were brought up to believe that capital, land, natural resources and labour were the driving factors in economic prosperity. Today we know they have been largely, although not exclusively, supplanted by the force and the march of science and technology.
This is creating unparalleled prosperity for some. Equally, it is creating increasing misery and uncertainty for others. So the news is not all good in this march of science and technology. The old divisions of north and south are also ceasing to reflect reality as a result of these changes. The Economist predicted just a few weeks ago that in less than a decade, of the 15 richest countries in the world, 9 will be countries we currently call developing. Now that's a sea change by any measure. That's my first point.
.0935
The second point I would make, which follows logically, is that it is not surprising that the demand for science and technology-based solutions to global problems is increasing exponentially. The world's fastest growing economies are those that have invested in and are investing now even more heavily in science and technology, such as South Korea, Singapore and China.
In the case of South Korea, it now plans to invest over twice as much money as a percent of its GNP in science and technology as the average OECD country. So the demand for solutions based on S and T is rising in a dramatic way.
[Translation]
Third, there is what we are doing at IDRC. We implement research, science and technology to meet global requirements, and especially those of developing countries. The Centre is unique as a science and technology agency because of its focus on research, global links and knowledge-based networks.
I am not exaggerating when I'm saying that today's IDRC is a major catalyst in the creation of the most impressive network of thinkers, researchers, scientists and decision-makers in the area of international development.
The Centre is the only agency in the world that for 25 years has been in the business of promoting and supporting science and technology for development. For this reason, it is not surprising that the Centre's services are in high demand and that our partnership increases in an impressive way.
[English]
The demands on us as an institution are increasing exponentially as a result of the emphasis on science and technology because that is exactly what we do and what we have done for 25 years.
The fourth point is that all of this is happening at a time when traditional resources for our work are declining. The dilemma for IDRC is stated quite simply. It is rising demand, increasing relevance on the one side and declining financial resources through the normal mechanism of the parliamentary appropriation on the other.
Our grant from Parliament declined by 14% from 1994 to 1995. If you cast that in real terms, in 1995 we have about 35% less than we did in 1992. So the fourth point is that we confront all this in a climate of declining traditional resources.
The fifth point is what can be done about this. Certainly there is no point in returning to public treasuries with requests for vast increases in funding. One would like to do that, but I think it is only realistic to assert that is not possible.
This calls for new solutions, leadership, innovation, the leveraging of resources and the building of new partnerships. That is precisely what we are doing.
In order to respond to new challenges and resolve the dilemma I've just outlined, we are fast developing partnerships with international agencies, public foundations, international foundations, governments in developed and developing countries, as well as international academia and the private sector.
We are using our own resources to lever other resources in order to resolve the dilemma and meet the challenge. We are determined as an institution to find those new solutions, exercise the leadership required and build the innovations that are necessary given this situation.
.0940
Our goal is not merely to stay where we are. Our goal is not merely to preserve our program intact; it is to expand in real terms.
We have taken steps, starting in 1991 - and you will see from the main estimates that our extra-parliamentary resources have been rising and we expect they will continue to rise.
This leads me to my sixth and final point of introduction in responding to these new realities. In order to apply our own resources more effectively, we are re-engineering our entire business, and this involves everyone at IDRC.
The focus of this re-engineering and of our efforts involves and includes, for example, self-directed work teams. Once the goals and purposes are decided, self-directed teams are formed with low overhead and low administrative costs. Included in this is the development of detailed and specific performance indicators for such self-directed work teams.
There is a focus on results and the application of research - not the research per se, but the downstream benefits and application of research. We are increasing, of course, our resource base through those new partnerships, including the private sector to which I've just made reference.
[Translation]
In summary, the Centre is more relevant now than ever before. I feel it provides the most appropriate and most valuable solution to global development needs. Although there is no easy solution or guarantee, despite budget restrictions, we still do what we can to become even more effective by creating new partnerships and by rethinking our organization, while always making Canada proud, at least we hope so.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bezanson.
[Translation]
Mr. Leblanc, would you like to start?
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): I apologize for being late. My secretary had forgotten to change my agenda. I went to Room 350 and waited. You were waiting for me and I was waiting for you.
The Chairman: All we needed was some mental telepathy. Perhaps some technology could solve that problem.
Mr. Leblanc: I have just one question. Since you are the only international organization of this type, do you try to forge partnerships with other countries in the hope of getting funding from them? Could you explain what type of internal financing you are striving for given the position you have in this very unique sector?
Mr. Bezanson: Let me give you a few examples. Our base has traditionally been nearly 100% Canadian; in other words, we worked with funds that had been given to us by Parliament, in cooperation with Third World institutions, but through a Canadian institution.
We now have new partnerships throughout the entire world with independent foundations such as the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation, which are all American institutions.
We get some funding from international banks, namely the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and the Asian Development Bank. We get some from a few United Nations organizations, such as UNICEF.
We have also received a few government subsidies from the Netherlands, Sweden, the United States, Great Britain and two or three other countries.
.0945
We have also changed our approach in order to establish a financial partnership with some developing countries. If our product is valuable enough, not only must there be an intellectual partnership, but also a financial partnership to meet the requirements of any intervention.
I am proud to say, for instance, that the government of South Africa has just earmarked $20 million for the IDRC for a research program to provide development instruments for small and medium-sized businesses in South Africa.
We will be looking at how governments can help set up the network needed for thousands of South African entrepreneurs to prosper. We are trying every possible model and thus far results have been promising. Last year, our aim was to receive $15 million worth of extra-parliamentary resources and we received $26 million.
Mr. Leblanc: I know you invented a new banana.
Mr. Bezanson: Yes, of course.
Mr. Leblanc: We are proud of it.
Mr. Bezanson: You have eaten some?
Mr. Leblanc: Not yet. Will the fruit of your research be profitable?
Mr. Bezanson: For us?
Mr. Leblanc: Yes, monetarily speaking.
Mr. Bezanson: That is a good question. If you are asking me whether we will be able to recover our investment costs, the answer is probably no. The entire world has the intellectual ownership of it. We did not undertake the project with a view to making money. We hope, as you said, that the world will benefit from this new banana, this new fruit.
However, in several other sectors, we do hope to recover our investment costs. We have intellectual ownership of some of our technologies and we hope that in some of the other cases, we will be able to recover our costs.
Mr. Leblanc: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Volpe (Eglinton - Lawrence): Mr. Bezanson, I guess I'm one of those who over the course of the last 18 months, since you first appeared before this committee, has become a little bit more convinced about the value of the work of your organization.
Mr. Bezanson: That's joyous news.
Mr. Volpe: I applaud you and your organization for the work you do. There are some self-evident examples that merit praise. Mr. Leblanc just pointed out one.
Permit me just to shift the focus for a moment. You said in your introduction that some of the countries that appear to have the greatest chance of success down the road will be those that will have invested heavily in new technologies, and I suppose the new infrastructure for emerging economies. I gather that that would include Canada.
I notice on one of our hand-outs that 22.8% of your actual appropriations for last year were for Canada. Some people would point to that by way of criticism. I want to get a sense from you instead of how we would make that kind of appropriation in Canada, when it seems to me that your mandate goes outside of national boundaries. Perhaps you could elaborate by going a little bit beyond some of the specific examples that you've handed out to us already.
By the way, I'm setting you up for a second question.
Mr. Bezanson: I'm afraid.
May I say, Mr. Chairman, that I really like the introduction to Mr. Volpe's comments. If he'd stopped right there, then I would have felt this day was complete.
The Chairman: Mr. Volpe is always like that. There is a sting in the tail.
Mr. Volpe: [Inaudible - Editor]...a couple of times when he came before us, so we're evening things out.
Mr. Bezanson: Thank you for the question, and for the comments - seriously.
.0950
A general comment, and then maybe a specific one.
Relating to the informal chat too, by the way, previously, about international institutions and international capital...there is a common perception that the development of countries that are really fast-tracking - the Singapores and the South Koreas, the Taiwans - has been the result of the miracle of the marketplace alone. There's a lot in that. I don't wish to dispute that. However, if one looks behind this, what one finds is that before these countries began their rapid growth, there was an enormous investment in the basic elements of technology and in building the science and technology instruments into their societies. I think it's a little appreciated fact that this really is one of the factors of key differentiation between those countries that have grown very quickly and those that have not. My reading of the research is that this is the key differentiator between fast-track and slow-track or no-track.
So I did mean what I said about that. I think that's something we now have enough evidence on that we can comment with at least a degree of authority.
On the 22.8%, there is nothing contrary to this. We aim this at the developing countries entirely, but it's part of the partnership arrangements that I referred to in my general comments and that are in this document. For example, Canada has a technology unique to Canada called RADARSAT. It can do everything in mapping, down to great detail, resource-basing, resource depletion, basic population surveys. It can feed any number of public policy and non-public policy requirements. It penetrates clouds. It is badly needed throughout the world.
So we are working with Canadian organizations for the application of that, and the building of the systems and the research base that must go with it, in Africa, for example. Because we have a Canadian partner, we show those funds as part of the 22.8%, but we are aiming these very much at beneficiaries throughout the world.
In this document I have distributed, you'll see also that we mention a couple of examples. One is that we are working with a company called Lassonde Technologie, of Rougemont, Quebec.
[Translation]
We fostered cooperation between this company and Vietnamese businesses. The Canadian company must add vitamin C, but at a very high cost, meaning that it could not compete on the international level. The focus is on natural instead of on chemical vitamins.
In Vietnam, we have a totally different type of apple called the cashew apple. It has a high content of vitamin C and we combine the two here. This serves the interests of both Vietnamese and Canadian companies. This research is required to change the components of the product.
[English]
So what we do in this is we have partnerships where the beneficiaries are mutual, but there is never a case where the beneficiaries are not in developing countries.
Mr. Volpe: I take a look at those examples and I buy everything you say. I recalled as you spoke that not too long ago a former minister of our country likened parts of Canada to some of the most depressed areas of southeast Asia, specifically Bangladesh. I couldn't help but think some of the technologies and some of the projects you have in place will serve the very laudable purpose of making some people self-sufficient and remove them from the burdens of poverty and at the same time probably not do very much for many of our people, who languish in what I guess an economist might say is an underdeveloped state of economic activity.
.0955
Yet the same technology that you're developing and that you're partnering around the world can be utilized in food processing, specifically in southern Ontario and Quebec - those examples come to mind more often than not because of the climate and the amount of product - or even more brazenly, perhaps in the fishing industry.
If one takes a look at a country like Iceland, which adopted some of the technologies and systems that I think your organization had something to do with through its research, that same innovation is not being applied in Canada. We have a little country, Iceland, producing much more fisheries' product - as I understand, although I don't know - than Canada.
I wonder, Mr. Bezanson - and this may be an unfair question for you and your organization - if there's a way to use some of the resources that you're developing on a world scale and apply them to national usage here in Canada.
I don't know whether I'm completely off base, but it seems to me that if, for example, some of your people are capable of being able to use some of the industrial sludge, recognizing that the industrial sludge in India can produce better crops and reinvigorate terrain and produce trees as well...we produce enough sludge ourselves in parts of Canada and yet we seem to be relinquishing greater opportunities for processing of agricultural products and reprocessing the environment.
I'd be interested in hearing your comments on that. I guess I'm not really asking for an answer.
The Chairman: The question is, why aren't the Canadian authorities as bright as some foreign authorities in adopting your ideas?
Mr. Volpe: Or putting it more bluntly, I recognize that the Government of Canada has been cutting back the financial resources of your organization, everybody recognizes the value of the output of your organization, and we don't seem to be applying it where it is needed - I don't say most, but at least equally - and we risk getting into a situation where we will no longer have the resources to provide you with the resources that make other people function.
Mr. Bezanson: That's such a vast question. The way the chair phrased it, of course, is something I would have to leave to those who can make those broad political judgments. I'm really not competent in these areas. But I think you have put your finger on a matter of genuine concern.
Let me respond to your invitation by saying a few things that won't answer but may set a framework that's useful.
By the way, you will see a lot of this in the statement I have prepared, which, as I say, I hope you'll have time to read. It seems to me self-evident that the future well-being of our country is going to depend increasingly on two things. One is effective and appropriate relations with what is going to be very soon 90% of the world in terms of population - it's now 85% - and that's what we call developing.
By the way, 95% of the active labour force by the year 2000 will be in countries we currently call developing. That's a phenomenal figure - not 70%, not 80%, but 95% of the active labour force will be in countries called developing.
The first general observation then follows from that. Without effective and appropriate linkages and opportunities opening up there, we're in one whole heap of trouble. I would therefore underscore the importance of seizing those opportunities that are there. I think they're enormous, and these are self-evident, untapped opportunities for Canadians to partner with developing countries.
The second aspect of this, of course, is on what do you partner? If it is correct that the driving force for change, good or bad, is the application of science and the forces of new technologies - micro-electronics, biotechnologies, and new materials that are sweeping everything else aside - then the kinds of partnerships we will need will be partnerships that build on and have access to that evolving science and technology.
.1000
That is where I believe IDRC, with that vast network of 25 years, which I think, as I said, is the best in the world, can be absolutely instrumental in opening doors to Canadians who want to partner. I think there is both a direct and an indirect linkage to this.
There are things that are genuinely specific that I could mention as examples. You mentioned Iceland and fishing. You may see in these notes also that we have established at IDRC a strategy for international fisheries research. It is being funded by the World Bank and by the United Nations development program, but they've chosen to locate it in IDRC because we have, again, this network of knowledge, these data that stretch throughout the world.
We all know about straddling stocks and that fish move and that diseases are imported and that nothing is sacrosanct territorially, as it may have been way back when. From that we hope also that those results will be as valid and the genetic research on fisheries as valid to Canadian interests, whether it's east coast or west coast, as it will be throughout the world, although our target will continue to be those countries called developing.
I would simply close this by saying that all of that being said, nevertheless if we had some infinite elasticity of money today, it would be very interesting to look at what we could do to facilitate as a direct challenge some of those strategic openings for Canadian interests. We can take on only what our resources permit and what we can lever. We're working on all counts, but if more were available, there's absolutely no doubt we could do more and more for Canadians.
I hope that gives you a flavour of this, Joe, without being able to draw the road map.
Mr. Volpe: As you say, a lot of the questions are broad policy issues. I guess I was just probing to see whether in fact you agreed that the perception is there. If you're such a success story - and I don't mean that in a negative, disparaging fashion - then it makes a lot more sense that the policy issues not isolate you in world development, but partner you with more narrow national development issues.
Mr. Bezanson: Yes. As I say, we are doing that partnering and I believe we are opening those doors. We are providing the opportunities. We could do more, but resources continue to be a constraining factor.
I have just a quick parenthesis on this. An institution called the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology has been created. It is made up of presidents and CEOs of companies, university presidents, directors of research, private sector research institutes, and they've looked at institutions of S and T in Canada.
Their report came out about eighteen months ago, and having looked at the instruments we have for S and T, you will see if you get that report that we were rated as the highest instrument of S and T relative to others they looked at. That included almost all of the public institutions of science and technology in Canada.
We have a lot to offer. We have an enormous amount to offer. We're doing our best and we'll keep trying to do more.
Mr. Regan (Halifax West): It may be of some satisfaction to note, Mr. Bezanson, that the House of Commons, the chamber itself, is having the same problem this morning we were having in waiting for enough members to arrive, which is why the bell is ringing.
You mentioned the strategy for international fisheries research. You may be aware that in the report of the joint committee on the review of foreign policy, we recommended - and I believe this recommendation was adopted by the government - that Canada focus, in terms of its international aid programs and development programs, on our own strengths. For instance, we have a great deal of expertise and knowledge in the area of oceans and fisheries and other areas, partly because of our own past mistakes. You've mentioned fisheries. To what extent have you increased efforts in this area? You mentioned some other examples of that aside from oceans.
.1005
Mr. Bezanson: In very general terms, part of, I hope, those strengths that we have as Canadians involves IDRC, which was created a quarter of a century ago. I think that is one of Canada's strong comparative advantages. There is no organization like it.
We have, unequivocally, the largest network of scientists, researchers, scholars, and policy-makers who deal with development issues that we have worked with over 25 years. They are part of our convening power and part of the confidence we've built up. This is a Canadian strength on which to build. So part of that strength is the institution itself, and the capacities, the knowledge, the respect, and the prestige that have been built up over a quarter of a century.
On specific sectors of expertise that are Canadian, yes, we look at that. One of the reasons why we picked international fisheries as an area, and where the World Bank and other organizations have been forthcoming with the funding for this, is that we see very much a mutuality of need and of interest.
That secretariat is working on the building, again as an example, of a consortium of research, a consortium of knowledge that will involve Canadian and non-Canadian institutions. We are assembling organizations, on the east coast and the west coast in Canada, that do fisheries research, trying to integrate them into this larger, global network so we may all benefit from the knowledge of both where the gaps are and how we can fill these effectively with resources that are available.
We'll continue to look at those things that are specific and sectoral, but again I come back to the beginning point. I think what you have in IDRC is one of those comparative advantages. If it's working, and if it ``ain't broke'', we shouldn't try to fix it.
Mr. Regan: I'm going to mention a few environmental issues. There are others, but I want to mention several that are of great concern internationally: soil degradation, ozone depletion, and global warming. As a scientific research establishment, which of these do you consider to be the most pressing, and what, if anything, are you doing to try to address these issues?
Mr. Bezanson: Excuse me - soil degradation, global warming....
Mr. Regan: Ozone depletion. You can pick any number, but I'm asking which environmental phenomenon you consider to be the most pressing problem we have to deal with and how you are dealing with that in your planning.
Mr. Bezanson: I would say none of the above. I think the greatest problems in the environment centre on poverty, misery, the human condition. People will do anything if they're desperate.
You can appeal to all the morality in the world.... We can castigate what has happened in certain rain forests, and that castigation may be correct morally, but, if I may speak in a metaphorical way, the impoverished father of four who has nothing will think not a moment about chopping down the trees in order to plant what he needs for that one year, and then watch the soil erode, in order to feed his family.
Poverty is one of the principal contributors to environmental decay.
The other of course, as we know, is consumption patterns. It's the way we live.
When you mention global warming and ozone depletion, we should all live in great fear of what will happen to our world if China goes forward with its energy needs, which it has already determined it must do if it's going to maintain its population of 1.2 billion people. China's plans for energy expansion, which will largely be coal burning, are such that, by most scientific reports, the consequences to our globe are inestimable.
.1010
So we have a science and technology problem here, again, which is driven by need, by consumption, by poverty. I think those are the points of broad intervention. Rather than saying we'll deal with soil erosion as one issue, desertification as one issue, global warming as one issue, or ozone depletion as one issue, you have to get to the guts of this, and the guts of this are the way we live, either through poverty or through consumption.
Mr. Regan: [Inaudible - Editor]...IDRC has already begun doing significant restructuring. In fact, in that year I think 4.3% of your budget was allocated to the issue of restructuring and downsizing. But in light of your efforts now, and in light of your efforts to raise funds internationally, what do you feel will be the need in the future for large public grants on an ongoing basis?
Mr. Bezanson: You're correct, of course. In 1991-92 we did effect a restructuring. It was a significant one: a 20% reduction in our staff level, a 50% reduction in our management level. Had we not done these things, of course, we would have faced a very serious problem in the last three years. So we have benefited from this.
We will continue to restructure. We will continue to trim our expenditures. We will continue to streamline in order to ensure the maximum cost-effectiveness of the organization.
The second part of your question. In light of the revenues we are generating from the resources we're combining in partnership with others to manage, to work with, we absolutely require funding in order to create funding. You need to have a resource base to partner. The larger that resource base is...will increase, of course, the partnership.
What we do in many cases is we lever a dollar from the parliamentary grant into four or even five dollars from other sources. But without that one dollar, it is pretty difficult to imagine us going to partners and saying we can do X and Y, but we have very little to put on the table.
So I would hope you would be echoing the sentiments of our colleague Mr. Volpe in saying we have here a strong organization. It needs, it merits, it deserves the full support, may I say, the expanded support, if possible, of the Parliament of Canada.
Mr. Regan: I would be echoing his comments, actually.
Mr. Bezanson: Thank you very much.
Mr. Volpe: It is a good thing we don't publish our Hansard here any more. Otherwise my name would be on its script forever.
The Chairman: Don't worry, we'll get a copy. We have scribes here. It's all been taken down.
In your introduction you spoke about the good and bad effects of science. Basically you said, and probably most of the members of the committee would agree with you, it is really scientific developments and technology that are driving everything else that's happening in the globe today.
What do you see as the bad sides of the science and technology developments we have to be concerned about? Should those dangerous technological and scientific developments be the ones where Parliament should be most anxious in voting funds for your organization, to make sure you're concentrating on them because of your feeling of the dangers you would focus on in your research...and how that would be most beneficial?
Mr. Bezanson: I thank you very much for the question, Mr. Chairman.
Again, this is a huge issue. It's easy, of course.... Historians...we all know the advance of S and T in history has resulted in some fairly major disruptions to populations. It is in revolutions such as the Industrial Revolution, with rural populations forced to leave the land and become urbanized - the cost of what we've read about in the 18th century, the ``dark, satanic mills'', to quote William Blake.
.1015
So S and T has always had a disruptive component. Of course we all know about things like nuclear energy and nuclear contamination, and certain kinds of technologies that pollute the environment. But I think the broader issue today in S and T is something we've never seen before. I don't think anyone has the book on this. Certainly I don't.
If we look back 20 or 30 years, futurists were writing about a world in which there would be no work. We used to think of that very positively and say, ``Gee, we'll all have leisure time. We can become very cultured.'' The books that were written on this were marvellous, but they seemed like a dream world at the time.
They may not be today.
Evidence is starting to accumulate that this technological revolution might be the first one where we do not have jobs generated or work generated to replace jobs lost. In other words, it might not be disruption until something new comes along. We might be facing something that is historically unprecedented.
We are doing some work on this. It will affect north, south, east, and west alike. There are questions that you in Parliament are asking yourselves every day: retraining, yes, but retraining for what? Don't answer that by saying, ``For the high-tech jobs'', because if you do, you may just be making a mistake.
There is considerable and growing evidence that we are trying to assemble, partly on our own account, partly with others - that's the partnership arrangement - that the high-tech side of technology itself is going through the same kind of labour savings as what we had called dirty industry, smoke-stack industry.
For example, in computers we no longer use programmers as before. Programmers aren't necessary because that's now mechanized. Robots are taking over, in certain areas, verification and evaluation of computer programs. So we are at the edge of something that could be very big. That is why I say the negative side of S and T can be horrendous for societies.
Equally, it is clear that those who aren't with it are going to be left even further behind. The opportunities and the challenges are to benefit to the maximum from this. That's what I meant by my comment about the good and the bad of S and T.
If I may just end this, we've got to learn a lot more before we can come up with the right kind of public policy, whether it's Canadian, provincial, municipal, or global. We really have to know what's happening to a greater extent than we do before those instruments can be developed and refined. We hope that we, through our work, will have some contribution to make on this important issue.
Mr. Flis (Parkdale - High Park): The late Lester B. Pearson is known on this planet for his contribution to peacekeeping, but I don't think he's been given enough credit for his vision in establishing the IDRC.
On this 25th anniversary, please pass on our congratulations to all staffs, here at headquarters and also in the seven regions.
Recently I had the pleasure of meeting with the IDRC staff and researchers in Montevideo. I can appreciate the kind of work we're doing on this planet. I encourage you to keep doing it.
Yesterday we had a very high official from the United Nations who is heading up the international drug abuse program. He paints a very scary picture of how drug production is on the increase and how they are failing in everything they're doing to try to reduce it. It's affecting our local community, not only developing countries. It's affecting the constituencies we represent here in Canada. Has IDRC given any thought to harnessing all of the knowledge and research that it has, in using the development concept and getting these countries...making it more profitable to produce food rather than drugs?
.1020
The Chairman: Can I just excuse myself because I have to go and defend our own budget. I ask if Mr. Volpe would be good enough to step into the chair.
Mr. Bezanson: I'd like to thank the hon. member Mr. Flis for his congratulatory message. It's much appreciated and I think it is a tribute to the vision of Lester Pearson, as you quite eloquently stated. I also welcome your encouragement that we should continue to keep up the work. We will, and we count on this committee and on Parliament to continue its strong support for us so that we may keep up that work.
On the frightening problem of drug production and drug use, this is a real scourge, as you've said. It touches deeply all societies that I've known or lived in, including societies where this is produced, Peru and Bolivia, where I lived and worked for some years.
Let me be clear on this. We have not dealt with this in any direct way. I think indirectly we are doing some of the things that are badly needed, which one hopes will have a bearing on this. We have, as you know, Mr. Flis, been one of the instrumental organizations in bringing about a global worldwide system of agricultural research. It's called the CGIAR, the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research. It was responsible for most of the green revolution, the wheats and the rices that have increased production many times over and, by the way, for the banana that was referred to earlier.
What we hope is that by continuing to develop the appropriate crops with the appropriate science, the options will emerge through that process and will make it financially and economically attractive to countries, regions, and individual farmers to move from the production of cocaine or heroin to the production of something that is required by the world and is of nutritional value.
But the issues here are profound and they are deeply economic as well. We hope the mechanism that we continue to support and that we godfathered to some extent will be a contribution to this scourge to which you've rightly referred.
Mr. Flis: I would just urge that it's an area that must be addressed globally, and if at the United Nations level they are failing, at the local levels we are failing.... I don't have time to go into how we all know the destruction that it does to communities in all countries. I hope it's an area that IDRC will look into. When you are looking for new financial resources, I'm sure it's an area that organizations and countries would be willing to invest in, because of the billions that it is costing our societies in waste of human and other resources.
Mr. Bezanson: I agree very completely with your concern and with your urging.
Again, the problem in the world is connected to poverty. I can attest personally to whole areas in Latin America where interdiction programs worked for a short period. There was one case, in Bolivia in 1986, where in fact the U.S. military for the first time moved in and worked on an eradication program. It had never been done by the U.S. military. There was a period of six months when cocaine production declined dramatically. The day the military left was the day the farmers went back to the field and replanted.
.1025
If you talk to them, they give you the answer that they don't like this. They know it's a scourge, but they are poor and they have no alternative.
So the key here somewhere is in finding the alternative. And I hope, again through the CGIAR, that some of those crops of high value-added may continue to be discovered and produced so that those options are made available to the farmers of the world.
Mr. Flis: My question to this UN representative was, is there any country on this planet that has done something to reduce the demand for drugs and production that has at least some success that we could look at? His answer was a flat ``no''. So there's the challenge, I would say, to IDRC. If anyone can meet that challenge, I think it could be through your organization.
Mr. Bezanson: Thank you for that.
Mr. Alcock (Winnipeg South): I must confess, as the newest member on the committee I came here intending to keep my mouth shut and just get brought up to date. But I'm fascinated by some of the things you've been raising.
This question of the supply of work, if you like, that you made reference to earlier is certainly something that we've been wrestling with in other areas here. You indicated that you were undertaking some work in this area right now.
One of the questions that has come up is, as this trend seems to be establishing itself, and as there seems to be pretty solid evidence that we're moving to a relative diminishing supply - and I don't think it's quite as severe in some of the emerging areas as it is here - there needs to be an examination of the distribution of work within a society.
I think it's in my working lifetime that we've moved from a 48-hour week to a 40-hour week. You're quite right, the dream was the leisure society. We've changed that dream now to a certain extent.
Mr. Bezanson: I don't know where it went.
Mr. Alcock: Instead of being seen as a positive benefit, I think people are more concerned about their fiscal security, and the prospect of more leisure time means less financial support.
But would you talk about the studies you're doing? I'd be interested to know how far along they are, what the nature of them is and where they can be accessed.
Mr. Bezanson: Well, one of the important areas that I hope we're developing a better knowledge base on is what the - and these are clichés a bit, but we talk about the micro-impacts of macro-activities. The macro-data can tell you a little bit, but it can mask a great number of realities.
We can say, for example, that countries are growing by x rate, and that sounds very good until you look into it. You may find - and in fact we do find - that the micro-effects of this are a worsening distribution, the distribution of work becoming more skewed; those individuals who have work are working longer hours and becoming much wealthier, etc., but others are not.
We are trying to assemble a sufficient database so we know what really is happening in developing countries with respect to this. I think we have nine or ten countries included in that study so that we have the comparative base for some kind of informed judgment on those micro-effects, including the micro-effect of the distribution of work. That's an ongoing activity in which we are actively involved, and I'd be pleased to send you some of that material if you would like to receive it.
We also have recently looked at what the implications are of information technologies for much of the world. We've been trying to catalogue and come to grips with what it is going to mean to societies - to use the metaphor - that are not on the information highway. I think what's emerged from that first reflection is that this is an issue of technology, but it's also a profound issue of social policy, and the issues of the distribution of work and the nature of the work week have to be included.
.1030
There are experiments being tried by different states, different governments, different municipalities, and we would like to try to capture enough of this so that at a minimum we have reference points for public and policy discussion. Those are the kinds of things we've embarked upon, and we'd be quite pleased to share these with you or to invite you over so that we could pursue this conversation.
Mr. Alcock: That's fascinating. I'd be very interested in that. A former professor of mine used to write about the macro-effects of micro-decisions. You seem to be coming at it from precisely the opposite way. That's interesting.
I have no further questions, but I would be very interested in being on that mailing list.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Volpe): Thank you, Mr. Alcock.
Mr. Leblanc.
[Translation]
Mr. Leblanc: Technology still remains a very important issue, and in this respect, you are doing extraordinary work.
However, I would like to talk about something that concerns me, that is the number of impoverished people in the world. You say that 95% of the population is poor and 5% is rich, which I find appalling. I wonder if there is a direct link between that and technology such as robotics, computers, etc.
You also talked about technology, robotics and computers, etc. In my opinion, poverty is relative. There is no comparison between us and the poorest countries of Africa, for example. If one can feed and educate oneself... In our case, our pride stems from accomplishing important scientific projects, but for Africans, often simply being able to feed themselves properly is enough.
Will technology not impoverish people more? Our main concern should be helping people provide food for themselves instead of always relying on our aid. I know that in this respect, your approach is excellent, because I have visited vegetable gardens in Africa where your people taught about agriculture, and the most appropriate ways of using insecticides and fungicides, etc. But it seems to me that despite your efforts, there is still a rather blatant lack of coordination and dialogue.
Let's take Japan for example. My intention is not to criticize them. On one hand, they make donations and on the other, they set up car dealerships in Africa. Germany and Canada do the same thing in other areas. In Tanzania, I saw combines, tractors and a lot of other farm implements in the fields. This is not bad in itself, but it is far removed from reality which basically consists of feeding people.
We also built very high-tech bakeries in Tanzania. Since then, thousands of small bakers are starring, which is ridiculous.
So in my view, we have to get back to basics and restore their pride in working the land, feeding themselves, and getting by on their own. As I said earlier, poverty is very relative. In Africa, someone who has a straw roof and food is as rich and happy as you and I are. But this pride in accomplishing things alone and in becoming self-sufficient, with respect to food and some clothing, is not valued enough in the world. Do you have any suggestions that would enable these poor disheartened people who lack the desire to act to feel more worthwhile?
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Volpe): Do you have a question?
Mr. Leblanc: I wonder is there is a project to try to instill a feeling of pride in these people. Instead of always telling them they're poor, we could perhaps provide them with the means to overcome that. Just because they earn $160 per year doesn't mean they're poor.
.1035
Field workers in Senegal are paid $168 per year, and we are telling them they are poor because we are comparing them to rich people who pay $2,000 a month in rent. These are two completely different worlds.
In visiting these countries, I found that people who lived in the country were much happier than the ones who lived in the city. When people work in the fields, they are proud to be able to feed themselves, and meet their own needs.
It seems to me that we could launch an awareness campaign in order to get them to understand that they are not in fact all that poor, and that poverty is relative.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Volpe): You will note, Mr. Bezanson, that with his preambles, Mr. Leblanc serves as a model for my questions.
Mr. Leblanc: Of course.
Mr. Bezanson: I would prefer to give you the floor. I am all out of arguments. These are very good observations. It is true that as far as poverty is concerned, everything is relative.
However, an effort is being made in this area, and we will no longer base our calculations for these countries on the gross national product, as we do at present, but on a mechanism called PPP, or purchasing power parity. It involves comparing purchasing power with someone who lives in China for example. The comparison is based on the actual cost of living. It is what we call purchasing power parity.
In my view, it is not only interesting, but also necessary in terms of decision-making. On the basis of gross national product, India is a poor country, which is true to a certain extent, but in terms of purchasing power parity, 200 million Indians have a standard of living equivalent to that of the middle class in the United States. That changes the perspective all together. It is exactly as you said: it is relative.
In addition, you were right in saying that the South is not the same as it was during the 1950's, 60's and 70's. Many relative changes have occurred over the past 30 years, and it is very dangerous to consider countries in the South as homogenous, to say that they're all the same, and that they're all poor. The same is true for Africa, and in this sense, I agree with you.
Thirdly, you asked if technology can make people even poorer. Of course, and we have a number of examples of that. For 50 years, Madagascar produced plywood for the entire world. Now, natural plywood is no longer on the market. The product is produced in laboratories throughout the world. So the economy of an entire country was turned upside down with one technological change.
There are several examples of the adverse effects of technology. Canada is also witnessing real changes in that respect.
.1040
As far as possible, we avoid using fertilizer and chemical products for agricultural production in order to protect the ecosystem. In developing countries, we also avoid using advanced technology so as to not disrupt the existing economy. We learned through our mistakes. There is a lot to learn and we are doing our best.
Mr. Leblanc: In these countries, a lot of money is spent on high technology instead of helping people at the grass-roots level. In Africa, I saw groups of people who did not have the means to buy hoes, which for them are essential tools. If these people want to take charge of their lives, we have to provide them with these type of tools and not combines. In my view, we are on the wrong track if we are not satisfying their basic needs.
Mr. Bezanson: You are right. If you look at the history of international development, you will find a host of examples where technology transfers have been poorly set up and have failed. There are examples in Africa, Latin America and Asia.
However, at IDRC, we are working on a different basis. We do not transfer technology. We work in cooperation with people on site, scientists and researchers in order to meet these countries' needs. This approach does not involve transfer as such, but implementing more permanent or long-term development mechanisms.
Moreover, it is the reason for our great success over the past 25 years in comparison with most organizations responsible for international development. We have great respect and admiration for these countries, and that is why we have a more grass-roots approach. In this way, we avoid making monumental mistakes.
[English]
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): I have just a couple of short questions, Keith. First of all, I guess I would like to know what areas CIDA contracts you to fulfil. What sorts of things does CIDA hire you to do? That's my first question. Do you want to tackle that?
I think I know the answer to the second question, but I'd sort of like to.... We've heard in committee from a number of organizations that we should get involved in specific topic areas to really find out what's happening. Again, I would bounce that off you and ask you for any suggestions you might have for us to understand IDRC better. As a committee, I think if we were to examine one small aspect of what you do, at least we'd have an in-depth understanding of what you do. I'd like your reaction and any suggestions you might have in that area.
Mr. Bezanson: On the first part, the contracts with CIDA, I'll make a precision here, if I might. We are not hired in the sense of a contractor who goes for a bid. We take what we believe is vital - we have the advantages, the network, and the systems established - and go to other organizations - in this case CIDA - and and we would say this is something the world needs that we think we can do very well; we're prepared to put our money into it, because we need to be serious about it, but we don't have enough, so we want to invite you to join us as a partner.
.1045
That becomes a contractual arrangement. It becomes a legally binding arrangement, but the approach is a little different from one of, if you will, regular contracting.
It's absolutely important here for us to remind ourselves that, while we must increase the resources for development if we're to meet the challenges, we must do so only by doing the things in which we are strong and have advantages. We cannot just run after a contract because it might be there. We have to work where we're experienced and credible. That's the key to our success in the last three years in increasing the financial base of IDRC.
I will give you two quick examples. One is called the micronutrient initiative. Again, it's a secretariat that's housed at IDRC. If there is one area of human misery - health or nutrition problems - that can be solved, in principle, at a very low cost, then it's in this area called micronutrients. Take vitamin A, which causes blindness and mental retardation. Roughly a billion people in the world suffer from a deficiency of vitamin A. Iron is much the same, as is iodine.
We have taken this on as a global challenge, which is to deal with this problem of micronutrient deficiency by developing the research, the knowledge and then the response.
Now CIDA has joined us in this as a full partner. We have, I think, raised a total of $19 million from CIDA, the World Bank, UNICEF, UNDP, and now the Americans. But this is a partnership for delivering these programs.
Another one is a global health initiative that is taking place in Tanzania in East Africa as the pilot. It's basically the question of: can you deliver high-value, high-coverage health services to an entire population at low and sustainable cost? That's a question that affects Canadians very much as well.
Here again, we have worked with CIDA, WHO, and the World Bank. There are others, I believe, as well.
We are the agent carrying this out. We receive the funds from others on this basis, which we would call contractual, but, again, it's taking our research system and our knowledge and applying it to the larger benefit. It's not just running after things because they might be out there. We have to stick to our agenda.
On the second part of your question of how one can better understand IDRC, I would hope that your colleagues would visit us, as Mr. Mills did yesterday. I hope we now are going to see him coming back frequently. Mr. Flis also spent a few hours with us.
We'd like to invite all of you to come and get to know us better, sit down with our researchers, and attend our workshops and seminars here in Ottawa.
We'd also like to suggest that when you have an opportunity to travel, let us know. We would very much welcome the opportunity to have you look directly at the things we're doing, whether it's in Asia, Africa or Latin America, to gain that familiarity and feel for both the complexity and the difficulties of the challenges we're trying to deal with.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Volpe): Is that invitation extended to members of the Reform Party as well?
Mr. Bezanson: I said all members, sir.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Volpe): Okay. We just didn't want to leave anybody out.
Mr. Bezanson: Not at all.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Volpe): We will be looking out for your interests, you understand.
Mr. Bezanson: We will continue to send you information that we hope you do find useful for explaining our activities. My colleagues and I will be pleased to appear before this committee or in informal subcommittees or just informal discussions at any time you would wish in fulfilment of your work.
.1050
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Volpe): Any further questions? No.
Mr. Regan, I think you have follow-ups.
Mr. Regan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is almost a lobbed ball, or a comment that allows you to respond, perhaps. Our discussion today is about the impact of science on development and on distribution of work, resources, food, etc.... The discussion about science and its impact has heightened the issue of distribution of these things in the world, particularly of jobs - work. It seems to me to put more emphasis on the notion that to be sustainable, development must also improve the condition of human beings. To go in any other direction leads to anarchy, or in the words of J.R.R. Tolkien, ``there be dragons''.
Do you see some hopeful signs in the world of a greater awareness of this? Where do you see the hope to persuade developed countries, the G-7, the OECD countries, for example, of this kind of notion?
Mr. Bezanson: You've made me a philosopher king for a moment.
Mr. Regan: I'm afraid so.
Mr. Bezanson: I see hope in many areas, but one also sees despair in many areas. This is the glass half full and half empty. I think it's quite fair to say that never in our evolution as a species have we had at our disposal, as we have today, the tools to determine our own destiny. We have the knowledge, and we have the tools with which to generate the knowledge we do not have. We have the technologies and the basis for developing those technologies that we need. So if you look at it that way, the horizon just glows with possibilities that can only hold out hope.
The problem with that, as Mr. Leblanc was mentioning, is the distribution of this is horrible. Global R and D for all these things is probably the most skewed of any distribution curve you could look at. Our estimate of a few years back was that the world was spending something in the order of $400 billion annually on basic research and development. Of that $400 billion, about $20 billion was being spent in countries called ``developing''. Now that, if you take it that is where 85% to 90% of the world's population is, does tell a story, and a very powerful story. We may have the tools, but we may not be applying those tools very well.
How do you convince OECD countries of this? I've been trying for most of my life to bring about in both my own thinking and my own action the betterment of our situation in the world, and I don't know how you convince others of this in these times especially, because those negative aspects of S and T to which I've referred are being felt very deeply in the souls of citizens everywhere, and certainly in the souls of Canadians. People are frightened for their own futures, for their jobs, jobs for their children.
Your task or challenge is a very difficult one. I join you in it, but I don't envy you or myself in it. It's in saying to people, these things beyond your borders matter, when they're very frightened for what is happening in their own backyard.
I have no magic wand to wave on this, other than to suggest we do need to work on this and work together on it, and we need to mobilize every bit of information in support of this at levels where people really can understand what the implications are of what happens somewhere else - the implications for their lives and the lives of their children. That's not an easy thing to do.
.1055
We have started to develop messages. We sent one copy to Mr. Flis, on a trial basis, where we're saying when you communicate with your constituents, we will try to give you examples of things we do that have a bearing on your constituents, and if that serves you well, then by all means use it. But we will need your feedback on this, and if we're falling short of the mark then you have to tell us. If we're putting it in a language that is not comprehensible to your constituents, we have to know that, but if we're getting it right, we'd like to get more of it right and we'd like to ease your burden and your task in working at the level of your constituency and with the people who you know, who vote you into office.
On the larger OECD aspect, you have to start somewhere. Let's start in our own backyard.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Volpe): Mr. Bezanson, as always, your presentation is informative and engaging, stimulating and frequently provocative. I can only apologize for starting later than usual this morning.
But we will take you up on your invitation so that when we travel, even to Cuba, we will call you first. For those who don't travel, we'll send them down to visit the plants here.
You will probably see us again. You've been a frequent presenter to this committee. I'm sure we'll continue this kind of relationship. It only serves to make us much more informed.
I want to advise members that we are meeting this afternoon at 5 p.m. in room 269, West Block, with the Minister for International Trade. I've said it about three times to myself so I can remember, and I have it written on my sleeve as well, Mr. Mills. It's a good technique.
Mr. Bezanson, thank you once again and we'll see you again soon.
The meeting is adjourned.