FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 7, 1998

• 1005

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.)): Colleagues, could we begin?

Today we have the pleasure of having the Honourable Diane Marleau appearing before us, Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie.

Our subject today is the Canadian International Development Agency.

We also have with us Ms. Labelle.

Welcome again. You always come before this committee, and I must say you always present very well.

And John Robinson, welcome.

Ms. Marleau.

Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie): Thank you.

[Translation]

Thank you and good morning. It is a pleasure to see so many of you. It is a real pleasure to be here with you again. The last time was about five months ago.

The focus of my remarks this morning will be an overview of the 1998-99 budget. However, much has happened since our last meeting, and I would like to take this opportunity to share with you my thoughts, and seek your views, on Canada's Assistance Program and the development challenges we face as we approach the new millennium.

But first, may I again express my appreciation for the committee's continuing interest and support. I know that the development community, both here in Canada and abroad, watched the proceedings of last December with much interest and welcomed the committee's resolution of support for the aid program. The government, as well, appreciated this motion for support for a program which plays a key role in reducing global poverty and helping to build a more secure, equitable and prosperous world.

As you know, Cabinet revisited the issue of funding for the assistance program. My colleagues shared my concern about the impact of past reductions and they have carefully weighed the many benefits the program offers both to the people we are trying to help and for our collective global security and well-being.

The 1996 Budget called for a 150 million dollar reduction in the development program next year. The Budget Plan as tabled by my colleague Minister Martin in February has provided the program with additional resources beyond those projected planning levels.

The Government has announced an increase of $50 million to the planned 1998-99 level of the International Assistance Envelope. These additional resources will be used to cover contributions to the International Monetary Fund which otherwise would have had to come out of existing resources.

On a point of interest, members will be pleased to learn that the government has introduced changes to provide greater predictability in transparency into the management of the International Financial Institutions Program, and to simplify reporting to Parliament and the public. Starting in 1998-99, promissory notes are being charged against the government's budget when they are issued rather than when they are cashed.

• 1010

The Government also announced that $90 million in additional resources will be provided in 1997-98 which would be used to make our annual contributions to major UN organizations.

This approach frees up funds in 1998-99 and, together with the $50 million, will enhance CIDA's flexibility to respond to new challenges in areas of health, youth, environment and governance—all key development and Canadian priorities.

[English]

I believe the good news in this budget bodes well for the future. To quote my colleague the Minister of Finance, the budget is:

a signal that, as its fiscal situation allows, and consistent with its other priorities, the Government will, as stated in the 1996 budget, make progress towards the ODA target of 0.7% of GDP.

We need only look at the progress to date to inspire us to continue our work. The net effect of four decades of development cooperation is a world where more infants see their first birthdays; more people are going to school and learning to read and write; and people are living longer and healthier lives. Canadians can be proud that their work overseas has helped make a difference.

Despite some progress, the primary development challenge of the next century remains the reduction of global poverty. It is a challenge of such enormity, and the consequences of not addressing it are so negative for all humanity, that a concerted and well-coordinated effort by all those concerned is essential.

Not surprisingly, the developing world will again be high on the agenda of the G-8 when they meet next week in Birmingham. It is expected that a focus of discussion will be the development assistance committee's—or DAC—strategy, Shaping the 21st Century, which has as its primary objective the goal of reducing poverty by half by 2015.

Canada played a major role in articulating this vision for development cooperation in the 21st century, which approach is consistent with CIDA's mandate, goals and policy framework. For those members who have not yet had the opportunity to read this visionary document, I would highly recommend it.

Often referred to as the “partnership strategy”, it calls for a stronger focus on poverty reduction; improved local participation in, and ownership of, the development process; and a greater emphasis on capacity development, both human and institutional. It also includes a number of ambitious but achievable goals for poverty reduction, universal education, social equity and development, and support for environmental integrity.

As I mentioned, there is a high degree of coherence between Canada's aid policies and those of Shaping the 21st Century, a point that was remarked upon quite favourably by the DAC committee, which recently reviewed Canada's aid program.

I can assure you today that we're committed to helping developing countries reach the targets outlined in the strategy. We have, for example, increased our efforts in support of donor coordination, and we are taking steps to ensure that the DAC targets are reflected in our programming priorities, in particular those addressing basic human needs.

In looking to the future, we know there are several sectors within our programming priorities that will require additional attention and resources in order to meet the DAC objectives. I would certainly welcome the suggestions of committee members in this regard.

The health and education of mothers and children will continue to be a high priority for us. Investing in the education of young girls is one of the most effective ways of enabling families to lead healthier, more productive lives, and we will continue to build on our experience in micronutrient programming, which was so warmly praised in UNICEF's recent State of the World's Children report.

Committee members have in the past discussed the need for a balance between short-term emergency responses and long-term development needs. It is surely one of development's more consistent challenges and I would like to share some examples with you where we have strengthened our focus on longer-term, more targeted approaches.

• 1015

In Haiti, Mozambique, and El Salvador, which are major recipients of Canadian aid, initiatives that began as short-term responses to urgent needs are being replaced by longer-term, more strategic responses that emphasize institutional development, rebuilding justice systems, and strengthening civil society. For example, in Haiti, Canada has built 14 court houses and district attorney offices. We've also begun to train the non-judicial staff, and this will continue for three years.

In El Salvador, CIDA funding was used to create a legal centre to help the people of that country participate in reforming their legal system. CIDA's assistance also supports legal training. I believe this approach will yield very sustainable results and help build the essential conditions for peace and stability in parts of the world that have been seriously affected by conflict and war.

CIDA is strengthening existing initiatives to promote democracy and human rights while helping countries improve in such areas as public administration and financial management. Increasing the ability of people to take charge of their own development, be it through support for the rule of law or providing fair and equal access to credit, not only strengthens civil society but helps to establish the solid legal framework needed to attract the private investment necessary for development.

When Mozambique held its first democratic elections in 1994, Canada was there to support the election process. When that country has its first local elections, a further progress towards democratization, CIDA support will be there.

We will also work closely with developing countries to improve their capacity to engage in more effective and sustainable environmental management in a number of areas: deforestation, desertification, water shortages, pollution, and climate change. These are issues that have direct impact on both developing countries and the world at large.

In this effort, I'm pleased to say we have the benefit of world-class Canadian expertise upon which to draw. For example, a Canadian consortium including Coopers & Lybrand, SNC-Lavalin, and Essa Technologies is carrying out a cleaner production project. This project addresses environmental damage in a province of central China. Specifically, Canadian environmental technology is being adopted by a Chinese firm in the pulp and paper and chemical industries and light industries.

[Translation]

And, finally, building on the success of Global Knowledge '97, co-hosted by Canada and the World Bank, we are increasing our efforts to maximize knowledge and technology in pursuit of our development objectives.

Again, we are able to draw on the richness of Canadian experience in a number of key areas in both the private and not-for-profit sectors, such as distance learning, developing of enabling policy frameworks conducive to promoting access and equity.

As you know, we live in a world of change. And global change never fails to add new dimensions to and demands on development co- operation. I would cite but two recent examples: the financial crisis and El Nino.

The far-reaching effect of the Asian crisis, which, though financial in nature, has serious social consequences. As part of its response, CIDA is reassessing its programming and modifying its approaches where necessary. Flexible mechanisms are being used to provide low-cost technical assistance in critical areas of the crisis. And emergency assistance will be provided in certain cases (for example, food aid to Indonesia).

El Nino brings with it a whole era of development challenges which are having a serious and negative impact on the hard-won gains made by many developing countries. From food shortages to outbreaks of cholera and malaria, this natural phenomenon is creating an additional burden on millions, a burden which we all need to be concerned about.

• 1020

My travels in the last year have reminded me not only of how Canadians care deeply about the developing world, but also of how Canada has a special role to play. We have a unique relationship with developing countries. We are open, constructive and committed in our approach, and we work with our counterparts in a relationship noted for its respect and trust. We have a reputation that opens doors and gives Canada a stronger voice in world affairs.

I welcome the committee's comments, suggestions, and, most importantly, insight on how to best use this unique position to build a better world for both us and our children. It is important for both Canada and our developing country partners.

[English]

I will end with one saying of Nelson Mandela's, this very eloquent gentleman whom we all know by reputation: “Security for a few is insecurity for all”. I think we should let this saying guide us. Thank you.

The Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): Thank you very much, Minister.

Mr. Grewal.

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

First of all I will welcome Minister Marleau, Madame Labelle, and Mr. Robinson to the committee.

Mr. Chairman, this minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have repeatedly announced Canada's commitment of a 0.7% ratio of ODA to GNP, whereas this ratio is decreasing year after year. Last year it was 0.27%, which was the lowest in 30 years. There are no targets or timeframes indicated in the estimates, which I went through. Is the government serious about maintaining this ratio or not?

Ms. Diane Marleau: We're very serious. As a matter of fact, the fact that we were able to get some concessions in this past budget is a very serious indication, I believe, that we intend to continue spending money for development. We say in the budget that as soon as conditions permit, we will continue in our aim to increase our spending to 0.7% of gross national product.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: But is there any timeframe?

Ms. Diane Marleau: I wish I could tell you how quickly we can do it, but I think the idea that we're going to start in that direction is very important. The sooner we get there the better, but again financial conditions will dictate how quickly we can do this.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Okay.

Mr. Chairman, 75% of Canada's ODA goes to just 12 countries, generally those countries that are already better off, while the poorest countries continue to struggle. This is according to the DAC report, if the minister is wondering. A 1998 budgetary analysis observes that Canadian aid to the 48 least-developed countries has taken a bigger hit than ODA overall. There is a decline of about 33% from 1993-94 to 1996-97. CIDA's spending of tax dollars should be on poverty reduction and meeting basic human needs for the poorest of the poor, as indicated in their report.

On December 4 of last year the minister told this committee that because of the cuts she and her department are forced to work smarter. Does the aid quality continue to suffer as a result of getting smarter?

Ms. Diane Marleau: I didn't quite get the last part of your question.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: You indicated during this committee meeting in December that because of the cuts by the finance minister, you and your department are forced to work smarter. I would like to find out if the aid quality continued to deteriorate and suffer. Is there any improvement you are showing because of getting smarter on this issue?

Ms. Diane Marleau: Let me refer you to the DAC report, which commends Canada for its aid and its aid programs but which does say we must consider increasing the amount of dollars we have been spending in these areas because we're very close to the line now.

I believe we have done more with less, but you can only stretch it so far, and I think the Minister of Finance and the government recognized this when they gave us some reprieve in this year's budget and when they stated that as soon as conditions permit we will start to increase our aid budget to that target of 0.7% of gross domestic product.

• 1025

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I want to go on with this topic, but time won't permit, so I will go to another question, Mr. Chairman. It's with respect to CIDA Inc.

The CTV news reports serious concerns about CIDA Inc. A few examples: one-third of CIDA Inc.'s spending goes to 7% of new firms; one in three feasibility studies led to implemented projects instead of one in 10, as indicated by CIDA reports; half of CIDA Inc.'s spending goes to Quebec; benefits of CIDA Inc. are overestimated; and there is evidence of incomplete and inaccurate information on the projects and companies. These are some of the allegations mentioned in that report.

I would like to find out what the ministry has done to investigate these allegations.

Ms. Diane Marleau: First of all, let me tell you that those particular numbers are taken from a report that was commissioned by CIDA in a review of the program CIDA Inc., and only parts of those statistics were pulled.

CIDA Inc. is probably one of the best programs we have at CIDA. It is a program aimed at helping the private sector do more investing in the third world.

One of the reasons a lot of the money is spent on feasibility studies is that many companies that have never done business in the third world need to know whether what they propose to do is feasible. When it is, they're very successful. There are many examples of extremely successful cases. Year by year, the amount of successes varies. So that's where those figures are coming from.

I want to tell you that one of the only ways— As you said yourself in the House of Common, one of the best ways to create wealth in the developing world is to ensure that private companies go in there and start creating businesses. It creates wealth in the developing world and it creates wealth for us. So we both benefit. It's very important that we continue to encourage these companies to do just that.

That being said, there is still a great need for other kinds of services that CIDA provides.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: That's fine. I don't deny that. In fact I encourage that. But how about when the information is overestimated or incomplete? What about most of the spending going to Quebec—only 50% out of that $850 million? How about the other provinces? How about the distribution of the contracts?

In the House of Commons, when I asked the question, you mentioned that you have visited British Columbia. What was the result of those visits? Have their figures been changed? So far, the figures compiled by the department indicate that from April 1995 to November 1997, 1% to 2% of the contracts went to Atlantic provinces, 7% to 8% of the contracts went to four western provinces, but 90% to 92% of the contracts given by CIDA or CIDA Inc. went to Ontario and Quebec.

You mentioned in the House that you are visiting those provinces, but I would like to find out, since your visit, have the results changed?

Have you ever visited Prince Edward Island? That is one province that hasn't got a single contract from CIDA so far.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Move to Ontario.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: That's fine. People will move. But we will start to do what—

Ms. Diane Marleau: I don't know what stats you're using. Are you talking now about CIDA Inc. or are you talking about other contracts? But I'll go back to CIDA Inc.

CIDA Inc. is a responsive mechanism. The companies have to come to CIDA and say they're interested in exploring a feasibility study in a particular country. If the companies don't come to CIDA, we can't respond. That's how CIDA Inc. is done. And I must say that more and more companies are now coming forward, and as more companies come forward, there will be more investments with other companies.

As for the overall contracting for CIDA, the same thing applies. If companies don't bid on the contracts that are out there, they can't get them. But when they do bid, the companies from the west are more successful; they get a higher percentage, when they do bid, than those from the east. That's just recently. There are some very good companies from the west and they're very competitive. They will get contracts; they just have to continue bidding on them. And they are, believe me.

• 1030

I do visit, and whenever I can, I speak about CIDA and how they should— The MERX is an open bidding program run by Public Works Canada, and all contracts are posted on there, including CIDA contracts. So there we go. We're trying to make it as open, fair, and transparent as possible. You can't make it much more open, fair, and transparent.

It's not based on regions; it's based on who wins the contract, and that's the way it's going to be.

The Chairman: Unfortunately your time's now up, Mr. Grewal, so we'll come back to you if there's a second round.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Okay.

The Chairman: Madame Guay.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): I will try not to engage in any demagogy, but I'm very pleased to see that Quebec is very much in favour of free trade and that it is an active participant in bidding. Clearly, if we don't bid, we don't get anywhere.

I would like to start by welcoming Ms. Labelle and Mr. Robinson. We have met before on a number of occasions.

I still have the same concern, Minister, about reaching our objective of 0.7% of the GDP for ODA, a target set by the UN. I really have doubts about this. You say that you will meet the objective when conditions permit, but I would like something more specific than that. Even though we are at 0.29% of the GDP, much remains to be done. It is apparent to everyone that we have $20 billion in the employment insurance fund, which is being jealously guarded by the federal government, even though we are cutting back on our international aid. I would therefore like more details. Do you have a plan of attack? Do you have a strategy for raising the awareness of your colleagues? I would like to hear your answers to these questions.

The Hon. Diane Marleau: As I said earlier, thanks to your support and that of my colleagues, we got a little respite this year, but we must continue to apply pressure wherever and however possible to ensure that we get a real increase in the next budget.

I would like to be able to give you specific dates and amounts. That would help me a great deal. This decision must be made before the next budget, and you can be sure that I will not give up my efforts. I think that with your help, we will be able to show a little progress in the next budget.

Ms. Monique Guay: There is an incredible paradox in the Estimates for 1998-99. I would ask you to explain it to me. According to CIDA, the first priority of ODA is to meet basic human needs for food, drinking water and shelter. And yet, your own figures show that 34,000 children die of malnutrition every day, a problem that should be covered under your first priority. In light of this disaster, Minister, please explain why CIDA had a one third—33.1%—reduction in its ODA budget between 1993 and 1997 for the 48 poorest countries in the world. This flies in the face of the first priority of official development assistance, namely to meet basic human needs.

Ms. Diane Marleau: The answer is very simple. Between 1992 and 1997 we had to reduce CIDA's budget by 40%. We had no choice. Cuts had to be made everywhere. We cut a little less in this area, but we had to cut everywhere, and I agree that it was most unfortunate.

Ms. Monique Guay: The figure is 33.1%.

Ms. Diane Marleau: When there is not enough money within government because cuts are being made everywhere, we try to keep the most important programs.

Ms. Monique Guay: Madam Minister, how can you explain all these cuts to ODA, which is direct aid to poor people when, at the same time, the administrative cost of CIDA have increased by 5% and the number of full-time employees is the same as in 1993?

• 1035

Are we to conclude that CIDA considers the bureaucracy more important than aid to the poorest people?

Ms. Huguette Labelle (President, Canadian International Development Agency): May I answer that question?

Ms. Diane Marleau: Go ahead, Ms. Labelle.

Ms. Huguette Labelle: I will talk about the operating budget. In 1995, we had a 15% reduction, and that year, we reduced our operating budget by 15%. Two years later, we reduced it by a further 3.5%, which meant a total cut of 19% or close to one fifth of our budget.

I believe that reflects the figures you see for this year. A team for Central and Eastern Europe was transferred to us from Foreign Affairs. That unit arrived after 1993-94. The reduction is less because of the arrival of these 65 people, which are person- years in our budget. Otherwise, the number of person years would have been reduced by approximately the number we had expected, that is between 100 and 120.

In terms of the operating budget, we tried to find ways to cut as much as possible in all operating sectors in order to protect our programming. Even with the budget cuts, the number of projects has not decreased. In fact, in some cases, it is increased, because we had smaller projects, rather than major infrastructure projects. So they were often more numerous but smaller in size. So as far as the number of projects goes, our productivity increased, because we have a higher ratio in terms of the number of projects per employee.

The other departments all received resources for employee benefits but, for one reason or another, no such resources were given to CIDA for this in the past few years. This year, we did receive these funds. Consequently, the figures may be partially explained because of this correction made by Treasury Board.

Ms. Monique Guay: I would like to make a comment.

In future, I would like members of Parliament to have an opportunity to study CIDA's budget and to comment on it and make suggestions about the way in which CIDA is administered. It is well known that CIDA is a government within a government.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I have one final question which I consider very important. Your department, Minister, has always been very involved in the anti-personnel land mines issue. There is in fact a contribution of $100 million under this heading for 1998- 1999.

However, although the treaty was signed by 124 countries in the last six months, we learned that only eight of the 124 countries had actually passed legislation. In order for the treaty to have international force of law in the delinquent countries, 40 countries must have signed it. Since the treaty must be ratified by July, which leaves only two months, I would like you to tell me how we can do in two months what we did not manage to do in five. Only eight of the 124 countries have signed in five months. Could the deadline be postponed? I would like an answer to that question.

After waiting five months, the NGOs and we in the Bloc Québécois would like to know what percentage of the $100 million will go to Official Development Assistance. In general terms, how will this money be distributed?

Ms. Diane Marleau: First of all, I think we have more time than you say we have to get the treaty ratified. We have at least until December. During our travels, we all try, in our dealings with the various countries, to encourage them to ratify the treaty they've already signed. We also encourage those who have not yet signed to do so.

• 1040

Thus we are working very hard, and we are hopeful that we will succeed. For some of these countries, legislation must be passed by their Chamber. We are certainly concerned about this and we are working on it.

Ms. Monique Guay: So you don't think the treaty has to be ratified by July. Minister Axworthy mentioned that in July—

Ms. Diane Marleau: That was an objective. If it doesn't happen in July, it doesn't mean that everything is over. That is a target date.

Ms. Monique Guay: I did not say that either, but this merely delays the process.

Ms. Diane Marleau: There is no doubt that it will be difficult to meet this objective which we set. We take every opportunity to continue talking about this issue with the countries in question. I know that Mr. Axworthy is leaving for Birmingham on the weekend, where he will be meeting with his counterparts. He is sure to raise this issue with them. We will continue to work on this.

The budget for anti-personnel land mines has been given to CIDA, but decisions about the amounts and how they will be spent are made by the four ministers, Minister Axworthy, myself, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Industry. We have already spent part of the budget, but we are going to continue our mine clearing projects and others designed to help countries meet the ratification objectives of the treaty and provide assistance to those who have been handicapped because of land mines. These programs are on-going.

Ms. Monique Guay: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Minister.

[English]

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to join in welcoming the minister and her officials before the committee.

I must say, it's been some time since I've had the pleasure of sitting with the committee, and I was rather astonished at the political transformation that's occurred in my absence. Hearing the spokesperson for the Reform Party pleading with the minister to move forward to meet the targets for foreign aid of 0.7% is extraordinary. I welcome this support, this conversion, Mr. Chairman, by the Reform Party, and I trust he'll have some influence on his leader and his colleagues. And in light of this profound transformation, I trust he will also not be proceeding with his motion to cut the aid budget by almost $500 million.

So I'm delighted to hear that my absence has had a positive impact on the Reform Party.

The Chairman: A positive transformation of more than the committee since you've been away, Mr. Robinson—the House as a whole.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, on a more serious note, with respect to the fundamental objective of CIDA to attack global poverty, I have a couple of questions.

Madame Guay raised a very important issue about the fact that aid to the 48 least-developed countries declined by about 33% from 1993-94 to 1996-97. I believe the minister's response was, yes, but overall aid declined as well.

In fact, the decline in ODA on a cash basis generally was about 22%. So the least-developed countries took a major hit, in fact a more significant hit generally. I hope that's a trend that will be reversed by this government.

To the minister, of the two major concerns I hear in speaking with representatives of the development community—people who work in OXFAM, CCIC and others—the first has been touched on by my colleagues, that there doesn't seem to be any clear long-term vision. We don't know specifically what the targets are to increase the level of Canada's aid.

The minister said that's frustrating for her, but frankly it's a government failure that we don't have those targets there. Next year we're dropping to 0.27%. Absolutely shameful. It's the first time in 30 years that we've dropped below 0.3% in the ratio.

So no targets, no timeframes, and in terms of the development of priorities, according to the spokesperson for OXFAM Canada, Robin Walsh—at least he used to be spokesperson; he's now, I understand, working with the minister—there was minimal consultation with the NGO community in determining the four priorities that have been set out. I'd like to ask the minister specifically why food security was not included in that list of priorities.

• 1045

Ms. Diane Marleau: The priorities were set basically on some of the issues we were concentrating on, such as the environment, health, youth, and good governance. Certainly by no means do we want to say that we're not also going to continue working on food security. It's certainly not our intention at all. It was those particular areas we were focusing on at that point.

Food security is also a part of the environmental question. You can do environmental programs and at the same time help people increase their yield and be more secure in terms of access to food. So it's not a point of ignoring food security; it's a point of focusing it in certain directions.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Perhaps if the minister had consulted more closely in determining her priorities with groups like OXFAM, she would have explicitly set out food security as a priority and not suggested that we can find it buried in one of the others.

One of the other criticisms that the minister is well aware of is the concern about the relationship between the foreign affairs ministry and CIDA. Of course, Cranford Pratt, in his recent article in Canadian Foreign Policy, was very critical of some of the implications of the attempts to finance issues that may be very worth while but that, frankly, don't fall within the CIDA mandate of attacking global poverty.

The minister has taken initiatives, again some quite commendable, in areas like child child labour, landmines, and so on, but this is not part of the historic mandate of CIDA. He's given a number of examples, such as CIDA paying for Canada's police contingent in Haiti instead of attacking basic poverty.

How does the minister respond to this very legitimate concern and criticism that in effect the global mandate of attacking poverty and CIDA's ability to respond to that concern is being eroded by Foreign Affairs' attempt to, if you will, “seagull” money from the CIDA budget? How does the minister respond to the suggestion of an independent review at this point of the operations of CIDA to deal with this kind of concern?

Ms. Diane Marleau: First of all, let me say I work very closely with Minister Axworthy. The people of CIDA work very closely with the people of Foreign Affairs. That being said, in whatever programming we do, we continue to push to alleviate poverty. But alleviating poverty is not just giving charity; it's giving people the means to build a successful society where wealth can be generated.

If you train the police in Haiti, that is a way for Haiti to become a more peaceful society where businesses can be implanted, where people can live and work and earn a living. I believe training police in Haiti is as much a part of helping Haiti alleviate its whole system, its whole condition of poverty, as it would be to go and just deliver food. Actually, I think it's even more important to do that kind of work. I consider that work very much looking at each country and deciding with that country what is more important and what are the greatest needs of that country so that their population can grow and prosper and not continue to live in poverty or to have their society disintegrate because of war.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I asked the minister specifically about the suggestion of an independent review at this time.

Ms. Diane Marleau: I don't mind a review, but I feel right now we have to work and consolidate what is happening now at CIDA. CIDA has been cut and has been drawn and quartered for the last five years, at least.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's by Liberal colleagues.

Ms. Diane Marleau: By Liberals and even before we came. There was a review in 1995. Frankly, I would like to give CIDA a bit of a chance to see if they can meet the objectives of that review before we start another review and start turning them inside out again. I'm not ruling out a complete review, but I think we should give them a little breathing room to do their work now that the budget is becoming stable and now that we're looking at increasing that budget.

• 1050

Mr. Svend Robinson: I just have a couple more brief questions.

The minister talked about working closely with Minister Axworthy. Certainly, one would have hoped that there would be a little closer working relationship on the issue of aid to Burma.

The minister speculated on providing aid. Of course, what a place to do it: China. China is one of the chief benefactors of that repressive government and one of the chief suppliers of military equipment to Burma. The minister says that perhaps we will be moving soon to provide aid.

Fortunately, Minister Axworthy was able to clarify—this is to be charitable—the position on Burma. I hope there won't be any aid at all to Burma until there has been a significant improvement in the human rights situation. There's no indication that this is going to be soon.

I'd like to ask the minister what the nature is of Canada's aid to Indonesia. We've recently seen the appalling spectacle of people who are demonstrating against the impact of Suharto's corrupt and repressive policies being attacked by the police. And of course, there are the ongoing deep concerns about the situation in East Timor. What's the nature of Canada's aid program to Indonesia?

Perhaps I'll ask my final question, Mr. Chairman. What is the nature of Canada's aid program with Cuba? Some time ago Canada suspended, as I understand it, the bilateral aid program. The Prime Minister recently visited. Is this being re-examined? Is there consideration being given to re-establishing a bilateral aid program with Cuba?

Ms. Diane Marleau: First of all, let me answer your question on Burma. There never was any difference of opinion. It's a question of how someone interprets the words of one versus the words of another. We always continue to monitor situations in countries where we don't have an aid program.

Yes, the people in Burma would need some help, and as soon as there is any sign of movement, we will go in and help them out. There must be a sign of movement on their part, of course.

There never was any difference. Sometimes people try to make differences where there are none.

When it comes to Indonesia, most of the aid so far has been in the form of humanitarian assistance, food. That will be coming. There hasn't been any going there directly. There have also been some export credits established for grain, but we're continuing to monitor the situation. There's no doubt that we will be called upon to do more, especially on the humanitarian side.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Is there any bilateral aid?

Ms. Diane Marleau: Yes, some.

Mr. Svend Robinson: There is bilateral aid—

Ms. Diane Marleau: Some, yes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: —to the repressive government in Indonesia.

What about Cuba?

Ms. Diane Marleau: We never deal directly with the government. We always deal through Canadian executing agencies.

In Cuba, we do have a program. I'm trying to think of the name of that now. It's an exchange of parliamentarians. What is it? It's the Dialogue Fund. I think it's the only one of its kind. It's worth $1.2 million. That has allowed for an exchange between parliamentarians and groups, and that will continue.

In terms of the bilateral program, we have some on the education side. I know we've been supplying paper for books. There's also economic reform.

There is some of that. It's not a very big program with Cuba, but there is some help going.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, through you, I wonder if the minister could come back. She seems to be a little vague on the details.

Ms. Diane Marleau: Yes, we can get you the details.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I wonder if she could come back to the committee with the details of that program.

Ms. Diane Marleau: We can write you and give you exactly what we're doing.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Also, I asked the minister specifically about re-establishing bilateral aid to Cuba. What's the policy of the government on this?

Ms. Diane Marleau: We've done that.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Bilateral aid?

Ms. Diane Marleau: Yes, two years ago.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Madame St-Jacques.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Good morning, Ms. Marleau. I would like to thank you, Ms. Labelle and Mr. Robinson for being here today.

A number of the questions I was planning to ask have already been asked. Therefore, my question is about the recent articles in the national media about the Industrial Co-operation Program. Some of the information may have been misleading, but it did raise an important point—namely, the lack of accountability on the part of countries that receive assistance, towards CIDA and toward us, the taxpayers.

Are there some more effective procedures or specific evaluation procedures that would allow you to assess the situation and adapt as required to ensure that the money is being spent appropriately?

• 1055

Ms. Diane Marleau: That is exactly what we are doing. I am expecting some answers before the end of the month. If we need to adapt, we will. This is what happened. A request was made under the Access to Information Act, and figures from a report done at the time of the review of the program were used.

Ms. Labelle would like to add something.

Ms. Huguette Labelle: Thank you, Minister. There are actually two points. First, so far, we were measuring the spinoffs from the program on the country and on our Canadian companies and jobs in Canada. We were asking what types of additional resources the initial project would be seeking.

In other words, when we do a feasibility study in the context of the Industrial Co-operation Program with a Canadian company for the construction of a new water purification system in a city, the World Bank or the World Bank in Co-operation with commercial banks, later provides subsidies to the country to enable it to carry out the project. In essence, that is our objective. That is what we were measuring.

One of the ideas put forward in this survey of Canadian companies was that the funds from the World Bank should perhaps not be considered spinoffs, because the Bank may have paid the amount in any case. Thus, it is more of a technical question, because the spinoffs on the country are the ones we have been measuring from the outset. This is an issue that was raised.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Do you wait until the end of the project before you evaluate it or are some steps taken while it is underway?

Ms. Huguette Labelle: Throughout the entire project.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Throughout the entire project.

Ms. Huguette Labelle: Throughout the entire project. First, we review each project yearly, but we also have an overview procedure to ensure that everything is functioning properly.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: So you can adapt as you go along.

Ms. Huguette Labelle: Yes.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Reed.

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

It might be useful to put some perspective on what's happening at this meeting. The first comment I would make is that all of these projects are an attack on poverty. They're all an attack on food shortage in the world. The removal of landmines is perhaps one of the most direct forms of food aid anybody could create.

When a farmer can go back in his field and sow his crops, that produces far more productive results than bringing in a bag of flour, and at much lower cost, I might add. Policing, as the minister said so clearly, in Haiti to create stability allows people to go back into the country and produce food and begin commerce and trade and so on.

So all of those projects have a direct influence on the attack on poverty, and believe me, it's a long-term influence. It's not just a matter of sending a truckload of food to a place that needs it.

The other comment that I hope is worth making is in terms of the existence of CIDA itself. As difficult as it has been—and there's not one person in this room who doesn't believe we have to get back to the level of aid we had in the past—the fact is that if the government had continued on the never-never plan it was so deeply caught up in five years ago, there would be no CIDA today. There would be no aid at all. There would be no ability to challenge and do things smarter.

So I suggest that time is on our side now, and things are moving in the right direction. I'm very positive about the future.

• 1100

I can't express enough, being involved in international trade, how important CIDA is, and its function. What it does is really pave the way, through goodwill and in concert with non-governmental organizations and so on, and makes life a lot easier for people looking at international trade and interaction between countries. So it's mutually beneficial to both countries.

CIDA projects themselves have always been an opportunity to wave the Canadian flag, if you like, for the utilization of Canadian technology, where Canada leads the world in many cases, and to put a truly Canadian stamp on these projects.

Such was not always the case with CIDA. If we go back 15 years or so, it was seen—from the outside, at least—that the ministries didn't talk to each other and they didn't talk to CIDA, and CIDA didn't talk to the other ministries. I trust that has changed, and has improved dramatically.

I wondered, Minister, if you might comment on that change and how the ministries interact now in a manner that perhaps didn't exist in years past.

Ms. Diane Marleau: Every day that comes by, on any issue, there is work that goes on between CIDA and Foreign Affairs and International Trade. There is work that goes on between CIDA and Environment, and CIDA and Health. There are so many examples of that.

We do programming in health, for instance, on AIDS. We consult with Health Canada, and there's a very close interaction in terms of what happens there.

As well, whenever we're in a particular country the decision to go into a country is a decision that is made by all members of the government by interaction among the different ministries. It's extremely important that this continue.

I like to believe CIDA is there and makes a long-term investment in countries. We see the results of that now. If Canada was able to get all of those signatures on the banning of anti-personnel landmines, it has a lot to do with the reputation it's gained over the years through the work of CIDA and of course all of the partners, the non-governmental organizations and other institutions that work with CIDA in all of those countries. It's been a very good thing for our country as well as for those countries in which we've been working.

I recently had a chance to visit Bangladesh. I visited a program we've been involved in for ten to fifteen years, the rural maintenance program. It's a road maintenance program aimed solely at women. As you know, in Bangladesh, oftentimes when women are divorced, they have no place to go, they have no place to live. They're really the poorest of the poor.

So this takes on, in groups of ten, these disadvantaged women. They are hired for a four-year term. They are given a stipend. They must repair roads.

I went to visit one of these road repair crews. They use straw baskets. They work very hard. But part of their payment is put aside in a bank account, as savings. At the end of the third year of their employment, they are given counselling on what kind of business they might start up so that when their four years are up, they're in a position then to start up some kind of a little industry for themselves. They become quite successful at it. They then go on and support their families.

One of the best things I saw is that I met some of the women who had “graduated”, as they call it, five years before, and in the local elections a number of them had been elected as local representatives.

• 1105

So it's such a good program that now the Government of Bangladesh is also one of our partners in this program. Our aim is always to have programs that become self-sustaining, and in this case we now have the government coming on board with us.

The minister was saying to me that it looked too good to be true. He said, “I visited one of these sites and I thought it can't be. They've just set this up to show me, just so I'd be impressed.” He said he didn't tell anybody but he went to visit another site where they didn't know he was coming, and it was exactly the same thing. So they then agreed to become our partners.

I really believe this program will become self-sustaining within a fairly short period of years. But in the meantime we have affected the lives of these rural women to a very tremendous degree. And I think that was a good example of the kind of work that we do in helping the poorest of the poor.

Mr. Julian Reed: I know I'm running out of time, Mr. Chairman, but in this type of program where there is a partnership, what kind of participation is there on the other side in the partnership? Is it financial participation?

Ms. Diane Marleau: Financial as well.

Mr. Julian Reed: Do you match dollar for dollar or do you put three to one?

Ms. Diane Marleau: We try to get as much as we can and to ratchet up the participation of the non-governmental portion as well as the government portion. In this case, they've started and they're now paying 35% of the cost. We're hopeful that they'll go higher. But at this point it's at 35%, where they weren't involved at all at one point.

Mr. Julian Reed: It's an example of spending smarter.

Ms. Diane Marleau: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Reed.

[Translation]

Mr. Turp.

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Your answers to the questions about Official Development Assistance and the percentage that Canada would be providing are unsatisfactory, Minister. I think they are unsatisfactory for those whose support you are requesting.

How can we support you when we do not know where you are going or how you are going to go about achieving the objective of 0.7 per cent? Do you not want to draw inspiration from other governments, governments with ideas, plans and specific time targets, such as the British government of Mr. Blair? I would like to hear a different answer from the ones you gave Ms. Guay and Mr. Robinson.

What are your plans? If you have no plans, when will you? When will we be informed about your plans so that we can assist you? Are you prepared to put your position as Minister on the line if your requests are not met, because you have made some requests and you want to achieve these objectives?

Ms. Diane Marleau: It is unfortunate that you are not satisfied. We all know that it is the opposition's rule to never to satisfied. I have been there, so that does not surprise me.

However, I can tell you quite frankly that I was very pleased by the support I got this year in the Budget. This is the first time in a number of years that we have been given a bit of a break. It is not enough, of course, but it is better than the $150 million reduction we were supposed to sustain. I can certainly tell you that I have made all sorts of requests for budget increases.

All types of proposals come forward during the budget preparation process. It is up to the Prime Minister, Cabinet and the Minister of Finance to make the decisions and balance the budget. I would have liked to have had more money this year or the next, but the fact is that I came out the winner in these debates. I must continue in my efforts and I hope you will continue to support me when I request increases in the next budget.

• 1110

As you know, the work on the budget is already underway. If you have any suggestions that would assist me in this debate with my colleagues, please do not hesitate to pass them on to me, because this is really a difficult task. It is not easy to get an increase at a time when everyone is undergoing huge cuts.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Your government and other governments, Minister, have plans to reduce the deficit to zero and to eliminate poverty within a certain time. Governments have all sorts of plans. We do not know what your plan is, but we know that you share the objective. Minister Axworthy told the committee that he shared the objective, and you have repeated it again, but we have no knowledge of your plan.

I think many opposition parties think like we do, except perhaps the Reform Party, which, for some incomprehensible reason, wants to reduce the budget of Ms. Labelle's agency or your department. We have no plan. When will you be giving us a plan? When are you going to present a plan to Parliament, to members of Parliament, to public opinion and to the NGOs, which are there to support you as well? We believe in Official Development Assistance. Could you tell us when the parliamentary committee could expect to receive an action plan for achieving the 0.7 per cent objective?

Ms. Diane Marleau: In the past, as you know, governments did this sort of thing without thinking about balancing the budget. As a result, we had a deficit for a number of years, and we now have a debt, which is still very high. I can tell you right now that we are not going to fall into this trap again.

Mr. Daniel Turp: The issue of the deficit and of poverty are not traps, Minister. It is not a trap. There are other issues here.

Ms. Diane Marleau: I'm answering your question, sir.

The Chairman: Let the Minister answer your question, Mr. Turp.

Ms. Diane Marleau: The Minister of Finance gives us a budget for two years at a time. The government has chosen to manage things in this way, and we will continue to work with the money we have been given. For the time being, the situation has improved, and we are very pleased about that. We certainly intend to continue fighting for more, but I am not going to give you a plan before I know how much money I will have in two or three years.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Draw up a plan, get our support and you may have a stronger position with your Cabinet colleagues.

Ms. Diane Marleau: Thank you very much. Of course I have a plan, and I will continue to have plans until I get one approved by the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Will you be sharing it with members of Parliament?

Ms. Diane Marleau: For the time being, we are continuing our discussions with the Minister of Finance. Sharing plans that go nowhere is pointless. It is more important to know how far forward we can go. We must have plans that make sense, do you not agree?

The Chairman: Thank you, Minister.

[English]

Mr. Assadourian and then Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much.

Earlier I mentioned that I was in Armenia with Mrs. Labelle. I visited about five CIDA projects. I have to tell you they are extremely happy with the small investment, about $300,000, for the total project. They employ about 225 people. One of them carries the Canadian maple leaf very proudly. They're really happy for it.

Also, one of the good projects they had was cooperation between CESO and Armenian Airlines. They're coming here in a delegation in a few months to lease Dash 8 planes for regional flights within the area.

Anyway, my question is about North Korea. There's a Canadian organization that works with the government-CIDA group to raise funds, and CIDA has a matching fund, I believe, with whatever there is with the Wheat Board in the west.

Ms. Diane Marleau: Yes, the Canada Food Grains Bank.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Yes. I know it is very difficult to go into North Korea to work with the government. I think one of the reasons they starve is because of their own government probably and their own stupid ideology. They have closed the borders and everything.

• 1115

What can we do, as a government or as members of Parliament, to help these people to feed themselves? As you know, thousands of kids are dying every day needlessly because of the government's policy and because of their intentional policy to block off the rest of the world from their own country.

Ms. Diane Marleau: Well, we have responded to different appeals, and we have now gone as high as $15 million in food aid to North Korea. Of that, $2 million is in funds that were directly contributed by Canadians, some of it through the Canada Food Grains Bank and some of it through other means.

The distribution of the food is monitored very closely, and we're certainly continuing to look at what we can do, but the disaster is such that the little bit we are able to do is certainly not enough. Much more work needs to be done. We must encourage North Korea to settle its differences with South Korea, because we really believe that in the end this is the only way their people will have the kinds of resources they need to grow the crops they need to feed themselves.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Would there be any benefit if some people from CIDA went there to visit the country and inspected the situation on their own, and then came back with a report, so that we as a government could move forward based on the report, maybe with the UN's cooperation, to make sure we can feed these people?

Ms. Diane Marleau: We sent one CIDA person as part of a team about six months ago. We're going to continue to look at what we can do in these areas. It's an incredibly difficult place to visit, but the tragedy is very much evident and very much there.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask my question, I have two comments to make.

I've never argued or debated the objective of 0.7% of GDP as ODA, whether to pursue it or not. What I have stated is that it is a myth, and the minister knows that so far it is a myth; it has not been achieved. My concern is it gives false hope to the poor countries. It adversely affects their planning when we promise we will meet this number that we are not meeting.

So my point was that we should simply have realistic objectives for what we can achieve. That was the point. I never said it should or should not be 0.7%. I don't debate that.

An hon. member: What is your objective?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: When the time comes. Let me ask my question.

An hon. member: What's your objective, your percentage?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I will tell when the time comes.

By the way, if the NDP comes to power, Mr. Chairman, Canada will qualify for foreign aid.

When I was talking about the distribution of CIDA contracts in Canada, the minister asked where the figures came from. These figures are posted on the Internet and compiled by CIDA. The minister can look at them. The latest figures are available up to November 14, 1997.

I was quite disappointed to hear the answer from the minister in the House when she said she feels sorry for British Columbians when they get less than 3% to 4% of the contracts from CIDA in contrast with 90% to 92% of contracts going to two provinces.

The other disappointment I got today— I'm sure British Columbians, people from western Canada, and people from eastern Canada will be equally disappointed in the comments made by the government members on this question: that British Columbian firms should move to Ontario. That's a ridiculous comment, and the hope we were expecting from the government is quashed.

Going back to my question, since the time is limited, how would the minister characterize the current relationship between CIDA—

The Chairman: Excuse me for interrupting, Mr. Grewal, but as I understand it, there is somewhat of a problem with whose statistics we're dealing with here. To be fair, you say you have CIDA's statistics; could you share those, perhaps, with the minister?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Sure.

The Chairman: Just looking at people, I'm getting the impression— Madame Labelle, you know, has been before this committee often. Nobody's trying to hide what the numbers are. We can argue about their significance, but let's make sure we're arguing about the same numbers before we start taking interpretations into them, if I may suggest that to you.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Sure, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: We'll give you a little more time, if you like, to share with the department officials or the minister—

• 1120

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Sure, Mr. Chairman. I don't have the actual copies, but I can submit them to the committee later on. The crux of the matter, the bottom line on those figures when we look at them, is that they are from 1995 to November 14, 1997. If we look at the average figures, the contracts that are over $100,000 and less than $100,000, if we take the average of the contracts awarded to various provinces, 1% or 2% of CIDA contracts went to Atlantic provinces, of which there are four; 7% to 8% of those CIDA contracts went to four western provinces, including British Columbia; and about 90% to 92% of those CIDA contracts, up to November 14, 1997, went to Ontario and Quebec.

The Chairman: Does this include CIDA Inc.?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: No, just CIDA contracts.

The Chairman: So these would be consulting contracts.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Not only for consulting contracts, Mr. Chairman. I understand from the figures that these are the contracts even for the supply of goods and services by various businesses. But the minister might throw some light on it, if she would.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I was disappointed by the comments by the government member that those companies should move to Ontario to get these contracts.

Coming back to the question, if I may, how would the minister characterize the relationship between CIDA, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and the Ministry of Finance in terms of objectives and policy or funding priorities?

Ms. Diane Marleau: First of all, on your contracting question, let me give you a little bit more insight into the process. I was once the Minister of Public Works. I can tell you that contracts are posted on an open bidding system and people have to bid on them, pure and simple. The best, the most qualified, the best value overall is the one that gets the contract.

There is one thing that we often disregard. Statistics are often kept by address where the billing happens. Many of these engineering firms or these large consultant firms have a business office in Ottawa or nearby where the billing is done. That does distort as well the way the stats are kept.

I remember that from my days at Public Works, and I would imagine the same thing happens here. The benefits are often spread across the country and they might be using workers from the west or they might be using workers from the east. It's a little bit more difficult to really relate when it comes to stats—

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Chairman, that's not a straightforward answer to the question.

Ms. Diane Marleau: The answer is that we have an open bidding system. It is open to all Canadians. They all have a chance to bid on contracts, and if they don't bid, they won't win. When they do bid, they have every chance of winning. They're every bit as good and as competitive and as capable as any other company anywhere across the country.

You have to remember that when it's an open bidding system, it's not based on regions; it's based on who bids, who has the best contract, the best overall value for money, and who can best do the job. These things are evaluated and they're published. Companies, if they lose a contract, can come back, they can ask questions, they can go to the CITT if they think they haven't been handled properly. There's a whole system of contracting, which was put in place specifically to answer the questions of all of these contractors.

What I'm saying to you is that this is as fair and open a process as we can make it, and we want to keep on with this process because it is the best way. We will get value for dollars by contracting out. If you have a proposition that says you want to give 10 contracts here and 5 contracts there, you can make that proposition, but I happen to believe the best use of taxpayer dollars and the best thing for the companies in Canada is this open bidding system called MERX.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Chairman, the minister conceded in the House that there is a problem. She said she visited British Columbia at that time, when the question was asked in the House, to correct the situation. She said she met people there to correct the situation.

Is that right, Minister?

• 1125

Ms. Diane Marleau: I said I went there to make sure that British Columbian companies, first of all, are aware of those who are doing business with CIDA and are doing business very successfully so that more and more companies, consultants, will bid on these projects.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: The question then arises, Madam Minister—

[Translation]

An Hon. Member: He had five minutes, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Since I interrupted Mr. Grewal, I will give him a few minutes more.

[English]

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I would agree, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I did interrupt you, so I'm letting you stray a little over, which our colleagues are pointing out to you with some degree of enthusiasm.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: So the question arises, will the minister be going to all the provinces? What will she achieve, and who will she be meeting there, to correct the situation? The basic, fundamental problem exists because there is no communication to those companies. The companies that are nearby here are communicated with.

I have an example where one company applied for a CIDA contract and was declined, they said, because they were applying for the first time. Common sense tells me that some companies will have to apply at least for the first time to get the contract, but they do not qualify because they applied for the first time.

It's not the problem that they don't bid; it's the problem that they can't bid. That's the problem that came to my attention.

Coming back to my question, Madam Minister, how would you respond to the strategies of—

Ms. Diane Marleau: I understand the problems of companies where, when they bid for the first time, they may never have done work in that particular part of the world. It is very difficult for them to win contracts if they don't have any experience. But the suggestion I make is that they join with other companies that have, and form consortiums so that they can get the kind of experience they need.

This is a very competitive system we have in place and, yes, it's difficult for new companies sometimes to win contracts when they have no experience, but there are ways to get that experience. I think what we need to do is tell them how.

Whenever I travel, wherever I go in Canada, I try to meet with different groups to tell them about how to bid on contracts, and what are the challenges. Yes, when I hear some of these challenges I come back to CIDA and ask if there some way we can make sure that we can allow more of the newer companies to have a chance to get some of the experience.

It was the same challenge we had at Public Works, to be frank. It's a question of balance—getting the best project for the best overall value but at the same time encouraging newer people to bid.

MERX in the OBS system is widely known. It may not always be known that there are CIDA projects on there, but they're there. So I think it's very important that you yourself, when you're in your part of the country, also speak to them and spread information about it. The only way to do it is to keep working at it.

Yes, there will be more and more contracts awarded, but always to the best companies that bid.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Is there any more time, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: No. It's been eight minutes now, so it's over the five minutes.

Several members have told me they have appointments close to noon, so perhaps we could wind up with the minister at 11.45 a.m. I'm not trying to cut off questions, but it would certainly facilitate other members. I know they have some urgent business.

Perhaps we could keep our questions very short. I also know we have a motion we'll have to deal with.

I'm not trying to cut anybody off. I'm just letting everybody know we could accommodate our colleagues by wrapping up at 11.45 a.m., if at all possible.

Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Chair, if the opposition is calling quorum, I think we should go and make quorum. You can't have it both ways. You can't call for quorum in the House and expect people to be in the House and at committee.

I'm on duty, so maybe I should go over.

The Chairman: Maybe we should quickly wind up. We'll see how long the bell goes.

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the House has primary constitutional call on members. So if there's a demand for a quorum in the House, I'm sorry, but—

An hon. member: The opposition has called it.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Maybe the opposition members should coordinate better with their leaders.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: But we're not there.

The Chairman: Yes, we're not there, because we're all in committee, so I'm going to give that one more minute. If it's still there, though, I agree with the parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Can we have a vote?

The Chairman: Well, we'll have to deal with Mr. Grewal's motion later, then.

• 1130

[Translation]

An Hon. Member: Mr. Chairman—

[English]

The Chairman: Members have moved that we go to the House. That's a votable motion.

[Translation]

An Hon. Member: No one will go to the House.

[English]

The Chairman: It's a motion to adjourn to go to the House. It's not debatable. So I call the vote.

(Motion agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Will we come back afterwards?

[English]

An hon. member: Can't we vote and then go to the House?

The Chairman: Well, unfortunately this is now going to— Members will have to return here after going to the House so we can have the vote on Mr. Grewal's motion. So we'll go to the House and we'll return here and vote as soon as a quorum is reached.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Could someone call your lobby, Mr. Chairman, to see whether the members have come in before we do something stupid?

[English]

The Chairman: Well, the bell is still going.

An hon. member: Is it possible to check it out first?

The Chairman: We're adjourned for 15 minutes.