FAIT Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, March 20, 2003

0905

The Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.))

The Honourable Susan Whelan (Minister for International Cooperation)

0910

0915

0920

The Chair

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance)

0925

Ms. Susan Whelan

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

Ms. Susan Whelan

0930

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ)

0935

The Chair

Ms. Susan Whelan

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Ms. Susan Whelan

0940

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Ms. Susan Whelan

The Chair

Mr. Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.)

0945

Ms. Susan Whelan

Mr. Art Eggleton

0950

Ms. Susan Whelan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance))

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP)

0955

Ms. Susan Whelan

1000

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day)

Ms. Susan Whelan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day)

Ms. Susan Whelan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day)

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day)

1005

Ms. Susan Whelan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day)

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day)

Mr. Bill Casey

1010

Ms. Susan Whelan

Mr. Bill Casey

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day)

Ms. Susan Whelan

Mr. Bill Casey

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day)

Ms. Susan Whelan

Mr. Bill Casey

Ms. Susan Whelan

Mr. Bill Casey

Ms. Susan Whelan

Mr. Bill Casey

Ms. Susan Whelan

1015

Mr. Bill Casey

Ms. Susan Whelan

Mr. Bill Casey

Ms. Susan Whelan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day)

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.)

Ms. Susan Whelan

1020

Mr. André Harvey

Ms. Susan Whelan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day)

Mr. Keith Martin

Ms. Susan Whelan

1025

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day)

Ms. Susan Whelan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day)

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.)

1030

Ms. Susan Whelan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day)

1035

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Ms. Susan Whelan

1040

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day)

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.)

Ms. Susan Whelan

Ms. Aileen Carroll

1045

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day)

Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.)

Ms. Susan Whelan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day)

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Stephen Knowles)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day)

Mr. Art Eggleton

The Clerk

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day)

Mr. Irwin Cotler

CANADA

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

NUMBER 024

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, March 20, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are considering the new policy of the Canadian International Development Agency on strengthening aid effectiveness. Appearing before us this morning we have the Honourable Susan Whelan,Minister for International Cooperation; and Mr. Len Good, the president of the Canadian International Development Agency.

[Translation]

Welcome to both of you.

Madam Minister, I believe that you are going to be making a statement, and then we will have an exchange of questions and answers with you and Mr. Good.

[English]

The floor is yours now, Ms. Whelan, please.

[Translation]

The Honourable Susan Whelan (Minister for International Cooperation): Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today, the Journée internationale de la francophonie, about strengthening the effectiveness of Canadian aid.

Last September I launched a new policy statement entitled Canada Making a Difference in the World. This policy statement reflects two years of extensive consultations getting to of the heart of how we can do our job better. The main principles that we are following are: supporting local ownership, improving donor coordination, untied aid and focussing Canadian aid.

Supporting local ownership means making sure that our development strategies reflect the priorities of recipient countries, governments and people, rather than the priorities of donors. This is essential to ensuring the sustainability and lasting impact of the activities and changes that we support through development. The goal, after all, is to put ourselves out of business by assisting our developing country partners to become self-sufficient. CIDA is working hard to ensure that our developing country partners are driving their own agenda.

Improving donor coordination is essential to avoid duplication and heighten overall impact. CIDA is working closely with multilateral organizations, and we are collaborating more with other donors and developing countries to improve coordination in our bilateral programming.

Last September in Windsor, I hosted the first meeting of G-8 Ministers fully dedicated to development issues, in order to help achieve greater donor coordination. Africa was the subject of many of our discussions, naturally, to move forward on the Africa Action Plan, agreed to by the G-8 at Kananaskis, under the leadership of Prime Minister Chrétien.

[English]

Building on these commitments, we've discussed our responsibility to ensure that our aid programs are delivered in the most effective manner possible, and that they produce tangible results toward achieving internationally agreed development goals. The Windsor meeting, the first of its kind for G-8 development ministers, laid a solid foundation that we can continue to build upon.

¿ (0910)

The next element in strengthening the effectiveness of Canadian international assistance is aid untying. It's been a contentious issue for bilateral developmental agencies for decades. Requiring aid funds to be used for purchases in donor countries is considered by many to represent a clear case of policy incoherence.

Canada has implemented a three-pronged policy to untying our aid. First, it simplifies how we measure untying, so that our definitions are now the same as international ones. Second, together with other donors, we're untying more of the aid to the least-developed countries. Third, on a case-by-case basis, we're extending the eligibility to bid on CIDA contracts to least-developed countries and sub-Saharan Africa. And finally, CIDA is focusing a significant amount of Canada's new aid resources on a limited number of countries and a limited number of strategic sectors where we can be most effective.

In December, after a thorough review with my officials and in consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, I announced an initial list of nine low-income countries where Canada would focus additional aid investments. They are Bangladesh, Bolivia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Honduras, Mali, Mozambique, Senegal, and Tanzania. These countries have demonstrated a commitment to good governance and poverty reduction, as well as an ability to use aid effectively.

I want to stress today that the narrowing focus on the selected sectors that I mentioned earlier is not just for these nine countries, but it will be for all of our programming in all countries in which we work.

One of these sectors of focus will be agriculture. We know that Canada has considerable experience and expertise in the area of agriculture, and more and more research is telling us that the impact of investing in agriculture and rural development in developing countries is very important. About three-quarters of the world's absolute poor live in rural areas, and their livelihoods are most often linked to agriculture. At the same time, agriculture has a major impact on the environment, and is also closely connected to water, education, and health and nutrition. The international community has increasingly identified agriculture as central to achieving the millennium development goals and as one of the keys to addressing food security, poverty, and environmental sustainability.

Last fall I launched a public consultation to help develop a new agricultural policy. I had an opportunity to meet with more than 150 organizations in Canada and abroad. These valuable discussions focused on topics such as the importance of taking a long-term view, increased research in the field, and harnessing Canadian capacity for rural and agricultural development.

I am very pleased to tell you today that our new agricultural policy will be released very shortly and that it will reflect the consultations we've undertaken in Canada and abroad, and that we've had through the website, with non-governmental organizations, institutions, individuals, other donors, and developing country partners. It will also outline the principles that will guide our programming and identify priority areas as well as specific targets for increasing our investments in agriculture and rural development.

CIDA is also going to be focusing on the private sector and private sector development. It's widely recognized today that the private sector and private sector development in developing countries is a powerful force for reducing poverty. A dynamic private sector can generate jobs, increase productivity, develop a tax base, and create local suppliers who can meet people's needs right in their own communities.

In February I launched a document entitled Expanding Opportunities, a discussion document for CIDA's new private sector development policy in developing countries. An online discussion is currently underway, and earlier this month I began meeting with partners and stakeholders across the country.

I want to thank Mr. Harvey for his wonderful job in hosting the consultations on my behalf in Atlantic Canada and Quebec. This policy will ultimately reflect our discussions and our statement on strengthening aid effectiveness.

I began the consultation process for a new policy with partners—in Bangladesh actually, which is one of Canada's and CIDA's countries of focus. Beginning consultations with developing country partners helps CIDA support local ownership and the leadership role of developing countries. In Bangladesh I had the opportunity to see for myself how CIDA is supporting micro-credit financing, one of the many levels of support that can be provided for private sector development. I also saw how we're helping people, mainly women, lift themselves and their families out of poverty.

¿ (0915)

CIDA's new policy on private sector development will be launched this summer. The strengthening aid effectiveness agenda is the centrepiece of all that CIDA does. The document called Strengthening Aid Effectiveness came about after two years of consultations. It will be an integral part of our continued effort to achieve the four social development priorities identified in the year 2000: supporting basic education, promoting health and nutrition, fighting against HIV and AIDS, and protecting children at risk.

You should know that promoting gender equality is a cross-cutting theme running through all of CIDA's programming, and that CIDA remains committed to the linked priorities that are integral to achieving sustainable development.

We know healthy people are more productive, that educated people are better able to make informed choices about their health and the welfare of their children, and that education is also a key strategy in the fight against HIV and AIDS. We believe it's very fitting that the first of CIDA's investments in a strategic sector in a country of focus were in education.

Last November, at the High-Level Group Meeting on Education for All in Abuja, I had the opportunity to announce that CIDA would be supporting education priorities for the governments of Tanzania and Mozambique. An additional $10 million per year per country over the next five years will go towards education. Canada has had significant experience in supporting education in both of these countries. I want to just clarify that this is new money over and above already existing commitments.

Canada is making a difference in the world. We have helped tens of thousands of boys and girls access schooling in Africa alone. Our support for research and innovation in agriculture resulted in improving the health of over 15 million Africans. Canada has been recognized internationally for the kinds of accomplishments we have been able to achieve. UNICEF has credited Canada with saving 7 million children around the world from iodine deficiency disorder, which impairs mental ability. And last fall I had the honour to accept an award from the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease for Canada's leadership role in the fight against tuberculosis. You should know that this was only the second time the award has ever been presented to an entire country.

These results are certainly something to be proud of, and we have to do a much better job of telling Canadians about them and engaging them in international development, in what we're doing. We believe we have a responsibility to show results to Canadians. We need to show them that development assistance works, that it's having a real impact on the lives of poor people, and that Canada is living up to its international responsibilities and commitments.

Strengthening our aid effectiveness is essential to achieving the millennium development goals, the internationally agreed set of targets for reducing poverty that were reconfirmed by the world leaders a year ago in Monterrey last March. Canada has a key role in supporting local ownership through the G-8's Africa Action Plan, which responds to the New Partnership for Africa's Development, otherwise known as NEPAD.

The Canada Fund for Africa, which was established in the budget in 2001 and introduced by the Prime Minister at Kananaskis, is delivering on Canada's commitments in the areas of fostering economic growth, strengthening institutions and governance, and investing in the people and future of Africa.

Budget 2003 now helps Canada deliver on these important commitments. The permanent annual increase of Canada's international assistance envelope by 8% for this fiscal year through 2004-05 allows for long-term planning. The increase puts us on the right path towards doubling the level of Canada's international assistance by the year 2010.

In keeping with our commitments to the Africa Action Plan and to NEPAD, at least half of all new funds will be going towards Africa. And with these new funds, there's an opportunity to ensure that policy coherence, which is essential, becomes an element in the effective delivery of our aid.

I've been speaking very often and working very closely with my colleagues from the Departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and National Defence about strengthening our relationships. We're working together around the so-called three Ds of diplomacy, defence, and development.

¿ (0920)

Minister Graham initiated a foreign policy dialogue in January, giving Canadians a chance to express their vision for Canada's role in the world, but this is only the beginning. As a government, we have a lot of work ahead to update our foreign policy framework to accommodate new developments on the world stage. You can be sure that I will be there to push the case for development and cooperation to remain a central pillar for our foreign policy. I don't believe it will be a tough sell, because survey after survey tells us that Canadians want to help correct the gross global inequities that confront us today.

Canadians can also be very proud of our work. Earlier this week, I announced the largest single-country pledge ever made by Canada. Afghanistan will receive $250 million in new Canadian aid over the next two years. Canada has been working as part of the international community to satisfy humanitarian needs and social priorities such as education, health, and nutrition, as well as reconstruction efforts like de-mining activities, promoting peace and security, and supporting gender equality, human rights, and strong governance in Afghanistan.

We delivered on our earlier pledges for aid to Afghanistan and we remain committed to its reconstruction. We will continue to build on our commitments and support the Afghan people in these challenging times.

Of course, we're all aware of the current situation in Iraq. As the Prime Minister has stated, Canada will not be participating in military action that proceeds without endorsement from the Security Council, but Canada will deliver humanitarian assistance and participate in reconstruction through the United Nations. The United Nations and other international humanitarian assistance agencies have been planning emergency assistance.

I want to inform members of this committee that Canada is working in close cooperation with those agencies. Canada has contributed to the United Nations appeal for preparedness efforts for Iraq, and if necessary, Canada is prepared, as always, to support United Nations organizations and other multilateral institutions to meet the humanitarian needs of Iraqi civilians.

CIDA does not have an aid program in Iraq. However, CIDA does provide humanitarian assistance. Since 1990, through the Canadian International Development Agency, Canada has provided approximately $40 million in humanitarian assistance to needy Iraqis, displaced persons, and Iraqi refugees in neighbouring countries. This assistance has taken the form of donations of food and medical products, landmine awareness, and assistance through United Nations organizations, the Red Cross movement, and non-governmental organizations.

In spite of our current challenges, our sights are set on achieving our long-term goals. Canada and CIDA have been doing good work in international development. We clearly have a lot of strength and areas of expertise we can build on. The changes we're making now to support local ownership, improve donor coordination, untie aid, and focus our assistance are all about strengthening aid effectiveness and allowing us to do an even better job.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chair. At this time, my officials and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Minister.

[English]

The way we are going to proceed now will be questions and answers. It will be ten minutes because it's a minister, and we'll start with Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Obhrai, please.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for coming. Of course we've had a lot of discussions on this issue, and this not being a question period, I hope you'll now answer questions today.

Frankly speaking, it has come as a real surprise to me that a department of the nature of CIDA, which has been in existence for such a long time and has expertise, as you pointed out, has been doing this work, comes in here in 2002 with a document about effective aid delivery. Obviously, Minister, your government has been in power since 1993. You've had a lot of opportunity to do that, I understand.

I know a lot of NGOs and people who work in the development assistance field have been asking for years for a change of direction from CIDA, for a new approach for effective aid delivery. Some of the changes you have outlined today in this document have been stated before as well. So I'm glad you are going on that path--and I will get to the specifics very shortly on those, too.

But what really surprised me was that either CIDA or somebody was not listening to people; it took so long to come into effect. What happened in the last nine years? Where has all that money been going? We've obviously been following an old path, so why do we trust that now there will be a change towards this new direction you're proposing?

¿ (0925)

Ms. Susan Whelan: Mr. Obhrai, I think we're all well aware of the fact that Canada was in an annual deficit situation when this government took office in 1993 and that some decisions were made to ensure that Canada could get back on the right track economically. This budget confirms that Canada is back on the right track. As I stated, the 8% increase is guaranteed or is committed for the next several years and will double our aid by the year 2010.

Certainly, it's not just about more money, but about delivering it more effectively. The consultation that took place over two years to come up with a document last September was a very thorough one. I became minister a year ago January, and I'm very pleased that we have the new aid effectiveness document and that we've been able to introduce some new policies. Some of these are very tough policy changes, not only for us but also for our partners with whom we work.

The other thing we should be aware of, though, is that the donor community is coordinating and working much better together, which is going to allow us to be much more effective with our aid dollars. I may have mentioned this at my first appearance before this committee, but I have to tell you that when I became minister a year ago January, I was quite surprised and taken aback to hear about the need for donor coordination when I attended the first talks on Afghanistan. Obviously there's a need for the donor community to be coordinated so that our dollars are effectively spent.

These things are happening, particularly in the nine countries of focus we have identified. We have good working relationships with other donor countries, and there's an opportunity here. This is why we're quite confident that things will be different, because there's an opportunity for things to be different. We're allowing local country ownership and allowing these countries to choose the direction in which they head.

I have to say that we're on the right track. Considering the budget constraints of the early nineties, the department has done a great job in ensuring that we move forward. Since I became minister, we have definitely had some new and exciting directions in the last 14 months, and things are moving very rapidly.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Let's talk about the new and exciting directions you were talking about. Let me go into specifics for a minute. Let me ask two questions, one, about tied aid, and two, about your geographical area of concentration.

You just said you're going to concentrate on nine countries, which I have no problems with. However, you are still spread over 100 countries. You and I have discussed these issues, and we've talked about aid to China and India. Nevertheless, you are still very thinly spread—though your nine new countries will get new aid dollars, not old aid dollars, if I understood you correctly. I'm focusing on the issue of how much reduction you have done and whether or not you are still out there in those 100 countries.

My second question is on the tied aid. I see that you have taken the direction of untying aid. We have known for a long time that tied aid is the most inefficient form of giving out dollars—right up to 35%, some studies have said. I want to know exactly how many aid dollars are tied, and how much of the whole aid budget you are untying. If I recall correctly, I think our tied aid remains at 70%. Is this coming down now, and to what level?

Ms. Susan Whelan: First let me address the issue of the nine countries. I want to be really clear that the nine countries we identified are just the beginning of the countries of concentration, or the countries of focus. That's not the exclusive list. We expect to add other countries to that list as time goes on.

You're right that it is for new resources, particularly for those nine countries. However, we've very clearly tried to articulate that we're not only narrowing the focus of the number of sectors in those nine countries, we also intend to narrow the number of sectors in which we're involved in all other countries.

Yes, we are involved in a lot of countries; we acknowledge that. But we believe we can be very effective and efficient by narrowing the sectors. For example, in a country like China, which is not one of the nine countries, we're going to narrow the sectors. Instead of being involved in five or six different sectors, we'll be involved in only two or three sectors. We're going to narrow that focus very much.

We're looking at where we can be efficient and effective in those sectors, what has worked well in the past, and how we can be more streamlined to be more effective with our dollars. We're going to make some of those tough decisions, and some of our partners are not going to be happy. Some of the people who have been doing traditional work in there and have been traditionally funded by CIDA are not going to be happy.

When we make a decision, for example, that we're going to be involved in education but not child protection, that's going to upset some people. When we say we're going to be involved in child protection and health in one country but not education, that's going to upset some other people. Those are the tough decisions we still have to make. We are making them as we go through what we call the country framework development.

We also have the graduating countries, and that's a real success story to show that CIDA is reducing the number of countries we're involved in. The four countries of Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Poland are now graduating. We've entered into an agreement with them known as ODA, where we're helping them set up development assistant programs.

We've moved into this transition period with them where we're working with them in a trilateral way. Canada is working with Poland, and Poland's working with a neighbouring country that still needs development assistance, to help Poland set up a development assistance arrangement.

We're also looking at a couple of other countries graduating, such as Thailand and Malaysia, in the near future. So progress is being made, and I think that is a wonderful story to tell. We have had successes and we're taking countries off the list. We're not abandoning countries; we're actually graduating them.

On your tied aid question, we certainly recognize that Canada has been criticized for having probably one of the most tied aid programs. That's why we've announced we're making changes to our programs. We're going further than DAC requirements by allowing aid to be untied, not only in the least-developed countries but in all of sub-Saharan Africa. We're looking at those opportunities that exist in all other developing countries.

I can't give you a percentage today because I can't tell you what it's going to be. We've now changed how we define tied aid, and we're in the process of working through those decisions and implementing those changes. Again, we will have to make some tough decisions, but it will also open some doors. In the past, where Canadians have been barred from participating in international contracts because we have had tied aid, those doors will now be open to Canadian expertise and services.

I think it's going to provide tremendous benefits to the developing world so Canadian expertise can be used in places where Canada may not be funding but others are funding. At the same time we're going to develop and use that south-south capacity that we indeed want to have happen.

¿ (0930)

The Chair: Mr. Martin, you have 30 seconds for comments, but no questions, because your preambles are so long.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): They're my golden 30 seconds.

The Chair: They're over.

We'll go to Madame Lalonde, please.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Thank you, Ms. Whelan, for coming here this morning.

You probably know that on April 9, it will be 34 years since Lester B. Pearson recommended to the United Nations that the objective for international aid be set at 0.7%. I would imagine that you will be celebrating this anniversary at the department, because Lester B. Pearson was a credit to Canada in this respect, as well as in many other ways.

However, I would first of all like to ask you whether or not you are satisfied with the 8% increase forecasted in the budget by the government, which is intended, apparently, to double aid by the year 2010.

I would remind you that the CCIC, which has analyzed this aid, has estimated that Canada's ratio would be approximately 0.31 by 2010. In 2001, Canada, which is a member of G-7, was ranked 19^th out of 22 donor countries, and in 2010, it may very well still be at the end of the line, since the objective set by the European Union for all its countries is 0.39, for an average of 0.36. This would mean that Canada which, I must acknowledge, has some exemplary practices to its credit in many respects, lags behind in terms of the real aid provided, and I have not talked about the tied aid or the 75%, which, at any rate, comes back to Canada. First of all, are you satisfied?

Secondly, you are certainly aware of the fact that, in order to achieve the UN objective, to achieve the development objectives for the millennium, Canada will have to increase its aid, between 2010 and 2015, by 2.4 billion dollars per year. Have you decided to implement an action plan to achieve this objective, pursuant to the committee recommendation?

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Ms. Whelan

[English]

Ms. Susan Whelan: The anniversary of Lester Pearson is coming in April, and we look at it knowing we're back on the right track. By 2010 our aid dollars will have doubled, and I see that as the minimum target we can achieve by then.

The fact that we now have stable funding is very good news for long-term planning development. The fact we now have international commitments to donor cooperation and harmonization allows our aid dollars to be more effective. The fact that we're working with many countries that are committed to good governance allows for there to be progress.

Do we have an action plan to get to 0.7%? We're working on that. It's certainly something we have to look toward, but I think the goal is not just about the amount of money; it's about how those dollars are spent, and the fact that we're back on the right track toward meeting that objective and meeting that target.

I'm well aware the European Union has a different target, as do a number of other countries. We would like to raise our position from 19th, where it was in 2001. But again there are some opportunities that we shouldn't be selling ourselves short on. Our aid dollars are increasing and we are showing a leadership role in many areas. We have been able to make strategic investments that trigger investments of other countries. We take challenges on very early and encourage other countries to come. We have shown incredible leadership in the developing world, and there's an opportunity for us to move forward.

We estimate the ratio will be higher than 0.31 by 2010--I think around 0.33 or 0.34, but that depends on the rate of economic growth in Canada. We know that where we rate compared to other countries depends on their rate of economic growth. We're not so concerned about the actual target number at the end of 2010 as much as the fact that our aid dollars will be doubling, which allows us to make strategic long-term planning investments. That is good news for developing countries and very good news for the effectiveness of our aid dollars.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Could you explain to us why countries such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark and many others provide, on a continuous basis, aid that is effective and recognized as such? Norway is admired for the way it operates. It is a country with a population of 4 million that maintains the 7 per cent objective .

[English]

Ms. Susan Whelan: In fact, I've had several conversations and discussions with my colleagues from those countries. When I met with my counterpart from the Netherlands several months ago, she indicated to me that before she would criticize Canada for not being at 0.7%, she would suggest that changing our policy on tying was much more important.

I think we have to look at the things we are doing and the changes we are making, and the fact that we are making that change on untying our aid is a huge change in the way we do business. It will make our aid dollars more effective, which will allow our dollars, I believe, to go further.

We recognize that other countries are ahead of us. Certainly the bar was set by Canada and it's a bar we'd like to see achieved. There are other countries behind us. We know the United States is only at 0.1% and will go up to about 0.13% or 0.14% with their change in dollars. We recognize that there is some work to do. We know that Ireland has announced a very rapid increase in their aid program, and France has also announced a rapid increase.

Canada has said that as a minimum we will continue to increase by 8% per year, and that's very good news. Will it go higher than 8%? That will depend, obviously, on the will of the Canadian people, on the government, and on the effectiveness we're able to show with the dollars we've now been given.

That's where it's key, that the agency and I work very diligently to achieve the results that are needed so we can prove to Canadians that the money is being used where it needs to go on the ground. We must justify it to Canadians--I know that it's necessary and I know it's justifiable without--so Canadians understand the need for larger increases to the aid dollars. I'm very optimistic that our aid dollars will more than double by the year 2010.

¿ (0940)

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: But what is your wish? You talked about the will of the people and the government. But what is your will? You are the minister responsible.

[English]

Ms. Susan Whelan: Madame Lalonde, as the minister I would very clearly like to see our aid dollars continue to increase. I think that the budget is extremely good news. It's very difficult for people to look at it without looking at the hard numbers that were there and the decisions that can be made.

But we didn't have a guaranteed increase in our A budget before. It's not a big seller out there to talk about A-base budgets, but the reality is that we couldn't do long-term planning. We can now do long-term planning at CIDA, which is incredibly good news for development work, for our partners, and for what we're doing.

Certainly I'd like to see our aid dollars continue to increase. I hope that Canada will continue to be able to not only meet the 8% objective but go higher. That would be my desire, that we in fact would raise that amount. But we have to make sure that we're doing this in an effective way, that the countries we're working in have the capacity to absorb the dollars we have and the programs we would like to be working on with them, and that we can achieve the millennium development goals and the targets that have been set out.

There are many good opportunities for Canada to be involved in, to invest in, and to work with. We want to make the right strategic decisions and we want to use the aid dollars effectively. We want to double our aid dollars by 2010, and we'd like to achieve the greater objective of 0.7% as well.

The Chair: Merci.

Mr. Eggleton, please.

Mr. Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, first of all, thank you to the minister for her presentation, her overview of what CIDA is doing.

I have two questions. The first deals with Iraq, for obviously Iraq is uppermost in our minds this morning. With the military action launched last evening, Iraq is now pushed to the edge of a humanitarian catastrophe. We understand that some 60% of their population, some 16 million people, have relied upon their government for food and necessary sustaining supplies because of the period of time of the sanctions.

There has been a great dependency on their government, which now is in a very uncertain state as to its ability to be able to deliver that kind of aid to its own people. We could find that even though people are trying to dodge the bombs and the missiles, more of them might be killed by starvation and by disease because of the fact that a lot of the central services will be cut off--clean water, for example.

This population that's at risk also includes millions of children, many of whom are undernourished now and are suffering. One can only imagine that for a very substantial number of people, millions of people, the situation is going to get worse before it gets better.

Now, you said that we would be working with other UN agencies and providing assistance. Yes, and I suppose for those who come to refugee camps in or out of Iraq, hopefully, those agencies along with Canada will be involved. But what about the people who are still in the war zone and will be in the war zone for a period of time? I don't imagine there are going to be NGOs in there distributing food, so it looks as if it would depend upon the military people from the United States, Britain, and the other coalition countries to be able to distribute food. The United States has said that it would probably do what it did in Afghanistan, which is to drop food packets, which from all accounts didn't work very well in Afghanistan.

Are we doing something to urge the United States, Britain, and these other countries to put more of an effort into food distribution in the war zone? Certainly the Bush administration has budgeted something over $12 billion to terminate people's lives, but a very paltry amount to try to sustain people's lives. Are we doing something to try to impress upon them the need to look after these people who are in the war zone, who perhaps won't get the kind of assistance they've been getting up till now?

I have one further question, Mr. Chair, but it's on a different subject, so I'll let her answer that and then you can come back to me.

¿ (0945)

Ms. Susan Whelan: Thank you very much, Mr. Eggleton.

We need to be very clear about this, that Canada has been engaged in what we consider to be prudent planning. There has been an ongoing UN contingency planning effort and Canada has been engaged in that. We've been consulting very closely with relevant UN agencies on their preparedness efforts. The UN appeal for contingency planning was about $120 million U.S., and Canada has contributed $5.6 million.

Specifically, we provided $100,000 to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. We provided $2.9 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to provide assistance and protection for refugees and asylum seekers. We provided $1 million for the World Food Program to provide emergency food assistance to refugees and other vulnerable people inside Iraq as access permits. We provided over $1 million to UNICEF to support activities, some of which have already taken place inside the country, to provide assistance to vulnerable groups.

We certainly recognize there's a problem, and we recognize that's it's going to be very difficult while war is ongoing for there to be access to food. You should know, however, that the United States and the U.K. are working on a draft resolution to take to the UN Security Council to try to see how we can maintain or work within the oil for food program. There is ongoing work right now as we recognize that this is indeed a very serious problem.

This is a very different situation from the early 1990s. I've been saying for several months now in response to many questions that in the early 1990s the average per capita income in Iraq was about $9,000. Today it's between $1,000 and $3,000. We don't have an actual good estimate on that number. We know that they're in a much more fragile, more vulnerable situation and know that, as you said, there are many who are already receiving food assistance because of the sanctions, because of the difficult circumstances they've been living under.

So we indeed see the necessity. We are working very closely on it, and Canada has made a very firm commitment to provide humanitarian assistance and will work with our colleagues on achieving those results.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Well, Mr. Chair, I appreciate the answer and the contributions that are being made by CIDA. But let me emphasize that I would hope that you, as the Minister for International Cooperation, with the government, would play an advocacy role on behalf of those people who are on the edge of this humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq and continue to press the issue with the coalition forces.

The second subject that I want to ask a question on deals with these nine countries. I noted that Ethiopia is here, but Eritrea is not. I frequently think of them in the same breath because they are right next to each other and they have had a conflict not too long ago--in which Canada played a role, of course, in bringing to an end. We sent in troops there. I visited both countries at the time.

They're both undergoing a drought. It's also something that they have in common. We've heard before, of course, about drought in Ethiopia. We saw some terrible pictures of what was happening there not too many years ago. Apparently they're going through it again but are a little bit better prepared this time.

But I understand that in Eritrea, 70% of its 3.3 million people are now classified as vulnerable to famine. The UN has asked the developed countries to contribute $163 million to Eritrea in dealing with this famine problem. But the countries, of which we are one, have only contributed $4 million so far, or 2.5% of the money that is required to be able to deal with this problem.

You've announced some $40 million going to Ethiopia, and some $500,000 going to Eritrea. But the people who are concerned certainly have made representation to me from the Eritrean community on behalf of people back in their homeland that this is very inadequate to be able to deal with the problem. I don't know; maybe you've based it on some per capita calculation, but you can't just take per capita calculations as a means of measuring the problem and the needs.

So could you talk about possibly more assistance to the Eritrean people, particularly since the UN has said that only 2.5% of the money needed to help them in this famine problem has been contributed? What can we do to further help Eritrea, and why isn't it on the list of nine countries, since they're so closely linked?

¿ (0950)

Ms. Susan Whelan: First and foremost, the list of nine countries comes from those countries that we already have bilateral aid relationships with. We don't have a bilateral aid relationship with Eritrea, an ongoing program. The idea is not to add new programs; it's to narrow our focus and narrow the number of countries.

That said, however, we are working in Eritrea in a humanitarian fashion, and there are other countries that will find themselves receiving humanitarian assistance that will not find themselves on a list of countries of focus or increased resources for bilateral programming.

We've already provided $1 million this year. The number has increased from $500,000 to $1 million in emergency food and non-food assistance to Eritrea.

We're presently looking at possibilities for both food and non-food assistance. We hope to be able to announce something very soon in an increased fashion of dollars, but recognizing that there is a substantial difference in the number of people, recognizing that we need to get other donor countries to come to the table on Eritrea.

Canada has shown a leadership role, we believe, in all of southern Africa by being first out last June with an announcement to try to encourage countries to head off the drought in many countries, not only in Ethiopia, not only in Eritrea, but in all of southern Africa. We provided over $35 million early last summer to try to weave into the pack and to get countries to come to the table quickly so we wouldn't be facing a serious famine situation in many of these countries.

We certainly are taking the situation in Eritrea very seriously, and I hope to be able to provide very shortly a further contribution to alleviate the suffering that is taking place in Eritrea.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance)): Thank you, Madam Minister. You finished exactly on the 10-minute mark to Mr. Eggleton's time.

Ms. McDonough will be next.

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, I know you said in your comments to the committee today and in your written report that one of your objectives is to show Canadians we are living up to our international responsibilities and commitments. Members of this committee may not agree on all things, but I think it's fair to say we all want very much to help you achieve that.

Just to reinforce a concern already raised in that regard, it seems to me--and I think a lot of people--there's a great deal of advocacy needed by you on behalf of the international development community and Canadians who want to see us live up to those obligations to be a great deal more proactive and aggressive about increasing the level of ODA. The calculations are, despite your talking about doubling the amount of assistance, that it would take to the year 2040 before we would actually reach the level of ODA assistance to which we are currently obligated. So I think that's part of what people are trying to say.

I have two questions, and then two requests, because it's very difficult to get a comprehensive picture in such a short period of time.

As a result of very compelling evidence before this committee over the last five or six weeks, the foreign affairs committee passed a motion to make a very direct request to you as CIDA's minister and to the foreign affairs minister to step up, ramp up, increase the contingency planning--the emergency planning--for humanitarian assistance in Iraq, given the situation that was unfolding. I'm wondering if you can table before the committee what efforts have been taken in that regard, and perhaps take a moment to speak about that. I think what we want to see is a full report on what has been done in that regard, because as much as we all hope this isn't what we're facing, we're now into it in a very big way.

The second thing is that before this committee, we also had excellent testimony about what is needed in the way of Canada's commitment to agricultural policy, not to address our own agricultural crises--and we have those--but from you as CIDA's minister in meeting our obligations to the poorest of countries in regard to subsistence agriculture.

There were five points put forward as absolute minimal requirements for us to meet those obligations that we signed onto at Doha. I wonder if you could report to the committee whether those five requirements have been met in the new agricultural policy. I know you mentioned it would be forthcoming very soon.

Third, in regard to aid to Afghanistan, I was deeply disturbed at recent reports of a very knowledgeable international development person who returned from Afghanistan and basically said there's nothing going on there as a result of Canada's interventions. There's no real staff, no real programs. I wonder if you might report to the committee on what actually is going on on the ground in Afghanistan as a result of Canadian programming and Canadian staffing.

Finally, on HIV/AIDS in Africa, it was literally a shock to people who are concerned about the situation with respect to the HIV/AIDS pandemic that Canada's commitment has been so minimal to the global fund. I wonder if you would address what plans Canada has to live up to what you as minister have stated is the real commitment, that we show the world we're living up to our commitments. What are we going to be doing in that regard?

¿ (0955)

Ms. Susan Whelan: Thank you very much, Ms. McDonough.

I'll try to address all of those questions in a timely fashion, Mr. Chair.

First and foremost, I do appreciate the fact that the committee is actually very engaged in trying to also engage Canadians and help them understand what it is we need to do and can do in the developing world. Just to highlight very briefly, one of the ways we believe we can do that is through young Canadians.

We have targeted a couple of different types of programs towards our young Canadians. One is the global classroom initiative to try to get high school teachers to provide those types of courses. We are providing some funding through the global classroom initiative to encourage school boards to create those programs to teach our young Canadians about the developing world. As well, there is the butterfly 208 contest, which is targeted at high school students to encourage them to go on the website to learn about the developing world--what they can do, how they can help--and to write an essay, draft a picture, some type of music interlude, some type of class project.

We believe there's an opportunity for members of Parliament to promote both of those activities to their constituencies and to all of their constituents. That way we can make Canadians more knowledgeable about what needs to take place in the developing world. That then helps us, indeed, step up and offer further assistance in many cases.

I know there was a motion passed by this committee requiring increased humanitarian assistance in Iraq. We have indeed, as I said, responded to the UN contingency planning appeal in the ratio that was requested of Canada. We are looking at the different options that will come across our desk. You should note, however, there have been no further appeals until, I believe, the first one now, which is from the International Red Cross. Our organization, as of yesterday, had an announcement for today that there's what they call a flash appeal.

Many organizations have been waiting to see what situation does unfold in Iraq and what their needs are before they've actually made a request for funding. We are in the process now of looking at those appeals as they arrive. Certainly we have looked at what our options would be and what type of actions we do already have on the ground.

Again, as I stated in my opening comments, we do not have a bilateral program in Iraq. They do not technically qualify for official development assistance dollars because of their per capita income and because of their situation, although they have been under sanction. So we are looking at humanitarian assistance and we are looking at how Canada can provide a strengthened role there.

As to what's needed with regard to the commitment to agriculture, as I said, our policy document hopefully will be released in two weeks' time. I'm not sure exactly which five requirements you're referring to. If you're referring to requirements specifically to Doha--the trade rounds going on there--or if you're referring to some type of requirements you've suggested we should have in our document, I'd be happy to follow up on that.

I can tell you that I'm working very closely with Pierre Pettigrew, who is our Minister of International Trade, to ensure that developing countries' needs are represented and what they need is taken into consideration at the round on the trade.

Our policy is looking very specifically at the elements we consider to be necessary for agricultural development--the commitment of the countries we're going to work in, the research that's necessary, the implementation plan. Those are the things we are targeting right now and will be released in our policy in two weeks' time.

With regard to aid to Afghanistan, as you are all aware, I announced on Monday that we would be providing a $250 million commitment to Afghanistan for the next two years. I can assure you that Canada's $100 million commitment, which is over $100 million--it's now $116 million since September 1, 2001--has indeed resulted in real results on the ground.

I visited Afghanistan in July to see some of those aid dollars at work, such as the feeding the widow program in Kabul. I went to visit a care site where we're providing seed and helping people get back into agriculture production. I've met several times with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. They've had double the number of people return to Afghanistan. We've provided direct funding and they provide direct food and support to people returning.

À (1000)

They've had to lessen what they originally planned to provide to each person returning because the numbers have been so great, although we have doubled our assistance in that area. We do have, you should know, a project support unit on the ground open in Afghanistan, in Kabul. We do have a physical presence there. We do have people working on the ground there. Obviously we're looking at how we can ensure that a monitoring of our projects is done in a very effective and efficient fashion, recognizing the fragile nature of Afghanistan.

We know that our troops will be going to Afghanistan again in the summer and we're looking at ways we can work very closely together to ensure that aid dollars are delivered effectively and efficiently.

We've put some serious commitment to the program for women in Afghanistan. We've provided direct funding for the Minister of Finance to have people working with him to set up the finance department with the Ministry of Rural Development. We do have some active people working on the ground.

With regard to HIV and AIDS, certainly it's a tragic situation that's occurring, not only in Africa but very particularly in Africa. We know that HIV and AIDS is on the rise in many other countries--in Russia and India and Pakistan.

We have committed, and we are meeting our commitments, to the Global Health Fund of $100 million U.S., about $150 million to $160 million Canadian over four years. And the Global Health Fund is not just for HIV and AIDS; it's also for malaria and tuberculosis. If you heard the President of Mozambique speak--he spoke several times while he was here in Canada--on each occasion he referred to HIV and AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, not just HIV and AIDS. And they are one of the nine countries that are dramatically affected by HIV and AIDS. He recognizes there are other disease problems as well. But on top of that we have committed $50 million to find a vaccine through the Canada-Africa Fund for HIV and AIDS.

And we are increasing our HIV and AIDS program in Canada. As part of the social development priorities in the year 2000, it started out at a $20 million a year program to reach an $80 million a year program by the year 2004, which means $270 million spent on HIV and AIDS specifically through bilateral programming.

We are also looking at the link to education. Many of our education programs have a link to HIV and AIDS.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day): Madam Minister, I appreciate you're doing an excellent job of details. Could you take about another 30 seconds. We're over the 10 minutes, and then I'll move to Mr. Calder.

Ms. Susan Whelan: I apologize, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day): Thank you.

Ms. Susan Whelan: We are encouraging, in the six years of the basic education we're also funding, that there be some HIV and AIDS awareness training, so that the youth of Africa and other countries understand what causes those diseases.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day): Thank you very much, Madam Minister.

It moves to Mr. Calder at this point.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome Minister. We had a nice little conversation this morning about directions. I'd like to carry on a wee bit, but go in a slightly different direction.

One of the things I believe we have to enhance is the synergies between aid and trade, and we also need to recognize the fact that Canada's aid dollars are not unlimited. With those two preambles in place, I guess maybe my questions would be these. In what regions can we be the most effective and maybe complement foreign policy in the process? Two, should we contribute based on the need or where we are most engaged in the world?

Also, in your presentation you talked about agricultural policy that's supposed to be released in two weeks' time. I'm curious as to how that will be applied to developing countries and how it will differ from what we are doing now.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day): Madam Minister, the time allotments now are five minutes to the excellent questions. You'll have about four minutes now. Thank you.

À (1005)

Ms. Susan Whelan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First and foremost, definitely we can be effective between our aid and trade policy, as you've heard the Prime Minister state several times. Agriculture is a good example. The agricultural subsidies that exist in the world are about $300 billion U.S. each year, and the amount of money that goes into development assistance around the world is about $50 billion U.S. in total.

There's obviously a lot of work to be done, and Canada has been working very aggressively on that front. Pierre Pettigrew, our Minister for International Trade, is working very directly to try to ensure that we see some of those numbers reversed, particularly to see the agricultural subsidies reduced.

We know there's a huge challenge, though, between what's going on with the United States and the EU and the definition of what an export subsidy is versus a domestic subsidy and how that affects all. We are trying to be a voice, though, at the table, and I think there is a synergy there, that we can help developing countries.

We have to be very clear, though. Developing countries' access to the global market isn't going to solve their problems, and recognizing that there are huge regional markets still to be developed. In Africa, a country like Nigeria itself has over 140 million or 170 million people on its own. It has a huge market within waiting for it to develop. In southern Africa, the different regions of the world, the Americas, the different parts, there's obviously tremendous potential.

Should we contribute based on need or where we're most involved in the world? Certainly the mandate I have is to reduce poverty through sustainable development. Then we have to look at where the greatest numbers are and where poverty exists and where we can be effective, and it's a balance that we have to find.

I look at the fact that there are about 1.2 billion people living on less than $1 a day, and double that number living on less than $2 a day. So there's a huge challenge out there.

Canada is looking for partners, though, that are committed to good governance, that are making that commitment to change, whose government policies are interested in taking ownership and leadership and being sustainable. Certainly we have to look at the areas where need is great, but where we can be effective as well.

The agriculture policy that will be announced in two weeks' time will be more strategic, we believe, will narrow our focus a bit in the role of agriculture, will allow us to reinvest resources in the agricultural area.

You should note that agriculture is an area that not only CIDA but many of the developed countries got out of, I guess you could say, or moved out of. It went from being over 10% of our budget to less than 5% of our budget. If you look at the United States, the U.K., and other countries, you'll see the same parallels. People walked away from it, figuring that wasn't the answer--recognizing, though, now, that 75% to 80% of the world's absolute poor live in rural areas and agriculture is their main livelihood, that there's a role and a place for us there.

We hope to see some very strategic investments there and some changes in how we do business, so that we can also look at the total package and not just maybe some pieces of the puzzle and walk away--the effectiveness that will be determined by the ability for us to have long-term commitments that we now can do because of the budget of 2003.

We can have another discussion about directions any time.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day): Thank you, Madam Minister.

Mr. Casey, first off for your party, you'll have the 10-minute allotment between yourself and the minister.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Thank you very much. I thought I was going to have to fight for that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day): You don't have to take all, of course.

Mr. Bill Casey: First of all, I'm just sitting here thinking, I don't think any of us should accept Canada being in 19th place out of 22 donor countries. I don't think any of us should accept that. We should try to rectify that.

But having said that, I think we get really good value for our money in what we do spend. From my observations, I find our investments and our participation is really well appreciated, wherever it is, and I think we get more value out of it than most countries. It would be great now if we could get that amount up.

I want to add to something Ms. McDonough said. She asked you to be the advocate for getting more money for the department. I'd also like to expand that a little bit. I'd like to see a strategy in your department to create public awareness of the need for this money and the benefit to Canadians, because many Canadians don't see the benefit. When you announced $250 million for Afghanistan, I had a lot of people who said, why don't we fix the roads and put in more hospital beds?

I don't know if there is a strategy to increase public awareness of the need and the benefit to Canadians. But just as a comment, I'd like to propose that there be a strategy to do that. I think it would be very beneficial, especially at this time. There's probably a better reception for the arguments now, considering events over the last couple of years.

I want to move along. Those are just comments.

You said you had $250 million for Afghanistan. Do you have an estimate of what's going to be needed for Iraq, or what the investment will be in Iraq in the reconstruction, and what our role will be and who we'll deal with?

À (1010)

Ms. Susan Whelan: Just very quickly, I think you're right that we shouldn't accept being 19th out of 22. I think that's one of the reasons you have seen the increase in the aid dollars in the budget and the Prime Minister's commitment, recognizing that Canada needs to play a much stronger role on the development stage. Canada does have a much stronger place to be.

Certainly I'm an advocate for getting more dollars for CIDA all the time, and I think the fact that we've been able to achieve what we consider to be great success in the budget shows that we are working together. We are trying to bring Canadians and our partners to the table. Many of the NGO community, many of our partners, were very beneficial and helpful, as was this committee, in supporting the increase in dollars.

We do have a strategy for public awareness. It does begin, as I said, with the youth, to try to educate the youth of this country so they understand the needs of the developing world. We know the youth go home to their parents and can sometimes explain what's happening better than what you're going to see in the newspaper.

Sometimes good benefits don't sell in the media, so we have to try to figure out a way to get that information out to people. Not only do we have a moral and social responsibility, but I think when we look at the fact that we're talking about creating a more prosperous, more secure, safer world for all of us, it's one of the reasons we're involved in development assistance. I think those are messages we have out to get out much more strongly to Canadians. I agree wholeheartedly with you.

We don't have an actual estimate on Iraq yet for reconstruction. There has been a lot of speculation and discussion about what those numbers will be and what will be involved. I think it's premature to put an actual number on the reconstruction efforts until we see, first of all, how long the war in Iraq goes on and what type of devastation occurs in Iraq. Right now we're very concentrated and focused on the humanitarian and immediate assistance that's required. As I said in earlier comments, we are just receiving what we call the “flash appeals” now from our international partners and the international agencies we work with.

So far we don't have an actual dollar figure that we can attribute to it, but we are working very closely with our colleagues at Foreign Affairs and Defence as well as with our international partners, the UN Security Council partners, and the UN agencies that are doing the contingency planning.

Mr. Bill Casey: Could you outline our participation with the Palestinians and the Israelis? What do we do on both sides, and what are the respective dollar investments?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day): In your remaining 30 seconds, Madam Minister.

Ms. Susan Whelan: In my remaining 30 seconds?

Mr. Bill Casey: I have three more questions.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day): Oh, excuse me. Yes, you have the giant 10-minute allotment.

Ms. Susan Whelan: I can tell you what we do is all humanitarian assistance.

I actually can't give you the dollar figure, but I think it's $13 million since January 2002 that has gone for emergency health, employment generation--what we call education or relief assistance. So we are working very much in a humanitarian assistance way there as well, recognizing it's a very fragile, tragic situation we're dealing with. We're trying to do some peace building. We've been working through McGill University and other civil society organizations to try to achieve some peace-building efforts as well.

But obviously it's a very difficult situation.

Mr. Bill Casey: Did you say $13 million?

Ms. Susan Whelan: Since January 2002, yes.

Mr. Bill Casey: Where does that go? Is it all to the Palestinians? Is there some to Israelis? Is there a breakdown there?

Ms. Susan Whelan: Well, our number goes through the United Nations agencies, to the International Committee of the Red Cross, and to Canadian NGOs. We look at it as the Middle East situation. The borders aren't exactly defined in where our dollars go. Obviously the UN agencies are looking at where the need is greatest, and we're providing the funding to them.

Mr. Bill Casey: You said Britain and the U.S. are drafting a new UN resolution to address immediate aid. What do you know about that?

Ms. Susan Whelan: What I know is what I'm hearing, and what we saw earlier today was a statement by Jack Straw of the United Kingdom. They're proposing a new resolution to go to the UN Security Council to ensure that the food for oil program can be implemented somehow by the people who are on the ground to deal with the humanitarian situation in Iraq.

Right now that program has been suspended. The UN agency has suspended all of its programs. We know there are still people on the ground. We know there are still organizations on the ground, and we're trying to see if an effort can be moved forward to ensure that assistance can be provided.

À (1015)

Mr. Bill Casey: When do you think that resolution might be brought forward? Do you have any idea?

Ms. Susan Whelan: My understanding from the comments made this morning is that they were hoping to bring it forward in the next couple of days.

Mr. Bill Casey: If I still have time, you mentioned in your opening remarks you were going to focus on selected sectors. You only mentioned two, agriculture and private sector development. Is that your focus?

Ms. Susan Whelan: No, in fact we have four social development priorities that we announced in the year 2000, which are basic education, health and nutrition, the fight against HIV and AIDS, and child protection. In addition to those four, we will have a new focus as well on agriculture and private sector development, recognizing though that the environment is a theme that runs through all of those areas as well. In fact, there are other linkages to those areas; for example, water is a huge issue in agriculture, as well as environmental and land degradation. And indeed, the gender equity issue runs through all of our programming at CIDA.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day): Thank you, Madam Minister.

Monsieur Harvey, c'est à vous pour cinq minutes, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank the minister and congratulate her for the budget increases of 8% per year that have been allocated.

I know that the issue of the budget is important, but unlike my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, Ms. Lalonde, I think that this is not only about the budget. We need to compare absolute figures with those of other countries in order to find out where we rank. What is most important, and I think that my colleague Mr. Casey raised an extremely important point, is the way that all Canadians have got behind the role played by the Canadian International Development Agency and all the other departments. To some extent, I think that this is how we can achieve success. Just think of all of the consultations that have been carried out on behalf of the minister, think of this whole issue of the agri-food sector, and think about the involvement and development of the private sector in recipient countries.

In my opinion, feeding the people everywhere in the world is the most urgent issue. No other issue is more important than that of the fight against famine. I would like the minister to take a few minutes to explain how she sees the role of the Canadian private sector, particularly in the agri-food sector, in helping developing countries face this tremendous challenge of feeding all of their children.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot continue accepting the fact that between 8,000 and 9,000 children die of hunger on a daily basis. I think that this is the most pressing problem. Before we start talking about high technology, we have to give everybody on earth food to eat. I would like to know what kind of cooperation our private sector could provide to these countries.

[English]

Ms. Susan Whelan: Indeed, Mr. Harvey, we recognize that there is a need to look at the children who are dying every day and how we can feed children. We're hoping our agricultural and private sector policies that we're going to announce will help achieve better livelihoods for individuals so that indeed they can provide for their families.

We have a number of relationships with ongoing partners right now. We have worked and continue to work very closely with the World Food Program, for example. In a couple of countries we've worked with them on what's known as a school feeding program. We recognize that cases of malnutrition in certain countries are high.

We would not only provide food assistance in those countries through our partners. In addition to the World Food Program, some of our partners are Canadian Feed the Children and the Canadian Hunger Foundation. There are a number of different organizations, like the Canadian Food Grains Bank, who are our Canadian partners and are very active in helping supply food around the world.

Some of our policies in agriculture are not only about subsistence agriculture, but also how we can help productivity improve so people can provide a larger income by having some products and the ability to market those products. Through our micro-credit financing in the development of the private sector, we provide very small loans to people, often in the agricultural food sector, to allow them to increase their resources. When I say very small loans, I mean less than $200. I mean $80, $100, which are substantial dollars in some of these countries, to allow them to buy a refrigeration unit or an extra cart, to allow them to have the opportunity to sell their goods and provide better resources for their families.

À (1020)

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I would like the minister to tell us whether or not she intends to increase human resources directly in recipient countries, perhaps to help them better define their priorities, knowing that in many countries, there are not always the required structures in place to meet the minimum requirement of defining the most pressing needs.

I would like to reiterate that this is not always about budgets. Canadians are demanding that the aid we provide be more effective. I would like to ascertain whether or not the minister intends to provide additional resources in these recipient countries.

[English]

Ms. Susan Whelan: One of the things we are going to try to do is to look at the addition of what we call locally engaged people in such countries, particularly the countries of focus. We've been able to attract people on the ground who understand the country, who are from the country, and who can work very efficiently and effectively with our Canadian resources. We recognize the need for this.

We also recognize that many of these countries have human resources issues. Some training and education needs to be done. We are working very closely on a number of fronts in that area. For example, we've been providing funds to what's known as the African Virtual University, which now is involved in 17 countries and has 34 sites to try to help to educate people through distance learning, because we know how difficult things are.

There is a combination of things going on, but indeed, for CIDA dollars--Canadian dollars--to be spent, we're looking at the use of more locally engaged people on the ground.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day): Merci, Monsieur Harvey.

Monsieur Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you, Minister Whelan, for being here today. This has been most interesting. It's too bad we don't have more time.

I have one question that perhaps you can answer, and three that perhaps your department officials will be able to answer and will table with this committee perhaps by the end of April.

I would suggest, Minister, that what is more important than how much money we spend is how we spend it. There have been serious concerns over where our aid money is going and the onerous and lengthy process for applications to be agreed upon by the department. I don't think the questions I have can be adequately answered internally, but will you call for and implement a forensic audit into CIDA's disbursements and activities?

My three questions that I hope your department officials will table for us concern the percentage of our ODA spent here in Canada and the percentage spent abroad. I'd like to know how much of CIDA's ODA is spent in Canada and how much is spent abroad.

My second question concerns the Africa fund. The moneys, I believe, have been spoken for. I hope this committee would be able to receive a report from your department on who the recipients of these moneys are, how much they've received, what objectives they are supposed to accomplish, and how we're going to measure to ensure that your good moneys are spent to achieve those objectives.

My last question mostly affects Africa, but indeed the same could be said of most developing countries. Corruption, conflict, and the lack of capacity are the three major obstacles to development. As you have seen in your wide travels, in the land of plenty, which is Africa, that beleaguered continent endures the worst cases of poverty in our world, and the fact of the matter is that those resources, as you know, are not getting to the people. They're not being employed because of corruption, because of conflict, because of lack of investment in their primary health and education. Therefore, perhaps you could give us a summary of the programs CIDA is employing to prevent corruption, prevent conflict, and invest in primary health and education in Africa.

Thank you.

Ms. Susan Whelan: Thank you very much, Mr. Martin.

Certainly I think I've been saying something very similar since the beginning of this meeting, that indeed it's not just about the amount of dollars, it's how we spend them, which is why we introduced the Strengthening Aid Effectiveness document, why we are changing some of the ways we operate in trying to enhance other ways.

Certainly there is a question about the process, the length of time it takes to achieve funding and to work with CIDA. We're looking at this. Obviously, at the same time, we do have to be very transparent. We do have to be very accountable. It is Canadian taxpayers' money. We want to make sure resources are going where they are supposed to be going on the ground.

You should know that we already do internal audits and evaluations on a regular basis at CIDA. As well, the Auditor General does regular studies. I've had the opportunity to meet with the Auditor General to talk about the new direction we're going at CIDA, to make sure we're going down the right track, to explain to her the same concerns I hear from our partners on the ground that you're hearing--it takes too long to get a contract approved by CIDA.

Are there some checks and balances we need to go through or maybe we're duplicating? Are there some ways we can streamline the process, yet at the same time maintain those high standards necessary when spending Canadian taxpayers' dollars? It's a very difficult balance. We're looking at it, trying to see if there are ways to shorten the timeline.

I can tell you it's been one of my frustrations, having come from practising law and dealing with multi-million dollar deals in a very short timeframe. It can be very frustrating to see how lengthy some of the processes are. So we're looking at that process.

On that front, though, you should know there's actually an international group working on what we call international auditing standards so we will put less burden on the developing countries, so Canada, Germany, and the U.K. don't all have special requirements of their own. If we can agree on a set of international audit requirements for reporting purposes from the developing countries, I think it would not only help them, but possibly would also help streamline our process a bit. Certainly we recognize that there are definitely some concerns.

I'd be happy to get you the exact percentage of the ODA dollars spent here in Canada and abroad. You should know that the goal is to spend the money on the ground. Certainly there are some administrative and expertise costs, some training done in Canada for development countries. The breakdown of all that has to be weighed in to those numbers.

The Canadian Africa fund is very much up and running. In Kananaskis, the Prime Minister announced who the partners would be, who the recipients would be of about $421 million of the $500 million. There is still a small amount to be allocated and we are working through that process right now.

Some of the programs are up and running. I'd be happy to go through that list right now of both the Canadian and the African partners on the ground.

À (1025)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day): Tabling would be fine, thank you, Madam Minister.

Ms. Susan Whelan: Last, as for the question based on corruption, conflict, and lack of investment, I'd be happy to provide as well some information on that. You should know that we do a lot of programming on anti-corruption. We do a lot of work in peace building and security, in trying to resolve conflict. We have our own peace-building unit within CIDA. Foreign Affairs has a peace-building unit as well. We try to ensure we're not duplicating, that we're doing different things but work towards the same objectives.

We also did provide funding, as you may be aware, to the conference that was organized by one of your colleagues, Mr. Williams, from the Alliance Party. We brought parliamentarians from around the world to Canada to have a discussion about the fight against global corruption. We recognize the need to work on it.

We're very actively engaged in a number of anti-corruption programs in a number of different countries, like the one that did very well in Tunisia and other countries, for example. We're trying to maintain support here as they go through their democratic election process to ensure that corruption doesn't move back in.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day): Thank you, Madam Minister.

We now move to Ms. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have three brief questions. The first is probably more of a request than a question.

I know you have identified, Madam Minister, a lot of uncertainty around the Iraqi situation. This committee has received some very chilling testimony from witnesses who represent humanitarian relief organizations. I'm particularly concerned about the children of Iraq. War Child came before this committee and they expressed grave concerns around the psychological health of the children in Iraq, particularly leading up to this pending attack, which occurred last night.

I'm hoping part of that contingency plan for post-conflict will address the children of Iraq's physical needs as well as some of their psychological needs. As we know, the issues around the psychological health of these children will affect them for years to come and in many respects will continue to sow the seeds of terrorist responses.

The second question I have has to do with the new private sector policy you're looking at. If you're able to comment now, I was wondering what kinds of resources will be devoted from CIDA toward this end. What percentage of your budget might we be looking at with regards to development on the private sector side? I would also like to know, if you're able to comment, what role biotech will play within the agricultural policy.

À (1030)

Ms. Susan Whelan: First, Mrs. Kraft Sloan, with regard to the Iraqi situation, we certainly recognize that the children of Iraq are the most vulnerable and innocent in this whole engagement. We don't know what the post programming is going to look like yet, because we don't know what the needs and requirements are going to be. We can obviously look at what we've been able to do in past situations and to compare situations, which we are doing in a proactive way. While it's very difficult to say what the requirements are going to be at this stage, we do recognize that the children of Iraq are very vulnerable, and we will do our best on behalf of Canada to ensure resources are available for them.

With regards to the percent of the budget allocated to private sector development, I want to be really clear on this. The policy we're talking about in the consultations is about developing the private sector on the ground in developing countries. It's not about more resources for Canadian companies and it's not necessarily about changing the policy for Canadian companies; it's about how we develop the private sector on the ground.

I don't have a percentage on that to give to you today. We do know we've had some tremendous success with micro-credit financing, and we're looking at some of the objectives of that programming and others. It would be premature for me to say, here's where we're going, because we still have a consultation document out there that is open for consultations, ideas, and discussions online until March 24. If anyone from this committee has some ideas or suggestions, I think it would be a great opportunity to enter the e-mail system and fire away at us, or to give us anything in writing before Monday, which would also be wonderful.

As I said, we do believe it's a lynchpin helping to provide better economies. We know it can help provide a tax base, which so many of these countries need if they're ever going to be truly sustainable. They have to have a tax base, otherwise Canada is going to be there for the next 50 to 100 years just providing money. I keep saying that our goal at CIDA should be to put ourselves out of business in 25 years. Some people think that's very optimistic and aggressive, but I think that's what we should be trying to do. Whether we reach that target or not, we'll have to wait and see. I'm still going to be around in 25 years in some way, shape, or form and I want to make sure we do have some successes.

With regard to biotechnology, I think we all recognize that some very good work is done in biotechnology and research. For example, we know that the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture has done some incredible work on cassava, a mainstay grown in some southern countries that is drought resistant and can help prevent famine. There are some issues right now with disease, so there is some incredibly good work being done in biotechnology.

We know there is also concern about what I call the third strain of genetic modification, which we have to be very careful about in how we proceed. We're working very closely on what I would consider to be basic agricultural research. We are looking at the hardier varieties and how to ensure that the type of maize they're growing has the necessary protein content, and if it does have a higher protein content, how it affects the cattle that they're feeding, which then produces the milk. All of this research has to be done as we look at the types of crops that are going to be grown in Africa, to try to help them achieve higher productivity ratios so that they can feed themselves, have produce to sell, and have the right balance in programming.

Indeed, it's something we're very aware of. We do have some excellent research facilities on the ground, the CGIAR, or the Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research, which we are going to be adding funds to through the Canada-Africa fund. I think this is a very good step forward. They have been underfunded for many years now, and I think it will allow them to have the resources necessary to do some very important work for the safety of their produce and the health of their citizens.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day): Thank you, Madam minister.

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau, you have five minutes, please.

[English]

Perhaps I could interrupt, just for a second, also. This room is required at 11 o'clock, so Madam Carroll would be the person to finish this first round. With the permission of the committee, following Madam Carroll's remarks we will move to three business items that need to be addressed.

Thank you for this.

À (1035)

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have three brief questions. My first question pertains to Iraq.

We know that the United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, has launched an appeal to the international community for immediate humanitarian relief of $123 million US. This morning, the Red Cross apparently made an appeal for 108 million additional dollars, and, as we speak, apparently only $35 million has been received. Does Canada intend to respond to this appeal?

Secondly, in your document, you talked about untied aid. You said in your presentation that untied aid would be eliminated. I would like to hear what you have to say about the concept of untied aid. We know, among other things, that 75% of the aid we provide flows back, one way or another, into the economy of Canada, as the donor country. If such aid is untied, will this have any impact on this phenomenon?

Thirdly, in your statement you said that the private sector is vital. As far as cooperation with recipient countries is concerned, are you expecting Canadian companies to take part along with private firms that are considered? When we talk about micro-credit, does that mean that you are going to target the social economy of these countries specifically rather than purely capitalist companies, that are not necessarily concerned with the elimination of poverty? Furthermore, what is the status of CIDA's cooperation with the governments and NGOs that may be working in these various countries with respect to the aid given to the private sector?

[English]

Ms. Susan Whelan: Merci, Mr. Rocheleau.

First, yes, we definitely understand that Kofi Annan has made that appeal. We also are aware, as I said earlier, that the Red Cross has put forward their international appeals or flash appeals as of yesterday, and the numbers have come in as of this morning. We're definitely looking at those appeals.

I can't tell you what Canada's dollars would be right now, but we indeed have the intention to be part of that response. We're looking at those appeals very closely, and I hope to have a response in the coming days. We anticipate there will be other appeals as well before the day is out.

Second, with regard to untying and tied aid, I think we have to be careful there when we start to quote numbers about what came back to Canada. Certainly some things were sourced in Canada, but the product did end up in the developing country. We had a fifty-fifty kind of ratio before, where our target was 50% tied versus untied for certain types of contracting. This meant that certain resources had to be sourced in Canada, but that doesn't mean all the money was actually spent in Canada. They were resourced in Canada, delivered to the developing country, and services were delivered to the developing country, services done for the developing country.

I'm trying to be a little clearer here. We believe very much that by changing the requirements for untied versus untied, by meeting the DAC commitments on untying and going beyond those, Canada will dramatically change the percentage that is sourced in Canada versus what is sourced outside.

We develop capacity in a country such as South Africa, we train auditors, yet when we want to do an audit, we bring Canadians in instead of looking at south-south capacity, as we now call it. Those are things we have to look at. Who have we helped train, what is on the ground, what's available, what resources are there, and can we source food in a neighbouring country instead of just placing food? Those are things we're also considering.

We're still doing a review of our tied aid policy on food, and I want to be very clear. The untying has not taken place in that area yet. We're still in the process of looking at that policy.

As to private sector development, we certainly hope that Canadian business will be part of it. We hope that Canadian businesses will invest and that Canadian businesses will work with businesses on the ground, will offer expertise, and will offer advice. We know that we have many expatriates from many of the developing countries. There's tremendous opportunity for there to be a greater relationship between Canadian business and business on the ground.

Micro-credit financing is targeted at the poor. We're definitely looking at how we assist the poorest of the poor. Whether we want to say it's socialist or capitalist, I'm not sure. When you're talking about an economy in a situation and it has very little, then micro-lending helps encourage entrepreneurship.

During my travels, from my first visit to Tanzania to my last visit to Bangladesh, I've been able to see the changes in the lives of people thanks to the micro-credit financing objectives and programs we have. You can see the opportunities that exist; for example, women, particularly in Tanzania, are able to borrow small amounts of money, set up a shop, expand their shop, expand their line of wares, and then send their children to school and on to higher education. That's what's going to make a difference in the lives of these people.

How we make micro-credit financing sustainable is something we're looking at. How do we make sure that it continues, that CIDA is just not the constant provider of funds in some of these areas, and that we can expand and grow these programs we're looking at? We're looking at some of the examples we have in Canada, financial institutions such as the cooperative movement and credit unions. Are there programs we can grow and learn from in Canada as we move in the developing world?

À (1040)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day): Thank you, Madam Minister.

Madam Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Thank you for coming and for all the information you've shared, Minister.

I'm just going to come in quickly on one particular area of interest for me, which I mentioned to you before, and that's the situation in North Korea. As I advised you, I was there two years ago, sent in by Minister Axworthy in a very small team. From what I understood the situation was, it was hard for me to even envisage it, but it is incredibly worse. You responded by giving me a quick update when last we spoke, and someone from the department sent me some information on what you're doing.

My concern is, while on the one hand we are watching Iraq, a lot of us are keeping an eye on a seriously deteriorating political situation in North Korea, and that's where our headlights are going to shift very soon. I'm wondering, what are we doing there in advance of what can become a critical situation?

I have also read recently that under UNICEF...and I read in your comments on page 5 that UNICEF credits Canada with saving 7 million children, so obviously there's a good working relationship there between CIDA and UNICEF. But apparently UNICEF has put out an emergency appeal for North Korea, primarily for children and in particular with respect to the malnutrition situation. The only responding country--according to a news report, though one always has to watch that--has been Norway, and I wondered, is there any place within the programs at CIDA for us to respond? When I heard our talk about Eritrea, I remembered that when I was in North Korea the malnutrition of children between two and six was worse then, and that's quite a bar to get under. That, I think, is an acute situation, given the parallel political scene there.

Thank you, Minister.

Ms. Susan Whelan: Indeed, Ms. Carroll, you should know that there are numerous agencies that put out appeals, and Canada can't respond to each and every one of them. But with regard to North Korea, let me just highlight some of the things Canada has done.

Last year Canada was the fifth largest contributor to the World Food Program in North Korea. This year our contribution is $7.1 million to North Korea, which is an increase from $5.9 in 2001-02, so in 2002-03 we have increased our contributions to North Korea. We don't provide bilateral assistance to North Korea, but we are involved in a humanitarian way, and we do have a long history of supporting the United Nations world food program and other humanitarian organizations in North Korea.

I guess you've highlighted exactly why we're there, though. It does have one of the highest malnutrition rates in the world and we recognize that. Aid agencies have an ongoing dialogue with the North Korean government in regard to the restrictions that are also imposed on their work. We know there's difficulty in delivering their work, yet Canada has recognized the high malnutrition rates. There's a need for us to be there, there's a reason for us to be there, and we are indeed very committed to trying to assist.

We've provided over $57 million to North Korea since 1997, and we continue to monitor their efforts and the appeals that come forward. We do know that a Canadian, Maurice Strong, has been given the task of UN special envoy. Obviously Canada is very much engaged in looking at that situation and will continue to do so.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: The UNDP has an office in Pyongyang, so the vehicle is there insofar as we're able to contribute. I'm looking at a shift that might reflect the emphasis Canada has made in not linking our grave concerns from a foreign policy approach to the humanitarian aid. We've kept them separate. I think that's very wise, but I think it's important that this continue.

Anyway, I thank you for your comments.

If I have any more time, Mr. Chair, my colleague had one quick question he wanted to ask.

À (1045)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day): You have 72 seconds.

Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Minister, you've often noted the importance of good government for effective development assistance, and you have done that this morning as well. With respect to the matter of development assistance to the Palestinian people, which I support, my question is, how do we ensure that development assistance is not prejudiced by the Palestinian Authority's lack of good governance? This is a complaint that has been echoed by officials within the Palestinian Authority as well as by human rights advocates there. How do we ensure that it does not go down the black hole of corruption, as European Community officials have noted with regard to their development assistance?

Ms. Susan Whelan: We do our utmost, Mr. Cotler, to ensure that we work with reputable United Nations international aid organizations, reputable NGOs, and reputable Canadian partners on the ground, people with whom we've had long histories of good working relationships. We can't guarantee what we do 100%, but we'll get it where it needs to go, and we are quite confident that we have a good success ratio.

We are in a risky business, though. Let's not forget that development work is risky business or that humanitarian assistance is risky business. I think that's highlighted by the situation in Iraq today and also by the situation between Palestine and Israel.

We are doing our utmost to ensure that the money goes there. We are trying not to prejudice those dollars either. I'm very committed to ensuring that there be humanitarian assistance and that the needs of those communities be met. We are in a constant evaluation of our programs, sometimes a very stringent evaluation, to ensure those dollars are being delivered where they need to go.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day): Thank you, Madam Minister, to you and to your officials for your forthright responses and also for your commitment to sending forward the information on items as discussed. We appreciate this very much and look forward to the ongoing exchange.

At this point, colleagues, there are two business items to look at and then one item where I would request that we go in camera just briefly. The first item is the budgetary item, and I would ask the clerk to address that.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Stephen Knowles): Mr. Chair, these are budget items for some of the studies the committee has decided to undertake. The requirement is for each study to have a budget attributed to it, and the top budget of $57,000 is for the Muslim study; that excludes travel.

As for the dialogue on foreign policy, we put in a budget for that, and that is again largely for witness expenses.

We have what we call “operational”, and that's the third budget in front of you, Mr. Chairman. This is where we cover the meetings that have only one subject, as it would be difficult to introduce a multitude of separate budgets.

The Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development has decided to work on the Sudan issue, so we submitted a budget for witnesses and the printing of a report, and that goes to December 31 if required.

These are budgets that were put together by the staff to reflect what we think might be the best cost, and they would go to the budget subcommittee. Of course, if there are funds left over, they're returned to the general pot.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day): Mr. Eggleton.

Mr. Art Eggleton: In terms of the Muslim study, there was some discussion about visits to different countries. That's not included here; you say there's no travel here. But how does that ultimately get in? Does that come in...or can we not do it at all?

The Clerk: With your permission, on February 20 the committee adopted a travel budget, and that was submitted to the budget subcommittee and adopted. Unfortunately, that budget hasn't gone beyond the budget subcommittee. The House leaders have yet to pronounce themselves on whether we'll be able to travel on it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day): Are we agreed?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day): Thank you.

I believe Mr. Cotler has a motion related to subcommittee work.

Mr. Irwin Cotler: I appreciate the order of October 21, 2002, to the effect that a subcommittee may not sit at the same time as the main committee if both are sitting in Ottawa. I would like to propose, nonetheless, that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, having regard to its order of reference on the foreign policy dialogue of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, invite the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development, having regard to its order of reference on the humanitarian catastrophe in Africa, which in fact was referred to it by this standing committee, to sit jointly on April 1, 2003, to hear Mr. Stephen Lewis, the special envoy of the Secretary General of the United Nations, on HIV/AIDS.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

(Motion agreed to)

[Proceedings continue in camera]