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, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 23, 2002

0855

The Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke--Lakeshore, Lib.))

Ms. Whelan (Essex)

0900

The Chair

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance)

0905

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

Ms. Susan Whelan

0910

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

Hon. Susan Whelan

The Chair

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ)

The Chair

Ms. Susan Whelan

0915

Mr. Antoine Dubé

Ms. Susan Whelan

The Chair

Mr. Antoine Dubé

Ms. Susan Whelan

The Chair

Mr. Patry

0920

Ms. Susan Whelan

Mr. Bernard Patry

Ms. Susan Whelan

The Chair

Mr. Patry

Ms. Susan Whelan

0925

The Chair

Mr. Patry

Ms. Susan Whelan

The Chair

Mr. Day

0930

The Chair

Ms. Susan Whelan

0935

The Chair

Mrs. Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Jennings

Ms. Susan Whelan

Mrs. Jennings

0940

Ms. Susan Whelan

Mrs. Jennings

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ)

Ms. Susan Whelan

0945

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Ms. Susan Whelan

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Ms. Susan Whelan

The Chair

Ms. Carroll

0950

Ms. Susan Whelan

The Chair

Ms. Susan Whelan

0955

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

Ms. Susan Whelan

The Chair

1000

Mr. Len Good (President, Canadian International Development Agency)

The Chair

Mr. Len Good

The Chair

Mr. Len Good

1005

The Chair

Mr. Len Good

The Chair

Mr. Len Good

The Chair

Mr. Day

Mr. Len Good

1010

Mr. Stockwell Day

Mr. Len Good

Mr. Stockwell Day

1015

Mr. Len Good

Mr. Stockwell Day

Mr. Len Good

Mr. Stockwell Day

The Chair

Ms. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.)

1020

The Chair

Mr. Len Good

Ms. Diane Marleau

Mr. Len Good

Ms. Diane Marleau

1025

Mr. Len Good

The Chair

Mr. Antoine Dubé

Mr. Len Good

1030

Mr. Antoine Dubé

1035

Mr. Len Good

Mr. Antoine Dubé

Mr. Len Good

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Len Good

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Len Good

Ms. Marlene Jennings

1040

Mr. Len Good

The Chair

Mr. Len Good

1045

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Mr. Len Good

1050

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Mr. Len Good

Mr. Paul Hunt (Acting Vice-President, Africa and Middle East Branch, Canadian International Development Agency)

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Mr. Paul Hunt

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Mr. Paul Hunt

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

1055

Mr. Len Good

1100

1105

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ)

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Clerk of the Committee

1110

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Pierre Paquette

The Clerk

1115

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

1120

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Day

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

1125

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day

1130

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Stockwell Day

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll

The Chair

Mr. Day

1135

The Chair

Mr. Day

CANADA

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

NUMBER 084

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 23, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0855)

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke--Lakeshore, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order.

Before we begin, I'd like to introduce some eminent guests. We have Speaker Sircar, Speaker of the Parliament of Bangladesh. He is accompanied by other parliamentarians, who he is leading in a delegation to Ottawa.

Welcome. We are pleased to have you before our committee today.

We are resuming our consideration of the main estimates of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, referred to the committee on February 28, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), specifically votes 20, 25, L30, and L35, the Canadian International Development Agency.

I now call vote 20.

We welcome the Minister for International Development for her first appearance before the committee. We also welcome back Mr. Len Good, President of the Canadian International Development Agency, and other offices of the agency included in today's agenda.

Minister, I understand you will begin with a statement, and you'll be prepared to answer questions from members. So we'll begin then by inviting you to proceed with any opening statement you would like to make.

Hon. Susan Whelan (Minister for International Cooperation): Good morning to everyone. Before I begin, let me congratulate your new chair, Jean Augustine, on her election, and welcome the two new vice-chairs, and the new members of the foreign affairs committee as well.

In my remarks this morning I'd like to talk about both the quality and the quantity of our aid and how it fits into the bigger picture of foreign affairs and international trade. As the chair has just informed you, I have the President of CIDA, Len Good, seated next to me, and a number of officials behind me, who can help answer questions if I go astray.

I'm pleased to say that over the past year Canada has made tremendous strides towards harmonizing policies related to aid, debt relief, and trade with respect to the developing world. In March, at the United Nations Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey, Mexico, Prime Minister Chrétien committed to increasing Canada's international aid by at least 8% per year for each of the coming years—an increase projected to double Canada's current nominal aid level in eight or nine years.

But the Prime Minister went beyond the issue of aid. He also recognized that the world must deal with the choking debt loads of developing countries, and he promised continued Canadian leadership on this issue. He has also stated, on more than one occasion, that Canada is open for business from Africa, the world's poorest continent. The Monterrey consensus established a new development partnership based on mutual accountability. That same philosophy is at the heart of a very exciting new vision to reduce poverty in Africa—the new partnership for Africa's development, otherwise known as NEPAD.

In this document, African leaders have acknowledged that they bear the primary responsibility for the development of the continent, and they recognize that aid alone will not solve Africa's many challenges. They are making commitments to strengthen governance, reduce corruption, and create the conditions that will attract private investment; and they're setting up a peer review process to monitor their progress.

The G-8 has welcomed this made-in-Africa plan, as we all know. As host of this year's summit in Kananaskis, Prime Minister Chrétien has made a personal commitment to put Africa high on the summit's agenda. Indeed, Canada has allocated $500 million to support the development of a G-8 Africa action plan.

I would like to say a few words about CIDA's own direction. As you know, the agency has adopted four social development priorities, which include basic education, health and nutrition, HIV/AIDS, and child protection. A month ago I launched the fourth and final action plan related to these priorities: the action plan on basic education.

Our efforts were focused on universal access to and completion of primary education of good quality, gender equality at both the primary and secondary levels, and the improvement of basic quality education for learners of all ages. To help reach these goals, CIDA is quadrupling its investment in basic education for a total expenditure of $555 million between the years 2000 and 2005.

I wanted to give you one example this morning of an education investment that can have a far-reaching impact. A few weeks ago, at the United Nations General Assembly special session on children, I announced that Canada will help Colombian youth and children to build peace in their own country. Two new projects will provide educational opportunities for children who cannot attend school. Both girls and boys will learn peace-building and leadership skills, and the country will get support to integrate conflict resolution skills into the curriculum of its schools.

To the members today, I've touched on a variety of topics this morning: increasing aid, promoting debt relief, opening our borders to trade, embarking on a new partnership for Africa's development, and the critical importance of education.

I have spoken of these issues separately, but they are all related. They are all pieces of a larger development puzzle. We can no longer afford to see official development assistance in isolation from other foreign aid policy priorities. If we want to have any impact with our aid, we must always keep that big picture in mind.

CIDA is increasingly concerned about impact. Last September we embarked on cross-country consultations to get feedback from our partners on how we can improve the effectiveness of Canada's aid program. Coming out of these consultations, we're currently working on a plan that will ensure that CIDA maintains and improves on the high quality of its aid delivery. I see the consultations as part of an ongoing dialogue between the NGOs, the private sector, and the Canadian public. We are constantly trying to build on our strengths. We want to look in the mirror and ask ourselves honestly how we could have done this better.

This dialogue extends outside of our borders. This year, our peers in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, will review the Canadian program of development cooperation. They will be in Ottawa in early July. I hope some of you will be able to meet with them during their visit.

¿ (0900)

On that note, Madam Chair, I'll end my formal presentation. My team and I look forward to answering your questions this morning.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll go directly to questions from members. We will start with Mr. Obhrai, from the opposition.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair. Since this is my first meeting, I would like to congratulate you as well.

Since this is my first contact with the minister, I would like to congratulate her on her appointment, and I would like to say thank you for the kind words you sent for my recovery. It was highly appreciated. Thank you very much.

Since this is my first meeting, and the CIDA president is here, I have a lot of questions on CIDA. But I'm going to stick to the estimates.

What surprises me about the CIDA budgeting process is the ability of CIDA to keep announcing expenditures--“We're going to spend money over here, we're going to spend money over there, we're going to allocate money over here”--on projects that are new, that probably were not even thought about at budgeting time. To me, this indicates there must be a slush fund for CIDA somewhere that is unaccounted for that enables you to make all these statements and send out all these moneys--for example, the $500 million Africa Fund.

This is a $500 million fund for Africa, yet it has been announced absolutely without thought as to where the money is going to be spent, with the exception, of course.... Believe me, as I'm from Africa, I'm well aware of what the Prime Minister says about good governance and all of those things. There is no pinpointing of where the money is going to be spent, or whether you are going to spend it. But it has been announced. So this whole budgeting process is very confusing.

You have $2 billion, and it's not well thought out, not well planned. Perhaps you could enlighten me on that.

I have one more question. In the last week we've had many questions of transparency in CIDA--I'm talking about Transelec and everything, but I don't want to go into details at this time. I want to know whether it's possible for CIDA to provide us with a list of contracts from CIDA-INC as part of the parliamentary oversight process so that we can see which companies were recipients of CIDA-INC money.

¿ (0905)

Ms. Susan Whelan: I thank you for those questions. I don't want to disappoint you, nor do I want to alarm you, but I want to let you know there will be many more announcements.

Canadians don't know what we do with CIDA money, and they need to understand what we do. We have a different budget process for CIDA. It's an envelope system that's special for CIDA. However, when you talk about the fact that we keep announcing expenditures, you have to look at the fact that there are timelines on, for example, bilateral and multilateral programs. For example, an expenditure that is committed from 1997 to 2002 will expire in 2002. We will take a look at it and decide whether or not it should be renewed. If we decide to renew that commitment and put new dollars into it, it will be renewed for another five-year term, a three-year term--depending on what it is--and that will then be announced. That's why you see the announcements.

It's very important, though, that Canadians know. I think we don't do a good enough job of telling Canadians what it is we are doing with the money that's been allocated to CIDA. I think a lot of Canadians wouldn't know what CIDA stands for. We have a real communications challenge--Canadians deserve to know.

If it disappoints you that I'm announcing projects, then I'm sorry to tell you we're going to be doing a lot more announcements, because it's very important that Canadians understand that.

We also should be aware that the Africa Fund does have specific targets and goals in mind. It's very much part of a larger process, the NEPAD process. It's very much part of the new paradigm, the shift in how we're going from projects to programming, from top down from the donor countries to local, country-driven strategies. This is what's different about NEPAD. It is an initiative, as you are well aware, that is created by the African leaders themselves, and that's what makes it different. They're taking ownership of it. They're responsible for it, and the Africa action plan that will come out of the G-8 will be complementary to that. How our Africa Fund dollars are then allocated will reflect the priorities that are set by the G-8 Africa action plan.

We have a lot of transparency at CIDA. I'm not sure if what you're really looking for is a list of CIDA-INC contracts, because I'm not sure that would give you the information you really want. All of our dollars are transparent. All of them are accountable, and that's one of the reasons I want to announce them. I want Canadians to know. I want Canadians to understand, and I think if there's anything you're specifically looking for, we will be more than happy to try to accommodate that. I'm not sure, though, that a list of CIDA-INC contracts would really satisfy your concerns in that area.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: It would.

Ms. Susan Whelan: It would?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: It would, because it would allow us to know which companies... what's happening, so if that list is available...

I asked CIDA for a list for capacity-building last time. CIDA never provided me with that list.

Ms. Susan Whelan: You've asked for it in the past?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I asked for the amount of funds allocated for capacity-building. If the president remembers, we were in Doha, where CIDA announced capacity-building for WTO, and all these things. I'm referring to the capacity-building announcements coming for FTAA and WTO.

Where is all the money coming from for this announcement you are making? Is it allocated or not allocated? You must obviously have an unallocated amount of money sitting somewhere, so you can make this announcement. I'm not disappointed about this announcement you're making. What I'm trying to get to the bottom of is whether these moneys are not allocated and the ability of CIDA to make this announcement. The example I'll give is President Mandela's fund, when he was over here. I'm not talking about the merit and demerits of that fund, but the ability of CIDA to announce $15 million allocated for the fund. Where did this $15 million come from? Where is all this money coming from?

Where is all of this money coming from for capacity-building, like Mr. Good announced in Doha for the WTO, and capacity-building announced for FTAA? That's what I want to know. Is there a slush fund? Do you have unallocated money sitting in CIDA allowing you to make these announcements?

Ms. Susan Whelan: The reality with regard to these announcements... For example, if you look at the global health fund, we've made a commitment to put, I think, $160 million in it. This is our total commitment, out of which will come funding of $40 million a year. We know that's coming to an end after the $160 million. So we know there are dollars within the budget that we can allocate to something else.

That's what I'm trying to explain. It's the way our process works. We know we have contracts or commitments for certain timeframes. They're not open-ended. For example, we're not putting $40 million a year in there forever. It's $40 million for four years, at which time it ends. That being said, that means we have $40 million within CIDA's budget at the end of that to allocate again to something related to health, or to something else.

That's where these announcements come from.

¿ (0910)

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Just a final comment. Are you going to provide me with the list of contracts, as well as the amount allocated toward capacity-building?

Hon. Susan Whelan: We'll provide you with a list of contracts, subject obviously to confidentiality conditions. We'll try to provide you with the dollars we've allocated towards capacity-building.

But we have announced a number of those already with regard to the FTAA and others. We'll definitely follow up on that.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): I had the pleasure of getting to know you at the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Ms. Whelan, and I would like to start by taking this opportunity to congratulate you on your recent appointment.

In your statement, you spoke about increasing aid, particularly by CIDA. However, of course, we have to put this into perspective. It is said that aid will be increased by 8% a year over the next few years, but given that economic growth is between 3 and 3.5%, it is clear that this is not much of an increase. Part of the increase is attributable to non-recurring funding, particularly for Africa. It should also be said that this increase follows a number of years in which there was not only no increase, but in which there were actually budget reductions. Consequently, in 1995, Canada ranked 17th among the 22 donor nations. I am just back from East Timor, along with Ms. Augustine, where Canada shared the same house as Norway, a country which has long exceeded its 0.7% objective, while Canada's ODA figure is still less than 0.3%. The situation is even worse in this regard, because Europe has decided to increase its aid more quickly than planned, so that Canada will rank even lower on the list. Canada is heading for last place, rather than first place, among donor nations. Would you care to comment on this situation?

Moreover, although there has been a slight increase, at the same time there was a one-third drop in the contribution to international institutions and the UN. If we take into account the needs in this area and the requests made by these institutions at various meetings, to the effect that there is a critical lack of resources and that more money is necessary to meet the needs, it is surprising that Canada would decide to cut its contribution to these institutions by one third. I would like to hear your response to these two issues.

[English]

The Chair: Minister.

Ms. Susan Whelan: I think you are quite correct in pointing out where Canada was and where Canada is today. That being said, I do believe we've turned the corner. Look at the commitment that was made in Monterrey by the Prime Minister and look at the last two budgets of this government: $1 billion over three years in the last budget; the Africa Fund, $500 million; and $100 million for Afghanistan. When you look at the commitment in Monterrey, 8% on average for the year, I believe the Prime Minister said...it can be higher if we have good economic growth in Canada.

We've looked at that 8% per year, and we've done some numbers with it based on what I think is a targeted expected growth of 5% per year. We've been even more cautious, saying that we would increase from 0.23% to 0.35%, assuming we had a 5% growth rate. If we have a lesser growth rate and we get 8%, we'll end up increasing our target even more.

We are looking at how our aid dollars can be effective, ensuring that it's not just a matter of the amount of dollars there but of the effectiveness of them in how they're delivered.

If you look at what happened as well in Monterrey, the world community has rallied. The United States announced an increase in their aid budget that will bring them from 0.1% to about 0.14% or 0.15%, depending on economic growth. That's very good news, and when you look at the target the European Union has set, that's very good news too.

I believe Canada is very much at the plate and very much participating in the global community, and we are very much looking at how aid dollars are delivered, coordinating our strategy. It's key that we understand that we're delivering aid dollars differently. We're looking at a new focus, we're looking at local country strategies with local country ownerships. Instead of from the top down, we're looking at, I guess you could say, from the bottom up, and I think that will make a difference in how effective our aid dollars will be.

¿ (0915)

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: You did not answer the question about the reduced contribution to international institutions. I will give you a chance to answer it later.

For the time being, I would like to say that I have met with some NGOs, which I will not name, because they asked me not to. Last year, there were consultations regarding Canadian NGOs abroad, and they say that one year later, they really do not know what is going to happen to them in terms of a new direction. You spoke about this direction and other issues, and I would like to ask you when the NGOs will be told what type of assistance or contribution they will be getting from the government, and what changes will be made to the long-term vision in this regard. I noticed that they really are concerned. I will restrict myself to the following two questions: Why was our contribution to multilateral activities reduced by one third, and why are we talking so much time responding to the NGOs that work in the field? I remember situations such as the one in Zimbabwe, for example, where all the countries withdrew. In crisis situations of this type, the remaining NGOs have to intervene and act in the place of governments.

[English]

Ms. Susan Whelan: In fact, when you look at the dollars and the level we're at... again, we've turned the corner, and we are increasing our aid dollars. We know that the NGO community is very much a large partner with Canada in how those aid dollars are delivered. They do tremendously good work. We enjoy working with them, and we know that when you look at the services they're able to provide, they're very competitive in the international community.

You are quite correct; we went through a consultation process last summer and last fall on strengthening aid effectiveness, and the NGO community was very active in those consultations. I hope to have the final results of those consultations finalized and released early this summer to let them know what we heard and what direction we are going in. Obviously, they need to have a good idea of what the role for CIDA is going to be, how Canadian aid is going to be delivered, and what Canada believes its direction is going to be so they can make their plans accordingly.

I regret that they feel that it's been delayed, but sometimes these things just take time. We do anticipate that we'll be able to finalize and announce our strategy in July.

The Chair: Have you finished? I'll give you a couple more minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I thought my time was up. You mentioned July, but will this announcement be available here, for members of Parliament, and how do you plan to make the announcement?

[English]

Ms. Susan Whelan: First, I should say that I mean summer, July or August, hopefully. Sometime early this summer is my anticipated goal.

We will do a number of things. One, we will provide packages for members of Parliament delivered directly to your offices.

At the same time, this consultation process has been very open. The results from the consultation, what was heard, are already posted on the CIDA website. What we announce on a regular basis is posted on the CIDA website. We do try to ensure that all the information is there and that we are as transparent and open as possible. We look forward to feedback about what we put forward in the summer.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Dr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): First of all, I just want to welcome the minister before our committee. It's her first visit. I just want to let you know first that I am also back from a visit to central Asia. You could say that over there a few bucks from CIDA makes a big difference. I was very pleased to see the way CIDA is spending money in that area of the world.

My first question concerns the Monterrey consensus, where a document was adopted by the world leaders in March at the United Nations summit on Financing for Development. The objective for making international assistance more effective was underlined.

Last year, in June 2001, CIDA released a discussion document, “Strengthening Aid Effectiveness: New Approaches to Canada's International Assistance Program”, on which it has held extensive public consultations. What are the major results CIDA has gained from this exercise in terms of improving the effectiveness of its expenditures? Are any of the results and lessons learned reflected in unplanned spending as outlined in the 2002-2003 estimates, part III, report on plans and priorities?

¿ (0920)

Ms. Susan Whelan: As I was just saying to Mr. Dubé, we will follow up on “Strengthening Aid Effectiveness”. We will be announcing, hopefully this summer, the results of that.

I can give you some ideas on what was discussed through the consultation process. There was a lot of discussion, first and foremost, about the level of our aid being tied or untied. There was discussion with the NGO community and there was discussion with the private sector about that. There was discussion about the number of countries Canada is presently investing in, the concentration levels, and what that means, or how effective our aid dollars are. There was discussion about our contracting policy.

It was very much about the response of programming and what it means to the NGO community, but consultation was about public engagement. How do we ensure that Canadians are involved? How do we ensure that Canadians know what we're doing? I think there were over a thousand submissions to that process, and it was very well documented.

Again, we do have the results; they're posted on the web. Obviously, our plans and priorities take into account the changes we contemplate making at CIDA and the future directions of CIDA.

Mr. Bernard Patry: I have another question regarding the Africa Fund. The $500 million Africa Fund was announced last December in the budget plan and will apparently be managed outside CIDA channels. What precisely will be CIDA's role in relation to the decision regarding disbursements from this trust fund, and can you provide any assurance that the priorities and criteria guiding CIDA's program expenditures throughout Africa will be consistent with those applying to the operation of the trust fund?

Ms. Susan Whelan: In fact, the Africa Fund will be operated within CIDA but will be separate and distinct from other CIDA programming. I guess that's difficult to define, but the act set out the fund, and by Order in Council I was the minister designated to be in charge of the fund a number of weeks ago now.

We have expertise within CIDA when it comes to Africa and we have expertise within CIDA when it comes to programming. The Africa Fund will be about large, strategic programs. We will obviously set up a very specific type of operation, a very specific channel on how that fund will be allocated and on how that fund will be developed. That's still in the planning stages, so I anticipate having more to say about that after the Africa action plan and the G-8 summit, because obviously the Africa Fund will reflect what's agreed on by the G-8.

Its time is coming very quickly. Right now we are in the planning stages in the process of defining how it will operate.

The Chair: Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: I really like CIDA, but sometimes people criticize them. Last November, Danielle Goldfarb from the C.D. Howe Institute spoke on good governance in CIDA. She claimed there was corruption in some countries CIDA was working with.

How do you respond to the critics of CIDA's spending in these countries?

Ms. Susan Whelan: I think we have to be very careful about what we mean by good governance and how we define good governance. Obviously, the type of governance we have in Canada is something we'd like to see in every country in the world--the type of democratic institutions, the type of judicial systems, the expertise, and the ability for businesses to function in Canada and know they're secure in doing business in Canada.

The developing world is looking for those same guarantees. They want to have foreign direct investment; they want to keep the dollars that are within Africa, for example, in Africa. They are going to do that by assuring there's good governance, a good judicial system, and a stable environment for them to do investment.

We have to start somewhere in these countries. We have to look at what level they're at and help bring them to the next level. Obviously that means we're going to be working with countries that are not at the level of good governance we would like to see. But we have to help bring them to that level. We have CIDA expertise and expertise within Canada that can be translated and used in that country. We have technical expertise that can be used. We have a wealth of individuals who have worked in these countries and a wealth of knowledge and experience we can bring to these countries.

So in response to that criticism, you have to start somewhere. You have to recognize that countries that are making a commitment to improve their governance are the ones we should be looking at investing in.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: You have a few more minutes.

Mr. Bernard Patry: In your opening remarks you said you launched the fourth and final action plan on the priorities of CIDA's new direction a month ago. You talked about the action plan on basic education.

Can you elaborate a little more on what area of the world you're focusing on exactly with this plan?

Ms. Susan Whelan: The basic action plan on education is our focus in all of the developing countries. The largest focus will be on the least developed countries and those with the greatest need. When you look at the Dakar commitment of education for all and the challenges--the number of girls particularly who are not in school, the number of people who do not have access to education. A large number of them are in Africa or the countries of Africa.

It is a focus on how we do our work, not just in Africa. Mr. Good is chairing the G-8 task force on education, and we anticipate that the results of the G-8 summit will also provide direction and guidance on how dollars will be spent on education and will be complementary to the basic action plan we've set out on education.

The Chair: Mr. Day.

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Minister and Mr. Good, we appreciate your attendance here and the information you are trying to get out to us.

I just want to say that when we question the spending related to CIDA, it is because we want people in need to receive the maximum benefit and the maximum amount of resource, and that's why all spending--as I'm sure you agree--in every area of government needs to be looked at, monitored, and evaluated, so that money is not diluted either in inefficiency or in some other direction. We hope you recognize that.

We support humanitarian aid. We support the development of the global community, and I want to make that very clear. But we're going to be very, very direct in terms of assessing how the money is being spent so people are receiving the maximum benefit.

In that particular area, I'm going to rattle off some questions as quickly as I can. That'll give Mr. Good some time to get some answers prepared for the minister. Some of these are detailed, and I can't expect the minister to know all of them. Anything you can't answer in your timeline you could get to us in written form. The chairman has certain guidelines she has to operate within. We don't love those guidelines, because it makes it tough to have a good dialogue here, so I'm going to rattle these off.

But I do want to make it very clear where we're coming from. I have said before, and I'll continue to say, that I think it's positive that the Prime Minister is at least saying that whether we're talking about funding to Africa or any country, we're looking at those countries that support democracy, support the rule of law, and also support basic freedoms--freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of trade, freedom to own private property. Without those ingredients, no country will develop.

Had there been a quorum here, I was going to present a motion. Motions allow things to happen in a formal way. But I wonder if I could ask the minister if she would consider bringing forward a set of clear guidelines that govern the distribution of CIDA grants based on a clear articulation of the expected benefits beforehand for each grant, for the moneys being spent, and then put in place a system whereby mandatory annual, independent audits will measure the results achieved by each grant in relation to the expected results that were articulated in the original application.

I wonder if the minister would be willing to consider that, and I say that because, of course, the Auditor General reported in October 2000 that in fact CIDA's geographic programs did not comply with Treasury Board contracting policy.

I'm sure the minister will say she's working on those issues, and I have every confidence she is, but we need some teeth in that. So would the minister consider that?

On my second question, page 44 of the main estimates shows that administration of CIDA is $195 million. What administrative costs does that include, and can you provide the committee with a written breakdown of those?

In an area that will show why I believe we need clear articulation of the expected benefits of money spent, I note on pages 29 and 30, in the statistical report on official development assistance in 2001, there was $67 million in aid provided to the People's Republic of China. China has a GDP of over $1 trillion. It spends $60 billion a year on the military. What exactly were the criteria for giving them $67 million in aid, and what was the nature of that particular program?

Also, are the same guidelines in place in terms of ministerial approval? Do projects over $15 million still need to be approved by Treasury Board, and do projects of $5 million to $15 million require the minister's approval? Could you indicate if that is still the case?

¿ (0930)

On page 32 of the statistical report on official development assistance, fiscal year 2000-01, there is $79,000 for a project in Saudi Arabia. What project was that? Saudi Arabia's GDP is about $200 billion. Maybe there's consideration of CIDA funding going to the United States next, given their GDP. What CIDA project was that, and were the goals achieved?

And what is the reason for the widespread disbursal of CIDA funds to over a hundred different countries, as opposed to other nations like Australia, which focuses very clearly on those nations that are closest to it so the benefits can be most clearly monitored?

That's my first round of questions, Madam Chair. I'd like as many answers as we can get on that. But my main concern, Madam Chair, to the minister, is whether you can come out with clear guidelines articulating what the goals are of each grant, how it's monitored in terms of progress reports--if you have a four-year, three-year, or two-year envelope, as you call them. I believe that type of process, with an independent audit following, will then help you in what you've said in your own statements--which I appreciate. You said Canadians don't know what you do. We have to be able to take a look inside those particular programs.

Thank you.

The Chair: Minister.

Ms. Susan Whelan: Madam Chair, I have to tell you that if frightens me to think that Mr. Day and I actually agree on the need for clear results, but we do. And I don't know that we've agreed on a lot in the past, but we very much do agree on that.

We are looking at that very specific issue right now. Since I became minister, one of the issues I have is what are the results we're trying to achieve. Canadians want to see what results we are getting for the dollars we are spending.

We do have to understand, though, that sometimes results are long term. To say that we can have and achieve results on a yearly basis sometimes isn't possible, so we have to look at each individual, bilateral program, each individual contract, each individual project that we do, to see what the results are that we're expecting. Some of them will be contributions. For example, when we look at the millennium development goals and we look at the fact that we want to achieve education for all by the year 2015, we look at the fact that Canada spends a lot of money towards education, and so how do we measure it? How do we see what the results are? That's something we're looking at right now. How do we see that there are clear results?

You should know, though, that we do have an ongoing internal audit process within CIDA, and we do a number of audits and we want a number of audits to happen because we want to ensure that we are transparent. We want Canadians to know that their dollars are being spent effectively and we want to ensure that we are indeed getting the results we want to achieve.

With regard to your second question about administration, I'd be happy to provide a written breakdown on what the $195 million is allocated to and for.

With regard to China, we have a number of programs and a number of dollars that are invested in a number of countries where you would see a large GDP. We have a number of reasons for that. We have expertise in dealing with impoverished areas. We have a number of NGOs that are specialists in areas that certain countries wouldn't have. We look at our commitments under the WTO, the World Trade Organization. We look at economic reform, and we also look at the environment issues we are contributing to.

So those are reasons why, but I would be happy to get you more specific details on the dollars that have been spent in China.

Ministerial approval is up to $20 million. Thereafter it goes to Treasury Board. We are in the process of looking at how contracts are approved within CIDA and the criteria that are developed for the contracting process. We're looking at a review of that right now.

I can't provide you with them now, but I'd be happy to provide an answer for you on the project in Saudi Arabia. I'm sorry, I don't have those specific details in front of me.

With regard to your last question and the fact that we are widespread versus other countries, that was part of the strengthening aid effectiveness review. That was part of the consultation process, and, as I believe I alluded to in my earlier responses today, one of the things we are looking at is how we enhance partnerships with certain countries, and what countries would those be? That was part of “Strengthening Aid Effectiveness”, and we will hopefully be able to respond to that sometime this summer.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Thank you.

We're in a five-minute round and I want to establish that.

We'll go to Ms. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: I wonder why I established that before Ms. Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: You waited until you got to me because you know I'm a real talker.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister.

One of our colleagues on the other side, Mr. Obhrai, threw around the charge “slush fund, slush fund”, several times with regard to announcements that CIDA has made and that you have made as minister in recent months on new investments, and you provided an explanation that some contracts come to an end and therefore you know there are existing dollars that are freed up.

Would it be similar to, for instance, where you have $5,000 a month revenue and you pay $1,000 for your mortgage or for the rent of your apartment? I prefer mortgage. So you know that on December 1, 2003, your mortgage will be completely paid off. Of the $5,000 you now have $1,000 that's been freed up that can be used for other things: going to the movies, maybe buying a new car, and now having a car payment.

Would that be similar to how CIDA is able to make determinations as to new investments or to renew existing investments that are coming to an end, without the overall dollars, for instance, actually increasing in terms of the envelope?

Ms. Susan Whelan: Madam Jennings, that would be very much how the process works. We have a number of commitments. Some commitments are on a yearly basis, for example, payments to multilateral institutions. Some commitments are on a five-year basis, a three-year basis, or a seven-year basis.

When they are coming to an end, we know that we have those dollars that are free to be invested, either in that same area or in other areas. That's how we reallocate dollars for social development priorities. That's how we increase the dollars we're directing toward specific targets.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you very much. I hope that's cleared it up in the mind of my esteemed colleague.

Questions have been raised about NEPAD and about the Africa Fund of $500 million. I think your response was quite clear in terms of how the moneys will be allocated and how the authority over the fund is actually assigned to you.

You know as well as most of the people in this room that one of the criticisms that has been addressed to NEPAD is that it was developed by the African leadership and that civil society within Africa, of those countries that actually participated in the development of NEPAD, was not engaged in the process. I'd like to know whether or not Canada has done anything to attempt to provide that engagement of African civil society on the issue of NEPAD.

¿ (0940)

Ms. Susan Whelan: That's actually a very good and timely question.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I thought so.

Ms. Susan Whelan: The reality is, we've done a couple of things. We've provided funding specifically for consultation purposes in the different countries in Africa. There's a fund available to help set up a program for engaging civil society and the local communities, reaching out into the communities within the different countries of Africa.

We've also tried to do that within Canada with our African partners. We had a meeting, a consultation process, in Montreal the weekend of May 4 and 5, where we had over 400 participants. Over 150, I believe, from African countries and a number from the private sector and NGO communities within Canada came to discuss Canada and Africa's partnership, to discuss the NEPAD process, and to talk about the future direction of Canada's involvement and our work with Africa.

By no means is that the end of the process; that's the beginning of the consultation process. The $500 million Africa Fund will also reflect what's taking place in NEPAD as well as what will happen with the Africa action plan that will be released as part of the G-8 summit. It's an ongoing, ever-evolving process that will continuously be audited, if you want to use the terms of our colleagues, because it's very important that it be very accountable and very transparent and that it achieve the results we want for Africa.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

Perhaps during the time you have with us you might want to address what CIDA is doing to promote greater public understanding of international development within Canada, particularly as we're moving from bricks and mortar to the softer issues, where results take longer: good governance, gender equality, and issues like that. What is CIDA doing in Canada to promote better understanding on the part of Canadians about our objectives there and how we'll reach them?

The Chair: Minister, you'll have to work that into Mr. Obhrai's answers.

We go next to the Bloc. Francine Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I too would like to congratulate you, Ms. Whelan; we met when you chaired the Industry Committee.

As the minister responsible for international aid, could you tell me whether you are urging the government to increase its international assistance to a level more in keeping with the wealth of Canada? It should be pointed out in this regard that at the Monterrey meeting, the European Union set a target of 0.36% for the same time period, namely 2005-2006, for all countries, including countries much poorer than Canada, such as Portugal and Greece.

We now find ourselves in a situation in which Canada is going to be at the very bottom of the list among donor nations, together with Turkey, perhaps, depending on its objective. Contribution is proportional to wealth, and that is what has to be explained to all parliamentarians and to our fellow citizens. I would like to know whether you personally are insisting that Canada have a decent international aid objective in keeping with its wealth.

[English]

Ms. Susan Whelan: Madam Lalonde, you know me very well from my role as chair of the industry committee.

One of the things I discovered since I became minister is where Canada is at on the 0.7% chart—what it means, and where we are as a country with regard to the wealth we have as a country. Prior to Monterrey, we had several discussions about the level of financing and what it means to the ODA budget. Obviously, as we know, the finance minister and the budgetary process in Canada are on two-year rolling targets and a futuristic budget basis.

So we are working very actively, and I'm pushing very actively within CIDA and amongst my colleagues, that Canada not only meet the Prime Minister's commitment of 8% per year, but also that we move beyond it and have a long-term target to get towards the 0.7%. This will take the cooperation of Canadians. This is why I think it's vitally important that we inform Canadians about what we do. This is also why I think it's very important that not only do I announce what we do, but also that we promote what we do.

As Madam Jennings was referring to, we are working, for example, with the youth of Canada. We have a contest right now, Butterfly 208, to encourage high school students to become involved and understand the developing world. We need to educate Canadians on what needs to be done.

¿ (0945)

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: We must remember that for countries such as Denmark, where a right-wing government has just been elected—we had an opportunity to meet with some of its representatives—the objective is 1%, not 0.7%. Norway, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands are at 0.7% or 0.8% of their wealth. This is a percentage of their wealth, it has nothing to do with the fact that these countries are smaller. In light of the current international situation and the fact that the World Food Program has just said that the objective is to reduce by half by 2015 the number of people living in extreme poverty, I think that at our current rate, it will be impossible to achieve this objective. I think we have to wake up. This is not just a matter of generosity or charity. We have to understand that this unequal development is harmful to everyone. Canada must set a real objective; 8% of our current aid budget is not an objective. We know that if we want to increase wealth, we have to be more specific in our objective. As far as possible, we are going to continue to help you in the House of Commons, and I expect that you can come up with an adequate target.

[English]

Ms. Susan Whelan: I look forward to your assistance in meeting this target.

Obviously we are on the upward trend. We have turned the corner when it comes to the amount of dollars in the aid budget. The Prime Minister's commitment in Monterrey is a very good signal. The budgets of 2000 and 2001 are very good signals for aid levels.

We have a lot of work to do to convince and work with Canadians to assure them the dollars we're spending are indeed effective, and to educate them on how, where, and why they're being spent. When Canadians know and understand how their dollars are being spent, I believe we'll also have support for increasing the levels of official development assistance in Canada.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: How do Norway, Denmark and all these other countries manage? I think people are prepared to provide help when they see the extreme poverty that exists in so many countries.

[English]

Ms. Susan Whelan: I can assure you, at the meetings I've attended, my counterparts from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway are very insistent that the rest of the world has to do more of its share.

Again, we're looking not only at the level of dollars being spent but also at how our aid dollars are being spent. I think it's a combination. I think it's very important that we look at the effectiveness. That's the stage we're at right now in Canada, reviewing the effectiveness of our aid dollars.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Ms. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Minister, the question of needing to involve Canadians to let them know, as you have pointed out, the programs you're attempting to do, what aid does, what CIDA does in particular, is interesting. But I think we have some conflicting information on that.

My question here is, aren't the polls really telling us that Canadians don't support aid? It would appear from what Mr. Pettigrew said in Doha and when he came back, particularly when he spoke in Montreal, that there is a large support on the part of Canadians for Canada's role--and an increased role--in aid. He used that, of course, in a number of combinations with the work he's doing.

On the other hand, we've had Ambassador Fowler come before the committee with regard to the study we're doing, and he didn't seem to be singing from the same song sheet. But we did discuss it with him, and I think he came around to feeling that indeed there is that support. So I would ask you to comment on that, because I think I feel a bit of a sense of dichotomy.

My second question relates to an article I read recently, and in conversation I've heard him propose the same thing. That is Donald Johnston's view, as head of the OECD, that the most effective way for any of the donor countries to be giving aid is not to be doing it on a bilateral basis but to be channeling it through the OECD, using the OECD filter on development as the strategy. In so doing--not to use up too much time because I want to hear what you think--we would be able to eliminate the concerns that some development experts have about tied aid and the concerns that Foreign Affairs sets the priorities for Canada's aid program, as they do in other countries.

His proposal was as I've described. So having rather high regard for Mr. Johnston, and I must admit to the same regard for much, though not all, of what the OECD does, I'm wondering what your comments would be on that.

¿ (0950)

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

First, with regard to the level of Canadian support, there is no doubt that the polls and the studies that are done show that Canadians support providing foreign aid. Canadians support providing official development assistance. They support our work. They want our work to be effective. There's no doubt we've received a high level of support in all the polls we do.

The problem we have, or the problem that I see and I believe we have to overcome, is that when you ask Canadians to rank how their dollars should be spent, it comes down low on the bottom of the list of priorities. So that then becomes where you have this divergence and this problem.

Yes, Canadians definitely support foreign aid and they support the investment. They actually would overestimate the amount of money we spend out of a dollar on foreign aid. When you ask the question, are they willing to spend more, the majority of the time they would say yes.

When you have the other poll or study that talks about how people want to see increases and where they want to see changes in our budgetary dollars, that's where we fall short. And that's where I think we have to do a better job of focusing in and ensuring that the Canadian level of support continues on into the priority and planning process for the budget. That's where the two are not meeting, because they are very supportive of the work that is being done and recognize the level of expertise we have.

I have a high regard and respect for Don Johnston as well, and I believe he was expressing a personal view that it should be through the OECD or the World Bank. My opinion, in my limited life so far as minister, would be that the World Bank and the OECD obviously serve very important roles. Their roles are different and distinct from what we are doing in our bilateral programming. I think that needs to be understood.

First and foremost, the World Bank is a lending institution, and a large part of it is to do that. That being said, we have a number of bilateral relations. We have a number of contracts or programs, I guess you could say, and levels of expertise. We have foreign policy and foreign priorities, and we work with a number of countries on very different levels. I believe we have numerous success stories as well as a level of respect around the world for Canada's involvement, and I think that's something we have to ensure we continue to protect.

The Chair: Thank you—

Ms. Susan Whelan: I'm going to have to apologize, Madam Chair—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I have one more question.

Ms. Susan Whelan: My time is running out here. I do have to be somewhere at 10 o'clock. Mr. Good is more than willing to stay.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Just one question.

Ms. Susan Whelan: I could entertain one very brief question, but I do have to be somewhere at 10 o'clock.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Let me get this straight, and I may be wrong, but it's a big concern for me. From what I heard from my respected colleague on this business of saving money and allowing you this discretionary issue, because you saved the money, you can now go and spend it somewhere else.

Parliament allows you to have this budget for this program, to spend this. If you are going to save this money and then use it for something else that Parliament has not approved, that is, for all practical purposes, a slush fund, because it gives you the ability to spend money wherever you want. So I am a little concerned.

I know you have the good director general here, who I know worked very hard, but it gives me major concern that there is no overseas accounting on this. I can't buy the theory that has come from the other side.

Do you want to elaborate on that? Where is the transparency? Where is the accountability on this so-called extra money you may get because of not using your previous program money?

Ms. Susan Whelan: First, we don't save money; we invest money. I think we have to be very clear.

What I thought I explained, and I'll try to explain again, is that, for example, in our bilateral programming, we work very actively right now with countries to develop country frameworks as to where they want to see future investments in future directions.

For example, in a country like Tanzania, we have been investing dollars there for a number of years through bilateral programming.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: That's my hometown, so I know that one.

Ms. Susan Whelan: Well, there you go. I picked a good one.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: You picked a good country.

Ms. Susan Whelan: Tanzania has adopted a poverty reduction strategy. They went through a poverty reduction strategy process. Through the poverty reduction strategy, they now have in place a number of targets and a number of goals.

We have in the past had individual projects in Tanzania. We are now changing our focus to adopt their poverty reduction strategy. The level of funding we have for Tanzania remains the same; however, as a project finishes in Tanzania, it provides dollars that we can then allocate towards programming in Tanzania, like education, so that we can provide a fund of, for example, $5 million to sit at the table and be part of the education strategy for Tanzania versus an individual project in education.

So when I announce dollars for Tanzania, we have shifted how we're allocating those dollars, but it's still within education and it's still within Tanzania. I'm sorry if it seems difficult to understand, but we cannot have unlimited contracts or unlimited commitments year upon year; yet we do have a budget and a process that says we are going to spend so much money on education, so much money in a certain number of countries, and within that framework we then determine the priorities.

That's why I'll be happy to come back in the future and talk more with the committee about the plans and priorities document that I submitted and the direction in which we're going, but we very much do stick to the plans and priorities we've set out in how we allocate our dollars.

With that, Madam Chair, I'm going to have to go—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: That's where we differ.

Ms. Susan Whelan: —and I will leave you in the good hands of Mr. Good.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Do I have some time?

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister.

I guess Mr. Good is remaining with us. Maybe you'll have a question also for Mr. Good.

Maybe, Mr. Good, I'll ask you if you can focus on a question or two that is of concern to me. That is, as we look at the priorities and the plans of what we do overseas, could you speak about our own corporate staffing or human resource development or missions, what we do for our staff and the people who do all the work that we ask of them in the international sphere.

À (1000)

Mr. Len Good (President, Canadian International Development Agency): Certainly you're right to point to the staff at CIDA and our staff overseas as being the foundation of whatever success we have. Here in CIDA we have roughly 1,200 people, and 100-plus overseas.

If there are new directions in our approach to human resources, there would be two I'd mention in particular. One is that in response to the new directions in our approach to the work we do, which is to say we are now increasingly doing more work at what the minister referred to as the programming level as opposed to the project level, increasingly in developing countries we find ourselves sitting around a table, literally, with the government of the country and with other donors, discussing, for example, a sector plan in health or education and what that plan should look like. Only after this do we decide what kind of work we will do in that country.

That kind of change in approach to our programming is forcing us to look at the composition of our human resource base in CIDA and it's moving us away from skills that are based on contracting procedures. Obviously we need a certain set amount of that, but increasingly we're trying to move away from the focus on those kinds of skills and on to a more knowledge-based set of skills. We really do need more people who are expert in health and education, whatever the subject matter is, so that when we sit around the table with those other donors, with the country, we are actually agreeing upon, let's say, a five-year plan for education that we all think makes sense, and then donors would be in a position to work together in a systematic way in support of what the country is pushing. That sounds like a sensible thing to be doing, and it is. The international community is moving in that direction, but it actually has a number of implications for CIDA, of which the change in the composition of our human resources is one.

Secondly, related but important, if we're going to be successful in working with the country and other donors in that country on the ground, it means we have to have a stronger presence there. So we are looking for a stronger contingent of, I'll say, CIDA employees, but it's CIDA employees rather broadly defined. Some will be from Canada working in developing countries, but increasingly we're trying to draw on what we call locally engaged personnel. That is locals, nationals of the countries in which we work. We find obviously that they bring a lot to the table in terms of the knowledge of the history, culture, and politics of the country, and they help us with that strong presence around these tables in health and education and so on. So there are some new directions in our human resource management.

The Chair: How are you doing on your employment equity, and official languages, and all of those neat things that we care so much about?

Mr. Len Good: As you know, employment equity has four dimensions to it. The one that's received particular attention, particularly since the Perinbam report on visible minorities, has been the question of visible minorities, and the statistics actually have CIDA doing extremely well. I think we are at the top of the list of all departments with respect to the percentage of visible minorities in our workforce. As well, I noticed recently that we are very much on track to meet what was probably the main recommendation of the Perinbam report, which was that one in five, 20%, of new hires should be visible minorities. So we're doing well in that category.

The Chair: What about promotional opportunities?

Mr. Len Good: In terms of promotional opportunities, we have been working with the Public Service Commission with a view to getting some technical changes in the rules of the commission that will let us promote visible minorities more easily than has been the case in the past. I think we're making some progress with the commission. So it's a subject we're looking at.

We have a visible minorities committee in CIDA, which I chair and which meets four times a year. We meet every three months and we discuss a whole range of issues, promotion being an important one. I know it sounds a bit immodest, yet it's just an objective judgment I would make, but my sense is that the tone of the meetings we've had with visible minorities in CIDA over the last two years has improved enormously. I sense a genuine spirit of a cooperative approach to dealing with difficult and sensitive issues, as opposed to what I've seen in the past in many places, which is more a kind of belligerent and difficult attitude.

À (1005)

The Chair: Is that because people are frustrated with the system of non-promotion?

Mr. Len Good: I think it's a combination of things. There are many people who feel their talents weren't recognized, that they were passed over, that they weren't given assignments. Obviously there may be elements of truth in that in some cases, and in other cases not. One simply can't generalize. But we're certainly incredibly more sensitive to all those issues now than we have ever been before, and I think that is being recognized.

The Chair: That's good.

We'll go next to Mr. Day.

Mr. Good, I have a whole list of staff people on my roster here. I'm not too sure exactly what expertise and talent you need beside you, but you're free to call on whomever you want to join you at the table at any point in time.

Mr. Len Good: Thank you. I appreciate that. I do have a significant number of people from CIDA here, so as the questions get more detailed, I will certainly ask them to come forward, if that is all right with you.

The Chair: Never mind what Mr. Obhrai says. We know they are working really very hard.

Mr. Day.

Mr. Stockwell Day: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The process of proper discussion is a bit difficult with the minister not being here. Mr. Good performs his task very well, but obviously he is constrained if the political overseer is not present, because the questions that many of us want to ask obviously have political overtones--and I understand the parameters you are under. I appreciate the people who are here too, dedicated staff, to answer specific questions, but again, they are under some of the same constraints politically.

So, Madam Chair, informally, if I could suggest, we would hope that we could ask the minister to come back, because we're looking at a couple of billion dollars in spending.

I waved at a bus driver this morning. He's helping to pay for the CIDA grant. I talked to two commercial fishermen who are here, and they pay a certain amount in taxes for CIDA funding. That's a whole lot of money. We have a real obligation to make sure the results are being attained. That's why it does still bother me.

Within the political constraints that Mr. Good is under--and I appreciate that; I'm not asking him to justify his position--on page 37 of the Canadian International Development Agency estimates, part III, we've been asking for management results, for the results of the spending, and it says, “the Management Results are internal to the Agency”.

That has a Cold War, spy-like ring to it. My colleague, specifically as it relates to CIDA, and I, on broader areas, are going to be pushing this government to get rid of this veil of secrecy. This isn't to try to expose people or suggest there is wrongdoing, but all of us, by human nature, if we know we are being monitored, we perform better and we look forward to being monitored so that we can showcase our skills. The obvious skills of the people who are here with Mr. Good should be showcased and congratulated.

So can you give us some comment on that, “the Management Results are internal to the Agency”?

Mr. Len Good: Our intention is not to be secretive or unforthcoming in any way. In fact, I must say, and it's not my position perhaps, but I am pleased at the interest the people have in CIDA and the growing interest in aid and the support for increased financing. I think it's all incredibly positive.

The fact of the matter is, we have absolutely nothing to hide. We're doing a straightforward job, I believe, using taxpayers' money for good purposes in developing countries. Their representatives have every right to demand all kinds of information about that, and anything you want.

In this particular document, which I'm sure you've read, it's important to note that this part III that you have before you is very much a new approach to presenting to you the work that CIDA does. We've gone from the kind of report that historically simply reported on what was called the business lines of CIDA, which is the way we're organized, by geographic region, policy branch, multilateral branch, and a Canadian partnership branch, from that kind of organizational way of reporting to one that is much more focused, much better organized in terms of one's ability to answer the question, what are you really doing? It's organized now in three levels.

À (1010)

Mr. Stockwell Day: Perhaps I could just interrupt, with respect.

Again, I don't question either the honesty or the dedication of the people involved, but when management results are internal and cannot be viewed by Parliament in a very open way without going through information access requests, organizations that cannot be properly monitored attract to themselves a level of suspicion that is unnecessary. This is just based on history and human nature, and it can also result in the development of inefficiencies.

If you add that, Madam Chair, to the overall...I've heard about this shift in the philosophical approach away from the hard dollars and cents, nuts and bolts aspect to something more nebulous, as Mr. Good indicates. When people sit around a table talking with a group of people and looking at broader, long-term social objectives, the whole thing becomes very mushy. I might get all warm and squishy thinking I'm helping countries around the world, but when I can't have it quantified, I get nervous.

Especially, Madam Chair, add to that the fact that we know what happens, whether we're talking about giving money to somebody across the street, over the fence to our neighbour, across provincial guidelines, or in fact across international guidelines. Any time you give money to somebody you run the risk of undermining the very attributes that need to be developed because of pressure and because of the need to see prosperity and wealth created in one's jurisdiction. The giving of money is a very serious business, because you can actually undermine the very innovative impulse that is developed when we face pressure as individuals or as jurisdictions.

That's why we will continue to press for an opening up of the management results, because the whole shift is becoming more nebulous. We're not questioning the intent one bit, again, but that's why we have these concerns.

Mr. Len Good: I took too long in my answer. Let me give you the short answer but the same content.

The new approach focuses on outcomes, strategic outcomes in health and education. It goes down to a level of what we call enabling results: are we doing it the right way? Then it goes down to what Mr. Day is talking about, the management results. If you look at the content of those management results on page 37, to which you refer, we're talking about issues having to do with our management of human resources, information management, and technology, and so on. Although we use the word “internal”, I would hope you wouldn't attach excessive importance to it. It's not our intent to withhold that kind of information on human resources and information technology. We're prepared to make available everything we're describing as management results.

Mr. Stockwell Day: I appreciate that. That's why, as we know, if you want to raise suspicion on a package in government, just stamp it “confidential”. If I want to make sure the media or my opposition colleagues don't see anything, I'll leave it open. As soon as I have “secret” or the word “internal” attached to it, it's going to attract things.

I have two quick questions. Again, this comes from what I see as a shift in policy that makes things more difficult to quantify. Now, you talked about minority hirings. Could you tell me, in an Asian country where you have an office, does that mean you are compelled to hire a certain number of Caucasians, for instance?

Also, the minister talked about education programs in underdeveloped countries that are going to teach kids about peace. I'd feel a little more comfortable if I knew that also their math, science, and environmental technology skills were being developed--which can be measured, by the way. Education and progress can be measured. Can you comment on those two things.

À (1015)

Mr. Len Good: Sure. The answer to your question about Asia and on visible minorities is no, we don't have quotas and so on. It's not that kind of an approach. Our approach within CIDA, which, as I say, reflects the Perinbam approach, is a reflection that in the past our practices were less than perfect. I think that's why we needed the Perinbam report and that's why people are responding to it.

With respect to hiring, the Perinbam report talks about trying to ensure that over time you're hiring about one in five. But it's definitely not a quota, and within the government approach, the overseers of all of these kinds of things, Treasury Board officials and so on, are not of that kind of a mindset.

So I think we're coming at an attempt within government and certainly within CIDA to reflect the composition of our staff that reflects Canadian society, but definitely not in any kind of arithmetic way or quota approach.

With respect to your second question, I am chairman of the G-8 education task force. I've spent a lot of time on this in the last six months. There are so many issues that have to be addressed in education in developing countries. To come back quickly to your earlier comment on sitting around the table and the fuzzy stuff--

Mr. Stockwell Day: Sorry, Mr. Good, can you finish the education question?

Mr. Len Good: It's the same point, but let me come back to it. An important part of an education plan for a developing country is its curriculum. But it's obviously more than that. It's teacher training; it's the amount of its budget it devotes to education. You need a comprehensive plan. That's what is agreed upon around the table. When that's agreed upon around the table, we do however go back to doing all of those hard things to which you've referred. We have to make sure the schools get built, the teachers get trained, the textbooks get supplied, and there are education administrators. But you do that within the context of a plan that's agreed.

The old approach was let's go in and build a school, and you build a school but the country has no education plan, it doesn't have sustainable resources, and you find a few years later your school is in ruins or there are no teachers. That's why you need to be around the table. But, yes, within the education plan developed by a country, curriculum is critical, and you're absolutely right to emphasize the basics. There's no sense at all in not focusing on the basics. But I think particularly, obviously, since September 11, there are people asking, are the curricula in schools attuned to some of those fundamental issues of values and so on, which have been delicate questions to deal with, and I think the sense is that education, and therefore the curriculum, can play some part in ensuring that in the years ahead we reduce the number of conflicts.

Mr. Stockwell Day: Madam Chair, I have one last question.

The Chair: No, we have to move on. Maybe you can work it in.

Madam Marleau.

Ms. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Madam Chair, it's the job of the opposition to oppose and find fault, and of course they show their concern, but I want to let the opposition know that having sat many years in opposition, I know exactly what they're doing. But I share, and the government shares, their concern for the good spending of money. So they don't have a licence on that, believe me.

I noticed in our audience, Madam Chair, that we have a delegation from Bangladesh. I had the opportunity of visiting Bangladesh a number of years ago, and I hope that a number of you may some day have that same opportunity. I visited a number of wonderful projects, such as micro-projects that offered credit to rural communities, projects that worked with poor women, projects where there has been such a degree of success that many countries are involved in them. The Government of Bangladesh itself is involved in this. It's absolutely wonderful.

I'm wondering if Mr. Good could, for the benefit of those who have not had the same opportunity, describe some of the programming in Bangladesh and some of the results, where most of the children are now in school and there's a dramatic change happening within the communities in Bangladesh as a result of the long-time programming that has occurred there.

À (1020)

The Chair: Mr. Good, you can bring your Bangladeshi desk support...

Mr. Len Good: Let me just talk about one program in Bangladesh, and if you want more, we can go into as much detail as you'd like. Bangladesh happens to be one of the countries in which we spend significant amounts of the CIDA budget. I will give you an example of a program that comes back as well to Mr. Day's point about tables and so on. There's a program in Bangladesh that is really well known; it's called the health and population program. It's now into at least its third and possibly its fourth phase. It started off, I think, in the eighties.

Interestingly, the program started off in Bangladesh as a series of projects in the health and population area different donors were working on individually with the Government of Bangladesh.The programs were not particularly coherent and weren't coordinated.

Over the last decade or so, and certainly now as we head into the next phase of that health and population program in Bangladesh, the program has now matured to the point where the Government of Bangladesh is leading the program. It's setting the parameters as to how it wants things to unfold, and donors are working with the Government of Bangladesh--in some sense under the direction of the Government of Bangladesh--trying to understand where the government wants to go and getting a clearly articulated set of directions on health and population.

Increasingly now the donors are working together, coordinated in support of this program. It's coherent, and it's taken 15 years for it to evolve to this point. Internationally, that particular program in Bangladesh is seen as a very high-profile and significant program.

If you want more details, I'd certainly be prepared to provide them, but your main point, that we're doing good work in Bangladesh in almost every area--education, poverty reduction, and governance issues too...

Ms. Diane Marleau: You're meeting your targets. The opposition often asks, well, where's the money going, and is it having any effect? I know, and I've seen for myself some of the wonderful work that has happened in Bangladesh. Feel free to expand on this because I'm very proud of the work that is going on in Bangladesh, of the people of Bangladesh, and of the government officials who have participated and who really believe in this work as well.

Mr. Len Good: To pick up on one of your points, I find it interesting that as members of Parliament increasingly travel with our minister or on their own in other delegations for other reasons and see the kind of work CIDA is doing around the world, almost unfailingly they come back impressed and with stories of how they appreciate the efforts. You're quite right; you have to be there on the ground to see it.

Often the projects make only small contributions to what are very large problems, but in fact that's all we can do on some occasions. Everything is step by step.

Ms. Diane Marleau: The other big challenge in many of the countries—and I know in Bangladesh this is working well—is that a lot of the donor countries don't always work together. These poor countries...and I say poor with regard to the fact that the government is small, yet they're in great need, and they find themselves running from agency to agency, from group to group, fulfilling all kinds of reporting mechanisms and so on, while all the time what they really need is to work together. I'm happy to see that there's more of that happening and less of just the individual program per country. I believe that's the kind of thing you're moving towards.

À (1025)

Mr. Len Good: It is, and actually that's where we need the help of Canadian parliamentarians and others in similar kinds of positions. Often the history has been that the country has to do it the Canadian way, that they have to approach environmental assessment using the rules and regulations of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, or they have to produce reports that reflect what the Auditor General of Canada wants. Of course, if every single donor country says you must do it our way, then when you have 15 or 20 donors in a country and half a dozen international financial institutions, you're left where the developing country says, “We can't respond”.

I came back once from a meeting in Guyana that was very similar to what you just described, Madam Marleau, in terms of the number of donors, institutions, and requests. The finance minister said to me, “I have to tell you that for everything you've asked for, you should be aware that we have one legislative drafter”, and that won't change, no matter how many requests we put on the table.

So, clearly, we try to work on developing capacity in developing countries, but at the same time we have to work to reduce the amount of unhelpful administrative burden we impose. We talk an awful lot about that, but we haven't actually gotten all that far yet in terms of the implementation of those reduced demands.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Dubé, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm looking at the breakdown of CIDA's budget. It is broken down into two parts, which seem to correspond to the regular aid program, and to the official development assistance program. My colleague Francine Lalonde and I, unlike our colleagues from the Canadian Alliance, think that our contribution to international aid is inadequate and must be increased. We are almost at the bottom of the list among donor nations; we have to catch up and provide more assistance.

The budget shows an increase in your expenditures of $47 million, scattered around here and there, for the administration of your agency. In fact, that is the chief increase in the budget. I think you are setting a bad example, because at the same time, there is a $7 million reduction in the assistance provided to volunteer organizations. As a government, I think we are sending out the wrong message to volunteer organizations by asking them to tighten their belts even more. I would like you to justify these budget increases. How can we increase the administration budget by $47 million, and at the same time reduce funding for these poor volunteer organizations?

Mr. Len Good: I will try to reply in French, even though the answer is somewhat technical. If, for this reason, I switch to English, I hope you will forgive me.

[English]

In fact, if you don't mind, I will try this particular one in English. It's quite technical.

Historically, CIDA has had the capacity, under Treasury Board authorities, to spend moneys out of its aid budget, called SPPEs--special programing and project expenditures. For example, if we're doing a project in Mali, and in preparation we have to do some feasibility studies, design studies, or hire some consultants to do some work on the country, we do that. Historically, Treasury Board has allowed us to pay for those consultants out of our aid budget under SPPEs, instead of our administrative budget.

This past year, Treasury Board changed its mind. It said those examples I just described were closer to being operating expenditures than aid expenditures; therefore we had to move this block of expenditures, SPPEs, out of our aid budget into our administrative budget. I believe the actual amount we moved was $37 million. It's strictly an accounting thing, but it shows up in a higher administrative budget.

So that's $37 million of the $47 million. There's $10 million simply due to salary contract negotiations, which have increased the salary base, over which we have no choice. So there's $47 million right there. We knew this would not look good.

[Translation]

but we had no choice; Treasury Board changed the rules.

À (1030)

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Since you are not with Treasury Board, I will not harass you further.

Since I do not have much time this morning, I'm going to focus on support for the voluntary sector. The fact is that these organizations are experiencing cutbacks. Their budget is actually being reduced, not increased. The NGOs of Canada and Quebec have a very good reputation, and I can understand that the minister or the government may want to provide official development assistance or some other form of aid to Africa. However, we should not rob Peter to pay Paul or vice-versa. It is my impression that we are reducing the budget of volunteer organizations. How can such a reduction be justified? Is it again because of a change in Treasury Board rules, which means that the money that was formerly given to volunteer organizations is provided in some other way? I hope that is the case. I find this disturbing, and I repeat that, unlike the Canadian Alliance, I am in favour of increased funding for volunteer organizations. Many people who work for such organizations do so as a mission. They give of themselves and they only cover their costs.

I would like to hear more about this. How can such a reduction be justified? Are we following a trend established by other countries? I do not think so.

Mr. Len Good: No.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: In the Scandinavian countries, particularly Norway, organizations of this type play a tremendous role. Are we trying to tell them that they are doing a bad job?

À (1035)

Mr. Len Good: You are right to say that there was a $7 million reduction this year. That reflects other budgetary pressures. Finally, this year, we did not get a significant budget increase, and we had to deal with many other pressures. Consequently, this year, there was a reduction of $7 million. However, as you say, this is by no means a trend. During our consultations last September, the volunteer organizations and the NGOs were somewhat disappointed by the comments made in our paper. They thought that we were not supporting their efforts enthusiastically enough. However, that is not the case. We are very proud of the work done by the NGOs. We hope to have more money with the 8% increase. Obviously, the Canadian Partnership Branch will get its share of this funding. We are really proud of these organizations, and we will continue to support them.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I am pleased to hear you say that, Mr. Good. You may not be able to respond, but I would like to inform you of a comment that I have heard.

The Canadian government wants to help Africa and has set aside $500 million for that purpose. We cannot be against that, just as we cannot be against motherhood. We are not going to oppose this project, but we might want to talk about the way this will be done. We know that there has been some criticism. These volunteer organizations say that the demands will come from the African heads of state. That is fine, because this shows respect for democracy, on the one hand, but, on the other hand, democracy is rather compromised in some countries. The opinion of the NGOs on this matter is very important. When we increase aid merely in response to demands from African heads of state, we are overlooking certain facts. The situation in the field is different; it is outside the government network. This fact must be taken into account, as you know very well.

You may comment if you care to, but I will not require an answer, because this may be more of a political question.

Mr. Len Good: This is a very important question, and, in my view, the answer is quite clear. We have two aid models. In the case of countries with fairly good governance, we work with the governments in place. They must have their own development plan, and we work with them. In the case of countries which do not have good governance, we have to work with civil society. In order to do that, we need these organizations, as you mentioned. So there is a choice, a judgment involved. Some countries fall between the two extremes, but the fact is that we have these two models.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Good. I'd like to know, are you able to put a dollar figure to the number of Canadian investments in terms of international development to the African continent, not counting the $500 million Africa Fund. So whether it's money that goes through the geographic program that's CIDA-run, or the multilateral aid, which then trickles into the African continent, or the Canadian partnerships, what is the total dollar figure? If you're not able to do that right now, perhaps you would pull that information and get it to the clerk of the committee. I'd appreciate that.

Mr. Len Good: I'd be happy to do that. If I were to give you a number it would be a guess and I'd miss by too much, so we'll find—

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I'll explain one of the reasons why I'm asking that question. As you know, in March past there was an NGO report, The Reality of Aid 2002: An Independent Review of Poverty Reduction and Development Assistance Focus on Conditionality and Ownership, which made the statement that aid to sub-Saharan Africa has in fact decreased in the past four years, more than in any year since 1984.

I'd like to know if in fact that is accurate and how much of planned Canadian aid spending for Africa will be channelled through the governments, i.e. bilateral programs, and how much through non-governmental organizations that work directly with the poorest people. And that's specifically in relation to the African continent.

Mr. Len Good: We'll provide you with all that information. The only comment I would make right now is that one has to be really careful about making the distinction between actual expenditures in Africa versus planned expenditures in Africa. One could have certain kinds of plans and intentions, but as you know, Africa, more than any other continent, is subject to all kinds of things that could cause the plans to go astray, most typically, obviously, conflict; conflicts in Congo, or Sudan, or Somalia, or problems in Zimbabwe or Sierra Leone, will cause you to change your actual and your planned spending.

So between man-made conflict problems and occasionally natural disasters, which may cause you to increase your humanitarian and disaster spending but will cause you unfortunately to have to reduce your spending on ongoing projects, you can end up with variations in actual spending on the continent, which, as I say, are not the least bit the reflection of intentions. But we'll get those numbers for you.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: And the commitment. I appreciate that. I think it's important that this distinction be made, because, as you said, if one only looks at the amount of dollars that were actually invested, one could come away with the idea that Canada's commitment to the African continent is not as strong as it is in fact, and one has to look at what were the planned expenditures and what were the reasons why we weren't able to achieve those objectives.

I understand that you don't have the exact figures at this time, but in terms of Canadian development aid investments directly to the African continent through CIDA programming--I'm not talking about the part of the envelope for international aid that's controlled by the Department of Finance; I'm talking specifically about the budget or envelope that comes under CIDA--how is the minister, CIDA, going to integrate what we're already doing in Africa with the $500 million Africa Fund? I think this is a really important angle to look at, because we obviously don't want to have competing projects or objectives. We want the moneys, both the regular CIDA funding and this new money, to be used to its best capability, in the most efficient and most effective way.

So what kind of thinking is in the process of going on to develop processes to ensure that there's an actual integration and not competing effects?

À (1040)

Mr. Len Good: That's a serious problem that you raise, and it's one we're aware of. I would say at this point that I actually can't give you any definite assurances, but we're thinking about it. I guess the issue is this. The Africa Fund will be there to fund the Africa action plan that comes out of Kananaskis on June 27, so that plan itself will go a long way to indicating how in fact the $500 million fund will get spent.

In terms of your problem, therefore, I guess we're doing everything we can to work closely with Ambassador Fowler and the G-8 African personal representatives who are developing that action plan in response to NEPAD. We're doing everything we can to ensure that the plan that goes together is one that has the kinds of characteristics you describe.

There is a gentleman behind me here, the CIDA vice-president for Africa, who's obviously intimately aware of everything we're doing with CIDA's money, CIDA's budget, in Africa, but is also working very closely with Ambassador Fowler and the Africa personal representatives.

So we're doing everything we can to process things to make sure we don't end up with something on June 27 that has the kind of contradictions that you point to as a possibility. As I said, there are no guarantees.

The Chair: Thank you.

If I may be permitted to follow up here, some clarification might be important.

My understanding is that the $500 million is a trust fund. If I understand what a trust is, I don't think it is something that is....

Well, I shouldn't clarify what I think a trust is, but could you tell us? In the sense of a trust fund, it didn't seem to me, from my understanding, that it's an envelope that's there to be spent by CIDA. I'm not too sure about the whole notion of it being a trust and how disbursements go when one operates a trust.

We're talking about it as though it's a budget line with an envelope to be dispensed. I just wonder if we could clarify what we mean by a $500-million trust, because I understand that's what this is supposed to be.

Mr. Len Good: Actually, the thinking of what the Africa Fund would be has evolved rather significantly, and your reference to a trust fund is actually a reference to what the original concept was. So that was initially the thinking, that there should be a trust fund out there with some kind of independent governance.

But as you may recall--and maybe I shouldn't go too far down this track--the Auditor General was somewhat critical of all these kinds of trust funds being developed, this one being a relatively small one but nevertheless being something that she was critical of.

So while there was that original thinking on a trust fund, it never came to anything. In fact, what happened finally is reflected in legislation that was tabled in February, I believe, and passed by roughly the end of March. That legislation, which I call roughly “the Africa Fund act”, says a fund will be created and the fund will be a program. It says in the legislation that a minister will be named by order in council to be responsible for that program. That's what the legislation says.

Subsequently, at the end of March, there was an order in council that named Minister Whelan as the minister responsible for the fund for the program. At this particular point, as a technical matter, the minister is there with her own program. It's not actually fully integrated into CIDA yet. She's there as a minister with this program, but the process continues, and over the course of the next month or so, we'll go to Treasury Board with a submission, and that Treasury Board submission will basically bring the Canada Fund for Africa into CIDA so that it will, in the final analysis, be a program within CIDA.

Now, as the minister said, although it's a program within CIDA, it will be kept visible, separate. So there will be a separate accounting for the expenditures. There will be communications associated with the things that it funds.

But to come back to these estimates, if you look in the estimates here, you'll see a reference to, for example, the Canadian Landmines Fund, you'll see a reference to the climate change fund, and you should see a reference to the Canada Fund for Africa, and it will be parallel to those kinds of funds. So the word “trust” has definitely disappeared from the vocabulary.

À (1045)

The Chair: Thanks for the clarification of that issue.

Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I would like to read you the following excerpt from the paper prepared by the Library:

According to the NGOs report released in March 2002, The Reality of Aid 2002: An Independent Review of Poverty Reduction and Development Assistance, aid to sub-Saharan Africa has been lower in the past four years than in any years since 1984 ,and, moreover: “a lot of aid in practice is spent within the donor country—for instance funding consultants under technical cooperation and paying for refugees in donor countries and imputed student costs.” (March 19 News Release by the Canadian Council for International Cooperation CCIC-What's New)

My question is along the same lines as the one asked by Ms. Jennings. You cannot tell us how much assistance will be provided for Africa, but we can ask you what CIDA's intentions are. Do you intend to withdraw because we are going to be investing $500 million, or do you intend to increase your aid, to compensate for this? We know that unfortunately, under NEPAD, little attention is paid to the issue of AIDS. In any case, so far this has not been the case.

It is a known fact that two thirds of the 40 million people with AIDS are African, and that to some extent, we cannot introduce other programs effectively, if we do not start by dealing with that one. So, what is your strategy? I know you are in a special position given that the minister manages her budget in parallel with the CIDA budget. So, what do you intend to do? That is what I want to know.

Mr. Len Good: Let me be quite direct. It is very clear that we will be increasing our expenditures in Africa, and not just because of the $500 million. A large share of the additional 8% mentioned by the Prime Minister will go to Africa. The minister touched on the concentration of our efforts in a few countries. This was mentioned in the document on effectiveness, which formed the basis of our consultations last September. In that document we mentioned that with our additional budget, we would probably be focusing very much on countries with good governance, but where the tools to ensure effectiveness are in place. This is probably true of most of the countries on which we are focusing our efforts. We will probably have $10 million and $15 million, and probably two thirds of that amount will be earmarked for Africa.

À (1050)

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I have another brief question. CIDA organized a consultation with African civil society in Montreal. You got both criticism and praise for this, because rather than being held in Africa, the consultation process took place here. I would like to know whether there will be a public report on this meeting. That could help us in drafting our report.

I would also like to know what your own conclusions are regarding this meeting, which was extremely important. Personally, all I have seen is what was reported in the newspapers.

Mr. Len Good: As I said, I have with me today the vice-president for Africa, Paul Hunt. I did not attend the meeting you mentioned, but Paul did. So it would perhaps be preferable for him to comment on this himself.

Mr. Paul Hunt (Acting Vice-President, Africa and Middle East Branch, Canadian International Development Agency): Thank you very much.

The Chair: Bienvenue, monsieur Hunt.

Mr. Paul Hunt: Merci beaucoup.

Thank you for your question. The answer is easy. This was a very important event to which we had invited some 500 people, including 135 to 150 who travelled from Africa, Africans who were in Canada and Canadians interested in development and Africa.

Activities of this type, during which we discuss the importance of development, particularly in Africa, are very important to us. As the minister mentioned this morning, through Canada and our embassies in Africa, we provided civil society with small amounts of money to promote the discussion on NEPAD, African development and the importance of the change that is taking place at this time.

The conference was an initiative of the minister, CIDA and the Canadian government, so that in partnership with Ambassador Fowler and the G-8, we could talk about Africa, highlight the change occurring in Africa at the moment and give our Canadian and African partners a forum in which to discuss these issues.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I understand, but I am asking you whether there will be a public report and what conclusions you drew from this meeting.

Mr. Paul Hunt: CIDA's website is already posting key documents presented by the four people who took part in the program. Reports from the workshops on the first and second days, which covered regional and thematic issues, will be available on CIDA's website.

The participants in each workshop are currently discussing the conclusions of the workshops. This is not a CIDA report as such, but rather the highlights of these group discussions.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: When will this information be available?

Mr. Paul Hunt: I do not have an exact date. The members of each team are discussing their conclusions at the moment. I hope that these documents will be available soon on the website. There is an icon on CIDA's website that provides access to documents on Kananaskis and this consultation, which was held on May 4 and 5. I hope that it will soon include all the documents and the presentations made at that time.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: And what are your personal conclusions?

[English]

The Chair: We have to move on, Madam Lalonde.

Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: You can sit there, Paul. It's coming back to Africa again.

We have had a good presentation. You have made your presentation. The minister has said thanks. My colleagues on the other side have said thanks. Colleagues on this side have said thanks. We have focused on percentages, on the 0.7%, the 8%, all the percentages. Nevertheless, you have $2 billion worth of CIDA money right now.

During the time I was getting a briefing from your office, about a year and a half ago, I asked a simple question, and until today I've never received an answer. I asked what the success rate was, which countries had actually, over the last 20 to 25 years that CIDA has been in existence, come out of poverty into what I would call emerging nations.

Interestingly, there is a fatigue. The minister alluded to it, and you're alluding to it. Canadians are tired of saying, “Where is CIDA money going? What is happening with CIDA?”

I've travelled extensively abroad. I've lived overseas. I have seen Canadian dollars come in and I've seen how they've disappeared and all that. I've been on both sides. I've seen where you are putting money in.

While CIDA does have a name overseas, among other countries—and a good name at certain times—in Canada, it doesn't have a good name because there is a fatigue among Canadians because we have poured in so much money, but they don't know what the end product is.

Let me quote you something in this paper that is from the Algerian minister of African affairs. It says:

At present...a $1-million aid package is split as follows: $600,000 back to the donor country for consultants' studies and reports and $300,000 in corruption on both sides. Only about $100,000 filters down to the intended recipients.

That's only about 10% of aid dollars.

Now, you can say you'll have consultation processes. You can say we have all this, we are changing. You do carry a historical record behind you, and it goes into the future. Why should Canadians trust CIDA, trust that the dollars that have been given to CIDA as a mandate to help developing countries are being spent correctly when criticism is coming from all sides? Why should we trust you? Tell us that.

À (1055)

Mr. Len Good: Was that really a question and not a comment?

I have a couple of comments, if I could. You said so much, one couldn't be comprehensive in replying to you, but I have a couple of comments.

First, on this question of success rate, I think it's a difficult game. There are a couple of things I could say about it. One is that Canada's $2 billion...if you put that up against the amounts of money that are being spent in developing countries out of their own revenues, or compared to the contributions of other donor countries in total to the IFIs, Canada is small--we have to recognize that; very small.

The total aid budget of all donor countries in India is a fraction of 1% of their budget. To say that if all donors are giving to India a fraction of 1% of their budget, and CIDA is a fraction of that fraction, then what does it really mean to say in what way is what's happening in India a result of what CIDA is doing?

This is simply to say that I think we have to be a little bit modest about the link between what we're doing and ultimately what happens in these countries in which we work. This is a question that increasingly becomes relevant when donors start working together, because increasingly we've been making joint efforts, and as we make joint efforts, the notion that one can isolate Canada's contribution will be increasingly difficult. This is an issue that's actually on the table these days internationally.

There are success stories. If you go to Africa, you'll see increasingly that countries are becoming more democratic. I saw a statistic that said of 56 countries in Africa, 42 in the recent past have had or are having more or less democratic elections. But the tendency is absolutely in the right direction.

If you take a particular country like Ghana, it's gone through 20 years of economic liberalization, starting in the 1980s, and in the 1990s it got a constitution. All of this happened under a fellow who was an army sergeant; he created a constitution in 1992, and elections, which he won twice in the 1990s. Now the country has voted his party out of power; the opposition is in power. The country is coming forward in a very positive way, but most of it is driven by itself and what it's willing to do.

Other countries—for instance, Côte d'Ivoire, a star country a few years ago, has fallen a little bit on hard times. There are ups and downs.

This is simply to say that I think the general tendency is obviously in the right direction, but I think the notion of success rates is a little bit simplistic, but even more so if we're looking for CIDA's accountability, responsibility, and contribution to that success or lack of it.

Á (1100)

Having said that, though, your question is fundamentally right. Canadians are saying, then what are you bringing to the table?

To come to your $1 million example about $600,000 on consultants and so on, you've put on the table a really important issue, and this has to do with this question of capacity-building and technical assistance, which are not quite the right thing. I think implicit in a lot of the criticism to which you allude is the fact that historically developed countries, including Canada, have brought technical assistance to the table. That has too often meant consultants, good people, going in, doing something, and getting a job done, but leaving, and not leaving any capacity behind in the country, not having developed their public service in any way whatsoever. Increasingly we're recognizing this to be the case and that we have to change. We have to make sure that if we bring Canadian expertise into these developing countries—and it's expertise at every level, from technical engineering, to legal, to parliamentarians sharing their experiences—we have to make sure that when our people leave those countries they've left behind people who are more knowledgeable and in a better position to develop their own country.

So it's not the fact that we spend $600,000 out of that $1 million on Canadian expertise; it's that this expertise go there and leave something behind. We're trying to make that happen, but it's a process.

Á (1105)

The Chair: I'm calling the meeting to order again.

Mr. Paquette.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to ask a question about an incident that occurred, which did not have any consequences, but could have had some consequences on future developments. When the report was tabled on the World Trade Organization and the issues involved for Canada, I said that I wanted to issue an additional opinion. I agreed with all of the recommendations in the report, but I wanted to add a recommendation that dealt specifically with the issue of consultation and the role of the provinces in the decision-making process. Imagine how surprised I was to find, when the report came out, that my additional comment had become a dissenting opinion. I do not disagree with the report at all, I simply wanted to add a comment.

I would like to know why it was decided to show my comment as a dissenting opinion, when Standing Order 108(1)(a) states that there may be opinions that dissent from or are supplementary to the report. So there is distinction made. In my view, it is important that this distinction, which is contained in the Standing Orders, be made. If we have a dissenting opinion, we have a dissenting opinion, and if we have supplementary information, we have supplementary information. That is my question.

[English]

The Chair: Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yesterday, I replaced my colleague on the Sub-Committee on International Trade, where we were studying another report, the one on the Free Trade Area of the Americas. At the end of the meeting, there was also a discussion about a supplementary opinion, and the chairman, Mr. Harb, spoke about a supplementary report. He said that there was agreement on the report as a whole, but that if we wanted to do a supplementary report, we should proceed as we did in the case of the report on the WTO. It was very clear to him that we were not talking about a dissenting opinion, but rather about a supplementary opinion.

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: [Editor's note: Inaudible] ...is right, that there can be dissenting opinions or supplementary opinions, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a).

I think that what has happened in the past is that most opinions have been dissenting, and I can only speculate that perhaps, for one reason or another, when the actual editing of the report was done, the past practice may have somehow simply been taken for granted as a customary thing, and consequently dissenting opinion crept in. But I'm only speculating, Madam Chair, at this stage. I was away during that week.

At this stage, we're in the hands of the committee about how to proceed. Usually, of course, when it comes to additional information, it can be inserted into the body of the report if the committee so wishes. This has usually been the process as well, but it's very clear that the member has every right, of course, to request that a supplementary opinion be appended, and if the committee so agrees, it can be done.

Á (1110)

The Chair: I'll suggest then that we try to rectify this on the website. We can do it on the website immediately if all we're doing is changing from dissenting to supplementary.

Mr. Paquette.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I believe my colleagues are quite right to be concerned about the way in which this happened. As the clerk mentioned, on checking we may find that the issue is one of poor knowledge of the Standing Orders. I think there are two approaches, and they are parallel. First, we have to check how this happened and when, to ensure it does not happen again. Second, we have to see how to go about correcting this, because I think it should be corrected. I think that a dissenting report and a supplementary report are two completely different types of report. In order to respect the consensus achieved within the Sub-Committee on International Trade, and that we hope to achieve on the full committee and on other committees and subcommittees, we can increasingly agree that there is such a thing as a supplementary report, and that this information should be disseminated, so that a similar error does not happen again on our committee or other committees.

I would therefore move that the committee start by correcting the error and next, through the clerk, investigate to find out exactly how and when the error happened.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I think that both aspects are important, Madam Chair, in the interest of prevention, not repression. Once again, I do not think the mistake was very damaging in this case, but, in other cases, it might have been. If I had wanted to present a dissenting opinion and it appeared as a supplementary opinion on Bill C-20, for instance, imagine how I would have looked in my riding.

So I hope we can get a more comprehensive report on this at a future meeting to find out where the problem may have occurred. I have here a copy of the text I submitted, which states clearly: “Supplementary Opinion by the Bloc Québécois”. So someone changed this, probably without any ulterior motive, but it is important to determine where the process broke down.

[English]

The Clerk: Obviously, Madam Chair, this will be taken up with the committees directorate during the weekly procedural meeting of the clerks. I will put it on the agenda to ensure it is properly addressed.

At this stage, I would, of course, wonder if the committee wishes to give precise direction, or would they wish to wait until I return with a report? In other words, is the committee asking that a formal process for correcting or changing this be undertaken, which, admittedly, is somewhat awkward?

Á (1115)

The Chair: I would think we have to rectify it in some way. It seemed to me we had a basic understanding we would take or accept, in some way, this supplementary opinion. This was left to be fixed by the committee.

So we'll do what we can. We could immediately do the website. Through the clerk's office, we can then see what can be done with the other printed material. I'm told there will be a cost if we go for reprinting, but we can change the website immediately.

Then you can come back to us with—

The Clerk: With respect, Madam Chair, as this report has been tabled in the House, I would like, with your permission, to look into the question of how this should be modified. The report is a report to the House now and is really the property of the House.

Therefore, I would respectfully suggest the committee might not at this stage wish to make any changes, until we can provide more information.

The Chair: Okay.

Do we agree then that he'll take it to the clerks' meeting, and through the House procedure, and find out what is the technical way in which we can do this with less confusion?

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Yes.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: So there are two things: first, a report on how this happened, and second, a report to determine how the error can be corrected. Do we agree on that?

[English]

The Chair: That's right.

Okay. Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: And a report back to the committee as quickly as possible.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Jennings.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: It has to do with the appearance of the Assistant Deputy Minister, World Policy and Departmental Security, Foreign Affairs, Mr. James Wright, last January 17. I had very specific questions for him on the whole matter of potential and real prisoners of the Canadian military in Afghanistan, whether they were Afghan or others, and their transfer to the United States. I had asked what the international law was on that because he was assuring us that international law was protecting them. I raised the fact that Canada does not have the death penalty whereas the United States does. So I wanted to know what protection and what guarantees Canada would be demanding to ensure that the death penalty would not apply in the case of those prisoners transferred to the American military.

Because he did not have all the information, Mr. Wright said he would provide us with a written answer. Now, on April 22, our clerk gave us Mr. Wright's answer and I find it totally unsatisfactory. I will simply quote the second-last paragraph of the first page of his letter.

Death penalty. As there are international legal rules that apply to the transfer of prisoners, they will be transferred to those obligations. International law, including the Geneva Conventions, does not preclude the possibility of the death penalty. However, it does offer legal guarantees to the accused and excludes the application of the death penalty in specific cases.

Now, that's exactly what I had asked him. I had asked him what the international legal rules were, what were the laws at the international level that applied to transfers and the rights of prisoners, which conventions applied and, within those conventions and laws, which specific clauses applied. I asked him, if the death sentence applied under international law, in which specific cases and under which legislation and which clause that could be invoked. I asked him what legal guarantees there were concerning the application or non-application of the death penalty and what were the exclusions from the application of the death penalty. That is exactly the information I wanted to obtain from the assistant deputy minister and he made a commitment to provide it in writing. Now, that's the answer we got.

I'm quite outraged at his answer and I'm asking this committee to communicate with that assistant deputy minister, if the members of the committee agree with me, to express our dissatisfaction with his answer and ask him to answer as asked.

Á (1120)

[English]

The Chair: The question is, what is the wish of the committee at this point?

Mr. Day.

[Translation]

Mr. Stockwell Day: I'd like to check something out. If the deputy minister made the comment, is it the deputy minister's responsibility or the minister's in a case like that?

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I don't care a hoot! Quite impolitely, I don't care a hoot! If protocol says that the letter should be addressed to the minister, then address it to the minister. What interests me is the contents. We didn't get the answer. I don't spend my time doing research just for fun: it's to be properly prepared when we have witnesses here and for my questions to be meaningful and lead to something concrete and positive and all that.

It was a question on the fate of the prisoners the Canadian military might capture and the transfer to the American military was a very important point. Actually, it was headline news and was covered by the media for months. I think we have the right to a specific clarification with content and meat on the bone. That's what the assistant deputy minister promised us but we didn't get it.

If you ask me why I'm raising that question only today, then I'll answer that it's because when we got the letter, our committee's agenda had already been set and we had decided to hold meetings outside of Ottawa all across Canada. This is the first opportunity I've had to raise this question with the committee.

[English]

The Chair: Would you want to raise this with the minister when he's here?

Mr. Stockwell Day: My sense, Madam Chair, is that I agree we could have all kinds of debate about the issue itself in terms of what has happened. But if a member of this committee feels they have been improperly or inadequately informed, then that's a valid concern. I just feel it should be the person who gave the report.... Also, the minister has to bear some shared responsibility, I would think.

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): I just feel that we, as a committee, should note the answers are far from satisfactory and that Ms. Jennings should resubmit her questions.

In resubmitting your questions, simply observe, for the benefit of the deputy minister, that the committee was not happy with the previous answers and we and she want a much more comprehensive and truthful answer.

The Chair: Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I don't know if this would satisfy Ms. Jennings, but it seems to me it would be interesting to tell the department and the deputy minister in charge—Mr. Wright is the senior deputy minister of the Minister of Foreign Affairs—that we take our work seriously and when questions like the one she asked are put to them—it could have been put by myself or someone else—we expect serious follow-up.

Mr. Harvard, I'm going to listen to Ms. Jennings, but it seems to me she's already put questions to the committee and that the deputy minister has answered. So she wants to submit the question to the committee and I understand that. So it should be the committee's representative who addresses Deputy Minister Wright. We don't have to be impolite, but just to point out that we agree with Ms. Jennings to the effect that the answer is not satisfactory.

Á (1125)

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. John Harvard: Let me say--perhaps just for the sake of not making it too complicated--that Ms. Jennings write the letter. She would have the benefit of saying in the letter that she raised this with the committee and the committee agreed with her that the answers were not satisfactory.

I think it's getting too complicated if we ask the committee to more or less write the letter. Let's keep it a matter right now between Ms. Jennings and the deputy minister. But Ms. Jennings has the support of the committee in saying that we too are not satisfied with the answers.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Madam Chair, I cannot agree—

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Obhrai was ahead of you.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: My concern on this is--and I'm going to ask Marlene here--the reply you received from the deputy...

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Madam Chair, when we put questions to a witness and the latter is not in a position to provide specific answers... As in the case of Mr. Len Good, I put my questions to the witnesses through the chair and the answers come back to the members of the committee through the chair. So Mr. Wright quite properly addressed his letter to the chair and not to Ms. Jennings, a member of the committee, because the questions become the questions of the committee and the answers are sent to the committee through the chair. That is why I do not agree with Mr. Harvard's proposal. I'm not questioning his good faith in trying to have cooler minds prevail. The not-so-cool mind is Ms. Jennings', and not the other minds on this committee. My suggestion is that the chair, if it is the will of the committee, address a letter saying that the answer is still unsatisfactory and she can use the transcript of our proceedings to see what went on, to see the questions I put and ask for clarification as well as the clarifications that I brought in myself.

[English]

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Can I go back to my question? I was cut short here.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I apologize for that, Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: That's fine. What concerns me here is I can see Marlene did not probably get what she was looking for in the reply that came forward from the deputy minister. Maybe she's right; it went to the committee. But the question I think all of us should face here is whether the reply would fulfil the committee requirement. Maybe it is not in favour of Mrs. Jennings--not what she was looking for--but it may be procedurally right for the deputy minister who replied. The question for me is, did he fulfil his responsibility or not? The end result is a different issue. She can ask that question again, or whatever, because it was not satisfactory to her, whether or not it was satisfactory to all the others.

The Chair: I'd like to ask for some agreement around whether the chair could thank Mr. Wright for fulfilling his obligation by responding to us, but indicate that the answer had more or less not directly answered--

Ms. Marlene Jennings: —the committee.

The Chair: —the concerns that were raised.

Mr. Stockwell Day: Madam Chair, I'm leaning toward what you are saying. I appreciate Ms. Jennings' concern. It does raise the question. I asked questions today for which I could argue I didn't get the details I wanted—the answers weren't as specific. I think it's proper that the questions come through the chair and the replies to you, and if a member is requesting a more specific and more exact report, that's fine. It gets to be subjective, I think, in terms of looking as if we're actually sanctioning him. If he's brought information that's knowingly false, that's one thing. If a member feels it is inadequate—and I'm not arguing with Ms. Jennings—

Á (1130)

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Madam Chair, this isn't a matter of sanctioning, it's a matter of specific questions that were put—

[English]

Mr. Stockwell Day: —I think it's appropriate that the chair write back to say a member is concerned and we'd like more information.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: It is true that I'm the one who raised the question of the death penalty and that it was immediately followed by questions on the same matter put by members of the opposition and other members on the government side. I'm the one who raised the question, but it nevertheless remains that it became a matter of interest for many members of the committee during our hearing.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Jennings—

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I would like to clarify that point because many are saying I'm dissatisfied. If it was just my own dissatisfaction, I would have taken the initiative to send that witness a letter with my own signature on it. But because our procedure is that we go through the chair, I thought it was best to come back to the committee and let the committee make a decision. If the members of the committee had said they were satisfied with the answers in that letter, maybe I would have followed up on it myself. That's why I became... I wanted to be clear that it's not Ms. Jennings but the committee, as a majority, that finds the answer unsatisfactory and incomplete.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. I'll hear a last intervention before the chair rules.

[Translation]

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Could I get another copy? I don't have any.

[English]

The Chair: It was circulated on receipt.

All right. What the chair will do, since there were general expressions of dissatisfaction with the content of the response, is so indicate to Mr. Wright. Thank you.

Let's move on.

Mr. Stockwell Day: Madam Chair, I'd like to present a motion for consideration of the committee at this point in time, if we have copies of it.

I'll read the motion.

[Translation]

NOTICE OF MOTION

Funding Criteria and Independent Audits

That the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade call upon the Minister responsible for CIDA to monitor and audit each grant by:

– Establishing clear guidelines governing the distribution of CIDA grants based on a clear articulation of expected benefits for monies spent.

– Establish a system whereby mandatory annual independent audits will measure the results achieved by each grant in relation to the expected results articulated in the original application.

Á (1135)

[English]

The Chair: Okay. At the outset, I think the chair needs to inform the committee that there was no notice given, and the only way we can do this is through unanimous consent.

A voice: This is notice.

The Chair: We'll take this as notice.

Mr. Stockwell Day: I understand the procedure, and I understand also that with unanimous consent it could go forward, so I first ask for unanimous consent.

A voice: No.

The Chair: Okay, we'll take this as notice then.

Thank you, Mr. Day.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]