Finance Committee on Oct. 31st, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Madame Glover.

We'll go to Mr. Mai, please.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I simply want to say a few words about the Champlain Bridge.

I really fought for the government to invest in the bridge. The reason that the media talked about it so much and that forced us to make this a national issue is that the government refused to invest in a piece of infrastructure that was collapsing. And it is still slow in doing so. That is why you've heard about it as far away as Saint-Boniface, Manitoba.

Ms. McLeod, it will be my pleasure to go there and see what the highway is all about. I agree. I was explaining that the reason we have to really invest in infrastructure is that we're talking about public security and public safety. That's what I was driving at. And that's why we asked the government to invest in infrastructure.

Again, we find that the government is doing its part, but not enough. When we speak about the infrastructure deficit, and when we perceive the real consequences of that, we know that the government is not doing enough. When the government tells us that it doesn't have the money but wants to purchase F-35s, for me, it's a question of choice. You have a need. It is the responsibility of the federal government, and we're just not doing enough on that side. I agree, and I appreciate and understand your battle. Bringing the issue forward is not easy. Hopefully this time the government will listen. Our thoughts are with you.

Engineers Without Borders, can you tell us more about the IATI? I didn't understand from your presentation why we're not moving forward. There seem to be benefits to that. We're talking about transparency. Why hasn't the government signed that treaty yet?

[James Haga]

I hope that today is part of the process of moving it forward.

We've been in conversations with all parties and with people who work in different departments within the bureaucracy that are involved in delivering Canadian foreign aid. There is a lot of support, quite frankly, for the initiative.

Part of it, I would say, is that first, Canada is in a slightly unique position in the sense that we're a bilingual country, obviously, and there are additional costs associated with the translation of documents for an initiative like this. We've actually been working closely with people in CIDA to consider some creative ways around the additional cost burden of something like that.

Second, I think one of the things we've just heard from Minister Oda's office is that Canada is looking at this seriously. It's been in transition as an initiative. We haven't said no to this as a country. We are still an official observer involved in this, and we have been involved in this, as a government, since it was initiated in 2008. There is a significant international summit coming up at the end of the November about aid effectiveness at which Canada will be represented, of course. The minister will be there. We're hoping that we'll take some steps forward at that point.

I haven't heard a huge amount of opposition to it. It's really just about perhaps getting it on the agenda and fitting it into an already long list of our priorities.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I have a question for the Canadian Boreal Initiative. I read in your brief that you hear from both first nations and the provinces that the federal government used to provide more support in the past than it does today for community-led planning. And you said that such planning is presently underfunded. Can you explain that to us?

[Mary Granskou]

Yes, it is essentially that. We actually hear from provinces, as well, that there used to be a greater capacity or ability in Aboriginal Affairs, previously INAC, to support planning on a broader landscape scale. It is at this scale that you achieve, often, the kind of certainty that business needs and communities need and the certainty that is needed to protect the environment.

It was previously stronger than it is today.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll go to Ms. McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you. I'll share my time with Mr. Adler.

I just wanted to quickly follow up in terms of the investments that have been made in partnership with the industry, whether that be the green transformation in the pulp and paper or some of the other initiatives of the federal government. Have you seen an impact through your groups in terms of some of those initiatives?

[Mary Granskou]

I would defer to FPAC, because they are the sector. We collaborate with the sector with the Boreal initiative.

I think what it has allowed is enough breathing space for the forest sector to think about how they drive forward into the future. How do they really capture a market to be truly sustainable and have those practices broadly celebrated? Getting there is a very complex business, but they are very committed to doing that.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, and I think perhaps all our guests here today can see the real challenges the federal government has as we look in terms of priorities and moving forward. Of course we're almost at $600 billion in terms of the national debt.

What we're going to try to do, of course, is make sure that government spending is as efficient as it can be in terms of our departments, so we're looking at $4 billion in savings. Also, to try to have an economy that is strong to generate the revenue for the government to do all these things that are very important, whether it be infrastructure, or supports for other countries, or....

With that sort of general comment, I know we will have the task ahead of us in terms of making recommendations, but I will move it over to my colleague, Mr. Adler.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Adler.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

It's really rich of the NDP to be talking about increased stimulus spending now, when they voted against the stimulus package when it was introduced, and would have left Canadians hung out to dry. It reminds us of John Kerry, when he said that he voted against it before he voted for it. This seems to be the NDP fashion.

Having said all of that, I want to go back to Engineers Without Borders. I like your style. I think you do some good work. I want to know where you're active now, the kinds of projects you're working on, how you determine where to deploy your resources, that sort of thing. I'm just curious to know more about you.

[James Haga]

Great. We currently operate in four countries within Africa. We don't operate anywhere else. We used to be all over the world. We found that we weren't really doing much anywhere. So we tried to focus those resources, not all that dissimilar from what Canada has done in the last couple of years around choosing countries of focus.

The approach that we take, through and through in all of our work, is to consider how we can improve and optimize a bit of a fledgling system, which is that of foreign aid, where a lot of good work is being done. Aid can work, but it can work much more effectively. So we try to bring that angle to the system.

To give you a sense, we work in Malawi, Zambia, Burkina Faso, and Ghana across a few different sectors. One would be looking in the agriculture sector, another would be water and sanitation, and a third would be within sort of decentralized government services in these countries.

A common thread runs across that, and I'll use an example specifically within Malawi. Huge sums of money are going to that country to provide water and essential services for their citizens. One of the big problems is that after about a three-year period of a lot of these water points having been built in a country like Malawi, roughly 40% of them are non-functioning. A reason for that would be that outside technologies are being used that are not available locally when a breakdown happens. Another reason might be that communities themselves aren't actually an intricate part of the process, so you don't have any management capacity once a non-government organization pulls out.

We're working with the local government to create a data management system across the country that shows where water points are functioning and where they're not functioning. This is because of the cost differential. It costs about $10,000 to build a new water point, about $100 to fix an existing one with pretty simple technology. We're trying to build a capacity in Malawi to ensure that anyone who wants to go there and do development work has to pass through the government system, so that they can say, “You might want to go to that community because there's a legitimate personal connection, but in fact they don't need that service. It's much more urgent in this part of the country.”

It's just about playing that role of improving efficiency.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Adler.

I'm going to take the next round. Hopefully we'll get three more rounds in.

I have three questions to address. The first is to Mr. Raven.

To follow up on Mr. Jean's point, the discussion of a toll road, my understanding from your response is that if the government did commit to this amount and there were some combination involving a toll road in that, you'd be okay with that.

[David Raven]

I can give you my personal view, but I can't speak for the province on this one at all.

I had no problem paying the ten dollars for the Coquihalla. If the province had left that toll on there, it's possible that the funding would be available for more upgrades. That's my personal opinion only.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Benty, did you want to comment? Do you share that view?

[Christina Benty]

Yes, I mean, it still is the Trans-Canada Highway. Again, I'm not personally opposed to it having a toll road, but as we've indicated before, it is 150 kilometres of twisty, windy, mountainous road. As Mayor Raven indicated, we hear the ambulance sirens going out onto that highway sometimes two or three times a day.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I appreciate that.

I'm sorry, I have to move on. I did want to get three questions in.

The second one is for Engineers Without Borders. I want to compliment you on your work, but I want you to expand on what it would actually look like. When you say accountability and transparency, I think most people nod their heads and say “yes, absolutely”. Maybe describe what a government website would look like. Would it be the project, the amount, follow-up? What kinds of things would you see on there in a very physical way?

[James Haga]

One thing is that we're not starting from zero with this idea. The government has already taken a number of steps that have gotten us really quite close to what this standard would achieve. Only two months ago CIDA, for instance, launched its open data portal.

Essentially, taking it to the next step would require that our information be in accordance with an international standard rather than just based on--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Tell me what that means.

[James Haga]

It means having common definitions. If I am a government line ministry worker in the government of Ghana, I'm not really interested in knowing uniquely what Canada did and uniquely what another donor government did. There are probably 50 donor governments that are operating in my country contributing to my national budget. I would want to know across the whole scope what investments are most effective. Having a common standard definining what donor countries like Canada need to publish allows for comparability across the board so we can see what $200 million of investment in the education sector from Canada does in comparison to $200 million in education investments from another donor country.

Right now it's a little bit like comparing apples and oranges, because we're using different definitions and different standards, and we're including different pieces of information in how we report.

Does that answer your question?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

It does a little, but I'd like more, even if you could give an example. You don't have to do it today. What would it actually look like to a citizen or to an NGO such as you? What kinds of metrics would they want to see so they could do these kinds of comparisons? It's something you can follow up on at a later date if you want to.

[James Haga]

I can speak to it a little right now if you like.

One of the things we find right now is that CIDA, for example, as the biggest foreign aid distributor in Canada, has a project browser in which you can find project information. It is largely incomplete, because it doesn't actually show, for instance, future projections of aid spending. That's something that this standard would allow to happen.

It's a particular piece of information that's crucial, because it allows for our partner countries to plan effectively with their national budgets for what they're going to achieve. It also allows groups like ours to see where our priorities are and where we can fit in to those government priorities.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mrs. Granskou, I have about a minute left, but I want to follow up on Mr. Jean's point with respect to the mining industry and the environmental groups.

The change in the forestry industry between the late 1980s and today has been very dramatic. I agree with him that it should happen with respect to the mining industry as a whole.

Who facilitated that change? You said the industry sort of changed position, but environmental groups moved a lot of the way too. Did your organization play a role in instigating and facilitating that? Would you be willing to play that kind of a role?

[Mary Granskou]

We act as a convenor in a variety of ways with a variety of sectors, but we were engaged. We're in very active dialogue with the mining sector as well. We look for areas where there can be common purpose. We're very active working with a number of first nations across the country.

For instance, in Ontario it was very important to have an effective consultation regime, and the mining sector agreed with that. We ended up with a new mining permitting system that still needs to be fully developed, but it's headed in an interesting direction.

I don't know if that answers your question.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

It does, and I may follow up with you on it, because I'm over my time here. I'm brutal with everyone else, so I'll be brutal with myself.

Thank you. I'll go to Mr. Julian and then Ms. Glover.