Evidence of meeting #4 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was afghanistan.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:50 a.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Our helicopters are currently still in use.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Yes, well, I'm talking about the mission that we're trying to literally get off the ground. Okay, thank you very much for that.
A question I had as well is on the bilateral—I'm happy that we had an explanation of the difference between contributions and grants, because I'm seeing more grants. We're seeing an emphasis on more grant allocations than contributions. Am I correct? Particularly when I look at page 166, under development partners, as an example, we have grants for bilateral programming. There's an item—well, it's not a lot in the context of a budget like this—of $1.9 million for bilateral programming. That's at page 166.
Who's that for? It says “Grants for Bilateral Programming: Grants to all levels of other donor country governments”. Is this government-to-government we're speaking of? I believe it's under CIDA. Yes, it's under CIDA.
11:55 a.m.
President, Canadian International Development Agency
Maybe what I can do is answer the general question while Greg will answer the specific one.
In terms of the use of grants or contributions, it depends very much on the country situation. If we work through UN agencies such as the World Food Program or the United Nations Development Program or UNICEF or UN-HABITAT, then we'll end up using a higher portion of grant.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
I guess the general question is, while we're looking for the specific answers, are we spending or allocating, according to this document...? I understand the difference between grants and contributions; I appreciate that. Are we putting more money now towards grants than we were before? Yes or no?
11:55 a.m.
Acting Vice-President, Human Resources and Corporate Services Branch (HRCS), Canadian International Development Agency
We are.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
We talked about trying to gauge results. When we have grants we've already established, my concern is that there's less oversight and one could say accountability.
11:55 a.m.
President, Canadian International Development Agency
That's where I think Greg's point was a very important one. Looking at the way in which we do grants, for example, if I take a very concrete example in Afghanistan, the MISFA, the microfinance facility, that's grants but in fact there are regular evaluations done. We sit on the governance. We have a Canadian on the board of directors of MISFA. We actually have regular oversights. We reviewed the organization's audited financial statements. Each of the participants in that program has an audited financial statement. So we actually have an ability to look very closely into both fiduciary concreteness of what's going on but also the results.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
But the way contributions are done gives you more reach, if you will, than grants would, notwithstanding your explanation. Is that correct?
11:55 a.m.
President, Canadian International Development Agency
No. In terms of the traditional distinction between grants and contributions, some years ago that would absolutely have been the case. In the case of the UN organizations and a number of the other organizations, grant is the structure that is used.
What we have now done is we've introduced many of the elements of oversight that traditionally have been in a contribution element to the grant.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
That's based on the participation of these organizations but not specific to the file and the actual project. For instance, if we're on the World Bank, you'd say we're giving a grant to the World Bank, therefore we have some oversight through being a participant in the World Bank.
11:55 a.m.
President, Canadian International Development Agency
No. The important element, actually, is for the specific programs. Now, for example, if we worked with the World Bank on a program like the Afghanistan reconstruction trust fund—
11:55 a.m.
President, Canadian International Development Agency
—we would actually receive specific statements, as well as third party oversights by Deloitte Touche, in terms of how the funds are being used. So what we're able to do now, at the program level, is to have a clear understanding of how the moneys are actually being used.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
One last question, Mr. Chair.
On November 16, General Ray Henault, chair of NATO, a Canadian, stated the following:
We see more emphasis on the military component because of the insurgency and the requirement to fight, especially in the southern region and the eastern region, and perhaps less on the civilian components, whether it's justice or political or economic. What has to happen is they have to rebalance, and ultimately the civilian component has to take precedence over the military component.
How are DFAIT and CIDA planning to rebalance the scenario envisioned by General Henault?
11:55 a.m.
President, Canadian International Development Agency
Let me note very quickly that we're going to be spending over $250 million this year. Last year we increased from $100 million to $139 million, and last year we increased from $8 million to $39 million, so a fourfold increase—or $5 million to $39 million--almost an eightfold increase in Kandahar in one year alone.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
NDP
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
Thank you for appearing here today and for your presentations, ladies and gentlemen.
My first comment is about the comment that my colleague touched on a little earlier, and that was about the one million lives being saved, the recent initiative. It brings to mind that if we totalled, if you like, the efforts in Afghanistan and in Haiti and other efforts around the world, although we don't like to think that our results are measured by the number of lives being saved, that is the reality. It must be a tremendous number, and I compliment you for your efforts.
My question is more to do with the experience of fully harmonizing efforts among donors in the Sudan. My question is relative to Haiti, and there seemed to be a recognition there that this type of harmonizing would be a better way to approach the situation in Haiti with aid. Have there been efforts taken toward that? Maybe you could describe what successes you've had.
Noon
President, Canadian International Development Agency
Thank you very much.
First of all, you're absolutely right about the lives being saved. One of the great things about Afghanistan is that we know that every year there are 80,000 more children who are living, including 40,000 babies because of improvements in mortality rates, since the fall of the Taliban. So it's a very concrete sense of accomplishment.
In terms of Haiti, where Canada is, of course, the number-two donor—only after the United States—we've been playing a critical role in both the humanitarian crisis after 2004 and now the rebuilding. We're working very closely with the government and other donors in terms of how we have a more coordinated approach.
For example, if we look at education or health, we're trying to develop a sectoral focus where different donors will decide what they are going to be doing or what they are not going to be doing. A key element in that is actually the governments taking ownership of their development agenda. So they're actually putting in what under development speak is called the poverty reduction strategy planner, PRSP, but it's essentially a framework, a strategic plan for where Haiti is going and what the requirements are in different sectors.
That's being put forward by the government. We're now working with different donors to determine who can be doing what in a way that's most complementary and that leverages our skills. That's a process that we think is going to accelerate over the next six to twelve months. It's clearly an area where we have a major role to play in terms of helping to coordinate the other donors.
Noon
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
You define it here as being harmonizing in the aid to Sudan. Would you characterize your collective efforts in Haiti in the same way, or is it working toward that same type of an expression?
Noon
President, Canadian International Development Agency
Yes, it is. The difference is, in areas of Sudan, like in the north-south, we're having to harmonize ourselves, because in that part there's almost no government whatsoever. We're helping to put in place the limits. Haiti has governance challenges but is actually in a much stronger position relative to the south Sudan, with the donors actually literally co-locating in Sudan.
In Haiti, our coordination is by closely working with the government, where they're taking ownership of, for example, their education development program and an education for all. We're working with them on what is the vision there, and then how we might participate with them.
Is that answering...?
