Foreign Affairs Committee on May 27th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madam Minister.

We'll go to Mr. Abbott and Ms. Brown.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, Madam Minister.

I'd like to thank you for coming before the committee. As the chair noted, you're not a stranger to this committee. You're regularly available to us.

I think it's been interesting to hear this dialogue from the Bloc, and certainly it's driven, I think, by some lack of understanding of what the focused approach is. We all know that Canada had become quite overextended and spread too thin in many areas.

If I understand correctly, I think we were involved in 69 countries and we're now down to 20 countries with our bilateral aid. Of course, as you pointed out, the bilateral aid is only a small portion of the $4.3 billion total aid package. Focusing, I think, is important. You have made some changes, and you're continuing to make changes to make our aid more effective.

I wonder if you could share some more examples of problems that existed at CIDA. How are you working to overcome those problems?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Abbott.

To be fair, yes, we were in multiple countries. Some people said we moved from 127 to 69, or 78, etc. But in fairness, the former government had published a list of 25 countries. When we took office I asked, “What does this mean? What's been done to focus in these countries, the concentration of the former government? How has the movement been? Have the resources followed? Have activities followed?” There was a list, I will grant you that. However, there was no directional indication of what “countries of concentration” meant under the former government, and certainly no articulated public statements focusing work within the country, etc.

Consequently, I want to be fair. We didn't go from a hundred and some odd countries or 78 countries down to 20. There was a list of 25 countries. Yes, there were changes in those countries. Some of the countries that were on the former list in fact were only receiving maybe $4 million in a bilateral program. The majority of the money going into that country was through our humanitarian assistance because it was a humanitarian situation that was happening, either through natural disasters or in many cases through conflict situations. So the best vehicle and the best means to address the largest or most significant challenges in that country would be through refugee settlement, to support food aid, to support responding to droughts, etc. When you look country by country, depending on the country, the impact of adjusting bilateral programming does not reduce our humanitarian support for those countries as well.

To address the question about what else at CIDA, I will say that there is one other thing that does concern me. Now that we've chosen thematic focused areas, I don't believe we have the expertise at CIDA. There was a day when CIDA historically, in the past, had expertise in-house. It moved away from that, I think, over the past decade, decade and a half. So now, as expertise is required, consultants are hired. I think if we choose a focus, it means we have to have at least a satisfactory level of expertise at CIDA.

The other thing too, and I think we can all witness it, is when we're working in a large department that has sectoral and also geographic interests and activities—and we've heard this about governments and the public service before—many times silos are created and there is not cross-talk and sharing of information across the silos. Consequently, you have things happening in isolation. It may be a multilateral branch, or a partnership branch, or a country branch. They don't talk to each other, so they don't know sort of what's happening in the health sector and what Canada is supporting. I'm not saying it's a blatant, humongous problem, but there wasn't that open vehicle by which that would happen naturally, so we're addressing that.

I think probably those are two observations. I think we would benefit from more in-house expertise and to ensure that we encourage cross-talk and that we work together as an agency. For example, in Africa, I've asked the African branch to come forward so that when we have our discussions with the African community, we've already done some investigation and due diligence on what is best addressed on a pan-Africa basis, on a regional basis, and then on a country-by-country basis.

If you look at the Great Lakes region, that is a region, but it includes many countries, so there are issues that they share. Maybe to address those issues we should look more regionally than at three, four, or five countries and different programs all addressing the same issue. That's the kind of thinking I would like to have happen at CIDA.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madam Minister.

Ms. Brown, quickly.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll keep my questions very brief.

Minister, you've talked about the thematic priorities that we've put in place. You've talked about sustainable economic growth, and you've talked about food security. One of the areas you've also spoken about is securing a future for children. As you know, I was in Bangladesh in March. I met with the foreign minister, and I actually had the opportunity to observe some of the projects that CIDA money is going into for the children of Bangladesh. I wonder if you could tell us, first of all, how you chose those, and do you have any specific comments about the priorities for children?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

The programs, I would say, that you primarily see in Bangladesh, because right now we do have some evolving humanitarian requests that are coming in from Bangladesh.... Before, CIDA primarily was a responsive organization, and it would respond to organizations, whether they're international, national, or more local, community-based organizations. Its partnership branch is set up to respond to Canadian organizations' requests, but even in the bilateral we would work with them, but a lot of the programs would be driven by individual organizations. I would say they were all very based with the best of intentions, good work, but they wouldn't be coordinated in a way that there was cohesiveness being undertaken.

In fact, even within organizations.... When I was in Colombia I saw two water projects undertaken by CARE International. For the one project, that team was doing everything for the local community. In the second water project, they took a little longer, but they set up a water project where it's now being locally managed and run. So even within the same organization you'd have two different kinds of water projects. You can see how, if you're being more responsive in indicating to the organizations what it is you want to accomplish in a country, they can come forward with their proposals.

As far as how the projects were selected before is concerned, they were selected according to the millennium development goals. If they were directly or even indirectly related to the reduction of poverty and one of the millennium development goals, they of course would be considered. CIDA itself formerly had some principle statements that they would support and areas where they would support, and of course those would again be supported. Consequently, what happened is you'd try to respond to any activity that would fit under those principles, without any focus in programming, and in actually articulating the outcomes you would like to see, the outcomes you were trying to achieve.

What I found at CIDA was that things were more measured by input than by output. So there was the reporting. Yes, they got the money, they administered it responsibly, etc., and then when you asked for output, what was the real result, some of the activities we were looking for, it was more how many people would be part of a program. The real measures--did it increase the productivity of a farm, did it prevent youth who were in the sex trade from returning to the sex trade--were measures that were never required of a project that we supported.

Those are some of the changes we're putting in place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Oda.

Seeing the clock at 4:30 p.m., I know it's time for Mr. Dewar.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Minister.

I have one quick question to maybe clarify questions from previous questioners. When we're talking about Gaza and the West Bank, UNRWA, there are no cuts to that funding? There will be no cuts to that funding?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

In fact, on our commitment to UNRWA and the West Bank, we responded very, very quickly. I know that the former Minister of Foreign Affairs went to the Paris conference and committed $300 million. That $300 million is being undertaken with a plan. It's supporting the Palestinian government's initiatives, and they're very happy with what we're doing with the justice system, etc.

On the other hand--

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

So there'll be no--

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

--we are also significantly contributing, where we can deliver, humanitarian aid to the refugees and to the Palestinians who have been affected by the conflict. But you know that there are difficulties about getting supplies through to those living in Gaza.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'm aware of those, but thank you. So there are no cuts coming.

I just wanted to touch on your comments about Africa. Minister, with respect, I have to say that I think there's a bit of a chasm here that seems to be widening, a chasm between where Canadians want the government to be—and that is in Africa—and where the direction of the government is going.

I was listening carefully. One of the things you mentioned is that you want to decentralize. You want more accountability, you want to be more effective, and you want to help where there are willing countries. You also mentioned the $23 trillion that has been collectively put into the region.

Most people that I talk to want to see us do more there, not less. I guess I'm a little concerned about this notion that you're going to be handcuffed as the minister. I want to support you as the minister. I don't want you to be going to cabinet when, as the minister charged with the responsibility of overseas development, you believe the priority should change. You should be able to have the power to do that.

I say that, Minister, because of what we have seen. It's actually not fair to say that all this money is being put into Africa. As you know, there's a lot of money coming out of Africa. On the resource-based industry that I think you talked about to one of the ambassadors you were mentioning, you will know that there are billions and billions of dollars going out of there and into our pockets. I have to say that because it's something that needs to be part of the equation. I know you know that.

I want to say to you, Minister, that if there's anything we can do to help you have more power at the cabinet table so that your hands aren't tied and you can actually focus on more countries, I think this committee would be willing to help you with that.

So here's what I want to ask you. Were you the one to come up with this idea of having countries of focus and that you would have to receive cabinet approval to change the countries of focus? Or was that an idea that was put on you? In other words, was it your idea to do this?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

No, and as I responded to one of our colleagues before, any decisions made are not individual decisions. This is important. It's important not only for what we would be able to do to help developing countries and those living in poverty, but I also understand and recognize that it is important for Canada's foreign relations and relations with many countries and hemispheres around the world.

But as you yourself said, sir, if success is to be measured in terms of numbers of lives saved, we must focus on outcomes, on proven cost-effective solutions that work to prevent needless suffering and death. That is exactly what I'm trying to accomplish and what our government is trying to accomplish. What I would like to say to you is that if because you are on a list, etc., it is indicating to you or in your reading that there's going to be less effort in Africa--$2.1 billion was spent last year, leading up to there, for Africa. If you look at our total budget at CIDA, that's a significant portion of our international assistance envelope.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Is that including World Bank investments?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Yes.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

You're quoting me back to myself, so one of the things on the World Bank that was mentioned in my op-ed today--

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Yes.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

--was that one of the problems is the World Bank. I was saying that we need to do more to make sure the investments through the World Bank are going to be more effective.

With respect, Minister, the whole piece of that puzzle was that I was trying to plead with I guess you that we not turn our backs on Africa, that we actually get more involved, roll up our sleeves, and have more people on the ground. In your opening comments, which I listened to carefully, you said that you wanted to put more people in the field and give them more power in the field. What I would hope is that we want to see you as a minister have independence in that field called “cabinet” and to be able to exercise what you think is best. I'm saddened to see that you're going to be constrained in that.

I know you don't feel that way, but I feel that way, and I think many people who share concerns about development feel that way. I just hope that when we look to Africa, it's not just looking to how much money is put in, which I would agree is part of the equation, but to how much comes out. Not only do we need to put more money in, I think, but we need to challenge the money that's coming out and who's benefiting. I think that's important.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

As you know, we are certainly trying to make sure.... CIDA's responsibility—and we work with the Minister of International Trade as well on our activities where Canadians are doing this—is to ensure that Canadian companies are acting responsibly.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Yes, we're worried about that one.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Let me first say thank you for your confidence, and I hope you can agree that this effort to be more effective is not going to be completed in the next two months. If you want to see me back as the minister--

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

We want to see you have your hands freed.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I will take you at your word.

I'd like to refer you to a speech--and I think we can make it available if it's not on the website--that I made at the World Bank meetings, the IMF meetings. I didn't point out that the World Bank itself had to make sure that it was accountable, transparent, and had the rigour...and not only financially. When it undertakes development work, it has to ensure—and when we contribute to it, we're going to test them to make sure—that they're as effective as any other organization. Just because they're the World Bank may not necessarily say....

We do support programs that we have confidence in.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I have just one last quick question, Minister, and that is on the list of priorities for you. I'm surprised not to see women there. Canada has a commitment to resolutions 1325, 1820. We just heard from the Commissioner of the Independent Human Rights Commission in Afghanistan. She referenced resolution 1325.

I hope we see you get behind that as an initiative. I think you're there--I hope.