Foreign Affairs Committee on Dec. 9th, 2010

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I'm just going to interrupt for one second.

What was the poorest country in the world?

[Margaret Biggs]

I don't know.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Was it Haiti?

[Margaret Biggs]

No, but I can find out.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Okay, sorry.

[Margaret Biggs]

So if there were 700,000 children in school at that time, very, very few of them were girls, of course. Now we have up to seven million children in school in Afghanistan, and a third of them are girls. Of course, we'd like it to be half of them, but even that is actually really pretty amazing given where things were at in Afghanistan.

One of the areas that Canada and CIDA have focused on in Afghanistan is with respect to education. Canada has led in terms of the development of the education sector. We have helped build their ministry. We've been one of the stronger supporters of the education programming. We've also, in Kandahar, focused in particular on teacher training and on the reconstruction, rehabilitation, and construction of schools. As the government and the minister have indicated, going forward, post-2011, we would also continue to build on our strength. We are probably the strongest donor, and the Afghan government looks to us in the education sector. As Minister Oda said, if you can actually build an education system, boys and girls going to school, that's one of the best investments Canadians can make for the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you. We will come back.

Next we'll go to Mr. Dorion, and then back to Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Dorion, you have five minutes.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Biggs, I would have liked to have the time to put my question to the minister, but I think you can enlighten me.

There was an article in Embassy magazine about the cuts in funding that you recommended to the minister, cuts that the minister decided not to proceed with, as it happens. I'll quote the article verbatim, to ensure that my comments are translated correctly in our proceedings. The article says this:

it appears KAIROS's work on corporate social responsibility as it related to Canadian mining efforts rubbed diplomats in Mexico and Guatemala the wrong way.

This is a reference to Canadian diplomats.

Embassy magazine continued:

In Guatemala, KAIROS had proposed working with a local NGO named CEIBA to “promote human rights to life, health and prosperity by supporting the ecological sustainability [Guatemalans] seek, including reducing the impact of climate change and unsustainable resource extraction”.

The magazine noted that:

When asked for their opinions on the project, however, the response from Canadian diplomats in the field was an unambiguous “no”.

Moreover, the magazine observed that:

Following another redacted section, the memo concludes: “KAIROS and CEIBA are openly unwilling to consider the concept of sustainable mining even on a case-by-case basis, they are not in a position to foster a balanced or an impartial monitoring effort”

That would be a memo written by embassy diplomats.

Embassy magazine then continued:

Similarly, diplomats in the economic, political and trade section at the Canadian Embassy in Mexico City criticized KAIROS's plan to work with another local NGO named CIEPAC to help communities in Oaxaca and Chiapas “acquire the capacity to defend their rights, participate in policy development in relation to resource extraction/mining, and to determine development processes in their communities”.

The diplomats noted that Canadian mining companies are “overwhelmingly present in Mexico”, with $4 billion invested over five years in 53 mines, 500 exploration projects, 200 companies and 290,000 local workers.

The diplomats were against the KAIROS proposal. Do Canadian diplomats tend to intervene like this in the case of projects eligible for CIDA funding?

[Margaret Biggs]

Your question, sir, is?

Could you just put the question exactly to me?

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Do you receive comments from the embassies on the nature of projects? Where do they stand on such matters? Do they have many concerns about Canadian investing in countries like Mexico or Guatemala? What do you do after you receive recommendations like this?

[Margaret Biggs]

In the review of a proposal from any organization, our officers would seek out the advice and analysis from a variety of sources. If it were a project on health, we would look to our health expertise to give us a judgment on the merits from a health perspective. If it has to do with a project in a particular country—Tanzania, or Guatemala, in this case—we would go to the field and ask our Canadian mission staff on the ground to give us their observations on what they feel to be the merits, or the strengths and weaknesses, of a particular proposal. That would be part of the due diligence that we would undertake in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of a particular proposal.

It would not be uncommon for us to do that, particularly with our CIDA staff in countries, and they would consult with their embassy colleagues as well. Those considerations, as you can see, get put into the mix, and, ultimately, a decision or advice comes together in the form of a recommendation. Some people might think it's particularly strong. Other people, for different reasons, may think it has some weaknesses. But on balance, we have to come to a judgment on its merits. So that would have happened in this case.

On the particular issue you're referring to, if I could speak to that, what I understand from what you have read to me, sir, is that the Canadian diplomats were commenting that it was important in terms of investment, whether Canadian or anybody else, to do it in a very responsible and sustainable way, which is not to say it shouldn't happen at all.

That's what I would take from the words that were in that document. But as I say, they're just one set of considerations that would have been brought to bear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move back across the floor to Mr. Goldring.

You have five minutes, sir.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Ms. Biggs, I was just reviewing some notes here, and I find it absolutely amazing how you handle all of the complications of the large amounts of grants that have been put through. Specifically just for Haiti--and these are all additional to what had been previously committed--you have Haiti with the earthquake; Haiti with the cholera; Haiti with the reconstruction; with the G-8, $1.1 billion for Africa; and with the G-20, $325 million. Then there was Pakistan, too. It is my understanding that all of these would be in addition to what had been on long-term commitments and what you could foresee to be planning for on a long-term basis.

These are emergency commitments that would come up. This would have an impact on, I would think, literally hundreds of millions of people. It would be a huge number of people. So when we're trying to make decisions based on how many people it will have an impact on and what we need to do now, it must take a tremendous amount of resolve to go through even a lot of good applications that have to be turned down, because you just have to fit in what is the highest priority and should be done first.

Perhaps you could comment on that, because I think that's a point that has been missed here. This is a very, very significant number of additional commitments that have to be made. Obviously, some have to stay and some have to go, and you have to make a decision along the way on that, particularly on the African commitments, because those were very substantial.

[Margaret Biggs]

I would agree with you. I think this last year in particular has been hopefully unprecedented, given the two very catastrophic natural disasters, the first being the Haiti earthquake on January 12, and then the extended period of floods in Pakistan. Of course, there were other crises as well, and now we're dealing with the cholera outbreak in Haiti. Those have, of course, led to us requesting supplementary resources.

On top of that, the Prime Minister made maternal, newborn, and child health the centrepiece of the G-8 and also $1.1 billion in new dollars over five years. A portion of that $173 million would be for this year again in supplementary estimates.

Overall, I think your point is that these are on top of ongoing programming. They require, in each and every case, for us to identify the highest priorities. In the case of Africa, as I think the minister indicated, Canada has doubled its assistance and met the G-8 commitment to do so. In the case of maternal, newborn, and child health, the Prime Minister and the minister have indicated that 80% of our new commitment on that will go to Africa. Seven of the 10 countries on which we will be focusing in particular for maternal, newborn, and child health will be African countries. That again is a prioritization on Africa because of the extent to which many African countries are falling behind in terms of the two millennium development goals around maternal mortality and child mortality.

I'm not sure if that answers your question.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Partially. As my colleague was saying, we're going to be visiting Africa. Are there particular countries that will be receiving funding on food aid? Will most of that food be procured locally? Is that how it's intended? And how do you track the food aid for effectiveness afterwards?

[Margaret Biggs]

In the area of food and food security, we do quite a bit of food assistance each year. A large proportion of it does go to Africa, probably 50%. We also focus on sustainable agricultural development, particularly in a number of African countries. That's the focus of our work in Ethiopia and in countries such Ghana. At the 2009 G-8 summit at L'Aquila, the Prime Minister announced $600 million over three years of new resources for agriculture and food security, and again, over 50% of that will go to Africa.

On the maternal, newborn, and child health, we will be focusing in particular on countries such as Tanzania, Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Malawi. We're building on work we're doing in the health sector and really zeroing in on maternal, newborn, and child health, again with over 80% of the resources going to Africa.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks very much.

We're going to finish off with two rounds of four minutes each, because we have a little bit of committee business that we need to take care of and votes at 5:15.

I'm going to go to Mr. McKay, and then back to finish with Mr. Lunney, with four minutes each.

What's that?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Do I get another round?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

We have done that in the past, so I'm asking, because I'm curious as to why not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We have some committee business to take care of at 5 o'clock, and then bells are at 5:15. If you have a question, I'd be happy to let you pose it, but probably not for the full five minutes.

Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Ms. Biggs, when you signed the KAIROS document, you were clearly recommending in favour of the grant. Is that correct?

[Margaret Biggs]

Yes.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

When you signed the document, was Mr. Singh with you as well?

[Margaret Biggs]

No, he wasn't with me when I signed it.