Evidence of meeting #41 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was document.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Can I assume that Mr. Singh was clearly recommending in favour of the grant?
4:50 p.m.
President, Canadian International Development Agency
Yes. At the time, he was the acting vice-president of the branch responsible, and he went through in his branch the assessment process and then it came to me for my decision as to whether to recommend it or not.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
When were you informed that the grant was not to be recommended?
4:50 p.m.
President, Canadian International Development Agency
I can't give you the exact date, but I was told. The minister told me verbally that she wasn't going to approve it. And I think she was quite clear, so there is no dispute on that.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
With greatest respect, she wasn't all that clear. She didn't seem to know when or who had inserted the “not”. So I'd like to know whether there was anybody in the agency who inserted the “not”.
4:50 p.m.
President, Canadian International Development Agency
No, not to my knowledge, because it left my office and my signature is on the document. I think what matters here is that the department recommended it. As you can tell, the other member indicated that there were comments on the proposal that were not necessarily always in favour of it, but on balance, I did recommend it.
4:50 p.m.
President, Canadian International Development Agency
I did recommend it, and on balance, the minister didn't accept that.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
The clear impression left to a reasonable person looking at the document is that you and Mr. Singh and the minister must have recommended against this, because the “not” is inserted.
I used to practise law in another life. When you're dealing with $7 million documents, there are initials all over the place when there are any interlineations. There are no initials, there are no signatures, and it appears that somebody tried to make it look as if you were not recommending this grant.
4:55 p.m.
President, Canadian International Development Agency
I won't comment on that, exactly. I'll just indicate that I did recommend it to the minister in writing. I think if I had changed the recommendation on the memo I would have initialed it.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
That would have been normal. You're an experienced civil servant. You've been around Ottawa for years. You have a very excellent reputation, and it appears to me--and I'm sure to others--that your signature was being used to suggest something opposite of what you'd actually signed for.
4:55 p.m.
President, Canadian International Development Agency
I wouldn't necessarily assume that. My discussions with the minister were quite clear. She did, as she indicated, deliberate on it. She knew what my advice was. I don't know where that “not” came from, but she wasn't misled in any way. She knew what the recommendation was.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
It's very curious, though, Madam Biggs, that in the House, Mr. Abbott and the minister said that CIDA thoroughly analyzed KAIROS' program--that's true--and determined with regret that it did not meet the agency's current priorities. That is a complete variance from what you've just told the committee.
4:55 p.m.
President, Canadian International Development Agency
Can I disagree with...? Can I just comment on that?
4:55 p.m.
President, Canadian International Development Agency
I just wouldn't want to let it stand that way. I think, as the minister indicated, the agency did its due diligence, but the minister and her office also do due diligence. They are the minister, that is the government, and that is the decision that was taken. I just—
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you. We're going to move on now.
Mr. Lunney, you have four minutes, sir.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank our officials for being here.
I want to pick up on another question I don't think we have discussed at all, and that is the food aid program.
We have nearly a billion people around the world who are suffering from hunger. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, 925 million in the world are hungry and malnourished, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Malnutrition is the main cause of those 3.5 million maternal child deaths a year.
I think the fact that Canada is the second-largest single country donor to the World Food Programme is underappreciated. It currently serves as chair of the Food Aid Convention, and I know that back in 2008 the Government of Canada fully untied its food aid budget, providing our partners with greater flexibility to purchase appropriate food locally at reasonable prices and reduce high transportation costs.
Would you fill us in on some of what Canada is doing in the area of support for the World Food Programme, on what we're doing in terms of food security, and on what really the significance is of untying aid? I know that many nations use it as a food subsidy program for their own agricultural production. What is the significance of untying?
I've wrapped three questions into that, all related.
Thank you very much.
4:55 p.m.
President, Canadian International Development Agency
Thank you.
With respect to untying, the government did untie all its food aid, and we're also on track to untie all of our assistance by 2012-13. We're at 93% now.
As to the significance of untying food aid, it means that the World Food Programme or the organization with whom we're working can buy food that is the cheapest or the closest or the quickest to get to or the highest quality without having to respect a particular supplier, and that can increase the value for money by 25% to 30%. That has been verified on a number of occasions. That means that for every dollar, you're getting $1.30's worth of food assistance, and that saves lives. That's the significance.
It also means, for the World Food Programme, for example, that they can source locally, which means they can.... Sometimes you can have famine and drought and food insecurity in one part of a country, but there can be—this can happen in a country like Tanzania or Ethiopia—food somewhere else. They can then procure locally, and that can help encourage production and have lots of good effects in terms of development.
Just on the World Food Programme, you're quite right, Canada is the second-largest bilateral country donor to the World Food Programme and is looked to not just for the volume but also for the fact that we are long-term suppliers. They like that; it gives some stability to their financing. Also, we then help them with some of their innovations, such as school feeding and food for purchase, which means that people can work and also get food for purchase. These help to stimulate local development, so we've also been innovative with them.
As I mentioned, food security was a priority for the G-8 in 2009. Maybe I can draw attention to some of the things we have done there in terms of food security. It signifies the kinds of things we're doing in our food security strategy.
One is on food aid. The second is on agricultural development, which we are doing, as I have indicated, in many of our own countries, but also with the international food and agriculture development organization, which really zeroes in on small landholders, who are largely women, mainly in countries in Africa, which are some of the poorest. If you can get them producing, you can not only create economic growth, but livelihoods for their families and their communities—one of the key engines for both poverty reduction and economic growth in those countries. So IFAD is particularly important, and that's one of the things we are funding. We increased our funding as a result of our L'Aquila commitment.
CIDA, with IDRC, has an international food security research fund, which we created to identify, with Canadian institutions and developing country institutions, really practical, pragmatic ways to increase productivity and innovation in food production. It's getting very good results.
I don't know whether you want me to stop there, but I could go on. As I say—
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
No, I'm just teasing.
We're going to wrap it up. I want to thank the officials from CIDA for coming today.
We're going to suspend the meeting again for another one minute to go in camera and talk about some committee business.
Once again, thank you very much for taking the time to be here today, and for the extended time as well.
[Proceedings continue in camera]