Foreign Affairs Committee on March 25th, 2010

[Dr. Karen Mundy]

Yes, exactly.

Your question is very well warranted. What we say in our brief is that disbursements have gone up every year since 2003. That's a fact and something that Canada can be very proud of. And now we're using the OECD DAC data, the internationally recognized comparable data to what other countries spend. The OECD DAC data show a decline over the last two years in commitments. As you all know, commitments are spent out, they roll out over three to five years after the commitments are made.

This is a worrying trend to us. Perhaps this year CIDA has the plan to launch a new round of commitments, but I rather doubt that, given the freeze on Canadian aid. The concern we have is that the commitments suggest or augur poorly for continued effort on the part of Canada. We are not in any way trying to imply that the effort hasn't been strong to date. It certainly has been, and I think if you look at the back of this sheet, you will see that the disbursement trends are very strong.

There is a disparity, certainly, between the OECD DAC numbers and the numbers that CIDA counts. I don't want to bore the committee with the details, but it is very much the case that the way CIDA counts internally is different from the way CIDA reports to the OECD DAC. We have chosen to use the OECD DAC numbers, which do show some difference in the total volume. It's because of internal counting differences inside CIDA, as compared to what it reports to the DAC.

Do you want me to go into those details?

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

No, no, but I'm a little concerned that Canadians, from your policy brief, could be left with the impression that our government is not very substantially increasing. You are saying decreasing, and you're worried about precipitous decline.

[Dr. Karen Mundy]

I think we're very clear. We say, “The total volume of aid disbursements to basic education has grown in every years since 2003.” We're very explicit about that. At the same time, we have to say clearly that commitments have fallen over the last two years.

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

How about in real dollars? What has happened in terms of real Canadian taxpayer dollars?

[Dr. Karen Mundy]

That is disbursements. Disbursements have gone up. We say so. We say that very explicitly.

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

Oh, okay. That's the--

[Dr. Karen Mundy]

I don't think we mean, in any way, to undermine that record. That record is a sterling record. It's one that we want to be very proud of. At the same time, we want to make sure that this record is not eroded.

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

As I say, I truly apologize for being argumentative--

[Dr. Karen Mundy]

No, no. It's fine. I think it's a good question.

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

--but in 2008-09 we have spent Canadian taxpayers' dollars. I don't know about commitments, disbursements, or any of the other English words that we're into a semantic debate about here, but we spent $309 million of Canadian taxpayers' money, of which, because of the semantics in your report, they are implying that we're spending $150 million.... Furthermore, we have gone up from $309 million to $401 million, which is, the last time I looked, darn near a 25% increase year over year.

Yet you are saying there is precipitous decline. I apologize, but I have a lot of difficulty with that, because I don't think it really paints a fair picture of the high, high level of commitment of this government.

[Dr. Karen Mundy]

One thing I should add to this is that although the rate of spending on education, or the volume of spending, has gone up, in relative terms education has actually not received the same share of increase as the total aid budget. So we're looking at a situation where education has been downplayed within the total aid budget.

I don't disagree with you at all. The total volume shows very substantial increases, but so has the volume of the total aid budget, right? We have a very large increase in ODA and we have substantial growth in education funding, but not at the levels that one might expect given the growth of the ODA budget.

So I think we have a reason to be concerned or to want to ask for...[Inaudible--Editor].

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm going to wrap this up there. We'll probably have time for another round.

Mr. Dewar, the floor is yours.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Thank you to our guests for their presentations.

I understand the difference and I don't think it's semantics. I think it's fairly clear that when one disburses and one commits, they're different. I also am quite aware that when we look at outcomes, particularly on gender for girls, one of the variables that has been tracked for decades in terms of success in outcomes for girls is the fact that education is probably the most important variable to invest in.

I say that because when we look at the global picture in education and we look at the issue of maternal health, as you've quite rightly linked them, I don't think there's any argument at all, and I don't think we'd get an argument from my friends across the way. If you really want to have an impact on positive outcomes for girls and women, you need to invest in education at the beginning. However, what we're seeing--and I think you're bang on in showing the success in Bangladesh and other places--is that there has been some slippage in that commitment. I'm not just talking about Canada; I think this is a global picture we're painting.

We're talking about Canada's role here. I think your point is that if we're going to actually take this on seriously, we have a time to do that, and that's coming up with the G8 and G20. Is it your belief that you're seeing the will--because I think we have the way here--from other G8 partners and, if you have enough information, G20 partners? Is it your belief that they (a) understand that linkage between education, commitment...? I'm focusing on gender. I'm not ignoring guys, but that's a clear focus for a positive outcome for men as well. And (b), if they do understand, do they see the importance of actually putting down markers on that right now because we're in the last five years of our millennium goals trajectory?

Do you see that with other G8 countries because you have that position? Do you think they get it? Do you think there's a willingness to push that, particularly at the G8?

[Dr. Kevin Watkins]

It's a mixed picture. I'm not going to get into the business of drawing up a G8 lead table of who is doing the most, who is second, third, fourth, and so on, but there are clearly some leaders within the G8 on this, and I would put Canada and the U.K. as being part of that broad leadership group that has consistently attempted to keep this at the centre of the agenda or tried to mobilize resources consistent with the goals, and so on.

There are other countries that are doing an awful lot in education, in terms of the overall aid envelope for education, but tend to direct their effort not to basic education but to higher education and often provide that support in the form of money that actually ends up in the donor country itself—in other words, paying for scholarships for students to study in certain well-known universities in Paris, or Germany.

Of course, there's a place for that in development, and whether we're talking about Canada or anywhere else, hosting students from developing countries is one of the great contributions that can be made to development. But when you have financing gaps in basic education on the scale that we have described in the report, where the majority of kids in many countries don't have a chance to get through primary school, particularly if they happen to be born female, to load your aid support to higher levels of education in the host country is not the appropriate strategy. Ironically, many of the countries that are following that practice, at least in the public statements of their leaders, do recognize the supreme importance of what you've described—equity for girls in education, reaching the marginalized, and so on—but somehow that's not getting translated through into their aid priorities.

That's one of the reasons all of us in UNESCO, through the 1Goal campaign and other initiatives, are really trying in advance of the G8 to get leaders to focus on this goal and to deliver the resources that can accelerate progress.

I'd like to make one small additional point relating to the last discussion that we had. I just want to make it clear and to reaffirm the point that Karen Mundy made that Canada has been a leader in this area and that what we are communicating, certainly in our report and I think in the briefing paper, is that there has been a step increase on exactly the scale you described in terms of real money. If you're using a 2009 figure, we didn't have that disbursement figure when we were preparing the report, but the commitment numbers do matter, because what we've seen globally in recent years was three years of decline or stagnation in commitments, which subsequently translated in the fourth year into a drop in disbursements. That hasn't happened in Canada, and no one is suggesting that it has happened, but I think any shortfall in commitments raises that potential threat, and that's the point being made.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

First of all, to sum up what you've said, Canada and the U.K. are leaders in this area. To do something positive, if we believe in this campaign—and I think everyone around this table believes in access to basic education for all, and it's something we signed on to—for everyone it's a no-brainer; it's proven. So let's get on with it and let's set the agenda at the G8 to say let's all get on with it.

But then you have to kick the tires, and when you look at our commitments with the budget we've just tabled, we do see a decline to our ODA. I have to say, that is a concern, and you've seen that trend from other jurisdictions. In other words, notwithstanding the increases we've seen, the commitments from our government are declining after this next fiscal year, and we haven't come close to our goal of the 0.7% UN target, as you know. In fact, we've gone the other way.

Have you seen a similar pattern with other countries as they presented their budgets? Are you aware of that?

[Dr. Kevin Watkins]

Again, it's a mixed picture. If you go to the most recent OECD development assistance committee review of G-7 countries, it does cite a number of countries that are falling short of their Gleneagles commitments. Those are 2005 commitments. Canada isn't one of those countries, but Germany, France, and Japan are all cited as falling some way short of commitments in terms of program data in the pipeline now.

Inevitably, that's going to have knock-on effects for education. If the envelope is shrinking, you can't protect every sector within the envelope and there is a real danger that it will have consequences for education. That's why I think the summit is an opportunity to really draw a line in the sand and say, “We are this one generation of primary school kids away; let's set a new course.”

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

I think what we'll do is finish one more round of five minutes each. I'll go to Mr. Goldring then Mr. Pearson, and then wrap it up for today.

Mr. Goldring, you have five minutes.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Watkins, thank you for appearing here today. I think we all agree around the table here on the importance of education and on it being one of the core initiatives we should be concentrating on, even with the millennium development goals, for all the reasons you mentioned here. I could add a few more, too, such as promoting democracy and good government so that people can recognize that their elected officials and elected people will represent them and represent their well-being. The concern here is that education is an easy word to say, but quality education means given the right tools, with properly trained teachers, and proper classroom conditions too. All of these things are very important for economic development, for training people so they can have family-sustaining jobs, which in turn helps the well-being of their families.

On the list of your global partners, one mentioned here is Rights and Democracy. That's exactly fitting into what I just said. I understand they receive some funding from government. You say that it's matched funding from these partners with the federal government contributions? What would the total budget of the organization be?

[Dr. Karen Mundy]

The total budget is $45,000.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

So $45,000 is matched by the partners?

[Dr. Karen Mundy]

The partners raise a portion of that, and the other portion would be matched.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Right.

Looking at the overview of the Canadian aid—

[Dr. Karen Mundy]

We are a volunteer-based education, really depending on our members.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

I'm just trying to get an idea of where the funding is from.

Looking at the overall Canadian aid chart here, it indicates here that it has been increasing rather than decreasing the ODA level. And while appreciating the concern of the 0.7% ODA, which is mentioned time and again, my understanding is that the manner in which other countries tax the system is structured differently from the way it is in Canada.

To make a more accurate comparison, here in Canada, you'd have to take Canada's official development assistance and add the total amount of personal contributions to international charities that Canadians make in order to be able to parallel what the equivalency is of other countries. And wouldn't the funding given, for example, to Haiti and other countries affected by disasters by the diaspora in Canada of the various countries be a very significant amount?