Foreign Affairs Committee on June 7th, 2018

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Has the $199 million U.S. already been paid?

[Arun Thangaraj]

That's over five years.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Over five years—but I thought the commitment was larger than that.

[Arun Thangaraj]

It is.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

What about the rest? What about the balance?

[Arun Thangaraj]

The commitment was larger. Shares become available at certain times. I can't remember the amount offhand, but $199 million of shares were authorized, which we have purchased at this point.

We have authorization to purchase more, and that's what Canada is committed to doing, but at this point the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank has made available to Canada only $199 million U.S.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

So their future plans are what they've given us already, just this amount of money that we can put forward. They didn't ask for more or they didn't expect more or they're not allowing more. What exactly is the situation?

[Arun Thangaraj]

I don't have the details on that.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

In order to know, there's a mechanism in place. I think this is a concerning area, among others. What's the action plan, when it comes to the ministry, in this whole dynamic, to at least obtain and explain what's going on from that end, given the fact that we have given $199 million U.S., which is about a quarter of a billion dollars Canadian already?

[Arun Thangaraj]

I'd have to get back to you on the role that we as a department play in terms of the oversight on those investments.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

The whole reason for my question is that now there is a carbon tax on Canadians. Canadians have to pay a carbon tax just to help reduce emissions and implement the climate change policy, and here we are sending $199 million U.S. into AIIB, which is doing a project that is clearly against that policy. It goes against what we are currently doing. In your opinion as an official, is this fair to Canadians?

[Arun Thangaraj]

I can tell you what I do know about what the infrastructure plan is for. The plan was looking at green and cross-border infrastructure, transport, energy, and other such projects.

Other than that I can't comment further on whether those investments are good. All I can do is tell you, from the information that I have, what the intention of the fund is and the level of Canada's investment.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

In your ministry, who is responsible just to monitor what's happening specifically on this file?

[Arun Thangaraj]

I would have to get back to you on who the precise official is, who is responsible.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Yes, it would be nice.

Shirley, would you like to comment on this at all? No, you wouldn't.

Okay, I'll move on to another question. We know that, again, $2.6 billion were committed to climate finance over the coming years for developing nations to transition into greener economies. On the other side, the government just purchased a pipeline for $4.5 billion.

Is this in practice an area where the government would go and repeat this in areas where we committed $2.65 billion to fix climate situations and to help climate issues to improve?

Do you see any difference in that? Are we to repeat this overseas, since we've done it here, out of the $2.65 billion?

[Arun Thangaraj]

I didn't get your question, sorry.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

My question is this. We have committed $2.65 billion for climate financing to other countries, to assist with climate change. Then, here we are; the government purchases a pipeline for $4.5 billion. Is this type of policy going to repeat elsewhere?

I mean, if there's a country that we're supposed to assist for greener energy and there's a plan to go on a similar project to the one we're doing here, would you support that? Do you think that one area can be tackled?

[Arun Thangaraj]

For the $2.65 billion, the type of financing that we provide through that is very specific. It's for climate mitigation or adaptation projects, for example, clean technology, climate smart agriculture projects, forestry. The nature of what is contemplated to be funded through those and through our partners is pre-defined by that policy.

It's hard for me to comment beyond what the policy allows or contemplates for funding, through that funding window or policy.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

How much, though?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. Aboultaif.

I appreciate your line of questioning, but I don't think these public servants can give you the answer vis-à-vis the domestic policy on the pipeline. I appreciate your question, nonetheless.

Madam Vandenbeld, please.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much.

To follow the question I asked the minister, when the amalgamation happened between CIDA and what's now Global Affairs, it seems that some of the programs got lost.

For instance, the MEOP on electoral observation had been funded between 2008 and 2013. It was funded with about $28 million, specifically for that program. Then it moved over in 2013, and under the previous government and then minister Baird, it lost all its funding. It still sat somewhere.

Are there other examples of programs that, when things were amalgamated, didn't really fit in one area or another and perhaps ended up orphaned, the same way that electoral observation did?

[Arun Thangaraj]

I'm trying to think of any examples. None of them really come to mind.

At the time of amalgamation, what essentially happened is that two departments were stitched together. There were certain programs, for example, electoral observations, that might have fallen in the peace and security area. However, the development programs that were very clearly development, stayed intact.

What was done, in terms of how we managed our finances, was we created a special fund for anything that was tagged against development. We can monitor and track development expenditures to ensure they continue to be used for international development purposes, that they continue to be counted as official development assistance.

There were internal financial structures to ensure not only the grants and contributions but the FTEs, so that the same amounts of operating expenditures were maintained for that purpose.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Speaking of the grants and contributions and the FTEs, one thing I'm hearing from civil society is that over the years, not recently but over the last decade, more and more it's not contribution agreements but it's moving more towards contracts and short-term one-offs. The length of time for project proposals to be approved is increasing. Of course, these are the types of things that are very difficult for Canadian organizations. Often their staff is funded through the different projects. Very few of them have core funding.

I'll go back to democratic development. Very often you don't know what's going to happen in a country. You might plan for electoral assistance but the election is delayed, or you might plan for a long-term parliamentary program and then the parliament is dissolved or something happens. Then, in certain areas, you need to go in quickly. Venezuela right now would be an example where there's a tremendous need very quickly. Sometimes it's less predictable even than that. There have been suggestions made of having more long-term agreements, say 10-year agreements, which would be very flexible, which would allow rapid response within certain parameters but allow these Canadian organizations....

That is another issue: a lot of our support should be going to organizations that are based in Canada and local partners.

Is there a way that we could move more towards providing that type of long-term, sustained support, particularly so organizations don't have staff hired, and then a gap of three or four months where they have to lay off the staff, and then bring the staff back because now they have another project? Is there a way to provide that longevity, both because it's good for NGOs but also because it's good for development assistance, for those partnerships, the local partnerships on the ground? Especially in politics and democracy, the political partnerships that are made are so vitally important. They're very easily lost if you withdraw from that country and then try to come back again. Thus, is there a move towards that?

[Arun Thangaraj]

That was feedback the department received very clearly through the feminist international assistance policy consultation. It was very clear that our processes can be complex and cumbersome on partners. We also want to make sure that, yes, our processes are streamlined, but that we've done adequate due diligence at the same time. What we've been looking at over the last few months is whether there are ways of balancing both of those objectives, by lightening and streamlining the information that we request, and requesting it once. We're looking at the length of contribution agreements and how we amend them. We do know that in the types of contexts in which we work, things shift, costs shift, so can we do that in a more nimble fashion, but again assure that when there is a dollar allocated it does go to the intended recipient and that we have those due diligence measures in place? We are looking at those things very clearly.

We've had consultations with NGOs and the Canadian NGO community to do that. Over the summer we will start rolling out some of those changes.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

With regard to RBM, the results-based management framework, obviously this is a very important accountability mechanism all across government. However, when you're talking about development, it isn't necessarily always the most suitable accountability tool. Often, rather than showing that x amount of funding led to x result, you're not trying to achieve a result but prevent things from getting worse. It may be that the situation is here, it's about to go down to here, and you make sure it's gone here, as opposed to increasing and having a result to show for it.

How do you prove a negative? How do you prove that, without us, 40,000 more people would have starved but now only 5,000 starved? To put it very bluntly, it's very hard, in an RBM framework, when you're working on the ground in a country, on development particularly, to necessarily have all those indicators and outcomes nicely aligned ahead of time and within the timeframes.

In terms of an accountability mechanism, I agree, absolutely, we need to be accountable for the money, but is there a way to find something that in the field of development might be a little more flexible?