Government Operations Committee on April 30th, 2012

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

The second issue has to do with the cuts taking place and who is carrying the load here.

The numbers I have are that, essentially, CIDA is carrying the load of the cuts but Finance Canada isn't taking any of the load. In terms of percentage shares of ODA, CIDA does 75% of it, Foreign Affairs 8% of it, Finance Canada 10%, and International Research and Development gets 3%.

When you look at the cuts, they are all to CIDA, all to Foreign Affairs, and all to International Research and Development, but nothing to Finance. Can you explain that?

[Greta Bossenmaier]

I'm here representing CIDA and our main estimates. I'm not able to speak to the Finance figures.

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

Can you confirm, then, that the cuts to CIDA will be $663.5 million?

[Greta Bossenmaier]

What I can confirm, in looking at our reductions over the next three years, is that we will have reductions of $152.7 million in fiscal year 2012-13. That will grow to $191.6 million in fiscal year 2013-14, and in fiscal year 2014-15 it will be $319.2 million.

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

So that sounds about right: over those three years it's about $600 million. Am I hearing you correctly?

[Greta Bossenmaier]

I'm just going to ask our financial—

[Arun Thangaraj]

Those numbers are not cumulative. The ongoing impact is the $319.2 million.

Those reductions are phased in, so in 2012-13 it's $152.7 million; in 2013-14 it's $191.6 million, and $319.2 million ongoing. And that is the total.

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

So am I to add $191.6 million to $319 million, or is it $319 million going forward?

[Arun Thangaraj]

The $319 million is the going forward number, yes.

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

Then I'm going to send this to you and I'm going to ask for some clarification, because the way I'm reading this analysis is that the total cut is $663 million.

That's interesting information, but it is out there as to the....

Where am I in terms of time?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

You're over your time, I'm afraid.

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

Okay. You're a generous chair—far more generous than ever I was to you, Chair.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

You may well be right.

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

On the other hand, I'm not nearly as entertaining, and I apologize for that.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Well, you're quite entertaining. You're always welcome here, John. Thank you.

Next is Mr. Peter Braid.

You have five minutes, Peter.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Bossenmaier, to you and your colleagues for being here today.

I want to begin by reiterating some of the remarks of my colleague Ms. Block, who spoke about the significant positive impact that our government's maternal and child health program is having on countries and people in the developing world. I have been fortunate enough in the last two years to visit both Ethiopia and South Sudan. In Ethiopia in particular, the focus of my visit was to observe first-hand the very positive impacts these programs are having on the ground for mothers and children.

Here is my first question. You indicated that with respect to maternal and child health, we have 10 countries of focus. I understand that overall CIDA has 20 countries of focus. Could you confirm that and also explain why CIDA has dedicated itself to those particular 20 countries of focus? What are the benefits and advantages of that focus?

[Julia Hill]

Let me ask for clarification to make sure that I have the question correctly. Are you looking for a confirmation that we have 10 countries of focus within which maternal and newborn child health is being done?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

No, I'm looking for confirmation that CIDA has 20 countries of focus overall, and for further elaboration on the purpose of that country list focus and the benefits it brings.

[Julia Hill]

Yes, there are 20 countries of focus.

The objective of establishing countries of focus was to enable us to better concentrate our resources in order to have much more impact. Previously, we could have been involved in more than a hundred countries, and if I can use the analogy, it was a scattershot approach; it was a little more difficult to know that one was actually achieving results.

By focusing on a smaller number of countries using those criteria of need, efficiency, ability to work, and on whether we can actually make a difference and how it fits with Canada's strategic priorities, we're more able to establish a frame that enables us to first of all articulate results for the future and then to measure against them. If you can't name it and you can't measure it, you can't actually be sure that you're making progress.

Within those 20 countries of focus we further concentrated, identifying among them the three thematic priorities that Ms. Bossenmaier mentioned in her opening remarks, to ensure that we knew within each country which thematic priorities we would work within.

There is a connection there, because under the principles of aid effectiveness, of course, there is the notion of harmonization and country ownership. If I think of the country ownership and the harmonization, we had to make sure that what we were seeking to do—which met our criteria within our thematic areas—also met with the recipient country's poverty reduction strategy. They all have something of that ilk themselves. We were looking for that sweet spot wherein everybody's interests coincided and we knew that the recipient government was really behind the initiative; that enabled us to move forward.

The countries of focus are: Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali, Mozambique, Pakistan, Senegal, Tanzania, Vietnam, Bolivia, the Caribbean region, Colombia, Honduras, Indonesia, Peru, and Ukraine.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you.

My second question pertains to the issue of emergency humanitarian crises.

I wanted to understand, when an unexpected crisis occurs—for example, the earthquake in Haiti, floods in Pakistan, and to perhaps a lesser extent, but still to some degree, the food crises in the Horn of Africa or currently in the Sahel—and when the Government of Canada responds to those emergency humanitarian crises by dedicating resources, do those resources come from the annual funding envelope of CIDA?

[Arun Thangaraj]

Our budget has a provision for international humanitarian assistance on an ongoing basis. The difficulty with a humanitarian crisis is that the extent is unpredictable and the extent of the response is unpredictable, so there are two mechanisms. This government has used the matching fund, where Canadians have been asked to donate and where the Government of Canada matches resources provided up to a specific amount. In addition, we use the supplementary estimates process to request additional funds.

In the international assistance envelope there is a mechanism called the crisis pool, where we can request additional funds. In our reference levels we have $50 million, which we can access quickly to respond. If the response required is larger than that, we go to the international assistance envelope and we request money through a Treasury Board submission and the supplementary estimates process.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you.

I appreciate that answer.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you very much.

Next, for the NDP, Raymond Côté.

Raymond, for five minutes, please.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being available to answer our questions.

I want to talk again about program activities in relation to fragile countries and crisis-affected communities.

In your reply to my colleague Denis Blanchette, you stated that the reduction of approximately $8.5 million involved activities in Afghanistan. There was something else as well. I would like us to examine overall tendencies. There are increases that will benefit low-income countries and middle-income countries, but there is a decrease in the Canadian commitment to development. Why is CIDA increasing funds for the categories I have described, and why is it reducing them for fragile countries and for our commitment to development, with the exception of our commitment in Afghanistan?