Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 18th, 2011

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

On that point, you've listed a number of examples of the good work that Kairos partners have been involved in. Is there anything stopping those individual partners from approaching CIDA directly and getting direct funding to actually put in place, on the field, projects to alleviate human suffering and alleviate poverty, as opposed to making it part of a larger envelope of funding that needs to be administered by an umbrella group?

Is there anything stopping an individual partner of Kairos to approach the minister directly or to approach CIDA directly for a specific project that may be worthwhile?

[Mary Corkery]

That's a good question.

The kinds of groups we work with are pretty close to grassroots groups. They're women's groups, student groups, and community regional groups that are working to protect their water, to protect their land, and working to save lives through human rights work. They don't have the infrastructure to do a whole lot of international grant applications.

I think the most important thing is the value-added of NGOs like Kairos. We have years of experience and expertise. We have close relationships with people in the south. We have a particular role of supporting people's work in the south and educating the Canadian public about that work.

That's why CIDA has funded NGOs. Up to now, there are, as you know, hundreds that are funded, and that compliments the work of government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Albrecht. Your seven minutes are up.

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mrs. Corkery.

You said that your organization is a coalition of 11 churches and church-related organizations. Can you name them?

[Mary Corkery]

That's a good test. Certainly, this will be a test. There are seven churches: the Quakers; the Mennonites; the Christian Reformed Church in North America; the Presbyterian Church; the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada; the Catholic Church; the United Church; and the Anglican Church—did I count seven?—and four church-related organizations that do international development work. That also includes religious communities in Canada.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you.

You said that you were informed of the decision in a telephone call at 2:30 p.m. on November 30. You had just a few hours to communicate with your members. Did it happen the same way in previous years? Did you always get your answer in a last-minute phone call?

[Mary Corkery]

I would say that it hasn't happened to Kairos and its predecessor coalitions in this way. I think it would not be a normal process.

My understanding is that if a group was about to have its funding cut, especially completely, there would be some indication, there would be some way to know that this might be coming, and there would be questions that would indicate that. I don't know what the practice is right now, but CIDA has provided transition funds, as we would ourselves if we decided not to fund a particular partner in a particular year.

You would never cut them off suddenly, which would be very harmful to their work. You would work with them to make a transition plan. So none of those things happened.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

As I understand it, you had no indication. When you were told over the phone simply that you would be receiving no funding, were you told about CIDA's recommendation? How did it happen? Was it a long conversation or a very quick one?

[Mary Corkery]

As I explained, it was a very brief conversation. When I asked further questions, the person who was speaking to me said, “I have no further information at this time. It has been decided that your work no longer meets CIDA priorities.” That's all I remember about it, and of course we were very anxious.

When we did receive the information from the minister, the letter said that we would of course receive a further letter from CIDA about this, which we understood would be the substantive explanation of why we were cut. It wouldn't have to be all that long, but it would have to say Kairos was cut because of this reason, not that CIDA has to make decisions on the basis of efficiency, effectiveness, and priorities.

By the way, those priority themes were introduced at the end of September, seven months after we had made our application. So if we had any indication that our application needed to conform to those themes, we could certainly have rewritten the application.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Given the documents that we have seen subsequently, you will have realized that CIDA's recommendation was positive.

The minister made the decision. To start with, she indicated that the recommendation came from CIDA. But the agency's recommendation was to fund you so the minister subsequently corrected herself.

How did you react when you found out that it was not a CIDA recommendation, simply a political decision on the part of the minister?

[Mary Corkery]

When Kairos learned for certain that CIDA had recommended the application--I believe it was in December 2010--I received a phone call from the media, from a person at Canadian Press, asking me to comment on the documents released under access to information. We said we couldn't respond because we didn't have them. She then sent some but not all of the documents.

We knew we'd had a stellar evaluation by the independent consultant hired by CIDA to evaluate us after our last program, and a very good audit. We were able to see the recommendations from CIDA as a department and the actual comments from experts on environment, gender, the Middle East, and Africa. There was certainly a very strong affirmation of the work of Kairos and everything we had said.

So we didn't understand why we were cut. We didn't see the reason there. We understood that governments had to make decisions for efficiency and effectiveness. It said we already had the CIDA evaluation by the independent evaluator, Susan Harvie. It said that Kairos was cost-effective, worked through coalitions, achieved results, had very good judgment, and met the priorities of CIDA, the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, the millennium development goals, and aid effectiveness priorities.

We had also seen the recommendations from foreign desks and others who were familiar with our work. There were comments that Kairos' work in the Congo was certainly very helpful, and Kairos' work in the Middle East seemed to be a step in the right direction and in keeping with their policies. It made it even more confusing for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Laframboise, thank you.

Mr. Martin is next for seven minutes.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Ms. Corkery.

We're trying to understand this too, although you understand the main purpose of our committee is to try to determine if the minister misled us about these details. You've already added to our body of information by sharing with us that you've seen an evaluation that was a “strong affirmation” of the work you're doing.

Have you seen those documents?

[Mary Corkery]

Of course. We were given a copy of our evaluation. It was completed in February 2009, just before we submitted our application. That's another reason why we felt very confident going into a new application with an evaluation of that nature. It was very thorough and included going overseas to visit partner groups and consultation with experts in Canada.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

How big a document is it when you apply for funding of that size? Is it a fairly substantial document?

[Mary Corkery]

It is. This is just our own report on the last program. So it's a lot of work.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

The minister, in her testimony to us today, said she was presented with a two-page memo and a 19-page document containing the CIDA staff analysis of the Kairos proposal. The 19-page memo reviewed the positive and negative aspects of the application.

Were you aware that CIDA saw negative aspects in your application as well?

[Mary Corkery]

Oh, it wasn't 100% positive; if it were, even we wouldn't believe it. But there certainly were, for instance, questions like how some of the results expected are too much, too broad, and should be narrowed in.

[Pat Martin]

I see.

[Mary Corkery]

So there were questions.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

You said there was commentary specifically about the Middle East. What did you mean by that? Or was that in your evaluation?

[Mary Corkery]

No. I don't have those documents here, the access to information documents, but there was certainly one comment I recall that said it's a step in the right direction.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm sorry...? That it's a step in the right direction...?

[Mary Corkery]

Yes. It was from the desk for the Middle East and North Africa.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I see.

Now, as one of the negatives the minister pointed out as justification for not funding you, she said, “For example, over $880,000 was to be used for advocacy, training, media strategies, and campaign activities in Canada” and “that is not the best way to spend public funds”, etc. Were you aware that this component of your application drew criticism from CIDA officials?