Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 9th, 2009

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

How are countries selected? I know you have shifting priorities.

Every once in a while we understand that there is a level of corruption that's tolerated in certain parts of the world that we don't tolerate here. What I really want to know is, how is that dealt with if you encounter a partner government that isn't completely operating at the standards we expect here in Canada?

[Margaret Biggs]

The government has just announced 20 countries of focus, and there were three criteria used to select them. The first one, as you would expect, is need and whether or not there was significant need in a country, from a poverty reduction point of view, in terms of both absolute poverty and relative poverty, and whether or not the country was particularly vulnerable, for example, due to natural disasters.

The second criterion was really Canada's ability to make a difference, and that was assessed in a number of ways. Really, can that country use our assistance effectively? Do they themselves have the kind of governance and management tools that we would expect to ensure we would actually have pretty good results with them? We would also look to see whether or not we had presence and capacity to monitor our work in those countries. We also looked at whether or not Canada had a potential to really have some influence. Could we actually have a significant influence? Because we would be one of the major donors.

The third criterion was the extent to which the countries selected were aligned with our foreign policy priorities. As you would expect, that had to do, for example, with our democratic values.

If we felt that in one of the 20 countries selected the conditions were deteriorating--either they were inconsistent with our foreign policy priorities or we felt they were not able to make effective and efficient use of our resources--then we would take corrective actions and we would bring advice to the minister if we were going to stop. We chose the countries to prevent that from happening, but if it did, we would certainly monitor and we would take action.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Ms. Crombie.

Thank you, Ms. Biggs.

Madame Faille, you have seven minutes.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I am in fact going to let my colleague, Ms. Deschamps, ask a few questions because this is her area. She is the critic for the Bloc Québécois.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I now have an opportunity to discuss matters with you. We saw each other quickly when the Auditor General tabled her report. I would like to take this opportunity today to seek some clarification.

Mr. Flageole, I'm going to summarize what you said, probably a bit too quickly. You said, in a nutshell, that the report on international cooperation and CIDA can be traced to the absence of a master plan to implement the commitments made in the 2002 policy statement. Finally, you mentioned that CIDA had agreed with your recommendations and that you believed and understood that, based on these recommendations, it had established a detailed action plan.

Does CIDA subsequently have to present you with a plan, by a certain date, explaining how it will remedy the operational shortcomings you uncovered? In all of this, we have noted that the agency had been really in a shambles over the past four years and that project management has been plagued by a certain degree of administrative slowness.

I would imagine that this cannot be done in two shakes of a lamb's tail, but did the agency make a commitment that it would submit an action plan to you? Will this plan be submitted by a certain deadline, or is it depending on the goodwill of the minister?

[Richard Flageole]

Mr. Chair, the chapter contains a certain number of recommendations. We have had discussions with CIDA on the appropriateness of these recommendations. CIDA has provided us with a response. As the president mentioned earlier, CIDA agrees with all of our recommendations.

There is not necessarily any formal requirement that we be provided with an action plan. However, I think that this is good management practice. Moreover, we are really encouraging parliamentary committees to request action plans and ensure that there is follow-up. We have in fact obtained a copy of the action plan and we have taken a look at it. We will now have to determine whether or not we will do a follow-up report and when this will be done.

Usually, this depends on the amount of time required to implement the action plan. We may review CIDA in two or three years. This is a decision that we will have to make. We may do a follow-up audit to ensure that the noted shortcomings have been remedied.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Was this action plan distributed to the committee? Thank you.

I have a question for you, Ms. Biggs. I'm going to make some very broad statements. you stated that you had achieved significant progress on the plan which defines and solidifies CIDA's priorities. You also mentioned that you held very extensive consultations.

NGOs or experts often tell us about their concerns regarding the lack of consultation or the way that consultations are held, particularly since some of the organizations have had or are expecting cutbacks in the assistance they have been receiving for, in some instances, 35 years.

How can priorities change? After 35 years, how can an organization that has always been supported and subsidized by CIDA respond when it receives a simple phone call from an official informing it that it is no longer eligible?

Have these organizations been consulted or advised? We try to provide them with answers, but we have very little to say because we do not know what CIDA bases itself on in deciding who will be receiving aid from now on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Ms. Biggs, just before we get into this, we're not going to get into the merits of the decision. If you want to get into the process of how these decisions are made, that's fine.

[Margaret Biggs]

Maybe I'll answer it in a couple of ways, Chair.

In terms of setting our priorities, in terms of setting what we are going to do in a country, we would have consultations. For example, we had extensive consultations last summer before we developed our thematic priorities. We consulted in Canada with a great number, a cross-section of Canadians, we consulted in our countries, and we consulted with other partners, other donor agencies. So we did a consultation, and CIDA consults on a continuous basis.

So we did consultations for that. As we develop our country strategies, we will consult both in Canada and in the countries themselves, and of course with the partner countries, etc. CIDA has a very strong tradition of consultations. It is also one of the requirements under the overseas development assistance act for us to consult, and we do that.

In terms of our operational issues, we don't consult on operational decisions. Those are the decisions of the government, the department, and the minister, and we don't consult on those. Canadians can apply and those decisions are the decisions taken internally.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

CIDA is criticized for not consulting enough in the field. The agency is also being criticized because, in this new list of countries that have been given priority by the minister, many of Africa's francophone countries have been overlooked. Indeed, over the past few years, a certain number of embassies have shut down. The presence of CIDA representatives in the field has therefore been reduced. We even saw evidence of this in the new strategy unveiled by the minister two Fridays ago, in which anglophone African countries will be the beneficiaries of certain projects. We're being told that francophone Africa is at a disadvantage because the services are becoming less and less present in these countries.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Madame Deschamps, you're out of time.

We'll have an answer from Ms. Biggs, I understand. Go ahead, Ms. Biggs.

[Margaret Biggs]

I believe CIDA actually does consult very adequately and well in the field. In fact, I would take in part from what the Auditor General's report says that CIDA is well thought of in the field. That means we work well with the partner countries, with groups in the countries, and with the recipient government. I think CIDA has a fairly strong track record, actually, of consulting in the field and also here in Canada with our partners.

In terms of francophone Africa, we have a very strong presence. We have two very major programs in francophone Africa: Mali and Senegal are priority countries for CIDA. The Government of Canada has doubled its aid to Africa and has significantly increased its assistance to francophone Africa as well. I think government did select twenty countries of focus, seven of which are in Africa, and there is a very strong presence for francophone Africa there as well.

On the question of consultations, CIDA has a consultations policy. We consult. As I say, the ODA Accountability Act also asks us to consult, and we do that all the time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Ms. Biggs.

We're now going to move to Mr. Christopherson for seven minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you all for your presence.

I want to follow up on the foundation that Madame Deschamps has laid. We're both active on the executive of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association. However, I want to take a higher macro-overview. Chair, I'm respecting what you said earlier, and I agree entirely. If you think I've crossed the line, I know that you'll bring me back, but I'll do my best not to do that at all.

I want to raise the issue of the procedure that was applied, given your response about consultation. With the KAIROS funding, there doesn't seem to have been a lot of consultation, given the outrage that I'm hearing from across the country. These are social justice groups, they're faith organizations, they do good work, and they've lost $7 million that they were expecting from October 2009 to December 2013.

I cannot ask you about the decision to cut, but I think it's fair for me to ask you about the procedure this went through. I'd like to suss out how much of this procedure was problematic, given the audit that we have in front of us. And I would ask the same question regarding the funding to countries in Africa. I raised this earlier when the auditor first tabled this report. We had an extraordinary meeting with 10 to 12 ambassadors from Africa—you don't normally get that many at one time—who came to talk about the funding they were losing through CIDA. There couldn't have been a lot of consultation or they wouldn't have been as shocked as they were.

They couldn't understand why Canada, which had been a long-time friend of Africa, was throwing old friends overboard to make new friends. That was their phraseology. They couldn't understand why we were doing this to them. That's the way they saw it. They pointed out that they're a good friend to us on the international stage, where African countries try to vote as a bloc. They've always seen us as a tight ally. On issues we care about at the UN, we have almost 55 votes there that we might lose.

I can't ask you about the dollar decision, but I want to ask you about the procedures. What procedures did this go through? Help me understand how we went from funding to generating outrage. I want to know what procedure it went through—not the political decision but that process that you undertook at the bureaucratic level.

[Margaret Biggs]

Maybe I can distinguish a couple of different issues.

As the Auditor General has said, and as the audit says, a policy decision on what priorities a government wants to bring to its development assistance is a decision of the government. This government chose to focus its assistance so as to increase its impact. That's a decision of the government. But this course was also recommended by the Auditor General and the OECD. The government adopted this policy on the basis of three criteria: need, effectiveness, and foreign policy priorities.

Choosing which projects get funded is an operational issue. The one that you're raising has nothing to do with the programs that were referenced in the Auditor General's report. They're in a different part of the agency. They have nothing to do with the setting of priorities. They have everything to do with exercising due diligence in deciding whether or not an initiative is going to make the best possible use of taxpayers' dollars.

Our mandate is to give advice on that basis, and we make decisions like that every day. It's a different issue. It's not something we would ever consult on. It's something that is done on the basis of good management practice—whether or not we think the criteria are clear, and whether the expected results are sound, achievable, and positive.

That's the due diligence that Canadians expect from their public servants, and that's the work we do. That's an operational decision, and it's not at all relevant to the issue in front of us in the Auditor General's report.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, I had a sneaking hunch that I wasn't going to get too far.

These issues are so important that I want to ask them and to put them in front of you. I appreciate the answer you gave and I won't go any further on it. It gets into the political realm after that, and I respect that. Thank you for answering as fulsomely as you could.

My experience with CIDA, especially in Africa, is that they're either beloved or loathed. Sometimes it's just like, “Thank God that CIDA's there, and here's what they're doing for us”, and other times it's just a rolling of the eyes and no sense of the focus. It has been raised in the report, and we've had this before on numerous occasions, and our chair always makes sure we raise this when it's pertinent. Since 2000 we've had five different ministers and four different agency presidents, you being the fourth.

Again, I know you can't speak to the appointments process—we've had that bite elsewhere—but I do want to ask you this. How much of an impact has it on CIDA when the top of the house, both at the president's office level, yourself, and at the minister's office, keeps changing all the time, and new people bring new priorities? So for those areas of the world that roll their eyes when they hear “CIDA”, just how much of the lack of consistent leadership at the ministerial and at the president's level has affected all of this, in your opinion?

[Margaret Biggs]

Maybe I can just put a little context around the issue you're asking, sir. The Auditor General's report and the audit period that was undertaken was during a period when all donor agencies were undergoing quite a shift in terms of how they were going to do their work. That really is under the rubric of aid effectiveness. There was a meeting in Rome in 2002 that got the ball rolling. There was the Paris Declaration in 2005. There was a meeting in Accra, the Accra agenda, in 2008. All donor countries have been struggling to try to figure out how best to put their dollars to use.

That has meant that all agencies have been trying to figure out the best way to have effective assistance, and I think that's consistent with what you would expect here. That in itself has generated a degree of change, and CIDA—and I think it shows in the Auditor General's report—was looking at how to do that better and was learning as it was going. I think a lot of the change and the turn that you're seeing, that we are now able, I believe, to resolve and give much stronger direction on, is because we know more now about how to go about effective assistance.

That's one piece of context. As you would expect, in any organization when there is change, governments change. There were three ministers in one government, and maybe two ministers in another government. That does create some change in transaction costs as people have to get up to speed. I believe for the current government, starting in 2007, the budget right off the bat said that CIDA was going to focus its international assessments, it was going to focus on results, it was going to untie its aid, and it was also going to decentralize its operations. That was also followed up in the 2008 budget. Since then you have seen a consistent rollout of untying, countries of focus, thematic priorities, and now we're implementing it in the agency.

I think we have the direction we need now to actually do everything that you would want us to do in terms of making our aid more effective.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Ms. Biggs.

Mr. Saxton, you have seven minutes.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for coming today.

We see in this report that the first aid-effectiveness plan was adopted in 2002 by the previous Liberal government, but little was done to implement it. Our government made a commitment to make Canada's aid effectiveness transparent and accountable. I'm pleased to see that we have taken real action by focusing our aid geographically and thematically.

Can the president comment on our commitment to focus on the 20 countries and how this will improve our effectiveness?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Go ahead, Ms. Biggs.

[Margaret Biggs]

Thank you.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, sir, I personally feel—and it shows with other donor agencies—that if you're able to focus on fewer things, you can have much more clarity around the results you're trying to achieve. It just concentrates the effort inside the agency. As the Auditor General has pointed out, it allows us to really concentrate our expertise, build up our experience base, and make us have more impact and be more present in the countries with which we're choosing to work most directly.

I think the lack of focus was something the OECD had pointed out. As I've tabled here today, they are giving us encouraging marks in terms of these steps that we have taken to focus our assistance. I think that focusing is actually the key to making us more efficient and more effective. I can tell you that it's also very helpful to our staff, because they now know what they have to bear down on, and it actually clarifies things tremendously.

Thank you.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

Can you describe some of the steps this government has taken to make Canada's international assistance more focused, effective, and accountable?

[Margaret Biggs]

There have been a number of steps, starting with geographic focus, as we just discussed. There has also been a thematic focus, which are the three thematic priorities Minister Oda has laid out. Beyond those thematics, which are understandably fairly broad, we have zeroed in on some core elements that we think will have the greatest impact in terms of need. They are also where Canada can bring a special degree of attention.

So we are focusing within the focus in our thematics, and we are focusing within our countries on sub-elements of our thematics.

Another particularly important area that has now been addressed is that Canada has moved to untie all its food assistance. This allows the World Food Program, for example, to source food assistance in the most responsive and cost-effective way. That can increase the value of every Canadian dollar by 20% to 30%, which is very efficient. And sometimes the food aid can be sourced in the country.

We are also moving to untie all of our assistance by 2012-13, and that will have a huge impact in terms of the effectiveness of our assistance. So I think a number of these major steps...

The final step that I'll mention is that the government started with budget 2007, but we are also moving to put more of our resources and our people and our functions in the field so we can be more responsive. Again, this is something Canada has been criticized for by the OECD. We're taking a number of concrete steps, which we can go into if you want, but I think that will make us more effective on the ground.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

In CIDA's response to the AG's recommendations, many actions were already under way. One of those is the aid effectiveness action plan. Can you describe this plan in more detail?

[Margaret Biggs]

One of the findings by the Auditor General was that the agency had a strong understanding of aid effectiveness principles, but they didn't see concrete direction from the leadership of the organization so there would be clear and consistent and coherent guidance to staff.

We have now put that in place. We have an action plan, which has been taken throughout the agency, that has very clear guidance to our staff on how they're to implement the principles of aid effectiveness. Similarly, as we outlined in our management response, we have given a clear set of directions in terms of how to use these new program-based approaches, when to use them, what conditions have to exist before they are appropriate, how to put them in place, and how to monitor them effectively.