Public Accounts Committee on May 25th, 2010

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

My concern, going back to Mr. Saxton's questions, is that good intentions don't pay the bills. Having a plan in place is one thing, but ensuring that it works is also crucial. The recommendation the Auditor General has made here...we want to find a way to ensure that the results are there--not just acted upon but actually producing results. I suspect we'll probably have to wait a little bit, because there's a completion date in there.

If there are any serious weaknesses, they should be identified to this committee now, as they are obviously a work in progress that needs significant work. If we have a further audit and we come back a year later and you say, “Well, it was all fixed”, but it remains a problem a year from now, then we would have a very serious problem with your administration.

Could you tell us if there's anything outstanding that is problematic for you at this particular point, that requires a tremendous amount of work?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Kramp.

Go ahead, Madame.

[Margaret Biggs]

As I indicated, for all of the items the Auditor General identified, action has either been taken or it is on track. So I would say in terms of where we are right now, we're in very good shape. Further, I would say on program-based approaches the Auditor General noted that although in programs and in countries people had a good sense of when and why to use them, there was no consistent corporate policy on that to give guidance to our staff. That is now in place. I would expect that we are going to monitor its application. As I indicate in the spreadsheet, we will have a full reporting on the first year of our aid effectiveness action plan in a month or two.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Kramp.

Madame Beaudin, quatre minutes.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you very much.

I want to again come back to recommendation 8.54. I see that the agency accepted that recommendation. First you carried out priority-based consultations across Canada—if I am reading this right—and in focus countries in order to develop strategies that reflect your three priorities.

It says that measurable expectations and performance benchmarks will be set as appropriate—in the French version of my document, that is, the book—but your new document says as needed in French. Why? How will we evaluate the results?

[Margaret Biggs]

Thank you for the question.

The performance targets, the results we're looking to achieve, are embedded inside what's called our CDPF, our country development programming frameworks. They are now done and completed. Each country's program—Tanzania, Mali, Vietnam—will have a clear set of expectations and results, towards which it is directing its programming. We look at those every year to see whether things are on track and whether we need to adjust. As you would expect, if there are things that are completely off track for whatever reason, we would adjust and make course corrections. Those country development programming frameworks, CDPF, have been developed, are in place, and are directing our programming as indicated in our action plan. Those were done before March 31, 2010.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

I want to be sure I understand. For all the country programs that you have put in place, there are automatic expectations to evaluate them.

[Margaret Biggs]

Yes, that's true.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you very much.

It is also my understanding that before establishing strategies based on the three priorities in recommendation 8.54—increasing food security, stimulating sustainable economic growth, and securing the future of children and youth—you led consultations across Canada and in focus countries.

[Margaret Biggs]

On the thematic priorities, we did have consultations in Canada and we're talking to people in countries all the time. But we did have specific targeted consultations on the thematic priorities late last summer and into the fall. The three thematic priorities were developed as a result of the in-depth advice we got.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Merci, Madame Beaudin.

Mr. Dreeshen, you have four minutes.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much.

I have just a couple of things. I'd like to go back to paragraph 8.36 of the AG report, where it notes that the level of use of program-based approaches varies significantly from country to country. That is in part because of the nature of the recipient government, but it's also because of the participation of other donors.

I've had the opportunity to speak with different groups, specifically Rotarians, and to look at the types of things they've done. They've given glowing reports of the type of work and cooperation they have had with CIDA. They have spoken particularly about the International Development Agency's $60 million toward the World Health Organization's polio eradication, and specifically what is happening in Afghanistan. There's also the work that has been done in Belize with the distributed learning program that CIDA has been helping with.

On page 15 of your report, I notice that access to clean water in Kenya was also included--looking at 20,000 people and rainwater harvesting that has the potential to last for 25 years, to assist in that area.

I wonder if you can comment on how you tie in with the local organizations from Canada, and also what you find for support when you reach these other countries.

[Margaret Biggs]

I think I understand your question, sir.

In our country programs, in our bilateral programs, we look first and foremost at what that country has identified as its priorities and where it is looking for assistance in allowing it to deliver on its objectives. This goes back to the principle of ownership I mentioned earlier. We have of course chosen these countries on the basis of their need and where we think we can make a difference because of the quality of their governance.

Then we look at where Canada's comparative advantage is, where we have strengths, where they need us, and what other donors are doing. Then we align around that. Within that we figure out how best to deliver on our objectives and who best to work with. Sometimes that will be with an international organization like WHO in terms of polio eradication; sometimes it may be with a Canadian non-governmental organization that is present on the ground and is best placed. But it's all based upon what we're trying to achieve and how best to achieve the results we've set out for ourselves.

I hope that answers your question.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much.

In paragraph 8.44 you speak of the geographic programs, the multilateral and global programs, as well as your Canadian partnerships. You mention the harmonization with external parties and demanding internal coordination and cohesion.

I wonder if you could explain how these three branches coordinate their efforts. What are their respective roles in developing and implementing these harmonized plans with our other partners?

[Margaret Biggs]

As you indicate, CIDA has three channels to deliver its assistance, all in aid of helping us achieve our mandate, which is poverty reduction. Our country programs are in individual countries, and there, as I said, we are aligned with the plans of those countries. On our multilateral investments, of which we have just undertaken a complete review, we work through international organizations to achieve poverty reduction objectives. That extends our reach in terms of the number of countries and people we can get to, and oftentimes they are better positioned to deliver on results. For example, in fragile states quite often that's the best way to work. In our partnership programs, we focus on our work with Canadian partners. That is both aligning with our priorities but also responding to what they can bring to the equation--their skills, their expertise, and their initiative.

In our country plans, we look to try, across these three channels, to ensure that we're maximizing the effect, particularly in terms of our country programs and our multilateral programs. Our partnership programs also have to respond to the initiative and the objectives of the partners themselves, our Canadian partners. So we are cognizant of what they're doing in country. We try to link them up and join them up and create synergies as much as possible, and they are captured inside of our country program frameworks that I indicated we have completed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Dewar, four minutes.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I just want to finish up where we left off.

Ms. Biggs, next year, according to the government's budget, what will happen to your funding envelope?

[Margaret Biggs]

For this year, for 2010-11, as Budget 2010 indicated, there's a further increment, and after that the budget indicated that the international assistance levels would be capped for the time being, until we hear further direction from the budget in terms of the fiscal situation of the country. So we have one more year of growth to meet our commitment to double assistance, the Gleneagle commitment, which the Government of Canada will meet.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I ask that, Chair, because of course as we enter into the G-8 and G-20 and the government wants to take on the issue of child and maternal health, I think it's important, as was indicated by the Auditor General, that we have an idea where the money is going to come from.

I also note that just a year ago there was a multinational fund. I think it was coordinated by the U.K. It was $5.3 billion that was collected for maternal health. My information is that Canada did not contribute to that fund. Ms. Biggs, is that your understanding as well? This is a $5.3 billion multinational fund that was coordinated, I believe, by the U.K., but I might be wrong on that. It was for child and maternal health. I'm just wondering if you can clarify if we contributed to that fund or not.

[Margaret Biggs]

I'm not sure exactly which fund you're referring to. I could get back to the committee, Chair, in terms of what the details of that are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You could provide the details to the clerk and we'll circulate that.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Yes, I'd appreciate that.

I'd also like Ms. Biggs to clarify my question on the funding of Marie Stopes International. My reference was from the media, and they might have had that wrong. I don't know. It would be helpful if I heard it from the agency, because what has been reported is that they will not be able to receive funds having to do with certain aspects of reproductive health.

I'm hearing from you that there's no change in the policy of CIDA when it comes to reproductive health. We're hearing something different from government. My question is, have there been other partners--because you mentioned just a couple of questions ago--

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

There's a point of order.

Mr. Young, you have the floor.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Chair, I'm wondering how this relates to the report we're currently examining. It's really off topic. It's really not fair to ask the deputy to come in and report to the committee on this report and then start asking a whole lot of other questions on current events. It's not relevant to the work we're doing today.