Public Accounts Committee on April 20th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you. That was perfect.

Turning back to the official opposition, is it Mr. Genuis or Mr. McCauley? Do you have any more questions? You have four minutes.

If you're satisfied, that's okay too.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, I'm far from satisfied with my time or with the situation at the department.

Can I pick up where I left off? I didn't know I would have more time, but maybe if the Auditor General....

You were answering some of the previous question. I wonder if you can pick up on this issue of what information is available around outcomes on an individual project level and the challenges you had in accessing that information.

[Karen Hogan]

I'm not sure I can add too much more. I can say it in different words.

I would repeat that it was there sometimes, but it's really tracked and monitored just at the project level. We didn't see senior management asking for it, but there also wasn't a way for project managers to roll it up and push it. Sometimes it happens, because about 50% of the projects are rolled up into external reporting, so it's about consistency across all of the areas of the organization.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you for that.

Mr. MacLennan, do you accept as true what was just said in that outcomes-based measurements are only available or only exist in the case of about half of the projects? What's going on with the other half of the projects?

[Christopher MacLennan]

No, I can't agree with that, actually.

One of the things I can say is that only 20% of the projects the Auditor General reviewed were actually completed. The other 80% were still, as we understood.... Because they were begun basically over the first three years of the policy, 80% of the projects are still actually active in the field, so we haven't gotten to the point of a completed project to collect the results yet.

Every project has not only the outcomes that are expected, but they also have, for example, the indicators to tell those outcome stories.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Going back to the Auditor General, is that fair from your perspective, or is something being missed?

[Karen Hogan]

When we picked the projects, we made sure that the projects had at least one year of reporting, because we didn't want to select projects and say there was really nothing to look at. I acknowledge that outcomes sometimes take more than one year to get there, but you need to set yourself up to monitor and gather that information. I would say that's a nuance I would add to the response.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

For the projects that were not complete, did you see evidence of the collection of outcomes-based data that was simply ongoing? Did you see an indication that outcomes-based data was not being collected, or that there was no plan to collect outcomes-based data?

[Karen Hogan]

Again, I'm going to turn to Susan's comments that, at times, there was outcomes-based data, and at times, there was not. We saw project managers doing a good job using the tools, but you need to set yourself up to monitor the right things.

In the absence of having more.... I don't think we have more at our fingertips to give you more specifics than what you—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

What I got was that in 50% of the projects there was outcome-based data collected and in 50% of the projects there was not outcome-based data collected, or is it that, of those 50%, there might have been outcome-based collection going on but the data was just not available yet?

Mr. MacLennan is kind of painting the picture that they were trying to collect outcome-based data in every case. It was just that they hadn't gotten to it in some cases yet, but what you're saying is—

[Karen Hogan]

I'm at a place where I'd prefer us to go back and really look through our files to give you a more accurate answer, instead of misspeaking.

I will turn to Susan to see if she wants to add something.

[Susan Robertson]

I can clarify where some of the disconnect is here. The projects are generating their own outcomes and objectives, and then Global Affairs is approving the projects with these pre-existing set of objectives in them. The problem is that those objectives don't necessarily map onto the KPIs that the department is tracking and collecting.

We can tell you—and I don't remember off the top of my head—how many projects we looked at that were performing according to expectations and how many were below expectations. Those kinds of things are being tracked at the department level. We know whether or not the projects are performing as expected, which I think is partly what you're trying to get at here.

The disconnect is that what those projects are actually tracking as outcomes are not the same as the KPIs that the department is trying to track. For example, if you have a project that doesn't happen to have anything to do with vitamin A but is doing something related to nutrition, it won't contribute to the vitamin A statistic that's being reported. It's not that it's not producing a result. It's that it's not producing that result, so it can't contribute to the reports that are being generated at the departmental level.

I hope that helps clarify the disconnect I think I'm hearing.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you. We are out of time. I appreciate the answer. Can we expect some information, or do we think that covers it?

[Karen Hogan]

We've committed to go look, and if we want to expand or provide more, we will.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the last four minutes. You're welcome to use as much or as little of that as you'd like.

It's over to you, sir.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

With the last question, let me say at the outset that I very much believe and have always believed that Canada needs a very strong overseas development assistance policy.

The challenge here is with the problems that have been identified, and they are serious in nature. I'm glad to hear that there have been reflections and that there will be efforts to rectify, based on the Auditor General's report. The worry that I have is that, when things like this do happen, they fuel an argument that exists in Canada and that persists about development assistance in general: Is it worth it?

It's a question of getting back to basics. Deputy Minister, tell us why it's still important for us to have a strong overseas development assistance policy. What's in it for Canada, and what's in it for Canadians?

[Christopher MacLennan]

Obviously, it's difficult for me to not agree with that statement.

I think our official development assistance is one of the primary tools in Canada's tool kit when it comes to our overseas interests—our national interests that are overseas.

The best example of this was the pandemic. I can tell you that, in the world of international assistance, we've been talking about the value of investing in health care systems in places like Tanzania and Mozambique, to enable those countries to not only treat their own citizens but to also contribute to global health. That's an actual thing. The control of infectious diseases requires all countries to work in co-operation. We need to be there to help our partners build those systems because, in the end, they also contribute to protecting Canadians.

On climate change, we are working with our developing country partners to help them respond to climate change, to adapt to the impacts of climate change but also to ensure that they're not contributing and that they don't take the pathway of high emissions in their development, so that we are actually contributing to the reduction of global and greenhouse gas emissions for all of the planet. Canada can do everything it wants, but we know that the rest of the world also has to act. We need to be there to help developing countries do that as well.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I take your point. I obviously agree, but I'm going to push you a bit more.

Tell it to my constituents, who won't be watching this because they're busy at work trying to put together their next paycheque so they can feed their family. Why is it important that we continue to invest large sums? Granted, it's not what Pearson called for, 0.7% of GDP, but my understanding is that it is around 0.3% of GDP, which is not insignificant at all.

What's in it for the everyday Londoner? What's in it for the everyday Canadian? You did touch on this when you talked about the pandemic and global health systems, and how ultimately a focus on the international does help to ensure the security of Canadians, but can you go into that a bit more, Deputy Minister?

[Christopher MacLennan]

South Korea used to be one of the poorest countries on the planet. It is one of the prime development success stories. South Korea is now an important trading partner with Canada. In the Indo-Pacific, South Korea is increasing as an important ally for Canada. It is a thriving democracy in a world in which democracy is in retreat. We need more South Koreas for Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much everyone. We ran a few minutes late.

You have my apologies, Mr. Zimmer. I didn't start right on the money, so we're two minutes late.

However, I appreciate everyone coming today. Have a good weekend for those of you who are getting away tonight.

I will adjourn the meeting.