Foreign Affairs committee  Which one? Do you mean the bundling of aid and non-aid?

Foreign Affairs committee  The Canadian government definitely operates differently. Only now, with these kinds of projects, is it doing the kind of bundling—

Foreign Affairs committee  I'm sorry, I don't see countries as having one strategic objective.

Foreign Affairs committee  That was not at all what I meant or argued. Canada has signed on to and enacted legislation that says that foreign aid is separate from commercial objectives. It's separate from investment, trade, and non-aid. So we separate aid and non-aid instruments. There are certain definitions that must be followed to count foreign aid as ODA, official development assistance.

Foreign Affairs committee  In my closing remarks I mentioned that the Canadian government has many instruments with which it can—and in response to your earlier questions I said it should—partner with Canadian companies. My main message here is that the use of public funds with private corporations for the goal of development—and by development I mean poverty alleviation and fighting inequality—must be done only with extreme care, and my concern is that the current partnerships with these mining companies and NGOs do not meet the standard of an effective use of public development funds.

Foreign Affairs committee  I haven't heard any evidence-based argument that has anything to do with improved effectiveness. I haven't heard any rationale cited, other than blanket statements that this is more effective. I'm not aware of any such studies anywhere that say this is a more effective way to do development.

Foreign Affairs committee  I do.

Foreign Affairs committee  I have.

Foreign Affairs committee  That they're aware of it. In fact, Rosemary McCarney, the head of Plan Canada, which is one of the other NGOs that's receiving money for working with mining companies, has discussed this publicly—that this is a risk, that they're aware of it, and that it's an experiment.

Foreign Affairs committee  The risk isn't so much in partnering with them, but in partnering also with the mining companies.

Foreign Affairs committee  Yes, that's their decision, and they're aware of the risk, and they've had some—

Foreign Affairs committee  As I said earlier, many of the benefits are in fact good things. More schools, more people trained, more clinics—those are good things. The real question is, should that be where Canada is spending its money? To go back to your other question about what actually is the problem, the presence of a reputable NGO will not shield the Canadian government from negative fallout.

Foreign Affairs committee  I see what your point is, but I'd like to take one step back and say we're not asking if it's worthwhile to train 1,000 people. We're saying if we have a limited amount of money, where is that money best spent? The answer is not clear that it should be spent with World Vision and Barrick Gold in mining-affected communities.

Foreign Affairs committee  Yes, I am.

Foreign Affairs committee  Absolutely. For example, there is the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and other international agreements that were signed subsequently. We must respect our commitment to development strategies as defined by partners in developing countries. Let me take this opportunity to reply to Ms.