Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue 17 - Evidence - June 5, 2007
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 5, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-293, respecting the provision of official development assistance abroad, met this day at 6:19 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Consiglio Di Nino (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Today we are beginning our study on Bill C-293, an act respecting the provisions of development assistance abroad.
We welcome today Mr. John McKay, Member of Parliament for Scarborough—Guildwood and our honourable colleague Senator Dallaire, the two sponsors of Bill C-293 in the House and Senate respectively.
This bill aims to make poverty reduction the goal of Canada's official development assistance, to ensure that this assistance is consistent with Canada's international human rights obligations and that it takes into account the perspective of those living in poverty.
Mr. McKay has just celebrated 10 years as a member of Parliament. Congratulations. He looks a lot older. He was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance for two years under the previous government and is a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. He introduced Bill C-293 in the House of Commons on May 17, 2006 and third reading was held on March 28, 2007.
[Translation]
The first reading of this bill in the Senate took place on March 29, 2007, and the Senate referred Bill C-293 to us last Tuesday, that is, on May 29. Senator Dallaire is the bill's sponsor in the Senate. He will make a presentation on it, together with Mr. McKay. Without further delay, I give you the floor.
[English]
Hon. John McKay, M.P., sponsor of the bill in the House of Commons: As they say in life, timing is everything, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak before this group and also Senator Dallaire for his sponsorship and support.
As you know, Bill C-293 comes from a number of sources. If successful, this bill will have many fathers, but if it does not succeed, then it will be an orphan. I am hoping with your assistance this bill will have many fathers.
The current Prime Minister, the leader of the Bloc Québécois and the leader of the NDP Party are among the father's of this bill. Each of those men wrote to Prime Minister Martin in 2005 suggesting poverty alleviation would be the focus of Canada's official development assistance, ODA. You can read that letter in the information package I have handed out to committee members.
I also reference, as a father of this bill, the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade's report Overcoming 40 Years of Failure: A New Roadmap for Sub-Saharan Africa, of which poverty alleviation is a significant component. I also note that the House Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development in 2005 reported that poverty alleviation be our focus for official development assistance. The House unanimously adopted the report.
We should also note that this bill is not in the same form as the original bill. The original bill contemplated an advisory committee and a petitioning process. The Speaker ruled that those sections of the bill required Royal Recommendation. The government would not waive the Royal Recommendation and consequently, when it went to committee the bill had to be renovated. That, in turn, meant that the original section 4, had the word "may" turned into "shall." We, in effect, had to change the bill so that the minister or ministers or the government would have an obligation.
The change was critical to the bill; otherwise, the bill would be toothless. If the bill simply said that the minister, ministers or government "may consult" with various people about issues relating to poverty alleviation and human rights and other matters, then the bill would be absolutely meaningless.
There are three criteria in the bill. Our ODA has to contribute to poverty reduction, take into account the perspectives of the poor and be consistent with international human rights standards. In order to satisfy the requirements of the bill, the minister must show consultation with governments, international organizations, and Canadian civil society organizations.
Let me deal with some of the objections from your debates and others. The first objection is that this bill will hamstring government. There is no doubt the discretion of government will be circumscribed. This is a bill about accountability and transparency. The minister must show a rational connection from poverty alleviation through consultation to the deployment of funding. He or she must demonstrate that connection to Parliament.
Some things have been said about micro-consultation. You should be aware that there is legal opinion that courts will not interfere in the discretion of a minister as long as it is used in a fashion that is consistent with other principles. I do not think the concern about micro-consultation is a justifiable criticism.
We have heard about adding additional criteria, like economic self-sufficiency or concerns about corruption. This is a simple, clean and precise statement of purpose; it brings clarity where there is currently no clarity. I would urge honourable senators to resist the impulse to lard up this bill with everyone's pet goal, no matter how worthy.
This bill was introduced 13 months ago and throughout the entire process, the government, through their public servants or various other representatives, have said they want to bring in some consultation, some wider bill dealing with the bigger picture, that kind of thing. We would support that. My own view is that it should have a mandate, definitions and a senior ministerial status for the CIDA minister. My own view is that there should be a conversion from an agency status to a ministerial status; however, this bill is not the bill on which to make that particular aspiration happen. My view is that all supporters of Bill C-293 would welcome the initiative from the government, but thus far, the government apparently has other priorities.
The next objection was that this bill will lead to perpetual aid that is beneath Canadian standards; that it lacks clarity and perpetuates a top-heavy bureaucracy. Having Senator Smith here is helpful. Senator Smith will well know that "the poor ye shall always have with you" and I dare say in my lifetime, at least, there will always be a need for aid.
Senator Smith: It is better to give than to receive.
Mr. McKay: I do not expect that the need for aid will disappear in my lifetime. It is hard to see how this could be beneath Canadian standards since at present Canada does not have any standards. We distribute aid according to the unilateral discretion of the minister.
In my view, this bill provides clarity in place of opaqueness. One of the drivers of this bill was that we seem to go to flavour of the month, whatever the particular issue of the time. I have read your report. It is a good report and CIDA's ratio of 80 people here for 20 people on the field is disturbing. That does not seem to be right, but if anything, this bill will actually light a fire not only under CIDA but under the government as well.
In Great Britain, for instance, it only takes seven months from the end of the fiscal year in order to produce the information this bill would require. This bill would set a standard of six months. Currently, it takes something in the order of just a little less than two years to get information out of CIDA. I and others will agree, that is simply too long and that the information that you get two years after the fact is in fact almost useless.
This is a bill about accountability and transparency, which is apparently a favourite topic of this government. The minister will have to show a rational connection between what is being done and poverty alleviation. If this bill circumscribes discretion, so be it.
The final series of objections are that the government will be at the mercy of select groups, it will be a generator of lawsuits, a challenge to ministerial authority, pork-barrelling, patronage, consulting with foreign governments and putting NGOs at risk. I am taking all of these objections from Senate debates and elsewhere.
There will be a requirement to show that the perspectives of the poor meeting international human rights standards in consultation with NGOs and governments have been done. However, I want you to ask those very questions of the people from World Vision, Inter PARES and various other witnesses that will appear before the committee. Ask whether they think lawsuits will fly as a result of Bill C-293. Ask whether they think they are at greater risk by virtue of the bill. Ask CIDA whether consultations will lead to pork-barrelling, patronage and other reasons advanced in debate. I suggest that you ask those specific questions to the NGO communities and to CIDA as they appear before this committee on the bill.
I hope that honourable senators will see Bill C-293 as I see it — a bill that will bring focus to Canada's official development assistance abroad. I hope that it will bring a moral clarity to what the government hopes to do in the international community. Thank you for your attention. I know that Senator Dallaire wishes to make a few remarks after which we would be pleased to take questions.
[Translation]
Hon. Senator Roméo Dallaire, sponsor of bill: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to open the discussion on our study of Bill C-293.
[English]
I will not sit here as an expert in international development, although I have seen it in the field in countries like Cambodia, Central Africa, Western Africa and even in South America in Brazil. Although Brazil is a competitor of ours in the aerospace industry, we still provide them with ODA. I have seen international development in peace and in war conditions as we have attempted to evolve in this new era of conflict resolution. I have looked at it as both a practitioner in recent years and as an adviser to the minister for CIDA beginning nearly five years ago and concentrating mostly on child protection. On the research side, I have been working on the 3Ds, development, defence and diplomacy in conflict resolution.
Development is no longer in the realm of pure support or giving or attempts at establishing in developing countries what we might establish as criteria for their development. Today, it is multi-faceted and integrated with other disciplines and has venues in everything, including security development, nation building and capacity building, which are not necessarily directly related to economics.
[Translation]
Thank you for the invitation to testify before you. My objective today is to complement the information provided by our colleague from the other place, the bill's sponsor in the Commons, and to answer questions that this bill raises about official development assistance.
I will spare you the speech that I delivered in the Senate on second reading, and instead I will highlight four important points: what the bill seeks to achieve, what is meant by the definition of poverty reduction, the difference between official development assistance and international aid and a response to the amendments that have been proposed.
[English]
What is the bill about? The aim of the bill is to ensure better transparency and a clearer mandate in what is to be counted as official development assistance, ODA. As your committee concludes in its Africa report, the way that Canadian foreign aid has been allocated over the past 40 years has not produced the expected results of significantly reducing poverty on our planet. Part of the reason for the poor results is that the level of foreign aid channelled to developing nations might not have been well targeted to meet the needs or interests of the poor. That is the essence of the discussion. We should not forget that most of the ODA money allocated by Canada to developing countries has always been below .4 per cent of our gross national income. How can we make a real difference when we allocate so little to several developing countries? Official development assistance in Canada is a residual and is not a mainstream effort of our country in respect of its role within the international community. We offer assistance after we have taken care of higher priorities. When there are funds left over, we attempt to move them into ODA. We are a long way from the .7 per cent objective and there is little evidence that it will be reached any time soon. The volume of capability in the provided finances and resources is not necessarily up to the challenge of the demand, and that creates problems of prioritization by staff, the minister and the country.
In the post-9/11 era, Canadian ODA has been increasingly channelled to various flavour-of-the-month objectives or to national security interests, neither of which does much to meet the needs of the poor. We moved international development money in support of Darfur into supporting Afghanistan. Funds are used for capacity building and security in certain circumstances or simply protection in other ones. Between 2001 and 2004, approximately 28 per cent of Canadian aid increases were allocated to Afghanistan and to Iraq. How can Canadian aid benefit the world's poorest when most of our Canadian money is directed to security stabilization missions and reconstruction rather than to projects for improving the economic conditions of the poor? Improving the economic conditions of the poor does not mean "handouts" as such.
Bill C-293 aims to improve the way our ODA works by ensuring it is exclusively channelled for poverty reduction purposes in order to have results that are more concrete on the ground. We are bringing focus, accountability and transparency. The rationale is that if Canada realigns its ODA for the exclusive purpose of poverty reduction, then it will have greater chances of meeting its global duty of eradicating extreme poverty and, by 2015, halving the proportion of those living in extreme poverty. That duty corresponds to the first goal of the Millennium Development Goals, the MDGs that Canada fully endorsed in 2000 at the UN Millennium Summit. We would be consistent with those goals.
I firmly believe that aid can work if it is properly channelled, targeted and monitored through a legislated mandate. The structures within the instruments of providing ODA, principally CIDA, have been the source of your analysis in your report. I fully support the need for realignment of the agency to meet something as specific and as focused as poverty reduction.
What does poverty reduction really mean? The second comment I have concerns that definition. According to the OECD Development Assistance Committee, the DAC, and to the UNDP, poverty reduction is defined as encompassing measures aimed at boosting "pro-poor growth in areas such as agriculture, infrastructure and private-sector development" and "expanding access to productive assets and economic opportunities." Pro-poor growth is a growth that will enhance the ability of the poorest to take part in and benefit from growth. This is not a handout but rather, this is building capacity.
In response to Senator Segal's concern, self-sufficiency as well as sustainable livelihoods are inherent components in the definition of "poverty reduction." We did not invent it. It exists, we agreed to it and we have signed on to it. That is what poverty reduction means.
To add the term "self-sufficiency" to the current bill might not necessarily contribute to reducing poverty because it might not always be tailored to be pro-poor. This is why I would be reticent to add this term to clause 2 of the bill.
This is a subject that was also discussed in the United Kingdom when the International Development Assistance Bill was under study in their House of Commons in 2001. A member of the U.K. House of Commons proposed to amend the legislation to include foreign direct investment along with the term "poverty reduction." It was rejected on the basis that poverty reduction already includes the promotion of this concept as well as economic opportunities and private investment. The Secretary of State argued that narrowly defining poverty reduction would risk excluding important issues and that the provision of development assistance for excluded issues could be challenged in court. We would actually be attracting problems as opposed to getting more flexibility. This is why the definition was kept open to interpretation to the implementers. I think we should learn from this experience in designing our legislation on poverty reduction, and it would be well worth at least giving it sober second thought.
I believe it is the mandate of the competent minister who will be handing out the money to ensure that the money that is being allocated really meets the interests of the poor. It is not our mandate as senators to determine what poverty reduction initiatives should entail. Moreover, considering that developing countries are encouraged to develop their own poverty reduction strategies, it would be inappropriate for us to define in their place what poverty reduction should be for them. Do we, in a post-colonial atmosphere, tell them what to do, how to do it and achieve our standards, or are we not there to help them, assist them and support them in achieving standards that meet their requirements in regards to poverty reduction?
A legislated mandate on ODA does not intend to put an end to or to limit government spending on peace and security projects such as the stabilization and reconstruction task force we have out in Afghanistan, or even human security activities at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. On the contrary, it calls for us to specifically allot resources for those tasks and not put in jeopardy the funds that have been moved into the development, particularly ODA and in poverty reduction. In effect, ODA is only a portion of the Canadian international assistance envelope that funds Canada's official development assistance and other official assistance, OA, initiatives. Therefore, in restricting ODA to poverty reduction, we are not intending to put an end to current funding on peace and security projects. To the contrary, by way of legislation, we want to clarify the mandate of the two envelopes. This will ensure more effectiveness, more tangible results on the ground and much more accountability to the different departments involved in international development.
[Translation]
In other developed countries, specifically the United States, Australia, the Netherlands, lack of clear legislation on public assistance for development has resulted in assistance being gradually diverted to fund national security projects rather than projects designed to strengthen the economic power of those most in need.
We should therefore not be asking why results in the war against poverty are disappointing, when essentially much of the money is not destined for that goal.
By comparison, in countries that have passed legislation on official development assistance, specifically Great Britain, Spain, Sweden, Denmark and Belgium, official development assistance seems to be much more targeted to poverty reduction. Their legislation allows public development assistance to be used to fund projects related to security or to the war on terrorism. This therefore leads us to believe that legislation of that nature allows us much more effectively to fulfil, as is our duty, our millennium objective of reducing poverty by half by 2015.
This also provides a lot of clarity, transparency and objectivity for our desire not only to help those countries establish themselves in security but also to advance the causes of human rights, good governance, and the rule of law.
I have responses to the comments that have been made on Bill C-293, and specifically on some of the comments raised in the Senate.
I must say that I am sorry that Senator Segal is not here today.
[English]
Senator Segal said that during the committees study on Africa, a witness said that what they want "is not aid but trade." As I mentioned earlier, poverty reduction includes the concept of trade, pro-poor growth and sustainable livelihoods. In effect, aid and pro-poor growth must go hand in hand for poverty reduction to be sustainable and to lead to self-sufficiency.
Another comment was made by Senator Di Nino, our chair here today, when he said that "aid creates deficiency and enslaves." How absolutely true. I would answer that aid creates dependency when it is channelled in a non-sustainable manner or fashion. It is up to CIDA, our principle agent in regards to meeting, overseeing and being held accountable for ODA, to assess whether the projects they are to fund will contribute to increasing the economic power of the poorest. If CIDA does not do its job, does not do it well or effectively, this bill will ensure that we are aware of it when the minister reports to Parliament. We will be able to hold the minister accountable for the lack of results. We actually use the term "accountable." We actually would see CIDA moving into an effective, focused and results-oriented structure.
A comment was also made on subclause 4.2 of the bill, which states:
In arriving at the opinion described in subsection (1), the competent minister shall consult with governments, international agencies and Canadian civil society organizations.
Senator Segal said that it might render the minister at the mercy of NGOs or corrupted governments, and my colleague spoke on that subject. I do not see that there is an obligation on the part of the minister to always consult with all governments and all Canadian NGOs. It says, "shall consult with," but does not oblige the minister to consult each time and with all the stakeholders. This would be at the minister's discretion, but he would have to prove, through transparency and accountability, that he has consulted.
I would like to re-emphasize that this bill has been studied in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development and most of the concerns of our colleagues in the other places were responded to in their deliberations. That is their place, that is their problem, and that is how they do it. We, of course, are starting the sober second thought. In that sense, we have a full spectrum of looking of what has come from that other place to us and to assess it. What we have before us is the result of not just the exercise that has recently gone on there but the exercise of over 10 years of pushing this bill one way or another through the system. During that time, all parties at one time or another have had an opportunity to support, comment and in fact desire that ODA become more focused, transparent and accountable. If ODA achieved those goals we might see the results of the significant amount of resources, although nowhere near what they should be if we are true to what we believed in regards to Prime Minister Pearson's 0.7 GDP reference. However, it is significant, and those funds must provide results that we can see. This bill provides that focus and target, which is poverty reduction in its pure definition, an ability to allow the poor to build their livelihoods and participate in the economic evolution of their countries.
Senator Stollery: I notice the bill is only 10 paragraphs long. I have a couple of short questions because I want my colleagues to have opportunity to ask questions and we will have other witnesses.
In clause 2, you have "poverty reduction" and then you have it "consistent with Canadian values, Canadian foreign policy. . . ."
The first words that jumped off the page were "Canadian values." The only Canadian values I know of that have any legal meaning are in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Are you referring to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Mr. McKay: As you noted, the original bill did not have that phrase in it. This was a motion put forward by the Bloc Québécois and I think that pretty well answers the question.
Senator Stollery: If this committee, which will do its work thoroughly, comes up with a bill that is challenged because some of the legal terms are challengeable in courts because they do not comply, that is a problem. That is why these questions must be answered.
I know your main thrust of this bill seems to be the advisory committee, and its composition. I will leave that for others to discuss. You talked about poverty reduction. The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade listened to nearly 400 people while preparing the report entitled Overcoming 40 Years of Failure: A New Road Map for Sub-Saharan Africa. We heard many different conflicting views; obviously, not all 400 people made the same remarks. President Amadou Toumani Touré of Mali spoke vigorously and heatedly about the problems of subsidies that are destroying his country. The bill does not seem to address that issue. Alpha Oumar Konaré, past Chairperson of the African Union Commission told the committee that in Addis Ababa, foreign aid has been a failure. He was a little contradictory, I might say, as people become when they are heated. I am not criticizing him, but he was against foreign aid and had strong views on the subject.
When you refer to poverty reduction, and you have gone to some extent, Senator Dallaire, in trying to define it, in my mind I see Africans just the same as I see Canadians. I would not use terms about Africans that I would not use about my neighbours on Rusholme Road.
When I was born in Toronto, one in six people in Ontario were on relief. They did not talk about poverty reduction. They had marches about jobs and unemployment. Is that what this means? When you say "to me" does that mean jobs as it would in Canada? Does building capacity mean jobs?
I was only a boy during the depression. I was born in the middle of the depression, but I remember everyone talking about it during the war. They did not have anything during the depression. They did not talk about building capacity or poverty reduction; they talked about jobs and the fact that there was no safety net. There was nothing. My family and people who had anything in the 1920s spent their lives looking after the poor.
I have been visiting Africa for 50 years and each time I visit, I see the same kind of poverty that I recall when I lived in Toronto.
Why do we use this different vocabulary? Why do we not use the same vocabulary that we would use for ourselves?
Mr. McKay: With respect to any legal challenges that may arise out of the "Purpose" section, generally speaking, not many lawsuits would arise out of it, although it may be referenced in a lawsuit. To be candid, when we had to renovate the bill, we did so with the political reality we had. It is not as precise as I would like it to be, but I live with that reality.
Second, this bill is about the quality of aid rather than the quantity. We are attempting to achieve accountability and transparency with respect to what we actually do in the aid field. It does not mean we will cover the universe of assistance.
Senator Dallaire: I would like address quality of aid. One of the principle objectives of this bill is to ensure that the ODA portion of international development funds go toward an economic objective. Since the end of the Cold War, we have seen many developing countries implode due to power sharing because of their state of poverty. We are trying to ensure the funds go to an economic objective, not economic in the sense of handout, but rather capacity building. The funds should not go to other venues such as security and infrastructure. The funds should not go to peripheral nation building or mainstay capabilities, be they micro-capabilities or industrial bases.
We are trying to ensure we are clearing up the area and people are not delving into the $2.9 billion of CIDA aid and to use it for other sources. I am a bit torn because we would not have the helicopters and armoured personnel carriers in Darfur if we had not gone to CIDA for the funds. Part of that was not because CIDA had the money but because we were not able to find the cash in other areas. There was not the process to contract to do it, either from DND, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, or whoever else. The easiest solution was to use the money from CIDA and figure it out later because CIDA has that capacity to contract. That was the failure. That is what sucked us down that road. That is the danger if we do not have focus.
In regard to terminology, Senator Stollery is quite right. Africans and Canadians are the same human beings and we should not take a condescending position toward them. However, we still use the term "poverty line" in this country. We actually say "people live below the poverty line." We should be raising people's capacity to move beyond the poverty line. When we were in catastrophic failure in the depression, the whole country was poor. Many of these countries are below the depression levels we had at the time. We use the term. I contend that the term "poverty" is not pejorative in this context. It is a word that helps us focus on the problem.
Lastly, we have gone into Africa in the past to assist and we have not been very strategic in regards to poverty. Maybe we have participated in creating that poverty.
The example I have used and debated is that over many decades we moved a lot of health capability into those developing countries, to the extent that we have reduced infant mortality significantly and increased the ability for children to survive beyond the first five years. We have seen the average age rise. The problem is we created a population growth that was beyond anything that had been there previously. Furthermore, we did not follow that up with the capability of absorbing all these people within a new economic structure that would permit us to handle all these new people inside the country. We simply gave them humanitarian aid; threw some cash at them. We ended up with much more self-generated poverty and many recruits for subversive organizations and rebellions that have created so many problems.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: This should no longer be Mr. McKay's bill, or Senator Dallaire's, but a House of Commons bill. We have a minority government.
A majority of the House of Commons has passed a bill that we should try to make less of a personal undertaking. This bill came from the House of Commons. So, for that reason, it deserves all the attention we must give it. Let me tell you our problem.
[English]
It is the voice of the people, they voted for it and we should look at it as sober second thought.
Senator Merchant and I were sitting in a committee last week where people were telling us that we could not amend the bill or it would die. That is what we do; we look at bills and try to fix any flaws that we find in them.
I support the bill and I will wait to see what amendments Senator Segal will table. The reality is that it is difficult for us to say we will blindly support a bill without amendments because it is June and we are afraid there might be prorogation. I did not mind doing it last week on a government bill. I sense that some of the witnesses before the committee have justified grievances and Senator Stollery made some remarks about the legal context of some of the wording of the bill with which you did not agree, Mr. McKay.
Since you agree that the bill is likely flawed, perhaps we should agree to try to improve it. I understand that it is a problem to send it back to the House. It is an argument that we were given on Bill C-288 today, tomorrow and all next week.
We are trying to do our duty and so we will seek your guidance. Certainly, we will hear from witnesses.
[Translation]
Witnesses will appear in the days ahead and will make recommendations for improving the bill. We need to be able to see what is acceptable. Especially since, several months ago, this committee tabled a report on Africa which goes further than your bill. However, some aspects of our report could be seen to run counter to yours in the question of aid versus economic development. We placed much more emphasis on economic development as a solution rather than development assistance.
Secondly, Senator Segal perhaps lost his job as chairman of the committee because, like us, he believed that CIDA deserved to be very severely reviewed because of the way in which it has done its work in the last 40 years. You are telling us that we should trust them one more time.
I am not judging the people in the department but the administrative structure with no accountability. CIDA has had six ministers in eight years. This is becoming difficult for our committee.
[English]
Mr. McKay, you renovated the bill when it was in your committee. The following is a long-winded statement more than it is a question: I would like your guidance. Where do we draw the line between improving this bill in the chamber of sober second thought, and passing it just to get it through as quickly as possible? It is clear that both you and Senator Dallaire recognize that the bill is flawed. Where do we draw the line?
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: I think that this bill is the first step towards reforming international development in our country. I see a series of bills that will turn CIDA from an agency that is fiddling around on the sidelines into an agency with a minister who has full authority, scope and capacity.
Your report is not the only one. Many others see the need to realign not only its ways of working but its structure and its outcomes. CIDA has become an almost inaccessible body. One of the reasons is that we have had several ministers. Any minister who tries to get into this impenetrable structure has little or no influence without a tool that is considerably more powerful than a policy that lasts a year; then he is replaced by someone who will also be replaced some time later, and he decides to do something else. If we want to put the proper tools into the minister's hands at the beginning of the process of reforming international development, we say that is your job. Whoever gets defence is told what his job is. I hope that one day we will be able to tell the new minister responsible for CIDA: this is what you work on. That is the first step. That will allow the bureaucrats in particular to be told that they are not in charge, the government and its minister is in charge, and this is what they have to do, not what they think they should do.
[English]
Mr. McKay: It is a fair comment. This bill has an element of all or nothing. If you want to load onto this bill everything that should be done at CIDA, then this bill will die because it cannot carry that load. If you want to load everything contained in your sub-Saharan report, this bill will die because it cannot carry the load. I think the bill is consistent with what you have written in your report. I know that there has been some debate about economic development versus poverty alleviation. I was in Kenya in January. Is micro-credit considered poverty alleviation or is it economic development? I see this bill as highly supportive of micro-credit.
On the particular point of prorogation, if prorogation happens, the bill will retain its status before the Senate. With respect to amendments, if the bill is sent back to the other place, then it will be the discretion of the government to call the bill forward. Given the attitude of the government toward this bill, you will have killed the bill. That would be the effect of the changes.
The Chairman: Just to put that on the record, it is my understanding that on prorogation a private member's bill returns to the stage that it was, but we can have that further clarified for your benefit, Senator Dawson. I am not sure that the bill will die if there is an amendment.
Senator Andreychuk: I sat on the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, as have other senators around this table. We are looking to some similar process, as the house has to resurrect bills at the point that they let die on the Order Paper. However, I have been here long enough not to worry about prorogation. I am more worried about doing my job properly. We often hear that an election is imminent or prorogation is imminent. I think we should do our jobs, hear the witnesses, and make our decisions.
I have long been an advocate of CIDA having a legal framework so that it can go through a process without being the target of unwarranted attacks against very professional people from both NGOs and governments. We politicized the process when we left it as it is, because everyone knows what they think CIDA should do. It would be better to have had a legal framework where everyone would have some say. The government would choose its direction, with input, and then the bureaucracy would deliver and be accountable for coming back for a determination on whether they delivered it, why they did not, how they did it and so on. That is a more transparent and democratic process.
My difficulty is that I am not sure that this bill accomplishes a legal framework. It seems to say, "At the moment, the collective wisdom that went into this bill thinks it is poverty reduction." The collective wisdom 10 years ago was gender equality, as it was primary education, et cetera. My concern is not with poverty reduction. I think it is the issue of the day. I am not sure that entrenching that as an objective of the bill will be helpful. I hope that we can do something with the bill to put it in a proper perspective.
I want to address the issue of Canadian values. In the "Interpretation" section, it says, "Canadian values means, amongst others," so, that means there must be a whole host of other Canadian values we will have to take into account, "values of global citizenship, equity, and environmental sustainability." Environmental sustainability is known. I have an ability to understand that. Equity. Equity of what? Where? How? With whom? Canadian values are values of global citizenship? What does that mean? Are we talking about world federalism? Are we talking about being part of the United Nations? Are we talking about someone's idea of being a good citizen? I have a definitional problem there that needs some direction.
My next problem is the consultations. I am concerned with the highly paternalistic statement in subclause 4(2) ". . . consult with governments, international agencies and Canadian civil society." In 4(1)(b) we only take into account the perspectives of the poor. One reason we were delayed getting here is that I was talking about children. We always do things for the benefit of children, but we rarely listen to them and include them in their own policy-making. The same thing has been true about people that we try to help in the developed world. We do it for them, we talk about them, but we rarely go and talk with them. We are consulting with everyone except the people on the ground, and I think it should be their right to have a say in determining their destiny. I have a great problem with clause 4. It skews it to what I call the client-service industry rather than real people on the ground.
My final comment is a reaction that we really should be following what has been set out, and that is the NEPAD process, the millennium development process, and judging how Canada approaches that, gets to poverty reduction. I was feeling better about the poverty reduction part until I got the answers from both of you. I am playing a bit of the devil's advocate. You simply said anything could be deemed to be poverty reduction. That means I could choose any program, existing or not existing, and put the label of poverty reduction on it and I am scot-free. How do we get at poverty reduction and narrow it from what you have been saying? We are into this needless debate about whether it is economic development or medical aid or education. In fact, we want to bring up a standard of living of people so that they are part of an international system. The way you described it, it would be business as usual. In fact, there may be carte blanche to ignore poverty reduction, as I understood it defined within the UN. You could pick any program and say it has the mantle. You have made it too free.
One final comment to Senator Dallaire: I agree with you. As you know, I have been an advocate for defining development aid, because CIDA has had to cope with everything from military to peace-making to national disasters, and it is all been couched under development aid. I am very supportive of defining development aid and highlighting that, because all those other things have eked out the resources from development aid.
Senator Dallaire: You want short, cryptic answers to questions of that nature.
First, in trying to define poverty, I thought I was in fact not going all over the map and not shot gunning it, but trying to bring it into a perspective.
As to your final comments, we do not want to do all these other things; we want to do nation building and building structural entities that will enhance the economic capabilities of the poor to participate in the economic development of their country. I thought that what we were defining gave us much more focus than what I see today. We are providing ODA to Brazil. They are competing with us in many areas, and we are helping them with ODA. There is a disconnect that must be handled.
In our response, I am sorry that we opened up the definition in trying to show how more specifically encompassing it is.
In regard to CIDA and to the state having to manoeuvre ODA, it is true that in this management by objective and this risk-averse management philosophy that we have in Ottawa in all the departments, we simply do not have the tools — and I have seen it inside CIDA — to handle risks. If you are helping a country constitute itself and trying to move significant parts of the country to get even to the minimum level of human decency and survivability, let alone thriving, you will make mistakes. Yet, we have taken great joy in always using CIDA as the example not to follow when we are doing contractual arrangements and so on. In fact, when I was assistant deputy minister, if someone told me that the contract I did resembled a CIDA contract, I would consider that a slap in the face. It is only that way because we have not been able to handle the enormous room to manoeuvre that they need to bring about such complex and multi-disciplinary programs in those countries. That, however, has been exacerbated by lack of leadership, continuity of ministers and a mandate. Ultimately, this is what we are doing. This is step one in a process that this committee has asked to happen in regards to moving international development and specifically the primary instrument thereof, which is CIDA.
Mr. McKay: Specifically to Senator Andreychuk, this is not a legal framework for CIDA, it never could be. It is way beyond the scope of this bill. That deals with the first question.
I agree with your comments about prorogation. There will be an election. We have been here for a long time. We know that keeps coming up.
As to Canadian values, I know of your legal background. I gave a cryptic answer to Senator Stollery about how this ended up here. I do not want to comment on it any further, but it does not harm the actual intent or aspect of the bill.
Senator Andreychuk you argued that it should be a right of the poor to have their perspectives taken into account. That is a bridge too far. This is still the discretion of the Canadian people as represented by their minister and government. Senator Dallaire and you both referenced this false food fight between economic development and poverty reduction. That is a little like how many angels are dancing on a head of a pin? Those are not contradictory notions.
Senator Smith: When it comes to the views of the people in the other place seeing as this passed, we will assume this represents their views. I am curious as to the views of the bureaucracy, because one senses a lack of enthusiasm from them. I am totally open-minded on this and sympathetic to these objectives.
Is it a straitjacket for them? Are there other concerns? How do you assess and react to your sense of the bureaucracy's concerns? I am not talking about the other place but rather the bureaucrats.
Mr. McKay: There is CIDA, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and the Department of Finance. The Department of Finance distributes a lot of aid through the World Bank, the IMF and institutions of that nature. With respect to CIDA when they came before the committee I thought they were supportive of the principles of the bill and made representations that we addressed in our amendments. That was the only time we heard from CIDA.
As between Foreign Affairs and CIDA, there is an underlying tension there, to be candid about it. Again, the objections of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade were addressed with the amendments of the bill.
The Department of Finance had a particular issue with respect to disclosure within the confidentiality requirements of the Bretton Woods agreements. They were concerned that this bill would require disclosure beyond what they had undertaken. Apparently, Great Britain dealt with that by stating there would be no additional requirements of disclosure beyond what the Bretton Woods agreement did as a function of confidentiality. That was an area we addressed and an expectation that we would not be breaching, those Bretton Woods confidentiality issues.
Senator Dallaire: The tensions between CIDA and Foreign Affairs, in what I have been able to capture, are not necessarily positive frictions that bring discipline to both sides. I find the atmosphere unhealthy. One looking at the other as an agency gives a certain position of being able to influence beyond its scope and the other one not having a solid enough reference point seems to be defending itself in what it will do and without regard to the Department Foreign Affairs. That would be clarified if you saw CIDA moving to a department, which I hope other bills will bring forward.
It is interesting to note that the policy branch in CIDA has no power. All the different branches function in an independent methodology with the president. The policy branch does not having an overarching impact on what it should be doing. I come from a department where you cannot do anything unless it meets the policy statement of the policy branch. There is a significant disconnect there. Who is running the show and what is the show to be run. This bill will give it focus.
The Chairman: For colleagues' information, all three of those departments will appear before us sometime next week.
Senator Corbin: I would like to comment on Mr. McKay's early answer that the value component of the objectives of the bill came from the NDP. The value component is taken word for word from a bill presented by the Honourable Roch Bolduc, March 27, 2003, where clause 4 states:
The mandate of the Agency is to support sustainable development activities abroad in a manner that is consistent with Canadian values, Canada's foreign policy and international human rights standards . . . .
They are the very same words. That does not come from the NDP. Senator Bolduc was a member of this committee, one of the highest civil servants of the Province of Quebec who constantly fought waste and exaggeration while he was a member of the Senate of Canada. He was highly respected for his work.
I find many problems in this bill. You have a full page of requirements for reports beginning with your own committee, reports to Parliament from the minister, the Minister of Finance, and so on and so forth. There is a whole page of reports and summaries of reports. One of the omissions of the bill is a requirement for business plans. If you are going to examine the operations of a government agency or department, the first thing you want to know is the business plan. I do not see that in the bill; why is it omitted? This is what concerns us.
Mr. McKay: I have two points. With respect to the issue of Canadian values, that was an amendment put forward by the Bloc.
Senator Corbin: I meant to say the Bloc. I apologize.
Mr. McKay: If that is generated from some other source, you are informing me and I appreciate that.
With respect to business plans, this bill is setting up a requirement. This requirement will analyze the distribution of aid in accordance with three criteria: poverty reduction, perspective of the poor and international human rights. How the minister chooses to do that, whether he or she sets forward a business plan or not, may become a significant inquiry on the part of parliamentarians, but the bill does not require the minister to put forward a business plan, but it does require that the minister meet these goals.
I do not see that as a deficiency. I see setting forward a business plan as a sensible way of achieving these particular goals. In that respect, you and I would probably agree. It seems to be a legitimate question when our successors start to question how the minister has achieved these three goals. Did the minister have a business plan? I do not think it is appropriate to put it into legislation but it is a legitimate question.
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: Should an instrument like a business plan be part of the text of a bill? A bill is a management methodology established by the central agencies of government. An agency has no right to operate without a business plan. It is a fundamental management principle. Given the way in which bills are drafted, I do not know if we should include that principle.
Senator Corbin: Prevention is better than curing and putting right. A series of reports have been requested on clause 8 of the bill. It seems more sensible to me to ask an agency to provide us with these plans, rather than to examine a pile of reports, one year, two years or three years later, which in turn will be the subject of reports to be studied and debated. All that time, the clock is ticking. If you want to come to grips with the problem, you have to go to the source and look at the plans.
Senator Dallaire: Fair enough, if we want to bring methodology into bills, so be it.
Senator Corbin: Some are like that already.
Senator Dallaire: Fine.
[English]
I will move on to my last question. I have read all of the proceedings of the House of Commons committee. I was a little baffled by the attitudes but I will not comment on the way in which the other place conducts its business beyond that.
Mr. McKay: You just did comment.
Senator Dawson: He was in that other place with me many years ago, if I may remind him.
Senator Corbin: I am amazed by something that Senator Dallaire did not mention in his speech in the Senate. This legislation does not have the support of the government. The government in the House of Commons has opposed this legislation at all stages. It voted against all the clauses and all the amendments in the committee. Has the government come forward with an alternative proposal? If not, why does the government oppose this bill, in your view? I need to know that.
Mr. McKay: You are asking the wrong person but I will engage on speculation, which I should not do.
The first point was that when Prime Minister Harper was Leader of the Official Opposition, he wrote to then Prime Minister Martin and said, "This is what you should do." That seemed sensible. At that point, the Conservative Party joined in a unanimous resolution endorsing the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. That was then and this is now.
This government won an election on the basis of accountability and transparency. This bill is about accountability and transparency. The government, through its members at committee and in the House and on speeches, which you have read, and I feel some sympathy for you in that respect has chosen to oppose a bill that is essentially about accountability and transparency. This is not Moses coming down with the Ten Commandments written in stone. Certainly this is not in that category. I am literally baffled by the intransigence of government over what is essentially a mandate for our official development assistance. I would have hoped in the 16 months of this government's life that they would have put forward a more comprehensive proposed legislation that deals with many of the concerns that all of you have raised here. Those are legitimate concerns that the honourable senator and I share.
Senator Corbin: Would you withdraw your bill if the government came forward with a substantial proposal to reform the whole apparatus?
Mr. McKay: If the government came forward with a substantial bill and got it through to this stage, and my bill had not moved past that, then certainly.
If their proposal is consistent with this bill, then they could simply absorb the bill into their bill. I would consider that a great honour and I might even buy you a beer.
The Chairman: We might have an opportunity to pose those questions to the appropriate witnesses when they appear within the next week or so.
Senator Downe: I guess the last question will be to the other Mr. MacKay when he appears before us next week.
I am interested in the reporting function as well. You indicated in your remarks that it takes two years or more for some of the reports and you want to reduce that wait-time to six months. That will take up much of the bureaucrats time and instead of directing poverty reduction they will be working on reports. Why did you pick six months? Why is that so significant?
Mr. McKay: As you well know, Senator Downe, timely information is critical in making decisions. Information that has been bordering on two years is useless information as far as making decisions. That is why we picked six months.
As to whether this creates a bunch of bureaucrats running around and writing up reports, all of the information is within CIDA, Finance Canada and Foreign Affairs. There should not be one additional bureaucrat. In fact, if anything, with a focused mandate for official development assistance, I would imagine, possibly in the future, that many extraneous things that CIDA, Finance Canada and Foreign Affairs do would drop off. It will provide the bureaucrats in the department a far better focus. If they are focused, presumably they will be able to produce reports in a timely fashion.
Senator Dallaire: I totally agree with the fact that they do not have a focus. Therefore, each branch is all over the map in its way of operating. They are touching so many venues that it is difficult to bring it all together to reconcile it into a report. It requires a great deal of time to manage such an incredible array of activity.
There is such an incredible bureaucracy with 1,200 people in Ottawa and 75 in the field absolutely overwrought with the reports that they generate. It needs the data because the bureaucracy has created in CIDA such a bad reputation that they are covering their six o'clock all the time. They have so much data that that they do not know how to bring it into a succinct and clear instrument.
Maybe this bill will generate a methodology change in the structure that would be beneficial to both the clients and the administration.
Senator Downe: Did you find out why the reports they are producing now are taking so long?
Mr. McKay: No.
Senator Dallaire: I am speaking purely from experience that massive data is continuously fed into the system and requires massive numbers of people to analyze, keep updated and to collate into a reasonable glossy brochure. However, does anybody read it when it is two years old?
Senator Downe: You get all this information gathered up in six months, to use Mr. McKay's earlier description, and then what do you do with it?
Mr. McKay: Then, the minister presumably will present a report, possibly to Parliament but at least it will be public. It will form the basis as to whether the goals of poverty alleviation, taking into account the prospectus of the poor and international human rights standards, have been met.
I would hope that the minister, in his or her wisdom when the first report is collated and brought forward either in a public or parliamentary forum, will constitute a committee to determine whether the goals were met. If they have not been met, then presumably that will create a certain political will to focus again and again so that our aid is effective.
Senator Downe: We will have a chance to pursue that with some other witnesses. Thank you.
The Chairman: I expect that to be the case. I thank both of our presenters. We have gone a bit over time but I think senators will agree that this has been informative and useful. Thank you, Senator Dallaire and Mr. McKay, for helping us to kick off this review of Bill C-293.
The committee continued in camera.