Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue 19 - Evidence - June 19, 2007
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 19, 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 6:05 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Peter A. Stollery (Deputy Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: I want to welcome everyone to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Today we are continuing our study of Bill C-293, respecting the provision of development assistance abroad. 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.
[Translation]
Today, we have the pleasure of having with us Maureen O'Neil, President, International Development Research Centre, as well as Annette Nicholson, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, International Development Research Centre.
[English]
Welcome to the Senate of Canada. IDRC is a Canadian Crown corporation that works in close collaboration with researchers from the developing world in their search for the means to build healthier, more equitable and more prosperous societies. We invited IDRC to appear before us today to give us their views on this bill and to explain why it sought an exemption from this bill when it was still in the other place.
Senator Dallaire: Honourable senators as we have been looking at this bill and its evolution through the process of making itself a bill worthy of agreement and, ultimately, implementation, there are, in my opinion, more witnesses that warrant being heard by this committee in order to ensure that we get a decent balance of all of the arguments. Honourable senators will be in a better position after hearing all witness to assess the bill for what it is worth. Senators will be able to respond to some of the objections, amendments or thoughts of changing the nature of the bill, or components of it, as you have seen through your own analysis and what you have heard so far.
To accomplish that, taking into consideration the fact that we will recess soon, as an example, two witnesses are not available to come tomorrow but are available next week, on Tuesday. One is Nigel Fisher, head of UNICEF Canada, and the other is a gentleman from World Vision. Both have strong perspectives of the argument being presented in favour of this bill. They will appear next week.
The question is whether it suffices to present the arguments of the bill. I would contend that it does not. I would like to have an opportunity to present other witnesses before this committee. I suspect we might be moving this bill into the fall as we reconvene, versus trying to move too precipitously in a clause-by-clause analysis.
That is what I present to honourable senators.
The Deputy Chairman: Allow me a moment to describe the situation so that anyone watching will understand what we are talking about. Senator Dallaire had two witnesses; one from UNICEF Canada and one other. We were to hear them tomorrow, but they are unavailable. They have contacted us to say they are available for next week.
As Senator Dallaire is the sponsor of the bill, I thought it only fair that the committee should take his views seriously. With the agreement of the committee, that is what I would propose.
Senator Segal: First, in respect of all the hard work that our colleagues in the other place have put into this piece of legislation and the degree to which so many NGOs feel so strongly and positively about it, whatever concerns I may have, the notion of us having a fair engagement with all the witnesses who can add to our understanding is an eminently fair proposal by the sponsor of the bill. I certainly support the bill.
If honourable senators on the committee are prepared to embrace it, I would be extremely supportive. I think the issue of international assistance, how it is managed in transparency, is one in which all Canadians have a stake and I would not want it ever to be said that in our consideration of the matter we did not give those witnesses who had expertise to add to our reflection ample time to so do. I am supportive of the proposition as advanced by my colleague, the sponsor of the bill.
Senator Corbin: I thank Senator Dallaire for his statement and understanding and cooperation, but it should also be kept in mind that the committee had expected to hear from certain witnesses who could not make themselves available to the committee at this time. They would be prepared to give testimony to the committee in the fall. I am thinking in particular of professor Verna from Laval University, who is an expert in the field of developmental aid. For health reasons, professor Verna has been unable to appear before the committee; however, he has informed us that he will be available to appear in the fall. Of course, the committee might want to hear from other witnesses as well.
The Deputy Chairman: I see no reason not to proceed with Senator Dallaire's suggestion. As we know, generally the steering committee consults with senators and decides on the witnesses. At this time, I represent Senator Di Nino. I am a member of the steering committee, along with Senator Corbin, and I am sure Senator Di Nino would agree. There we have it. We will certainly look at this for next week.
Maureen O'Neil, President, International Development Research Centre: Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to discuss Bill C-293.
[Translation]
Many of you may already be familiar with the International Development Research Centre.
[English]
I do not even have to give you a quick summary because the Chairman helpfully did that. The IDRC was established by an act of Parliament in 1970. The International Development Research Centre Act states that our purpose is:
. . . to initiate, encourage, support and conduct research into the problems of the developing regions of the world and into the means for applying and adapting scientific, technical and other knowledge to the economic and social advancement of those regions.
We have included a copy of the IDRC Act in each of your packages.
Our parliamentary appropriation for 2007-08 is $145 million. That amount is approximately 85 per cent of our total budget. The remainder of our funding comes from a range of other partners, including CIDA, the U.K. Department for International Development, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, as well as other donor foundations, such as the Ford Foundation and the Microsoft Corporation.
[Translation]
IDRC maintains six regional offices, which provide a regional perspective, to keep abreast of local realities and needs, to work with researchers, to nurture funding partnerships and to disseminate research results with researchers in the developing world. IDRC's regional offices are located in Cairo, Nairobi, Dakar, Montevideo, New Delhi and Singapore.
Parliament was farsighted in directing that experts from developing countries make up almost half of our board of governors. Half plus one are Canadians.
[English]
That brings me to our major concern. As you know, clause 4 suggests a ``competent'' minister would be given the responsibility for deciding on whether a project contributes to poverty reduction. The minister would have to make this decision before development assistance could be provided. We at IDRC feared that this would conflict with our governance structure and our status as a Crown corporation operating within a legislated mandate. As a Crown corporation, we report to Parliament through the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The chair of our board now Gordon Smith, gives the minister the annual report and financial statements audited by the Auditor General and approved by the board to table before Parliament. However, as directed by the IDRC Act, the board of governors sets the course for the centre. For the strategic plan period of 2005-10, the board has approved the funding of research in four areas: social and economic policy; information and communication technologies; environment and natural resources management; and innovation, policy and science. Again, it is the board of governors at IDRC that is responsible for setting the direction and overseeing the work at IDRC.
Therefore, we were pleased when the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development agreed to add a subclause to clause 4, which says, ``nothing in this act shall be construed so as to limit the funding or restrict the activities of IDRC.'' Therefore, our main concern about Bill C-293 has been addressed with the passing of this amendment.
[Translation]
Let me now turn to the main thrust of the bill. IDRC has no difficulty with the concepts that poverty reduction should be the central focus for Canada's development assistance and that the perspectives of the poor should be taken into account.
However, I listened with interest to the differing views over what exactly is meant by poverty reduction when the House committee on foreign affairs and international development was debating Bill C-293.
[English]
In many of our projects, the link to poverty reduction is direct and obvious. For example, in Rosario, Argentina, a project financed by IDRC as part of our urban agriculture program, has helped 10,000 families establish 790 community gardens, which feed more than 40,000 people. In near water-starved Amman Jordan, a system that reuses household wastewater, or grey water, has helped families increase their average monthly income by 10 per cent.
For more than a decade, IDRC has supported the design and piloting of community-based poverty monitoring systems in 14 countries in Asia and Africa. Certainly, these projects would easily fit the goal of poverty reduction.
However, there are other areas where the link may not appear direct. For example, we are working with the Department for International Development of the United Kingdom to support research into climate change adaptation in Africa. We have helped as well to build the capacity of a whole new generation of economists in Vietnam, who are knowledgeable about market economics. We have helped to develop science and technology policies for countries from Mexico to Mozambique. I note, in fact, that one of our partners, the Minister of Science and Technology for Mozambique, Venancio Massingue, appeared before you in the spring of 2005 when you were undertaking your recent study on Africa.
[Translation]
We have supported research into innovation and competitiveness in Chili, Indonesia, and India and helped researchers in South Africa during its transition from apartheid to democracy.
These projects do contribute to poverty reduction but over the long run, and sometimes indirectly. Part of Canada's aid to poverty reduction has to go into the long-term effort to build sustainable innovation systems in developing countries, to assist them to develop their own solutions to their problems.
We have to assist them to generate wealth. Otherwise there can be no upward movement for people and no wealth to redistribute. Innovation is IDRC's contribution to poverty reduction.
[English]
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, IDRC carries out its statutory mandate. Through research we try to help developing countries find lasting, local solutions. To continue this important work, I would ask this committee to retain the amendment that exempts IDRC from the provisions of Bill C-293.
Senator Segal: Thank you for appearing before the committee today to share your perspective on the proposed legislation before us.
Can you help me understand? I am speaking now, if I may, from the point of view of the Canadian taxpayer. We have two agencies that do not relate directly to each other. They may cooperate in certain ways, CIDA being one, IDRC being another, with different mandates and responsibilities.
My assumption is that one of the net benefits that we are all supposed to gain, and I am sure we do, from the excellent work done by IDRC is that the basis of your research and pilot projects and other activities produces a data set. These data sets inform the way in which Canada may decide to give out foreign aid and fund other foreign aid activities, not only ourselves, but with our multilateral partners.
Could you share with the committee the way you formally share your findings with CIDA in a way that allows CIDA to benefit from the information?
Can you share with us your sense of the existing level of transparency in those findings; whether you are comfortable with that; whether you would like to see it enhanced; whether it is as broad as you think necessary and appropriate?
This bill deals with transparency, not IDRC per se, but transparency as it relates to CIDA, and I think your advice would be of great assistance to the committee.
Ms. O'Neil: Let me answer that question by providing examples of how this works. I should begin by saying that it is not expected, nor was it ever expected, that every single research project that IDRC finances immediately cycles itself back into Canada's overall approach to development assistance.
Let me provide an example of where there has been a close and direct result from the findings of research that IDRC has managed. That is the Tanzania Essential Health Interventions Project, which, interestingly enough, began in 1993 after the World Bank development report highlighted a series of interventions, which they hypothesized, could make a huge difference in people's lives.
CIDA at the time was very taken with this idea and transferred funds to IDRC in order that IDRC could, as it were, develop an experiment to say: Is this really true? We think this is true. Is it really true? IDRC, having made known their interest in testing this idea, went to a variety of African countries.
Tanzania said that they were interested in trying it out. As a result, over a period of eight years, this idea was tested in real time, with real people, with Tanzanian social scientists and medical officers of health in two districts of Tanzania. The testing showed that the results of better knowledge of the burden of disease in Tanzania could transform the health planning and, indeed, the provision of health services.
Over a period of eight or nine years, the research showed that by doing things differently and better, by paying close attention to what people were ill with, rather than a notion that might have come from Dar es Salaam about what health services should be delivered, death rates among children were reduced by 40 per cent. This change in the child mortality rate was a result of coming to grips with the extraordinarily high number of children dying from malaria.
Those findings absorbed by CIDA are now re-emerging in an approach to the African health systems. It is also an example of how much time serious work takes to complete.
How do we converse? The president of CIDA is on our board. That was not necessary as part of the legislation, but by convention, the president of CIDA has been requested to be a member of our board. There is some question about whether that will continue because of the views about having senior public servants sit on the board of Crown corporations, but it has been an effective mechanism for ensuring that CIDA — our board meets three times a year — is briefed on what is before our board and what is coming forward. It means that the president of CIDA is part of the setting of strategic directions of IDRC at that level. At an operation level, I usually meet with the president of CIDA every six weeks to talk about what is coming up and what is going on.
I am sure many of you who have followed development will recall the poverty reduction strategies that countries were expected to create in order to benefit from debt relief. IDRC supported researchers were often key people in their countries in the elaboration of that work. Together with CIDA, to draw on those experiences, we created a network of those economists and others who indeed had participated in that. That is going very directly to assist CIDA in thinking through how these have actually worked and what changes need to occur.
With respect to transparency, IDRC has every project ever funded on a database. That information is accessible to anyone.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: I would like to congratulate you on your presentation and on managing to do it despite the confines of a bill. As you know, the committee proposed that we have a framework for CIDA issues. We feel that a framework is not a tool to prevent people from evolving; quite the opposite, it provides people with parameters for reporting to government and for defining or implementing performance measures. You have a framework that I think we could use as a model for what should be done with CIDA.
My question is: Where do you see the grey areas between your two organizations? We have already heard from CIDA that part of its budget goes to experimentation and research, but where does their research overlap with yours?
You say the president of CIDA sits on your board, that must help, but for field operations and in Ottawa, are there clear guidelines and structured meetings to avoid overlap?
Ms. O'Neil: Actually, we go at it completely differently. CIDA supports the consultative group on agricultural research. Basically, CIDA's research funding is more for the major centres than for us, even though we do work with the agriculture research centres. A few years ago, we did an environmental study to see what the difference was between RDIC support and CIDA support. There is a clear difference.
In addition, we are a boutique operation; we work directly with researchers elsewhere, unlike CIDA. Their mandate is like what they did in Kenya a few years ago after the G8 meeting in Kananaskis, when they created an aids research centre in Kenya. It is more of a physical thing. We work directly with groups of researchers. We do very different work.
My colleagues are research experts. The difference lies not only in the research topics but also in how we work.
Senator Dawson: I do not want to make any assumptions about when we are going to adjourn, what is going to happen in the fall and whether or not there will be a prorogation. I want to think in terms of the bill as it stands. Do you feel that the provisions of the bill aimed at improving accounting to Parliament for development assistance abroad are sufficient? In other words, in the bill, organizations are given the added responsibility of coming and explaining how they spent their money. Are the provisions of this bill sufficient?
Ms. O'Neil: As president of a Crown corporation, it is not really my role to comment. Every year, we file an annual report which says — clearly enough, I hope — where we have spent the money. This year's budget clearly indicated that the entire system of government has to be very clear about what it has done.
[English]
Senator Johnson: I gather that all we have to do is keep the amendment to clause 4. Other than that, this bill really has no impact on you. Is it correct that it is insignificant to you because it pertains mostly to others?
Ms. O'Neil: Our concern is that our legislation would not be affected by this bill. If it is helpful, I can ask our general counsel to provide more details.
Annette Nicholson, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, International Development Research Centre: In terms of the remaining impact on us, we would obviously be contributing to reports that would be prepared at the request of the minister. That would be essentially what was left in terms of impact.
As Ms. O'Neil said, our major concern was to avoid any conflict between the purpose of the bill and the mandate and the governance structure as set out in IDRC. We feel subclause 4 of clause 4 addresses that for us.
Senator Johnson: Thank you. We heard from Robert Fowler last week, and he had many concerns about the bill. I was taken with his testimony. He encouraged us not to pass it. He said:
From the outset, let me be clear that I do think that we Canadians can do better. We can be smarter, more efficient and more effective providers of development assistance. However, in my opinion, this bill, as drafted, will accomplish none of that.
Do you have an opinion on this statement?
Ms. O'Neil: Again, I do not think as a president of a Crown corporation I can comment on what another witness has said.
Senator Johnson: We have heard testimony that any interested person could find whatever data they need through existing publicly available documents and paper and electronic publications, and that Bill C-293 will layer additional reporting and messaging requirements on the already bureaucratic CIDA. We have heard this will render aid delivery even more cumbersome. Again, I would like to know your opinion.
Ms. O'Neil: We are constantly trying to make it easier for people to find information on our website. We want people to find useful information on the outcomes of our work.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: Last week, one of our witnesses was Mr. Lucien Bradet, president of the Canadian Council on Africa. I have a feeling you may know him. He expressed surprise to us. This follows on what Senator Johnson was asking you.
[English]
I will quote him:
An organization so admired by Canadians called the International Development Research Centre, IRDC, seems to be out of touch with that problem because they have a special clause. I do not understand why. Do they want to do something not correct? I do not think so, but they are exempt from clause 4(4). It leaves a doubt in the mind of the reader.
Further, we read the comment:
The blanket waiver for the International Development Research Centre, IRDC, seems to point out the problems with a poverty reduction focus in Canadian ODA.
The conversation continues:
How many years have they been in the development business? They have been there for many years. They are afraid, so much so that they ask for an exemption. I do not understand that. I am not in on the secret. I do not know.
You are a Crown corporation, of course. Most of your funding comes from the federal government. You also have outside funding from the Swiss government. We are familiar with that; however, you also operate at arm's length from the government, do you not?
Ms. O'Neil: Our legislation specifies the nature of the relationship with the government, and our act says we are not an agent of Her Majesty.
Senator Corbin: Which means you operate at arm's length?
Ms. O'Neil: Yes.
Senator Corbin: You are independent in your daily operations, in your choice of project and the way you finance.
Ms. O'Neil: That is correct.
Senator Corbin: Do you have any comments on the comment made by Mr. Bradet last week? He does not seem to understand. I attempted to explain some things, but I did not get anywhere with him. This is an opportunity for you to clear the air on the matter of the exemption from the proposed bill.
Ms. O'Neil: I have stated a reason for the exemption, and that is our concern about the relationship of one piece of legislation to the other. I think it suggests that I ought to invite Mr. Bradet over for tea and give him a fuller briefing on the reason why we requested the exemption.
Senator Corbin: You may need more than tea. It may take a full course meal. That is fine. I will leave that as it is.
My next and last question concerns your reporting and auditing procedure. Could you tell the committee how you go about that? That has been one of the matters of great concern at the origin of this legislative proposal. In the same breath, could you tell us if you have ever been subject to an audit by the Auditor General? If so, what positive or negative comments did the Auditor General make?
Ms. O'Neil: IDRC is audited every year by the office of the Auditor General. We also voluntarily requested special examinations long before the Accountability Act came into force which requires Crowns to have special examinations. Indeed, we are in the midst of doing another audit right now.
We asked for special examinations, going back many years, because we found special examination an excellent and inexpensive way to have excellent management consulting advice given to us. We have been fortunate in that those special examinations have tended to be positive, which probably reinforced our desire to continue to ask for them.
Indeed, as I said, we are in the middle of a special examination now. We expect to have the results fully completed by March of this coming year. This is the third special examination. We have voluntarily requested them before any federal legislation required us to do so. Every year, we are audited by the Office of the Auditor General. We have never had any problem.
Senator Corbin: Have you ever been subjected to a request or pressure from Government of Canada agents, I use the term loosely, whether ministers or anyone else, top civil servants, in the choice of your project or their financing.
Ms. O'Neil: No, we have not.
Senator Corbin: I suppose you would resist that approach.
Ms. O'Neil: Yes, but it has never happened. If we are operating in areas that are delicate, for example the Middle East, we proceed carefully, which is only appropriate. After all, we are still part of the foreign policy family, although we are not carrying out Canadian foreign policy directly. We are still a Canadian organization.
I should also note that Denis Desautels, former Auditor General of Canada, is the chair of our Finance and Audit Committee.
Senator Segal: Celebrating your independence, as we all do, if the government of the day were to say it had a primary focus on sub-Saharan Africa or a primary focus on Central America, would that have any impact on your board's perception of its priorities or would it be an interesting fact but not necessarily relevant?
Ms. O'Neil: I will describe how we arrive at strategic directions, in which the board plays a significant role. It has to work with material based on significant consultations both internationally and here in Ottawa, hence discussions with senior officials at Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, senior officials at CIDA, people from the NGO community and the federal grants councils, who all form a part of the environment within which we work and have influence on our strategic directions.
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you for appearing today. I know the work of IDRC so perhaps I will play a bit of the devil's advocate role.
We had a very good video tape from Britain in which they said that research is not excluded from their poverty reduction. It seems that there was a poverty reduction strategy to target more aid development assistance, and that somehow became translated into a bill. If this bill is to have any effect, it would have to have the Canadian government, in the broadest sense of that word, truly direct its resources, attention and priorities to poverty reduction, having defined it. In that case, would that not lead to an overall strategy that might lead to including IDRC and other Crown agencies that work overseas?
Ms. O'Neil: I read the transcript of Mr. Lowcock, whom I know quite well because I sat on the IDRC's advisory committee on policy directions. I am quite familiar with what they do. I also know that they have been considering what mechanism they would use to spend their research money. It is very interesting that they made a decision to increase dramatically the amount of money they would put into support because they felt that improving research capacity in developing countries was an extremely important part of their overall mandate. They are in the midst of sorting out how that will be spent. In the interim, we have been happy beneficiaries because they are a major partner of IRDC, as I mentioned. Currently, we have over $50 million to be spent over the next five years coming from DFID.
I want to underline that our concern with this bill is primarily the relationship of such a bill with the legislation that governs IDRC. I also come back to what I said in answer to Senator Segal's question: Our board goes back to basics every five years and looks at the environment, the policy environment in Ottawa and how CIDA is setting priorities.
I also noted in Mr. Lowcock's testimony, which I thought was excellent, that he made the point that poverty reduction has many faces. He also said that it helped them to describe to the British what they were doing. However, from reading his testimony, it was not an exclusive or small number of approaches. Rather, it was very broad because to change the social or economic fabric of any country requires activities in many areas. That was clear from his testimony.
Senator Andreychuk: Certainly, I support what you are saying because poverty reduction goes beyond development assistance. It goes through all of the other approaches, such as research, lending institutions and how we work on international organizations or structures, which are as important as development assistance alone. You have made that point.
I should have had time to look into this before today. How did you come to the conclusion that you should be excluded and have the dialogue?
Ms. O'Neil: It was not clear who was included. Therefore, when we read the bill and we read our legislation against it, it seemed important to us that there be clarity on the relationship of the two pieces of legislation.
Senator Andreychuk: Was it based solely on the legislation?
Ms. O'Neil: It was based on the bill.
Senator Andreychuk: If the government were to adopt a strategy of poverty reduction as a top priority, that could lead to changes. It could have gone the other way and led to changes in the IDRC legislation or structures. You look at your program every five years. The government might look at IDRC and say, we need a new tool.
Ms. O'Neil: The government could do many things.
Senator Andreychuk: However, the whole process came about because you looked at the proposed legislation and determined that your structure, organization and legislation could be interpreted to be included in this bill.
Ms. O'Neil: That is right. If it were not excluded, it would be included. I will let my general counsel answer this question before I get into the question of competing legislation. If it is agreeable, I will defer to Ms. Nicholson.
Ms. Nicholson: As we indicated, we were concerned that we were brought in through the definition of ``international assistance,'' but these are broad definitions. At the same time, we looked at the restrictions in clause 4 and wondered whether it meant there should be changes to our mandate as set out in the IDRC act? Would it have any impact on that? Would there be any conflict with respect to the reporting relationship set out in the IDRC Act with respect to how the chair provides our annual report to the Minister of Foreign Affairs who then presents it to Parliament? Would conflict be created in the reporting process?
As a lawyer, the last thing I want to see is confusion. When you want to comply with your governing statute, you want to ensure you are complying in every respect with the spirit and the letter of the legislation. You cannot afford any confusion caused by another piece of legislation.
Senator Dallaire: The statistics reflect that nearly 1 billion people live in abject poverty and several billion people live in poverty related to developing countries.
There has been a great deal of discussion with regard to a clause that says, ``takes into account the perspectives of the poor'' and another clause that says ``the competent minister shall consult with governments, international agencies and Canadian civil society organizations.''
Do you find that to be restrictive to the minister? Do you find that to be an imposition of a minister who is involved in such a massive arena of work? Do you think that amount of work could impose an enormous burden on the minister? Conversely, do you consider that a normal process for someone who is looking to provide capabilities to those who meet the criteria?
Ms. O'Neil: As I said, it is really not my place to be commenting on aspects of this bill since I am a president of a Crown corporation. However, I will make an observation. I cannot recall any major policy shift or any restatement of policies that did not include consultations that were done by successive ministers responsible for CIDA.
Senator Dallaire: We have had a considerable amount of debate and there has been a lot of confusion concerning poverty reduction. It is felt it could be demeaning or restrictive instead of being broad. Certainly the U.K. and other countries have a broad perspective.
We use terminology such as ``sustainable development,'' ``development assistance,'' ``economic self-sufficiency'' and ``poverty reduction.'' Do you feel that poverty reduction encompasses those things?
To put it another way, if we say, ``economic self-sufficiency,'' would that automatically mean that poverty reduction would be handled? If we go to poverty reduction is economic self-sufficiency a derivative or assistance to it. Are there conflicts in that? Are they split out? Are we touching one area and giving cash and aid, or are we taking a more global perspective to meet all these other definitions?
Ms. O'Neil: I believe a number of witnesses have talked about the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD of which Canada, of course, is a member. You have heard testimony of the work that committee has done with the various donor countries together around the table to define what is included in development assistance.
I think that if one looks at that long list, the conclusion is that all of these things contribute to the reduction of poverty. All of these things can be instruments in reducing poverty.
Senator De Bané: First, I want to tell you as a Canadian how proud I am that we have an organization like IDRC. This is one of the most beautiful entities whereby Canada works on an equal footing with researchers from developing countries and helps them develop projects to help their own country. I find that extraordinary that your board is composed of such a sizable percentage of world-class foreign experts in development.
Last week, we heard from a retired civil servant, one of the most eminent experts on Africa, Mr. Bob Fowler. He said that it is obvious that the bill is well intentioned. He also said that he is concerned about the content of the bill. He said it is a great problem for him.
Mr. Fowler pinpointed the following flaws. He said:
There are important issues in this aid business that deserve close scrutiny. Among them, aid concentration, both geographic and thematic, and untying direct budgetary support on which your committee and I disagree. Additionally, there is the ODA quantum and a vitally important matter of unrealistic expectations regarding what development assistance can and cannot reasonably be expected to accomplish. I simply do not believe this bill does not go to any of those places. I simply do not believe that this bill will achieve any of those ends.
I simply do not believe that this bill will achieve any of those ends. Indeed, it seems it me the passage of this bill might well render our aid delivery less efficient and further complicate the resolution of the unresolved essential issues related to the improvement of our aid performance.
Then he says:
I would like to think that all of us believe that aid should be about changing the economic circumstances of the Third World, about releasing billions of people from the slavery of grinding poverty and, in this regard, about ending the progressive marginalization of a billion Africans from the world economy.
After saying what he thinks would be the objective consequences of that bill, he said to remember that it will take the Germany government $135 billion for 30 years to bring 18 million East Germans up to par. He went on to say that the $2 billion that Canada spends on 980 million people in Africa
He said the $2 billion that Canada spends for 980 million people in Africa will do very little for them. He said, you have to be more precise, more obsessed with what you can achieve, what you cannot achieve, what the donor, Canada, must do and what the recipient must do et cetera to achieve positive results.
He tried to be brutally frank, from his own perspective. He said we should not try to dream of things that are unrealistic. He said he would approve budget-to-budget subsidy from the Canadian government to the unconditional subsidy to a government on the condition that it is one of the four or five well governed Africa countries. To give subsidies to certain other countries would be a waste. He mentioned Zimbabwe which was very prosperous, but mentioned what it was like when it was run by a bunch of thugs.
I wonder if you can confide with us, not wearing your hat as president because I know it is very delicate, but as an expert who thinks about development everyday. Do you think Mr. Fowler's comments were too extreme?
Ms. O'Neil: I hesitate to provide commentary on former Ambassador Fowler's remarks because he certainly has many long years of experience.
I think we could go back to the frustrations that led the Canadian NGOs to make representations, which ultimately resulted in the drafting of this bill.
I hesitate in saying this, because of course Senator De Bané knows very well I cannot separate myself in two and become just an expert a not the president of a Crown corporation.
The frustrations were the desire for clarity, which were the same kind of concerns, as I mentioned, that were expressed in the budget. The government wants greater clarity and greater effectiveness and therefore, the train moved along with a private member's bill. The bill has unleashed interesting, fascinating, serious and well-grounded discussions, both in the House of Commons and here in the Senate.
In imagining what the objectives of the NGOs are, one of the objectives has been fulfilled through the discussions that have taken place. One of the difficulties of any private member's bill, comparing it to a bill that the government would bring forward, is that it does not go through all of the inter- and intra-departmental scrutiny. It comes in, and it is left to committees to do their best with it with the staff of the parliamentary library and the staff of the committees. However, it operates at a bit of a disadvantage compared to a bill that comes in through a normal process that has gone through all of the departments and Justice Canada has fought with CIDA and the Department of Finance and others before it gets in. You obviously are dealing with something that is a little different.
One of the concerns that Mr. Fowler expressed was with reference to the issues of security. The development assistance committee's definition of what is ODAable is quite clear on that point. It says that insecurity is bad for people and you do not get progress when you are in the midst of insecurity. I think that he is making an important point.
Then, you have to move on to the operational side. What do all of these things mean in terms of operations? I am not sure that any bill, in its language, gets to the detail of how operations are carried out. Therefore, I think this discussion, as I have read the transcripts, opens up an interesting field of inquiry on actual operations. You have already touched on some of these things in your examination of African aid, but the committee has many opportunities to get into the details of the operations of any ministry. Certainly, the committee can get into the details of any of the ministries or Crowns that are engaged at the operational level in doing work and supporting work in developing countries. Mr. Fowler noted a number of operational questions that preoccupy him.
Senator Downe: I would like to follow up on Senator Andreychuk's question about how the decision to request exemption to this proposed bill came about. Did your governors meet on the topic and then recommend that course of action, or did your executive committee make the recommendation?
Ms. O'Neil: It was our management committee in consultation with the chair of our board.
Senator Downe: The governors were not consulted, or are they part of that?
Ms. O'Neil: The chair of the board is a governor of IDRC.
Senator Downe: You have a number of non-Canadians, as you referred to them in your opening statement. Were they in favour of requesting this exemption as well?
Ms. O'Neil: It has been reported to them that we requested the exemption.
Senator Downe: And their response was silence.
Ms. O'Neil: No, they recognized that there is a need for clarity between one piece of legislation and another, and that in the absence of that clarity, it was appropriate for us to have an exemption.
Senator Downe: The bill requests a focus on poverty reduction to the exclusion of all others. Are you saying that the foreigners on your board were not in favour of that and were seeking an exemption?
Ms. O'Neil: That was not the question that was being put. The reason for our exemption is there is not clarity between this bill and what our bill says. It makes no comment on the objects of the bill.
Senator Downe: Did the CIDA president have a comment?
Ms. O'Neil: He knows that that was what we were seeking, but he did not have a direct comment. This came forward very quickly. We were in constant touch with the chair of our board. What we were doing was reported to governors. The chair of our board gave us the indication. The president of CIDA, as were other governors, was very much aware that we were seeking an exemption, which we had discussed with the chairman of our board.
Senator Downe: I want to be clear on your consultation. You did not have a meeting on this?
Ms. O'Neil: We did not have a special meeting on this, no.
Senator Downe: So your executive group made this recommendation and sent it out, in effect, that this is what you were recommending. I am wondering how it works.
Ms. O'Neil: We did an analysis of what the impact could be on IDRC, and that analysis was shared with the chair of our board. It was reported to our governors. They were knowledgeable about what position was being taken.
Senator Downe: They were asked to respond, I assume, if they had a comment. I am intrigued by the fact that you have so many foreigners on your board. I am wondering what their reaction to the bill was. I am hearing there was a recommendation sent out and no response; is that correct?
Ms. Nicholson: Our board meets three times a year, and it gets regular updates on our activities. We do not ask for a comment on every line of our reports, but certainly we worked in close consultation with our chairman. Had there been any concerns raised by any particular governor, they are certainly not shy and we hear them and we address them, sometimes by email directly or sometimes through further reports or at meetings when issues are raised.
Senator Downe: I am hearing that this is a recommendation of the senior ranks of the IDRC, but the governors had no separate meeting, so they had no consultation. You said that already. That is clear; right?
Ms. O'Neil: That is not what we said. We said we were in consultation with the chair of our board, and it was reported to our governors. Those conversations with the chair were reported to the governors, and the progress as this has moved along has been reported to our governors for discussion.
Senator Downe: And was there discussion? You said there was no meeting on it.
Ms. O'Neil: We did not have a specific meeting on it, but we give an update at our meetings on important issues, and this is one in which the chair was involved, and the governors had an opportunity to comment. When this came up and when this was coming before the committee the first time, did we say we cannot take a position before we get a resolution from the board? No, we did not. We went to the chair of the board, spoke about this, and vetted the language of the submission that we were making to the House of Commons and we reported to the board.
Senator Downe: Did you report to the chair, or did you have a recommendation for the chair?
Ms. O'Neil: It was not as formal as that.
Senator Downe: Who made the decision that you wanted to be exempted from the bill? I am trying to find out what level of consultation you had. Did the staff make a recommendation to the chair?
Ms. O'Neil: The staff made a recommendation to the chair. The staff shared the analysis with the chair, and the chair agreed with what we were saying in our submission to the House of Commons committee.
Senator Downe: That was my original question and now I have the answer.
I notice your act allows for appointments of MPs and senators. Are there any MPs or senators on your board?
Ms. O'Neil: No, there are not. As you know from previous responsibilities you held, our board does not decides on the members.
Senator Downe: Yes, it is the Governor-in-Council. I think that is good that there are not any MPs or senators on the board. I think that would be a problem.
Senator Johnson: As a senator, you cannot be on the board of a Crown corporation.
Senator Downe: Exactly, but this act allows it.
Senator Johnson: I would like to clear up one thing. We have been told the reporting under this bill will slow down the work at CIDA and that the accounting measures under this bill are unnecessary. You have outlined that you are audited every year and the average Canadian can find out what he or she needs to know about the work that you do.
Is there any need for the accounting measures in this bill? How will they specifically affect you?
Ms. O'Neil: The accounting measures will not affect us, as we are exempted from the bill. We report through an annual report, which is tabled in Parliament. If the accounting measures did apply to us, it would not be a problem for us, because we report now.
Senator Johnson: Who do you report to?
Ms. O'Neil: We report to Parliament. Our annual report is tabled in Parliament by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Senator Johnson: Do you think this bill will make providing ODA better or easier?
Ms. O'Neil: Again, I think it is not for me to comment on.
Senator Corbin: One of the smart and genial things that you have accomplished is the establishment of overseas offices. That was done under the objects and powers of the centre, clause 4 of the bill. Could you tell us what the operations are in those regional offices and what degree of success you have had over the years? Are you keeping the same locations over the years or do you change them from time to time?
By the way, I would like to congratulate you on that initiative, which is sorely missing with other institutions of government in the field of development aid. You know who I mean.
Ms. O'Neil: Thank you very much. IDRC has had offices in the regions virtually from the beginning. Yes, the locations of those offices have shifted over the years. For example, one of the early offices was in Lebanon, and during the civil war it was moved to Cairo. We had an office for seven years in South Africa just prior to the democratic elections and we maintained that for about seven years. However, we felt at that point that our office in East Africa, in Nairobi, could carry the load because South African institutions are much stronger than those in East Africa and we work directly with them.
We have had an office for many years in Singapore. Not that we do work in Singapore; we do not. We did a review of costs, comparing other possible locations in Asia. It turned out, much to my surprise, to be less expensive to be in Singapore than in Hanoi, and you did not have the irritation of people connected to the internal security in your office with you. They cover East Asia.
We have been in New Delhi for some time. We find it an effective place to carry out our work. We used to be in Bogota, Colombia. In the 1980s, this became an extremely difficult place to do business. A decision was made to have the office in Montevideo covering Latin America. It is an easier place to do business.
Our programming, as we describe it, is a matrix. We work on themes, such as environment, social and economic policy, innovation policy, science and new technologies. Of course, that work happens somewhere. Our program officers in Ottawa are on the road themselves. They may be based in Ottawa, but they are on the road 60 to 100 days a year, in the regions, working with researchers.
The views that come from the field and from the researchers, who in fact are developing the proposals they are submitting to us, are obviously crucial, because that is how our program is formed. We currently have about one third of our staff in the regions, but as I mentioned, program officers are on the road 60 to 100 days a year if they are based in Ottawa. They are on the road if they are in the regions too.
For example, you may be based in Singapore, but you are covering Cambodia or Vietnam. You are all over East Asia. If you are in Delhi, you are not just working in India; you are working all of South Asia. If you are in Montevideo, you are clearly not doing most of your work in Uruguay; you are working around the region, meeting with researchers, research organizations and policy NGOs.
We feel it is essential for us to have offices in those locations. The professionals who work in those locations are a mixture of Canadians and non-Canadians. For example, in Singapore, we happen to have a specialist in biotechnology who is actually an African. There is a great mixture in all of our offices and at IDRC itself.
Senator Peterson: You indicated you are a Crown corporation and you have three board meetings a year. Who determines that? Does that provide sufficient governance oversight?
Ms. O'Neil: Our board feels that it does give sufficient oversight. The executive committee of the board meets four times a year, as the act requires; the finance and audit committee meets four times a year; and the human resources committee meets three times a year, in addition to three meetings of the full board.
Senator Peterson: Do you have any conference board meetings?
Ms. O'Neil: No, the full board does not meet by conference call. The full board meets in person. If issues arise upon which the full board is required to make a comment, from time to time we are able to do this on a non-objection basis by email. That type of meeting is not our preference because it is very important to have engagement and discussion on the part of governors, and that is what we do.
If you like, I can describe the way in which we organize our work. We have a meeting in March, which is the budget meeting; a meeting in June, which is the look-back evaluation accountability meeting, where evaluations that have been done by IDRC research are on the table for governors to debate and discuss; and in the fall we have a programming meeting looking ahead to what we will do. Our board approves the program frameworks and the annual budget every year, and it has an opportunity to reflect deeply on what is coming out of evaluations of our programming that are being conducted.
Senator Peterson: How would that compare with other Crown corporations? Do they operate much the same?
Ms. O'Neil: There is such a great variety in Crown corporations; it is difficult to compare. As an organization that funds research, which is a longer-term activity, we think that is a vastly different matter than being Canada Post, for example.
I should mention that when the board meets, it meets for two days, plus an evening dinner meeting. Then, as is required, when we are in a year of developing a new strategy, those meetings are generally longer.
The Deputy Chairman: I have a short question before we end our interesting meeting. The committee, as you know, has spent a great deal of time looking at the problems in Africa. As everyone knows, agriculture is certainly one of the big items.
I noticed on the weekend that the Gates Foundation has set up an agricultural research project with Kofi Annan, I believe, as the chairman. I read that in the papers on the weekend. Their purpose is to increase productivity. The world is concerned about access to markets. That is why we have the Doha round, which seems to have floundered a little bit lately. However, the Gates Foundation, as I understand it, is funding agricultural research to increase productivity. Do you know anything about that? If you do, could you enlighten the committee?
Ms. O'Neil: I do not know the details of that proposal, but I would suggest that senators might wish to hear from our director of environment and natural resource management at a future time, who indeed has been in discussion with the Gates Foundation about that rather significant area of work that they will go into.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much.
Honourable senators, on your behalf I want to thank our witnesses for an enlightening conversation. I would like to announce to my colleagues that tomorrow we have Minister MacKay coming on Bill C-61, which is something on the Red Cross that is not very controversial. Senator Johnson is the sponsor. We will have CTV in the room tomorrow. I see frowns partially because I believe our own television system is busy tomorrow. There are a lot of things going on.
Senator Corbin: The televising protocol will be followed by CTV?
The Deputy Chairman: Absolutely. Instructed is a bit of a strong word, but I have said they cannot interrupt the proceedings of the committee while we are in session so the cameras have to be here when we get here and they leave after we leave.
Is that satisfactory to everyone? Okay then, thank you very much.
The committee adjourned.