Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 17 - Evidence - Meeting of November 24, 2009
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 24, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:30 a.m. to examine the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, this morning we continue our consideration of Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year 2009-10. This committee engages in scintillating discussion on a regular basis on the Main Estimates and supplementary estimates for government expenditure requests.
This morning we will hear from the Canadian International Development Agency.
[Translation]
Representing CIDA are Margaret Biggs, President, David Moloney, Executive Vice-President and Hélène Filion, Deputy Chief Financial Officer.
Congratulations on your promotion!
[English]
Ms. Biggs, I invite you to give us an introduction on the activities of your agency. We will then engage in questions and answers.
[Translation]
Margaret Biggs, President, Canadian International Development Agency: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Supplementary Estimates B as they apply to CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency. As the chair mentioned, I am accompanied by David Moloney, Executive Vice-President, and Hélène Filion, Deputy Chief Financial Officer.
As you are aware, the Supplementary Estimates B are the second opportunity for the department to obtain parliamentary approval for adjustments to the Main Estimates to account for changes that occur throughout the estimates cycle. Supplementary Estimates display both the increases to the department's reference levels and the decreases that must occur. These changes reflect both policy decisions that have occurred since the Main Estimates were tabled, and also include several technical adjustments. The increases in spending that are proposed in Supplementary Estimates B are in line with CIDA's policy direction of increasing overall aid effectiveness.
I will use my opening statement to provide you with highlights of the changes reflected in these Supplementary Estimates.
[English]
I will begin with the proposed increases in grants and contributions that amount to a net increase of $246.2 million. The largest item of this increase focuses on food security investments.
As you are aware, the world is facing a serious food crisis. Addressing this crisis requires short-term measures such as food aid, but, more importantly, efforts focused on increasing agricultural production and productivity in the medium- to long-term. Canada has long been a major investor in food security. In April 2008, the government also untied all food aid. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, has estimated that untying food aid increases its value by up to 35 per cent.
On October 16, World Food Day, Minister Bev Oda unveiled CIDA's new food security strategy. This builds on Prime Minister Harper's 2009 G8 summit announcement that Canada will more than double its investment in sustainable agricultural development with an additional $600 million in funding over three years.
CIDA's new food security strategy has three elements: food aid and nutrition, agricultural support, and research and development. The increase for food security contained in Supplementary Estimates (B) provides funding for bilateral and multilateral programming that directly supports the second and third elements of this strategy. For example, $220 million is to go to the World Bank vulnerability financial framework to support investments in sustainable agricultural development. Examples include increasing agricultural productivity, linking farmers to markets and mobilizing farm credit.
Forty-seven million dollars is for increased investment in agricultural development through CIDA's bilateral programs with an emphasis on our countries of focus in Africa. For example, in Mali, we propose to invest in increasing rice productivity by rehabilitating and extending irrigation infrastructure.
There is also a proposed authority for multilateral spending of $32.5 million to be provided to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research for their challenge programs. For example, this money will be invested in agriculture and nutrition research to breed nutrient dense, staple foods.
A further $30 million is proposed for the World Food Programme's Purchase for Progress program. This program focuses on purchasing locally grown food from low income and small-hold farmers, which directly benefit their families and communities.
The second main purpose of the supplementary estimates relates to grants and contribution spending on two specific humanitarian crises that have re-emerged in recent months. The first crisis is in Pakistan. Over 2 million people are considered to be displaced in that country as a result of large-scale military campaigns to oust insurgents in the North- West Frontier. Up to 90 per cent of these people are living outside with limited access to food, water and emergency medical care. The severity of the crisis warrants a large-scale response that exceeds the existing resources of CIDA's humanitarian assistance programs. A proposed $25 million is for humanitarian needs in Pakistan to address population displacement in this area.
The second crisis area is Sri Lanka. A further $15 million proposed increase focuses on addressing humanitarian efforts in the wake of fighting and displacement of civilians that has occurred.
A third component in Supplementary Estimates (B) is technical adjustments to CIDA's grants and contributions. The largest of these is for Afghanistan. Following recommendations made by the Manley panel, CIDA has increased its civilian presence on the ground with commensurate training and logistical support for our staff.
Supplementary Estimates (B) also provide for a reduction in both vote 25 and vote 30 for the Industrial Cooperation Program, the CIDA-INC program, which is being transferred to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, DFAIT. This transfer follows an evaluation suggesting that CIDA explore options for better management of the program to ensure that private sector innovation was integrated with development priorities.
A further technical adjustment proposed in these supplementary estimates is an increase in grant ceiling authorities. This increase is offset fully by a decrease in the contributions by the same amount. This increased grant authority is required to support CIDA's multilateral initiatives and as a contingency for new developments and urgencies including humanitarian crises and emergency food aid that may occur as the year progresses.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to provide this overview of the proposals included in Supplementary Estimates B for CIDA. I would, of course, be pleased to answer any questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. I appreciate your opening background comments. Honourable senators, we have the comments in English. We will have them translated and circulated to everyone as soon as possible.
You talked about Minister Oda unveiling CIDA's new food security strategy on October 16, World Food Day. I presume that these Supplementary Estimates (B) do not reflect anything that was announced on October 16.
Mr. Wheat: No, that is correct. The minister announced the framework for the food security strategy — the three policy and program thrusts around food assistance and nutrition, agricultural development, and research and innovation.
The Chair: Should we anticipate a further request for authority to spend more money in Supplementary Estimates (C) based on that announcement?
Ms. Biggs: I cannot predict that. However, a number of items in the Supplementary Estimates (B) relate to the Prime Minister's announcement at the G8 summit of further Canadian investment in food security.
The Chair: In the supplementary estimates, we are accustomed to seeing expenditures resulting from new initiatives during the year, or expenditures that could not be determined fully at the time of the tabling of the Main Estimates. Ms. Biggs, you are telling us that all items in the Supplementary Estimates (B) flow from the Prime Minister's announcement at the G8 summit?
Ms. Biggs: Yes, that is correct.
The Chair: That is helpful to know.
Senator Callbeck: United Nations reports indicate that official development assistance of developed countries stands at about 0.3 per cent of the gross domestic product of developed countries. That percentage is less than one half the amount that was agreed to under the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, which was 0.7 per cent. Where does Canada stand on this goal in consideration of the estimates that we are reviewing today?
Ms. Biggs: Mr. Moloney will respond to that question.
David Moloney, Executive Vice-President, Canadian International Development Agency: Currently, Canada stands at just over 0.3 per cent, which is slightly above the average.
Senator Callbeck: Where do we stand relative to the other G7 countries?
Mr. Moloney: Some G7 countries are above us, while others, notably the United States, Japan and Italy, stand below that level. We will confirm the figures for the committee.
Senator Callbeck: Yes, I would like to see those figures.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reported in 2007 that a record 47 countries, 27 of which are located in Africa, face food crises regarding emergency assistance. Do you know what the current number of such countries is? Do you have updated statistics?
Ms. Biggs: No, I do not have those statistics, although we can provide them to the committee.
Mr. Moloney: The World Food Programme recently updated its figures on the number of people who currently face significant under-nutrition to just over one billion. We do not have the number of countries involved but slightly more than one billion people face under-nutrition.
Senator Callbeck: When I was walking to work this morning, I noticed the headlines in a local newspaper, Metro, which read, ``CIDA slow to dole out Afghan funds:'' The article said that villages are being cleared out and that there is no development. The reason stated was that CIDA has not given out contracts. Can you comment on that article?
Ms. Biggs: There are three stages under the village stabilization approach. In the first stage, the military clears and stabilizes the area. The second stage is the reconstruction and development process. During the third stage, CIDA becomes active in the longer term development. CIDA has been playing an active role and is beginning to undertake the development initiatives, such as in this village.
Our job is to work with the government ministries to draw them down into the village. We are working actively with the education and public health ministries to bring them into that village district. We have also been active on immediate integrated livelihood work, food security work and vocational training projects. We have invested up to $2 million in targeted investments in the villages. Understandably, CIDA staff and programming cannot move into these villages until they are stabilized by the Canadian Forces. We have been involved on the ground with our military colleagues in our joined-up mission. We are present and active in those villages.
Senator Callbeck: Can you comment on the contracts that, they say in the article, you have not issued?
Ms. Biggs: I am sorry; I have not read the article. I will look into it. First and foremost, our job is to ensure that essential services of the Government of Afghanistan such as health and education are brought into those villages. We are working with them on education and schools. We are not issuing new contracts in those villages but we are working with the Afghan authorities to ensure that those services are brought to the villages.
Senator Callbeck: You do not know what is meant by the statement that no new contracts are being issued.
Ms. Biggs: I have not read the article. I will read it and provide a written response to the committee on that reference.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you.
The Chair: We will ensure that you receive a copy of the article so that you are able to provide a suitable response, which we will circulate to members of the committee.
Senator Ringuette: In your statement, you said: ``In April 2008, the government also untied all food aid.'' What does that statement mean?
Ms. Biggs: With my apologies, I should have been clearer. ``Tying'' means that the assistance we provide must be goods and services procured in Canada or in the country that provides the funding. The Government of Canada has indicated that all of its development assistance will be untied, which means that food assistance does not have to be sourced in Canada by 2012-13. All food assistance was immediately untied so that it can be sourced in the country in question, which might help to increase local production, or wherever the resources can be procured most cheaply and effectively. Untying increases the value of our assistance by 25 per cent to 35 per cent.
Senator Ringuette: I understand. In terms of increasing the value to 35 per cent, have you made an analysis to derive that increase?
Ms. Biggs: The OECD estimates that untying aid can increase the value of each dollar of assistance by up to 35 per cent. It provides immense flexibility to the organization or the country because it allows them to procure at the cheapest price and at the best cycle in the market. It is invaluable.
Senator Ringuette: Who would be able to verify that percentage? Who will audit the effectiveness of that untying?
Ms. Biggs: I am not sure who would audit it but I believe that the OECD and the World Food Programme have both prepared estimates. I will provide the committee with the best evidence we have if that is helpful.
Senator Ringuette: You talked about authority for multilateral spending to be provided to the consultative group on international agriculture research. What is this group?
Ms. Biggs: The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research is an international consortium of research centres. There are 15 international research centres around the world. They were created in 1971. The centres sponsor research on agriculture related to the problems of developing countries; for example, livestock, food stocks, rice, cassava, wheat production. They have an excellent track record in terms of producing results that lead to innovations in research and production methods.
Senator Ringuette: Do we have a centre like that in Canada?
Ms. Biggs: No, they are not in Canada, although a number of Canadian researchers are involved in the research. In fact, there was an article in a newspaper recently about a Canadian researcher who is involved in rice research and had made a fairly major innovation.
Senator Ringuette: Is some of that $32 million going to research in Canada a contribution to this international group?
Ms. Biggs: It might be sourced back to researchers who win competitions through the international research centres, but it is not intended to be for Canadian researchers. The needs and the priorities will be defined by the international research centres, which has governance bodies on which Canada sits.
Senator Ringuette: Can you provide us with more information with regard to this group; which countries contribute and how much they contribute?
Ms. Biggs: Yes, for sure.
Senator Ringuette: For my last question, because I want to leave time for my colleagues, you talked about an increased civilian presence on the ground and commensurate training and logistical support in Afghanistan. What numbers are we looking at and what is the purpose of that presence?
Ms. Biggs: This year, we will have close to 26 CIDA staff on the ground in Afghanistan. That is up from 14 in early 2008. That increase is almost twofold.
The reason for having our staff there is so that they can be much closer to the ground. They can be more coordinated and integrated with our military and with our diplomatic staff to better provide their programming in Afghanistan.
Senator Ringuette: What is the programming? What are staff doing?
Ms. Biggs: You are referring to Afghanistan?
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
Ms. Biggs: In Afghanistan, our programming focuses on a number of key priorities. It includes education and economic growth, particularly agricultural development. We have a major initiative around the eradication of polio. As you may know, 50 per cent of our programming is now in the province of Kandahar, which was another recommendation that came out of the Manley panel; that we focus more where we have the strongest presence on the ground and where our military is.
One of the major things that we are doing in Kandahar is the province's rehabilitation of the Dahla Dam, which will allow for the irrigation of a fertile valley, the Arghandab Valley, which will increase food security and economic opportunities for a large portion of the population in that province.
Senator Ringuette: It was my understanding — and please correct me if I am mistaken — that we would assist the NGOs financially in Afghanistan that look into inoculation, farm irrigation and increased productivity, depending on the product, and so on.
Why are we increasing the number of CIDA officials there? Is it because there is a greater need to oversee the projects that we are funding? If you tell me, with the increase of civilians you are sending there, that one or two of them are nurses to provide inoculations, then I see the purpose. However, there must be a valid reason to almost double the number of people there. That is my question. Is it because the NGOs are providing the service and you need to increase the supervision? Please explain.
The Chair: Ms. Biggs, do you understand the question?
Ms. Biggs: Yes.
Afghanistan is our largest development assistance program of over $200 million. The program is substantial, the largest ever that CIDA has administered. Because the environment is an extremely difficult one within which to work, we have tended to have more of our personnel here at headquarters.
We have increased the number of our staff that we have put into the field. This increase is for us to be able to work in a joined-up fashion with our military because we are not operating in isolation there; we work in conjunction with our military and in conjunction with our diplomatic effort. That work cannot be done easily from far away.
Our staff do not deliver the inoculations. We provide that service through the World Health Organization and others. Staff work with the local governments and leaders in those communities. The work is the same kind of work that we do in our other countries of focus where we are engaged on the ground with the delivery agents, with the government officials who are administering the services. Again, we must work in conjunction and in an integrated way with Canada's military.
Senator Ringuette: Are these officials that have increased in number on contract or are they permanent staff from your office?
Ms. Biggs: They are CIDA staff. They are CIDA employees that we have moved from Gatineau to Kandahar, essentially.
The Chair: The military rotation is every six months. How often are your employees rotated? How long does each stay there?
Ms. Biggs: On average, they stay there about a year.
Senator Eggleton: I appreciate the numbers that you have given us and some of the breakdowns for spending, but we are concerned also about the results, the outcomes, and how they are measured. How do we know that this money is producing good results, particularly in light of Bill C-293, the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, which you reported on recently? The act is fairly new, but I wonder how you see CIDA evolving around meeting the requirements of Bill C-293?
In particular, what is your response to the Auditor General's comments that suggests there is weakness in how you plan or carry out plans, in the lack of direction and in the shifting priorities that undermine the long-term predictability of the agencies' efforts? That is one question. Those comments do not give one a lot of comfort and confidence about being able to deliver on Bill C-293 as well as ensuring the proper outcomes of this additional money that you are requesting in the estimates today.
Can you provide some comfort on those issues?
Ms. Biggs: Perhaps I will reply to the issue around the Auditor General's report and I will ask my colleague Mr. Moloney to refer to Bill C-293.
The Auditor General's report identified weaknesses in CIDA's planning and priority-setting over a long period of time, dating back to 2002, over successive governments.
One of the main criticisms was that CIDA did not have a clear purpose, focus and direction. CIDA now has a clear sense of what its thematic priorities will be. Three have been identified: economic growth, food security, and children and youth. We also have a clear indication of the countries on which we will focus our efforts. We have 20 countries of focus that will take 80 per cent or more of our geographic programming.
As indicated in the management response to the Auditor General's report, CIDA has already acted on, or will have acted on in a short time, virtually all the recommendations in that report
The Auditor General also indicated that CIDA was held in high regard in the countries within which it was working, and that we needed to provide a stronger sense of direction and focus to the agency, which I believe we are now doing.
Mr. Moloney: As the senator said, Minister Oda, on behalf of the government, tabled the first of what will be annual reports to Parliament, as required under the act.
I do not have the act in front of me. My recollection is that there are three requirements with regard to government ministers reporting to Parliament on official development assistance. From memory, those requirements are that expenditures are in support of poverty reduction; that there must be consultations with partner countries, in particular in terms of how that work is carried out; and that human rights requirements must be respected.
The report that was tabled in Parliament recently outlines that spending on behalf not only of CIDA but of the other many departments that report official development assistance.
In terms of how a minister or senior CIDA officials are confident of results, Treasury Board Secretariat has recognized CIDA as having among the strongest evaluation functions and evaluation processes in the Government of Canada. We both audit and evaluate the impact of our spending, and that information is available on our website. CIDA was among the first departments in the Government of Canada to follow Treasury Board recommendations to have an evaluation committee — which is separate from an audit committee — that has a majority of non-CIDA, including non-Government of Canada, members.
We are confident in the professional quality of our impact assessments. We can always do better, but taking together the facts that CIDA programming is explicitly to support poverty reduction and that we evaluate that result rigorously, we believe the minister is in a position to report in that way to Parliament.
Senator Eggleton: You have asked for the biggest chunk of money, $321.5 million, for food security programming. What portion of that money will be contributions that are subject to audit versus grants where no audit is conducted?
How much of this money will go to short-term relief as opposed to helping people to provide for themselves in terms of agricultural improvements?
Mr. Moloney: One hundred per cent of the money proposed for the food security strategy is for support of sustainable agricultural capacity. This support is complementary to our food aid. The exception is $47 million that will go to bilateral programming in Africa, which normally is contributions. The balance will go to organizations like the World Bank and the World Food Programme through grants, as is normally the case. Canada is a member of the governance of those organizations. Through our own governance participation, we rely on their audits. The contributions to country programs will be both audited and evaluated.
Senator Wallin: On the untying of food aid, two or three international sources have substantiated that the increase in value is in the 30 per cent to 35 per cent range, so untying seems like a good plan. Do you have the timeline for untying all of Canadian aid?
Ms. Biggs: Yes, the government is committed to untying all of Canada's development assistance by 2012-13.
Senator Wallin: Is that goal reachable, from your point of view?
Ms. Biggs: Yes, it is.
Senator Wallin: I think that the article referred to by Senator Callbeck contains several inaccuracies. The Manley report, of which I was a part, indeed called for CIDA to move its people from Gatineau to Afghanistan, and to move them quickly. You have done that and increased the number by about two thirds.
What is your current thinking? I have recently come back from there, so I have views on that situation myself. Do you see that number increasing over the next little while, or have you hit your mark?
Ms. Biggs: I do not want to speculate. It depends on what changes take place in terms of our programming. I think that we currently have the right ratio. We are well supported on the ground and we have the right balance with the support that we can provide from headquarters.
Senator Wallin: The issue of contracting is referred to in this piece. In a country like Afghanistan there is always a problem with who you might sign a contract with and what that contract might mean. Circumstances are unique there, in addition to the imposition of the Federal Accountability Act post-sponsorship and all of that.
Contracts aside, we saw projects underway. I assume that you go ahead with these development projects with or without contracts in some situations because the need is obvious.
Ms. Biggs: I am not sure exactly what your question is. To disburse funds we always need some signed agreement.
Senator Wallin: But that agreement might be with another aid agency?
Ms. Biggs: Yes.
Senator Wallin: The agreement does not always have to be with a local, on-the-ground Afghan partner?
Ms. Biggs: No, we use a range of partners. We work directly with a number of non-governmental organizations. Sometimes we work through UN organizations. We are present on the ground through a number of different mechanisms.
On the contracting side, the environment is the most difficult one in which CIDA has ever been asked to serve. An audit was done of our Afghanistan program last year, which I believe is on our website now. The audit indicated that, even in difficult circumstances, CIDA had a well-functioning program and that all due care was taken in terms of our fiduciary responsibilities. Even though circumstances are difficult, the team there has mounted a strong program.
Senator Wallin: I was impressed with the degree to which the military and civilian operations, including CIDA, are literally working side by side. Two years ago, that situation was almost impossible because security had not been established.
The military is happy with how this relationship is working and they feel they are able to secure. Do you feel that you and the military have the same ability to communicate, that you and the military can speak the same language? Everyone's safety is compromised if they are in those situations and not singing from the same song book. Is that relationship working from your side of the equation?
Ms. Biggs: Yes; from a safety point of view, which is the first duty of care, I have always been extremely confident that we have open and solid communications. Our CIDA civilian staff are always sent out with great care in terms of their security.
From a programming point of view, it is interesting you chose the word ``language.'' Civilian and military organizations use different language, and it has taken a bit of time to understand exactly how each other operates. We have accomplished, and I think other countries see Canada as having accomplished, something significant and transformative in terms of the way in which our civilian and military officials work on the ground. We are considered to be the gold standard, frankly, in terms of the degree in which we are integrated, working toward common objectives and working seamlessly on the ground.
Senator Wallin: I can confirm that we spoke with Stanley McChrystal and the British leader in terms of their response.
I do not know whether CIDA was involved in one of the programs. There were two. We went to the Dahla Dam, and now that SNC-Lavalin is setting up, we can see progress.
Many people told us that the poppies-for-wheat program, where we ask local farmers to grow wheat, is working. Are you involved in that program? Is that your assessment?
Ms. Biggs: We are involved in that program in a small way. It is not a major piece of our program. We are involved, and it has been successful. Wheat production now has been more lucrative for farmers than others, so there is an incentive for farmers to carry on with the program. It has been successful and something we would look to scale up on.
The Chair: As a supplementary question, the decision to provide only grants and contributions, money — as opposed to using the money here in Canada to help Canadian farmers grow wheat and then sending the wheat — is that approach inconsistent with your other program called Engaging Canadian Citizens in international development and aid?
Ms. Biggs: No, I do not believe it is inconsistent. We have extensive involvement with Canadian organizations. We support over 600 Canadian organizations that have interest, expertise and assets they wish to mobilize in aid of Canada's international development assistance.
In terms of food assistance, our primary goal, going back to Bill C-293, the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, is poverty reduction. That means our expenditures must be focused on the most effective results in terms of poverty reduction. The best way to provide that focus is to ensure that, in terms of food assistance, countries can procure the best product at the best price. By untying our food aid, we are able to do that.
As coincidence would have it, we have heard from the World Food Programme that although Canada has untied food aid, there has been more procurement in Canada than before because Canadian farmers can compete. Our primary purpose in terms of our development dollars is around results and poverty reduction, and reaching that goal in the most effective and efficient manner possible and in a way that is accountable to Canadians. There is no contradiction there.
Senator Mitchell: I want to follow up on Afghanistan. I think I heard that $200 million is invested in projects there and there are about 26 CIDA people. How many specific projects are being funded? What portion of the $200 million is going to the dam?
Ms. Biggs: We have a lot of different initiatives there, so I can probably give you a written brief on the whole portfolio program we have there.
Of the over $200 million, $50 million is dedicated to the refurbishment of the Dahla Dam. We have other major programming in relation to education and in relation to the National Solidarity Program, which is a major Afghan program that builds local capacity and governance. We have a major program related to the eradication of polio. We have done a fair amount in a range of areas. I can provide you a written brief that goes through the details of our program there. The program in Afghanistan is the largest and most extensive one.
Senator Mitchell: That would be great. I would like that.
Particularly in Afghanistan, but also in many parts of the world, the issues of women's education, women's status in society and the relationship of those things to the ability of a country to develop are important. I have heard from time to time in discussions like this one that women's involvement in development projects has been a focus and priority for Canada. Do we still make that issue a priority? Do you? If so, how do you do make women's involvement a priority? If not, why not?
Ms. Biggs: CIDA has a strong reputation in terms of ensuring equality between men and women, and integrating that value into our programming. Many countries and organizations look to Canada and CIDA for expertise and leadership in that area.
Gender equality is integrated into everything we do. Whether it is economic growth or agricultural development, we look to ensure that women and girls are front and centre in terms of our programming. Minister Oda recently announced our children and youth strategy, which focuses, in particular, around education and the needs of young girls.
You are right; if we can invest in young girls and young women, that investment has the strongest multiplier effect in terms of development impact and poverty reduction. It comes up strongly in our food security strategy. For example, much of our investments will be in terms of rural agricultural and small landowners, many of whom are women and girls. We invest heavily in education, for example, in Afghanistan, and the major beneficiaries are often young girls. It is a strong component of our programming.
Senator Mitchell: One of the themes in your organization is children and youth. That theme raises the possibility of programs for child soldiers. Do you have any such programs? At what age do you determine a child to be a soldier or a solder to be a child?
Ms. Biggs: That is a good question. I apologize; I do not have the specifics on that situation. We have a few small initiatives in that area.
Of the three areas within our children and youth strategy, the first one is around child health, survival and maternal health. The second one is around quality education, and the third one is around safety and security. Issues around the protection of children, from being trafficked to being brought in as child soldiers, come up and we look at that situation for sure. We have a couple of small initiatives, particularly in Central Africa. I will be happy to provide you with more specific information. I am not expert enough on what the age cutoff is. I am sorry, but we will provide more information in written form.
Senator Mitchell: I am interested to know what your organization says the age cutoff is because it is relevant.
Some of your aid goes to crisis situations and humanitarian aid. It seems to me, although it is not detailed, that some aid goes to humanitarian situations caused by weather events. It is no surprise that there will be more of these weather events because of climate change. Have you factored that thinking into your planning for the possibilities of increased demand for humanitarian aid and the areas where that aid might be needed?
Ms. Biggs: That is a good question. The answer is yes. We have to look at the issue in a couple of ways. We know there are an increased number of unpredictable and often extreme weather events. Unfortunately, they occur more in the developing world than in our world. We saw four hurricanes in Haiti last year. Luckily, Haiti has been fairly immune from such events this year. The hurricanes wiped out 85 per cent of their agricultural production and set that country back on its heels. The impact can be extreme.
We have seen implications of changing climatic patterns in the Horn of Africa, the Sahel and many other places. There are examples in Vietnam of increased salinity in the water used for rice production.
We know changing weather and weather events can have an impact. First and foremost, we have to build that issue into our core development programming. We have to look at sustainability of food security and economic growth, for example. We will review one of the programs in front of you, as the other senator asked about around the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. We will look at research and innovation related to climate change and how we may have to change production methods, seed, fertilizers, irrigation practices, et cetera. Another example is our new work in an area like Haiti that will be prone to hurricanes and tropical storms. We are building sustainable infrastructure so we do not keep rebuilding structures that cannot withstand these new realities.
Hopefully, we will not have to increase our core humanitarian assistance in the future, but we are prepared to do so as events occur.
Senator Mitchell: I was under the impression that the government had announced it will shift its aid focus from Africa to South America. Is that impression the case? Has that shift been made in any regard? You sound focused on Africa.
Ms. Biggs: No, it is not the case. Canada, along with other G8 countries, committed to doubling aid to Africa. That was due to occur this year. We accomplished that increase in the last fiscal year. Canada and CIDA continue to have a strong commitment to Africa, and we have delivered on that commitment. We have seven countries of focus in Africa with a strong emphasis on agriculture in many of those countries. We have a strong and sustained emphasis on Africa.
The government also has an America strategy. We have programming in that area as well, but it does not distract from our aid to Africa. Our support for Africa has increased, not diminished.
Senator Di Nino: Let me congratulate you. The issue of untying aid has come up several times this morning. You probably read the Africa report produced by the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade a couple of years ago. Tied aid was one of the main criticisms of the report as well as that there were not enough CIDA people on the ground; mainly in Africa, but in general. We applaud your progress even in that area.
I was struck by a comment in your presentation on the $30 million for the Purchase for Progress, P4P, program. A lot of people have been talking about that issue over the last few years, which is let Africans grow their own food. Let us give them fishing grounds instead of fish. Thirty million dollars is not a lot of money, but it seems to have produced results already. Am I correct in that assumption?
Ms. Biggs: Yes, Purchase for Progress is an innovative food program. It is unique. The World Food Programme operates in places with food security problems. The program is looking to create demand in those countries themselves to generate production rather than sourcing it from outside the country. That approach not only meets the food insecurity problem, but it has the added benefit of helping to stimulate production and bring that production online. The WFP provides training associated with that approach.
Everything that CIDA is doing in the area of food security in this package is related to helping countries themselves through country-led plans and programming to develop agricultural production and productivity. The effort is all geared toward creating capacity in those countries to produce more for their own needs.
Senator Di Nino: This is why I extend my congratulations; kudos for dedicating resources in that area. It will answer the question raised in the Senate report about 40 years of failure in aid to Africa, in particular because of some of our attitudes. I am happy to see some of those things are changing.
I was also happy to see in your report that economic conditions in the world and, indeed, in our country have not been an obstacle to CIDA in providing necessary relief where it is required. You mentioned Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Has your budget increased from last year?
Ms. Biggs: Yes, it has. The government committed, along with other G8 countries, to double international assistance by 2010. The government has been on a path to reach that goal. Some of that increment has come to CIDA. Some of it focuses around food security.
Senator Di Nino: Economic slowdown has not affected Canadian assistance where that is necessary around the world?
Ms. Biggs: That is correct. Canada has lived up to its commitments in that regard.
Senator Di Nino: We spoke about a number of areas where you dedicate your resources and energies, including education, children, et cetera. What are we doing regarding governance, particularly in what we may call failed states or states with problems, corruption, et cetera? How much of CIDA's resources are dedicated toward proper governance?
Ms. Biggs: I will come back to you on the exact amount, if that is okay.
We approach governance in a number of areas. All of our sectoral and thematic work looks to ensure we are building capacity within countries to sustain their results. For example, if we are working in agricultural productivity and production, in addition to ensuring program delivery and program to services to people on the ground, we also will try to build up country capacity to be able to deliver services themselves. For example, we would also work with the department of agriculture while ensuring service delivery. We build governance into everything we do.
In some countries, we are asked to look at governance issues in terms of electoral support. We have been actively supporting election monitoring regimes in many countries. We have been involved in some countries in helping to build parliamentary capacity and the ability of legislatures to do their work.
We will do that when the needs of a particular country indicate that governance is a priority and Canada would be well positioned to support it.
Senator Di Nino: I believe CIDA funds the Canadian Resource Bank for Democracy and Human Rights, CANADEM, the organization that provides election monitoring around the world. Is that correct?
Ms. Biggs: We support CANADEM in many areas. One of the main areas is in Afghanistan where CANADEM is the group we work through to place advisers to help build capacity inside key Afghanistan ministries. It has been effective. We have a senior Canadian provincial education official working with the education ministry in Afghanistan to help build their curriculum and teacher training modules. It has been highly successful in other areas as well. This aid is not simply a case of technical assistance to write something for them but rather going in and building capacity for them to take over and do the work themselves.
Senator Di Nino: Is Afghanistan the only place where Canada is taking that approach?
Ms. Biggs: I do not believe so, but I do not know all the places where we work with CANADEM; they would be contracted separately. I will get back to the committee with that information.
Senator Di Nino: I appreciate that. Please send us a report on what CANADEM does, and how much CIDA funds, et cetera. It will be useful for us to know that information.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am very impressed by the work CIDA is doing in a number of areas, notably in Afghanistan. I always like to hear tangible examples of CIDA's aid efforts. They give us an idea of the scope of the challenges the agency is called upon to tackle on a daily basis.
You gave us a few examples, particularly in the case of Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the media seems to be focussing all of its attention on the military component of this mission, while humanitarian aid efforts seem to go unnoticed, if I can put it that way. Nevertheless, you were able to highlight today some of the agency's humanitarian aid efforts. I would appreciate it if you could give us four or five examples of CIDA's tangible achievements in countries outside of Afghanistan that you are most proud of, to further our understanding of the important work you are doing in developing countries.
[English]
Ms. Biggs: That question is a challenging one. Perhaps I will provide a couple of examples and then ask Mr. Moloney to provide examples.
Ethiopia has experienced food insecurity for many years and is facing a food crisis in the Horn of Africa. Currently, we support two important and innovative programs, of which we can be proud. One program concerns sustainable livelihoods, which enables the Ethiopian government to work directly in communities and villages to help them to build necessary local infrastructure, such as irrigation canals or water ponds, to promote agricultural practices so they are able to sustain their livelihoods. The program has been extremely successful in that it provides assistance while building future capacity. It meets short-term needs and builds long-term capacity. We have been a major donor to that hugely successful program.
Ethiopia is looking to increase its agriculture and food security. A second program involves our work on the ground with the International Livestock Research Institute. The program pulls together all the elements that can enable poor farmers in rural areas to create a better future. It provides training in agriculture production, whether that production is in dairy, honey bees or another aspect of farming. As well, the program provides farmers with microcredit to allow them to develop their own initiatives, and with assistance in accessing markets. This assistance is provided in such a way as to enable farmers to tap into government resources as well in an integrated way. The program has produced dramatic results and is another example of CIDA working with a great deal of impact on something that is innovative. That kind of programming is another example of the kind of programming that CIDA is looking to support.
I will ask Mr. Moloney to provide examples.
Mr. Moloney: In Haiti, CIDA is working with the World Food Programme in school feeding programs to ensure that young children showing up at school have at least one good meal per day. The program is large and successful, and only one of many but it is particularly noted in Haiti.
In Bangladesh, CIDA is working principally in the health and education sectors with other donors to improve the quality of teacher skills and training. Given the size of that country and the difficulty of traveling around, we are using innovative technologies, including computer-based training, to allow teachers in remote locations to raise the standard of their teaching.
We are working with NGOs to ensure that children who would not otherwise start school or those who have left school, who have illiterate parents or who work on a family farm have a certain amount of schooling available to them every day.
We are working in Bangladesh with the research institute, which is also a hospital that offers free services to the poorest on the streets of Dhaka in Bangladesh. This hospital and research institute invented a world-renowned therapy, oral rehydration salts. Many people consider such therapy to be the normal response worldwide to severe diarrhea. CIDA remains their largest contributor, as I found out when I visited that organization three weeks ago and they indicated that CIDA is their premier partner.
As well, there are examples in education in Tanzania.
The Chair: Can you look at the Supplementary Estimates (B) and explain the spending authorities available within the vote of $254 million. You have received parliamentary approval of that amount but you want to reallocate the monies elsewhere. Can you explain?
Mr. Moloney: Yes, those amounts were provided through the Main Estimates. There are two significant portions under that $254.5 million. Just over one half, $136.1 million, was voted into contributions. We work in a similar way to a number of other departments in that we propose to Parliament contribution authority in as much as grants deserve and receive more specific oversight. We tend to propose contribution room and then, as required, transfer that money into grants. Some of the specific proposals under the food security package are under grants. We do not have the grant ceiling available so we move that amount over from contribution. We do not propose unspecified grant authority otherwise to Parliament.
The second amount is $118.4 million, which was available within the vote. In recent years, the government, in its decision-making around the international assistance envelope, requires that for lead departments — principally CIDA and Foreign Affairs — such allocations through the Main Estimates as well as 5 per cent of the amount that is voted from Parliament be held back for the government to determine specific needs through the course of the year. In this case, it is referred to as ``the envelope holdback.'' Perhaps you have heard about that practice from Treasury Board.
Given the economic crisis and global food crisis, the government determined that this response to the food crisis was required, and that $118 million from CIDA's holdback, which was the bulk of the holdback, was required to respond. Again, we are now taking that amount that was voted and we are moving that money over to be part of this response.
The Chair: Let us go to the grants and contributions part. Is that the normal way that you and other departments operate? That is, if you have an estimate of how much you need in total grants and contributions, you include it mainly on the contribution side, and if it turns out you need more on the grants you then ask for authority to move the money over to the grant side?
Mr. Moloney: Each department is extremely different in that respect, but CIDA's budget is by far the most heavily weighted towards grants and contributions. Our budget this year, I believe, is 93 per cent grants and contributions. Most departments would have an operating budget and then some specific contributions and grants. This is our business so, given that we do not have the opportunity to come to Parliament every month, we need to do it that way. That is Treasury Board's approach to be able to bring to Parliament the request for authority but then to manage it in such a way that Parliament is able to oversee the grant use.
The Chair: You indicated in your comment, Mr. Moloney, that grants deserve and receive more oversight. That oversight is provided by whom? Is it by your department or by Treasury Board? There is not the audit for grants after the money is gone that there is for the contributions.
Mr. Moloney: I would turn the list around and add Parliament, so Parliament sees and votes in any specific grant. Of course, Treasury Board looks specifically at grants; we look specifically at grants. We are careful to offer a grant, as opposed to a contribution, only where we believe, through our due diligence, that conditions are appropriate. In these particular cases, these are international bodies where the Government of Canada, either CIDA or another part of the Government of Canada, is represented on the governing body, so we can have confidence in the internal audits of that organization.
The Chair: Ms. Biggs mentioned that point earlier. That situation gives us some comfort. As I understand it, you suggest to our committee that when we see a grant, we should be a bit more vigilant than if we see a contribution, because there will not be an after-expenditure, after-transfer audit of that amount of money?
Mr. Moloney: I respectfully suggest that you consult our Treasury Board colleagues on that question in terms of broader applicability.
The Chair: Absolutely.
Can you focus on the next item down where there is transfer, internal reallocation of resources? It looks like you are transferring about $11.8 million; does that transfer relate to funds available for grants and contributions that you are moving into operations because of the additional emphasis on personnel in Afghanistan?
Ms. Biggs: Yes; that is correct.
The Chair: I wanted to clarify that item. What is the total number of employees within your agency?
Ms. Biggs: I would say 1900. Is that right, Mr. Moloney?
Mr. Moloney: I think total number of employees is 2,000.
The Chair: How many are offshore — that is, away from Ottawa?
Ms. Biggs: We will get back to you with that information.
The Chair: Can you give me those figures? I will circulate them to all our members here.
Ms. Biggs: Yes.
Senator Di Nino: When you give us that information, can you show us a comparison from five years ago, three years ago and today?
Ms. Biggs: Yes.
The Chair: That information will be helpful. Since you are providing that information, maybe you can also give us operating costs over the same period of time.
Ms. Biggs: Okay.
Senator Ringuette: Can you also provide the same scenario with regard to contract employees?
Ms. Biggs: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: On a different issue, with regard to Cuba, there are rumours that there have been cuts to allocated programs to Cuba from Canada. Is that rumour correct?
Ms. Biggs: No, not at CIDA.
Senator Ringuette: Can you provide the amounts for the last three years on the different programs with regard to Cuba?
Ms. Biggs: We will send the information to you, yes. We have a small program there; we will send that information to the committee.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you. With regard to the repair of the dam in Afghanistan, it was $15 million, you said?
Ms. Biggs: It was $50 million.
Senator Ringuette: Is that funding a tied or untied program?
Ms. Biggs: It is untied, but it went to tender and it was won by a Canadian company, SNC-Lavalin.
Senator Ringuette: It is untied and it was tendered by whom?
Ms. Biggs: It was tendered by CIDA, by the Government of Canada. The winning bid was submitted by SNC- Lavalin.
The Chair: Was the tender an open bid or by invitation?
Ms. Biggs: I will get back to you.
The Chair: You will get back to us. Thank you.
Ms. Biggs: I am sure it was open, but I will get back to you.
Senator Ringuette: With regard to your entire budget, how much money is tied to the purchasing of medication?
Ms. Biggs: I will provide that information to you, senator.
Senator Ringuette: Is that program a tied or untied program? If there is any amount of money for the purchase of medication, I want to know which medications were bought where and sent where, and the distribution mode of those medications.
Ms. Biggs: I do not believe we purchase medicine directly, senator. Our answer is that we do not buy medicines directly. However, we contribute to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. That is an example.
Senator Ringuette: Within a program where you make that kind of contribution for medication, what medication has been bought, from where was it bought and to whom was it delivered?
Ms. Biggs: We will do our best.
Senator Wallin: On that point, the polio vaccine is one of the Canadian signature programs.
I have a couple of quick points following up on this article that was referred to. We are in the news cycle so I would not mind hearing from you. The article suggests that other NGOs do not want to work with CIDA because you work alongside, and are defended by, the Canadian Forces for protection. Have you had an example of an NGO that has refused to work with you?
Ms. Biggs: Not to my knowledge, no.
Senator Wallin: This article refers to $1.5-million spending as a pittance in one particular village, which I happened to be in. This investment is in wells, irrigation, vocational training, agricultural production and the sale of wheat seed, which has gone up dramatically.
When you invest that money, is that a grant or a contribution?
Ms. Biggs: I believe it is through contribution agreements.
Senator Wallin: Yes, thank you.
Ms. Biggs: In a small village, it is not a pittance. It is a substantial amount of money that can harvest extremely important results.
The Chair: I would think so, as long as that money is managed well. That is a lot of money for a small town.
Senator Callbeck: Ms. Biggs, you mentioned micro-credit. Roughly, how many micro-credit projects is CIDA involved in? Is the number of projects growing? What is the general success?
Ms. Biggs: I will get back to you on the exact number of projects but we work with micro-credit and micro-finance in a number of countries of focus. We have worked successfully with micro-credit in the Afghanistan province of Kandahar, and in Tanzania and Bangladesh. We have micro-credit in a number of places and through a number of organizations. It is usually successful. I can provide you with examples, and examples of the results as well if that suits the committee.
The Chair: Do you manage those small loans, in relative terms, or do you work through another agency or organization that manages those loans?
Ms. Biggs: We typically work through an organization we have an agreement with that is expert in that particular area.
Senator Di Nino: Ms. Biggs, we often hear about China's economic miracle and the question is asked, why is Canada still funding projects in China? Those of us who have been there come to the conclusion that China may be an economic miracle although it is still a poor country. There are a number of statistics to indicate that reality.
Can you provide for us — you do not have to answer this question now — full detail of the programs that CIDA supports in China; not only where but distribution of funds, and so on? It will give us a full picture to allow us to make up our own mind as to whether the aid is worthwhile.
Ms. Biggs: Yes, I will do that. CIDA has a small program remaining in China. It is focused on a couple of key areas of strategic importance. We work in the area of migrant labour and the rights of migrant labour. As you know, 200 million people in China migrate into the urban centres. We work there on issues around occupational health and safety, trying to build in protection against the trafficking of young women and girls, child labour, and things like that. These areas are important in terms of targeting vulnerable people in that country.
We also work with ethnic minorities for the same kinds of reasons and importance, maybe groups that are not normally in the mainstream in that country. We also work on environmental issues. We have an important project there where we work with other international partners to focus on issues relating to the path of economic and environmental development in China to ensure that they are on a more sustainable path, which we all hope for.
Senator Di Nino: Thank you. We look forward to your report.
The Chair: That concludes all the questions from our senators. I have a follow-up question in relation to contracting. When we heard from the Department of National Defence, they talked about being able to contract — and it might be through the existing coalition — for a better price on supply of goods or services by virtue of combining with other companies and organizations. Is your contracting separate from the Department of National Defence in that regard? Second, do you have the opportunity for those synergies of various countries that operate that Afghanistan?
Mr. Moloney: I can speak to that question specifically in the case of Afghanistan. The CIDA staff in Afghanistan have delegations to be able to undertake their own local contracting at somewhat higher limits than in other countries; but probably more akin to this sort of thing, where CIDA is working in other countries, we will often work together with other donors and pool funds to operate a program or project more efficiently. Where relevant, that approach would include contracting. In some cases, where we are confident of local capacity and financial management, that approach would include working with a government ministry. We look closely at their contracting capacity, transparency and so on. Where we can pool, we do, for a variety of efficiencies, and contracting is one where we can pool.
The Chair: Good. In Kandahar, in Afghanistan, where, I assume, most of your CIDA employees are located, are they at the provincial reconstruction area, which is away from the base in Kandahar?
Ms. Biggs: The majority are at the Provincial Reconstruction Team, PRT, but some are at the Kandahar Airfield as well.
The Chair: Who provides the goods and services? Who feeds them? How is all that activity looked after? We understand that the security side is looked after by the Department of National Defence, but what about the rest of the activity?
Ms. Biggs: In any country, our people are part of the Foreign Affairs platform in a particular country, and that is the case in Afghanistan. Foreign Affairs, in turn, works with the military in the context of Afghanistan, both on the PRT and on the Kandahar Airfield in terms of the provision of food and services for our personnel.
In Tanzania, it is the same thing. Our personnel is joined up with the Foreign Affairs platform in the mission there. We contract through them for the provision of our services for our staff.
The Chair: Will part of the figure of $12 million that you needed to help sustain your personnel in Afghanistan be transferred to another government department internally for services provided by the Department of National Defence, or maybe by another department?
Ms. Biggs: Not the amounts that are in here, sir. Those amounts are for our own personnel. It costs more for us to have people in the field than to have them in Gatineau. In the case of Afghanistan, we have extensive training now that we work jointly with the military which, again, is something that we do not have to provide in any of our other countries. Personnel go on extended training and extended post-mission, just as the military do, so we try to model that training. We provide for extra security; we contract some of that security on the ground.
Unless Ms. Filion has something that she wants to add here, these are our costs.
The Chair: I am looking for goods and services, and they are provided by another government department, how do you pay that government department for looking after your personnel?
Hélène Filion, Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Canadian International Development Agency: We have transfers between the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and DND. It is most often DFAIT who then pays DND. The transfer is a technical thing. For example, we pay a lot to DFAIT for the provision of vehicles, and DND also provides food for our staff there.
The Chair: As a committee looking over these estimates or supplementary estimates, when we see the authority that you have to spend, do we see those intergovernment department transfers?
Mr. Moloney: You see an example of that in the listed transfer items. There are six of them. The fifth one is on page 167 in English. You see the fifth item, ``Transfer to Foreign Affairs and International Trade — To provide support to departmental staff located at missions abroad.'' That item is $1.236 million. It is on page 133 in French.
That transfer is not restricted to Afghanistan but is an adjustment. As we go through the year, DFAIT looks at their costs, and so that money covers any of our missions abroad.
The Chair: If we search diligently, that figure should be provided as revenue coming into the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade?
Mr. Moloney: Yes.
The Chair: There being no further questions, it remains only for me to thank each of you for being here and helping us understand the good work of the Canadian International Development Agency.
We have given you a lot of work when you go back to your offices, having asked for further information in several areas. Can you give us an indication of when we might expect to receive that information? We do not like to approve bills that flow from this discussion until we have satisfied ourselves on that information.
Mr. Moloney: I expect that you will receive some of the information this week. Some of these items will require drawing information from partners, such as the medication purchases, which are not our own direct purchases. That process may be complicated. However, we will endeavour to send you what we can this week. I think that information will be a large proportion of it.
The Chair: Thank you very much. This discussion was helpful.
(The committee adjourned.)