Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue No. 7 - Evidence - Meeting of May 12, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 12, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 10:30 a.m. to study recent political and economic developments in Argentina in the context of their potential impact on regional and global dynamics, including on Canadian policy and interests, and other related matters; and to study foreign relations and international trade generally.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: During the first part of this meeting we will hear testimony on the recent political and economic developments in Argentina. The committee has heard from several witnesses as a part of our study, including experts, academics, Canadian government officials, stakeholders and the Argentine ambassador to Canada.
On behalf of the committee, I'm pleased to welcome by video conference from Buenos Aires representatives of the Argentine-Canadian Chamber of Commerce. My understanding was that there were going to be four representatives, and I see four signs, but I see three individuals. Regardless, I see you are ready to proceed.
I will invite the President of the Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Miguel Morley, to make his presentation. The other members may have something to add. Then we would like to turn to questions from the senators.
Gentlemen, welcome to the committee. The floor is yours.
Miguel Morley, President (General Manager, Agrium South Core), Argentine-Canadian Chamber of Commerce: Thank you very much. Good morning, everybody. My name is Miguel Morley, the president of the chamber and also I am Managing Director of Agrium's operation in Argentina.
My colleagues here will be giving part of the presentation that I forwarded to you.
Basically, we're going to talk around five bullet points. One is just introducing to you what the chamber does. Then we will talk about the opportunities we see for foreign investments, specifically for Canadian foreign investment.
We also have some comments on the way that other countries have moved forward in terms of looking at opportunities in Argentina. Also, one of my colleagues here is an expert in economics, has a lot of experience in politics, and he will refer to the current change process in Argentina.
Finally, I will close with some remarks, leaving about 30 minutes for questions.
We are pleased to see an improvement in the business environment in Argentina, together with other positive changes. There are still things that will need to happen going forward, but so far so good.
This presentation I sent to you was prepared for the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada, PDAC, earlier this year, which I attended personally. We are trying to reinvigorate the relationship between Argentina and Canada. These have been very strong in the past, both politically and socially. I would say, from our side, the Argentine society has a lot of respect for your country, for your organization and views the maple leaf as an inspiring example.
We think this relationship probably cooled down in the past several years, and we need to revamp it.
Our mission in the chamber is to develop bilateral commercial and investor relationships, lead and promote bilateral trade, foreign direct investment and trade relations between Argentina and Canada. We have about 100 members across all sectors — agri-business, natural resources, technology, legal and financial services, tourism and others. In 2017, we will hold our fortieth anniversary. It works in both directions; it's a bi-national chamber, so ambassadors in each country are presidents of the chamber, also.
We organize networking events with senior representatives of public and private sectors, and we promote board member engagement on issues of member interest. We provide services like business opportunities, information market studies and the like. We work very closely with the Canadian embassy in Argentina and we start alliances with bi- national chambers of commerce and academic institutions.
I don't want to take more time out of this presentation. Next, Marcos will talk to you about investment opportunities in Argentina.
Marcos Sabelli, Member (Director, YPF and Vice President, Profértil), Argentine-Canadian Chamber of Commerce: I have a brief presentation. I am the Vice President of Profértil. There is a joint venture between YPF, a directed oil and gas company in Argentina, and Agrium, a Canadian company of fertilizers. We produce urea. We have a plant with around 1.4 million tonnes of production capacity of urea that more or less covers our country's consumption.
Basically, I think it's interesting to reflect on the areas where we can think about Canadian companies investing in Argentina. It's important to know the areas where Canadian companies are already working in Argentina. Mining and mining services and oil and gas are places where the Canadian companies have a very important presence. Also, in agricultural and foods, companies like Agrium, McCain, Clearwater — there are many companies working in Argentina.
As a big picture, we see three different business sectors that could be interesting for Canadian companies to invest in. One is mining, as we said. We have very important resources in Argentina of gold, silver and copper. Our main exports from Argentina to Canada are raw gold and silver. Some of the big companies of these businesses are already working in Argentina, like Barrick, Goldcorp, Lithium Americas, and there are many of the big guys already in Argentina.
We think this is something that could be developed, and there is a huge future also for all the services related to the mining industry.
Another area where we understand this new government is going to push a lot is infrastructure. We need, as a country, a lot of investment in all logistics: roads, rails and harbours. There is a huge investment to be made. As far as we know, this government has a very good focus on this kind of investment.
The third area we think could be interesting is oil and gas. I work in YPF, which is a mixed company: 51 per cent owned by the government and 49 per cent is floating on the stock exchange, both Argentina and New York. Some similarities we find between Argentina and Canada is our focus on not only conventional production but unconventional. Maybe different and unconventional, but we are focused on tight and safe oil and gas production.
According to the information administration of the U.S., we are the fourth oil unconventional reserve in the world and the second in natural gas. As a company and a country, we are pushing the unconventional development. We have three top oil and gas companies and petrochemical companies as partners in Argentina. With Chevron from the U.S., we are developing one unconventional reservoir oil field. That is the biggest shale oil reservoir produced outside of the U.S. That is Loma Campana. With Dow Chemical, we are developing a shale gas field with good prospects. We PETRONAS ran the first pilot last year. We have another oil field that we are working on with, the national company of Malaysia.
Basically, we think these are the three main areas that could be interesting for Canadian companies to invest in.
Alfredo Vitaller, Member (President, DEPROMINSA — NGEx Resources), Argentine-Canadian Chamber of Commerce: Hello. I am the South American General Manager for NGEx Resources, a junior mining company listed on the TSX in Toronto. I would like to talk about business opportunities or missed opportunities.
We know that Canadian companies and the Canadian government have their own interests in this new Argentina, but what we see is that they don't take direct action as many other countries did.
For example, the United States, with the visit of President Obama, included bilateral agreements with regard to security, fighting drugs and crime, and investment. Also, right now, both countries are working to re-establish the visa program for Argentine citizens. We believe that these initiatives show clearly the confidence that the United States has in this new political time in Argentina.
Other countries, like France, with the visit of President Hollande, and Italy, with the visit of Prime Minister Renzi, opened the door to the current negotiations for the free trade agreement between Mercosur and the European Union.
Other countries interested in Argentina these days are Japan and Korea, which officially invited Argentina to visit their countries. Right now, an Argentinean delegation, led by our vice president, is already there trying to close agreements and find possibilities to work together.
Based on all of this experience, we believe that it could be a good idea to have more institutional involvement from Canada. We believe there are many opportunities for both countries, and Argentina is working and ready to receive investment, knowledge and experience from Canada. For instance, as Marcos already mentioned — there are too many points — in addition Canada could bring to Argentina an environment of technological knowledge. Also, within that there is a very good point toward renewable energy, especially wind and solar energies. There is also nuclear energy.
Besides that, we believe that Canada can help and work with Argentina in education. We can mention institutional agreements between both governments and also between universities. We can think that, in research development, Argentina has very good researchers, but sometimes they don't have the facilities or opportunities to develop their ideas. We believe that Canada could be the vehicle to develop those.
We believe that Argentina is in a very good situation right now, a very good position, and is working to improve the situation in order to receive and create opportunities.
I just mentioned a few of them. There are many others. We believe that Canada should come here and try to do some business and agreements with Argentina.
Mr. Morley: Thank you, Alfredo. I think that sets the tone of what we are seeing ourselves, from a business perspective, locally. What you want to know is: Are these changes for real? Are they here to stay? What is the likelihood of continuing improvement in our policies, in our economics?
I think there is no one better than Marcelo to refer to this briefly and bring some light on it.
Marcelo Elizondo, Member (Founder and Director General, DNI), Argentine-Canadian Chamber of Commerce: Good morning. My name is Marcelo Elizondo, and I work for a law firm in Buenos Aires, AMF. I basically provide services in terms of managing the economic environment for companies in Argentina.
This is a very important question in terms of: Is it for real? As you know, basically for foreign companies in Argentina in just four months there have been a lot of changes in our regulations in terms of eliminating tax exports, in terms of reducing regulations to exports and imports in Argentina. Argentina rapidly adapted to some WTO requirements because of the old protectionist system that we've been suffering with for many years.
Argentina normalized the exchange rates and exchange currency regulations. So, first of all, we could say that there have been fast changes to normalize the environment for foreign companies in Argentina: exports, imports and also for foreign investors coming to Argentina.
Of course, there are many challenges — inflation, the fiscal situation, the investment rates that are low in Argentina — that should be so in the near future.
In terms of the question about whether it is for real, I think there are three or four points that are very important to understand. In my opinion, the changes we are facing now are providing us with a unique situation. This time, in my perception, it is for real for different reasons.
First of all, the new administration is organizing a very professional team to work in the public administration, the federal administration. For the first time, Argentina is organizing a government with a lot of very professional people who are trying to implement structural changes, not just cosmetic ones.
Second, in Argentina what has happened is a strong change in terms of the public opinion. This time, it's not just a new providential leader that promised something and, once he arrives in the position, changes the policies. This time, it was society that decided to change, and populism lost the elections last time. So it's not just a change in terms of a new leader; it's a change in terms of a society that learnt and is now supporting a new administration that is more rational and modern.
The third point is that it's not just the new president, it's not just Macri. There's a new generation of politicians in Argentina. There are some new leaders in the opposition also who are supporting those changes. The best example is what happened to the solution for the public debt, foreign public debt, and the "holdouts" problem in New York some weeks ago. As most of you perhaps know, the public debt, and especially the foreign public debt, was an issue in Argentina and was part of the main discussions in Argentina.
For the first time officials listened, and the opposition decided to approve, in Congress, a solution to solve that problem: to pay and to normalize the situation. It's very new. It's an example of a new consensus between officialism and opposition in terms of organizing Argentina around new policies, new modern and rational policies.
So, of course, there are many problems to be solved — inflation, fiscal situation, investment rates, some regulations that should be solved in the near future — but I think the changes we're facing now are different compared to what happened in this country in the past. This time, it is for real.
Mr. Morley: Just one question for you, Marcelo: How do you see the Brazilian situation impacting us in the near or medium term?
Mr. Elizondo: In the short term, it produces a huge impact. Brazil is the main client for us in exports. To provide some numbers, three or four years ago Brazil represented about 23 per cent of our exports. Last year Brazil reduced its participation to 17 per cent, and this year it represented about 15 per cent of exports.
So the first answer is: It is producing a huge impact in terms of international trade. The main impact is in terms of exports.
In addition, in Brazil a strong political change is being produced additionally, and I think that what is happening in Argentina could be happening in Brazil in the near future, in terms of a new generation. There's a great challenge for Argentina and Brazil from Mercosur. That is to produce some changes in Mercosur in order to let the agreements become more modern and to establish links to the European Union and the Pacific Alliance.
Yesterday there was a very important meeting in Europe between Mercosur and the European Union in order to push forward the negotiation for a free trade agreement. This is an example of some changes that could be taking place in Brazil beside this political crisis.
Mr. Morley: Just to close our presentation, again thank you very much for the opportunity. Also, I point out that we see a huge synergism happening today in both of our countries, similar processes with significant government changes, with new leaders who seem to have a common agenda in many areas, such as transparency, diversity, climate change and several other areas that are very clear.
We understand that there is a huge opportunity, having an alliance, in the way that the government is moving forward to, again, reinvigorate the relationship between both our countries.
With that, we thank you very much and open up for your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentations, gentlemen. You've obviously answered some of the questions we may have put to you. We appreciate that. That's an efficient use of time.
I have a list of senators that would like to ask questions, and I'll start with Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson: Good morning, gentlemen. Welcome to our committee. Like Canada, many of Argentina's industries are in natural resources. I have two points to this question.
Could you tell us more about the country's sustainable development policies and practices, and do government and industry do enough to protect the country's air, water and land?
Although the government and its people have serious economic issues to contend with, such as high inflation and boosting trade, is there a widespread recognition of the need to reduce GHGs?
Mr. Morley: Yes, we also are very strong in natural resources. I think that, in environmental protection, there is a lot that has improved and a lot being done. However, evidently, in a centralized kind of regime, there are some things that are let by and others that are not, and there are a lot of discretionary decisions.
With this new government and government system, all of these will tend to be standardized and more and more equal. I think that the people, society in general, are becoming much more sensitive to environmental issues and are demanding more from regulation.
I must say that, from a social point of view, I believe that, when you go through a period of questioning, the people's belief in the government's ability to regulate on environmental issues is sometimes not all there, and that's what generates some riots here or there or some activism against it. I think there is room for improvement.
Mr. Sabelli: I'll focus on the oil and gas business. The main companies producing oil and gas in Argentina are international companies, and most of them are companies listed in many stock exchanges, like New York or some of Europe's exchanges.
We have the Shell guys, Chevron, Total, old partners working in Argentina. I think, from our perspective, we are using the same standards that the international oil and gas companies are using around the world in that regard.
Mr. Elizondo: Let me complete the answer with some comments in terms of something you mentioned: that is, about inflation rates in Argentina or, I would say, the macroeconomic situation in Argentina. The new administration presented a program to reduce the fiscal deficit in three years. The fiscal deficit, which rose to 7.5 per cent of GDP last year, was the principle reason for the high inflation rates we suffered.
This year this program is being implemented through the first main measure: that is, to reduce subsidies for public service types. About 80 per cent of the fiscal deficit was explained by these subsidies, basically for electricity, domestic gas services and some other public services.
This program is starting, and it's being implemented. According to what government is saying, it will take about three years to reduce the deficit to zero.
The second important point is that Argentina recovered an autonomous and independent central bank. It is very important. Until last year, the central bank was just an arm of the ministry of the economy, and it helped to increase inflation rates. Now we have a new model, with a very independent and autonomous central bank. In reality, we are facing some discussions between the ministry of the economy and the president of the central bank because the central bank is raising taxes to try to help this movement down of inflation.
In my opinion, it is a very serious and consistent program to reduce the fiscal deficit, and the fiscal deficit is the main macroeconomic problem that Argentina is suffering now. The fiscal deficit plus inflation rates are the main problems we are suffering now.
Senator Johnson: And the recognition of reducing greenhouse gasses? I said GHGs in my first question; it means greenhouse gases. Do you have any comments on that?
Mr. Morley: The president has been vocal about alignment in that sense, and I think he supports the reduction of these gases.
Senator Johnson: One more question, gentlemen. In what sectors of both of our countries, Canada and Argentina, can you see great potential in expanding bilateral trade?
Mr. Elizondo: We could say, of course, common issues like mining or energy. Additionally, I think that the way to increase bilateral trade relationships is to promote investments, and then these investments should contribute to interchange business.
One of the strategies that Argentina is trying to implement is to increase the participation of Argentine exports in international value chains. Argentina has a very low participation in international value chains. As the WTO is explaining, about 80 per cent of the total exports in the world are being produced inside these international value chains.
So what Argentina is trying to promote is foreign investments, big international or even multinational companies coming to Argentina to implement trade relationships. I think that mining, energy, food and beverage or even services should be sectors that could have an impact for this strategy.
Senator Ataullahjan: Good morning, gentlemen. As you know, this is an ongoing study, and we've heard from many witnesses. Some witnesses have suggested that we should proceed with caution in our relations with Argentina, given its history of social unrest. Some witnesses went as far as saying that the biggest handicap Argentina has is its governance. Others have suggested that Argentina should be a priority for Canada.
According to you, what would be a good starting point for deepening relations between Argentina and Canada?
Mr. Morley: Undoubtedly, we have earned our precedents. We are aware that our history has not helped us, especially in the last few years. However, it is my opinion that this is a fairly new democracy. We have chosen, supported and even suffered other ways of governments in the past that were looking for a fast and magical change to our programs that sometimes were economic and other times were related to security.
Right now, the people have elected a more gradual and institutionally sound change. I think that the people have some issues they want solved, very clearly. Among those is corruption that has occurred in Argentina.
Again, you should proceed with caution. I'm not saying there is absolutely no risk out there, but the situation is set in a way, as Marcelo was mentioning, that shows that it's for real this time.
Mr. Elizondo: A circumstance that should be considered is that this new administration is a minority government: the administration does not have a majority in congress. It is very important to work not just with the federal administration but also with some provincial governments. Most provinces are in the hands of opposition parties. We are in the middle of a new political circumstance that is produced by diversity, in political terms.
As you know, as Canada, we have a federal administration. We have 24 provinces. Each province elects the governors, and the governors come from six different parties in Argentina now.
In terms of establishing deep relationships and creating consensus about economic relationships, investments and trade, I think it is very important to work not only with the federal government — of course, the federal government is the first step — but also with some provincial governments that could help to create a more structural relationship.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much. Your comments have been most helpful in looking at trade and business between Argentina and Canada. I'm from the East Coast of Canada, so it was interesting for me to hear that both McCain and Clearwater are located in Argentina.
One thing I have been reading is that the World Bank has ranked Argentina one hundred twenty first in terms of ease of doing business. That creates challenges in bringing forward businesses.
What steps does Argentina have to take in order to build confidence in companies that would like to come to Argentina and to promote investments?
Mr. Morley, I know you said earlier "proceed with caution,'' which was probably a good thing, but it's proceeding with caution on one hand. On the other hand, how do you encourage businesses to get involved with Argentina when the World Bank is making that ranking, which was just recent in 2016?
So "proceed with caution,'' but keeping that in mind what kind of steps do you take to encourage investments?
Mr. Morley: Yes, it is a place where it's not easy to do business. This will improve. The government has that as an issue and is working toward facilitating business going forward. As points of caution, there are several. Obviously, when you arrive in Argentina with investment intentions or opportunities, you have the government and government agencies very much in support and prepared to solve the issues that you may find.
But in some opportunities — I'm not saying always — having a local partner can help, especially in mining. In mining services, that is very common many times with companies that are located out in the provinces.
There is not one silver bullet. There are many steps that you can take. Obviously the chamber is here to help foreign or Canadian investors. There is something I always caution people: Doing business in Argentina is not like doing business in Canada. That is something you have to obviously consider. That doesn't mean that it's the worst place to do business, but it is different. Going step-by-step and finding the right business and service partners is probably a first step.
Mr. Elizondo: I would like to add something else. It is true that the World Bank has not positioned Argentina in a good place in that ranking, but it is measuring the near past of Argentina. It is measuring last year or the previous year when these new changes we are facing now were not implemented.
The new administration is fixing some of the problems that were part of the analysis that the World Bank did. For instance, it was very complicated to export in Argentina, because there were some export taxes. There are no export taxes anymore. There were some permissions required to export. If you were an exporter, you had to go to the administration to ask for some permissions. Those requirements do not exist anymore.
There were different exchange rates that complicated things for international business. This situation has been normalized. There's a new small- and medium-sized company regime for investments in creating new jobs that has been presented by government just this week in congress. There are many new regulations being promoted or implemented by this new administration.
So, while I don't like to make forecasts, my opinion is that these rankings should show a better position for Argentina in a year or two.
Mr. Vitaller: I would like to add a small comment. I work in the mining sector. As an example of what Marcelo said, with the removal of the exportation tax, five different companies or small mines in Argentina and one big mine were planning to close operations in the next year. With the removal of the exportation tax they extended the life of the mine for two years, and that helped to keep the work. The taxes that those companies are going to bring back to the government are going to be $1.3 billion in the next two years.
All these ideas, environment and politics that the government is working on are improving the situation for companies. All those mines are run for international companies, some Canadian.
Mr. Morley: I don't remember if we mentioned it, but we were not allowed to ship dividends back to our home offices until December last year. These barriers have been lifted, and now companies can freely send dividends back home.
Senator Cordy: We've heard from other witnesses that —
The Chair: Senator Cordy, Senator Rivard said he had a supplementary. Is that all right?
Senator Cordy: Mine is a supplementary also. Maybe we can do it together.
We've heard from other witnesses about the importance of having a local partner because they have a better sense of the business world, the culture and the customs, all of those kinds of things. I'm just wondering if your chamber actually works with Canadian companies to facilitate finding a local partner.
Perhaps, Senator Rivard, you can ask your supplementary.
Mr. Morley: We do support finding these partners. We have many Argentine members in the chamber that work in this direction, for example people like Marcelo. He is a consultant in economy and finance and can be helpful to companies coming from abroad.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: We are pleased to learn that the economic situation is improving and that the government has established mechanisms to reduce inflation and help people get back to work. The fact that the government and the opposition have agreed to move things forward is a positive sign, and it is surprising that the major layoff of several thousand employees, which led to protests in every country, has contributed to reducing the deficit.
Other witnesses told us a few months ago that the country had started to eliminate taxes on the products you export. We replied that nearly all countries avoid imposing taxes when they export products, because that hinders competitiveness.
The gentleman has just told us that all export taxes have been eliminated. Are we to understand that there are still many products, such as wines, that are taxed before being exported?
[English]
Mr. Morley: Most of the export taxes have been eliminated. In the case of agriculture, the only one that remains with export taxes is soybeans. The government has publicly announced that they will reduce it over time but that they don't have the ability eliminate it right off the bat. They've eliminated wheat, corn and other produce. Soybean is 5 per cent lower but still has a 30 per cent tax on export.
Mr. Elizondo: And it is the only product that has been affected by export taxes. The rest of the export taxes including, traditionally, industrial products, were eliminated.
Senator Oh: According to the World Bank, in 1913 Argentina was ranked as number 110 of the wealthiest countries in the world. More than 100 years later, the World Bank dropped the index ranking on Argentina to number 115 for doing business.
The country is gripped with potential fears on the next national financial crisis to come along: your soaring interest rates, tax evasion, black market dealings on a national scale and general social unrest.
Can you gentlemen give us the short-, medium- and long-term political and economic outlook for Argentina?
Mr. Morley: We are aware of this and are slightly embarrassed of our evolution over the past century. I think successive mistakes have occurred, probably since the beginning of the 1900s, 1920-something.
There have been a lot of reasons why this has evolved in this direction. I think there has been a strong philosophical idea regarding populism and the way of distributing wealth that is more idealistic than in any way practical.
There have been political mistakes over the years, like the successive military regimes that would come in and interrupt democratic governments. I think we've done things also to cover up mistakes, and we've even gone to war with one of the world's leading armies.
There have been a number of mistakes during our history, but I think the people are beginning to understand better. Probably the one remaining right now — or the one that needs to be solved rapidly, which is probably a similar issue in some of our neighbouring countries, is corruption and making sure we understand what governments are for.
I would like to hear my colleagues here add to that.
Mr. Elizondo: I think it is true that Argentina's population suffered populism for many years and that our democratic system has not worked as well as we would have liked. I agree with Miguel that we are learning by doing, and I think that last year's election is a good example. For the first time in 100 years a private gentleman, a businessman, decided to create a new political party and run for the presidency for the first time and won the election. Argentina used to be a very closed and traditional political system.
What happened last year — a new political party creating a coalition and winning the election, promising normalcy, rational policies and winning the election — is something new. I think that shows Argentina is changing because of some of the changes that society is producing, because the society is learning.
Populism basically produced bad results. For many years, when commodity prices were high in the world, populism could finance the policies they implemented because of the money entering Argentina due to international prices, but that is over.
For the last four years we've been suffering from inflation, fiscal deficits and unemployment. The GDP has not risen for four years. Society learned and said, "Okay, populism is not working.'' I think that is more than a political election result. It is a change that is taking place in society.
Another example is that for the first time in many years, the judiciary is working freely. Many people who are accused of corruption are being prosecuted and it is happening normally.
I think that is a learning process in institutional terms, in terms of values and a functioning democracy. Finally, our mistakes produced some learning processes. It was bad, but it was additionally good in terms of learning.
Senator Oh: Do you see your exports increasing because your currency has devalued so much?
Mr. Elizondo: During first three months of this year exports rose about 3 per cent. That's very important because our main client, Brazil, which is in a huge crisis, is dropping our exports. We basically exported up to 20 per cent to Brazil. Now it's just 15 per cent because our exports to Brazil are dropping. Exports to the rest of the world are rising because of what we're speaking about: new exchange rates and exports taxes being reduced or eliminated.
If you exclude the impact of Brazil — our main partner which is in a huge crisis — exports are rising approximately 8 to 10 per cent because of prices. Brazil is suffering, so the total average is about 3 per cent.
My perception is that exports will recover some normalcy. We will recover the participation in the regional exports that we lost, and probably Argentina will take advantage of opportunities in some other markets now that Brazil is suffering this huge crisis. I'm speaking about opportunities in Asia, Northern Africa, or even in some other Latin American countries.
Senator Poirier: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation and comments. I just have one question.
From what I understand, your objective is to facilitate trade between our two countries. Are your projects mostly commercial and economic in nature or do you also promote exchange students, cultural exchange and things like that?
Mr. Morley: We take a broad approach to this. As examples of this, we have a not-for-profit organization going in June with some politicians. It's called Fundación RAP. Basically, these politicians are going to Canada to learn, understand and cross-pollinate on government policies and the way the federal system works. We support that.
We promote, like we did to PDAC, the missions going to Canada. We also work very closely with the embassy and the embassy staff in Buenos Aires and with companies.
We have a broad approach. We work in what we call "workgroups.'' We have a mining group that meets regularly and invites speakers from Canada, other parts of the world and locally. We have an energy group that works in the same way. We have a CSR group, tax and legal and HR.
We promote broad activity. We invite speakers to these meetings. We promote things like Canada Day and supporting the embassies that are here.
We have a traditional meeting at the end of the year to celebrate. In Argentina you can do it outside because it's summer, not like in Canada. We usually have a meeting at the ambassador's residence and invite government members, governors, academics and businessmen.
We do a broad range of efforts. Sometimes it's a little bit disorganized, but we are very enthusiastic. Laura, who is the executive director there, is very active in promoting this.
The Chair: I would like to thank all of you for contributing to our study. We've run out of time. I know there are more questions. Perhaps we'll have an opportunity to take up more of the issues that preoccupy us in trying to strengthen the relationship between Canada and Argentina.
We're looking with great interest at the developments within Argentina but also within the region. You quite rightly pointed out Brazil, but there is Venezuela, Chile and all of the other neighbours. We're trying to position the changes in Argentina within the framework of the neighbourhood that you're in and to see how Canada can maximize and strengthen the relationships towards our region.
Thank you very much for all of your perspectives.
At the opening of Parliament we agreed that we would call the ministers who are responsible for most of the area that we try to cover, and we thought it would be of value to explore ministers' mandates and hear their objectives and priorities and absolutely anything else they wish to tell us about their portfolio.
Minister, we have your biography, we know your background, so we don't want to take time at the start. We want to dive into the issues.
The Honourable Marie-Claude Bibeau, Minister of International Development and La Francophonie is here with us to examine her area of responsibility with respect to foreign relations, and international development being the key.
Minister, we would like your opening statement but we would also like an opportunity to ask questions. We thank you for appearing before us and also for the indulgence when this meeting was moved a number of times because a colleague had passed away. To honour him, we thought we would not proceed the first time you were to appear. I think that was your opinion as well. We are pleased that we finally found the time to meet.
Welcome to the committee. The floor is yours to make any opening statements and introduce the officials who are with you.
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau, P.C., M.P., Minister of International Development and La Francophonie: Thank you very much, Madam. I will do my opening remarks in "fringlish.''
[Translation]
Madam Chair, committee members, I am delighted to speak to you today about my mandate as Minister of International Development and La Francophonie. I have here with me Mr. Vincent Rigby, Assistant Deputy Minister for Strategic Policy at Global Affairs Canada. Mr. Rigby also serves the Prime Minister as G20 Sherpa. I would also like to introduce Mr. Arun Thangaraj, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Planning, Finance and Information Technology at Global Affairs Canada.
Before I address my mandate, however, let me first say a few words about how and why we provide development and humanitarian assistance, and in what context.
Canadians expect us, in our work, to reflect the values we embrace: inclusiveness, sound governance, respect for human rights, and generosity of spirit. Our development assistance helps reduce poverty, foster human potential and promote sustainable outcomes, while our humanitarian assistance saves lives and alleviates suffering. Our government has committed, in Budget 2016, to grow the envelope that Canada dedicates to international assistance. This is great news.
There has been progress in developing countries over the last three decades. Ethiopia, for example, has cut its poverty rate by 35 per cent since 1996. In Vietnam, over 90 per cent of the population now has access to drinking water. South America and the Caribbean have made considerable progress in terms of cutting poverty rates and improving access to education.
The worldwide rate of child mortality has been halved, and the number of children suffering from hunger and malnutrition has decreased significantly. Primary school enrollment, including among girls, has shown an impressive rise. Indeed, in the last 20 years, the number of children enrolled in primary school in sub-Saharan Africa has more than doubled, going from 62 to 149 million.
However, progress has been uneven. In many countries, inequality is growing. Conflicts remain the biggest threat to human development. By late 2014, almost 60 million people had been forced to abandon their homes — the highest level recorded since the Second World War. The conflict in Syria alone caused the displacement of over 11 million people.
Climate change is also having a significant adverse impact on access to drinking water, ecosystems, economies and communities. This results in more frequent flooding, as it happened recently in Peru and Bangladesh, and droughts, like the one we are seeing now in Ethiopia. Moreover, water supply problems affect all aspects of development.
This is the new global development landscape in which we operate. The new 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its sustainable development goals will help guide a global and a Canadian response. Canada is well positioned to mobilize action to contribute to the achievement of this critically important agenda. We are fully committed to supporting its implementation in Canada and abroad. For example, we are proud of Canada's commitment to support the Global Fund, which aims to end AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria by 2030. Canada has pledged to contribute $785 million over three years and will host the Global Fund Fifth Replenishment Conference. I am getting ready to work with world leaders to ensure this initiative is successful.
Let me now address the priorities outlined in my mandate letter. The Prime Minister has asked me, in my role as Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, to lead Canada's efforts to provide international assistance in order to help reduce poverty and inequality in the world.
Over the last six months, I have had the opportunity to travel in Canada and abroad to meet with colleagues from other countries and international organizations, and people from civil society and the private sector. These discussions helped me gain a better understanding of Canada's strengths and comparative advantages and the areas where we can improve. They helped me think about how I could carry out the priorities set out in my mandate letter.
This year, my priority is to create a new policy and funding framework for Canada's international assistance in cooperation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Finance. I am very pleased to announce that I will soon launch the public consultation phase of this review. As part of the key activities of the initiative, we will seek to collect the views of Canadian and international stakeholders.
Canadians will have the opportunity to provide their views through our website, by email, by mail, and as part of round tables that will be held in various regions in Canada. Of course, I certainly look forward to the contribution of this committee.
[English]
Our aim in this review is not to reinvent the wheel but rather to focus on Canada's comparative advantages in delivering international assistance. In particular, my mandate is to refocus Canada's international assistance on helping the poorest and most vulnerable and supporting fragile states. I have already identified a number of key issues that I believe are critical for achieving sustainable development and that will frame our consultations on the review.
Above all, I am committed to empowering women and girls and to protecting their rights. I believe this should be at the heart of our international assistance, including in each of the priority areas identified.
The first priority area is the health and rights of women and children, who we believe should be the main beneficiaries of Canada's development assistance. We will consider how Canada can continue its international leadership on maternal, newborn and child health, while looking more broadly at the rights of women and girls.
Our government is committed to a more comprehensive approach that fully recognizes the importance of sexual and reproductive health and rights as central to achieving gender equality and empowering women and girls. We will continue to work to remove the barriers girls face in accessing safe, quality education. We believe that educated girls today become the empowered women of tomorrow.
Second, just as we are doing domestically, we should support green economic growth and climate-change mitigation and adaptation internationally. Green growth holds great potential for developing countries, helping to protect them from the destabilizing effects of climate change, but also to create jobs and improve livelihoods. To support developing countries to transition to low-carbon economies and adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change, Canada has recently committed $2.65 billion in climate finance.
The third priority area is governance. We need to build on Canada's strengths and values to provide support internationally for inclusive and accountable governance, peaceful pluralism, respect for diversity and human rights, including the rights of women and refugees.
Fourth, Canada needs to contribute to global peace and security. Fragility, conflict and violence undermine prosperity and social development and deepen poverty. As we increase our focus on fragile states, we will consider how we can best support peace-building and conflict prevention, as well as post-conflict reconstruction efforts. Canada already invests significantly in countries affected by fragility, conflict and violence.
Canada must also be a leader in responding to humanitarian crises. Globally, humanitarian needs have quadrupled since 2005, due to the increasingly protracted nature of conflicts, rising displacement and more frequent natural disasters like floods and earthquakes.
Canada's strategy for engagement in Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon includes the provision of $1.1 billion over three years in humanitarian and development assistance as part of an integrated, whole-of-government response for the Middle East. This includes $840 million in humanitarian assistance funding to provide urgent health services, water, shelter, protection, emergency education and food for the most vulnerable people affected by crises.
It also includes support for refugee-hosting countries. During my travels to Jordan and Lebanon, I witnessed the generosity of the communities that are hosting large numbers of refugees. It is clear that the massive arrival of refugees is outpacing their ability to provide adequate services, so we are also helping to build the capacity and resilience of these communities and countries.
Globally, official development assistance alone is insufficient to meet all needs. We must use it in innovative ways to leverage new financial resources for developing countries, including through blended finance and public-private partnerships.
[Translation]
Ms. Bibeau: Before I wrap up, I'd like to touch on Canada's priorities within La Francophonie, which are well aligned with our international assistance priorities. Our government will continue to promote the empowerment of women and girls, peaceful pluralism, democracy, human rights and inclusive and accountable governance in the francophone world. We will work to strengthen La Francophonie's economic mission in order to reduce poverty and support inclusive and sustainable growth. We look forward to working with all partners in La Francophonie to ensure the success of the Francophonie Summit taking place in in Madagascar in November.
Let me conclude by re-emphasizing our government's commitment to focus on development effectiveness and transparency and on strong results, and to engage with Canadians, including youth, in renewing our international assistance policy and funding framework. I look forward to continued engagement with this committee, and to a close and collaborative relationship. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: You may have a monumental task in your position — I have one in mine. I have a great number of questioners in a very short time. I wanted it noted that we are going to have to move very efficiently through the rest of the time.
Senator Dawson: She wanted me to not talk too long, but since I sometimes don't obey the chair, I might not.
First of all, congratulations. Some of you might not know, but Ms. Bibeau worked for the Canadian International Development Agency—CIDA. It's probably the first time they've had a minister who has experience inside the organization, so I want to congratulate her on that.
[Translation]
Senator Ataullahjan and I want to thank you and congratulate you on the agreement you signed with the Inter- Parliamentary Union. I have been an active member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union for many years. Your agreement with that organization to promote women within the parliamentary democracy around the world is a contribution that will not go unnoticed. Many of us believe that parliamentary diplomacy has always produced encouraging results. The political foundations of Madagascar's Francophonie came out of a parliamentary Francophonie. Francophone countries met in a parliamentary context before concluding an international agreement to formalize it.
[English]
So much for my brief introduction.
[Translation]
I went to Haiti with the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I think we could still do more when it comes to micro-financing around the world. Every dollar invested — and it is women who benefit from this the most — produces extraordinary results. Do you intend to focus your efforts on that?
Ms. Bibeau: In fact, I would remind you that our overarching priority is to empower women and girls. I think that doing so could go a long way to improving the ability of women to contribute to the economic development of their communities.
You mentioned Haiti. We are in the middle of reviewing policies and countries. Without drawing any conclusions, I believe that Haiti is critical. It remains at the centre of our priorities for various reasons, including because it meets our criteria in terms of its poverty and precariousness. We also have a long-standing relationship with Haiti. We are focusing our efforts on the agricultural sector with a view to enhancing economic growth in a green and sustainable way, as a way of addressing climate change. This file is absolutely in line with our priorities.
Senator Dawson: The Chair has a long list of questions. I would like to further discuss the issue of micro-financing in Haiti with someone on your team.
Ms. Bibeau: Certainly.
Senator Dawson: I will not monopolize the committee's schedule.
[English]
Madam Chair, I'm being nice, reasonable and short.
The Chair: As you always are. I will move on to the next senator.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you, minister, for your presentation.
As Senator Dawson mentioned, he and I worked with the IPU. A couple of years ago, Canada was one of the countries that drafted a report on maternal, newborn and child health as a basic human right.
Looking at the numbers, we realized that MDGs 4 and 5, which dealt with women and children, were the ones where the targets were not met. Now as we are talking about SDGs, what can we do to make sure that women and children don't fall through the cracks again?
Ms. Bibeau: As I said earlier, this will be my overarching priority. If we're talking about health or education, economic growth and good governance, women and girls will always be at the heart of all of this.
Talking more specifically about the MNCH initiative, I think this is a good project that was started a couple of years ago. Canada has great leadership and I definitely want to continue to build on this.
We have already said clearly that we want to enlarge it and include a larger range of health services to women in terms of health services and protecting their rights. We're going through this review. The day before yesterday I held a round table discussion with organizations working directly on gender-issue projects that specialize in this.
I'm looking forward to getting all of the comments and hearing about the lessons learned to see where we are the best, what we can improve and what we should stop doing because it isn't bringing good results. We are committed to being efficient and finding good indicators to evaluate our results and proceed.
Since I'm at the beginning of a review — and I might say this more than once today — I welcome all your comments. I would like to benefit from the experience of the committee.
Senator Ataullahjan: Minister, in the work that we did and the report that we wrote, 167 IPU countries, we put an accountability mechanism into that report. We can go back to that report and talk to the nations that are failing and where we don't see any improvement in numbers.
What we see for Canada is that the mortality rates are higher in our native population. Are we going to be looking at those? It's almost double for the native population than it is for other Canadians. That keeps coming up. It would be nice to have that looked at too.
Ms. Bibeau: Your comment is very appropriate. Since my mandate and essential work is to refocus on the poorest and the most vulnerable, I gladly receive your comment and suggestion. It will be a criterion throughout our analysis.
[Translation]
Senator Ngo: As you said, Canadians expect our work abroad to reflect our values of inclusion, good governance, pluralism, the rule of law, and respect for human rights.
As you know, the human rights situation in Vietnam is deteriorating. The communist party is monopolizing everything, publicly targeting dissidents, and imprisoning a growing number of journalists and bloggers. Farmers are losing their land and people are not free to assemble.
The Department of Foreign Affairs uses the human development index to rank the countries that import from Canada. However, this index does not account for human rights.
My question for you, Ms. Bibeau, is the following. How do you measure human rights? How are you going to reinforce the criterion of human rights, as stipulated in the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act? Did you raise this matter in your presentation when you talked about providing development assistance?
Ms. Bibeau: Perhaps my colleagues can clearly explain how the human development index is calculated, as I am unable to at present. I can, however, assure you that the issue of human rights is very important to us. This is something my colleagues and I are starting to discuss, considering that it was more than 10 years ago, if not 20, that we implemented a human rights policy. I admit that the discussion has only just started, but we intend to address this issue very seriously at the inter-departmental level, and not just as part of the humanitarian and development assistance portfolio.
I completely agree with what you are saying about humanitarian principles. In fact, I would like to be a spokesperson on the matter and reiterate loud and clear the importance of humanitarian principles. I believe that this matter has been taken for granted because I see that people are unaware of the humanitarian principles and what they entail. I was recently asked why our soldiers did not protect humanitarian workers. That illustrates the importance of advocating, defending, and being a strong voice for these issues around the world.
[English]
Vincent Rigby, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy, Global Affairs Canada: We use a wide variety of indices employed by the United Nations and other organizations to measure human rights. You mentioned the human development index, which doesn't necessarily specifically target human rights. I'd be happy to come back to you and brief you in detail on some of the measures, indicators and targets that we use.
As part of the results and delivery agenda of the government, we're looking at how we define our outcomes, results and what specific measures and indicators we're going to use to help measure those specific outcomes and results and how we achieve progress.
We're doing a lot of work in a lot of these areas right now, including human rights. The message is this is ongoing work. We're trying to refine a lot of our tools, so we'd be happy to come back and brief you on some of the specifics as we develop those tools.
Senator Ngo: We know that for the last 20 years Canada provided Vietnam with nearly $800 million, and we have no accountability on that. As you know, Vietnam doesn't have an independent civil society; they don't even have an independent court system.
Will Canada keep providing Vietnam with development assistance? If so, how does Canada's international development program plan to improve the poor human rights record?
Finally, can you assure us that the communist regime does not get any direct aid from Canada?
Ms. Bibeau: I had the opportunity to visit Vietnam when I started: actually, it was the first country I visited. Once again, I don't want to presume the results, but it seems to me that Vietnam will, unfortunately, respond to the criteria of the countries we are looking to support. Most vulnerable in terms of climate change is another criterion that's adding to the list, unfortunately, that Vietnam meets.
I am very sensitive to everything related to accountability. I understand that we are working directly with some governments, but when we do so it's really those with whom we have enough confidence that they are using it correctly. We provide professional assistance to follow our money through the different projects, and we put the right tools in place to ensure that they are meeting and using the money appropriately.
We are saying that we want to make decisions based on facts. It would be inappropriate for me to comment too specifically.
I think Mr. Thangaraj may add something about accountability.
Arun Thangaraj, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Planning, Finance and Information Technology, Global Affairs Canada: Our programming with Vietnam tends not to be government to government. We don't provide direct budget support to the government of Vietnam. Instead, it's based on individual projects. When we do project funding in Vietnam, or in any other country, we have a sound due diligence framework. We look up front before we agree to the investment: will it achieve the results? Are we working with a partner that can guarantee those results? We also have audit and monitoring.
Then after we look at not only was there value for money to make sure that funds were not displaced misappropriated, but also did we achieve the results that we want through a robust evaluation which informs future programming. That's how we have a structured approach to ensuring value for money in all of our programming, including the Vietnam program.
Senator Ngo: If that's the case, I would like to raise the issue here. We keep funding the legal and judicial development system in Vietnam. We know that the court system, the judicial system, the legal system is controlled by the Communist Party. Why do we keep funding those projects when we already know that it doesn't go anywhere because all of the decisions have been made by the government or the Communist Party?
Mr. Thangaraj: I don't have all of the project details, but I can come back and take you through, for any judicial project, whether it be in Vietnam or Ukraine or any other country, what the results and indicators are that we have for those projects.
Ms. Bibeau: Are you suggesting that we shouldn't do anything in Vietnam?
Senator Ngo: I ask you to do things, but with accountability in Vietnam because right now, for the money we pour in there, we've seen no result for the last 20 years. The human rights issues are still there. It's getting worse, and you just mentioned the environment.
Recently, you know, Vietnam had the crisis in the environment created by the Formosa company. All of the fish are dead all over central Vietnam. Basically Vietnam hasn't met any of the criteria for the last two years, and we keep providing them with assistance. We even bring them here — judges, lawyers — to train them, but we know that, once they are back, they don't have the independent decision laws in those courts. So why do we keep doing it? That's the question I'm asking.
Ms. Bibeau: As I told you, we are going through this evaluation of the different countries. We look at the accountability, the value for money and if we can make a difference in this country. This is another question because, unfortunately, we don't have enough resources to be everywhere. So we will clarify these criteria.
Can we make a difference, yes or no, is definitely one criterion. I welcome your comments, and we may have the occasion to speak longer about Vietnam in other situations.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: You gave a thorough answer to explain your position on international assistance in Vietnam. I would like to take this a bit further. According to the document in front of me, Canada invested nearly $6 billion in international assistance. Every continent is listed here except for maybe Oceania, but there is this line that says "general.''
When we provide this international humanitarian assistance, it is part of the projects we manage ourselves. Without naming any country in particular, for example, this is not about giving a subsidy to an African country where we give $50 million to the government to do with as it sees fit. This is about targeted projects that are led either by NGOs or Canadian companies that have to carry out certain work under our governance. The underlying issue here is that we are trying to eradicate the corruption that is endemic in these countries.
Ms. Bibeau: We are absolutely aware of that. The money is distributed through different channels. Some contributions are made year after year to large organizations or to large multi-lateral banks. That is one of the components. The way to oversee all this and contribute to policy direction is to sit on the board of directors of these large organizations in order to have a say.
There is also the bilateral programming. Still today we have the 25 core countries and 12 partner countries. The core countries are where we run development programs and bilateral activities. However, we also operate through partnerships. We have another way of working on projects under the partnership format. Sometimes we receive proposals.
Nonetheless, I want to make sure that I am not misleading you. Partnership can come out of the 25 core countries, correct?
Mr. Thangaraj: Yes.
Ms. Bibeau: The bilateral projects are truly geared to the core countries. However, sometimes through the partnership projects we might receive unsolicited requests. As long as the project falls under our major policy directions and the organization is credible, we might stray from the 25 core countries. Humanitarian assistance is another entity.
I must admit that I am quite torn about this issue right now because it is a matter of finding the right balance between our contributions to multi-lateral organizations and the contributions we make bilaterally or in partnership. I haven't had the opportunity to tell you this, but I am looking to mobilize Canadians once again. Those are some of the things I am thinking about.
Indeed, these are projects where we make sure to do a diligent preliminary review of all the organizations we give money to. We monitor the projects during and afterward with the use of results indicators. We want to reinforce the concept of "deliverology'' and we are working very hard on that these days.
When we work directly with a government, we follow control measures meticulously. For example, we might support an education department in its efforts to set up healthy governance and break free from corruption. For example, we target a specific sector in order to work constructively and ensure that the government understands that sound governance helps everyone.
Senator Rivard: I accept your answer. I am quite satisfied with it. We control the projects, nothing more nothing less. However, when it comes to a disaster like the one in Ecuador, Canada donates money — I suppose that it generally goes to the Red Cross, OXFAM, or to UNICEF — but that money rarely goes to the country to do with as it sees fit.
I will ask another question about the Francophonie during the second round, if there is time.
[English]
The Chair: You answered part of the question of Senator Rivard, but I wanted you to answer a bit more. There has always been the dilemma — bilateral — which then involves more Canadian NGOs, et cetera, or using the multilateral route. When we go the bilateral route, it's a question of how you apportion money amongst groups in Canada that want to get involved and then how you make sure that the money is handled well.
The other is: How do we extricate ourselves from the projects? I've been in those years where we said that we're really going in to assist the local community for three years, but you go back 10 years later and that project is still ongoing and still has a Canadian component.
Moving to multilateral was one approach. Therefore, there's no duplication, et cetera. Then our money is lost and Canada's value is lost. The question is: Where does the Canadian flag come out so that we get our fair share of acknowledgement and influence with the multilaterals?
The other is that, in all of this approach, there is a lot of administration. When you have a project, you do a pre- project analysis. Then you do another analysis and another. You end up with more people doing more things, but they're administrative and nothing seems to hit the ground.
So you have a bureaucratic multilateral system and you have a bureaucratic CIDA system, as I used to say. How do we get out of this conundrum? I would hope that your study will deal with accountability really. It's accountability to the people who need it, not accountability to all of the layers in between. Having had to fill out a lot of those forms, you'll understand my angst on that.
Ms. Bibeau: I completely agree with you. You summarize the challenge I'm facing right now very well. I know that you're very experienced in this domain too.
I don't have much to say. You said it all. I don't know how many times we will meet in a year, but I look forward to our next meeting where we'll have this review to present and I will have more answers than questions. Today I appreciate the benefit of your experience.
Senator Johnson: Thank you very much. Congratulations on your new position. I hope you're enjoying it.
I'm concerned about maternal, newborn and child health. The previous government made some significant strides around the world with their initiative, but there are many questions remaining, a couple in particular, about access to planned parenting and access to abortion services in cases of wartime rape. Could you clarify for us what this program will now cover and if you have reviewed it in terms of these critical services for women in dire need.
Ms. Bibeau: There was a commitment before I arrived of $3.5 billion for MNCH. If not already signed, $3.1 billion was already in the pipeline.
We informed these organizations that already had the money that they can — within the agreement, the budget, the objective — if they believe, because of the context they're working in and they judge it appropriate, they might enlarge the range of health services they are offering in terms of health and rights for women.
So we did not go back, we just informed them that these services and expenditures related to it would be eligible.
For the others, we haven't prepared the call for proposal yet. The idea is not to push, necessarily. It's to benefit from these organizations that are working in the field, that they know their country and can make recommendations appropriate to the context in which they provide these services.
Senator Johnson: You're having a second look at this too? It's not going to stay the same? Will you be enlarging the program? Because the one we had before does not do that. The last government did not do it.
Ms. Bibeau: It was really focused on safe delivery.
Now the idea is the full range of services, so it starts with sexual education for teens, family planning, the fight against sexual diseases, safe deliveries and safe abortion when it's appropriate.
Senator Johnson: So the people in the field will have more flexibility. That's what I'm interested in. It's very important, as you know, in terms of the mothers and children and choice.
Minister, last month your department announced $75 million in foreign aid during international meetings in Washington. I was wondering if you could give us a bit of a breakdown of how this funding will be used and the controls being put in place to ensure it reaches those it is intended to help.
Ms. Bibeau: To be honest, I don't have a clear recollection.
Senator Johnson: We could have a written submission.
The Chair: If you could file that with us.
Ms. Bibeau: Of course I will.
Senator Cordy: Thank you for being here, minister. It's been very interesting, and I'm sure you'll be invited back again.
I think many of us around the table have had the opportunity to see some of the humanitarian things that Canada has been doing around the world. I was in Mongolia and saw that Canada had built housing for students so that students could live at the school area for the term because it's such a transient country. This provided stability in their education. It was very great to see this.
In Malaysia I saw projects sponsored by Canada for women in crisis. So Canada is certainly doing some wonderful things.
I'm pleased that you're doing your review because nothing is stagnant. Things change within countries and priorities for governments in Canada or around the world, but also things change within individual countries.
I'm wondering who will be doing the review. Who is heading it? Is it you, your department? Is it a number of departments? You mentioned a meeting recently with some stakeholders. Is this the way the review will take place? Is it meeting with stakeholders and government agencies? Perhaps you could clarify that.
Will you be evaluating the needs? Do you look at where the most impact can be made? Do you look at your mandate letter, which Senator Johnson referred to earlier, the women and children and the changing focus in that area? Do you look at better impact, better value for money and those who are most vulnerable?
I was going to ask about delivery of assistance. Will that be part of your review? Does it go to NGOs, in light of Senator Ngo's question previously, to ensure that the money Canada is spending is actually being spent in the way that we would like it to be spent?
Ms. Bibeau: Thank you. The consultation includes all of the above. I had many round table discussions on different subjects, starting with matters relating to humanitarian assistance and gender issues. I also meet with my counterparts when I'm travelling and with the head of different agencies and banks, international, multilateral partners.
My parliamentary secretary, Karina Gould, is participating in many of these meetings. Our officials are also participating in the consultations. The partnership branch with Elissa Golberg is leading the discussion with the partners, and Vincent Rigby is the master of the whole thing. Arun will be working on the financial framework, so it is really teamwork.
In a couple of days we will be launching public consultations. On the website there will be discussion papers, about 15 or 20 pages of background for context, then an explanation our five priorities that I talked to you about in my opening remarks and to ask questions. We will invite Canadian NGOs to use the tools available on the website to make consultations in their area. This is a way to have Canadians participate.
We talked about trying to find the right balance between multilateral and Canadian organizations and so on, but I would like to have Canadians more involved. I'm trying to find the best way to do so. I look forward to hearing what they have to say. I wouldn't want to go back to supporting core funding and going back too much, but I would like to find a way to have them more involved in this.
We are engaged in this reflection on "deliverology'' and finding the best results. We also need data. We need to work on this. I look forward to seeing what the OECD Development Assistance Committee will come up with.
[Translation]
They are in the process of developing results indicators for the sustainable development objectives.
[English]
I look forward to seeing what they will come up with and maybe we will not just reinvent the wheel.
Maybe you would like to add something.
Mr. Rigby: I do not have much to add to the minister. I think she's given a comprehensive response.
Clearly there will be extensive public consultations and a lot of work internally. We'll be doing a lot of analysis. It's going to be evidence and fact based. In answer to your specific question, it will look at impact at the end of the day and the difference Canada can make. The phrase the minister has been using a lot is "what is our comparative advantage here?''
There are a lot of players internationally, a lot of bilateral donors, international organizations. Where is Canada's niche and where can we make a difference? Certainly, in terms of our bilateral assistance, we've always looked closely at need and at impact. These are countries that need assistance, the countries that are truly poor with a lot of vulnerable populations, but also the ability for them to absorb the assistance and actually make sure that it makes a difference on the ground. So we'll be looking at all these things.
It's very much, as the minister has said often, it's about the "what,'' in terms of what we're going to do in terms of priorities, but it's it is also about the "how.'' A lot of questions have been asked about delivery mechanisms and how we'll work with partners and how we can be more innovative and things like that. It will be a big part of the review that the minister is leading.
Ms. Bibeau: If I may, I have the answer to your question. In Washington we announced $75.4 million.
[Translation]
I will continue in French. There was $20 million for the Middle East and North Africa Concessional Financing Facility; $20 million for CGIAR; $2.4 million to support agriculture for improved nutrition and health; $2 million for the Scaling Up Nutrition Movement Secretariat; $20 million for the West African Regional Disease Surveillance Project; and $11 million for the Afghanistan Women's Empowerment Program.
[English]
I will forward the details to you also.
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: I had two questions, but one of them just got answered. I had the same question as Senator Johnson, so now I have just one question.
[English]
In your mandate letter as Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, Prime Minister Trudeau expects you to deliver on sets of priorities. There is only one that mentions La Francophonie. The one that I'm looking at is to ensure Canada's strong and sustainable engagement in the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie.
Can you explain to us how you intend to fulfill this commitment when there was actually no mention of La Francophonie in Budget 2016?
[Translation]
Ms. Bibeau: To be honest, when I arrived, the Francophonie was nothing more to the department than a contribution to the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. I am not joking. We are currently drafting an action plan for the Francophonie file. I will have modest and reasonable requests to present to the Minister of Finance that will be specific to the Francophonie, beyond this contribution to the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie.
This year, we are also supporting the Government of Madagascar in preparation for the summit, but it is a very modest effort in terms of strategy for the Francophonie. Thanks to the international development work that we are doing in francophone countries, we are killing two birds with one stone, but I want to do more.
Senator Poirier: We hope so. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Could I have a clarification? We hear about the Francophonie under your responsibility. The Commonwealth is also under your responsibility, or is it under another minister?
Ms. Bibeau: No, I have both.
The Chair: How will you be balancing working in the anglophone and francophone countries on the development issues, not on all the other issues of the two organizations?
Ms. Bibeau: I am supporting, like the Commonwealth, the same way as Organisation internationale de la Francophonie is being supported now. To be honest, I have a plan to develop a strategy for La Francophonie, and I don't have anything specific for the Commonwealth right now. I will be very honest with you. But I don't know everything.
Mr. Thangaraj: The department will have, for example for the Francophonie and for the Commonwealth, an assessed contribution that we make to support those. We'll also support the Commonwealth youth initiative and various other things to assess Commonwealth contributions.
On the development side, there are various initiatives that we will do with the Francophonie countries or Commonwealth countries. They tend to be project specific rather than institution specific. On a Commonwealth initiative, we will work with other countries like the United Kingdom in a specific Commonwealth country with a specific or targeted intervention.
The Chair: You will have an excellent opportunity. You have two women leading both organizations, and I think this is a new chapter. I would hope that we really seize the opportunity.
That brought up a supplementary from Senator Poirier and Senator Downe.
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: You mentioned that you had a plan for the Francophonie. Do you have any idea when you will be sharing that plan and how much time you will need to implement it?
Ms. Bibeau: At the latest, I will be able to present the plan at the Francophonie Summit in November. We are actively working on it at the moment.
Senator Poirier: Will that plan come with a budget?
Ms. Bibeau: The budget will come out of Budget 2017, certainly.
Senator Poirier: Not 2016.
Ms. Bibeau: It is not a lot of money. The money is coming from the current envelope, which is already more or less assigned. It didn't take long for me to realize that in international development, many of the projects can go as long as three, five, or even seven years, which means budgetary expenditures for the current fiscal year are already assigned at the beginning of the year. There is no flexibility.
[English]
Senator Downe: I'm wondering, minister, if your officials could provide the committee with information. I haven't followed it closely, but what cuts have been done to Commonwealth funding over the last five years? There were scholarships and so on. I would just like to see that list. Thank you.
The Chair: Minister, we have run out of time but not questions. I'm going to be in great difficulty with all my colleagues because there is so much more to cover. I trust that you will be open to coming back.
Ms. Bibeau: Of course.
The Chair: And you will have, perhaps, some idea of where your study is going.
I trust that we will receive from you some understanding of what development aid is. It changed to sustainable development aid, but then we have humanitarian aid. So much of development aid was designated for ongoing projects that suddenly went to crisis development, and we have other initiatives throughout the government that seem to get priority on the funds.
I think it would be absolutely important in this study, and perhaps when you get your terms of reference and publish, that we understand exactly what you mean by development aid, what you mean by humanitarian aid, et cetera, or are you living under the present conditions?
I don't want the answer now because they are complex definitions and job responsibilities. I think it's very important so that when Canadians have a dialogue they know exactly what they're talking about. If a disaster occurs we want to help, but then I don't think anyone follows up to say there's only so much money in the pot. So then what drops off the table? They're often very important things on maternal health, et cetera.
You have a difficult task, but I think one that Canadians are following very closely so you will get a lot of assistance and a lot of recommendations. I trust that you'll come back, because I know the committee has many more things it wants to ask you. Thank you for the time.
(The committee adjourned.)