Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue 6 - Fourth Report of the Committee
Thursday, April 3, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade has the honour to present its
FOURTH REPORT
Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of official development assistance abroad, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Wednesday, December 12, 2007, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment. Your committee appends to this report certain observations relating to the bill.
Respectfully submitted,
CONSIGLIO DI NINO
Chair
Observations to the Fourth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
(Bill C-293)
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is supportive of the principle and general intent of Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of official development assistance abroad. Regrettably, however, Bill C-293 has a number of shortcomings that need to be highlighted. First, the bill's overarching emphasis on poverty reduction should be supplemented by a focus on economic development and the achievement of prosperity in aid-recipient countries. The former often seems to treat the symptoms of the poverty while the latter attempts to tackle the root of the problem: the need for dynamic, growing economies and job creation in poor countries. As the committee learned in its recent study on Africa, there will be no progress in lowering poverty in these countries without trade and investment driven economic growth and job creation. Foreign aid should be provided to help aid-recipient countries develop self-sustaining economies.
Second, although the purpose of the bill is to legislate that all Official Development Assistance (ODA) be allocated for poverty reduction, the term ``poverty reduction'' itself is not defined in the bill's interpretation section. As such, the bill has no clear test as to what is a contribution to poverty reduction. That is a curious omission, and one that should be corrected.
Third, Bill C-293 does not set specific criteria for recipient countries to satisfy in order to obtain Canadian aid. This is unfortunate given that Canada has one of the world's most geographically diffuse aid programs in the world, with its aid having little impact in each country.
Fourth, it is not clear in clause 4(1)(b) of the bill how the Minister disbursing ODA would determine whether the aid funding ``takes into account the perspectives of the poor.'' Some clarification is in order on that point.
Fifth, Bill C-293 calls for federal government ministers providing ODA to consult with ``governments, international agencies and Canadian civil society organizations'' before aid projects are implemented. This provision is problematic in that not only could it become a burdensome requirement on the ministers involved and lead to additional costly delays in decision-making, it could also open up the possibility that those parties not included in consultations could take legal action because of their exclusion. One also needs to question the usefulness, and the risks involved, of having to consult with repressive governments who may not welcome the presence and activities of Canadian aid organizations since in certain countries, non-governmental organizations are perceived as threats to government authority.
Sixth, the bill's reporting and transparency provisions would result in a duplication of reports that are already available to the public and a costly waste of time for government officials. Moreover, the requirement that the Government of Canada publicly provide a summary of any representation by Canadian representatives of the Bretton Woods Institutions (e.g., World Bank, International Monetary Fund) is at odds with these institutions' confidentiality policies, could curtail the flow of confidential information and could undermine the relationship that Canada has with the countries (Ireland, countries within the Caribbean Community) that it also represents at these institutions.
Finally and of great importance, even though the short title of Bill C-293 is the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, there is nothing in clause 4 of the bill that would make the ``competent minister'' disbursing ODA accountable to the Canadian taxpayer in his or her delivery of aid. There is no mention at all, for example, of providing ODA in an effective and efficient manner and with due recognition of Canadian aid capabilities at a time when Canadian aid is being increasingly delivered in an invisible manner through large, often bureaucratic multilateral institutions and international non-governmental organizations. As one witness pointed out to the committee, Bill C- 293 ``appears to be silent on the topics of aid effectiveness, results and value'' and is rather light in the area of accountability.
Despite the fact that the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)'s annual budget exceeds $3 billion and the agency is the source of a full 80 per cent of Canada's ODA, its' only legal mandate is in a one-paragraph insertion in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act. Bill C-293, designed primarily to legislate that all Canadian ODA be allocated to ``poverty reduction,'' does not fix this deficiency. The bill contains no explicit legislative mandate for the aid agency, complete with objectives that can be monitored by parliamentarians.
The committee is convinced that what is really required is a bill that would provide such a comprehensive legal mandate for CIDA. This new legislation should be crafted in a way that improves the overall accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of that aid agency, with the accountability framework going beyond simply reporting statistics. The committee sincerely hopes that such legislation will materialize in the near future so that CIDA can become the leading development organization that Canadians would like it to be.