:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We'll convene the 41st meeting of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. Today we're dealing with just that: estimates.
We've invited the Privy Council Office to present their estimates for this year. To do so, we would like to welcome Michelle Doucet, the assistant deputy minister of corporate services.
Madame Doucet, welcome. With you, I understand, is Mr. Bill Pentney, deputy secretary to the cabinet, plans and consultations—welcome, sir—and Marc Bélisle, executive director, finance and corporate planning division.
Welcome again, Marc. It's nice to see you here.
Madame Doucet, you know the routine. There are 10 to 15 minutes for opening remarks, if you like, and then a round of questioning from the committee members. You have the floor, Madame.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon. I am pleased to meet with the members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.
[English]
As you explained, I'm accompanied today by Mr. Bill Pentney and Monsieur Marc Bélisle. Without further ado, I will begin to explain PCO's 2012-13 main estimates.
The overall decrease of $13.9 million to PCO's financial requirements from $140.7 million, as reported in the 2011-12 main estimates, to $126.8 million in the 2012-13 main estimates, is mainly related to the following.
There is a reduction of $7.4 million since PCO transferred, on an ongoing basis, all of its information technology budget for the delivery of e-mail, as well as its data centres and network services, to Shared Services Canada.
There is a reduction of $3.9 million for the sunsetting in March 2012 of the Afghanistan Task Force. Since April 1, 2012, PCO has had a small team in place that will be providing a coordination role with respect to Canada's presence in Afghanistan
There is a reduction of $2.2 million for strategic review in order to reflect the savings to be achieved in the second year of implementation for strategic review. By 2013-14, PCO's ongoing budget reduction will total $5.7 million. The $2.2 million is the total cumulative amount of savings for the second year, given that $1.1 million has already been achieved in the first year, 2011-12.
There is a reduction of $1.1 million for security-related initiatives. In 2010-11, PCO sought ongoing funding to enhance the department's security in order to focus exclusively on the highest priority elements. PCO received $3.1 million for the first two fiscal years. Starting in 2012-13 and for ongoing years, PCO will receive $2 million per fiscal year. During the first two years of this initiative, PCO had to incur one-time fit-up and start-up costs for some initiatives, which explains the reduction of $1.1 million for 2012-13.
Finally, there is a reduction of $0.5 million for adjustments to employee benefit plans, which is a statutory item.
These reductions are partially offset by the following.
[Translation]
First, there is an increase of $1 million for the operation of the Office of the Special Advisor on Human Smuggling and Illegal Migration. The Special Advisor is responsible for coordinating the government's overall strategy and response to migrant smuggling, including through engagement with key domestic and international partners to promote cooperation.
[English]
As well, there's an increase of $0.5 million for the operation of the Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River, known as the Cohen commission. The original terms of reference for the Cohen commission directed the commissioner to submit his final report by May 1, 2011. However, it became clear that more time would be needed. Therefore, a first extension was requested by the commissioner to submit his final report by June 30, 2012. An amount of $1.3 million is included in PCO's 2012-13 main estimates in order for the commissioner to submit his final report by that time. The increase of $0.5 million mentioned above represents the difference in funding for the Cohen commission between PCO's 2012-13 main estimates and those of last year, 2011-12.
By way of update, when we were before you on March 5 of this year, we informed you that the commissioner had made another request for an extension to the to submit his final report by September 30, 2012. This is due to the breadth of the mandate, the scope of document production, and the complexity of issues under investigation. That request was granted, but does not change the commission's global budget of $26.4 million over four fiscal years.
PCO's 2012-13 main estimates in the amount of $126.8 million do not reflect the decisions as announced in Budget 2012. The mechanism to decrease PCO's authorities in accordance with the Budget 2012 decisions will be the supplementary estimates process. By way of reporting to Parliament on these budget decisions over time, PCO will be using the quarterly financial reports to provide Parliament with regular and timely reporting on the implementation of these measures. This approach is in line with past calls by the Parliamentary Budget Officer to use these quarterly updates as a key vehicle for keeping Parliament informed of such spending changes.
Budget 2012 has made public the high-level results of the government's effort to reduce the deficit. PCO's portfolio total savings for this exercise are $12.2 million. This amount includes a $1.1 million reduction for the elimination of the Public Appointments Commission Secretariat, and a $2 million reduction for two other agencies under the portfolio. PCO's departmental contribution to this exercise totals $9.2 million in savings by 2014-15 to support the government's return to a balanced budget. As we modernize and transform the way we do business, we are cognizant of the need to preserve the right level of service to the , cabinet, and portfolio ministers, as well as maintain our core and unique capabilities to support the government.
To achieve the ongoing savings, however, we will have to change the way we work in some significant ways. For example, the Intergovernmental Affairs function, IGA, will be further integrated within PCO in order to eliminate duplication between elements of IGA and other PCO secretariats. This will provide more integrated advice to the and the .
[Translation]
The cabinet system will be streamlined, which will result in reduced administrative burden and produce savings over time.
The government communications function will be modernized and streamlined, including a new approach to media monitoring and analysis.
The Corporate Services Branch will review its business processes and adjust service levels.
All other branches will find ways to modernize their business processes and to achieve administrative efficiencies to meet savings targets.
[English]
In closing, I would like to thank you for giving my colleagues and I this time to inform you of the ongoing initiatives in the 2012-13 main estimates.
We would be pleased to respond to your questions.
Thank you very much for coming before us.
The first question I would like to raise...and of course this is the ongoing dilemma that we're reviewing in this committee, the timing of the mains and the budget and this process that we go through.
In the meantime, it has been revealed to us since the mains that the office of appointments is going to be ended. The obvious question, I guess, is that for all of these years we've continued to budget about $1.5 million to support a commission that doesn't exist.
Can we anticipate that in fact this $1.3 million, or whatever it is, will be removed from the PCO?
I'll move on to the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board. I'm very aware of its incarnations because of being impacted by the massive spill in Lake Wabamun in Alberta a number of years ago, and I value their work greatly.
It's occurred to me, in looking in that budget.... First of all, I have to say I find it very odd that it's in the PCO. Maybe you could explain that to me. Secondly, I note that the budgets for one mechanism of transportation are going up and others are going down. I'm just wondering how within PCO...or how that board estimates. I would presume it's like a contingency fund.
I worked in the field of environmental enforcement, and I was in fact the first chief of enforcement for Environment Canada. It was one of our struggles to try to get the government to set aside a specific contingency fund, because of course you don't know there's an accident until there is an accident.
I'm just wondering if you could elaborate a bit more on how the budget under the PCO for this is established. Is it established in the way of a contingency fund?
I think it's our responsibility, as members of Parliament.... I'll give you my example from the industry committee, when I was there.
The industry committee has a whole litany of organizations that report underneath the industry minister. But when we were dealing with estimates, if you wanted to talk to one of the agencies, you had to invite them. The actual deputy minister and the chief financial officer for the ministry couldn't speak for them.
I think it's a message that we need to make sure MPs know, that even though it might come under the umbrella of whatever organization, if you have an organization within there that you'd like to speak to directly, you need to put them on the invitation list to come here.
I fully understand Ms. Duncan's frustration. I was frustrated with it at first because I didn't realize it, but after that we got to it.
It's a point that I think, under our study on the estimates process, we can make.
:
Thank you for your question.
As I indicated in my opening remarks, 100% of the IT operating and salary budgets for PCO's e-mail, data centres, and networks used in the processing and storage of up to secret level information—not including top secret, but up to secret level information—has been transferred to Shared Services Canada. PCO will continue to manage e-mail data centres and networks used in the processing and storage of information above the secret level.
In addition, PCO will continue to deliver application and database maintenance and development services as well as to distribute computing services. You might ask what this means. That would include things like the help desk, desktop support, and peripheral support. Peripheral supports are the little bits that go with your computers—the mouse, keyboard, printers, external USB hard drives, scanners, digital cameras, and things like that.
In terms of managing our applications, PCO right now has a portfolio of 160 applications, which contains a mixture of commercial off-the-shelf software that many of us are familiar with as well as in-house-developed applications and systems. An example of an application that is managed by PCO is the cabinet papers information system, which is required to facilitate the control, preparation, distribution, and return of cabinet documents.
Clearly PCO will be working very closely with Shared Services Canada to coordinate the delivery of services now in the Shared Services Canada portfolio through a business arrangement to ensure that accountabilities related to the ongoing delivery of the affected e-mail network and data centre services are clear and that expectations and commitments on the part of both Shared Services Canada and PCO are well understood and documented.
This arrangement will foster close collaboration between the two entities and ensure that the Prime Minister's Office, our portfolio ministers, and PCO itself will receive sustainable, timely, and cost-effective e-mail, data centre, and network services in support of existing and new IT-enabled business processes.
:
Thank you for the question.
My answer would have two parts. One is a shorter part and one is a longer part.
I'm just conscious, Mr. Chair, of the time.
When I was last here on March 5, I talked about the population of PCO as of March 1. I talked about our workforce in terms of two pieces: one, the core folks who work at PCO, and then the folks who come and go who are what we call determinate employees or folks who are on assignment for other departments. At that time I explained that we had 855 employees in terms of our core workforce. The remainder were 72 folks who were determinate or on assignment for other agencies.
A month later that has gone down, and I can tell you that as of April 1, which are the numbers I have, our core population was more or less the same. It was down one to 854, but that temporary population has gone down to 56, for a total of 987, combining the two. The total at March 1 that I gave you had been 1,017.
That is the first part of my answer to your question.
I believe you asked in your question as to whether there had been other initiatives affecting our workforce at PCO, and there have been, as a result of the announcements in the budget. I am happy to speak to those now or later on.
First I want to specify that at PCO, there are practically no other expenses aside from salaries. We do not administer programs. So it will not be complicated to give you a global overview. We are talking, rather, about staff cuts. We are not responsible for employment insurance programs and other programs offered directly to Canadians.
However, we do not administer two separate programs. We manage the budget, the staff, the program and responsibilities of PCO in a global way. This year, as indicated in the budget, there are reductions related to strategic reviews. In addition, the budget stated that there would be reductions linked to the deficit reduction plan for this year.
I thank you for coming and joining us this afternoon and answering a few questions about the main estimates.
I'm going to ask you a few questions about last year's plans and priorities document that had numbers in it.
I have one question to start with to get my head around things. Last year, in 2011-12, it was $140 million—I'm going to round, if you don't mind. Then in the plans and priority document of last year you had $134 million. In the main estimates this year we have $127 million. I'm assuming part of that was the Shared Services transfer.
When did the Shared Services piece come together? Was that included in this reduction that we see of the $6 million that was in the plans and priorities? Did you know that was coming at that time, or is that new since then?
:
I can tell you that we did not know about SCC, Shared Services Canada, the transfer.
We did know about the Afghanistan task force, that that was going to sunset.
For the strategic review, we put in our amounts last year, so we knew those amounts.
For security-related initiatives, yes, we knew at that time that our reference levels would be reduced.
The adjustment for EBP, we do not know. That's an adjustment we do yearly, because the rate changes and we adjust accordingly.
The office of the special advisor on human smuggling would have not been known about at that point. This is something that came after we had done our documentation.
For the Cohen commission, that was the information we had available at that time.
:
I'll just add that we have opportunities for relatively direct feedback from our main customers and clients on a weekly basis.
More seriously, there's a set of objectives that are agreed on as we go forward, in terms of our advice. We're not in the business of programming. We don't measure our service to Canadians, and in that way it is a service that is internal to the government and the Prime Minister.
But in terms of supporting the Prime Minister in his role, and in terms of supporting the clerk in his role, as head of the public service, as Michelle said, we measure, to the extent we can, and we seek feedback on a regular basis. We're pretty hard on ourselves as well, in terms of assessing.
Having said that, the last couple of years have provided other opportunities to look very hard at what we do. With the nature of the budget changes that we've been living through, that are being reported, and that we're speaking about here, we have had to step back and ask some hard questions about what we do and why we do it.
So we are different from other departments in our ability to conduct evaluations of the normal course of a program or things like that, but I can assure you we have opportunity to get feedback and to assess how well we are doing in playing that role.
:
I realize there are some year-to-year fluctuations and variations, but when looking at most government departments, the expense of running government actually goes up. PCO was one where we've seen it stay equal or actually go down. When you factor in inflation, it seems to be a more impressive record. Just looking at numbers, that shines through.
The second part is—and usually government departments.... Bill, you mentioned that it's mostly in salaries, particularly at PCO. When you look at the full-time equivalents, in 2005-06 there were about 1,117 full-time equivalents. Looking at the projections for this year, I think you said you're looking at 987. Again, it's not a massive reduction. The department is smaller now than it was seven years ago and is still providing the same high-level service, when we're talking about your ongoing, continuous cycle of evaluation you are putting forward.
It seems to me that in the budgeting process the PCO has done a very good job of meeting the demands that are placed upon on it on a year-to-year basis. But overall, if you look at the actual growth of the department, you have remained pretty stable for at least over half a decade.
Am I accurate in comparing those numbers now?
:
As Marc has just elaborated, and Bill has spoken about it as well, we've taken several budget reduction-related activities in recent years. As a result, we are now faced with a concrete reduction to our work force, and I'll tell you about how we're going to do that.
In order to proceed according to the agreements we've negotiated with the unions, and pursuant to Treasury Board guidance, on April 2 we advised Treasury Board Secretariat that we would be invoking workforce adjustment at PCO. Two days later we met with the unions to provide them with the details, pursuant to the agreements we have with them.
One week later, on April 11, we began the process of notifying employees that they were affected. No one was declared surplus immediately. Being declared “affected” means there's a possibility that one's job will be declared surplus to requirements. An affected employee is therefore told that their services may no longer be required.
In some circumstances, where more than one employee is performing the same type of work, we conduct merit-based assessment for retention processes in order to fairly and transparently make the decision on which positions will be eliminated and which employees will be declared surplus.
Once it has been confirmed that the services of an employee are no longer required, the employee is informed in writing that their job will be declared surplus. At that point, the next step is to see whether they're being given a guaranteed reasonable job offer or not. If not, then they become something called “an opting employee”, and they have four months to choose between three options, each of which at the end of it will terminate their employment with the public service, unless they find another job during that time.
In terms of what that means for the Privy Council Office, right now we have—and I'm going to put caveats around numbers because they shift with people coming and going and retiring—approximately 139 affected employees at the Privy Council Office. As I said, the coming and going, folks who say they'd like to retire now, combined with the fact that we don't have programs that we cut—we have financial targets that we are working toward—will play a role in determining the final number of employees that will be declared surplus.
With that important caveat in mind, we currently estimate we will be declaring surplus between 90 to 100 employees at the Privy Council Office sometime between June and the end of November of this year.
:
It's not a bonus. Every cabinet minister has more work to do, including that cabinet minister, so let's be clear.
I know this isn't your area, but you are in charge of the Public Service of Canada, so I'm going to ask you one question. If you can't answer me, that's fine.
In one of the explanations in the “Canadian Transportation Accident” piece, and I just want to know if this is standard across the board—and maybe it's a Treasury Board question and not yours—it says here there's a slight deduction, which is explained by:
...collective agreements that have expired in 2011–12 and for which a new agreement has not yet been signed. The funding for terminable allowances in these collective agreements is not included in the Main Estimates.
From a financial perspective, can you tell me what's happening here? There's something in the collective agreement that they had, but it expired so they don't have to account for it until it's re-signed again? I don't know what's going on there.
If you can't explain it to me, that's fine. I'll ask Treasury Board.
I'm assuming this is something that's standard across government and not just for this agency.
:
No, not when they're an officer of government.
I have been around here six years, and—
The Chair: Her question wasn't about—
Mr. Mike Wallace: Let me finish, Mr. Chair.
I have been around here six years, and in every committee, when you want someone other than the main group to come concerning whatever is in here, you invite them. There's nothing wrong with inviting them. I'm okay with Linda's inviting them.
My suggestion is that when we have these other groups come, whether it's Environment or whatever, let's invite them in the same set of meetings.
We only have a few meetings left on the study of the main estimates. I'd like to get it done so that our researchers can do a report and we can get that done before we leave at the end of June.
I think there's room in the meetings we have set up already to invite people we didn't hear from today, in addition to those we have; that was my point. If we want to invite the electoral officer, we'll invite him to one of the meetings that are available for those other groups. That's my recommendation.
And the clerk made an excellent point. When you're looking at the estimates, if there is an organization within the umbrella of that ministry and you want to see that organization—I made the point that even that little secretariat that has $6 million has its own administration—you have to invite them to do it. That's the way it has been, not just in this committee but in others.
The only other, and final, point that I want to make is that this committee has the authority to approve the main estimates only on a number of things: PCO, Public Works, and Treasury Board.
For the other ones, we don't actually...the committees they report to approve their main estimates. We don't approve their main estimates.
The Chair: Well, Mike—
Mr. Mike Wallace: I want you to check on that before the next meeting.
:
I think you're right. The difficulty we're having today is sort of a graphic illustration of the larger problem we have in effectively dealing with the estimates. So it's a good case study we're giving ourselves, as we speak.
Anyway, we now have our next round of witnesses. I think we are in agreement. John, you've made a good point. We concur that we will postpone the taking of the votes, the votes that have been referred to this committee.
We're going to go ahead and welcome our next witnesses, as it's roughly 4:30 p.m. here.
This is the Canadian International Development Agency, dealing with their estimates.
Welcome to Greta Bossenmaier, senior executive vice-president at the Canadian International Development Agency. You are very welcome, Ms. Bossenmaier. Usually we give you five or ten minutes to make opening remarks and then open it to questions from the committee members.
So if you'd like to introduce your delegation, you have the floor.
:
In May 2009, CIDA concentrated its focus on three thematic priorities to frame its international assistance efforts, namely, increasing food security, securing a future for children and youth, and stimulating sustainable economic growth. These priorities apply across all of CIDA's program activities and integrate environmental sustainability, gender equality, and governance.
With respect to food security, ensuring access to safe and nutritious food is one of the most effective ways to reduce poverty in developing countries. To advance this priority, CIDA is focusing on hunger and malnutrition for some of the world's most vulnerable people. CIDA supports sustainable agricultural development, food aid and nutrition, and research and development to make significant improvements to food security outcomes. For example, in Ghana, CIDA is supporting food security initiatives in the north, where the situation is most severe, investing in agricultural research and business, and working to strengthen farmer-based organizations.
This support has contributed to a 5.3% growth in the country's agricultural production and growth in key staple crops.
[Translation]
In the context of securing a future for children and youth, the issues faced by children and youth are core to our development agenda and to poverty reduction.
CIDA places the well-being of children and youth at the centre of its international efforts to improve human development outcomes. This thematic priority includes a particular focus on child survival, including maternal health, access to quality education, and safety and security.
[English]
For example, in Haiti, CIDA support for the World Food Programme enabled the provision of a hot daily meal to 400,000 primary school students. This has helped to reduce chronic hunger and malnutrition among school-aged children and has increased primary school enrolment and attendance rates.
CIDA's sustainable economic growth strategy focuses on stimulating lasting, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth. In order to create employment and economic opportunity, to raise incomes, to increase public revenue and generation, and to reduce poverty in developing countries, CIDA prioritizes activities that build economic foundations, grow businesses, and invest in people.
To achieve development results, CIDA collaborates with a wide range of Canadian and international partners, including private, governmental, non-governmental, and multilateral organizations.
Mr. Chair, I would now like to turn to CIDA's main estimates. I would note to members of the committee that as the main estimates were finalized in advance of the tabling of the economic action plan 2012, decisions concerning CIDA announced in the plan will be reflected going forward in the agency's quarterly financial reports and through established reporting mechanisms.
[Translation]
CIDA's budgetary expenditures presented in the main estimates for 2012 are $3.4 billion. Of this amount, a sum of $3.1 billion requires approval by Parliament.
[English]
The remaining amount of $273.7 million represents statutory forecasts and is provided in the estimates for information purposes. The vast majority of these statutory forecasts represents the amount for the encashment of notes issued to the development assistance funds of international financial institutions. Issuances and encashments of notes are used to finance the concessional lending programs and grants of international financial institutions, such as the Asian Development Bank, the African Development Bank, the Caribbean Development Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank.
As compared to CIDA's main estimates for 2011, the 2012 budget authorities are $22.9 million, or 1% less than they were in 2011.
[Translation]
Some of the factors contributing to this net decrease of budgetary authorities are: a transfer of $9.2 million to Shared Services Canada to pool existing resources from across government, to consolidate and transform its information technology infrastructure;
[English]
a decrease of $6 million to reflect the end of additional funding received in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 that addressed higher operational costs incurred during that time with respect to our programming in Afghanistan; a net reduction of $4.5 million in the aid budget resulting from a number of adjustments, such as a reduction as a result of a transfer to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade for the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives—to explain, the Canada Fund supports small-scale development projects in a number of countries, while at CIDA, the Canada Fund was managed within the various country programs; the sunsetting of funding for a rural water supply and sanitation program, offset by increased funding for maternal, newborn, and child health; and net transfers from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to reflect adjustments to assessed contributions and the cost of CIDA's operations abroad.
For the past several years, CIDA has prioritized improving the effectiveness of international assistance.
[Translation]
Moving forward, CIDA will continue to deliver on its mission to lead Canada's international effort to help populations living in poverty. We will continue our efforts to make CIDA's aid more focused, effective, accountable and transparent.
[English]
We will continue to focus our efforts where they have the greatest impact. This means that we will continue to deliver on Canada's Muskoka initiative commitment to improve the health of mothers and children. It means that we will continue to advance our work on increasing food security, securing the future of children and youth, and helping developing countries achieve prosperity by growing their economies and building new opportunities for their citizens through sustainable economic growth initiatives.
Lastly, it means that the agency will continue to assist those affected by natural disasters or humanitarian crises, as we are currently doing in the humanitarian responses in both the Sahel region and the Horn of Africa.
Mr. Chair, in the interest of time, I will end my remarks here.
[Translation]
My colleagues and I are available to respond to your questions.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would also like to thank our guests for joining us today.
In your opening remarks you referred to three thematic priorities, one of those being the well-being of children and youth. With a particular focus on child survival, including maternal health, access to quality education, and safety and security, I, for one, am extremely proud of the leadership provided by the Government of Canada to both G-8 and non-G-8 countries, and leaders of countries, to support maternal and child health through the Muskoka initiative. In CIDA's most recent statistical report on international assistance, 2010-11, it was noted:
Every year, an estimated 350,000 women die in childbirth and pregnancy in the developing world and eight million children die before their fifth birthday. At the 2010 G-8 Summit, Canada committed $1.1 billion of new funding to the Muskoka Initiative on Maternal, Newborn and Child Health in 2010, in addition to existing funding.
I had assumed that these main estimates provided support to maternal and child health, and I guess you confirmed this in your opening remarks when you stated that there was increased funding for this program. I'm just wondering if you would tell us a little bit about that, and provide us with an update on this program.
:
Thank you for the question.
Yes, I did reference in my opening remarks that the main estimates do reflect an increase due to our commitment to maternal and child health. So what you're seeing in the estimates is this 2012-13 increase.
I can maybe speak a little bit about the program and how it's going. As members will recall, with the 2010 G-8 presidency, Canada championed the G-8 Muskoka initiative on maternal, newborn, and child health, and this in fact helped to pave the way for the United Nations secretary general's global strategy for women's and children's health.
Through the Muskoka initiative commitment, CIDA is supporting the delivery of quite a comprehensive and integrated health services program at the local level, where in fact they are the most needed. Of the $1.1 billion that was committed, more than $830 million of that has already been announced for projects in Africa, in the Americas, and in Asia.
I think it's also important to point out to members that 80% of CIDA's maternal, newborn, and child health funding is going to countries in the region of sub-Saharan Africa, in which there is great need.
In terms of our MNCH, our maternal, newborn, and child health program, we're working for results in three different ways. We're working directly with a number of developing countries. We're also working with the multilateral and global partners, and we're also working with Canadian development organizations in the development countries. We're doing so along what we call “paths”. We have three integrated paths: strengthening health systems, improving nutrition, and addressing leading illnesses and diseases.
It may be helpful, if I may, to provide a few examples of the kinds of support we are providing.
One example of support is the work we're supporting in Bangladesh, where we have 63,000 mothers and 94,000 children who will have regular, on-site access to basic pre-natal and post-natal care, basic health care, and trained midwives.
In Haiti, for example, with Canadian support, the total number of women receiving free health care while giving birth will increase from 60,000 deliveries in 2011 to more than 90,000 by 2015. That's the expected number.
We're also supporting an African medical and research foundation in Tanzania, and its aim is to strengthen the delivery of health services to approximately 650,000 women, newborns, and young children in one particular region in Tanzania.
I hope that answers your question.
And thank you again for appearing.
Just for the record, I want to express our disappointment that the minister has not appeared. We fully expected her to be here. It's our opportunity to question her.
I have a couple of questions.
I noted that in the report of the Auditor General in 2009, she reported on red tape. Now, this government has been very diligent in saying that it's going to reduce red tape for businesses in Canada and reduce the intrusion of the administration.
The Auditor General, in her 2009 report, on page 27, says“[b]urdensome administrative processes hamper effective decision making”. I know, from my personal experience working on major CIDA projects in Indonesia and Bangladesh, that the level of reporting can sometimes go to the point of absurdity, and it can be hard to find time to actually deliver the aid project.
I wonder if you could tell us if you've included in your main estimates any kinds of initiatives for reducing that administrative burden in response to the Auditor General. And in what way does that improve the delivery of aid? In some way, does that have to do with reducing the number of PYs in CIDA? In other words, there's less work to do administering all of this reporting.
:
Sometime after the end of the fiscal year, presumably?
Ms. Greta Bossenmaier: Yes.
Mr. Bernard Trottier: I'll cite some numbers from the 2010-11 report, just because I want to put what you're doing at CIDA into a longer-term context. In 1990 you cited some numbers here—this was your report to the OECD Development Assistance Committee—in current U.S. dollars, and I guess that's an agreement among countries to have a similar basis for reporting numbers. In 1990, and this was the combination of bilateral and multilateral aid, total development assistance was $2.5 billion in 1990, and about 60% of that, I understand, was CIDA. It went to a low 10 years later in 2000 of about $1.8 billion, and in 2010-11 it was far more than double that at $5.1 billion.
Can you describe CIDA's trend over that 20-year period, what's happened with those budgets? Has it tracked that overall development assistance expenditure that you cite in your report? At $5.1 billion, obviously, there are things in there that are from the Department of Finance, such as debt relief and so on. It's not all just CIDA budgets, but out of that $5.1 billion, your main estimates are $3.5 billion. Could you describe what those points in time, 1990, 2000 to 2010, would look like for CIDA?
:
First, with respect to CIDA's mandate, you give this paragraph with respect to CIDA's mandate, which is actually not true.
CIDA's mandate is set out in the legislation, the better aid bill. The bill says that your mandate is poverty alleviation, taking into account the perspectives of the poor, and consistency within our international human rights obligations. That's your mandate.
I'm kind of surprised that when you made your presentation you actually didn't reference yourself to the law. From there flows everything else. The bill was passed in the first instance so that we wouldn't be flavour of the day, whatever the minister felt was the specific interest.
I would take note of that and ask you in the future to reference the actual mandate of CIDA as set out in legislation.
The second issue has to do with the minister getting herself into a pack of trouble these days with respect to overspending, or spending money that is inappropriate.
Has the minister written a cheque back to the government?
Mr. Mike Wallace: Thank you.
Hon. John McKay: The second issue has to do with the cuts taking place and who is carrying the load here.
The numbers I have are that, essentially, CIDA is carrying the load of the cuts but Finance Canada isn't taking any of the load. In terms of percentage shares of ODA, CIDA does 75% of it, Foreign Affairs 8% of it, Finance Canada 10%, and International Research and Development gets 3%.
When you look at the cuts, they are all to CIDA, all to Foreign Affairs, and all to International Research and Development, but nothing to Finance. Can you explain that?
:
Yes, there are 20 countries of focus.
The objective of establishing countries of focus was to enable us to better concentrate our resources in order to have much more impact. Previously, we could have been involved in more than a hundred countries, and if I can use the analogy, it was a scattershot approach; it was a little more difficult to know that one was actually achieving results.
By focusing on a smaller number of countries using those criteria of need, efficiency, ability to work, and on whether we can actually make a difference and how it fits with Canada's strategic priorities, we're more able to establish a frame that enables us to first of all articulate results for the future and then to measure against them. If you can't name it and you can't measure it, you can't actually be sure that you're making progress.
Within those 20 countries of focus we further concentrated, identifying among them the three thematic priorities that Ms. Bossenmaier mentioned in her opening remarks, to ensure that we knew within each country which thematic priorities we would work within.
There is a connection there, because under the principles of aid effectiveness, of course, there is the notion of harmonization and country ownership. If I think of the country ownership and the harmonization, we had to make sure that what we were seeking to do—which met our criteria within our thematic areas—also met with the recipient country's poverty reduction strategy. They all have something of that ilk themselves. We were looking for that sweet spot wherein everybody's interests coincided and we knew that the recipient government was really behind the initiative; that enabled us to move forward.
The countries of focus are: Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali, Mozambique, Pakistan, Senegal, Tanzania, Vietnam, Bolivia, the Caribbean region, Colombia, Honduras, Indonesia, Peru, and Ukraine.
:
It will be my pleasure to do that. I don't have the French document before me and so I am going to translate this one; it may not be precise.
Our sustainable economic growth strategy has several components. The first is to ensure that the policy and institutions in the country in question are really robust, that they respect the law, that there is political stability, etc.
As for infrastructure, we want it to be solid, but here again, our aid is not linked to Canadian interests. The projects can go forward, and those that offer the best project at the best price will be selected.
We also want to ensure that the workers are well trained. We focus on young people particularly, because not having work causes enormous difficulties for them. This is a very important component.
The role of women is also very central. It must be clear that when it comes to economic development, women must take their place. In February of this year, a conference that was sponsored by the minister focused on sustainable economic development for women in particular.
Then there is agriculture. In developing countries, a large part of production comes from agriculture. Here again, this is not linked to our own agricultural products.
Haiti is one of our 20 countries of focus, of course. It's our biggest program, and it has been a long-term priority for the Government of Canada. It has been our largest aid recipient for the past three years, but it was always amongst the top. A lot of progress has been made in Haiti since the 2010 earthquake, and more than two-thirds of displaced people have now left the camps.
Our work in Haiti is producing tangible, measurable results, and that's part of the system I was referring to earlier. We can say that approximately 400,000 Haitians now have access to credit and financial services. That's very important under the sustainable economic growth component we were discussing earlier.
In Haiti, 330,000 women delivered their children with the assistance of qualified medical professionals; over a million Haitian boys and girls are receiving nutritious meals daily; and 4.8 million Haitians have been registered in Haiti's civil registry, which gives them access to essential services. I think those of us who live in a country where we take that for granted can't underestimate the importance of actually having an identity and being registered in a registry.
We're working very closely with the Government of Haiti and our development partners to make sure that efforts are coordinated, effective, transparent, and accountable. There are a lot of people in Haiti. We need to make sure we're not doubling efforts, missing gaps, and wasting resources.
Through the Haiti earthquake relief fund—with the catchy title of the HERF—the Government of Canada matched donations of $220 million made by individuals to eligible registered Canadian charities. The HERF is now 99% disbursed, and the remainder of about $3 million will be disbursed in the course of this fiscal year.
A lot of additional work we have done, of course, is urgent humanitarian assistance to Haiti immediately following the earthquake. There was an additional $400 million committed over two years for reconstruction, and we have met that commitment.
We have three thematic priorities in Haiti. We work in sustainable economic growth, food security, and the future of children and youth.