Finance Committee on May 28th, 2013

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

We would agree with most of the principles of the amendment. It's our understanding, though, that it does subject our ability to pursue military intervention to the authorization of the UN, or it could be interpreted as such. There are times, including the Kosovo intervention, as an example, when we did not have UN authorization. There may be times when we would want to pursue military intervention without UN authorization.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on amendment PV-8?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have amendments NDP-20, NDP-21, and NDP-22. Ms. Nash or Monsieur Caron, you can deal with them separately or together.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am going to speak to the first two amendments, and then I will turn the floor over to Ms. Nash to discuss the third.

We have three major concerns about the merger of CIDA and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

First, we want to make sure that the minister's responsibilities and duties include a reference to the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act.

Second, we want to be sure that the provision of humanitarian assistance is neutral and impartial, and will not be subject to Canada's foreign policy objectives.

Third, we want to ensure that development assistance is provided in accordance with international best practices.

Many stakeholders spoke during the consultations. Organizations like the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, Oxfam, World Vision and the Canadian Food Grains Bank want to see these amendments in the legislation; they are concerned about the humanitarian assistance approach that might be taken.

Indeed, the proposed amendments seek to establish an explicit reference to the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act. That would provide clear assurance that the Minister of International Cooperation would be responsible for ensuring that official development assistance was provided in accordance with the three key principles that underlie development assistance. They are the reduction of poverty, regard for the viewpoint of disadvantaged people, and respect for international human rights standards.

The amendments also seek to identify the key principles of humanitarian assistance, including respect for humanity, neutrality, independence and impartiality. In fact, looking at the first two amendments, I see that both of them seek to include the same principles, but in different sections. The basic principle behind the amendments is, therefore, the same.

Consequently, in order to provide a proper framework for the minister's role, the NDP strongly recommends that the minister's jurisdiction and areas of intervention be defined by the existing measures. The purpose would be to limit political involvement in the delivery of development assistance.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Does anyone wish to speak on amendments NDP-20 and NDP-21?

We'll vote on amendment NDP-20.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll vote on amendment NDP-21.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On amendment NDP-22, Ms. Nash, please.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Further to my colleague's intervention, this amendment basically inserts reference to the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, the ODAAA, into this new law. It de-links humanitarian aid from development assistance and ensures that development assistance follows key international principles on aid effectiveness, including country ownership and alignment, focus on results, inclusive development partnerships, and transparency and accountability. As well, it de-links humanitarian aid from development assistance. This is an added point, just for humanitarian assistance, that lays out the key principles it should be based on.

We've had representation before parliamentary committees from humanitarian organizations such as CARE, Oxfam, Save the Children, and World Vision, who have argued that Canada is a signatory to the good humanitarian donorship principles and that therefore there must be,

...autonomy of humanitarian objectives from the political, economic, military or other objectives that any actor may hold with regard to areas where humanitarian action is being implemented.

This is not only to advance the goal of humanitarian aid, it's to protect those who are delivering that aid because it de-links them from any other economic or military objectives that a given country might have. So it not only benefits the recipients of the aid, but it really helps protect those who are delivering the aid.

We've already signed on to these humanitarian principles. The merging of CIDA and DFAIT allows us the opportunity to actually encapsulate and explicitly reference those principles in the bill setting out this new body. That is the basis of this amendment on behalf of the NDP.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Is there further discussion on amendment NDP-22?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have LIB-4, LIB-5, and LIB-6.

Mr. Brison, you can deal with them together or separately, however you wish.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I'll start off with amendment LIB-4, that Bill C-60, in clause 174, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 90 with the following:

reduction in developing countries, including through the provision of assistance under the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, and provide

We are adding the text, “including through the provision of assistance under the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act”.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Is there further discussion on amendment LIB-4?

(Amendment negatived)

On amendment LIB-5, Mr. Brison.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Amendment LIB-5 would add the text:

assistance activities through adherence to commonly accepted principles of aid and development effectiveness;

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Is there further discussion?

(Amendment negatived)

On amendment LIB-6, Mr. Brison.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I want to delete the reference to “humanitarian assistance”, which is unnecessary, as it already appears in line 25.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will go now to Ms. May's ninth amendment, please.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm presenting Green Party amendment 9, without prejudice to abilities to present amendments at report stage.

This amendment fleshes out with specificity what is referred to now on page 90 in paragraph 14(d):

ensuring Canada’s contributions to international development and humanitarian assistance are in line with Canadian values and priorities.

My amendment sets this out:

priorities, namely a commitment to equality, democracy, social justice, ecological integrity, multilateralism, human rights and the rule of law.

I'm sure everybody will agree and this amendment will be a first and will pass.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Ms. May, for the discussion on PV-9.

We will go to Mr. Rankin, please.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't have this proposed amendment in writing, but I would just say “including” these values. They may not be inclusive. The values, the priorities, are obviously good Canadian values, without doubt, but there may be other values that aren't there. I'm concerned about voting in favour of them when other key values may be missing. I would like to say “including” rather than “namely”.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Mr. Rankin wants to remove the word “namely” in the amendment and put in “including”. Is there any discussion on that?

(Subamendment negatived)

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Is there discussion on clause 174?

[An hon. member]

Debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

A debate? Okay. Monsieur Côté wants to debate clause 174.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to point out that the government has unfortunately missed an important opportunity. On the weekend, I had the chance to speak with people who run an international assistance agency, fairly high-ranking individuals. They weren't against the merger, in theory, but clearly wondered about how it would work.

I won't elaborate any further on my view of the subject, but I would like to highlight the government's unique talent of turning gold into lead. It is, after all, pretty remarkable. It could have been a great initiative, but unfortunately, we're seeing the government derail how we do things and especially what we want to achieve. It is particularly important to point out that the debate that should basically have taken place in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development will not happen; unfortunately, it wasn't the place. That's very unfortunate, but there you have it. I won't say any more on the subject.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

(Clause 174 agreed to)

(Clauses 175 to 199 inclusive agreed to)

Now we will deal with division 13, Ridley Terminals, which deals with clauses 200 to 212. I have an amendment on clause 207, but colleagues, do you want me to deal with clauses 200 to 207 together? There's a new clause after 207.

Shall clauses 200 to 207 carry?

[An hon. member]

Let's have a debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. A debate on those clauses.

Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm the lone opposition member from the west coast, and I want to set out why the official opposition opposes the proposed amendments dealing with Ridley Terminals.

We oppose this division because, in our view, the government has not made the case for privatizing it, nor have they told us why it's in the best interest of Canada to do so. After all, it's a profitable crown corporation. It's well managed. It serves the strategic and economic interests of British Columbia communities. It's been very efficient in its operation.

We don't understand why they want to sell it. Some people on Vancouver Island and my constituents have asked whether they want to do so, now that it's making money, in order to perhaps get some money so as to claim that the deficit is no longer there by 2015. We think it's just strange that the government would want to sell such a crown jewel.

I understand that one of Mr. Harper's first acts when he became Prime Minister was to cancel the sale of Ridley Terminals by the Liberals—it would have been sold for just about nothing. Now that the terminal is doing very well, why go ahead and get rid of it? We don't understand it.

Nor has the government reassured Canadians that the sale would go to a Canadian conglomerate or would continue to provide equal, open access to Canadian companies to get their products to market. The government has not even explicitly guaranteed that the sale would be in the best interests of Canadians.

For all of these reasons, we just don't understand why we should go ahead and support such an amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Rankin.

I have Mr. Hoback, and then Ms. McLeod.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to speak to this, just to get the government's point of view out there.

He is correct. As the member said, Ridley Terminals once lost a pile of money, millions of government dollars. And it is an asset now because the grain market is actually worth some value.

Private ownership will allow the terminal to maximize its contribution to economic growth, jobs, and new investment. Open access to the terminal will also allow a lot more variety in operators using the terminal and in products moving through the terminal.

Moving away from government ownership at Ridley Terminals would align it with other major marine terminals in Canada that are owned and operated by private companies. The Canada Development Investment Corporation will serve as the government's agency to ensure that any sale process is conducted using best commercial practices. The government will only proceed with the sale if it maximizes the value for taxpayers. Of course, continued open access to the terminal will also be a central feature of any sale.

So you can see that this is the time and place to actually move this asset. It has a lot of value. Rather than wait for a time when it is an asset needing millions of government dollars, now is the proper time to sell it.