Evidence of meeting #37 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was finance.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I have a problem. Could you read me what clause 5 will look like?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
It will read:
This act does not apply in respect of funding or other assistance that is provided for the purpose of alleviating the effects of a natural--
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
The argument you've heard from Mr. McKay and Madam McDonough—I apologize, this is her amendment—is that this gives the government more latitude, more ability to respond quickly to an emergency, whether it's a natural or artificial disaster.
And I think, in fairness to Madam McDonough, this comes out of testimony that we heard.
Mr. McKay.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Just to be a bit more precise and to marginally respond to the government's argument, if in fact the Government of Canada provides $100 million in tsunami relief, I want that to be ODA-able. I want it to be clear that the criteria in subclause 4(1) would not restrict the government's counting that as ODA-able. If there's even more precision required, you might say something to the effect that “the criteria in subsection 4(1) shall not apply to funding or assistance”.
I don't want to slow the debate down--this pace is slow enough--but I want to be perfectly clear that if necessary, we'll make it so that there's not a scintilla of doubt.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. McKay. I'm sure people do not want a scintilla of doubt.
Mr. Menzies.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
I wouldn't want to go near a scintilla this close to Christmas.
I'd like a point of clarification on what is now the definition of “official development assistance” under new paragraph 3(b):
that is provided for the purposes of alleviating the effects of a natural or artificial disaster or other emergency occurring outside Canada.
Are you now suggesting that this act does not apply?
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
The point is that it doesn't have to be specific to poverty reduction if there is an emergency assistance.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
So why on earth did we narrow the definition yesterday? I go back to my argument. I'm just trying to clarify this. Why are we going around and around?
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
We're trying to help you out here. Don't look a gift horse in the teeth. We're trying to help you out here.
I accept John's suggested amendment as a friendly amendment, because this very much responds to the concern that we might tie too many restrictions to the government's ability to respond rapidly and fully to an emergency. We're not meaning to bind the government in that regard. The last thing you want to do is have a whole lot of requirements for consultations, and so on. The point of being able to move in an emergency is to be able to move quickly.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Can I just make it clear that I accept that as a friendly amendment? I think it clarifies what we're talking about.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
But why should we limit ourselves in the first place? I go back to this hastily worded piece of legislation we're dealing with, and we're having to put in clauses that re-plow ground that should never have been plowed in the first place.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I just want to know whether we have an amendment or not. I didn't hear. There is so much noise, I don't know.