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.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
“[...] de limiter le financement ou de restreindre les activités du Centre [...]“
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. So that's accepted as a friendly amendment.
Mr. Menzies.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
But to that change, “as to limit the funding or restrict the activities of the International Development Research Centre”....
Mr. Martin.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I will just say that this is actually saying, Mr. Menzies, that nothing restricts or limits the activities of the IDRC, but nothing precludes the government from including the funds that they give to the IDRC as being ODA-able.
So if you read it very carefully, the funds that go to the IDRC can clearly be construed as being ODA-able by a government. Nothing in that statement precludes that.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
You would have to actually state something in here to restrict that. Nothing in here, nothing in these amendments, restricts the government from including funds that they give to the IDRC as being ODA-able.
So call the question.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
Why are we trying to limit it? Tell me the purpose for that? Why are we trying to make it so narrow that we may exclude such things as peace promotion?
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I'm sorry, Mr. Menzies, but it's in reference to the first part of subclause (3), “In calculating Canada's official development assistance”, so it's not what we've changed. So that's right. That's good.
Go ahead.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
If that is what we're talking about, I'm not sure where the IDRC got thrown in here. I was trying to look at what we had changed our definition to, because we're referring back to a definition that I think we changed yesterday. I'm trying to make sure we're being consistent. I'm hearing a lot of references to things we don't have a final copy of here, so I'm a little concerned with the process here also. I still say that by limiting this to considering only development assistance as defined by that, we're missing the opportunity to include peace promotion and promoting security.
It's nice to have a debate, isn't it.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
On clause-by-clause there is no limiting debate, but we're trying to move it as quickly as possible, just so you know.
We'll go to Mr. Goldring. Then, if there's no further debate, I'll call the question, first of all, on Mr. Patry's friendly amendment.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
The concern is the same. It's very limiting in its outcomes or possible outcomes on what it can cover. We're only trying to include some of the things that have been discussed at the committee meetings on humanitarian aid and other emergency and crisis aid.
It's taking away the flexibility of what could be occurring. Quite frankly, it can be putting the initial amount of the aid that could be applied toward the circumstance and limiting that too. You're putting it in two different pockets, in effect, to be able to address the circumstance so that you can narrowly define one portion of aid from another. So I agree that it's too narrowly defining what it can be.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
How does this relate, Mr. McKay, to our involvement with multilaterals?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
It wouldn't restrict it at all, as long as it falls within ODA. The way you have to read this—
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
When they use the OECD definition and we use a different definition?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
We've changed the concept of development assistance to official development assistance. All this bill applies to is official development assistance, ODA.
When Canada does ODA, it has to show that it contributes to poverty reduction, takes into account perspectives of the poor, and is consistent with Canada's international human rights obligations. Subclause (3) will now read “In calculating Canada's official development assistance”, and you have to reference back to that question.
That's the point of the bill. It's been around for six months. There's nothing new and nothing novel here. Canada can still carry on providing policemen in Haiti, or you can name all of the projects that Mr. Casey referenced there. Nothing in this bill restricts doing them. But as your leader rightly pointed out when he was the official opposition leader, the point is that Canada's ODA needs to have a string attached to it and is focused on poverty reduction. That's what Mr. Duceppe said, that's what Mr. Layton said, and that's what Mr. Harper said.
So here we are. We've done this. The chair will be thoroughly depressed to learn that this foreign affairs committee has had this on its agenda since 1987. There's nothing new here. That's the whole point of the bill.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
There are some gaps missing in this. We pay dues to international associations that at this point are not ODA-able. Through multilaterals, whether they be in poverty reduction, whether they be in basic security needs, in trade facilitation, or in lifting people out of poverty, I just think they're not ODA-able at that point. We seem to be excluding them even more from us being able to claim them as ODA-able.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Your argument would be correct if there were no concept of international assistance in the bill. But we've worked that concept into the bill, and the bill will not now apply to international assistance. So carry on.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
No. You can still carry on. The bill applies to ODA; it doesn't apply to international assistance.