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.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
If he could explain the point again, I'm not quite sure I follow it.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
The point is that “any agency” doesn't mean “any intergovernmental organization”. You could have an international agency that was not related to government, in a sense. For me that just means any organization whose objective includes global poverty reduction, or international humanitarian assistance.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Yes, because it's restricted to intergovernmental organizations,
including.
Exactly, Madam. Thank you.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
If Mr. Patry wants to delete “intergovernmental”, I can't see why that's objectionable, on the face of it. I have no objection to what he is saying, unless someone can tell me where that would mean something different.
I'm just looking through the bill as it's presented. In clause 5, “agency” is not limited to intergovernmental. In subclause 4(2) it says “...the competent minister may consult with international agencies and Canadian non-governmental organizations.” Again, I don't see any harm in taking out the word “intergovernmental”.
Is that the point?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
You heard the rationale. So it would read:
“international agency” means any organization whose objectives include global poverty reduction or international humanitarian assistance.
We are removing the word “intergovernmental” under the international agency definition.
(Amendment agreed to)
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
December 13th, 2006 / 3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
In clause 3 on page 2 at the end of line 3, would it add clarity to simply add “in relation to this act”? It would read:
“competent minister” means any minister designated by the Governor in Council to provide development assistance in relation to this act.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
We're trying to define it and add to it or be inclusive with this amendment in order to correlate the two with the existing wording, but simply by adding clarity to it in relation to this act.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I understand your point. I would have thought, as an operating assumption of the bill, that any definition only applies to the bill itself. It has no extra application. If you think that will actually add something, I'm happy to do it. I just don't see how it operates.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
I share the concern. There's a bit of ambiguity about it. My sense is that it's certainly not going to take away from it. It would just define it a little better, if anything.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
When we do these definitions, they're put in place so that they can be defined within the act. I think it's a given—
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
—but if that alleviates the concern that you have, I don't see any negative feedback on that.
Are we in favour of that?
(Amendment agreed to)
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I just want to ask John a question, if you will allow me, Mr. Chair.