Bill C-293 (Historical)

Official Development Assistance Accountability Act

An Act respecting the provision of official development assistance abroad

This enactment sets out criteria respecting resource allocation to international development agencies and enhances transparency and monitoring of Canada’s international development efforts.

Corporate Accountability of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations in Developing Countries Act

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to second this important bill, particularly in light of the fact that the member for Scarborough—Guildwood who proposed it has a record of success in private members' business. We recall the way that he worked with Bill C-293, the overseas development act, to make sure that poverty was the focus of overseas development assistance.

I cannot help but react a little to my colleague from the NDP. I understand his concern, but we are trying to do something here. The member for Scarborough—Guildwood has been able to move legislation through the system. It does not happen all that often, as members would know, but he has done it twice now and he is going to work on doing it a third time.

We have to keep in mind that we have to present a bill that can actually pass the House. We want to make a difference; we do not just want to make a point. We cannot let perfect be the enemy of better. This bill will make things better.

Why is the bill important? I think we know why it is important. In Canada we have a unique position. Sixty per cent of the world's mining and exploration companies are listed. There are Canadian companies that have been implicated in practices which none of us would be proud of, both in terms of how they treat the environment and how they treat human rights.

Complaints regarding the impact of the overseas operations of Canadian extractive companies have been lodged with a number of international organizations, so there are problems and Canadians cannot just turn a blind eye to them. We have a responsibility to the people around the world. Canadian companies especially have a responsibility to give something back to the places where they take profit.

In 2007 the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recommended that Canada take appropriate legislative or administrative measures to prevent acts of transnational corporations from Canada which negatively impact upon the enjoyment of rights of indigenous people outside Canada. We have a responsibility and I think we would all want to see something that would make it better.

As my colleague mentioned, in 2006 the Canadian government was involved in round tables to address corporate misconduct in the extractive industries. There is a whole list of recommendations that were agreed to. I will not bore everybody with the details, but a number of recommendations were agreed to by a wide range of stakeholders: industry, labour, academia and civil society. They agreed on these recommendations and they put them forward, but nothing has happened.

We recognize that there is an issue. We recognize that there are solutions, but we also recognize that the government has done nothing about this issue.

My colleague from the Conservative Party suggested that the Conservatives are going to come up with something that would make this bill redundant. I would suggest that we pass this bill and make whatever they are going to do redundant, if in fact anything is going to come down the pike when it comes to this.

I have had the chance to travel with my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood and see his commitment to people from other countries, particularly countries that have not been as fortunate as Canada has been. I had the chance to travel to Kenya with him, the former member for Halifax, and our colleague from Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley. He is aware of organizations from Canada that are making a difference, and there are many.

There are many organizations from Canada that are making a huge difference in the third world. There are NGOs that are making a big difference. CIDA can make a difference. Right now my sister is working for WUSC, World University Service of Canada, in Sri Lanka. She is making a difference. We met Canadians on our trip who were with the Red Cross and they were making a difference.

Canada does a lot of very positive things in the world, but we also contribute to the problems that we then have to alleviate. Canadians expect us to do better. There has been some mining of public opinion which indicates that 90% of citizens believe that corporate social responsibility should be a top corporate priority. Sixty-five per cent of surveyed Canadians want companies to go beyond simply obeying laws and become fully accountable for any conduct that might undermine social and environmental health.

Canadians want us to do it. They see there is a problem. I suspect the average Canadian may not know what this means internationally to any great extent, but they have an expectation of Canada to do better. At one point in time Canada had a great reputation, and we still have a good reputation, but I would say it has been undermined to some extent.

I noticed that Canada ranked 10th in the 2007 Responsible Competitiveness Index 2007. A lot of countries ranked below us, but as usual our Nordic friends and many countries in Europe, as well as Australia and New Zealand, are ahead of us in corporate responsibility.

It is possible to do better. My colleague mentioned that there are companies that do a good job for us. I know of one that is based in Nova Scotia, a company called Etruscan Resources. They had a gold mine, one that was not desperately profitable at the time, in Niger, which is very near the bottom of the human development index of the United Nations. At the time, I think it was 173rd out of 174.

There was a potential for mining, but they decided that before they took any profits out, they would make sure there was some social infrastructure there. They came to my father, who had just resigned as the premier of Nova Scotia, and asked for his help. He was delighted to help and very proud of the work he was able to do. They built a health clinic that exists to this day. They brought in the Rotary Club from Dartmouth. They have had some international assistance, and the Canadian government has helped a little bit. They have left a lasting legacy of Canadian goodwill and investment in that community. I believe they are now doing some business in Burkina Faso.

There are companies that take this responsibility very seriously, and I applaud companies like Etruscan Resources. I applaud people like Gerry McConnell, the president of that company, who has taken a responsible view. I say with some measure of pride that the health complex is named after my late parents, John and Margaret Savage. It is a source of great pride to our family. The people in that community have a very high opinion of Canada, and I think Etruscan Resources and other companies like it deserve an awful lot of credit.

That is how Canadians would expect a Canadian company to do business. If we are going to go overseas, make money and mine the land, we should do it responsibly. We should respect the environment. We have all heard stories of companies that have not been so respectful. More than anything else, we need to treat the people with the respect that we ourselves would want to receive. As an international player, I am afraid we are not the gold standard anymore, but we can do better. We should do better. We should live up to the expectations that the people in this country have for us, and we should go beyond them.

We should recognize the work that international aid organizations do in pulling all this stuff together and in keeping us responsible. I hope and expect that support for this bill will equal the support for my colleague's last bill. Organizations like the CCIC, which does so much good work in Canada, Make Poverty History, Development and Peace, the Micah Challenge, and the Primate's World Relief and Development Fund all believe that we can make the world better. Let us get behind this bill and encourage government members to support it. We can get it to the committee stage. We can work on it and do all the things our colleagues want us to do. However, let us remember that we are here to make the world a better place. We are here to make a difference, not just to make a point.

I applaud my colleague for bringing this bill forward. I am very proud to second it and I hope that all members in the House will support it.

Tackling Violent Crime Legislation

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would have been much more impressed by the hon. minister's speech had he not first killed his own legislation in order to bring us to this point in the first place. Every element of the bill that is currently before the Senate was in the Senate prior to prorogation.

In 2006 the Liberal Party offered to fast track this legislation, but we were refused. In 2007 we offered to fast track it and again we were refused. The bills passed through the House and were sitting in the Senate and being dealt with in an expeditious manner. Then the government killed its own legislation by prorogation.

So what we have here is a minister telling us to pass this legislation, to pass this legislation because we must have this legislation, and all he is doing is recycling his speeches from last year because he likes to make those speeches. For goodness' sake, the Conservative government has wasted a year and a half on its own legislation and now it has the gall to tell the Senate to hurry up.

My goodness gracious me. It is an extraordinary circumstance in which a minister kills his own legislation through prorogation, then comes back to the House and says he has a new package and he wants us to pass it immediately. That is my number one point.

My number two point is about the further hypocrisy of the government. Two bills, Bill C-292 and Bill C-293, have been sitting in the Senate since March 2007. Conservative senators stonewall them, divert them and do everything but deal with them. Therefore, I wonder if the minister's enthusiasm to have the senators move on his own legislation extends to other bills that this chamber has in fact passed.

Royal Recommendation--Bill C-474

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, December 7, the Acting Speaker invited comments on whether Bill C-474 requires a royal recommendation.

Without commenting on the merits of the bill, I submit that the bill's provisions to establish a new and independent commissioner of the environment and sustainable development who would be a new agent of Parliament would require new government spending and therefore, would require a royal recommendation.

Clause 13 of Bill C-474 would require the governor in council to appoint a new commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. The clause sets out the powers, duties and term of office of the new commissioner. This would be an organizational change which would require increased spending. There are numerous precedents to this effect.

The requirement for a royal recommendation for a new agent of Parliament is made clear in the Speaker's ruling of November 9, 1978, and I quote, “...if this bill is to impose a new duty on the officers of the Crown...these objectives...will necessitate expenditures of a nature which would require the financial initiative of the Crown”.

The requirement for a royal recommendation for organizational changes, such as establishing a new department or a commissioner, is referred to in the Speaker's ruling of July 11, 1988, and again I quote:

...to establish a separate Department of Government and a commissioner of Multiculturalism...undoubtedly would cause a significant charge upon the Federal Treasury in order for the new Department to function on a daily basis.

The Speaker's ruling of September 19, 2006 on Bill C-293 concluded that the creation of an advisory committee requires a royal recommendation since this clearly would require the expenditure of public funds in a manner and for a purpose not currently authorized. I quote from that ruling:

--the establishment of the advisory committee for international development cooperation provided for in clause 6 clearly would require the expenditure of public funds...

I believe this principle should apply to Bill C-474 since the creation of an independent commissioner of the environment and sustainable development would clearly require new spending to remunerate the commissioner and to provide administrative support to the commissioner. Although the bill does not specify these requirements, the Speaker has ruled that a royal recommendation would, nevertheless, be needed.

The Speaker's ruling of February 8, 2005 states:

Where it is clear that the legislative objective of a bill cannot be accomplished without the dedication of public funds to that objective, the bill must be seen as the equivalent of a bill effecting an appropriation.

I would suggest this was the reason that a royal recommendation was required for the 1995 amendments to the Auditor General Act that established the office of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development within the Auditor General's office.

The office of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development has over 40 staff and reported spending $2.8 million in 2006-07 for sustainable development monitoring activities and environmental petitions. It must follow that the establishment of an independent commissioner of the environment and sustainable development would require an office of professionals to support the commissioner in carrying out his or her duties, as set out in clause 13.

Since Bill C-474 would represent a change to the conditions and qualifications that were attached to the original legislation that established the office of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, a new royal recommendation would be required for Bill C-474.

Page 183 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms reads:

--an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown not only if it increases the amount but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.

It is clear that by removing the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development from within the office of the auditor general and making the commissioner report directly to Parliament, Bill C-474 is proposing a change to the conditions and qualifications that were attached to the original legislation. Therefore, I submit that Bill C-474 requires a royal recommendation.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Thank you.

Mr. Salmon, you spoke about Bill C-293. My colleague, Mr. McKay, is the sponsor of the bill. I assume you're in favour of it, but have you heard why it hasn't been moving more quickly?

Pearson Peacekeeping Centre

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion that was introduced by our Liberal colleague from West Nova and is before us today is very positive, in my opinion. The proposal that the federal government fully fund the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre does not seem like a whim to me, because the centre's mission is fully in line with the Bloc Québécois position on foreign development assistance.

As you know, political, geographical and religious conflicts cause serious harm to people, and even one conflict is one too many. The Pearson Peacekeeping Centre was created at the federal government's request in 1994, when a number of countries bordering Germany and Russia were in a rather unstable and fragile state after the fall of the eastern bloc. The centre's mission is to train civilians, military personnel and police officers for peacekeeping missions and to promote research in order to guide public policy debate.

The increasing demands of conflict prevention and resolution, and the growing scope of Canada's involvement in all aspects of peace operations required the creation of a focal point for education, training, and research activities. The teaching environment needed to be multidisciplinary and international, providing a location where persons from different professional, cultural and national backgrounds could learn together. This diversity reflects actual field conditions. The Pearson Peacekeeping Centre was established in Nova Scotia in 1995 and expanded in 1999, opening an office in Montreal to better serve the international francophone community. In November 2003, recognizing the importance of having a presence close to the seat of government, the centre opened a liaison office in Ottawa. Most of the centre's official courses are given abroad, in Africa, eastern Europe and Latin America.

Unfortunately, the centre has always had funding problems. When it was created in 1994, it was supposed to be financially self-sufficient by 1999. It has proven to be difficult for a peacekeeping training centre to be self-sufficient. The Bloc Québécois thinks it is important for the federal government to subsidize this centre. In March, the Bloc Québécois was pleased with the Conservative government's decision to give the Pearson Centre $13.8 million over three years, from March 2007 to March 2010. This funding was for the basic infrastructure of the centre: salaries, rent, equipment, etc. The funding does not cover the projects and courses offered by the centre. It is piecemeal. For example, CIDA is responsible for funding conferences in Canada and abroad.

Until recently, the Department of National Defence funded training courses on peacekeeping missions at the Cornwallis office in Nova Scotia. Located outside major centres in a small community, the advantage of this site is that simulations for the purposes of exercises can be held without disturbing people in the surrounding areas.

The Department of National Defence has decided to stop funding the training courses at the Cornwallis office, saying that National Defence will provide training itself at the base in Kingston.

The only purpose of the Cornwallis office was to provide training. Without federal funding for these courses, the Cornwallis office may have to close its doors. Training is at the very heart of the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre's mandate. The Cornwallis section is very important and the upheaval that will result from closing this section could be very damaging to the centre.

The importance of the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre should not be underestimated. The training and policy directions there are directly related to the policy Canada has been developing since the days of Pearson, whose goal it was in the 1950s to devote 0.7% of gross domestic product to development assistance—an objective I would point out has still not been met, unfortunately.

The development assistance envelope has not stopped shrinking, going from a little less than 0.5% in 1991-92 to 0.45% in 1993 and 0.25% in 2000.

The decrease was particularly significant when the Liberals were in power, but the Conservatives have not managed to do much better.

Through the debate on the motion, I want to reiterate today that the Bloc Québécois is committed to having the federal government implement a realistic and concrete plan to achieve the UN target of 0.7% of GDP for international assistance by 2015. To reach this, the Conservatives must start increasing development assistance budgets now, at an average rate of 12% to 15% per year.

The Bloc Québécois' desire to see this happen is genuine , since we have worked long and hard to improve Bill C-293 to make the development assistance objectives as clear and effective as possible, by proposing that the federal government make all bilateral assistance dependent on respecting fundamental human rights, but also ensure that the money is not diverted from its original purpose.

The Bloc Québécois believes that, given the importance of the Pearson Centre, the government should work with it to ensure a seamless transition from DND funding of training courses to other funding. The federal government should provide full funding temporarily, until the Centre can find new clients to fund its training courses. The federal government has the means to fund this Centre.

Under no circumstances should the Conservative government reverse its decision to fund the basic infrastructure of the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre.

Because the Bloc Québécois has always supported initiatives aimed at resolving conflicts through dialogue and mediation, the Bloc Québécois supports Motion M-311.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one piece of legislation which should be certainly the concern of this House is the private member's Bill C-293, which deals with Canada's official aid position and CIDA, and which is also in the Senate. It would guide the work of CIDA in the future in ways which would pick up on the themes of fighting poverty, which have been so important to everybody in this House.

Budget Implementation Act, 2007

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and take part in the debate on the budget implementation act. It is obviously one of the most important legislation that comes before the House every year.

When I thought what I might talk about today there were a number of things. I have to bypass the easy way, which is to only talk about the Atlantic accord that is resonating throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. I might touch on the subject of the Atlantic accord, but I want to talk more generally about the budget and how I think it has divided Canadians. It is a very cynical budget.

There is a lot about which we can talk. With the amount of money spent on this budget, the richest budget ever, Canadians would be right to have assumed that everybody should have had Christmas Day on budget day. In fact, it was far from festive for most Canadians. The budget could have done a great many things if it had been focused on helping those who needed help the most, or maybe if it had focused on innovation, the productivity gap, aboriginal Canadians, the environment and other things.

I suspect the response to the budget across the country has not been what the government wants or what the Minister of Finance wants. We can go to the minister's website and see the online poll he has done. He asks Canadians if they have benefited from the budget and 93% of the respondents have said no. That is a pretty significant number.

It is not only the minister's website. A number of other people have done some very open-minded and objective evaluations of the budget. One of the institutes that I go to quite frequently is the Caledon Institute. It does great research and work on a number of issues. I notice that its evaluation of the budget was, as usual, very thorough and effective.

I will read a few quotes by the Caledon Institute. It calls it “Mixed Brew for the 'Coffee Shop' Budget”. It says, among other things:

The ‘new’ child tax credit—in reality an obsolete program resurrected from the 1980s—tops this list. The funds for this inequitable scheme could have been far better spent on increasing the existing progressive Canada Child Tax Benefit or creating additional child care spaces. These...investments would have been much more helpful to ordinary Canadian families than a child tax credit that gives $310 to millionaires who do not need it and nothing to the poorest who do.

That is quite indicting.

Another quote says:

Ottawa has chosen instead to introduce a bundle of tax carrots that will serve a variety of particular groups but will provide little or no benefit to the broader population of low- and modest-income Canadians. The Budget could well have been named “Opportunities Lost.” With a $19 billion price tag, never has so much been spent with so little result.

It seems to me that the leader of our party has said very similar things to that. I agree with him and I agree with the Caledon Institute.

The institute also refers to specifically “The “New” Child Tax Credit: a policy zombie resurrected”. It says:

All non-poor families will receive $310, including the very rich; some low-income families with a low tax liability will receive a smaller amount, while the poorest will get nothing at all because they do not owe income tax.

The poorest families will get nothing. This measure will make income inequality among families worse, not better.

It refers to last year's universal child care benefit and says:

—this Budget’s non-refundable child tax credit are inequitable, wasteful programs that deliver benefits to upper-income families for whom the payments are a meaningless drop in their income bucket, while depriving low- and middle-income families...

The institute goes on in a lot of different ways. For example, it talks about aboriginal Canadians who are noticeably absent from the budget. It says:

The Kelowna Accord was a solemn agreement signed by the provinces, territories, First Nations and Aboriginal organizations, and the previous Canadian government.

It talks about the new federal government rejecting the Kelowna accord and says:

Now it becomes apparent that Canada’s New Government has no plan at all, unless doing as little as possible can be characterized as a plan.

That is a reasoned, thought out, analytical view of what the budget has done. It is not only the Caledon Institute that says this. I suspect if Kelowna is a socialist plot, then the government would think that the Caledon Institute is probably a socialist organization to the government side.

It is a long time since I have heard Andrew Coyne called a socialist. The National Post suggests:

—with this budget. [the Minister of Finance] becomes officially the biggest spending Finance Minister in the history of Canada. That's after inflation and population growth is taken into account. They've now increased under this Conservative government...spending by $25 billion in two years. Is this what Conservative voters wanted? No sense of priorities, not a nickel in real, honest to God tax cuts of any kind. There's a lot of spending programs disguised as tax credits for children...which may be fine programs, but they're programs, not tax cuts.

Nancy Hughes Anthony, president of the Chamber of Commerce, another well known socialist, suggests:

I don't think there's anything new there. [He] actually told us at the time of his income trust announcement in October that he would adjust the tax cuts corporate tax cuts in the future...instead, we saw small little targeted breaks for everybody from lacrosse fans to truckdrivers.

In general, this is an unfocused budget. Most Canadians know that if we really wanted to increase productivity and benefit Canadians, particularly those who might be able to use a bit of a break, we would lower personal income taxes, perhaps to the level the Liberals did in the economic update of November 2005.

What else got mentioned in the budget but got very little action? How about the environment? John Bennett, senior policy analyst for the Sierra Club of Canada, says:

This government has abandoned its obligations to the Kyoto protocol and abandoned its moral responsibility to keep our international commitments...This government has no intention of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It has every intention of trying to sound like it does, but has no intention to actually do it.

That is consistent throughout the budget. The government sounds like it can do something without actually having to do it.

On social programs, Monica Lysack of the Child Care Advocacy Association says:

For a government that identified childcare as one of their priorities, this is an admission of failure.

There was an editorial in the Toronto Star. There are a number of things I could say, but let me quote this. It says:

What is left, then, is not a crafty pre-election budget, but a financial document that is unfocused, that is devoid of a national strategy to tackle any of the major social issues facing this country, and that does little to help the poorest of the poor.

Aboriginal Canadians are perhaps the most targeted group in the budget by their exclusion. Phil Fontaine, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, says:

We're extremely disappointed, frustrated because it's obvious that those that did well today are those that are considered important to this government. Those that are viewed as unimportant did badly, and we did badly.

An awful lot of issues in the budget have not been addressed.

There are a couple more issues in the development area, both regional development and international development. For the second budget in a row under the Conservative government there is no mention of regional development programs like ACOA.

Previous governments had a big plan for ACOA, which in the last number of years has done some amazing work in Atlantic Canada and has invested in research and innovation. The Atlantic innovation fund has driven university research and has helped Atlantic Canada's strong but generally smaller universities to compete and provide innovative solutions and also commercialization of products. There is no mention in the budget.

The minister suggests there have been no cuts to ACOA, and we hear that all the time, but consistently the estimates indicate not only cuts to regional development across the board but to ACOA. The money is shifted from here to there, but there is never any evidence of what is actually happening with the spending. Regional development is a big issue.

On international development, I will tell the House a story about a trip I took to Kenya with three other members of the House, three friends, the Conservative member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, the member for Halifax and the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, who sponsored the great private member's Bill C-293, the overseas development assistance act, to make poverty the focus of international development.

There is so much that Canada can do in the world. It does not all have to be centred on Afghanistan. In fact, we see everyday in countries like Kenya the needs of the developing world and so many ways that Canada can help. Canada has helped and I hope it will continue to help.

When the four of us went to Kenya, we saw some amazing things and amazing people. We met Beatrice, who lost all seven of her children and their partners in less than two years to HIV related issues. She was a grandmother. She was a street beggar. She had 12 grandchildren. What was she going to do? She thought she would have to poison her grandchildren because she could not take care of them. Instead, she got up one day and decided she would do something about it. She borrowed $15 U.S. from a micro credit in the slums of Nairobi, and today she runs three businesses in the slums.

This is the kind of resilience that exists in third world. These are the kinds of people who can make a huge difference.

Susan is a woman who we met in Eldoret in western Kenya. I remember my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood was particularly touched by her. She worked in a microcredit in a big, open, empty warehouse with some sewing machines and people making bags. We went over to talk to Susan. She looked up at us happy and smiling and said, “Thank you, God” for the blessings he had given her. She is HIV positive and was given up for dead. Now she is living and working because of a microcredit. She makes lovely cloth bags with beads on them. We asked her how many she could make in a day. She said that she could make five bags in a day. How much does she get paid for each bag? Eight Kenyan shillings. She makes forty Kenyan shillings a day, which is the equivalent of 65¢ or 70¢ Canadian in a day.

We all know about the terrible rates of poverty, disease and the lack of sanitation in which people exist throughout the world. Working full time, she makes less than $1 Canadian a day and she considers herself fortunate.

What the people of Kenya can do with little should be such a spur to countries like Canada to invest in making their lives better. We can do so much. We should hit our millennium target of 0.7% of GNI to international aid. I felt that on the government side. We can do this.

In countries like Kenya and other African countries in sub-Saharan Africa there is a resilience, a strength, an entrepreneurial savvy among the people who simply have nothing, but make do. Not only do they make do, but they thank God for what he or she has given them. It is an inspiration.

Canada can do a lot more. I would like to see more mention of international development. I would like to see Canada commit to reaching 0.7%. At the very least I would like to see us ensure that we maintain the work we have done in places like Kenya where CIDA has been active. Its funding may be threatened over the next few years for the work it does on tuberculosis.

Kenya is a country about the size of Canada. Three hundred Kenyans a day die of tuberculosis. How many people in Canada even think tuberculosis is still a disease about which to worry? Five hundred people a day die of HIV. Millions of young African children die of malaria. We can do so much more. The area of international development is lacking in the budget as well.

I want to turn for a second to the issue of the Atlantic accord. This is an issue that has absolutely dominated discussion in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador. We hear about it from Premier Danny Williams and a bit about it from Rodney MacDonald. This is the dominant issue in Atlantic Canada. We can listen to what the premiers have said about it.

We have all heard what Danny Williams has had to say. He has stood up and he has fought for his province. He wants to keep what he fought for. He says:

A promise was made. We expected that promise to be kept by the Prime Minister and, indeed, his government....Even though he is claiming that they are excluding 100% of non-renewable natural resource revenues [they are not]....There is a sense of betrayal, a sense of disappointment.

That just about says it all.

Rodney MacDonald, the Premier of Nova Scotia is not the most fiery of speakers. He is concerned about the accord, though. On March 19, he said:

It's almost as if they want to continue giving handouts to Nova Scotians rather than us keeping our offshore accord and that to me is fundamentally unfair.

A lot of people in Canada do not fully understand this. When we debated it in the House of Commons, people on the other side stood up and asked foolish questions. It does not matter to them. They get briefing notes from some hack in the Department of Finance or a backroom Conservative who hauls it out and says “Go fight the battle”. They have no idea what this actually means.

Let me just educate members a bit on the Atlantic accord. This is the agreement that was reached between the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia on offshore revenues on Valentine's Day 2005. It says:

—the Government of Canada intends to provide additional offset payments to the province in respect of offshore-related Equalization reductions, effectively allowing it to retain the benefit of 100 per cent of its offshore resource revenues.

Then it says:

The amount of additional offset payment for a year shall be calculated as the difference between the Equalization payment that would be received by the province under the Equalization formula as it exists at the time...

Very simply, this means that offshore revenues are excluded from equalization. If equalization goes up, the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador would get the improved equalization plus they would keep their offshore revenues. A choice has allegedly been offered to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador which would have the old equalization with the old formula or the new equalization that some in the rest of Canada will benefit from. We should have both. It should not be one or the other.

The former Prime Minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, the member for Halifax West, who was regional minister, and the then minister of finance and now our House leader, did a great job on that for the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

If anybody thinks the offshore is just politics, I would like to read a few headlines. I will not go into details. Marilla Stephenson said in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald dated the week of the budget:

Note to Rodney: Stephen played you big time. The Prime Minister has played you like a fiddle. If any theme rang through the Prime Minister's budget delivered on Monday night, it was that the have-nots are to remain, well, have-nots. The Prime Minister stoops to conquer. Jeering from the sidelines were the budget's unlucky trio of obvious losers: Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Saskatchewan. All are now victims of a calculated insult--

David Rodenhiser in the Halifax Daily News said:

Nova Scotians are left asking themselves: Who's standing up for us? Right now, the answer is no one. Certainly not our federal cabinet minister, the member for Central Nova, who's defending Ottawa rather than Nova Scotia on this. And not MacDonald, who's content to pursue process rather than take action. MacDonald repeatedly stated yesterday that provincial finance officials are gathering information and requesting meetings--

Here is a headline entitled: “Atlantic Tories running for cover; Cabinet representatives urged to stand up for region's rights”. Another one says it all. The headline in the Chronicle-Herald reads: “Federal Conservatives shaft province, once again”. There is not much more to be said about that.

Now the topic has even changed a bit because for a while we heard that the provinces did not really get a bad deal because they had a choice of two deals. That lasted about a week.

In the Halifax Chronicle-Herald on Saturday it stated, “It appears that Ottawa and Nova Scotia are now working on an accord deal. Plans said to be a compromise on the scrapped 2005 Atlantic accord agreement”.

There is not much question that Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador were betrayed by their cabinet representatives and by their Conservative members with the dismantling of the Atlantic accord, a deal which provided such hope for the people of Nova Scotia and for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Apparently, other provinces feel the same way. Having spent two weeks back home, I can tell the House that this is not an issue likely to fade anytime soon.

ACOA, international development, the Atlantic accord, the failure on child care, and leaving the poorest of the poor vulnerable are not acceptable. Some things were not even mentioned in the budget that have come to pass.

Last Friday, members of the Coast Guard in my own community of Dartmouth--Cole Harbour were called to a meeting and were told there were going to be new Coast Guard vessels. They would be made in Canada. They were also told that their jobs would be moved from Dartmouth, where they have been for years, to St. John's, Newfoundland, which happens to be the riding of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the minister responsible for the Coast Guard. There was no explanation, no business plan, or no idea of where this came from. There was no explanation given to the workers about what was going on. We do not even know if there is a dock in St. John's that could handle them. That is an insult to the people of Dartmouth--Cole Harbour. They are rightly concerned about this issue.

This budget is designed very clearly for the next election, not the next generation. It is political arithmetic, add a few votes here, appeal to a few votes there, pander, troll for votes in bunches where they can be found. If people do not vote Conservative and likely never will, or they contribute too small of a voting block, too bad. There is nothing for them. Aboriginal Canadians, sorry. Low income families, sorry. Atlantic Canada, sorry.

The budget is a cynical concoction of winners and losers. Guess who the real losers are? The real losers are the people who need help the most.

We have benefited as a nation from governments, mainly Liberal but also PC, that have built the social infrastructure of Canada. We are now witnessing a government that is ignoring the needs of the vulnerable and is spending billions of dollars trying to buy the next election. It is not the way good governance is done. It is not the way to inspire a nation. It is wrong and it needs to be fixed.

Development Assistance Accountability Act

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote on the motion just taken to the additional seven amendment motions, report stage, and third reading of Bill C-293.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motions at report stage of Bill C-293.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from March 22, consideration of Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of official development assistance abroad, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on a very important private member's bill, Bill C-293 sponsored by my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood. I would like to congratulate him for an excellent piece of legislation which I certainly will be supporting. Any time we can bring more accountability and transparency to the Government of Canada, to the Parliament of Canada, that is a very good thing.

I would like to note that one of my constituents, Mr. Sharif Salla, wrote me a note and asked me to support this bill. It is not often that a constituent, at least in my experience, writes in to support a private member's bill, but I will be supporting it for that reason and for a host of other reasons.

The bill sets out what the government should be doing with respect to official development assistance, or overseas development assistance as some people would call it. It states:

Development assistance may be provided only if the competent minister is of the opinion that it (a) contributes to poverty reduction; (b) takes into account the perspectives of the poor; and (c) is consistent with Canada's international human rights obligations.

There is one piece missing. I have spoken to my colleague, but obviously the committee and the House at this point have not considered it a valid argument, but I think it still is. I would add a fourth criteria which would be that the recipient country practises good governance and is committed to the fight against corruption. I think it is a very important point.

The member for Nanaimo—Cowichan talked about the work that Malaspina College is doing with the country of Ghana. Ghana is a country that has committed to the fight against corruption. I had the great pleasure to meet President John Kufuor. Many of my constituents are from Ghana originally. He is an honest man, a good man. It is coming right from the top that Ghana is committed to fighting corruption.

We need to be mindful of that because Canadians and indeed people around the world are sick and tired of sending money to countries only to have the money ripped off by greedy leaders who stash away huge amounts in offshore banking centres or they launder the money domestically and buy votes. We cannot tolerate that any more, where 50¢ dollars that are going into countries for overseas development assistance just are not good enough. The bill goes a long way to bringing more accountability.

One of the criteria is that it contribute to poverty reduction. That is a very noble, very necessary criteria, but it is a vexing question. How can that be measured? The measurement process is very difficult, but it is still an objective that we need to keep in our sights and we need to keep working on.

A few years ago I had the great honour as a member of a subcommittee of the finance committee and the international affairs committee to meet in Washington, D.C. with Robert McNamara who had served as president of the World Bank and of course as secretary of defense in the U.S. government. In his role as president of the World Bank, we asked him how accountable could our Canadian dollars be going through these development organizations, the multilaterals, or even our bilateral assistance, how could we be assured that it was reducing poverty?

That gentleman who was president of the World Bank for seven or eight years said that was a very difficult and challenging question because there are so many other variables. If development assistance goes into a country the next year, there could be flooding, or there could be five years of drought, or there could be a conflict. How do we take out those variables and measure whether the development assistance that went to that country actually reduced poverty or did not? Notwithstanding that, it is an important criteria.

I am somewhat surprised that from time to time when we look at development assistance we do not spend enough attention looking at the question of corruption.

I recently read a book by Jeffrey Sachs who is a special adviser at the United Nations. He advises the UN on how to reach the millennium development goals, which are the goals to reduce poverty worldwide.

In his book, The End of Poverty which is some 300 pages, I looked up the word “corruption” in the index. Sadly, I could not find the word “corruption”. In fact, in his whole book when he talks about development assistance and fighting poverty, there is not one mention of the word “corruption”.

I have had the opportunity over the years to be very involved with the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption. It has 700 members of Parliament worldwide and is represented in around 70 countries. It was actually my colleague across the floor from St. Albert who took the initiative to get this organization going. There is a lot of momentum. We are including more and more parliamentarians around the world, those parliamentarians who are committed to the fight against corruption and are committed to doing something about it.

I would like to put some context to corruption. I did some work, for example, to look at the correlation between poverty and corruption. There is a high level of correlation. It is in the 90% range.

The problem is we know there is a high correlation between poverty and corruption, but we do not really know which comes first, whether the poverty comes first and that drives the corruption, or whether the corruption comes first and that drives the poverty. There is actually no reasonable way to try to come to grips with that and try to deduce that, but we do know there is a high correlation.

I was attending some debates in Europe one time and members of Parliament in Europe were arguing that poverty drives corruption. I think that is true to some extent, particularly at the lower levels of what we call petty corruption, petty bribery, where people have to pay so many rand, rupees or shillings to get a permit to do this, that and the other thing. If the people who are working in those departments are not paid anything, they are expected to take bribes.

When leaders of countries, whether they are elected leaders or officials, are salting away millions and billions of dollars into Swiss bank accounts, I am sorry, this is not driven by poverty; this is driven by greed. I have a few examples of some of the people over the years. This is only a partial list of leaders of countries who have salted away billions of dollars. The amounts are not really in dispute. They are pretty well widely acknowledged.

For example, President Suharto of Indonesia salted away between $15 billion and $35 billion U.S. Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines salted away about $5 billion to $10 billion. Mobutu Sese Seko from Zaire, $5 billion. Sani Abacha from Nigeria, $5 billion. Slobodan Milosevic from Yugoslavia, $1 billion. Mr. Duvalier from Haiti, $300 million to $800 million. Alberto Fujimori, Peru, $600 million. Pavlo Lazarenko from Ukraine, $114 million to $200 million. Arnoldo Aleman from Nicaragua, $100 million. Mr. Estrada from the Philippines, $78 million to $80 million.

If we look at the range of those and total them up, we are looking at a figure of $32 billion to a high of $58 billion. These are just some of the leaders of these countries, impoverished countries I might add, and I will come back to that in a moment. The leaders of those impoverished countries have salted away millions. Interestingly, the list does not include President Daniel arap Moi in Kenya who salted away, it is pretty well acknowledged, $3 billion to $4 billion U.S. Imagine how many hospitals and schools that kind of money would buy in Kenya.

It is estimated that corruption can add 8% to the cost of doing business in a corrupt country. In a country such as the People's Republic of China, it is estimated that corruption accounts for about 15% of GDP.

This is an issue that we have to deal with. I was going to talk about the correlation between poverty and corruption more precisely, but I will not have time to do that.

I would like to think that perhaps my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood would consider a friendly amendment, which would now have to be done in the other place I gather, that would add the good governance criteria to the three criteria that he has in the bill now which are excellent ones. I think we need not delude ourselves that if a country is corrupt and it has no commitment to good governance, we are sending tax dollars into an area where we are making the rich and the corrupt more rich and more corrupt, and we are not really lifting out of poverty the people that are in poverty, those very people that we are trying to reach.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this bill before the House today. Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad, is an important piece of legislation. Although it is a private member's bill, I feel quite comfortable in saying that New Democrats will be supporting it.

I also want to acknowledge the tireless work of the member for Halifax. She has spoken passionately about the importance of this bill before the House. In a previous Parliament, she introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-243. I want to acknowledge the very good work done by the member for Halifax on this particular piece of legislation.

Although this bill talks about issues such as looking at accountability and transparency and does not specifically address money, I think there is an important context to this bill. An Embassy article on March 21 talked about the fact that Canada's official development assistance level fell from 0.34% of GNP in 2005 to 0.33% last year. Barring any large changes, that number is expected to drop to 0.32% in 2007.

As the needs are increasing throughout the world, we see that Canada's commitment is actually dropping off. Many of us have supported the 0.7% allocation for aid and we would encourage all members of the House to work hard in that direction.

I want to address a couple of issues about why this private member's bill is so important. I will refer to some of the work that the Stephen Lewis Foundation has been doing. It has been doing a tremendous amount of work around the grandmothers to grandmothers campaign. This highlights the need for this particular piece of legislation. I will read for members from an article from one of the websites:

Sub-Saharan Africa has overwhelming numbers of children orphaned by AIDS--an estimated 15 million, projected to reach 18-20 million by the year 2010. As the death rate accelerates, countries and communities simply cannot cope. They are so impoverished that they're driven over the edge by additional mouths to feed and by the desperate efforts to absorb the orphan children.

Amidst this devastation, grandmothers have stepped into the breach. They bury their own adult children and then look after their grandchildren; often as many as fifteen to twenty kids. Somehow, these unrecognized heroes of Africa hold countries and communities together.

Part of the goal of this grandmothers to grandmothers campaign is to have grandmothers and grandfathers in Canada work to support grandmothers in Africa, who are often the glue that is holding families together. Without these grandmothers, many of these children would simply end up on the streets and eventually die.

This is an effort by a number of groups throughout Canada. I want to talk about one in particular from my own riding in Nanaimo. There is a group called the Nan Go Grannies. The Nan Go Grannies formed after hearing Stephen Lewis speak about the plight of women and children in Africa. They developed a group that came together to do fundraising to help out grandmothers in Africa who are dealing with children orphaned by the AIDS epidemic.

The Nan Go Grannies have drafted a mission statement that states:

We are moved to act by the generations of people affected: the millions of children who see their mothers die, the mothers who die in extreme poverty without even meagre resources to ease their suffering, and the elderly, often frail grandmothers who shoulder the burden of raising many children despite their own grief and the lack of resources.

Thus, we have an example in my own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan of grandmothers coming together to work hard on behalf of the children and grandmothers in Africa.

In addition, my riding also has another project on the go that is supporting people internationally. There is the Malaspina Ghana project, which is a collaboration between Malaspina and two colleges located in Ghana. It is partially supported by CIDA, but in addition, the Malaspina Ghana project is doing fundraising in the community for this initiative.

The purpose of the project is to help reduce poverty in the Sunyani district of Ghana through four community development projects identified by their partners. These include reducing household waste, reducing HIV-AIDS, improving forest fire management, and developing ecotourism.

The intent of this project is to work with partners in Ghana to develop outreach programs and other strategies aimed at providing rural communities with the knowledge and skills needed to effectively address the four project areas described above.

It is these very good local initiatives that are so important in supporting citizens in other countries in their desperate struggles around poverty, sickness and lack of access to clean drinking water. Many of these things have been outlined in the millennium development goals. It is very important that we in Canada continue to support this good work.

I want to talk a bit more about the reality of HIV-AIDS and again about why accountability and transparency are so important in the dollars we are sending overseas. On the grandmothers to grandmothers website, they talk about “key statistics on orphans, grandmothers and HIV-AIDS”.

These are global figures. The number of people living with HIV-AIDS in 2006 was 39.5 million worldwide, and 24.7 million in sub-Saharan Africa. The number of women living with AIDS in 2006 was 17.7 million worldwide, and 13.3 million in sub-Saharan Africa. The number of people newly infected with HIV in 2006 was 4.3 million worldwide, and 2.8 million in sub-Saharan Africa.

Those are generations of people that we are losing. In many cases what we are talking about is the hollowing out of the working people. We are talking about losing people between the ages of 18 to 49. In Africa, those are the most productive years of people's lives. Those are the mothers and the fathers, the workers, the farmers and the truck drivers. Africa is losing that entire generation, thus passing on that burden to the grandmothers.

The article goes on to talk about the fact that sub-Saharan Africa has 10% of the world's population but makes up more than 60% of all people living with HIV. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, approximately 13 million children have been orphaned by AIDS, a higher number than the total of every girl and boy under 18 in Canada, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Ireland combined. That figure is expected to reach more than 18 million children by 2010.

According to HelpAge International, older women are the backbone of AIDS care. In some countries in sub-Saharan Africa, between 40% to 60% of orphans live in grandparent-headed households, with the vast majority of these grandmothers. Over 50% of orphaned children live in grandparent-headed households in Botswana and Malawi and over 60% in Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe.

These are frightening figures. If we can encourage members of this House to support this important piece of private members' business now before the House so we have a quality of life in other countries, so we can say with some confidence that we are completely behind the millennium development goals, and so we are urging this House and all Canadians to support the 0.7%, it would be an important step. We could hold our heads up high in the international community.

As it is, Canada continues to fall behind the goals that have been set by many people in this country, including the make poverty history campaign. I would urge each and every member of this House to support this private member's bill, to say yes and demonstrate that we can be leaders in the international community.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to discuss Bill C-293 which is much awaited by groups working in the field of international cooperation.

This bill sets out criteria respecting resource allocation to international development agencies and enhances transparency and monitoring of Canada’s international development efforts.

First, I must explain the context surrounding this bill.

In her February 2005 report, the Auditor General of Canada raised a number of questions concerning the management of CIDA. Among other comments, the report set out the following observations: CIDA has sharply increased the use of grants rather than contributions to fund aid projects; a situation that was troubling at the time because, to some degree, CIDA was sacrificing a degree of control and oversight over how recipients spend CIDA funding.

CIDA also makes grants without prior evaluation of needs. CIDA does not audit any in-kind contributions. Of 19 files reviewed, 12 mentioned this type of contribution, but for 11 of those, there was no indication that CIDA had done any analysis to determine their real value.

In addition, only 3 of 19 agreements audited noted that CIDA had considered the cost elements of the project, in order to verify that there was no provision for profit by the recipient. Finally, according to the Auditor General, CIDA needed to strengthen its current practices concerning audit adjustments, because it was possible that the agency was reimbursing unauthorized expenditures. These criticisms by the Auditor General made it clear that there were a number of shortcomings in CIDA’s accountability and transparency.

This bill contains two important elements. First, it defines development assistance and second, it defines the framework for providing such assistance.

Development assistance must first contribute to a reduction in poverty. It must also take account of the opinions of the poor. It must be compatible with international standards of human rights and it must, necessarily and absolutely, include mechanisms for consultation and the production of reports that are available to every citizen.

That means that in order to contribute to a reduction of poverty, the government must calculate its official development assistance budget by taking into account only the criteria that are defined in this bill.

As for the reduction of poverty, certainly over the past 25 years we have witnessed a significant decline in world poverty. With the appearance of new economic powers such as China and India, thousands of people have got out of their impoverished state and have been able to access education, live as equals and satisfy their hunger. It remains, however, that the situation has also worsened in some other countries, and that we are still far from a world in which everyone has enough to eat and the infant mortality rate is comparable to rates in the western world.

In 2005, the then Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan, published a report in which he indicated his intention to strengthen the UN. His three major themes were: the freedom from want, the freedom from fear and the freedom to live in dignity. This was a program that demanded fundamental reforms of the organization itself, notably the expansion of the Security Council.

With regard to the main points of this bill, the Bloc Québécois supported Kofi Annan's plan to implement measures that would enable all peoples of the world to live free of want, that is, to make the right to development a reality for everyone and to free all humanity from want.

In Canada, the Canadian International Development Agency’s goal is to support the efforts of developing countries to improve their social and economic prospects.

Also, it is written on the CIDA site that its mandate is to reduce poverty and to contribute to a more secure, equitable, and prosperous world.

The Bloc Québécois totally agrees with CIDA that it should reduce poverty in the world. We also share the idea that this should take place in a context of sustainable development. Canada, through its development assistance, must ensure sustainability for the local population. It would be too easy to adopt solutions that produce immediate results but that would be sources of problems for future generations.

This being said, the wording of the bill left us a bit puzzled during second reading. The bill says, in clause 2:

—that all Canadian development assistance abroad is provided with a central focus on poverty reduction—

We would have liked the bill to contain a provision broadening as much as possible the meaning of the word “poverty”. What meaning do we give to the struggle against poverty in development assistance? We believe that the reduction of poverty must also include its underlying factors.

Poverty is not only a matter of money, it is also a social issue. That is why we think that the UN’s millennium goals are the frame of reference that would enable us to better identify the work required to actually alleviate poverty.

There are eight millennium goals: eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; achieve universal primary education; promote gender equality and empower women; reduce female mortality ; improve maternal health; combat HIV-AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensure environmental sustainability; and develop a global partnership for development. Only two of those eight goals appear in the bill: eradicating poverty and sustainable development.

Although the millennium goals are all related to poverty, we believe we have to go much farther. For example, outbreaks of certain diseases are often due to unsanitary conditions, inadequate investment in health and so on. Although they are all connected, the UN goals focus on specific problems and must be addressed independently to enable development in countries that receive Canadian assistance. We must never forget that poverty often results from socio-economic inequalities within a country. In that regard, we submitted an amendment to the committee stipulating that any measures to address poverty take into account the underlying factors, such as health, education and equality. Our amendment was rejected.

I have only two minutes left but I have so much more to say. We support this bill because we think that we need to find out what poor people think. At some point, we will also have to discuss Canadian values. The Bloc Québécois wholeheartedly supports this bill, a bill it helped create. This bill will ensure that official development assistance focuses on reducing poverty. In the current context, where poverty provides fertile ground for terrorism, we must act immediately. We do, however, believe there are other ways to fight terrorism.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that CIDA, in providing assistance, respects the environments in which it is helping people. CIDA will also require the government—and this is very important—to take the opinions of people in the field into account.

We support this bill. We hope that all parliamentarians in this House will vote for it.

The House resumed from February 20 consideration of Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad, as reported (with amendment) from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Official Development Assistance

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as you may or may not know, my private member's bill will be the final hour of debate tonight. It is a bill with respect to official development assistance. It is to take into account the alleviation of poverty for other citizens of this world, take into account the perspectives of the poor, and to meet our human rights obligations.

This bill has enjoyed wide support on both sides of the House. It was at one time, in fact, supported by the Prime Minister.

Over the course of this morning, 10,000 names will be deposited on the floor of this House in support of this bill and other matters.

In the petition that I am tabling, the petitioners request that Parliament enact legislation to ensure that all Canadian development assistance contributes to poverty reduction, takes into account the perspectives of the poor, and is consistent with Canada's human rights obligations.

That is exactly what Bill C-293 is all about. I am hoping for support from all sides of the House, not only in debate tonight but on the subsequent vote.

Motions in amendment

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, on this exceptional bill, Bill C-293, on an issue that I think is of interest to many Canadians.

It deals with international development and how we can make it more effective. Why do we want to do this? As a matter of course to the taxpayer. However, the people we are dealing with are some of the most underprivileged people in the entire world and, quite frankly, it is a matter of life and death for many of them.

I will focus on Africa. Why? Because it is the only part of the world where the social parameters and economies are in decline. It is ironic that 40% of the world's natural resources are in the continent of Africa and sub-Saharan Africa, yet we see the worst cases of poverty on the entire globe.

In the 24 times that I have gone to Africa to work as a physician and engage in other aid and development projects on the ground, I can tell the House, and all of those who have been there know full well, that the people there are the most industrious, caring, compassionate and resourceful individuals. Acts of absolutely breathtaking charity and kindness are exercised by these people in the midst of abject poverty. It is extraordinary to see and humbling, coming from the west.

All the more ironic and heart-rending is the fact that there are massive resources of extraordinary amounts. The tragic irony is some of the poorest people live in the richest countries in the world, with resources of oil, diamonds, gold, minerals, timber and hydro in abundance. Why do we evidence all of these resources on one hand, but on the other hand we see abject poverty?

Let us go through some of the challenges and problems.

First is corruption. Corruption is the cancer that has eroded the continent. The fact that we as western countries have chosen to neglect this is a pox on our houses. We have chosen to neglect the gross excesses of leaders, from Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe to the Angolan government that has massive surpluses from oil, yet it is one of the worst places in the world for children to live. There are areas where there are conflicts, from Darfur to Chad, to the CAR and the Congo. We have seen countries ripped to pieces, innocent civilians caught in the cross-fire between groups that are fighting over resources, in part supported by western interests. We have done absolutely nothing. We have turned a blind eye.

How can we make our aid and development work better? I spoke of the problem of corruption, of a lack of capacity. We have umpteen numbers of solutions and frameworks that take place. We spend millions of dollars and those frameworks go absolutely no where. How on earth can we implement a framework if we do not have the people on the ground who have the capacity to execute them? It is an absolutely absurd situation, yet we expect these countries to get on their feet by giving them a framework that they cannot implement. They do not have the resources nor the people to do that. We give them the framework, we walk away and we are happy, with no effect on the ground. That is what we are talking about today.

There is a lack of basic infrastructure, human capacity and basic needs. When conflict arises and is in full force in front of us, when it is entirely possible to prevent those conflicts what have we done? Absolutely nothing. I have mentioned Darfur, Chad, CAR, Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe and the list goes on.

Aid is like a funnel. Money goes in one end and trickles out the other end to the people. Our aid is scattered, unfocused, disorganized, within government, between governments and within countries of need. Can we fix it? Absolutely. This is in no way a mark on the very good people who we have in CIDA. They have been labouring under umpteen numbers of troubles through decades, but we can and we must fix this.

For example, we do not support the partnership branch, which supports the smaller NGOs that do exceptional work on the ground. Rather, we give huge tranches of funds to large international NGOs, and we lose accountability and effect. Again, it is the funnel effect with huge amounts of money through large NGOs, international organizations, with a trickle down to the people on the ground.

What can we do? Let us focus on the millennium development goals: 12 countries; primary health; primary education; water security; food security; governance; and anti-corruption work. Let us focus on these six particular areas and we will have an effect.

How do we execute them? From an administrative perspective, we should use the “Three Ones” that has been championed by UN aids, one framework, one implementing mechanism and one oversight mechanism. We can do that with CIDA and through our programs abroad.

When look at health care, which is a particular interest of mine, we should focus on maternal health. Why? If we get maternal health right, we will have our health care personnel, our medications, clinics, water and food. If we affect the maternal mortality statistics, we will know our health care systems are essentially correct and this will affect the entire population.

It is a mistake to focus on a silo mechanism for dealing with health care internationally, for example, A's focus only on antiretrovirals. If we simply deal with diseases as silos, but we do not have the health care personnel, the diagnostics, the treatment facilities, the clean water and the nutrition, how on earth will we have an effect on the ground? How will we affect those parameters and the people who have been ripped to pieces by the worst scourge that has ever affected humanity.

What else can we do? Why do we not take the Canada Corps, which is a moribund, rump of an organization within CIDA. Why not tap into the potential within our own country, Canadians who desperately want to work abroad, both young people and those who are part of the early retirement group? They have the desire, the will, the time and the expertise to do this.

How would this work? The Canada Corps would be the interface between a country and our people at home. Our CIDA people would then be on the ground and they could ask the people what they need. How many nurses, doctors, engineers, judicial experts, agronomists, hydrologists and veterinarians do they need? It then brings a list back to Canada. The corps then asks various groups, such as the Canadian Medical Association, the nursing association, Lawyers Without Borders, Doctors Without Borders, the Canadian Teachers Association, to fill those areas. If we do that, a big gap will be filled. Those people would not only provide care, but they could also teach people in those countries how to be veterinarians, doctors, nurses or agronomists. A long term stable effect would be felt on the ground.

We need to focus on the partnership branch. We need to increase moneys to it and ensure Canadian NGOs are used. They do incredible work on the ground. People here in the House as well as their families are involved in this work.

In the end, the big answer to Africa is the private sector. How can we provide an environment with infrastructure where people will invest in developing countries, an environment where people can use the ample resources for their benefit and not for the benefit of the leaders who swan around in Mercédes-Benzs while their people live in gutters. That is happening right now. We can do this.

I encourage members to look at the example of what Sir Seretse Khama did in Botswana. He was a leader for the continent. He had the resources and he ensured that they were tapped into and his people benefited from that. Despite the fact that Botswana has tragic levels of HIV-AIDS, it has a relatively stable economically, and it is to the credit of Sir Seretse Khama and other African leaders like him who were able to do this.

I encourage the government not to ignore Africa because it is a continent of great hope and potential. It has extraordinary people who can definitely change the course of their future. They do not want handouts. They want a hand up. All they want is the same as all of us. They do not want to be shot. They do not want to be killed. They do not want their children to be abused. They do not want to have a leadership that robs their country blind.

They want to have clean water. They want to have access to clean food that they can get themselves. They want education for their children. They want roads that are clear and free of landmines.

They want a stable playing field, and if we enable them to have that, if we do not give it to them, there will be an opportunity where these people will be able to take care of themselves. They have the internal personal resources. They have the capability to do this themselves. They just want an opportunity.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly this evening in support of private member's Bill C-293, that is before the House at report stage.

The work that has gone into this bill to bring it to this point is an example of the kind of collaborative effort that often occurs in a positive, constructive way to a much greater degree in a minority government. I want to applaud the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood for having very skilfully led this through the committee process.

Although we are dealing with a private member's bill and no one member is empowered to speak on behalf of all of one's colleagues, it would appear as though the consistent support that was expressed at the committee by the Liberal, Bloc and New Democratic Party members would reflect the support of their respective caucuses.

I am profoundly disappointed to hear the practically wholesale condemnation of the bill, that has now reached the report stage, coming from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and Minister of International Cooperation.

It is demeaning and not worthy of the really quite admirable, collaborative, and cooperative effort that has been displayed to describe the motives, which are not actually parliamentary, of committee members who have supported this in good faith and who have indicated they are prepared to support it, to be doing so only to score points with the Make Poverty History campaign. That is actually somewhat pathetic, I must say.

The Make Poverty History campaign was actually launched by Nelson Mandela as a global effort very much supporting the international cooperative effort to support the millennium development goals and to ensure that every single donor country in the world, every country that is as privileged as Canada is to have immense wealth relative to the developing countries, would live up to their international obligations.

The bill that is before us, which has already been noted by others who have spoken, is not about the volume of aid from Canada. In fact, a parallel effort has gone on for almost the last two years to try to get the Government of Canada to deliver at the level of the minimal requirement, the minimal obligation, that has been defined as the sort of international standard of 0.7% of our gross national income for official development assistance.

This bill is about delivering Canada's aid in a more effective, transparent and accountable way. A good effort has been made into the evolution of the development assistance accountability act. This is a third iteration of a bill that goes back, to give credit where it is due, to the former New Democratic member for Churchill who initially introduced the bill. I subsequently did so. There have been refinements and improvements that have come as a result of the good faith effort at committee and as a result of hearing from witnesses. It is extremely disappointing that the government would basically sweep it aside as being completely unworthy.

Having said that, I hope that what we will see at third reading is sufficient support for this private member's initiative to in fact pass in the House. Such is often a possibility in a minority Parliament.

We are talking in this instance about recognizing how much we owe it to Canadians, as well as to the recipients of ODA, to be as effective and accountable as possible in the use of every single last dollar that is intended to go to overseas official development assistance.

To have an accurate picture, in 2005-06 CIDA's authorized budget was $3.3 billion of which $3.1 billion was disbursed mainly through grants and contributions. This is not about the amount of aid. It is about having a sense of the volume of aid about which we are speaking. Even though it falls very short of our obligation to 0.7%, it is a sizable sum of money.

If we delivered at the level that Sweden or Finland delivers, we would triple the amount of aid that we contribute now. However, the real issue is about the transparency and the accountability in this instance.

I think, as the member for Scarborough—Guildwood has said, anyone who has visited developing countries and has seen the grinding, devastating poverty conditions in which so many women, men and children are living would want to use every possible means we could to make that aid as effective as humanly possible.

We observed these conditions in Kenya. I then had the privilege to spend a week in Uganda at the same time as the member who has sponsored this private member's bill visited Africa with two of our colleagues. We saw children living in the most squalid conditions imaginable, open sewers, no basic sanitation, children who could not possibly remain healthy because of the health hazards. Their living conditions are so desperate that there is no possibility of escaping contamination by TB. We saw families conscientiously trying to use bed nets to prevent their children from suffering from malaria. All of these conditions were crying out for the most effective possible response from donor countries.

Therefore, we should celebrate the fact that a great many witnesses came before our committee. This project started on April 1 of 2003 when we began to really look at our ODA obligations and how we could improve our accountability and transparency as well as meet our obligations at a higher level of ODA.

In the incredible collaborative spirit in which people came together again and again before the committee to plead the case of our doing a more effective job with our aid and also with a more generous allocation of our dollars for aid, I hope the government will reconsider why it would strengthen the message to Canadians and our commitment to the poorest of the poor in the world.

We should pass the bill in this Parliament as a unanimous gesture to say we can do better, we will do more and we will maximize our effectiveness as a generous contributor to overseas official development assistance for those in the world who desperately need our support.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this evening on Bill C-293 at the report stage.

For the information of our citizens, I will provide the background for this bill. In her report of February 2005, the Auditor General of Canada flagged certain issues pertaining to CIDA management. The report listed the following five criticisms, among others. First, the increased use of grants rather than contributions to finance aid projects is worrisome. Second, CIDA disburses grants in advance of needs. Third, CIDA does not verify in-kind contributions. For example, of 19 files reviewed, 12 mentioned this type of contribution and for 11 there was no indication that CIDA had determined the real value. Fourth, only 3 of 19 agreements analyzed indicated that CIDA had reviewed project costs to ensure that there was no profit. Fifth, CIDA must strengthen its current practices regarding audits because it is possible, among other things, that the agency is refunding unauthorized expenses.

The Auditor General's criticisms indicate that there are significant gaps in CIDA's accountability and transparency and that legislation to that end is required. In addition, over the past 25 years, we have seen a significant reduction in poverty world-wide. With the emergence of new economic powers such as China and India, thousands of people no longer suffer abject poverty and have been able to get an education, live as equals, and relieve their hunger. However, conditions have deteriorated in some countries. We are still a long way from a world where no one goes hungry and where the infant mortality rate is comparable to that in the West. We are still very far from Kofi Annan's reform project. On March 21, 2005, Kofi Annan, then the UN Secretary General, released a report in which he indicated his intention to strengthen the UN. His three major themes were: freedom from want, freedom from fear and freedom to live in dignity.

The Bloc Québécois supports the Kofi Annan project to implement measures that will enable all peoples worldwide to live in freedom from want and fear and to live in dignity. Canada must do its part to make this happen.

That said, the wording of the bill at second reading was a bit confusing. In clause 2, the bill stated that Canadian official development assistance abroad must be provided with a central focus on poverty reduction.

What role does fighting poverty play in development assistance? We know that fighting poverty is a very good way to promote development. However, we would have liked to have seen a provision in the bill that broadened, as much as possible, the definition of the word “poverty”. Poverty is not just a money issue; it is also a social issue. That is why we think the UN's millennium goals provide the best framework for working to reduce poverty.

The UN has established eight millennium development goals. The first is to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. The second is to achieve universal primary education. The third is to promote gender equality and empower women. The fourth is to reduce child mortality. The fifth is to improve maternal health. The sixth is to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases. The seventh is to ensure environmental sustainability. The eighth is to develop a global partnership for development.

The bill addresses only two of the eight goals: fighting poverty and sustainable development. But fighting poverty is more than just one of the eight goals. As part of his freedom from poverty agenda, Kofi Annan wrote:

We need to see the Millennium Development Goals as part of an even larger development agenda. ... they clearly do not in themselves represent a complete development agenda.

We presented an amendment to that effect to the committee. The amendment stipulated that the fight against poverty take into account related issues, such as health, education and equality.

Our amendment was defeated. All the same, we believe that this bill is a step in the right direction, because it provides a framework for official development assistance by ensuring that it focusses on poverty reduction.

In addition to defining official development assistance, this bill stipulates that assistance must take the poor into account. We firmly believe that any official development assistance must take into account the perspectives of the poor. Such assistance is intended to improve their living conditions and their housing environment, so it makes sense to take into account the perspectives of the very people we are trying to help.

Currently, CIDA is centred in Ottawa. Roughly 80% of CIDA's employees work in the national capital. How can CIDA take into account the perspectives of the poor when most of its employees work in offices in Ottawa? We hope that this bill will pave the way for a reform of CIDA that will decentralize the agency's activities to the countries that receive official development assistance.

There are a number of benefits to adopting such a bill, including the creation of monitoring, accountability and transparency mechanisms. Who can be against that? For example, clause 9 of the bill is designed to ensure that assistance is provided more transparently. It also requires the competent minister to table in the House a report containing the amount the government spends on official development assistance, a summary of any activity or initiative taken under this bill, a summary of the annual report submitted under the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act and a summary of CIDA's performance report.

Much of this information is already published. What is new is that all the information would be assembled in a single document, providing a better overview of CIDA's work and Canada's official development assistance. This would facilitate the legislators' work, because it would be easier for them to identify problems and solve them in accordance with this bill.

At second reading, Bill C-293 included three clauses, 6, 7 and 8, which were dropped. These three clauses represented the most substantial aspects of the bill. These clauses were dropped because it was thought that they needed a royal recommendation and were therefore out of order. Even without these three clauses, this bill is still important because, as I was saying earlier, this is a step in the right direction and it finally provides a framework for development assistance.

We also expressed some reservations about clause 2.(1) which states that all Canadian official development assistance activities are to be provided in a manner that is consistent with Canadian values. What is meant by “Canadian values”? This is vague and ambiguous. We proposed an amendment to define this term and used the definition on the CIDA site as a reference. Our amendment was approved by the committee. The new definition reads as follows: “Canadian values means, amongst others, values of global citizenship, equity and environmental sustainability”.

However, can we even talk about Canadian values? In our view, it would be more fair to talk about the values of Canada's nations. The values of a country are those that stem from the nation or nations that make up that country. As we know, there is more than one nation in Canada.

Given that poverty offers fertile ground for terrorism, urgent action is needed. The time for action has come and then some. The federal government would have to be serious about its desire to alleviate poverty around the world. Yet, both the Liberals and the Conservatives lack the political will to set aside funds for development assistance in the budget. Even if the Conservatives maintain the budget increase for development assistance at 8% annually, this is still not enough of an increase to allow Canada to reach the target of 0.7% of our GNP by 2015.

For more than 10 years, many people have been calling on the government to adopt legislation on development assistance. Today, this Parliament has the perfect opportunity to take action and make a difference.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak once again to Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad.

As I said before, the House will find no disagreement from the government on the fundamental principles underlying the proposed legislation. We can all agree that poverty reduction should be a driving value in our aid efforts and that poverty reduction entails a commitment to better health and education, the promotion and protection of human rights, environmental sustainability and equality between men and women.

However, our government believes that poverty reduction means more than just that. Successful poverty reduction also requires strengthened democratic governance in developing countries to ensure that governments protect, respect and promote the rights of citizens. Providing basic health and education is essential but will produce no lasting benefits if a government turns on its own citizens or is incapable of protecting them from lawlessness, crime and corruption.

Our government is implementing programs based on this broader definition of poverty reduction in order to help bring freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law, long-lasting development and compassion to those less fortunate. We take this very seriously.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the members of the opposition. Canada focuses its development assistance program in the poorest developing countries and, within those countries, on improving the lives of the poorest and the most vulnerable men, women and children.

There is no doubt that we can do more but doing more also means working smarter to ensure that our aid dollars are spent more effectively, with greater accountability and with clear results for the poor in developing countries.

Our government's commitment to aid effectiveness has been clear from the beginning and is reflected in our determination to focus our aid program and to strengthen our ability to deliver aid effective initiatives, with results commensurate with dollars spent.

Our commitment to greater accountability also means demonstrating this effectiveness to Canadians. Starting in 2007, we will publish an annual report on the international development results and that is to be delivered to Parliament and to Canadians. We have a positive story to tell Canadians and we intend to tell it.

However, I fear that the opposition is more concerned about scoring political points with the Make Poverty History campaign than it is about ensuring we pass concrete legislation for our development assistance. This is evident in the bill, a bill that is unclear, lacks ministerial accountability and opens us up to potential legal challenges at almost every turn.

In my speech at second reading, I highlighted some of the difficulties the bill presented, serious concerns that my colleagues and I have tried to address and amend at committee stage. For example, CIDA currently falls under the Foreign Affairs Act, meaning that if no minister of international cooperation is named by the governor in council, the responsibility of the agency falls to the minister of foreign affairs.

This is a legal relationship that already exists. In our committee deliberations on Tuesday, December 12, 2006, at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, despite efforts by myself and my colleagues to clarify for the opposition members this relationship, the committee voted 7 to 4 to disregard this relationship and create its own definition of the minister.

I have provided for the House merely one example of the confusion the bill creates and the irresponsible actions of the opposition members.

Legislation can help strengthen Canada's development assistance, particularly when the mandate is straightforward and precise, when accountabilities are clear and when reporting on those results is substantive and unambiguous. Legislation that meets these tests can be an enormously powerful instrument for guiding and focusing our aid program.

Bill C-293 fails these tests and, I am sorry to say, was not helped by the actions of many opposition members on the committee.

In our view, Bill C-293 is flawed because it fails to provide a precise, transparent mandate and it encumbers ministers responsible for Canada's aid program with onerous, unnecessary and inappropriate accountabilities that increase administrative burden but do not add value to aid programming. Why should three government departments be asked to table the same information?

The end result is a cumbersome piece of legislation that lacks essential clarity and operational efficiency. The bill is so laden with unproductive restrictions and unnecessary criteria that it would do nothing more than overload the aid program with an administrative and bureaucratic complexity.

There are a number of specific issues with this bill that I wish to touch on.

First, a workable mandate statement must be precise, simple and clear. The mandate statement of Bill C-293 is none of these things. Instead, it creates a number of overlapping and complex obligations on the aid program.

In our view, the legal requirement that the minister should take into account the perspectives of the poor when disbursing Canadian assistance, begs a question. What would be the test of such a requirement? Not only is it impossible to interpret this requirement but it adds rigidity to an approach that should remain flexible and responsive to local circumstances in developing countries.

That obligation in the proposed mandate statement may impinge upon a process of developing priorities that is usually determined at the country level following consultations with a variety of actors, including people living in poverty. These procedures vary from country to country, depending on the political circumstances and the level of commitment by the government to poverty reduction, human rights and governance framework. They already exist as good practice and should remain as such.

I also wish to discuss the issue of jurisdiction over the aid program. This issue requires very careful review because jurisdictions for Canadian development assistance overlap. We agree that accountabilities for the aid program require careful review but, in our view, the rush to ensure this bill passes into legislation has not given us the time to review and refine ministerial accountabilities regarding the aid program.

Finally, the reporting provisions of the bill remain redundant and confuse ministerial accountability. For example, the named minister is required to report on activities that may not fall under his or her jurisdiction. There are several instances where new reports would merely be a synthesis of material that is already in the public domain. In other words, it is old wine in new bottles.

Finally, much of the reporting asked for is already authorized under the legislation, for example, in the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act.

In my view, Bill C-293, despite being worthy in its intent, is highly flawed legislation and should not be adopted because of its many shortcomings. I would remind my colleagues that we will be judged on the international stage by this legislation. I would suggest, if this bill does pass, that as members of Parliament and as legislators in this country we should be ashamed to support such poorly drafted legislation.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-293, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 4 on page 3 with the following:

“or”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-293, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 6 on page 3 with the following:

“les organisations de défense des droits de la”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-293, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 3 the following:

“(1.1) Notwithstanding subsection (1), official development assistance may be provided for the purposes of alleviating the effects of a natural or artificial disaster or other emergency occurring outside Canada.”

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-293, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 22 on page 3 with the following:

“et des organismes de la société civile”

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-293, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 3 with the following:

“official development assistance as defined by this Act”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-293, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 26 and 27 on page 3 with the following:

“that meets the criteria in subsections (1) and (1.1).”

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-293, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 3 with the following:

“that meets the criteria in subsections (1) and (1.1), and”

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-293 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-293, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 35 on page 4 with the following:

“to preparing the report required under section 13 of the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, contribute the following to the report submitted to Parliament under subsection (1):

(a) the position taken by Canada on any resolution that is adopted by the Board of”

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all members in the House and indeed many who are listening for the help that they have given me with this bill. I think this has been a worthwhile effort. It is in an effort to bring accountability to our aid projects, our official development assistance. It is a bit of an example of cooperation among all parties. I think at the end of the day we do have a product that many members will find themselves able to support. I even want to thank government members who from time to time even offered assistance. It is quite a remarkable phenomenon for us in the opposition to have support from government members.

This is about better aid. It is not about more aid.

I just want to offer an observation with respect to a report by a Senate committee chaired by Senator Segal that comments upon our aid in sub-Saharan Africa. The observation, according to news reports, was that we have put somewhere in the order of about $12 billion into sub-Saharan Africa and it is not observable what it is we actually got for that significant sum of money. The senators' observations in these areas are actually quite acute. I think that this particular bill, assuming it arrives in the Senate, hopefully sooner rather than later, addresses in some small measure the concerns of the senators as they expressed them in their report. I am hoping that the Senate will also see fit to support this bill.

When I started work on this bill, it seemed like a good idea. It was in accord with my own observations that our own official development assistance was not well focused. I thought it was a good bill to put before the House to generate debate and to see how far it went. But last month, I went to Kenya with the member for Halifax, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley. I do not know whether other members have actually had an opportunity to travel in Africa but if they had the experience that we had, they would know that this bill is now a personal matter.

We had met, in some small measure, the actual people this bill would affect. We had personal conversations in the slums of Nairobi with the people this bill would affect. We had personal conversations in West Kenya with the people this bill would affect.

This bill directs that our official development assistance will be directed for poverty alleviation. That will be the litmus test of official development assistance.

At the time, it was pretty hard to look those people in the eye and say that we want accountability and we want this and we want that. It was pretty darned hard because we were meeting some people from an organization called the Jami Bora Trust. These people are street prostitutes. These people are petty thieves. Many of them, probably in the order of 50% of them, have AIDS. They are the poorest of the poor. They simply have no money, nothing that we would constitute as an asset. Yet Jami Bora Trust was willing to lend them money based upon any savings that they had. If they had what we would call $10 in their bank account, Jami Bora Trust would actually lend them $20 more. With that $30, they would open small businesses.

It was just remarkable the transformation that those small businesses would make to the lives of those people. They could cease to be prostitutes. They could cease to be petty criminals. They could actually earn enough to buy enough food and to get medications that might be made available to them for TB, malaria or AIDS. It was a remarkable transformation. It was remarkable to see people who, for ridiculously small amounts of money, were able to purchase malaria nets. In some instances, they were given to them free.

We were in a situation with three or four African huts around a compound, just like in National Geographic. I can still see this woman looking at me and saying, “Because we have these nets, now my children do not scratch themselves in the morning, they do not get sick and they actually go to school more often”. This bill would help with those things.

We went through the Kibera slums and it was quite remarkable. There were three students for one book. At one time it was 15 students to one textbook. Can anyone imagine 15 students to one textbook? With Canada's assistance, that was brought down to three students to a textbook, and obviously a lot more can be done. It is a hugely successful program but that is the kind of thing that this bill could affect.

We went through the Kibera primary school, right in the middle of one of the worst slums of Nairobi, and what we saw were 2,400 students being schooled by 36 teachers. That is the kind of thing we could be doing and the kind of thing we should be doing.

I submit that this bill could make a difference in people's lives, which is why I am urging hon. members to support it.

At this point, we have no legislated mandate or rules on how we spend our ODA funds. I confess that I may be exaggerating somewhat here, but it seems that whoever puts up his or her hand last is the one who gets the project money. This bill would actually give the minister a legislated focus as to how she or he spends our official development assistance funds.

The critical test will be whether the money will go to poverty alleviation and, if the money does go toward poverty alleviation, micro-finance in the slums of Nairobi, bed nets in west Kenya or primary school books in the schools of Kenya, then the minister can say to her colleagues or others that it does fall within our official development assistance mandate.

The point of this bill is to focus our official development assistance on poverty alleviation. I want to ensure that members understand that would not prevent us from providing other assistance. In the amendments, the discussions and the time in committee, we tried to make that as clear as we possibly could. One of the amendments that was read into the record makes it about as clear as possible that this would not prevent the minister or other members of the government from doing precisely that.

Bill C-293 would create a clear mandate that ODA and all ODA funded projects would first need to demonstrate that their objectives include poverty reduction.

The second test is whether the projects take into account the perspectives of the poor. I suppose if a point were driven home to me while I was in Kenya, the perspectives of the poor are extremely important.

The third test is whether they are consistent with international standards.

The criteria for ODA funded projects, however, do not apply in the instances of humanitarian assistance.

This bill has become personal to me because of my trip to Kenya with my colleagues in the House. I can still see the faces of the people who will be affected if this legislation passes.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

At this time I would like to share with the House the ruling by the Speaker concerning the motions at report stage of Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad.

There are nine motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-293. Motions Nos. 1 to 9 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table. The Chair has also examined these amendments and finds that they do not contain any provisions which would require a royal recommendation.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 9 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Bill C-293—Development Assistance Accountability Act—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader on February 16, 2007, concerning amendments reported by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on February 1, 2007 to Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad.

The parliamentary secretary referred to my previous ruling of September 19, 2006, where I addressed the need for a royal recommendation for this bill. At that time, I identified several clauses in the bill which contained the provisions for the authorization of new spending for a distinct purpose.

To quote from the ruling:

The Chair has reviewed this matter carefully and agrees that the establishment of the advisory committee for international development cooperation provided for in clause 6 clearly would require the expenditure of public funds in a manner and for a purpose not currently authorized.

Similarly, the provisions in clauses 7 to 10, which describe the functions of the advisory committee with regard to the process of petitioning and reporting, are also functions which would require the authorization of spending for a new and distinct purpose.

As such, clause 6 and clauses 7 to 10 cause the bill as a whole in its current form to require a royal recommendation. Accordingly, I will decline to put the question on third reading of this bill unless a royal recommendation is received.

In his intervention, the Parliamentary Secretary asked for an assessment of the effect of committee amendments on the clauses identified by the Chair. He also raised questions concerning the operation of clauses 3 and 4 which he contends affect the terms and conditions attached to the original legislation.

The Parliamentary Secretary cited previous rulings which underlined the need to adhere to the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation and not only to the amount of spending.

Finally, he referred to the fact that the Chair did not consider clauses 3 and 4 in its ruling of September 19, 2006.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development adopted a number of amendments to the bill following my ruling on September 19, 2006. Notably and most importantly the committee deleted clause 6 which created the advisory committee. The committee also deleted clauses 7, 8 and 10 which dealt with the functions of the advisory committee, and amended clauses 3 and 9 so as to remove references to the advisory committee.

Therefore, the provisions which were earlier identified by the Chair as requiring a royal recommendation because they were related to or were dependent upon the establishment of the advisory committee were removed from Bill C-293.

I will now turn to the issues involving clauses 3 and 4 of the bill as addressed by the parliamentary secretary.

Clause 3 is known as the interpretation clause and contains definitions for the terms used in this piece of legislation. The parliamentary secretary notes that the committee introduced a definition for “official development assistance” which reads as follows:

“official development assistance” means international assistance

(a) that is administered with the principal objective of promoting the economic development and welfare of developing countries, that is concessional in character, that conveys a grant element of at least 25%, and that meets the requirements set out in section 4; and/or

(b) that is provided for the purpose of alleviating the effects of a natural or artificial disaster or other emergency occurring outside Canada.

He argued that this definition and similar provisions in clause 4 alter the terms and conditions of the original legislative authority and consequently cause the bill to require a royal recommendation. The parliamentary secretary raised some important points that the Chair wishes to address, the first being that provisions in subclause 4.(2) oblige the minister to consult.

The Chair is of the view that this sort of provision does not create new spending for a distinct purpose. Consultations like this fall within the ongoing mandate of the minister. The Chair, however, does have serious concerns about the claim that provisions in the definition add new conditions and criteria to official development assistance that is, “concessional in character, [and] that conveys a grant element of at least 25%”.

The parliamentary secretary argued that these provisions alter the conditions and qualifications originally attached to assistance for developing countries as found in subsection 10.(3) of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act which reads as follows:

The Minister may develop and carry out programs related to the Minister’s powers, duties and functions for the promotion of Canada’s interests abroad including:

(b) the provision of assistance for developing countries.

As this is a fairly broad statutory provision, the Chair conducted some further research, to better understand how existing official development assistance, as presently authorized by acts of Parliament, was currently being provided.

The Chair turned to the departmental performance report for the Canadian International Development Agency for the year ending March 31, 2006. On page 8 it states:

In 2005-2006, CIDA's authorized budget was $3.3 billion and its actual spending was $3.1 billion, disbursed mainly through grants and contributions...CIDA's budget is part of the International Assistance Envelope (IAE), a jointly-managed envelope which funds official development assistance (ODA), as defined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Development Assistance Committee.

I will not give all the letters for those but I am going to refer to them now.

And in footnote 4, it says:

ODA is defined by the OECD-DAC as funding transferred “to development countries and multilateral institutions provided by official government agencies which meets the following tests: (a) it is administered with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries as its main objective, and (b) it is concessional in character and conveys a grant element of at least 25%”.

The Chair notes that the criteria presently used for the disbursement of grants and contributions for official development assistance, as explained by the government in the departmental performance report, is identical to the criteria found in clause 3 of Bill C-293.

Bill C-293 at first reading only contained a reference to the OECD-DAC in clause 3. Amendments adopted in committee simply inserted in the interpretation clause the full text of the existing criteria used by the government. The Chair therefore must conclude that the conditions and qualifications, which were attached to the original authorization for spending, have not been altered in any manner. If anything, the bill reinforces the criteria presently employed by the government itself. Consequently, in the unique context this bill presents, and despite an impressive demonstration of scholarly research by the parliamentary secretary who quoted from previous rulings of mine and of Mr. Speaker Fraser, I must conclude that these provisions in Bill C-293, as amended, do not cause the bill to require a royal recommendation.

The Chair has examined carefully all other amendments adopted by the standing committee and can confirm that none of these additional modifications would require a royal recommendation.

To summarize then, the deletions made by the committee eliminated the problematic issue set out in my earlier ruling last September. Consequently, debate on this bill may proceed and the Chair will put the question on third reading of the bill in its present form, which requires no royal recommendation.

I thank all hon. members for their patience in listening to this rather lengthy explanation and ruling.

Bill C-293--Development Assistance Accountability Act

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, on May 13, 2006, you included Bill C-293 in a list of private members' items with possible royal recommendation issues. Following interventions in the House, on September 19, 2006, you ruled that the bill, as it was introduced, requires a royal recommendation.

You found that the creation of an advisory committee and new reporting requirements for ministers:

--require the authorization of spending for a new and distinct purpose.

As such, clause 6 and clauses 7 to 10 cause the bill as a whole in its current form to require a royal recommendation.

On February 1, the bill was reported from committee with numerous amendments.

Without commenting on the merits of this bill, I would appreciate your consideration of whether this bill still requires a royal recommendation under Standing Order 79, for two reasons.

First, while the committee deleted clauses 6 to 8, the bill as amended continues to include clause 9, and the provisions that had been in clause 10 have been substantially incorporated into clause 9. Given that your previous ruling concluded that clauses 9 and 10 required a royal recommendation, I would welcome your ruling on whether the bill still requires a royal recommendation.

A second aspect of the bill that may require a royal recommendation is that the bill would establish new conditions and criteria respecting the provision of official development assistance beyond those in the initial bill.

The committee amended clause 3 of the bill to provide for a definition of “official development assistance”, which includes that it be “concessional in character”, that it “conveys a grant element of at least 25%”, and that it “meets the requirements set out in section 4” of the bill.

Clause 4 of the bill places restrictions on the provision of official development assistance. Clause 4 was amended in committee to change the wording in subclause 4(2), obliging the minister to “consult with governments, international agencies and Canadian civil society organizations” before spending official development assistance. Clause 4 was also amended to provide a new subclause 4(3), which places a new condition on the calculation of official development assistance.

Authority for official development assistance is currently provided in subsection 10(3) of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act, which provides the Minister of Foreign Affairs with authority to develop and carry out programs in relation to the minister's powers, including for the provision of assistance to developing countries.

You did not consider clauses 3 and 4 in your initial ruling on Bill C-293 on September 19, 2006. However, there have been new developments since that time.

In your ruling on Bill C-303 on November 6, 2006, you found that adding new conditions and criteria to an otherwise authorized expenditure requires a royal recommendation and that the clauses of Bill C-303:

--which relate to the making of transfer payments according to the specified criteria and conditions, require a royal recommendation.

This principle should apply to Bill C-293 as well, which would impose new conditions on government spending.

Other precedents make clear that adding new conditions to an otherwise authorized expenditure require a royal recommendation. For example, on April 23, 1990, Speaker Fraser ruled that a royal recommendation was appropriate because the bill in question would:

--change the conditions and qualifications that were attached to the original legislation recommended by the Governor General.

This is exactly what clauses 3 and 4 of Bill C-293 would do, by imposing new conditions on development assistance.

Therefore, due to the committee's amendments and in light of your ruling on Bill C-303, the government believes that Bill C-293 continues to require a royal recommendation.

I would respectfully welcome your ruling on this matter.

Africa

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, last month I had the opportunity to visit Africa with my colleagues from Halifax, Cumberland—Colchester and Scarborough—Guildwood. Our trip was arranged by RESULTS Canada, an outstanding NGO that advocates on issues of poverty.

We visited the notorious slums of Nairobi and other regions of Kenya to gain insight into the effects of HIV-AIDS, malaria and TB, an absolutely curable disease that needlessly kills 300 Kenyans every day.

We visited a micro credit trust, Jammi Bora, which is doing transformative work with the poorest of the poor. We met remarkable people like Beatrice who has lost all seven of her children and their spouses to HIV in less than two years but who has overcome this to raise her 12 grandchildren.

Africa is a continent of horror but also of hope, of people who are resilient, industrious and entrepreneurial.

Canada must do more. We can do more by passing Bill C-293, focusing our aid on poverty, and by recommitting to our millennium development goals.

The world needs more Canada and Africa needs more from Canada.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to say, the characterization of support for Mahmoud Abbas as — and I think I'm accurately quoting — “funding a terrorist death cult” causes me a great deal of concern about how counterproductive, provocative, and dead wrong many of the things I've heard from your organization today really are. But I don't want to pursue that.

I'd like to ask a question to both groups with respect to the government's — the government likes to call itself the new Conservative government — creation of the Office for Democratic Governance, which is now having funding rolled out to support its activities. My question is whether either of your organizations was consulted in the process of the creation of that new Office for Democratic Governance. And what would you hope would be the results of its creation?

Second, given the amount of focus the Canadian Coalition for Democracies has expressed about transparency, accountability, and so on, what is your position on Bill C-293, which this committee has been dealing with and which is largely inspired by the need for ensuring effectiveness, transparency, and greater accountability?

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development in relation to Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad. In accordance with its orders of reference of Wednesday, September 30, 2006, the committee has considered Bill C-293, and agreed on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 to report it with amendments.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

So Bill C-293, in your view, would allow you to get aid money? Is that what you think?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you. I'll share my time with my colleague Bill.

I have two questions here. You're right that Canadians do have excellent reputation and expertise overseas in this issue. At the same time, you talked about local engagement. The new area coming out is these tribunals that have been set up, like the Rwanda genocide tribunal and all these things. I was there in Arusha, looking at the tribunal. There is a huge amount of expertise sitting in the tribunal—local expertise, not outside expertise.

The Rwanda tribunal is coming to an end very soon—by this year, I think it is. There is a big potential of losing all of this expertise that was gained in the law. Is there any way in which your area is pushing to see, say, that you are engaged with the governments of east Africa? There's a best opportunity right there to see how you can move to retain their expertise before it is lost.

This is a new area coming up. You have been all concentrating on helping the bar society and everything out there, but United Nations tribunals sitting around the world are something new that has come out. I think they're an area that we should look at to see that the expertise is not lost.

I have another question related to this. You were talking about federal spending on the rule of law and everything that you request of this. The committee has just passed Bill C-293, which says that aid should be focused on poverty reduction. What would happen to this? This would not be classified as aid, so how would we then be able to transfer money over there? What are your thoughts on that?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Okay.

I move that Bill C-293 be amended by replacing “development assistance” with “official development assistance” in the following provisions: (a) through (i)--which I think everybody has in front of them.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

This proposes that Bill C-293 in clause 3 be amended by deleting lines 4 to 7 on page 2. It's simply removing the old definition because we've already replaced it with a new definition.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Just as you said, Mr. Chair, the amendment is that Bill C-293 in clause 3 be amended by deleting lines 14 to 19 on page 2. This simply deletes the definition of “non-governmental organization” and replaces it with a new amendment that defines “civil society”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good afternoon, committee. It's good to see each one of you on perhaps this final day of the 39th session.

This is the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, meeting 37. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 20, 2006, we have Bill C-293, an act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad. We are going to continue in the exercise of clause-by-clause in the hopes that we will finish this afternoon.

Welcome.

We will proceed to amendment NDP-7 on clause 3, and I will ask Madam McDonough to begin. Basically, amendment NDP-7 is the deletion of lines 14 to 19 on page 2, the definition of “non-governmental organization”.

Madam McDonough, would you like to explain that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I see a couple of problems with this. First of all, we've already passed clause 2 with an amendment that included democratic development or democracy promotion, and we've already included that. Now we're going to define it later.

My question, Madame Bourgeois, is whether this is defined in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This has never been referenced in testimony as we've studied this bill. So do you have the definition? Before we adopt this definition, I think it would be important that we hear the definition as defined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, because it's never been referenced in a meeting that we've had in studying Bill C-293 . So do you have that definition here? Do we have that definition?

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for Ms. Bourgeois.

I do not know where you found this definition of democracy, but that is not my question. I would just like to know why you're adding a definition of democracy. Is there a reference to democracy in Mr. McKay's bill, C-203?

If there is a reference to it, there could be a definition, but I would like to know where the word democracy is used in this bill. Should we be providing official development assistance as such? If so, should this assistance be linked to democracy? I'm not exactly sure where the word "democracy" appears in the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

So we have the friendly amendment that Bill C-293, in clause 3, be amended by adding, after the definition of civil society organization, which we've just put in, that Canadian values will mean values of global citizenship, equity, and environmental sustainability--period.

Mr. Menzies.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

All Keith's says is to deal with Bill C-293 on Tuesday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. I call this meeting number 33 to order.

We gather here this afternoon to go through Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 20, 2006. Today we are here to go through the clause-by-clause process.

We welcome Mr. McKay in his capacity as the one who has brought forward this bill.

I guess the process now is to go directly into the clause-by-clause examination. A number of amendments have come forward from the opposition. Again, I'll remind you that we will take amendments off the floor. There would perhaps be some negotiations even on friendly amendments, wordsmithing, as there normally is.

If you have your bill at hand, we'll begin as quickly as possible. The intention today is to end right at 5:30 p.m. I know a number of people have planes to catch to a certain event that's going on in Montreal. Everyone else wants to get home, where the real action is, so we'll try to get done here as quickly as possible.

If you have your amendments and bill in hand, we'll postpone clause 1 pursuant to Standing Order 75. We'll come back to the short title later on, after the bill is completed, in case there is a need for change.

On clause 2--Purpose

We go to clause 2, NDP amendment number 1. Madam McDonough, perhaps you would speak to your amendment, please.

[Graham Flack]

Thank you for the invitation to come here. I'm hoping to provide information, and I know there were some questions in the previous committee meetings about the Department of Finance's role in the Bretton Woods institutions in particular and in development assistance.

As you're aware, most of the activities of the Department of Finance don't deal with development assistance. We're responsible or draw authority from over 143 statutes, one of which is the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, which is clearly the most relevant in terms of development assistance, and I understand that's reflected in clauses 9 and 10 of the bill.

The Bretton Woods act lays out the minister's authority with respect to contributions to the World Bank and to the IMF. There are three main development assistance payments made by the Minister of Finance: first, contributions to the interest-free lending window of the World Bank, called the International Development Association; second, contributions to the low-interest lending window of the International Monetary Fund, called the poverty reduction and growth facility; and third, payments under the multilateral debt relief initiative, under which donors are financing 100% relief for eligible countries from their debt with the IMF, the World Bank's IDA, and the African Development Fund. This year, the department will make payments totalling $367 million for those three items. This is out of a total international assistance budget for Canada of about $3.8 billion.

Along with the authority to make payments, the Bretton Woods act also sets out reporting requirements for the Minister of Finance that are statutory and require us to report to Parliament on an annual basis. I've quoted section 13 of our act, and I believe that was distributed to you along with the report that the Department of Finance submits each year in this area. Section 13 requires us to submit

a report containing a general summary of operations under this Act and details of all those operations that directly affect Canada, including the resources and lending of the World Bank Group, the funds subscribed or contributed by Canada, borrowings in Canada and procurement of Canadian goods and services.

I note that this particular language in section 13 is echoed in clause 10 of the bill.

Finally, the Bretton Woods act also sets out the Minister of Finance's role as Canada's representative on the board of governors of the World Bank and the IMF. As governor, the Minister of Finance exerts his influence through exchanges of views at the annual meetings of the board of governors of these institutions.

So these are the discussions that deal with the World Bank and IMF's broad policy agendas. The day-to-day decisions are actually delegated to a 24-member executive or board. These executive directors on the board are nominated by the governors of the constituencies they represent, but I'd point out that they're employees of the bank and fund. They're not employees of their home governments.

Another important point is that our executive directors at those two institutions don't represent Canada alone. There is not a Canadian executive director. The executive director represents Canada, Ireland, and a number of the Caribbean constituencies. So there's not a uniquely Canadian individual who just represents Canada at those institutions—and that's relevant, as you're going to see later.

I'll move on with some comments on Bill C-293. There are three areas I'd like to highlight. The first is the potential impact on the Minister of Finance's legal powers in non-development-related areas. I assume from the testimony I heard earlier and the comments of committee members that this is unintended, but our legal counsel raises serious concerns that this may be an unintended effect of the legislation, the way it's currently worded. The second is the potential blurring of accountabilities set out under the Bretton Woods act with regard to reporting. The third is the disclosure limitations due to the confidentiality rules imposed on the World Bank and IMF executive boards.

In terms of the Minister of Finance's powers, I'll divide it into two layers. This discussion already began in the earlier hearings. It's a question of the scope of the definition of “development assistance”, as contrasted with what can be spent under clause 4. I'll give three examples of how it's potentially problematic.

The contribution Canada makes to reduce money laundering in a developing country would likely fall under the development assistance definition Mr. McKay has put forward to the committee. They would be funds provided to a developing country that advance the economic development of that country by having a better banking system. But one could make a strong argument that the primary focus of anti-money-laundering funds is not poverty reduction. The concern about how the bill is written right now, and any activity that falls under that definition of development assistance, is that the government would be stopped from spending money in any of those areas of that broad definition of development assistance that don't have poverty reduction as the primary goal. It's not that we couldn't just count it as ODA; we actually couldn't spend money in that area.

That's the primary concern we're putting forward--areas of spending of the Department of Finance like anti-money-laundering. Another area is unilateral tariff relief. It may have a positive impact on the economic development of developing countries, but its primary objective is not poverty reduction.

I don't think that was the intention of the bill, but counsel are very concerned that this is the effect of the existing legislation. Activities that would fall under a broad definition of development assistance, including anti-money-laundering, unilateral tariff relief, and even bilateral debt relief in countries like the former Yugoslavia, would be subjected to the test of poverty reduction. If they failed that test, the government would not be allowed to provide funds in that area.

On bilateral debt relief, for example, you will recall that the government provided such relief in the former Yugoslavia following the Balkan conflicts. This type of assistance easily fits under the definition of development assistance; however, the driver for providing the relief was not the underlying prevalence of poverty in those countries. It was a recognition of the financial reality that in light of the particular challenging economic and financial situation, the country did not have the capacity to make its debt service payments over the coming years. Had Bill C-293 been in place, the minister might not have been able to deliver this type of assistance, as it would have been difficult to establish a direct causal link between the debt cancellation and poverty reduction, as required under clause 4.

Even within the Bretton Woods institutions, and particularly the World Bank, there are areas where we would potentially not be able to provide funding because it would fall under the broad definition of development assistance but not meet the poverty test.

If I could cite one example here of the World Bank private sector development agencies--the International Finance Corporation and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency--the primary vehicle through which they provide assistance is funding to private sector organizations in those countries. Over the long term, the hope is that funding will eventually improve the state of the economy in those countries, which will help all citizens, including the most poor.

But when payments are made at the front end, it's difficult to make a direct link between a grant or risk insurance provided to a small company and poverty reduction. The concern is that with the broad definition of development assistance and the limiting factor that only those things that reduce poverty are allowed to be funded, the government would be prevented from contributing to these important World Bank agencies, to which most other countries in the world contribute.

The second point is around blurred accountabilities. As I mentioned earlier, the reporting requirements of Bretton Woods make it clear that the Minister of Finance is accountable for operations under the act. Indeed, it sets out a clear reporting requirement for the Minister of Finance that results in an annual report to Parliament.

Clauses 9 and 10, as I read them, will now create three reports on development assistance: one by the CIDA minister, and a second report for the Minister of Finance in clause 10, which is largely duplicative of a third report we do right now and which I believe you have; it is the Bretton Woods Act report that the Department of Finance already submits. So there's a danger here of some blurring of accountability in terms of who's accountable to Parliament to report on what. Under Bretton Woods, it's clearly the Minister of Finance who's accountable.

Perhaps I could address one particular concern, and it's a high one that is shared by the representatives of Canada at the World Bank and at IMF institutions. That regards the confidentiality rules in those institutions.

Paragraph 10(b) of the legislation, and it's echoed in paragraph 9(1)(d) of the legislation as well, requires that the minister present to Parliament:

a summary of any representation made by Canadian representatives with respect to the priorities and policies of the Bretton Woods Institutions;

The World Bank's policy on disclosure of information and the IMF's transparency policy both require that certain items discussed by the executive director and the board of governors be confidential. To provide an analogy, the executive director meetings are not unlike cabinet. In order to encourage a full and frank exchange of members, the information that is shared between members at those meetings is kept confidential. That's enshrined in the articles of the IMF and the World Bank, which provide, in perpetuity, archival immunity for this sort of information.

As I mentioned, there's a second problem. If you're trying to decipher “Canada's position” at these agencies, the representative of Canada is not uniquely the representative of Canada. They're also the representative, in our two constituencies, of Ireland and the major Caribbean countries. So deciphering the position they ultimately took at a committee...even if we could get over the confidentiality hurdle, determining which part of that position was exactly Canada's position is just not possible given the way the institution is structured.

I'd point out that this sort of protection is also identified in our own Canadian legislation, in the Access to Information Act, which provides specific exemptions for information given in confidence from foreign governments or international organizations like the IMF and World Bank and where the disclosure of information could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the conduct of international affairs.

Given the frank nature of exchange in the meetings, were Canada to publish a detailed summary of the position it took, let's say, vis-à-vis the performance of another country's economy in the IMF proceedings, that could have a market impact in terms of what we're saying and where we think the country should go, but it could clearly have a state-to-state impact that's a potential concern.

This doesn't mean we can't report on any of the representations made by Canada. For example, as a matter of practice, though it's not required in law, we do, as part of the Department of Finance report on the Bretton Woods institutions, provide the positions adopted by the board of governors and the Canadian positions on all those resolutions taken. We're just highlighting for the committee the challenge around trying to push this to a point where our executive directors would be put in an impossible position of providing us information that would be in breach of their confidentiality requirements.

In summary, there are three essential concerns that we'd like to raise before the committee.

The first is in regard to the definition of development assistance in clause 4. If there's a broad definition of development assistance, it risks capturing activities like anti-money-laundering, which, under clause 4, we would not be allowed to fund because they don't have poverty reduction as their primary goal.

So we're raising that particularly from the Department of Finance perspective because the Minister of Finance is responsible, has ultimately the residual authority under the Financial Administration Act to spend in any area. If you restrict the Minister of Finance so that he cannot spend in a particular area, that is, development assistance that does not have poverty reduction as a goal, we're in effect preventing the Government of Canada anywhere from operating in that area. We think that's problematic.

The second is on the reporting requirements. We have an existing report on the Bretton Woods institutions. Indeed, paragraph 10(d) replicates the language of our report. I'd point out that only 12 of 185 member countries actually provide such a report. When Ireland recently added themselves to this list, they used Canada's report as a model, so we think it's a good report. We're worried that clause 10 simply duplicates that.

While I too am a friend of the pulp and paper industry in Canada, I think we should avoid anything that simply replicates the reporting so that we have the identical text in two reports.

Finally, on confidentiality, the new element in that reporting requirement, we're highlighting the difficult position we'd be putting Canada's representatives at the institutions in, to the extent that they were called upon to breach their confidentiality requirements. We would reveal, in effect, what are the equivalent of cabinet confidences.

Thank you.

[Michael Small, Assistant Deputy Minister, Global Issues, Department of Foreign Affairs]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you for inviting me to appear before your committee. It is an honour for me to provide you with some of our observations on Bill C-293.

There are four basic points I would like to make today about the potential implications of draft Bill C-293. Under each point I will try to highlight for you the complications that could arise, depending on the final version of the bill, and complications that members may not have intended or have not yet had a chance to discuss or consider among yourselves.

First of all, in speaking about the “competent minister,” the bill needs to be sensitive to the diverse accountabilities involved in spending Canada's official development assistance—ODA, the shorthand term I'll use. The term “ODA” is a policy tool, negotiated among members of the OECD's development assistance committee to assist them in determining what kinds of international assistance should be counted as aid, and to give them, therefore, a basis for comparison of country-by-country aid statistics. It is not a definition that is established by legal statute.

For more than twenty years, and under different Governments, at least three different ministerial portfolios have been accountable for expenditure of Canadian ODA: the Minister of International Co-operation, who is responsible for the majority but not the totality of Canadian aid, through the Canadian International Development Agency; the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for Canada’s participation in the Bretton Woods institutions, the world’s largest providers of multilateral ODA; and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is responsible for payment of most of Canada’s assessed contributions to international organizations, a percentage of which is counted as ODA; and increasingly various kinds of peace- and security-related development assistance, some of which also count as ODA.

While the amounts of ODA allocated to each of these three portfolios that I've just referred to will vary over time, this basic division of labour between ministers is likely to endure. Thus, there is no one minister at present, or likely to be in the future, with an overarching responsibility for the management of all Canadian official development assistance.

In addition, a significant percentage of Canada’s ODA flows, currently about 3% or $130 million, are disbursed by the International Development Research Centre, or IDRC. While IDRC reports to Parliament through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, it is an autonomous decision-making body accountable to its independent board, as constituted by the IDRC Act. As IDRC has pointed out in its own written submission to this committee, there is a risk that Bill C-293 may conflict with these important provisions of the IDRC Act.

My second point is that committee members may wish to examine more carefully the implications of the language relating to human rights in the draft bill in paragraph 4(1)(c), specifically the call for Canadian ODA to be “consistent with Canada's international human rights obligations”. I specifically wish to focus your attention on the implications of the word “obligations” in this context.

Canada's human rights obligations derive from the international human rights treaties and conventions we have signed and ratified. These treaty obligations relate to the promotion and protection of human rights by the Government of Canada within the jurisdiction of Canada. Thus, the current reference to Canada's human rights obligations would have the effect of focusing the draft bill on the human rights of Canadians. It does not underline the role of ODA in promoting and protecting human rights internationally. Language to the effect that ODA activities should be “consistent with international human rights standards” would be in line with Canada's policy to promote and protect human rights internationally. Canada uses various review mechanisms, as specified by the human rights conventions that we have signed, to hold other governments accountable for their obligations for the human rights of their citizens. There is a risk that the reference to “Canada’s human rights obligations” in the bill might go beyond current state-to-state obligations that exist in international human rights law. It could also implicitly reduce the emphasis on recipient countries’ obligations towards their own citizens.

Thirdly, and turning to the specific responsibilities of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, it's important to point out that the poverty reduction test proposed in the act could affect the government's ability to fund core activities of a number of international organizations. That is because Canada's assessed contributions to different international organizations can, in varying degree, be counted as ODA, ranging from--and I'll give you a few examples--3% of our contribution for the World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO, to 18% for the International Telecommunications Union, ITU, to 80% for the World Health Organization, and 100% for the Organization of American States, OAS.

I picked those to give you a sense of the range of the organizations. Those percentages, by the way, apply to all donor countries that claim official development assistance as part of their contributions.

The objectives of these organizations are varied, hence the different percentages of the contributions that can be counted as ODA. Canada is, of course, only one country among many that belongs to each of these organizations, and the programs and priorities of these international organizations are determined by their entire membership. Thus, the committee may wish to avoid asking the minister responsible for these contributions to certify that each of these international organizations observe a Canadian-legislated standard for how it spends the ODA portion of its budget.

My final and most important point reflects on how tightly and how precisely the committee, and in future a government bound by the act, would wish to hold Canadian ODA expenditures to the goal of reducing poverty. This is a narrower focus for Canadian ODA than the OECD definition, which defines the goal of ODA as “promoting the economic development and welfare of developing countries”.

Much of Canadian development assistance contributes to the goal of poverty reduction in developing countries, but some of it does so only indirectly and over a longer period of time, through such means as increasing citizen security, encouraging better governance, improving policies and policy-making capacity, and promoting respect for human rights.

The Department of Foreign Affairs, in particular through the human security program and the global peace and security fund, spends ODA for all the purposes I have mentioned.

I'll give you some examples from the last fiscal year of program spending, which has counted as official development assistance spent by the Department of Foreign Affairs. This could include mine action and education programs, or mine awareness programs; the deployment of corrections training officers to Côte d'Ivoire; the purchase and transfer of a secure e-mail system to improve international criminal justice cooperation in the Americas; witness protection training in Brazil; seminars on crime scene investigations in Central America; assistance in border management for the Palestinian Authority; human rights training in Indonesia; and support for the Colombian peace process.

Examples of potential funding for this current fiscal year from the Department of Foreign Affairs include financial support for the peace talks in south Sudan; support for prison reforms; gang member rehabilitation; the deployment of corrections officers and anti-money laundering activities in Haiti; and support for civilian peacekeeping missions via the RCMP.

While an indirect connection can be drawn between each of these activities and poverty reduction, a direct connection cannot be made in each and every case. If these kinds of programs and projects continue to be deemed worthwhile by Parliament, it would be unfortunate if they had to be terminated in order to comply with a strict interpretation of a poverty focus for Canadian development assistance.

Depending on how strictly the poverty focus for Canadian development assistance is interpreted, the government could be placed in the awkward position of, on the one hand, being expected to report these expenditures to the OECD as official development assistance, while on the other hand not being able to report them to Parliament as development assistance because they do not meet all the legal requirements of this act.

To conclude, I'd like to repeat what all G-8 leaders highlighted at their summit this past July in St. Petersburg, and I'm quoting now from the declaration:

Multilateral and regional organizations and states have focused significant resources on developing new tools for S&R in recent years. Individual states are trying to make better use of their national resources by integrating defense, development and diplomatic capabilities in support of joint planning and strategy for stabilization and reconstruction.

This approach has been welcomed and encouraged by the development assistance committee of the OECD, to which Canada belongs. The OECD currently has important programs under way to harmonize donor best practices in fragile states, to better understand and integrate security system reforms into development programs and to clarify how ODA in these contexts is both defined and applied by donors.

We're proud to say that Canada has been at the forefront of these activities designed to increase the coherence and transparency of donor activities in support of international peace and security.

Thank you for your time and your patience.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I call this meeting to order.

This is the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. At this meeting, number 32, we are here to discuss Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 20, 2006.

We'll hear in the first hour from the Department of Foreign Affairs, from which we have today, Michael Small, assistant deputy minister for global issues, and Alain Tellier, deputy director of the criminal, security and privileges and immunities law section.

We welcome you. Thank you for submitting text of the remarks you're going to make this afternoon. After your remarks, we'll go into the first round and proceed from there.

Do we have a question from Mr. McKay?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

And that the government witnesses, on Tuesday, have prepared written texts relevant to Bill C-293 that will be submitted to the committee members prior to Monday, the 27th.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

In order to get a timeline on this, I would suggest that the foreign affairs committee address Bill C-293, clause by clause, and schedule it for Tuesday, November 28. In other words, with 48 hours notice, you'll have to vote on Thursday. We would deal with it on Tuesday. In the meantime, going through the blues, certainly these technical changes can be addressed and before us for the 28th.

[Stephen Wallace, Vice-President, Policy Branch, Canadian International Development Agency]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Sorenson.

It really is an honour to be here.

It’s a privilege for us to appear before the committee.

We're very pleased to continue to support the work of the committee. We've been following closely the progress of Bill C-293 and have been studying its possible implications. We've also undertaken background analysis of legislative mandates across OECD member countries, and we'd be happy to discuss the results of this international analysis if you would like and are interested in it.

As the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has put it most recently:

A well-developed legislative basis has the advantages of transparency and of clarifying responsibilities among the various government entities that may be involved, as well as establishing development objectives.... On the other hand, countries with a less formalised legal basis may have more flexibility to act and this could be an advantage when trying to build coalitions between development agencies and other government entities whose policies and actions have an impact on development prospects in developing countries.

That's from the OECD earlier this year. Legislation is indeed featured quite prominently in several other countries of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, although it is quite specific to the legal and political circumstances in each particular case. There's not a lot of comparability when you walk across the international system; these are fitted very much to local circumstances.

A key objective of development assistance legislation is establishing a clear and efficient legal basis for the aid program in a way that can stand the test of time and remain relevant in a changing world.

This challenge is, of course, even greater from a legal perspective when you consider the range of government departments here in Canada, including the Departments of Finance, Foreign Affairs, and line ministries that help to deliver on Canada's aid program and that will be affected by this bill.

From an operational perspective, Bill C-293 needs to achieve a result—and I think committee members have been working towards that objective—that is clear and simple, easy to understand, understandable in its application, and with relevant and efficient reporting requirements.

On the easy-to-understand question, my colleague would like to raise a number of points that we hope will be of use to the committee in its detailed review of the bill.

It's important to state at the outset that the underlying objectives of Bill C-293—i.e., achieving greater clarity of purpose, strengthening accountability, and setting new standards of transparency—are consistent with the guidance we have received from the government. These are core elements of better aid. They are objectives that lie at the heart of the aid effectiveness agenda that the Minister of International Cooperation had the opportunity to discuss with you less than three weeks ago.

For the past six months, CIDA has been implementing a four-part program to make aid more efficient, through a more strategic focusing of Canadian cooperation, a systematic improvement of program delivery, a more effective and efficient use of our resources and a clear accountability for results. These issues can also be found in several provisions of this bill.

In terms of the objective that it must be understandable in its application, I want to identify a number of potential problem areas for consideration, taking into account as well any amendments the sponsor of Bill C-293 has put to the committee.

The first has to do with the petitions system. Measures to increase the responsiveness of the aid program to those for whom aid is intended are indeed important, but we have questions about its value-added, the management requirements, and overhead implications for the aid program.

A second question relates to how we would apply the mandatory requirement, as we see it, to consult international agencies and Canadian civil society organizations on any decision involving the use of aid. This could cover literally thousands of decisions every year, around the world, for which specific consultative arrangements would need to be established and where Canadian civil society organizations may not even be present.

We're very much engaged on an ongoing basis with consultative processes. These are essential to our effectiveness, be they on partner relations, country strategies, or sectoral and operational issues, for example. But we are concerned about the administrative implications of doing so, as formulated in this proposed bill, on an indiscriminate basis.

We see a related problem in how we would interpret in law the otherwise critically important principle of taking into account the perspectives of the poor. CIDA and its more than 700 Canadian partners currently do so through a variety of formal processes--for example, project steering committees, country strategy exercises, consultations on different themes and sectors--and a lot of informal meetings, through site visits, through discussions, through background research. This is what we do right now in taking account of perspectives of the poor. In law it is unclear what would be the test of performance in this particular area. We raise that as an issue.

Moving on, we've had good experience with advisory committees. We believe they can add real value and transparency to Canada's international cooperation program. We wonder, however, whether limiting advice to ministers to a single advisory committee is preferable to special purpose committees that can provide specialized advice on particular issues. In three weeks, for example, an expert panel is being established under the minister's authority to examine issues related to Canadian partnership programming in civil society. The composition of this committee has been designed specifically in relation to its particular mandate.

More can be done to strengthen reporting for accountability and results. Bill C-293 contains several provisions in this regard. The requirement to report on any activity or initiative taken under the bill is very broad, and in our view unprecedented. Other reporting provisions are the responsibility of various ministers, and we expect that the committee will want to ensure that there is no blurring of the accountability relationship that specific ministers might have to Parliament.

These are some of the operational questions, Mr. Chair and committee members, raised as we go through some of the specifics of Bill C-293. We'd be very pleased to discuss them and other areas of interest. We hope our perspectives will serve the needs of the committee.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

This is the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, meeting number 29. We are here this afternoon to continue our study of Bill C-293, an Act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad.

We have already heard from the sponsor, Mr. McKay, of this private member's bill. I believe that is probably the most recent work we have done on this bill. Many of the members of this committee have suggested witnesses to come forward to testify on the bill. We're going to be hearing from CIDA officials, Department of Foreign Affairs, Finance, and numerous research and policy centres from around the country who wish to contribute to our study on the bill.

Today we have as witnesses from CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, Christiane Verdon, senior general counsel, legal services division; and Stephen Wallace, vice-president of the policy branch.

We welcome you here today. We look forward to what you have for us. We'll then go into the first round of questions.

In the second hour today we will be discussing our draft report concerning the committee's study and recommendations on Haiti. In this first hour we welcome you here. We look forward to what you have to say on this all-important bill.

The time is yours. Thank you.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

On the 29th you say we will finish Bill C-293. That is if there are no witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We are agreed. That's consensus. That's passed.

We also have a budget. Where did that budget go?

On the 28th and 29th, I think we should be able to finish up with witnesses on whatever there is on Bill C-293. If we can finish the report on the.... I don't want to go right back to the beginning on this report, again. Let's finish this thing once and for all in that one hour we have.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, sir.

Sorry to be so brief about this, but Mr. Toycen, thank you for the endorsement on Bill C-293. We were before the foreign affairs committee on Tuesday, and it was well supported by that committee. So again, thank you for your hard work.

Mr. Bradley, I'm glad to see that the Martin-McGuinty agreement on corporate tax collections has been fulfilled by this government. Let me ask you a particular question.

As you know, the TTC is a pretty important mover of people around here, and its capital stock leaves something to be desired at times. The government's proposal is that transit passes somehow or another will solve all those problems. So if your choice was between capital improvements for the TTC--be it buses, subways, whatever--versus a transit pass, and you had to choose, what would you choose?

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Polanyi, while we're chatting with you, we've heard from a number of KAIROS organizations across Canada. They're always very good presentations, but I think you're the first one who has actually mentioned the 0.7% of GNI and the necessity of reaffirming poverty reduction as a primary objective. Considering that Development and Peace and the Primate's World Relief Fund are part of the organization, that makes sense. I'm also sure you'd agree with me that my colleague John McKay's private member's bill, Bill C-293, which reaffirmed that, is a step forward in the right direction. So I'm glad you mentioned that.

I'd like to ask both you and Elizabeth, if I could, a question on child care again. I don't believe in universal child care benefits. I don't think they're the way to go. I think we were on the right track last year, building the infrastructure of child care across the country.

In my own community, a lot of people were excited about it, especially parents of children with special needs, parents of francophone or minority-language children. They were finally going to have an opportunity to provide child care to their kids. That $1,200 does nothing for them. But the real problem with the $1,200 is the way it was handed out and then taxed back in such a way that lowest-income Canadians aren't necessarily the beneficiaries of it at all. At the very least, if it was going to be done, perhaps doing it through the low-income supplement of the child tax benefit might have been a better way to direct the payments to those who need the assistance the most.

I'd like your thoughts on that, Michael and Elizabeth, if you have any.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Again, we talked about this before. One of the concerns I have is that we keep focus. We have our steering committee meetings and we decide where we're going. The motion is absolutely in order, but if we're going to now start allocating regular committee time to bring in Mr. Roche—he's a great spokesman, and everyone here knows his involvement on nuclear disarmament—then we're talking about diverting from what we've laid out as the direction in which the committee is going.

In good faith, I think we want to continue with the democratic development. We have a busy fall. We want to finish Bill C-293 whenever it gets done. So if you're suggesting this for a committee day, then I would say to our committee that we should stay focused on the direction that we've laid out in the steering committee and in this committee.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

And indeed she may, but it would be in a city other than Ottawa. But I would doubt that she would be dancing because of that.

To your comment about the fact that we've had lots of time to get it right, I must comment. We've had less than ten months. In the thirteen years the Liberal government had, they didn't quite take this as seriously as they are now. So I applaud your reawakening to this cause.

Going back to what we were dealing with in Bill C-293, which indeed is what we're discussing here, I'm very concerned--and I think I raised this in my speech--about the obligation of the minister to report back, to answer back to petitioners about why they haven't received aid, why they haven't received enough, why they've received the wrong thing, and that sort of thing. That's not the minister's job. I still fear that whoever the minister may be, it's not a good use of his or her time to be responding to every potential recipient of Canadian aid.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right, committee. We'll call this meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade back to order.

We're pleased to have with us the Honourable John McKay, member of Parliament from Scarborough—Guildwood. Mr. McKay is the drafter of a private member's bill, Bill C-293. He is with us today to talk about his bill and perhaps some potential changes. I see he has brought some changes that he may want to table later on.

Mr. McKay, you are well aware of how this committee works. We welcome you, and we'll let you speak for as long as you want--ten minutes usually--and then we'll go into the first round of questioning.

The first round will be a seven-minute round, followed by a five-minute round.

Mr. McKay.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I just want to be fair to the government side. They agreed this morning and we agreed this afternoon to start with Bill C-293, even before we passed the motion. They agreed on this. That's a step. Now we say we agree that we start the day after. You say it's next week we're going to start this. We will know. One thing we're going to be sure of is that we have a slot in November and we have the majority on this side, and if the government doesn't want to do it we're going to force the government to do it by having some other meetings.

To me, this motion is irrelevant in the sense that you ask if it's a necessity, but we don't know if it's going to be a necessity. We could fit in our slots. To me, it's irrelevant to have such a motion. We are already going to start it next week. That means the government's intention is to go along with this. We have done it and we agree on this. To me, there's no way to have such a motion.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

In the third line from the bottom after “meetings” to insert “if necessary, in addition to regularly scheduled meetings, to study Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad.” In other words, strike the last line “beginning the week of October 23”.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Let me take 30 seconds to propose the following amendment to the end: “the committee hold meetings if necessary, in addition to regularly scheduled meetings, to study Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad.” Delete “beginning the week of October 23”, because we already made that decision today.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

We went partway there in the schedule of meetings that we adopted this afternoon, coming from the steering committee recommendations, which is that on the twenty-third, we've agreed to spend one hour hearing from John McKay on Bill C-293.

My intent in putting this motion forward is to reflect, I think, the important consensus. I know the parliamentary secretary, Deepak Obhrai, earlier referred to the fact that in matters of all-party consensus there is some real weight assigned to it and some real sense that we're serious about dealing with these matters. It's in that spirit that I am putting forward an urgent proposal that we really get on with dealing with Bill C-293.

I accept that this sense of urgency is reflected in the decision we made earlier to proceed, but I guess I'd like to propose a small amendment to expedite the matter. It may seem strange, but since I originally submitted this, we've actually taken a step in that direction. Can I make a friendly amendment to my own motion?

I think it's in the spirit of what we learned in the U.K. and in the Nordic countries. We have some real homework to do here to pull ourselves out of the embarrassment of being at—where are we?—0.34%. We know all of those countries are way ahead of where we are.

Anyway, I don't want to spend the time, so let me very briefly propose this.

[Dina Epale, Public Affairs Officer, Action Canada for Population and Development]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. My name is Dina Epale, and I'm the public affairs officer at ACPD.

We work to ensure the full implementation of the UN International Conference on Population and Development, which was held in Cairo in 1994. There were 179 countries, including Canada, that agreed to fund programs addressing the sexual and reproductive health needs of women and their families throughout the world.

ACPD works to advance reproductive and sexual rights and health at the international level, and we encourage Canada to incorporate reproductive and sexual rights and health into its foreign aid policies and programs. We also have an emerging focus on international migration and development.

I am here today to ask you to make strong recommendations to the government concerning its official development assistance and to take particular care to meet the needs of women, men, and children around the world by funding the sexual and reproductive health programs promised at the Cairo conference.

ACPD wants to commend the new government for its announcement with respect to the allocation of an additional $320 million for international aid in 2005-2006 and possible additional funding totalling $425 million over five years. We particularly want to voice our support for the announcement made by the government with respect to funding of $15.5 million over three years for the UNFPA's project to combat sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo, in response to an appeal in The State of World Population 2005.

We at ACPD are very encouraged by these funding announcements and the government's apparent commitment to an increase in international aid. However, despite its efforts, Canada lags behind other countries with respect to official development assistance, or ODA. Canada is among the 22 donors countries which have repeatedly promised to devote 0.7% of their gross national product to ODA by 2015. And yet, based on the OECD's preliminary analysis, Canada's net contribution for 2005 represents some 0.3% of its gross national income, or $3.7 billion US, placing it in 14th position among the 22 donor countries.

We certainly can do much better to achieve our ODA commitments and be a real leader in this competitive world, for a number of reasons. First, Canada continues to be the only G-7 country with a record surplus in 2003, 2004, and 2005 and a forecasted surplus of $8 billion in 2006. Second, the recently tabled 2006-07 government report on plans and priorities shows that the international assistance envelope is expected to be $3.8 billion in 2006-07 and $4.1 billion in the 2007-08 budget. Third, five countries today have exceeded the UN target of 0.7% GNI to ODA.

Canada can also position itself as a real leader in the world by supporting the very recent UN General Assembly's endorsement of a new target under goal five of the MDGs, which is to achieve universal access to reproductive health care by 2015. We have the opportunity to do this by using the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty MDG rally, which happens to be tomorrow, October 17, to address concrete measures and strategies to achieve our ODA targets and MDG goals.

In conclusion, the message from ACPD is simple and consistent with most of our past recommendations to this very committee. This committee is in a position to make strong recommendations to the Canadian government to: one, stand up and keep its promise to do its fair share to meet the millennium development goals; two, stand up and make its long-standing pledge to reach 0.7% of GNI to ODA a reality; and three, stand up and build on the resolution that was adopted in Parliament in 2005 calling on the federal government to set a plan to reach 0.5% of GNI to ODA by 2010, a baseline target of reaching a goal of 0.7% GNI to ODA by 2015.

We ask members of Parliament to stand up and support the development assistance bills, Bill C-204, Bill C-243, and Bill C-293.

I thank you for your time.

[Hamid Javed, Chair, Board of Directors, Saskatchewan Council for International Cooperation]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson.

Members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, it's a pleasure to be here talking on behalf of the SCIC, the Saskatchewan Council for International Cooperation.

In your finance committee's recent document “Canada's Place in a Competitive World”, you refer to the fact that Canada, as a small open economy, depends significantly on other countries for our economic health and prosperity. This recognition of the need for cooperation and working with other countries is commendable; however, we also understand that we depend on one another not only for economic prosperity, but also for global peace, global public health, and the protection of the global environment. Without these things, no country can prosper and no country is safe.

Because of our prosperity depending on others and also on the basis of cooperation within our own country, we need to invest in health, education, and infrastructure for Canadians, but not only for Canadians, but also the rest of the world if we want to live in peace. Right now, it is our belief that poverty now affects 3 billion people, half of the total human population. It's not only morally intolerable to Canadians, it's also a threat to the peace, health, and stability of the world in which Canadians must go about their business—in other words, our own self-interest.

During his election campaign, the Prime Minister promised that we will match the average OECD donor performance of 0.42%. We recommend that we should exceed the average of the OECD and should aim for 0.7%, which was a goal set by one of our own prime ministers a few decades back and was taken up by the world as a goal to reach. In order to do that by 2015, we recommend that Canadian aid be increased by 18% annually and that the government commit to a plan to meet the target of 0.7% of our gross national income. It's very important that we take the rest of the world along with us.

More aid by itself is not enough. We also need better aid, that is why we support Bill C-293, the Development Assistance Accountability Act. We urge the government and members of Parliament from all parties to support speedy passage of this bill.

Of course, we recognize that the Government of Canada is also directly concerned with the well-being of Canadians, their health, education, and standard of living, as your brief discusses. On this topic, we would like to point out that far from being able to adopt new technologies and seize market opportunities, many Canadians currently live in poverty, affected by poor nutrition, illiteracy, and institutional racism. Statistics tells us that one in six Canadian children are poor. Every month, 700,000 people in Canada use food banks. In Saskatchewan, the unemployment rate for aboriginal people is more than double the rate of non-aboriginals, and working aboriginal people have an average income almost 50% lower than the average income of non-aboriginal people.

In order to ensure that our citizens are healthy and have the right skills for their own benefit and for the benefit of their employers, the government must take action against poverty in Canada. A big step toward this goal would be increasing the national child tax benefit. The government also needs to get serious about developing a poverty reduction strategy for Canada that includes positive initiatives in housing, population health, and labour force development. Investment in poverty reduction will yield many economic and social benefits for us and everybody else.

I would like to draw your attention to the pitfalls of recent failed government cutbacks to the programs of literacy, court challenges, the Law Commission, Status of Women, reducing smoking among the aboriginal communities, and other programs. The negative impact on skills development, health, and protection of rights is fairly obvious.

Mr. Chairman, the document “Canada's Place in a Competitive World” recognizes that we face an uncertain, rapidly changing future, for which we must be prepared and proactive. SCIC would go one step further and say that in many ways the world is poised at the edge of environmental, social, and political disaster. Focusing solely on improving the competitiveness of Canadian business will not avert this disaster. In fact, shifting social and environmental costs away from business might make them more competitive today—

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Alan.

To Blaise Salmon and to Michael Loo, first of all, thank you for the endorsement of Bill C-293. We're out of the House and into committee and hope to encourage the government members to see the light. We'll see.

I picked up on your point with respect to microcredit. I was kind of surprised to see, and in fact I'm shocked by, the reduction in microcredit funding. So I take it that it would be a specific recommendation of yours that it not only be restored to original levels, but actually enhanced. I see that as probably one of the leading tools for a reduction of poverty. Is that fair?

[Blaise Salmon, President, Results Canada]

Thank you.

Results Canada is a citizens' advocacy group with chapters across the country. We work to generate the political will to end hunger and the worst aspects of global poverty.

We are a member of both the Canadian Council for International Co-operation and the Make Poverty History campaign, which my colleague Michael just mentioned and which has the support of almost a quarter of a million Canadians pressing the government to take more action against global poverty.

Canada's foreign aid is currently about 0.3% of gross national income, far below the 0.7% that is needed to reach the millennium development goals. These goals are intended to cut extreme poverty by 50% by the year 2015.

As Michael mentioned, during the election Prime Minister Harper promised to bring Canada's aid up to at least the average of other donor countries. However, this will require increases beyond those currently planned, so it seems that Canada, despite a long string of budget surpluses, will not reach even the average level of generosity promised by Mr. Harper. Clearly, we must do more.

In addition to more aid, of course, we must provide better aid. We also welcome the initiative of Mr. McKay with Bill C-293, the Development Assistance Accountability Act, which will bring Canada closer to better and more poverty-focused international aid.

In addition, we believe Canada should focus aid on those actions that have the greatest impact. I'd like to focus on two today: disease and microcredit.

Together, the three diseases malaria, tuberculosis, and AIDS kill six million people a year. This is a holocaust of preventable death each year. Malaria and tuberculosis in particular need additional funding from both CIDA and the World Bank. Canada has made important contributions to the global fund to fight AIDS, TB, and malaria, but more is needed to reach our fair share. More details and numbers are in the brief.

For the rest of my time, I'd just like to speak about microfinance, a topic that I hope will be of special interest to this committee.

As we sit here today, over 1.2 billion people struggle to survive on less than one U.S. dollar per day, a massive tragedy of human suffering and lost potential. Microcredit is probably the single most important solution to this problem. Microcredit provides the very poor with a no-collateral loan from as little as $3 to no more than a few hundred dollars to start or expand small self-employment businesses, such as selling clothes, making food to sell, operating bicycle rickshaws, or renting out cell phones. Repayment rates are typically over 98%.

In the harsh conditions of the informal economy that employs millions around the world, microcredit has proven to be a powerful tool to help people lift themselves out of poverty and improve their nutrition, their housing, and their education. Experiences from countries as diverse as Bangladesh and Bolivia show that extreme poverty among microcredit borrowers can be reduced by 70% within five years of entering a loan program.

In contrast to charity, which becomes more expensive with every person helped, microfinance becomes self-sustaining once it reaches a large scale. This is one of the unique strengths of microcredit as a force for ending extreme poverty. However, start-up funding is required.

Both CIDA and the World Bank give far too little to microcredit, well under 1% of their respective budgets. In CIDA's case, microcredit spending has actually declined 25% over the past five years, to about $30 million per year.

To raise the profile of microcredit, our group has organized the Global Microcredit Summit, to be held next month in Halifax, from November 12 to 15. The microcredit summit campaign was originally launched in 1997, and so far it has resulted in a tenfold increase in the number of poor people with access to microcredit around the world, from seven million people in 1996 to over 92 million people by 2005. Over 2,000 microfinance practitioners and borrowers from over 100 countries will attend the Global Microcredit Summit next month, which will be convened to share best practices and set a new goal for 2015, the target date for the millennium development goals.

I'd like to extend an invitation to the members of this committee to join me in Halifax to learn more. Microcredit is short-term aid that becomes self-sustaining after a start-up period of donor support. As such, it's one of the best examples of effective aid and must receive much more attention from Canada's aid program.

Thank you.

[Michael Loo, British Columbia Council for International Cooperation]

Good afternoon. Thank you.

My name is Michael Loo, and I am the director of the B.C. Council for International Cooperation. We are a membership-based organization for over 20 B.C. civil society organizations.

We are part of an international campaign called Make Poverty History. I am among the over 225,000 Canadians who signed on to the Make Poverty History campaign, believing it's time for Canada to do its part to end poverty globally and at home.

In my presentation, I will concentrate on two points. The first one is on more and better aid, and the second one is on ending child poverty in Canada.

Globally, 50,000 people die every day from poverty-related causes. It simply does not have to be this way. More and better aid is needed to help end extreme poverty and hunger, to enable every child to attend elementary school, and to create decent jobs.

As many of you know, the UN set a target of 0.7% of gross national income for foreign aid. Prime Minister Stephen Harper made an election promise to match the OECD donor performance average, which was 0.42% of gross national income in 2005. We believe it's time for the next federal budget to deliver on this election promise and to meet the 0.7% aid target by 2015.

The Canadian Council for International Cooperation has calculated that Canada could meet the 0.7% aid target by 2015 if there were an increase of 18% in the aid budget. The BCCIC and its members believe its time for the government to increase foreign aid so that we reach both the UN target and the millennium development goals by 2015.

We also need better aid. Canada needs to improve the quality of its aid, focusing on poverty eradication and on the promotion of human rights.

The BCCIC welcomes the passing at second reading of Bill C-293. We applaud the work of Mr. McKay and the bill, which calls for Canadian foreign aid spending to focus on ending poverty.

My last point is this. It's time to end child poverty in Canada. The next federal budget could take a big step towards eliminating child poverty by increasing the maximum child tax benefit to $4,900 per child. It's also time for the federal government to develop a national poverty reduction strategy.

To conclude, it's time to make poverty history. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

No, my intentions are that we do not spend January going through Bill C-293, seeing that January is usually a time in our constituency. We can ask for an extension, but not really. We want to get that in there by February, for sure.

Mr. Obhrai.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I just want to clarify, it seems to me what we need to do is amend the report to include Bill C-293, which has now been referred to the committee. And somebody who has a better handle on some of the process issues than I do, perhaps, can tell us for sure what the timeframe is by which we need to report back to the House.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I don't think we want to beat a dead horse here, but I think there's all the more reason to make sure we have a pretty sharp focus on ODA as part of our tool kit around democratic development, because we are now going to be dealing with BillC-293. It would make a lot of sense for us to go to a number of countries that do this extremely well, countries that see dealing with extreme poverty and the inadequacy of public infrastructure and so on as key to being able to open the door to democratic development. For us to not use the opportunity to begin in earnest to do the homework to roll it back into the discussion about Bill C-293 wouldn't make any sense at all.

I don't think we have an argument here; I think we just want to make sure we don't bypass the obvious opportunity to really focus on this in a pretty serious way as part of our European trip.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Obviously, a large portion of Canada's work on democracy promotion and democratic development is delivered through CIDA, but not all of it is, and there are other formats and methods for delivering democracy promotion and democratic development. So I think it's obvious that through the study we will look at some of them. But in terms of doing a comprehensive study, we should also be going beyond the box of what just CIDA does.

I will point out, though, that we are going to have bill C-293 coming before us on development aid, and if one wants to talk about those issues and the effectiveness of CIDA and so on, that's a perfect opportunity for that.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Congratulations, Mr. Chair, on your reappointment.

When we held the steering committee and were setting the agenda, it was noted that Bill C-293, which really concerns official international development assistance overseas, was coming before the House, but we didn't know the outcome at that time. It has now passed second reading, and this committee has responsibility to be seized with that legislation. I wonder if we can talk about the scheduling of that matter dealing with the legislation before the committee.

The Conservative Government

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again yesterday, the Conservatives demonstrated their insensitivity and their shocking lack of compassion for the underprivileged people of the planet by their overwhelming vote against Bill C-293. We have seen that the Conservative members from Quebec do not in any way uphold the values of other Quebeckers.

This bill does no more than affirm a principle that should govern any international aid from the Government of Canada. That is that the end goal should be the eradication of poverty.

This position is even more difficult to accept because, only a few months ago, the current Prime Minister was a co-signer, along with the leaders of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, of a letter addressed to the then Liberal prime minister making this very request.

In fact, this attitude of the Conservatives reinforces an impression strongly created by the Prime Minister during the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East. This is a warlike prime minister for whom humanitarian concerns are a foreign language.

You may rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that we will be here to translate for him.

Development Assistance Accountability Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-293 under private members' business.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from September 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say what a pleasure it is to speak on Bill C-293. I congratulate my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood for having the foresight to put forward this bill, a bill that over time has been supported by members from every single political party in this House, including that of the government.

Why the need? Over the last 50 years the international community has spent more than $2.3 trillion on aid. I am going to focus my comments on sub-Saharan Africa because that dark corner of the world is the only place in the world where lifespans are decreasing and poverty is increasing. In fact, 30 years ago, the average income in sub-Saharan Africa was twice that of Southeast Asia, but today it is half that. Indeed, as I said before, for many reasons it is the only place in the world where lifespans are decreasing and poverty is growing.

That is ironic given that sub-Saharan Africa possesses 40% of the world's natural resources. Why in the midst of the resource-rich countries is there this grinding poverty that is inhumane for any person? The reasons are actually quite complex, but there is much we can do. My colleague's bill would go a long way to focusing CIDA, to make it an organization focused to task and to do that which is required to alleviate this grinding poverty.

Corruption, conflict and a lack of capacitance: these three are major problems in sub-Saharan Africa. Unfortunately for too long our aid has been unfocused and scattered and too much of it has been spent here in Canada. That is why this bill put forward by my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood, contrary to the comments made by members of the government, would actually aid the Minister of International Cooperation. It would enable her to have an accountable, focused, effective agenda so that Canadian taxpayers' money would be spent most effectively to actually make poverty history.

What can we do? As a previous speaker said, let us focus on the millennium development goals. When we Liberals were in government we focused those efforts on 24 countries. How about if we also do the following? We can focus on primary health, primary education and water and food security, along with corruption and governance issues. Those are niches where we can make a big difference and those are things that we can do on the ground.

In my experience in 23 visits to Africa and working there as a physician, it has been profoundly tragic to see what takes place. Many of these countries are actually set up to fail. In fact, the aid nexus can be seen as a big funnel, with the big circle on the top where the money goes in and the little circle down at the bottom where the people are. Money comes in that way and frameworks are built, but the frameworks are given to countries that do not have any chance whatsoever of implementing them because they do not have the capacity to do so.

What we can do is take up the Canada corps, the plan that our previous prime minister put forward, use that as a vector to be able to pool the best and brightest we have in our country and use those human resources here in Canada for work abroad. We can do it because we have an interesting demographic issue in our own country. As our population ages, we have a collection of individuals who are young retirees.

If 60 is the new 40, then we have a population of people with the resources, the capabilities, the talents and the desire to work abroad. By working abroad they will be able to fill that capacity in these developing countries through working with the local populations, not only to provide the care and the expertise but also to train the people on the ground. We can do this in our own country.

With respect to administration, I would encourage the government to look at what UNAIDS has done in terms of developing an effective administrative structure. CIDA would be wise to look at the three ones: one oversight mechanism, one framework, and one administrative body. If it does that with respect to aid and development, we will be able to have a focused, effective and administratively functional aid department and we will have aid initiatives that will make a difference on the ground.

All of us have travelled abroad, I think, and for those who have had the privilege of being in developing countries, they will have seen and they will know of the incredible courage and talent that exists in these countries. In sub-Saharan Africa, the people just want to have an opportunity. They just want to be free of somebody trying to kill them. They just want to be free of somebody trying to shoot them. They just want to be free of people who are putting the people's money into their own pockets and thereby depriving them of the basic social structures that all of us enjoy in this country. In short, they just want to have a chance. They just want an opportunity.

On the last point, the AIDS pandemic, where the government did not put forth an opportunity at the AIDS conference in Toronto, here is something we could do. What if the Prime Minister were to stand up at the United Nations this week and state that Canada was going to plant its flag on the care of the pregnant women and the care of orphans?

Through focusing on the care of pregnant women, we can use it to build the health care human resources structures, the prevention, the education and the testing. We could deal with our partners and with the ARVs, the antiretroviral medications.

If we give these medications to a pregnant woman after her first trimester, the incidence of the transference of the virus to the fetus is reduced from 40% to 1%. It is a simple, lifesaving and effective plan that will save millions of lives and reduce the sea of orphans that is happening now and will only worsen as time passes.

There are 14 million orphans in sub-Saharan Africa right now. That number will balloon to 18 million in the next five years. In the next 10 years that number will be up to 25 million, with no end in sight.

We as a country can decide this week that we are going to stand up and make the care of pregnant women and orphans our contribution to the fight against AIDS. It is simple, effective, easy to do, easy to understand and focused. We could do this in the 12 to 18 countries in sub-Saharan Africa that we have chosen to focus on. In doing so, we will start the process of enabling the international community to have an effective plan on the ground that is going to save lives and turn the tide on this pandemic that will claim up to 250 million lives in the next 30 years.

Nothing in the history of our planet has threatened our species as much as this one virus. I would implore the government, and indeed I would beg and beseech the government, to take this opportunity to do this. We have wonderful people in CIDA with extraordinary capabilities. Eighty per cent of them, tragically, sit across the river in Hull. We need to get some of them out into the trenches. We need to get them into our embassies and high commissions. We need to get them working on the ground with the countries. We need to align our efforts with the principles and ideals that the people on the ground want, consistent with that which will be effective for the poor and the poorest of the poor.

If we were to focus on the five areas that I mentioned, primary health care, primary education, water security, food security, governance, and anti-corruption activity, we would be able to make a difference. We would be able to save lives. We would be able to ensure that Canadian taxpayers' moneys are going to be spent wisely.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the Liberal Party takes the official position that it does not trust Canadian parents to make the right decisions for their children. The phrase “beer and popcorn” I believe was used to criticize parental choice in this country.

Clause 7 of the bill gives to aid recipients in other countries the right to petition or challenge the type of aid being delivered. Yet when our new Conservative government proposed to give the same right to Canadian parents to make child poverty history in Canada by providing a $1,200 annual allowance for children under the age of six directly to their parents to use as they deem necessary, members opposite opposed this child poverty initiative.

As a member of Parliament with many of the same concerns when it comes to family as the the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood, I welcome the interest in international development that the bill demonstrates. However, as my colleague on this side of the House has already stated, while the intent of C-293 is good, it falls short in terms of practicality.

The bill as it is drafted could hamper Canada's ability to make a positive and effective contribution to international development. I will not go into the detailed reasons why the bill is unworkable since the hon. member for Crowfoot has laid them before the House so clearly.

Canada has a long tradition of international engagement and of meaningful contribution in international development and to poverty eradication. We were at the forefront of the very first formal international development initiative in the 1950s called the Colombo plan. Hundreds of Canadian people travelled around the globe in the early 1960s to serve as volunteers to help people in developing countries. Many of those volunteers went on to become leaders in private and public sectors. In fact, they set an example that has been followed by thousands of their compatriots every since.

Right at this moment, as we debate this bill in the House, a number of our fellow citizens, some from my own riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, are working around the world in Africa, Latin America, and yes, Afghanistan, lending a helping hand and making a difference.

The Government of Canada and Canadian citizens are committed to making lives better for people around the world. We do it because we are compassionate and caring, and because it is the right thing to do. Our fellow citizens have indicated they are supportive of Canada's efforts to eradicate poverty around the world. Consistent with their compassion for the less fortunate, the new Conservative Government of Canada is committed to providing much needed assistance to the world's poor. To achieve this objective, we are committed to poverty reduction as seen most clearly in our commitment to the millennium development goals.

The millennium development goals are the global yardstick against which the world can measure progress in key areas. These goals were agreed to by every country, including Canada, in September 2000 at the United Nations millennium summit. They continue to provide a framework for the global community to work together toward a common end.

The goals, which include reducing poverty and hunger, achieving basic education for all, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health and forming global partnerships for development, represent a minimum agenda for action.

I want to assure members of the House that our new Conservative government understands the importance of international development work. The Speech from the Throne clearly stated that the Prime Minister and our government are committed to making Canadian development assistance more effective. We are reviewing our aid to strengthen its focus and to put resources where the impact will be the greatest and to show tangible results.

If the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, has not concentrated on implementing the principles of aid effectiveness in our bilateral operations, and this is the opinion of the member as an MP in the old regime in bringing forward this private member's bill, our new Conservative government is certainly prepared to examine this position.

Canada is working with countries that are committed to improving governance and making effective use of resources, countries such as Tanzania and Ghana. I am pleased to say that our efforts at undertaking this innovative work are showing some very positive results. In Tanzania, for example, Canada and other donors have focused on primary education, which has yielded a very impressive outcome.

Since the program began in 2002, the enrolment rate has soared from 60% to more than 90%. More than 32,000 new teachers have been recruited and nearly half of all students in primary schools are girls. In fact, now that donors are aligning and coordinating their approach to basic education, we are seeing amazing results throughout Africa. Between 2000 and 2003 the number of children out of school dropped from 44 million to 40 million. When we consider that the population rate has continued to grow, this is a substantial achievement.

Even more important, the number of girls in school continues to grow. This is a very positive thing, not only for girls but for their communities as well. When girls are able to access education, it means improved family income, better agricultural productivity, better health awareness, delayed marriage and healthier children.

I could cite many other examples, but I understand that tonight my time is limited. Nevertheless, before I conclude I think it is important to put on the record the fact that the new Conservative government is committed to international development.

Our first budget allowed us to show how serious we are about advancing Canadian values and Canadian interests on the international stage. By 2010-11 we will have doubled international assistance from 2001-02 levels. In other words, it will grow to about $3.8 billion in 2006-07 and then to approximately $4.1 billion in 2007-08.

In conclusion, I welcome and appreciate the spirit in which the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood has proposed the bill. I look forward to continuing the debate about the provision of development assistance abroad and the debate here at home on how we can make poverty history here in Canada.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I begin by congratulating my colleague, the hon. member forScarborough—Guildwood for his interest in bringing forward private member's Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad.

The hon. member has a reputation that has put him at odds with other members of his party when it comes to children and family issues. I congratulate him for having the courage to stand up on certain issues when it has not always been popular to do with within his party.

It is a pleasure for me to participate in this evening's debate. I am on record both here and outside the House as supporting measures that assist families and children. One example is my public opposition to the clawback by the Liberal Party of Ontario of the national child benefit from some of our neediest children in Ontario.

The Renfrew County Child Poverty Action Network, CPAN, is asking for the public's help in its backpack campaign that supplies backpacks and shoes for children who may otherwise have to do without. Due to the overwhelming demand, there are so many children who are in need. In my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, children suffer from the clawback of that benefit. As a result CPAN is asking for the public's help to assist us in filling every request. Sixteen dollars buys backpack supplies for one child, and $20 to $40 will purchase shoes. I encourage those who are able to help to do so.

I am proud to support the plan of the new Conservative government to provide parents with a $1,200 annual allowance for each child under the age of six.

The aim of the choice for child care allowance is to support the choices of all parents of young children, whether they choose to work, study or stay at home with their children, live in a small community like Eganville, a rural community like Brudenell, a small city like Pembroke, or do shift work.

I point this out in the context of the private member's bill before us today for what is being argued by other groups that deal with child poverty.

The most effective way to help parents is not through another government program that eats up more cash by administering a bureaucracy rather than what is actually provided to the recipient. The most effective way to help is to provide the cash directly to whom we want to assist.

It was never the intent of our new Conservative government to fully subsidize the cost of institution based child care. Not all parents use or choose to use such care.

Like this bill before us today, if I understand--

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to express my full and unconditional support for Bill C-293 introduced by my colleague, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood. This bill fully addresses Canadians' concerns about the international aid Canada provides. That is why we should not only salute the initiative by the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, but also support its implementation.

Because of my various parliamentary duties, especially on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, I have long had the opportunity to talk with Canadians about this important issue, which concerns our country's commitments and responsibilities in the world.

Whether from members of the public who take the time to express their views individually or from associations involved in international aid and businesspeople, we always hear the same message, stated loud and clear. Our resources must be allocated with greater concern for effectiveness, transparency and good democratic governance.

In practical terms, this means that the vast majority of Canadians not only feel concerned by this major issue, but also demand that our international aid really promote the values that characterize our country. We must work to ensure that Canadian aid initiatives abroad are better targeted so that our country really attacks the poverty that afflicts so many peoples that are part of the human race.

Incidentally, young people strongly support this objective, as evidenced by the large number of international solidarity organizations that are found across the country, even in schools, and that youth intuitively gravitate towards, often very early in their education.

Our youth are therefore sending a very strong message that we as parliamentarians must listen to, because they represent the future of our nation and its role in the world.

In today's world, where so much economic, technological, scientific, cultural and democratic progress has been made, it is scandalous that peoples in whole areas of our planet still suffer such extreme poverty that they do not even have the bare necessities of life.

A long time ago, our government and others, as well as multilateral organizations such as the UN and many more, declared that they would work towards reducing poverty. However, as we have seen, it is not enough to make a declaration. Concrete action is required to achieve real results. In this regard Bill C-293represents a true step forward because it unequivocally states that “all Canadian development assistance abroad is provided with a central focus on poverty reduction”. This is crystal clear.

If passed in its present form, as I dearly hope, this bill will give us a legislative tool enabling parliamentarians to better oversee Canada's efforts to reduce poverty. This bill also seeks to provide better means of assessing the true impact of our international aid, in a context where accountability for management of public resources is increasingly important in the conscience of our citizens, and will lead to greater transparency.

Transparency is required for the Canadian government to provide its citizens with a clearer account of its management of international aid. I mentioned the goal of poverty reduction. However, there are other crucial aspects of this bill which make our support all the more important. These include the requirement to respect international human rights standards. Canadians are very clear on this issue: they do not want international aid to support oppressive political regimes that do not respect human rights, the rights of workers or the duty and obligations of any democratic country with respect to its citizens.

The state must seek to improve the well-being of its citizens. It must have no other purpose. Thus, international aid must never be used to line the pockets of tyrants who are incapable or unwilling to take on such a responsibility and one that we cannot shirk. This bill also requires the government to ensure that the criteria for Canadian foreign aid include respect for the principles of sustainable development.

Concerns regarding responsible management of natural resources and environmental conservation are also an important focus of our fellow world citizens, for today and the future, as well as the responsibilities they demand of their governments in those areas.

This is actually a matter of clarity or common sense. We see it all too often these days: the planet's ecological balance is seriously threatened by the destruction of resources and pollution has crossed our borders, only to now affect us.

In that sense, we Canadians are connected to everyone else on the planet, whether we like it or not. In terms of environmental degradation, the future of our entire species is at risk.

We must therefore take action in this area, as well, or we would be reneging on our responsibilities to future generations, who are just as entitled as we are to live in a healthy ecological environment.

This is why it is so important to include this element in Bill C-293, since we can no longer avoid this aspect of international aid. The issues inherent to human development are becoming increasingly interconnected, and resolving one depends more and more on resolving the other.

In conclusion, this bill contains an essential element of our international aid that not only must become an integral part of the responsibilities of any government in the world today, but that also addresses the concerns and desires expressed by so many of our fellow citizens. Accordingly, it is the duty of this Parliament to pass this bill and we should be privileged to do so.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in the House today and support this bill from the member for Scarborough—Guildwood. The bill is a central part of the four goals of the Make Poverty History campaign which asks us to enact legislation to make ending poverty the exclusive goal of Canadian foreign aid in a way that is consistent with our human rights obligations.

I have received correspondence and visits from hundreds of people in my riding who support this campaign. I want to make it clear that I strongly support the international campaign to make poverty history.

One of my constituents, 14-year-old Sally, has written to me several times on this campaign. She has also written to the Prime Minister and has urged the Prime Minister to show true national and international leadership on the issue of making poverty history. In her most recent e-mail to the Prime Minister, she says that all the eyes of the world are on us and that she wants Canada to show real international leadership by increasing support for HIV-AIDS prevention and treatment programs in developing countries, investing in public health care in developing countries, promoting access to affordable medicines and cancelling the debt of the poorest countries. We should heed the words of Sally and show the world that we are determined to act to end world poverty.

Members in this House should be supporting the bill, which is very similar to Bill C-293 put forward by my colleague, the member for Halifax, who is our party's international development critic.

In 1969, Prime Minister Pearson authored the report “Partners in Development”, in which he put forward the idea of the government providing 0.7% of gross national product to official development assistance, as well as 0.3% of ODA coming from the private sector. Since then, several countries have met this goal, including Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Most recently, several members of the G-8 agreed to reach that goal, the U.K., Germany, France and Italy, but sadly Canada did not make that commitment.

The history of ODA in Canada is quite sad. We have never reached our goal of 0.7%. The highest was in 1974-75 at 0.53% and peaked again in the late eighties and early nineties. During the Liberal government's term in office from 1993 to 2005 it cut official development assistance in half from 0.44% to 0.23%, which is quite shocking. Incredibly, Canada rated 14th out of the 22 OECD members in terms of official development assistance as a percentage of our gross national income.

Something else disturbing that began under the Liberals was the first move toward redefining ODA so that it would include not just humanitarian and development spending but also military assistance as well. We now see, through what is happening in Kandahar, Afghanistan, how that is pertinent today.

We must guard against changing the definition of official development assistance. Changing the definition could allow the government to artificially inflate its ODA figures by including some money spent on national defence or foreign affairs, which has nothing to do with reducing poverty, and then deem that to be part of the spending on ODA.

The government should not be able to change the goals of development assistance at a whim. The commitment to reducing poverty must be put down in legal form to bind the actions of government. The bill would guarantee that official development assistance would be focused on poverty reduction, which is a good thing. This would ensure that Canadian money was used to fight not just the effects but also the causes of extreme poverty. The bill, therefore, would give real hope to those in poverty.

It is interesting that the Conservative government is opposed to this legislation, because in February 2005 the Prime Minister endorsed the idea of this legislation in a joint letter to the former prime minister which was also signed by the leaders of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. I will quote from this letter:

We are writing to urge you to introduce legislation which establishes poverty reduction as the aim for Canada's Official Development Assistance (ODA). A legislated mandate for Canada's ODA would ensure that aid is provided in a manner both consistent with Canada's human rights obligations and respectful of the perspectives of those living in poverty.

That letter was signed by the current Prime Minister of Canada. The Conservatives should honour the promise of their leader and they should support this legislation.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in the debate on Bill C-293, an Act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad.

I have a deep interest in international development as the Bloc Québécois’ foreign affairs critic for Africa and Latin America.

I can assure the House that the Bloc Québécois takes very much to heart the effects of poverty and misery in the developing countries, especially the sub-Saharan countries.

We are lucky in the West to have been born in rich countries that have the resources to meet our basic needs, such as food, clothing and housing.

Quebec is often cited as a model on the international scene for its health, education and daycare systems, as well as its social safety net in general.

As we speak, a number of human tragedies are playing out in various parts of the world: armed conflicts, natural catastrophes, famines.

The Bloc Québécois has always supported increased international assistance that is fair and effective. Canada has the wherewithal to act and should do so. The Bloc supports Bill C-293 in principle. However, some aspects of it should be studied more extensively in parliamentary committee.

The bill proposes the establishment of a committee of experts in international assistance to be appointed by the minister responsible for this file.

I really wonder. Is it appropriate for members of the House of Commons to be on this committee?

Parliamentarians already have an opportunity to express their views and make their recommendations known in the House as well as in various committees.

Would it not be better for the members of this committee to be experts who are active in the field and can be found by the hundreds in different non-governmental organizations, religious organizations and the private sector that does business in these countries?

I have another question. Should the appointment of these specialists not be subsequent to a study of their candidacy by the members of Parliament and a vote in the House to approve the suggestions of the minister in charge?

If the minister has the ability to appoint the members of the committee, determine their remuneration, and dismiss them any time he likes, who in this House would really believe that these future committee members are impartial?

This is all the more true in view of the fact that some NGOs are very dependent on federal government funding for their work in the field and will feel obliged to keep quiet in order not to displease their funder.

Another question arises as well. Will the moneys allocated to the establishment of this committee be taken from the funds, already too paltry, that we have invested in international assistance?

Let us hope not, since Canada currently is not even able to meet its Millennium Goals commitment to invest 0.7% of its GDP in international assistance by 2015.

That is why this morning, my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, the Bloc Québécois critic on international assistance, tabled a motion to force the Government of Canada to respect its commitments on this matter.

The motion states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should improve Canada's contribution to international assistance through a commitment firstly to achieving the target of 0.7% of GDP by 2015 by increasing in a stable and predictable manner amounts for government development assistance, and, secondly by enshrining in law that the mandate and purpose of government development assistance is poverty reduction based on the principles of the United Nations Millennium Goals.

Last spring, the Auditor General of Canada criticized the way Canada spends its money on international assistance.

The purpose of Bill C-293 is to enhance transparency in the department, but nothing is proposed for improving the internal management of funding at CIDA.

Perhaps the panel of experts proposed here would not be necessary if CIDA resolved its internal management problems once and for all and if the Government of Canada finally adopted a concrete and effective plan of action for the distribution of its international assistance.

In my opinion, Bill C-293 raises another problem and that is the way it defines development assistance, limiting it to poverty reduction and sustainable development.

None of the other six targets put forward by the UN in its Millennium Goals has been emphasized in terms of Canada's action for eliminating poverty in world.

It is important to recall these goals, which are all necessary to put an end to poverty in developing countries.

First is the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger. We know that more than a billion human beings live on less than one dollar a day and that 800 million of these people do not have enough to eat and cannot function day to day. One quarter of all children under the age of five in developing countries are malnourished. This starvation has long-term consequences, making these children frail and vulnerable to sickness and disease.

Next is the achievement of universal primary education, because 115 million children of school age do not have the opportunity to attend primary school.

In addition, the promotion of gender equality in developing countries is more than necessary. Here are some examples: family violence; crimes of passion; trafficking of women; female circumcision; early and forced marriage; elimination of young girls through infanticide; violence related to dowry; acid throwing; and violence related to sexual exploitation. Such is the daily lot of millions of women in the world.

In terms of the infant mortality rate, the United Nations calculates that more than 11 million children die every year in the world. Those 11 million victims equal the entire population of Ontario.

Thirty thousand children die every day from causes directly related to poverty. The loss of those 30,000 children is the equivalent of the city of Alma disappearing on a Monday, and the city of Mirabel vanishing on Tuesday, and the population of Val-d'Or wiped out on Wednesday. In other words, there are far too many victims.

There is an enormous amount of work to be done in order to improve the health of mothers in poor countries. Mothers are generally the last line of protection for children of these countries in the face of poverty. The death of mothers during pregnancy, delivery or soon after the birth of a child leaves infants in a very fragile state in the face of extreme poverty or exploitation.

HIV-AIDS is also a fierce adversary to the advancement of women in Africa. More than 60% of the people infected are women and that has countless repercussions, in particular, reduced education of children, a decrease in per capita GDP, and more food crises, because women are at the heart of the agriculture industry in those countries.

I must also mention the struggle to eradicate such diseases as malaria, tuberculosis and HIV-AIDS, which is the main cause of early death in sub-Saharan Africa, and the fourth leading cause in the world.

As for promoting environmental sustainability, Canada is truly pathetic right now thanks to Conservative inaction. Canada's withdrawal from Kyoto reveals the Minister of the Environment's lack of awareness and vision. Two weeks ago, she decided not to act on Canada's commitment to poorer countries to help them reduce their greenhouse gases. This proves that this government does not care about our planet's and our children's future.

The last goal is to establish a global development partnership that includes all countries struggling against poverty. That way, all human beings, whether they are born in Quebec or in Rwanda, would be guaranteed the basics of life.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my support and my party's support for bill C-293. I hope that my colleague's motion will resonate with this government that, since it came to power, has been boasting about its transparency, accountability and integrity.

This is the same government that, as soon as it came to power, tore up the Kyoto protocol, turned its back on poor countries seeking to help stop global warming despite their many social problems, spent billions of dollars on arms, but failed to keep its word on the millennium development goals, turned its back on its commitment to correcting the fiscal imbalance with Quebec and reneged on its promise to establish a new program for older worker adjustment.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the ruling given a few moments ago by your honour concerning the need for a royal recommendation for the bill now under consideration, I want to inform the House and the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood that the government is not prepared to advise Her Excellency to issue a royal recommendation for Bill C-293. I knew the House would want to know this and this is the first opportunity I have had to so inform the House.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was certainly one of the concerns that our parliamentary secretary brought out at first reading. We appreciate the ruling on that.

I do appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-293. I also want to thank the member for Scarborough—Guildwood for introducing a bill, flawed as it may be, to create legislation for Canadian development assistance. Indeed, the bill introduces proposals that are very close to some of the issues that have been raised by the government.

Development is a moving target. Today, more than ever before, we have a better grasp of what works. As an individual country and with the international community, we have embarked on a complex journey that is leading to more effective aid, aid that can better harness the energies and talents of developing countries, and that can truly make a difference in the lives of the poor. There is a vision in Canada for aid programs.

We have a vision of donors and partners working together to achieve the reduction of poverty, of mutual accountability, of trust and respect, and of good governance which makes all of these things possible. However, visions must also be practical if they are going to work. Canadians want us to be certain that this bill in fact actually does guide us to the delivery of that vision.

We have already heard in the first hour of debate in the House on the bill that there are many members of Parliament who do not feel that the bill facilitates Canada's vision of our federal government's aid program. I would remind members of the House that the Speech from the Throne stated that the government is committed to “a more effective use of Canadian aid dollars.”

The government wants to ensure that we do the right thing with our aid money in putting this vision into practice. We will ensure that aid dollars are provided to the countries that have created a climate in which progress can be achieved. We will ensure that such progress can be achieved as efficiently as possible and that the people who most need the help will receive the assistance they need to find their way out of poverty.

I have yet to be convinced that Bill C-293 will allow us to build a dynamic and effective development assistance program, but we are keeping an open mind and we are anxious to participate in the committee that perhaps will study the bill in the event that it is passed at second reading. We want to ensure, and I know all members of the committee want to ensure, that it gets a fair hearing in committee.

The bill is very complex and seems to contain a number of mixed messages that may not bring precision to Canada's development assistance. If our assistance is going to be effective, our objectives must be simple and clearly defined. Yet, this does not appear to me to be a simple bill.

As I said, in the first hour of debate we heard comments that some are concerned about the possibility of escalating administrative costs as the result of the bill. Development assistance should reach the people for whom it is intended. We need to be careful that Canada's aid dollars, which ultimately are Canadian taxpayers' dollars, are not being tied up in lengthy process or procedures in Ottawa.

The bill's proposed petition system, reporting requirements and advisory committee would add layers of bureaucracy into an already well-developed system. They could, quite conceivably, turn current consultative processes into cumbersome Canada-focused procedures.

The system, as proposed in the bill as I read it, would risk the focus or could risk taking the focus off of the recipient country and put it back onto Canada. I would argue that the recipient nation's particular circumstances, that of poverty or need, should always be the focus in terms of what is needed.

Our new Conservative government has made the enhancement of accountability within government one of our highest priorities. We are committed to strengthening the rules and institutions that ensure transparency and accountability to Canadians.

I am concerned that the bill may bring considerable confusion to those accountability rules and institutions that we have created in government.

I hope that the foreign affairs and international development committee, the committee that will conduct the hearings on this bill if it is passed by the House, will study carefully the roles and responsibilities of the Minister of International Cooperation. In my view, the minister's extensive roles and responsibilities are worthy of great consideration. I have not seen that reflected in this bill.

The bill adds to the already considerable reporting requirements of the minister and may not help clarify in legislation what she does in practice. We do not want to simply add to her administrative responsibilities without demonstrating real value-added to Canada's aid program.

This bill would give considerable oversight to a committee of unelected individuals who would function on the basis of complaints from aggravated individuals in other countries. I am not sure of the extent that this may be really counter to the letter and the spirit of the democratic process and whether or not this comes close to making the minister responsible or accountable to an advisory committee rather than being accountable to Parliament and ultimately to Canadians.

The bill would require the minister to report on how she has implemented the guidance of this advisory committee rather than how she has implemented the guidance of the will of Parliament. I am not sure Canadians support having our cabinet ministers accountable to authorities outside of the parliamentary precinct and in reality outside of our country.

The bill would remove from Canada the authority to define development assistance and would place it within the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD, a high level, multilateral organization not based in Canada, not based in Ottawa, but based in Paris.

While Canada values highly the role of the OECD and is an active supporter of greater collaboration between OECD members, it is clear that the current formulation would result in Canada having reduced control over where it targets development assistance.

The last time I checked, Canadians want control over the taxpayer dollars we send around the world as foreign aid. Under this bill Canada's development assistance program would be subject to the rules of an unelected institution. Such a move could potentially restrict both programming and the countries to which development assistance may be given.

For accountability purposes, it is extremely important that Canada be able to choose where its development assistance can be most effectively utilized. Experience has taught us that countries that promote sound governance, democracy and human rights, are more likely to be able to make good use of Canadian aid dollars and that we can make a true difference in those countries.

Canada's aid program has had results by taking this approach. We should be careful about undermining the effectiveness of the aid program that already is working. Someone said that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I would suggest that there have to be some changes. Our committee is looking at that and has looked at that. We do not want to diminish the effectiveness of our programs.

CIDA has concentrated on implementing the principles of aid effectiveness in our bilateral operations and has worked effectively with countries that are committed to improving governance and making effective use of resources. With our assistance, countries such as Tanzania and Ghana are beginning to show results. There is more to be done in these countries. There is more to be done in other countries in terms of improving and focusing Canada's aid program.

I welcome the intent and the spirit of this bill. I believe the member, as he puts this forward, will recognize the concerns we have with this bill. If it passes the vote at second reading in the House, the foreign affairs and international development committee will look forward to working on this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

On June 7, 2006, during debate on Bill C-293, an act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad, which is standing in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform raised a point of order to argue that this bill requires a royal recommendation.

The parliamentary secretary began his intervention by pointing out that clause 6 of the bill would oblige the Minister of International Cooperation to establish an advisory committee for international development cooperation with remuneration and expenses for members of the committee to be set by the minister. In arguing that this provision has financial implications, the parliamentary secretary referred to the Speaker's February 8, 2005 ruling where it was stated that a similar provision in a bill was judged to require a royal recommendation.

The parliamentary secretary continued to explain that clauses 7 to 10 of the bill also described functions of this committee and obligations of the minister that entailed new expenditures. He described these functions as receiving, recording and replying to petitions, as well as preparing and submitting reports.

The Chair has reviewed this matter carefully and agrees that the establishment of the advisory committee for international development cooperation provided for in clause 6 clearly would require the expenditure of public funds in a manner and for a purpose not currently authorized. Similarly, the provisions in clauses 7 to 10, which describe the functions of the advisory committee with regard to the process of petitioning and reporting, are also functions which would require the authorization of spending for a new and distinct purpose.

As such, clause 6 and clauses 7 to 10 cause the bill as a whole in its current form to require a royal recommendation. Accordingly, I will decline to put the question on third reading of this bill unless a royal recommendation is received. Today, however, the debate is on the motion for second reading which will proceed as scheduled.

The House resumed from June 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

moved that Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill which I hope we will have the opportunity to debate thoroughly over the next hour and that members will see fit at the end of the hour's debate to support the bill. It is a bill about accountability and transparency, favourite buzzwords of members opposite. The bill is a challenge to the government to come good on its rhetoric.

In the last Parliament the foreign affairs committee moved the following report:

We are writing to urge you to introduce legislation which establishes poverty reduction as the aim for Canada's Official Development Assistance (ODA). A legislated mandate for Canada's ODA would ensure that aid is provided in a manner both consistent with Canada's human rights obligations and respectful of the perspectives of those living in poverty.

I submit that Bill C-293 does exactly that.

We are not, however, simply urging more dollars be spent. Those dollars must also be spent effectively and in ways ensuring more accountability. In our view, this legislation should include an unequivocal statement of purpose that poverty reduction is the central lens through which Canada's aid program should be delivered. Key elements of a legislated mandate must include mechanisms for monitoring; accountability and reporting to Parliament; and enhanced public transparency. Such legislation would increase the effectiveness for Canada's aid contribution of aid spending, a more focused accountable approach to more and better aid.

That was the 12th report of the committee. When it submitted the report, it referenced a letter that was signed by the then leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister, the then and current leader of the Bloc Québécois, and the then and current leader of the NDP.

Subsequently, the House adopted the 12th report of the committee, and referred to a letter signed by the then leader of the opposition, the leader of the Bloc Québécois and the leader of the NDP.

I am quoting directly from the letter:

To accepting and to act upon the near-unanimous recommendations of Committee witnesses--

It is not just the committee's report. It is based upon the near unanimous recommendations from the witnesses who appeared before the committee from 2003 to date. It goes on:

--to honour the Millennium Development Goals and to commit immediately, through a plan, to increase Canada’s aid budget by 12 to 15% annually to achieve an aid level of 0.5% of Canada’s Gross National Product by 2010 and 0.7% of Canada’s GNP by 2015;

The letter also says:

To improve our aid effectiveness by strengthening the partnership with civil society, both in Canada and overseas;

To introduce legislation prior to the next federal budget which establishes poverty reduction as Canada's Official Development Assistance (ODA) goal, as outlined in the historic February 17, 2005 letter from all Opposition Leaders to the Prime Minister, to ensure that aid is provided in a manner consistent with Canada's human rights obligations and respectful of the perspectives of those living in poverty.

This bill cannot be about more aid as that would require a royal recommendation, but it can be about better aid, more focused aid. I respectfully submit that is exactly what this bill is about.

This bill cannot deal with an increase in development aid as this requires a royal recommendation. However, this bill does deal with improving development aid.

The scheme of the bill is to set up an advisory committee which shall advise the minister of his or her development assistance. The committee will hold a candle, so to speak, to the ODA proposals and ask the minister three questions. The first and most important question is, does the ODA contribute to poverty reduction? The second question is, does it take into account the perspectives of the poor? The third question is, is it consistent with Canada's international rights obligations?

The idea of this bill is to bring focus to poverty reduction consistent with Canadian values, foreign policy and international human rights standards.

The purpose of this bill is to concentrate on reducing poverty and promoting compatibility with Canadian values, foreign policy and international human rights standards.

At one level it may be argued that this bill is so vague that one could drive a Mack truck through it. On the other hand, one could expect that the government, or more accurately the department, would probably say that it hamstrings the minister.

It could be argued that the bill is too vague to carry out the changes required to improve development aid. For its part, the government, specifically the department, will attempt to show that the bill will handcuff the minister needlessly.

My argument is that it does neither. It does not hamstring the minister and it is not so vague as to be useless. I am trying to ensure that our ODA is not merely flavour of the month. It seems to me that if the committee were to force the minister to justify his or her proposed aid in light of the three questions I read, it would actually help the minister avoid the flavour of the month pressures.

Any minister, whether a Liberal minister or a Conservative minister, has all kinds of requests for ODA. Every request seems to be more compelling than the last request. In my view, the minister now has the perfect response and the perfect response is this legislation. Effectively, ministers would be able to say that they are legislated by this bill to answer three questions before this advisory committee. They, therefore, cannot divert their ODA money to things such as security interests, anti-terrorism initiatives or other foreign policy initiatives no matter how worthy.

Canada cannot be all things to all people at all times. From time to time others have made the observation that from time to time we are frequently nothing to everybody. From time to time we have depleted our budgets on peripheral issues and not been as effective as we could have been or should have been.

We know that civil society is crucial to the delivery of aid. If it were not for organizations such as World Vision Canada raising matching funds and developing donors, our effectiveness would diminish substantially. That is why Bill C-294 has received such wide support.

The Canadian Council for International Co-operation and my friend Gerry Barr have been of tremendous help. Literally dozens of letters and dozens of e-mails testify to the importance of the bill. In fact, quite a number of my colleagues over the course of this day and previous days have come up to me and said that they support this initiative in part because of the letters, e-mails and telephone calls that they have received.

Bill C-293 is at the top of mind for many Canadians and many Canadian organizations. There are 178 MPs in this House who signed the reduction of poverty initiative, making poverty history. They signed a much more comprehensive document. One element of that comprehensive document had to do with accountability for aid. The are 178 MPs that appear on the face of it to be behind this initiative. Behind those 178 MPs are literally thousands of Canadians.

Bill C-293 also enjoys the support of the NDP. The hon. member for Halifax has a similar bill and I assume she will be speaking in favour of this bill. The member for Prince Edward—Hastings of the Conservative Party has a bill of similar nature and principle which tries to achieve the same purpose. I am given to understand that the Bloc may also have a similar bill for consideration shortly.

We also have the report of the foreign affairs committee and the concurrence of the House in the last Parliament. Finally, we have a letter sent to the former Prime Minister signed by all three opposition party leaders including the current Prime Minister.

Where is the resistance? I think we would find some bureaucratic resistance to this private member's bill calling for transparency and accountability. Clearly, it limits bureaucratic ability to direct aid, aside from an accountability to this committee.

There will be arguments that it requires a royal recommendation to give a per diem to committee members. God forbid that we should offer to pick up the expenses of these self-sacrificing Canadians.

Then we will hear bureaucratic-speak such as “We need to get this right and we need to do this carefully”. That is bureaucratic code language for “Let us bury this private member's bill in la la land in the hope that Parliament will dissolve prior to royal assent”.

Then we will hear arguments like “We do not like petitions from non-citizens telling us that aid is being given in a fashion inconsistent with the purposes of this act”. Heaven forbid that the recipients of the aid should actually have some say about how it is being used.

Then we will hear arguments about the definition of aid, whether we should use the OECD definition or a made in Canada definition. I can just see Stephen Lewis rolling his eyes as we speak saying something like, “Oh my goodness, people are dying and you are arguing about definitions”.

There will be other arguments, some even sincere and frankly would lead to an improved bill, but mostly the arguments from the government's side will be designed to sideline the bill. It seems to me that a government that prides itself on transparency and accountability is being supremely hypocritical by not supporting this bill.

I would like to end by quoting from a report called “Establishing a legal basis for Canada's official development assistance”, written by Vicky Edgecombe in January 2005. She ends her report, which I would recommend for members to read, in this fashion:

If legislation regarding Canada's ODA were to incorporate the above-mentioned recommendations, it would help to set Canada apart as a leader among OECD nations. In effect, it would demonstrate that Canada is serious about addressing global poverty as the overriding development objective in the 21st century.

I therefore leave members with this question. Does Canada want to be a leader on this issue or does Canada want to be a follower?

Development Assistance Accountability Act

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that Canadian development assistance abroad is provided with a central focus on poverty reduction in a manner consistent with Canadian values, Canadian foreign policy and international human rights standards.

The minister will be obliged to advise the House as to whether this contributes to poverty reduction, takes into account perspectives of the poor, and is consistent with Canada's international human rights obligation. This bill flows directly from the report of the foreign affairs committee in the last Parliament.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)