Evidence of meeting #62 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was work.
A video is available from Parliament.
Director, Democracy, Commonwealth and Francophonie Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
It is very difficult for me to answer that question, because, essentially, the minister has to decide what tools he wants to have available to him for implementing policies he has himself decided on.
I think it is important that this question was asked because it certainly had to be asked.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Let us talk about the decision to abolish Rights and Democracy. The Minister of Foreign Affairs said that this work could be done by the government. Concerns were stated by my colleagues. They said that a quasi-independent organization like Rights and Democracy could have more credibility than the government itself, which is a political entity. The minister also said that this work could be done by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Do you know what kind of work can be done by the department?
You also mentioned various organizations that could do the same work. Do you have the names of specific organizations whose work could replace the work done by Rights and Democracy under its mandate?
Director, Democracy, Commonwealth and Francophonie Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I mentioned a few organizations. I am going to give you some examples that we work quite closely with. I mentioned International IDEA and the Parliamentary Centre, and I talked about the Carter Center. It is easier for a government to work directly with those organizations today than it did in the past.
In terms of the fact that the minister said that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade could take over part of the functions of Rights and Democracy, I want to point out that this is what we are working on at present, at the request of the minister's office. We are going to submit options for what the department could do, and in what circumstances, in order to resume the work done by Rights and Democracy, if only in part, in the current circumstances and in accordance with the government's objectives.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses as well for being present.
I want to get beyond the blame game here. I'm very appreciative that you're present, and the work that your fellow colleagues have done is commendable. But you mentioned a very important aspect of why this decision was made, and that is the question of the tools that are necessary to accomplish the goal. So I'd like you, for the benefit of those who would want to place blame for political, partisan reasons about why this is closing, to explain to them the difference between the situation in 1988 in these countries with the presence of NGOs and the presence of government and the situation we have today, which led to this decision surrounding the question of whether we have the tools.
If you could clearly articulate that, I'd really appreciate it.
Director, Democracy, Commonwealth and Francophonie Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I hope I can be clear, then. Thank you for your question.
I think essentially, because of the much larger role that NGOs play on the international scene, the capacity they've developed in the past, and communication in general, plus because of the mentality—if you would allow me to say so—we have this capacity to engage much more directly with different organizations on the issues we're dealing with and the needs we are facing. This is much easier than it used to be in the past. NGOs in general are accepted now as legitimate partners of government in having a role to play, and it's much easier for us to be in contact with them than it was in the past. We need also, I think, to be more focused. We're facing challenges that are quite new, such as those we're seeing with what's happening in the Middle East and North Africa, for example. There is also the question of how we can be really efficient in doing this.
One thing I personally found striking was the difficulty in simply getting there rapidly and getting a good clear view of what is needed, with our partners—because we need to work with our partners—and then making specific proposals about where Canada can really make a difference. These are the sorts of challenges we are facing in democracy support today.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
So it sounds as though the elimination of Rights and Democracy actually provides us with a tool that is more flexible, because we're able to reach out and partner more efficiently with organizations that already have a clear view of what might be needed. Is that an accurate observation?
Director, Democracy, Commonwealth and Francophonie Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I don't want to pre-empt what we as officials will present to ministers, but certainly at our level we see that we have a problem. It's something we need to address. We'll make recommendations to ministers, hopefully rapidly, about the fact that it is a challenge. The world is changing so rapidly that if we want to be able to identify rapidly not only what we can do but also what sort of resources we have in Canada to match the challenges, we need to be able to act very rapidly on our own to identify, make recommendations, and then look at different partners. The partner we need for one situation might not be the partner we need for another situation. So these are the sorts of challenges we are facing. We will be making recommendations to ministers along those lines.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
I appreciate that. I've been to some of these countries, like the Republic of Congo, for example, and I have to say that the Government of Canada is viewed by many of these countries as a very good partner.
A partnership between these countries is respected, and really the focus is to continue to work together to stop some of these violations from occurring. I know that while I was there I was commended on the fact that some of our businesses are also in place in these countries, which helps to bring about some of the watchdog attitude to help prevent human rights abuses and that kind of thing.
I heard that Canada, as a whole, was very well received in these countries. Have you heard the same?
Director, Democracy, Commonwealth and Francophonie Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Yes, certainly, and many times. In fact if I may add, Mr. Chair, I was in Kinshasa not long ago in the context of the upcoming Summit of La Francophonie. We are raising those questions, those concerns, we have about democracy and human rights very forcefully.
In fact we are taking the occasion of the summit to do that, on the basis that as a member of la Francophonie we've made commitments to democracy and human rights, and the host country has to abide by those commitments. It is a very efficient way for us to reinforce the dialogue we have, and indeed Canada is very much respected on this.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Ms. Glover.
Thank you, Mr. Nicoloff. Thank you very much for being with us today and responding to our questions. We appreciate that.
We will bring the next officials forward with respect to division 34, Health of Animals Act. We have officials from CFIA here with us.
Welcome to the committee. Thank you for being here. We look forward to your overview of these clauses, and then we'll have questions from members.
Ms. Barnes.
Colleen Barnes Executive Director, Domestic Policy Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Thank you, Chair.
I'm Colleen Barnes, the executive director of domestic policy at CFIA.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with members of the committee today. I am here to describe the proposed changes to the Health of Animals Act.
Before I begin, I want to be clear that these changes will have no impact on food safety in Canada and our continued strong food safety system.
In general the proposed changes to the act would allow the minister to declare primary and secondary control zones in order to manage animal disease outbreaks, foreign and domestic, in Canada.
The objective of this is to provide for additional mechanisms to address animal diseases. For the most serious diseases, eradication is and will continue to be our initial response. Often they can include the quarantine of farms and other premises, and in many areas we are successful in eradication. However, in some instances a disease can become so well established that eradication measures are no longer possible and quarantine is no longer effective.
The approach we are proposing in these amendments will provide us with new measures to respond to these types of situations.
Mr. Chair, I can go clause by clause, or pause here and take questions from members.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
What we've been doing generally is going to questions by members. We appreciate that overview.
We'll start with Mr. Marston, please.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This question is a little off topic from where you've just been. Do you govern the transportation of animals, for instance, if they're travelling to a slaughterhouse or for sale out of the general—
Executive Director, Domestic Policy Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
We do have humane transportation regulations, yes.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
One of the things that was brought to my attention recently is that sometimes animals, particularly cattle, can go close to 30 hours without water. That was a concern to the individual who raised it with me, and I thought that while I have you here I'd take advantage of it.
Would that be an area we could look to you for help?
Executive Director, Domestic Policy Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
We do regulate that area.
NDP
Executive Director, Domestic Policy Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
No, not at all.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Okay. With the changes you're talking about here, what would the financial impact be to your department?
Executive Director, Domestic Policy Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
This one doesn't have a financial dollar figure attached to it because it's a new tool that the agency is going to have at its disposal. As I said, when we have a serious disease we try to eradicate. We have to go in there and take intensive samples. If it turns out that we can't eradicate, this will now allow us to move to a management approach, so we save money because we don't have to intensively manage the area.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
It's a little concerning. It's not anything out of your answer but the fact of why is this in a budget bill, if we don't have any financial impact? It just strikes me as being very strange. We would think this should be a separate bill someplace else.
In fact, I met with some people who were talking about the various types of cages for animals, for instance. They put nine hens in an area where they don't even have the space to spread their wings, for instance, or the de-billing, or some of the other things that happen to these animals.
You would think that if we were going to get into some kind of a look at the legislation, we'd do it in a more holistic way. I can't see why it's in a budget bill.
Executive Director, Domestic Policy Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Mr. Chair, there are savings associated with this new tool. That's why it's in this piece of legislation.
It's hard to quantify, because it will depend on the disease and the situation in the future.
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
When you were assessing the need for the change, at that point was there some exploration of potential savings?
A lot of the things that have been happening, resulting in this bill, are the result of the government saying to all departments that they have to find some savings. If you were looking at this as a potential place for savings, what methodology did you use? Or are there any statistics at all?