Foreign Affairs Committee on June 21st, 2006

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

What we are now looking at is the amended motion, is that right? We're not dealing with the original motion; we're dealing with the amended motion. So I don't want to use up a lot of time talking about the improvements over the original.

I think it wisely doesn't commit to an actual figure of double, but recognizes that the continuing crisis is enormous, that many other countries have acknowledged this. We know that in terms of peacekeeping contributions Europeans have committed to larger numbers, recognizing the need to be very much available to deal with emerging crises, and so on. So I think it expresses a general direction that we want to express, acknowledging this situation.

I think in terms of our own knowledge of the situation, having heard from many witnesses over the last couple of years...even in terms of Canada's contribution to Congo, it so utterly, totally pales in relation, for example, to the massive commitment that we're making to Afghanistan. Yet I don't think there are many people who would disagree with the characterization of the Congo as really the worst crisis on earth at the moment, that it is not commanding the kinds of resources and attention that it desperately needs.

In Afghanistan, Canada alone committed to $3 billion in military expenditures, $1 billion over 10 years in humanitarian expenditures, and if you add it together with the two figures that you referred to—$50 billion and $29 million—it's still tiny in relation to what even we ourselves should be looking to put forward.

So I think it is an expression of a general direction of this committee that it's very supportable to vote for this.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

We could go to a debate on this whole situation and say that's only the war on terrorism, and this could be that. Suffice it to say I do not want members to go from here not recognizing the fact that we recognize there is a crisis in Congo today. We do recognize that, and we are there. We are looking, with the multilaterals.... I've just highlighted what we believe at this stage is a clear transition, with the government helping them to go out there with all the resources, working with our multinational partners that are there. We'll see how it goes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Van Loan.

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

I too think that we all share the view that there are problems in Sudan. That's why Canada is so committed there, both in terms of our support through the UN, the $15 million a year, and the $29 million a year. That's $193 million over the past five years.

When Madam McDonough compares it with some of those 10-year numbers on Afghanistan, if you do that kind of number over 10 years you're talking $50 million a year on peacekeeping, $30 million a year on aid. That would add up to a very significant amount of support over a similar period of time for Congo; it gets it up there.

I'm very concerned that we come across sounding like we don't believe the UN is doing their job in a case where they actually are showing quite a bit of responsiveness. In addition to being the largest UN peacekeeping mission in the world right now, they've actually voted, on three separate occasions in the past nine months--September 6, 2005; October 28, 2005; and April 10, 2006--to increase the deployments of peacekeeping forces and police to Congo.

I don't want to stand here criticizing the UN when it appears to be, based on three occasions in just the past nine months, responding to the need. There is a suggestion in the motion that we should double our aid; it is a specific doubling of aid. I think that again does not show respect to the generous aid that has been going there so far.

I am worried about how prescriptive that is. It's not at all a question of disagreeing with the sentiment; it's a question of how the motion is framed and what it says about the good job the UN is trying to do there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madam Guarnieri.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

I will be very brief.

I don't want to regurgitate the reasons that Diane and Alexa have made, but I think Keith has made a very compelling case about the fatalities of civilians. So obviously I support this motion.

My colleague Bryon has a friendly amendment, and I'm hoping the government will reconsider using this wording, if the chair would agree to allowing him to speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We're already dealing with one amendment. Is this a friendly amendment?

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Based on what our colleagues across the table have said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Wilfert.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

The friendly amendment, noting Mr. Obhrai's comment, is: "That the Committee, noting that the government recognizes the severity of the humanitarian crisis in the Congo, and therefore asks its representatives", etc.

So we are in fact accepting what you've said. You've said the government has noted the situation. Here it says it: "recommends that the government recognize". What I'm suggesting is that the committee, noting or recognizing what you've said, then asks for the following. So we are noting what you've said, which is that there is a crisis.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

The problem is that you're asking for a doubling of funding for this thing.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

With no specific date at the present time.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

So we have a problem.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Are you open to accepting that friendly amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, that's the key here. We have to be careful, because we're bringing in a motion that's amended before we even see the motion, before the chair even sees the motion. I'll accept that. But now we are making another subamendment--

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

No, it's just a friendly amendment. All it says is that we are now accepting what the government has said, which is that they recognize the problem.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Chair, we're trying to provide flexibility for the government, so that they don't feel--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Obhrai, one moment. The subamendment is not necessarily being amended to satisfy every component of your concerns, but can you accept the subamendment? And then we will vote on the motion.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

At this stage, with all these amendments, we would like to see them in writing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We have a clerk who can write it out--

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

No, we need some notice on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

--and you may still vote for or against the motion, but the subamendment is recognizing what--

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

It's simply trying to be helpful, after hearing this concern.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I think it's a good subamendment. I think it's a good amendment. Can we vote?

Mr. Patry.

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

I just want to say that everyone recognizes the severity of the humanitarian crisis. We're not criticizing anything. We're not criticizing the United Nations and what they're doing; we're just requesting them to increase the number, because the number they have right now is not sufficient. We've asked them to increase it. And because Canada, in a certain sense, cannot supply soldiers over there.... The Casques bleus are over there. We are saying we should improve our commitment of money, because we're not going to ask somebody else to give the United Nations more soldiers and not provide monetary assistance.

It's a clear motion. If you're telling us that an amendment like the one Mr. Wilfert is bringing up is not enough for you, we're just going to pass and ask for the vote--that's it.