Evidence of meeting #20 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was going.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Mr. Chair, I have a problem from the time I looked at this agenda from the foreign affairs committee. Motion number two and motion number three were submitted a long time ago, before motion number one was.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee
Madame Bourgeois's motion is the first because it was proposed at the last meeting.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Obhrai.
We will go to Madame Bourgeois's motion. You're right, we did begin debate on that at the last meeting and that's why we'll go to it first.
Madame Bourgeois, do you want to speak to your motion?
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
This motion is extremely important because it calls for committee members to be kept informed, but not just any way. It asks that we be informed by NGOs and experts about the rebuilding and aid strategy. In my opinion, it's very important that we be apprised of the reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan and that experts and NGOs -- in short, those working in the field -- brief us on developments.
Currently, we are hearing reports about National Defence operations and military casualities. However, we want to know exactly what is happening on the ground.
That's all I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Madame Bourgeois.
To that end, she has brought forward this motion.
Mr. Wilfert.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the purpose of the study on democratic development is to talk about principles, how aid is done, how we develop democratic societies in various parts of the globe. This motion to me seems to be more focused on issues outside of democratic development. Obviously Afghanistan has had a presidential election, successfully. They have had an election of a national assembly, very successfully. In terms of the development, we could say how successful or not democratic roots are in Afghanistan, etc.
In my view, this motion is to analyze the present government's policy on Afghanistan and to do a study as to whether or not the assistance of the Government of Canada and the actions of what we used to call the three pillars--military, development, and diplomacy--are working. If in fact what we really want to do is an evaluation of government policy in Afghanistan, then I think we need to say that. If in fact, however, the issue is that we're looking at a broader evaluation of democratic development, we may want to look at a couple of particular states, and we can certainly do that for two or three, or we don't have to necessarily do an in-depth study on any particular state.
I just want to get a sense that this is the direction of this motion, because it seems to be different from what we originally suggested we were going to be doing.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.
Mr. Obhrai, and then Madam McDonough and Madam Barbot.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Let me listen to everybody first before I make any comment or any suggestion. Let's see what ideas are coming forward.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
If I understood Bryon Wilfert's comments, and I think I did, I agree with the sense of what he's raising. It doesn't seem as though the rest of the motion is really consistent with the broader study on democratic development, and in an attempt to be helpful, I'm just going to propose a friendly amendment that would remove “as part of its in-depth study of democratic development”.
I do so not to suggest that there isn't of course an important element of democracy building involved in our commitment to Afghanistan, but rather I think it would perhaps be more accurate to see our decision to go ahead and hear from some witnesses about what's actually happening on the ground and so on. It is more in keeping with the ongoing responsibilities the foreign affairs committee has in order to deal with major pressing issues of the day. Yes, there's an element of democratic development, but I really think it's perhaps a bit confusing, and I'm trying to do that partly in response to the concerns Bryon Wilfert has raised.
I would propose that as a friendly amendment.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Remove, “as part of its in-depth study of democratic development”.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
If I could say one other thing, I raised the proposal that we hold some hearings on Afghanistan several times in earlier meetings. There was an agreement reached, if I'm not mistaken, that we would attempt to do some joint meetings with the defence committee, also acknowledging that we want to look at the international aid aspect of what we're doing there as well.
So it's consistent with what we had discussed earlier and agreed upon.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
First, before I go to Madam Barbot, would you accept that as a friendly amendment, Madam Bourgeois?
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Can I explain why I want to cut that?
I just want to say that I brought forward this motion in September. Our first order of business was an examination of democratic development. We did examine at considerable length the situation in Haiti and we were supposed to get to my motion sooner. That's why, even though the motion is till still timely, we can delete this small part. Basically, I wanted us to be briefed on the situation.
At the time, we were hearing reports of soldiers dying in Afghanistan. The talk was always about reconstruction. What exactly was meant by reconstruction? That was the aim of my motion?
I don't have a problem with deleting this bit, for the sake of clarity.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Madam Bourgeois.
Madam Barbot passes. We'll go back to Mr. Obhrai, Mr. Patry, and then Mr. Wilfert.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Mr. Chair, I don't see that we have any problems with the friendly amendment. As the government has stated on many occasions, we will talk about it. The Minister of Defence is coming, CIDA is coming, so it's a good thing to have.
Bernard Patry has already suggested two days when we could discuss this. It's an important issue that is going on, and I think the committee's responsibility is as you rightly mentioned. I don't see anything....
I have one little problem, and that is the joint meeting with the defence committee. What it will do—
5:25 p.m.
A voice
It's not in the motion.
5:25 p.m.
Obhrai
Didn't you just say that you would like to—