Evidence of meeting #23 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 canadem.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.
Thank you for those supportive comments.
The word “competent” with regard to the minister is not to be contrasted with “incompetent”. The legislative drafters chose that particular language. As I recollect, it sees light in other bills.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Thank you.
Mr. McKay, your name has “honourable” in front of it. You guys were in government for all these years, and that's why you got the word “honourable”. Now all of a sudden there's a minority Parliament. As Mr. Patry said to us, we can't do anything in a minority Parliament to get this thing going here.
Our concern over here is whether this is an attempt, because there's a minority government, for you to rush through this bill that you could not do when you were in the government. Nothing came forward from the government, and suddenly, within ten months of a minority government, we have all these things.
At any rate, that is my accusation to you.
I want to ask you a question, now that you've brought this amendment. In your amendment, replacing lines 4 to 7--
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
It's on clause 3. I'm not going clause by clause. I just want to know what you guys....
We know what your trick is anyway. We know what you're all up to.
You say in the last sentence here that this is “concessional”, and that it conveys “a grant element of at least 25%”.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Can you elaborate on what you're talking about there, about what this means?
5:10 p.m.
Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.
From what I understand, this has precision in language that the minister uses as her own guidelines. I understand it to mean that it's at least 25% forgivable, and it may well be more.
But probably that question is best directed to the minister herself.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
But you are the one who has brought the bill. You are the one who has brought this here. That is why we are here. But let's not rush this thing. Let's look at it.
Remember one thing: you were a parliamentary secretary, and at the end of the day, we need to get it right for Canada. Last time, you said we'll push whatever we want to do. That is why we have this concern.
Let's look at this thing now, and then maybe you can go back and really look at it. Are we for some reason saying that in any funding that is transferred to a developing country, 25% is a forgivable element? Is that what you're trying to say here, or is that what your understanding is?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
But you see, that creates a situation where many of us who are critical of saying, hey, by giving 25%....
You just came out here and said that you want to bring accountability to this, that this is the purpose. But by putting in 25%, which is a substantial sum of money that you're literally saying we should forgive, where is the accountable portion that you are trying to get in there to do that?
5:10 p.m.
Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.
Because it's forgiven doesn't mean it's not accountable.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Why not? You are putting it in the legislation. You could put it in a regulation, but you're putting this in the legislation, right?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
So in the legislation what you're saying is that we've got to do it.
What I'm asking you is, where is the control? Where is the control to say what's going to happen with the 25%?
5:10 p.m.
Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.
I don't understand why you think that putting that in the bill loses control, accountability, or transparency. Surely to goodness, it's far more transparent and accountable if in fact you define what development assistance is in the first place.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Yes, but what you've said here is the problem. What I'm saying is that if you are giving development assistance that includes 25% being forgiven, then anybody at the other end will say, oh well, we're going to get the 25%. How are you going to stop it? Are you going to have another regulation to say that should not be there?
What I'm trying to get at is that by putting it into an act, you're forcing it. If you remove it from the act and say this is our intended goal, then that is a different issue.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.
Okay, he doesn't want precision.
I just don't understand the thrust of the honourable member's question. I've precisely defined what development assistance is, which to my mind means accountability and transparency. Therefore, he should be far happier than leaving it as a vague, touchy-feely, “oh well, development assistance is whatever we mean it to be” statement.
That's the point of the bill. The point of the bill is to not go to the flavour of the month.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Okay. Thanks Mr. Obhrai.
I think maybe it's just confusing and that once we get into seeing witnesses and hearing what exactly it means....
I think since 1986 we've stopped making ODA loans. It's 100% at the present time, from what I understand, isn't it? And this now takes it to 25%.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right, so I maybe stand corrected on some of this.
Back to Mr. Martin.
