Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 29th, 2006

[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.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The real reason we want to get through this speedily is that it brings us to a point where we can finally deliver the work we've been doing for two and a half years. I'm sure that was also on your list of reasons for wanting to wrap up by 5:30 p.m.

This first amendment--does everyone have it in front of them?--proposes that subclause 2(2) be deleted, because CIDA, in their presentation yesterday, pointed out that there shouldn't really be an obligation in a purpose clause, and secondly, that not all civil society organizations are involved in sustainable development work.

Do you want me to read the amendment or can we assume everybody has it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead and read it.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I move that clause 2 be amended (a) by replacing lines 9 and 10 on page 1 with the following:reduction and in a manner that is consistent with Canadian values, Canadian foreign policy and sustainable development and that promotes

I outlined the reason for the first two changes. And finally, for clarity, this amendment inserts the word, “promotes“ before human rights standards, underscoring that promotion is implicit in the idea of providing aid in a way that is consistent with Canada's human rights commitments internationally.

We know that those are contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These all refer to the obligation of states to promote human rights.

I so move; and secondly, that clause 2 be amended by deleting lines 12 to 17 on page 1.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madam McDonough.

Mr. McKay.

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

I regard this as a friendly amendment, Chair, and I think it actually strengthens the clause. I would like to suggest a modification that I think is agreeable as a consequence to my friend's amendment.

You'll notice that in the second part of her amendment she deletes lines 12 to 17, and I propose that we replace 12 to 17 with a very specific phrase, “Canadian official development assistance”. In other words:

Canadian official development assistance abroad shall be defined exclusively with regard to these values

The point of this is to start to address the issues that the finance department raised yesterday. You'll recollect, Chair, that they were concerned that Canada would be stopped from any other assistance--not necessarily ODA assistance, but assistance--and that would be an unintended and unfortunate consequence of this bill. We think that by putting in this clause and another one several small amendments that arise as we go through the clauses, we will in fact address the concern that the finance department raised.

Then I believe again my friend would find it acceptable that we add a subclause (3) on purpose, which would read:

This Act does not apply to funds delivered to IDRC.

You'll recollect that there was a brief submitted by IDRC, and they were concerned that this bill would negatively impact some of the research they do. That would be, again, an unfortunate and unintended consequence, so we want to make it particularly clear that it doesn't apply to crown corporations. So perhaps we could have a friendly amendment on a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right, I'm just wondering about the process here.

Madam McDonough, do you accept that, then, as a friendly amendment?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Totally.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll still have discussion on the amendment—

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Did you present that in writing? Do we have that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Just to make sure we get it; that's a good point. That's what I was going to ask for. What I understand we have so far is that we go through Madam McDonough's changes and we add here:

Canadian official development assistance abroad shall be defined exclusively with regard to these values

Then we add a subclause (3):

This Act does not apply to funds delivered to IDRC.

So you accept that as a friendly amendment.

Mr. Obhrai, did you have another point? Mr. Goldring did.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I was wondering, do you have the amendments—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

No, it's a friendly amendment off the floor, so there is no need for it in writing, if they have it, but it's a combination of the two amendments, so there isn't a complete new version that's ready yet, but that's as dictated.

Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Chairman, referring to subclause 2(1), and given the consideration that this is defining the purpose; and given that we have been spending considerable time over the last several months on examining what democracy does, what other countries in their aid policies do, and why they are entering into work in the democratic and good governance field; and given that I think it was a conclusion by all who attended on those deliberations that governance and work on democracy certainly is every bit a part of assisting in the longer term on poverty reduction; and given that we look at the situation in Haiti, and the fact that we've been contributing hundreds of millions of dollars for years, and the one element that has been lacking there has been this governance and democracy development—

Therefore, to be consistent with the work we have done, the report that we're producing on Haiti, and possibly another report coming through on these democratic deliberations that we're conducting, I would suggest here that the subclause 2(1) be worded in this manner:

that Canadian development assistance contributes to poverty reduction in a manner that is consistent with Canadian foreign policy, which could include support for the principles of democracy, the protection of human rights, and environmental sustainability.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madam McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Are you proposing that as an amendment, a friendly amendment?

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Yes.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Let me just say that I think the spirit of what you've said, in fact the very substance of what you've said, is more than incorporated in the wording here. Now, if what you're saying is that you don't really like the wording—

It's pretty obvious that all three of the things we're citing that need to be taken into account would include democracy, there's no question: Canadian values, Canadian foreign policy, and international human rights standards. So is your—

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

There is one that I think came out in the meetings we have been going through, wherein senior departmental people are questioning the narrowness of the definition of this and the need to have it at least include certain things.

I would think the democratic evolution or the governance aspect of it would be an absolutely essential one to have included, so that there can be no misconstruing at any point in the future that this too is part and parcel of poverty reduction efforts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Obhrai, and then Ms. McDonough.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I'm going on a different point here—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Well, if it's a different point, then we'll go back to—

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

No, no, it's to do with this, but it's not this point. I'm actually going to where Mr. McKay has brought IDRC to be examined, in what I would say is the purpose of the act. Would it not be more appropriate to have that portion somewhere else, and not in the purpose of the act?

The purpose of the act should stay clearly as what the purpose is and not have an exemption in the purposes. We could move that exemption somewhere else, in subsequent things where we could fit it in. Don't you think that would be a far more appropriate way to go? Why do you want an exemption in the purpose?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Obhrai; it's a good point. But I have Ms. McDonough and then Mr. McKay.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

If what you're saying is that you don't like this wording and you want to propose alternate wording, then I guess we need to make sure we all hear what it is. I don't have any objection to the general sense of what you're proposing, which is to make sure that democracy building is included in it; that's no problem. But what I'm not sure about is whether you're actually proposing the elimination of poverty reduction. If that's the case, it fundamentally changes the entire gist of what we're doing.