Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 29th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. McKay, without the other amendment, speaking with respect to “Canadian ODA abroad shall be defined exclusively with regard to these values”, when you read it, I don't think it's going to do that. It says that if you have a choice.... The central focus is poverty reduction. By listing democratic development, you're making it very clear, actually, that poverty reduction is central, with these other considerations. I don't think it's going to do what you're concerned it's going to do, and that is divert into different directions. It's spelling out even more clearly that poverty reduction becomes the chief focus.

Madam McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Well, I guess I'm misunderstanding. I think what Peter Goldring's amendment proposes is the removal of “central focus”. Does it not remove the words “central focus”?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

No, that was the concern you had, and I asked him whether we could insert it underneath and keep “central focus on poverty reduction, and in a manner consistent with Canadian values, including democratic development”, and then “environmental” added on after. So it's still saying that you have environmental sustainability and you have democratic development, but hey, the central driver or focus here is poverty reduction.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I have to say, if that's all it is, and having clarified—I'm looking for a nod from the table, I guess, because it's a question of what the wording is, actually, that's in front of us—I'm prepared to accept it as a friendly amendment. If for no other reason, we're trying to bring to a head what is two and a half years of work by this committee, and we have about an hour and a half to do it. I don't want to see us get totally bogged down.

I think the general view.... If you get 100,000 people in a room, they would all agree that democratic development or democracy building is included, is already there, in the iteration of “Canadian values, Canadian foreign policy and international human rights standards”, but if you want it there for greater comfort or to make sure somebody's not thumbing their nose at democracy, I don't have a problem with putting it in.

But I'd sure love to see us get on with dealing with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I have Madame Bourgeois, Mr. Goldring, Mr. Regan, and Mr. McKay.

You're on there too? Put Mr. Obhrai on the list.

All right, Madame Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I've just realized that clause 1 refers to development assistance. From the outset, we've been talking about reducing poverty. If we talk about development assistance, then Mr. Goldring is entirely correct. Talking about good governance and democracy is the same as talking about development assistance. It's all part of the development process. If we talk about reducing poverty, then we need to look at the Millennium Development Goals. We need to stick fairly close to the short title, namely the Development Assistance Accountability Act.

What is it that we want to do? Do we want to provide development assistance or reduce poverty? I'm putting the question to you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Developmental assistance is listed under the purpose of the act as being the dollars that we spend, the ODA--the direction for our developmental assistance.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Chairman, what about a quid pro quo? Proposed legislation to reduce poverty is not the same as a bill respecting development assistance accountability. Obviously, development assistance includes a poverty reduction component, but we're talking about two very different things here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We're probably arguing the same thing. I don't think we disagree. We recognize that Canadian developmental assistance has to be focused on poverty reduction.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

In my estimation, Mr. Chairman, we have a problem. I came here to discuss poverty. If Mr. Goldring insists on talking about the title, which includes “the provision of development assistance”, there is an inconsistency with the rest of the text. In that case, he should opt to introduce an independent motion, another bill, targeting development assistance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Bourgeois--then we'll go to Mr. Goldring--the purpose of this bill is to ensure that all Canadian developmental assistance abroad is essentially focused on poverty reduction. We aren't here just to focus on poverty reduction; we're here to focus on Canada's responsibility. It's fairly elementary: our job isn't just to say poverty reduction is good and poverty is bad; it's to say Canadian developmental assistance is going to be centrally focused toward it.

Mr. Goldring is next. Then we have to move on--after we hear from Mr. Regan, Mr. McKay, and Mr. Obhrai, and by then I'm sure that Madam McDonough is going to want back in.

Go ahead.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. McKay, you made a comment about including this, and I would suggest just the opposite: not including democracy development and government development. I would suggest not including it.

I believe it's consistent with paragraph 4(1)(a), which says it “contributes to poverty reduction”. That's what we're saying in this--it could include the principles of democracy and environmental sustainability as a method of helping to contribute to poverty reduction.

By not having it in there, that very point could happen. If somebody was viewing this as a tightly formed contract and read the words and expressions on it...it doesn't mention that at all. If somebody is making a decision on whether development funds or assistance funds for poverty reduction are going ahead and they do not connect governance and do not connect democracy development as being an integral and important part of poverty reduction, then it's very easy for some of those good initiatives to fall off the table--because they're not considered under the purview of this bill.

This came out in the meetings yesterday with the principals from the department too. They said that because it's narrowly defined, it could very well impact some initiatives that truly could help in poverty reduction. That's why I think updating with the democracy and updating with the environmental sustainability would both contribute greatly to poverty reduction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Regan will pass. Mr. McKay, I have you on the list of speakers. Do you want to respond?

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

Thank you.

First of all, with respect to the issue of Canadian values, in 1994 the Government of Canada, in what remains the foreign affairs statement to the world, defined what Canadian values were, so any interpretation of these words “Canadian values” is taken in the context of that 1994 statement. It remains the seminal statement of foreign policy.

Among other things, the statement notes that “the projection of Canadian values and culture is important to our success in the world” and defines these values as “respect for human rights, democracy, the rule of law, and the environment”. When you take the phrase “Canadian values”, your entire concern is incorporated by virtue of the Government of Canada's statement, which remains the seminal statement of this. It is effectively incorporated by reference.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. McKay, we've heard testimony that what is now included in Canadian values is very much open for debate. I can't remember if it was in regard to this bill or if it was another group that was here. They say there really is no overriding definition.

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

But that's not true. There is a foreign affairs definition of what constitutes Canadian values—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Was democracy development mentioned?

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

It's respect for human rights, democracy, the rule of law and the environment. Those are included as Canadian values.

Anyway, I accept Ms. McDonough's view that we should be moving on. I'm happy to put this to a vote and see where it falls down.

I've made my argument--that I think it loses focus by focusing on what you are studying at this point--and I don't accept your basic argument that it does anything other than that. I'm happy to let it go to a vote and keep on moving.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Just one second, Mr. Goldring.

Next are Mr. Obhrai, Mr. Casey, Madam McDonough.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would have hoped that the mover of this thing would be more cooperative in trying to get this bill more in line, instead of saying I am, you know—

However, the other point here, Mr. McKay, is that on your second one you said, “Canadian official development assistance”. Now, you know that ODA, or official development assistance, is a word that is used by OECD, and so any time OECD will change the ODA word, you have a problem in that it changes our focus. So I would suggest that in order to be clarified, we talk about “Canadian” development assistance instead of saying “official” development assistance. Take the word “official”, because that would then not be dealing with OECD, but would be dealing with us, and if anything in OECD changes, it does not impact us; it does not change—

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

We can't do that.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

You see, there seems to be a totally uncooperative attitude from this individual.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

There is a definition In Madam McDonough's.... It's not adopted yet, but their amendment number 4 defines developmental assistance, so that's maybe coming up later on.

Go ahead, Mr. Casey.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. McKay, I don't think your intention ever was to confine all of the ODA money to poverty reduction, was it? You didn't say that in the original bill. It didn't say that development assistance abroad will be confined to poverty reduction; you said it would “focus on poverty reduction.” You didn't rule out other features as long as the focus was on poverty reduction. Is that correct? Have I got that right?

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

That's the point. You may have to draw a long line between what this activity is and this funding, but the minister's going to have to say in some manner or other that this has a focus on poverty reduction.