Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 29th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madam McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

In some ways, I find myself in the peculiar position of voting against “shall” only because it's intended. I support the general intent or the general aspiration in the amendment that has been proposed, changing “may” to “shall”. But we need to acknowledge that there are a lot of situations in which there could be unreasonable demands for the minister to consult when it's simply not appropriate or not necessary. For one thing, a lot of agencies, a lot of NGOs, say, “For God's sake, will you stop consulting to death and get on with making a decision and support us”, or, “Are you going to ask us yet again to consult when we've made the point, we've made the briefs, and we appeared before the committee?”

So unless people are going to say ministers have no competence to make a judgment, we have to be prepared to say that a minister has an obligation to exercise their judgment, and yes, they shall consult when it's the appropriate and reasonable thing to do, but they aren't compelled to consult when it's not necessary or not reasonable.

So I'm going to vote against the “shall” amendment and urge people to consider that the next amendment before us is a more reasonable one, namely that we shall take reasonable steps to consult.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madam McDonough.

Mr. Goldring, Madame Bourgeois, Mr. Obhrai, and Mr. McKay.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would tend to agree with utilizing the word “shall”, but to add a little more clarity to it, I would suggest that we add another word to this, that being the word “governments” after the words “consult with”. That would give you “consult with governments, international organizations or members of civil society”. I think it's important that the government be consulted along with the international organizations and members of civil society.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

So you're saying that we would consult with the governments of those other countries?

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Bourgeois.

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

Mr. Chairman, we're here to do our work as parliamentarians. I think we're overly cautious when it comes to forcing a minister to act. We behave like a bunch of nervous Nellys! We don't dare impose any kind of requirements on a minister, for fear that one day we might be in power ourselves and find our hands tied by a certain piece of legislation. Let's be honest.

The word “shall” obligates the minister to consult with the people in the field, to go and see what's being done, and to consult with international organizations, perhaps with our deputy ministers or our ambassadors.

What are people here afraid of?

Consider, for example, “the obligation to exercise one's judgment”. Admittedly, we have had governments with very little judgment. We have had ministers who have shown very little judgment.

What is so scary about the word “shall”? Why the reluctance to use it? We're talking about public development assistance and initiatives to fight poverty. Could we consult with front-line workers? Are you up to the challenge, or is the Bloc Québécois the only party that is not afraid?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame Bourgeois.

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you.

To the point Mr. Regan and the others raised, currently, as far as we know, the government consults, and as Madame McDonough said, maybe sometimes too much time is spent. But we do the consultation for every project, so it really is not something new. It's already there, basically. But I think what we should add in there is that we should not restrict it by just certain organizations. We want to also consult with governments. So if you can make it in a broader sense, “shall consult with governments”, and you add the other organizations so they have the broader....

I think, because we already do it as part of CIDA, there should be no difficulty with it. We don't see any difficulty with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I think most governments do their consultations with governments. You're saying they “shall”. They already “may” consult with governments, NGOs, and all those. It's being done. I think all governments do that when they hand it out, but you're now making it a mandate to do that. It's a good point.

Mr. McKay, then Madame St-Hilaire, and then whoever else wanted in.

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

The origin of this “shall” amendment comes from the fact that this bill requires a royal recommendation unless the petitioning process and the advisory committee are deleted by this committee. Therefore, that would have left the bill absolutely useless, because you would have had a word like “may”—they may consult or, on the other hand, may not consult. That's the reason for the initial choice of the word “shall”. That, in and of itself, may—enough of this and that—trigger another round of royal recommendation anxiety, shall we say, with respect to this bill, hence the softening of the word “shall” with “shall take reasonable steps”. That is the point of the NDP amendment.

While I'm very sympathetic to the Bloc amendment, I'm somewhat concerned that, even if this committee passes the bill—as I hope it will—if it goes back in the House, then I'm into another round of royal recommendation. I don't want that, and I don't think anybody else wants that.

The second benefit of the NDP amendment, and to be preferred over the Bloc amendment, is that it includes civil society organizations, which will be defined in the course of the bill.

The third is that it has attached to it a friendly amendment from me to the NDP, which I draw to the committee's attention, which says:

in calculating Canada's official development assistance contribution in Government of Canada publications, the competent minister or Governor in Council shall consider only development assistance as defined by this Act and by the criteria in subsection (1) and humanitarian assistance.

It's the “if it ain't aid, don't call it aid” clause. That's the point of this bill. The NGOs have been saying to this committee, not only in this incarnation but in previous incarnations, that there's a lot of leakage--not a lot; there is some leakage. This bill is an attempt by the Parliament of Canada to bring it back on track where Canadians want it, which is in the area of poverty alleviation.

I think members need that background when considering whether to prefer the Bloc vote over the NDP vote, or the NDP vote over the Bloc vote. I appreciate the clerk's bringing to our attention that to vote for one would be inconsistent with voting for the other.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame St-Hilaire, then Madame McDonough.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I'm having a few problems.

First of all, I asked a question and I'm still waiting for an answer. What do you mean by “reasonable steps”? My NDP colleague made a comment that confirms what I've believed from the outset. Basically, we're leaving the minister considerable room to manoeuvre, which quite frankly, waters down the amendment.

Our purpose in bringing forth this amendment was to ensure that the minister consults with parties.Now, you're saying that the minister can consult whomever he wants, whenever he wants. To my way of thinking, the NDP amendment is obsolete. You may as well leave the clause as it was. To say that the minister “shall consult” or “may consult” amounts to the same thing, in my opinion. The expression “may consult” is much like saying that he takes reasonable steps to consults whomever he wants, whenever he wants. There's no difference. All you've done is make a small linguistic change which really doesn't change much.

The amendment also says: “consults with international agencies and Canadian civil society organizations”. While we're at it, why not list other ones. That's the first point I wanted to make. I'm waiting for someone to tell me what is meant by “reasonable steps”.

I'm quite willing to believe that Mr. McKay's amendments are friendly amendments. However, we have only received them in English. You have them only in English as well, but it's hard for the interpreters, and for us, to work. I have to say that this is not very nice for us, Mr. McKay. That's the second point I wanted to make.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Well, the nature of a friendly amendment is that it usually comes from the floor and it's...all right.

Madam McDonough and Mr. Goldring.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I acknowledge in part the point that my Bloc colleague has made, that to suggest an amendment, as I have done--and will reintroduce following this, after we dispense with the proposed Bloc amendment--introducing the notion of “shall take reasonable steps” is to make it less compulsory. In other words, it doesn't apply in every single, solitary case, but I think it's stronger than “may”. Wouldn't we all acknowledge that there are many situations in which consultation would be an unreasonable thing to be expecting either of a civil society group or of the minister, given circumstances that require judgment?

So I acknowledge the point, but I guess I would ask for consideration of the kinds of situations in which overburdened civil society groups would say, “Oh my God, please can't we get on with it, let's not consult again.”

I'm sorry, I don't want to repeat myself.

The other thing is that somewhere lost in this, I think--I'm looking at Deepak here--I believe Deepak suggested the notion of adding “governments”. Although I'd be interested in hearing other views in case I'm missing something, I actually think it could be a good idea. I might be persuaded by someone else's argument, but at the moment I'm inclined to think that would sensible, and based on some discussion, I am prepared to consider it as a friendly amendment to my next proposed amendment.

For this reason, I actually think it should say something like “affected governments” or “appropriate governments”, because--and one of the most recent examples that came to my attention, and I'm sure it came to many other members' attention--when the Canadian Federation of Municipalities' international development representatives were on the Hill last week, they actually brought forward a concern about really tremendous work getting done, municipality to municipality, in various countries where actually the municipalities don't get appropriately consulted.

I may be jumping ahead of myself, but I didn't want us to lose sight of that proposed amendment. I tend to see it as an appropriate friendly amendment, but I would like to hear any counter arguments before I say I'm prepared to vote for it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'm going to Mr. Goldring and then Mr. Obhrai.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Yes, for my Bloc colleagues--and I guess this is a matter of process--if I would ask you to include a friendly amendment in yours, adding that word “governments” in with it before “international organizations”, is that the process?

To explain why, I agree with Ms. McDonough that there are levels of government that perhaps are not consulted now. There are also comments made by President Préval from Haiti, where he had a dissatisfaction with the consultations that were given him and he expressed interest that we had better coordinate efforts. I would think behind that is that we had better consult with his government on what actions we're taking in areas.

So I think it's important to include “governments”. Is the process to ask of our Bloc colleagues if they would include that in your motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Bourgeois.

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

How would the amendment read, Mr. Goldring? Could you speak more slowly? There's a slight problem with the interpretation.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Going from your amendment to “the competent minister shall consult with governments, international agencies, and Canadian non-governmental organizations”, we're just inserting the word “governments” directly after “with”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Obhrai was next, but I want to go to Madame St-Hilaire or Madame Bourgeois to respond to that specific amendment.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

I think the subamendment is interesting. However, I would say “les gouvernements”, rather than “des gouvernements”. Aside from that, it's fine.

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

It's the principle of democracy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We're at Mr. Obhrai and then Mr. McKay.

Mr. Obhrai.