Evidence of meeting #33 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 reduction.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Let me read the text to you. Clause 4 says this:
4(1) Development assistance may be provided only if the competent minister is of the opinion that:
We're proposing that paragraph (a) be replaced by:
(a) taking into account the various factors underlying poverty, including health, education and equality;
That's what I was referring to earlier, Mr. Chairman, namely the Millennium development goals and recommendations. The provision then becomes much clearer, and much more inclusive.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
There are two issues here, as I see it.
Where this amendment goes, first of all, is to “contributes to poverty reduction” and “takes into account”, etc. My view of it is that if you are open to taking that into consideration, it should go into paragraph 4(1)(b), where you're taking into account.
If I go back to my original point, this is a bill that is to contribute to poverty reduction. That's your number one goal here. How you do that is spelled out a little bit more by saying “takes into account the perspectives of the poor”, and then, “takes into account the various factors underlying poverty, including health, education and equality”, etc.
Again, my overall reaction is that this is sort of muddying, but if it is in fact acceptable muddying, then it should go in paragraph 4(1)(b) rather than paragraph 4(1)(a).
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
I understand John McKay's point, but I wonder if I could just suggest a minor change in this, to incorporate the proposal that he has made but not to weaken the commitment to poverty reduction, which is central here. If paragraph 4(1)(a) were to read “contributes to poverty reduction, taking into account such factors as health, education and equality”, I think it achieves the same thing, but it flows better, doesn't it?
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
It seems to me that this, then, would be further defining it and breaking it down.
We just had a long discussion about defining it even with the element of democracy. To be putting in other facts, like good governance, democracy, and agriculture, what else would we be defining it on? Are health, education, and equality not included in your “umbrella of purpose” description?
Perhaps in that purpose description, where you had mentioned the policy of the government—and you read out a description of what that policy was—we should find some way to put that policy into the bill in a way that would codify it and give clarity to it. But I have a concern that we're now looking at expanding the definitions again.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
We aren't going to go back to the purpose. We've dealt with that. One line, one time, is my feeling on that.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Let me just speak to it.
Again, I go back to other comments I made earlier. The point of this bill is to contribute to poverty reduction. That will be the lens. To accept this amendment is to eliminate “contributes to poverty reduction”, so it defeats the central point of the bill.
I'm not sure that was an intended consequence on the part of my friends in the Bloc, but that would be the result. If you replace line 23, which is “contributes to poverty reduction”, with “takes into account various factors underlying poverty”, etc., it will just gut the bill.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I don't think we can work on this amendment as a friendly amendment. If Madam Bourgeois wants to move it as a subamendment, we would allow a subamendment, vote on that subamendment, and then come back to the amendment.
But I'll accept what Mr. McKay says. I think it may change the intent that Mr. McKay has in this bill to too large a degree.
Madam McDonough.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
I agree with the chairman's point and Mr. McKay's point as well, although I don't think it was your intention to do this at all. But by starting to use examples of what would be poverty reduction, then it may be unnecessarily creating the impression that it's meant to be limiting, when in fact there are a whole variety of things that one could include. If we start using examples of various forms of poverty reduction, though, I think it weakens the sharpness.
4:40 p.m.
An hon. member
We've already spoken on this twice already.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Yes, that's right.
That's the other thing. If you go to all the work leading up to the central focus of the motion that was adopted in Parliament, I think it just takes away from the central purpose. I personally don't think it is a friendly amendment.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
At most, Mr. Chairman, I would have agreed to have my amendment begin after the semi-colon, which would have given the following:
(a) contributes to poverty reduction, notably by taking into account the various factors underlying poverty, including health, education and equality;
I have the advantage here today of having read this bill in my office, since I did not participate in any of your other discussions. I wondered what an outsider's reference point would be.
Poverty reduction includes many components. I mentioned the Millennium goals earlier, because very clear goals were established for eradicating poverty. Agencies, NGOs and officials are fighting to have recognized that in order to reduce poverty, it's important first and foremost to be able to provide health care, to educate people and to achieve gender equality.
I would ask my colleagues to at least agree to include after the words “poverty reduction”, the words “health, education and equality”, so that this bill makes sense to the average person who reads it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
November 29th, 2006 / 4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I just want to say that I think we're nitpicking here. We'll never get over this until we look at things in their broadest definition, not in their narrowest definition. At the end of the day, by looking at these things in their broadest definition and by allowing sufficient latitude, it gives the application of the law and the people who will be working under this the ability to do what they need to in order to do their jobs.
We should perhaps change our mindset a little bit and look at things in their broadest definition, not parse and cut away at this, as we're doing right now in a nitpicky fashion. We're going to go nowhere quickly here, and that would be really quite unfortunate for this bill.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Chairman, it's worth pointing out that this clause begins as follows:
4(1) Development assistance may be provided only if the competent minister is of the opinion that:
What counts, in actual fact, is the opinion of the competent minister. I think it's important to interpret this provision as providing general guidelines that must be taken into account.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Regan.
I call the question on the amendment BQ-1 to the first part of clause 4.
(Amendment negatived)
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
We now have, regarding the same clause, NDP-8 on page 9. This one is, to a degree, also related to NDP-5. NDP-5 is one of the amendments to the previous clause, so this is one of those that are consequential.
Madam McDonough, would you speak to your amendment, please?
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
I will if I can figure out where we are here. Number 3: I think quite specifically, because of the consequential impacts of this amendment, what we're proposing is that clauses 6, 7, and 8 should be defeated.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I think you're on the wrong one. Go back up to page 9. This deals with the difference between human rights obligations and human rights standards. That came out of testimony yesterday.
I'll afford the opportunity to speak to it first to Ms. McDonough and then to Mr. McKay.
