Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 29th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

No—

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Okay. Can you read it again? We want to be as collaborative and cooperative here as we possibly can be, but we need also to know what we're talking about.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

It's to be more inclusive and up to date with what we're doing in deliberations in—

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

So can you read it again? If it's a friendly amendment—

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

It's this: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.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Well, I would have to say--and I'm not trying to be difficult--that I don't think it's a friendly amendment, in the sense that it removes totally the reference to a “central focus on poverty”. A big part of what we actually have been trying to do is to reinforce—

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

All of these elements are very consistent, and quite frankly, they're components of poverty.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I didn't say they weren't consistent, but you've removed “central focus”, and I'm just saying it's not a friendly amendment. It might be some other kind of amendment, but to remove “central focus on poverty” is, as far as I'm concerned, not a friendly amendment.

That doesn't preclude your proposing it.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

I don't believe it does. I believe it adds to it; it improves it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

But even the body of your clause seems to be a fairly substantive change. Usually friendly amendments are minimal and are adding something to it.

As far as including “democratic development”, or whatever wording you used, and “environmental” are concerned, I think it's good. I think probably both are agreeing with that. Is there any way that can be inserted after “Canadian values”, so that we keep the substance of what Madam McDonough and Mr. McKay have brought forward?

It would read: The purpose of this Act is to ensure that all Canadian development assistance abroad is provided with a central focus on poverty reduction and in a manner consistent with Canadian values, democratic development, environmental sustainability, Canadian foreign policy, and international human rights.

Would that then constitute a friendly amendment?

Mr. McKay.

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

Certainly Mr. Goldring is friendly. I don't necessarily see it as a friendly amendment, though.

The point of bringing this bill forward is to maintain focus: to keep CIDA, the Department of Finance, and Foreign Affairs, in their representative positions for the people of Canada, focused on the issue of poverty reduction. We want poverty reduction to be consistent with Canadian values, Canadian foreign policy, and sustainable development. We actually want that promoted.

Everything Mr. Goldring is arguing for—democracy, and human rights, and environmental sustainability—in my view is contained within Canadian values and Canadian foreign policy; that is the universe, if you will.

Now you're trying to break down the universe into subsections of the universe, and I don't think it adds to anything we've stated here, and in fact it may be in some respects diversionary from our overall focus here. That's point one.

Point two has to do with the amendment of Ms. McDonough. The “sustainable development” would cover your concern about environment, which I think was one of your three.

The overall idea of an act, when a person reads it, is to clearly understand what it is for. I think the way it's currently phrased, subject to the amendment by Ms. McDonough and the friendly amendment on the friendly amendment, actually keeps us on track.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We're still at a point where I'm not certain we have the complete amendment with the friendly amendment added to it, because Mr. Obhrai raised a point. I don't know that you answered it, Mr. McKay.

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

No, I haven't addressed Mr. Obhrai's point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It's in regard to the IDRC perhaps being dealt with in a different place.

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

I'm open to any suggestion as to where else it might go. It seemed at the time that this was appropriate, but maybe we can address that as we unfold.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madam McDonough, was there something else? Is there any way you see that we could include—?

You know, when we have “Canadian values” in the purpose.... There is no definition of Canadian values. I think Mr. Goldring's “democratic development”, democracy...we would include that as a Canadian value, I think. There are so many different things to different people.

But is there a way to include “democratic development” and “environmental sustainability”, or whatever it was?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I don't think there's a problem with including it. I don't know whether we have legal beagles here who want to advise us—we have some lawyers at the table—on the inadvisability of doing too many “for examples” and illustrations, and so on, because I think the point is to make it as crisp and precise as possible. But I don't personally have an objection if we want to say, “a manner consistent with Canadian values, Canadian foreign policy”. I'm trying to think of where to put, for example, “or including sustainable development”.

I see our researcher nodding. Does that work: “including sustainable development” and, what,“democracy promotion” or “democracy building”?

Come on, you're a lawyer, Geoff. Help us here.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Let me offer you this. Keep in mind that if you say “including”, you have to decide whether you want to only include those things, and if not, you say “without limiting the generality of the foregoing”. That's the real lawyer's answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Is that davenport law? This is what happens when we ask a lawyer.

Madame Bourgeois.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope that I've grasped everything clearly. The interpreters do not have all of the amendments. It's very hard for them, but I think they are doing the best they can.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, as members of the standing committee, we are developing our position on democratic development. Our notion of Canadian values will be inclusive, once we've worked on this. Secondly, the United Nations Millennium Summit clearly set out goals for fighting poverty in this millennium. There are eight goals in total. I can list them for you if you like, but they do not include supporting democracy or development. Mention is made of human development, but not of governance and democracy. The focus of our bill is the eradication of poverty.

I have a suggestion. While I can understand Mr. Goldring's position, perhaps we could suggest that he set aside for now any reference to democracy, since the standing committee will examine that issue. That will be included in our final position and report to the minister. That process will include Canadian values, as the standing committee will have touched on this matter. For now, let's focus on the eight goals identified at the Millennium Summit to fight poverty. That's what I suggest we do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. Merci beaucoup.

Mr. Casey, and then Mr. Obhrai.

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

I don't see where Mr. Goldring's amendment takes away from the focus on poverty reduction. It says, “poverty reduction in a manner that is consistent with Canadian foreign policy, which could include support for the principles of democracy”—which is what we have been studying for months now in this committee—“the protection of human rights, and environmental sustainability”.

It doesn't say poverty reduction “or” these things; it says, “poverty reduction in a manner that is consistent with”. I don't see that it takes anything away from poverty.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I just want to target a question to Mr. McKay.

In a hypothetical situation, if you don't put in democratic reform and you don't take in the other things that are in ODA, would there not be a danger, somewhere down the line in trying to reach the target of 0.7% for ODA, that we would then have a situation where, if we wanted to address all the other issues and addressed only poverty reduction here, of future governments—and definitely not my government—reducing the money to ODA? They could actually put it down. If you are going to restrict everything and say it's only poverty reduction, and you're not going to take other Canadian values to put in there, then there would seriously be a danger that somewhere down the line, when governments want to promote other areas, they might take away this money that was supposed to go towards ODA reaching 0.7%, leaving a smaller pot for poverty reduction.

Would that not be something of serious concern?

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

It's good to hear that you have no intention of being part of any future government. That's a comfort of some kind.

With respect to your point, I want people to go back to the genesis of this bill. The genesis of this bill is the last Parliament. In the last Parliament you actually heard witnesses who said poverty reduction should be the central focus of anything going forward. You had the three party leaders at the time writing to the then Prime Minister saying poverty reduction should.... That's what the point of this bill was.

What concerns me—to address your point specifically—is that you'll see as we unfold some of the amendments that what we want in the ODA envelope is focus on poverty reduction.

What I'm concerned about with Mr. Goldring's amendment—and I would regard it, again, as friendly but not necessarily a friendly amendment—is that you start to divert. Is the minister now supposed to ask himself or herself questions about whether this is democracy-enhancing? What are the other areas?

Let's face it. There are always far more claims on the available dollar, whether it's 0.3%, or 0.5%, or 0.7%, than there will ever be money to fill those claims. It seems to me that the more the committee wanders away from, if you will, generic statements about poverty reduction, the more it opens the door for the minister to say, well, really, activity X in country Y falls within poverty reduction, because it has something to do with democracy enhancement. I don't think that was the point of the letter from the leaders, and I don't think it was the point of what you heard in your hearings in the last Parliament.

I just want to caution the committee about wandering off from core purposes here.