Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 29th, 2006

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I just want to go to Alexa's point, although it does not change the substance. This is in reference to what you just said about the municipalities coming and talking to us. They came and talked to us, and to me too.

You know, by restricting municipalities to municipalities, as you said, the relevant government authorities.... In many of the countries where you're working, these relevant government authorities have absolutely no power, and we would actually be shut out from any of these things, you know. So just to say the word “government”, in the broader sense, allows us to see what authorities there are over there and to work with the authorities at that level, or at a level lower. So let's allow ourselves a little bit more room in that.

That was my point. But anyway, the Bloc has accepted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. McKay.

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

Just to go back to the issue of government, I point out to colleagues that international agencies are generally creatures of governments. So the UN is an international agency, the World Bank is an international agency, the IMF is an international agency--and you can probably name more than I can--and all are creatures of governments and all report to their governments. That's the way international aid has been distributed in the past. We phrased it that way intentionally so it was actually broader than merely “governments”.

The second point is with respect to Caroline St-Hilaire's issue of reasonable steps. I appreciate that you may perceive that as something of a watering down. I don't want to be blindsided by a royal recommendation after this comes out of here. To be candid about it, the only way the minister is going to be able to satisfy her or his obligations under this bill is effectively to do a back-door committee.

That's why I would argue for the modifying language of “shall take reasonable steps”. That's also consistent with some of the evidence that we heard. The NDP amendment also brings in the concept of civil society organizations, which is also responsive to evidence that we heard, and which we wanted to accommodate.

Those, if you will, are the reasons I would move away from your amendment towards the NDP amendment, while appreciating that you have hit the nail on the head as far as moving “may” to “shall”, because it's still an obligation of the minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

Mr. Martin.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I just wanted to caution us in terms of trying to restrict this too much, because when CIDA operates in an emergency, you really don't have time to do the type of consultation that people are suggesting with these changes. If you were to obligate a minister to take this course of action and engage in all these consultations, then you would really be depriving those who are victims of a calamitous event of receiving the aid they need to have in a timely fashion.

I would just suggest, in keeping with the spirit of what we have here, that the competent minister shall consult with international agencies, Canadian NGOs, and other relevant institutions. Then you've covered the breadth. You've made it stronger, but you haven't made it so restrictive as to inhibit the ability of CIDA to operate in a timely fashion, particularly in cases of emergencies when lives hang in the balance with every passing moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I think the next clause basically deals with emergency humanitarian assistance.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Clause 2 affects clause 4, and it just causes a restriction that is unnecessary in dealing with those emergencies. If you're dealing with an emergency in clause 5 and you have to apply subclause 4(2) to clause 5, you're really putting a rock around the minister's ankle.

At the end of the day, the final arbiters on the behaviour of the minister or the government are the people of Canada during an election. They will say thumbs up or thumbs down, and we all live or die by that sword.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Madam McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

That's a complex question. We've had a full discussion on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame St-Hilaire.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Despite what Mr. McKay has just said, I want to come back to my initial comment. I don't understand the meaning of the NDP's amendment. The amendment contains the exact same wording as subclause 4(2). Therefore, I don't see the point of replacing “In arriving at the opinion [...], the competent minister may”, by “shall take reasonable steps”.

I don't understand the amendment at all. Neither Ms. McDonough nor Mr. McKay has answered my question. As for Mr. Martin's comments, the point, as you said, is clarified in clause 5.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Bourgeois.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say that Mr. Goldring's amendment is entirely in keeping with what every country, or democratic organization has a duty to do, namely consult with governments. That was the purpose of our last trip.

Therefore, I don't have any problem with Mr. Goldring's amendment. For the sake of transparency, I feel that all committee members should support the Bloc's amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. McKay.

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

If the committee is inclined to accept the Bloc's amendment, I just want to draw the committee's attention to, and ask that the Bloc entertain, two friendly amendments on civil society organizations and in calculating Canada's official development assistance. Both of those things are in your package.

They are attached to NDP-9, not Bloc-2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Can you explain to us the difference between the Bloc and the NDP motions if they're going to include all that?

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

They would be the same motions, with the distinction that the NDP one would include the modifier, “take reasonable steps”. The Bloc amendment would not include that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I don't think I can rule that as a friendly amendment, because they have spoken—

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

It's up to them whether it's a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It is, but that's the body of their defence of what they've—

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

I don't think so, Mr. Chairman.

The Bloc says “shall”. The NDP says “shall take reasonable steps”. If it just says “shall” and nothing else, we lose the redefinition of civil society organizations and we lose the “if it ain't aid, don't call it aid” amendment I put forward. I don't want to lose those two, which are pivotal to the overall bill.

Just so members understand what they're voting on, I hope the NDP will perceive both of those as friendly amendments so I don't lose the entire baby with the bathwater.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'll tell you what we could do, and again it depends on how the Bloc and the NDP want to work this. Rather than get into all that, we could pass the Bloc amendment and move a subamendment after this one is passed to include a new amendment on the.... We do have a friendly amendment here listing government.

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

That's a separate issue. You had already ruled that BQ-2 was inconsistent with NDP-9, and that if you passed BQ-2, you couldn't pass NDP-9. There are important elements in NDP-9 that would be lost if BQ-2 passes, and I don't want those to be lost.

How you do that is another issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We haven't really had a friendly amendment moved here. We've had a suggestion by Mr. Goldring put to the Bloc.

Do you want to make a motion to have that as a friendly amendment to the Bloc one?

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Yes, and I appreciate the Bloc's consideration. I'd like to make it a formal motion that the word “governments” be added to their motion.