Foreign Affairs Committee on Dec. 5th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame Éthier.

Madame Barbot, I think we're going to leave it at that.

We want to thank you for coming in today. We look forward to getting the blues and going through your testimony again. We appreciate your research and you being willing to share that with this committee.

We are going to suspend for two minutes, to allow the witnesses to leave. We will then go in camera on our draft report from Haiti, after which we will also very quickly go to committee business.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madam McDonough wants to deal with her motion, and we can do that in committee business.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

We've had this for some time. It arose out of my original proposal. I'm trying to remember the exact timing. It was suggested in an earlier discussion that I bring this in as a separate motion. It reads that:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the Committee's on-going study of democratic development, the Committee reports to the House its recommendation that the government present the draft whole-of-government strategy for failed states, to the Committee; that all relevant departments appear before the Committee to discuss the report; and that witnesses be invited to appear before the Committee to testify on the human rights and humanitarian implications of the draft strategy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

What Madam McDonough has done is read out her motion that we're dealing with today.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

It's been so long, I had forgotten, but we had a fairly open discussion about the absurdity of our engaging in a major study on democratic development, it being widely acknowledged that there is in fact a whole of government strategy for failed states, a policy paper, in circulation. So why wouldn't we ask to have the chance to be informed of it and have an opportunity to consider it? Otherwise, it's like two wings not being coordinated in any way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right, on the motion, Mr. Obhrai, are you going to respond?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I am. I'm just reading my notes.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

It's so long ago now. It was when we were first doing revisions to the Haiti report, and I proposed the inclusion of a recommendation that this report on democratic development be shared with the committee. I think there was a consensus on the committee that a better way of dealing with that, rather than making it a recommendation to be included in the Haiti report--because it doesn't pertain to just Haiti alone--would be to put it in a separate motion and bring it forward to the committee; that we ask the government to share that report with us and that we consider it by inviting them to come and talk to us about it.

So that's where this came from. As I recall, there was a consensus on the committee that we proceed in that way, instead of making it a recommendation to the Haiti report.

[An hon. member]

This is Standing Order 108(2)?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Yes, it was in accordance with that Standing Order that we were making this request about the report to the House. We're asking for it to be shared with the committee and that we examine it.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Chair, we do not see any difficulty with this motion put forward by Ms. McDonough on Standing Order 108(2) on the ongoing study of democratic development. We would see that DFAIT and CIDA officials were prepared to report back to the committee during the first half of 2007 concerning programming commitments, principles, and objectives for investigating fragile states. It's not something that we would be opposed to, because it would shed light also on what the Government of Canada has been doing in reference to fragile states.

So we wouldn't have any problems with supporting that motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Patry.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I have a little problem with the third line, “that the government present the draft whole-of-government....”. I've never seen any government presenting a draft. You present something, but not a draft, because there could be five, ten, fifteen, twenty drafts for any report.

First, do they have the report? I have no clue. I was told that it was a report, but I'm not even sure if they have a report. Do we have a report on just “failed states”? What's the definition of a “failed state”, first of all? I have no clue. We tried to find this out with Haiti, but I have no idea what a failed state is.

I cannot accept the word “draft”. They could withdraw it, delete it, it doesn't matter. But for me to discuss the report.... We can ask the government to appear in front of us to discuss anything, but the way it's drafted....

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I understand what you're saying. Do you want to propose a friendly amendment? I'll accept that as a—

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

[Inaudible--Editor]...my motion.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I understand exactly the point you're making. Can I suggest two changes to deal with that? The first is, “that the government present its whole-of-government strategy for failed states”, and the second is that, in the final line, it read, “implications of the proposed strategy”.

I think it's assumed that we mean whatever the final version is that's now in hand, but it gets rid of that problem. Bernard is right to suggest this. Why are we talking about a draft?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I don't understand the whole concept of “whole-of-government strategy”. Does that mean the whole strategy of—?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

It's commonly referred to as “the whole-of-government strategy” in the House again and again. Your ministers stand up and use it. If you want it just to be “strategy”, that's fine.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Frankly, for a failed state in Haiti or a failed state in Afghanistan, in Iraq, or South America, or Asia, we don't have the same strategy. That's what I mean. They might have more than the—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Are we all right?

Madam McDonough, where are we on that?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

What I'm saying is that I accept totally Bernard's point about forgetting the draft part. I'm agreeing that we change it.

[An hon. member]

You're saying the government's strategy is...[Inaudible—Editor].

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Except that “whole of government” is the term used again and again by your ministers and your Prime Minister every time this comes up. That's why I think we should call it what it is. I didn't make up this name. This is the government's name for its strategy document.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead, Mr. Patry.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Let's say we agree with this. There are many departments that are going to need to appear. That's why you say “the whole-of-government” and “all relevant departments”.

Now, when do you want us to do this? You might have six, seven, eight, nine departments concerned in this.

We're doing democratic development. Is it within this study that we're doing right now or outside of what we're doing right now? I'm asking you. I'm not against it.