Foreign Affairs Committee on Dec. 12th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, meeting number 36. We're going to change the agenda very slightly. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying Canada's role in complex international interventions that involve multiple foreign policy instruments, focusing on Canada's efforts in Haiti.

We want to very quickly ratify or adopt the draft report. You have had the opportunity to take a look at the draft report.

We have very precisely made the changes that were requested at the last meeting. I know I talked to a number of people just before the meeting, and it looks good.

I have three questions to ask. First of all, is it the will of the committee to adopt the draft report, and to have the chair present it to the House of Commons as Canada's international policy?

Madame Barbot.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Chairman, first, I want to comment on the last-minute changes in the schedule, which are completely unacceptable.

Last time, a committee was supposed to meet at 9:00 a.m., and we were not told that the schedule had been changed. Today, we were supposed to do this work at the end of the meeting, but we're being asked to deal with it at the beginning of the meeting. Personally, I have a problem with this and I would like you, in future, to be more attentive to this type of thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Barbot, there was no intention to cause any problem. I asked if it would be possible to ratify this. If we can do this at the beginning of the meeting, then we have the ability to table it in the House tomorrow.

I'm sure you're aware, as are all other members, that there is a rumour that we may adjourn tomorrow, and I think one of the wishes of the committee was that this be tabled before Christmas.

Before we made this decision, we asked all members if we could do this now, and that's why they tried to get hold of you to do it.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Chairman, last time, a steering committee meeting was to begin at 9:00 a.m., but we were never told that the meeting had been cancelled. So, a number of us came, and then someone came to tell us that the meeting had been cancelled.

With regard to today's meeting, we had been informed that we would deal with this item at the end of the meeting. The fact that we were called at the last minute is unacceptable. I understand that people agreed, but personally, I do not agree with doing things this way and this is inconveniencing me.

With regard to the document, a number of things need to be corrected. Once again, there are a number of mistakes in the French text. I will quickly mention them. Then, if you like, I can meet with the clerk or the individual responsible, so as not to further delay the committee.

First, the corrections concern the quotes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

There are three questions I was going to ask. The first one was asked.

The second was whether the chair, with the clerk and the analysts, would be authorized to make any necessary editorial or grammatical changes. That would then allow you the opportunity to meet with them.

How many changes are there, Madame?

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

There are a number of spelling mistakes in the French translation. There are also misquotes, but we could indeed go over this with them.

A major correction needs to be made where the report states that Canada is the third largest contributor to Haiti, whereas, elsewhere in the text, it states that Canada is the second largest. This is quite significant, and it needs to be corrected.

Finally, with regard to recommendations, I would like to make a general proposal. I would like us to separate the recommendations to make things clearer. This would not modify their substance in any way whatsoever, but there would be more recommendations, which would ensure a more appropriate use of the document.

I think that this could be done with the clerk's assistance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Are you making reference to a new recommendation or to an amendment to an existing one?

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

No. There are no new recommendations. We simply need to separate the subjects within the recommendation, which would result I believe in 14 recommendations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I am being told by the clerk that it has been done, although it may not be in the draft document together with the recommendations.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

I think that we're not talking about the same thing. Perhaps she's referring to the list that should be appended at the end of the document.

For example, I would like the first recommendation, which deals with two topics, to be split into two. This would not change the substance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You're saying there would be two paragraphs here?

You're right.

Madame Barbot, as we're in a public meeting and this is a confidential draft report we can't discuss at this point, maybe what we'll do, if it isn't changing the content of the recommendation, is suggest that you get together with our researchers, and we will ask Madam McDonough, Mr. Patry, and Mr. Goldring to take a look at the content.

On the first question--whether it is the will of the committee to adopt the draft report and have the chair present it in the House--are we agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

On the second matter, that the chair, with the clerk and analysts, be authorized to make any necessary editorial grammatical changes, are we agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

That pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests a government response, are we agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you. That finishes that.

When would you be able to meet with Madame Barbot?

It will be after the meeting then, if we want to table it tomorrow. If we can't, we can't, but we will have tried, as I said we would.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

If we can, we can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

That's what I'm saying. It's up to you then, because they're willing to meet after the meeting.

I've already made mention that the other report on Madam McDonough's motion will be tabled tomorrow.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 20, 2006, Bill C-293, an act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad, we'll continue in this exercise of clause-by-clause. We will proceed on clause 4.

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

We didn't accept clause 3.

I want to ask on a point of order if I can come back, with unanimous consent, to clause 2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Before we begin, Mr. Patry has asked if there is unanimous consent to come back to clause 2. We have already said one line one time, but if there is unanimous consent we could come back to clause 2.

May I ask, Mr. Patry, in what regard is it? Is it to change the general content of the amendment? How big an amendment would you like to see?

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

What I want to do is quite easy. The last time, when clause 2 was accepted, I was not here. We replaced, according to NDP-1, lines 9 and 10 on page 1. Also, we totally replaced lines 12 to 17. To me this is much too restrictive: “reduction in a manner that is consistent with Canadian values. Canadian foreign policy and sustainable development and that promotes”. To me it's so restrictive because, in a sense, anything could happen that's in any country in the world. There could be an earthquake or something, and if CIDA wanted to give money for an earthquake in any country, they would be unable to do so because it wouldn't be for sustainable development; it would be for humanitarian purposes at that time. To me that's too restrictive.

Also on (b), replacing lines 12 to 17 with “Canadian official development assistance abroad shall be defined exclusively with regard to this value”, I must say, to me, it is too restrictive. Instead of “exclusively” it should be “primarily”. It should be willing to give latitude to the Minister of CIDA in a certain sense. This is why I wanted to come back to this. If you agree or disagree with this, we'll see what we'll do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Before we go to debate we want to be sure we have unanimous consent to go back to clause 2. It has already carried, but with unanimous consent we can go back. Do we have that unanimous consent?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Before we even do unanimous consent, where do we need to go?

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

I want to change it because it was changed when I was not here. If we don't agree, it's too important to me and I will vote against this bill as it is right now.