Foreign Affairs Committee on Dec. 12th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

So we have the friendly amendment that Bill C-293, in clause 3, be amended by adding, after the definition of civil society organization, which we've just put in, that Canadian values will mean values of global citizenship, equity, and environmental sustainability--period.

Mr. Menzies.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

I have to raise some concerns here. If in fact we decide to either include the words “Canadian interests” or stop prior to them, I'm not convinced that this will cover all of the reasons, all Canadian values. We could go on and on about Canadian values. Human rights isn't in here: is that something we're not going to talk about? And we just took out security, prosperity, and good governance.

So I'm not too sure we're going in the right direction here. “Canadian interests” is very vague, but we've taken out three other points, and I'm just not sure we've covered all of these points. Is this relevant today? Is it going to be relevant in the future?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Bourgeois, Mr. McKay, and Mr. Goldring.

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

Mr. Chairman, I simply used CIDA's definition of Canadian values.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. McKay.

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

I always appreciate the contribution of the Bloc to Canadian values.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I would make the distinction between interests and values. Interests are not of relevance to this particular legislation; values are. You need only to define what is in the framework of the bill. You don't need to define everything else in addition.

That's the rationale for having in there “Canadian values”, a term referenced throughout the bill.

And no, it's not an exhaustive list; it never can be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Looking at this, and seeing how we just dropped off the words “security, prosperity, and good governance”, I really have the feeling that defining so narrowly the term “Canadian values” will limit it in this bill. Not only that, but what other issues that could be defining the term are not in here?

We just went through another clause where it had been mentioned in another way that Canadian values means--I'll use it in this way--such-and-such; it includes but it's not limited to. So at least if you're including and not limiting it to it, you're not narrowly defining and limiting yourself to your interpretation of Canadian values.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Bourgeois, you brought this amendment forward. Can you explain what you mean when you say “Canadian values” means values of global citizenship”?

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

When we, that is members of the Bloc Québécois and civil society organizations, had discussed this, we preferred to use CIDA's definition because this is the definition used by cooperative groups, and groups in Quebec including the Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale, or AQOCI. Even if we refer to Canadian values, all cooperative organizations are trying to achieve the same thing as CIDA and subscribe to this definition. That is why we chose this definition.

Now, I think you are right when you say that Canadian interests regarding security, prosperity, and good governance are on a different level. So, in terms of poverty, these are the Canadian values that prevail, for CIDA.

Mr. Goldring knows this, we talked about it often enough. We both sat together on the subcommittee, and we addressed this issue. These are CIDA's definitions, and this is what all international cooperation groups, including the AQOCI of Quebec, subscribe to. That is why I kept this definition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Once again, we are attempting to define.

To be very blunt, global citizenship and equity are absolutely confusing words. I can understand environmental sustainability. That is okay. But unless we go further to define “global citizenship” and “equity”, again, we may be missing something, such as we did in the last argument in the last amendment.

Leave it open. What are you trying to say? To be very blunt with you, I don't know what global citizenship is, and I don't know what equity is. You're asking me to vote on “global citizenship”. Well, I have no concept of what global is. I don't know what equity is. I can see environmental sustainability. We need to be more definitive if you want to put Canadian values in. If you just leave Canadian values, it leaves a wide-open door, which I think is more appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Menzies.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Madame Bourgeois, can I ask where from CIDA you get this definition? Was it from their website?

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

Yes. It was in a document from CIDA. On CIDA's website, the fourth point refers to Canadian values. Perhaps someone could go and get this. It is defined there.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you. I appreciate--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

To jump in, is that CIDA's definition, or do they use it on that website as a definition? There may be other definitions, such as “democratic development” or “human rights”. None of that is being mentioned here. CIDA certainly has that as part of their definition of values too. Because it's on the website, is that their comprehensive definition of Canadian values?

Mr. Menzies.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

That's basically the same point I was going to make. I think if we're going to define it, we've missed a few. Because it's on the website, I'm not sure that it makes good legislation. They may have missed some on the website. Whoever posted that on the website may have missed some relevant points that might leave an entire sector of a country out of official development assistance. We're trying to make the best definitions we can with this legislation--if it becomes such. We don't want to miss anything.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have proposed this amendment in the best spirit possible. So, I ask that you call the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madam.

Mr. Patry was on the list, so we'll take Mr. Patry.

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

In the French version, it says that Canadian values mean "Values of global citizenship, equity and environmental sustainability [...]"

What if we said instead that Canadian values mean "among others", to ensure that this is not overly restrictive? We could be forgetting some, but if we added the words "among others", this would mean that these are some of the values.

Do you understand what I mean? I am not taking anything away from the motion. I would add the words "among others", because we may want to add other Canadian values later. So, if we added the words "among others", this would allow us to add other Canadian values, because it would not just be those values. There are other values too.

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

But we have to make sure we understand each other correctly. I accept your view, because we should be inclusive, but it is not true that all groups in Quebec accept all the values regarding Canadian security, and so on. So the definition needs to be broad so as to include everyone. That is why I drafted it in this way.

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

If you agree to add the words "among others", I have no objection to the amendment.