Evidence of meeting #36 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
We can add “provided for by government” and remove “agencies”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Yes, “provided by government for international development”.
We have a friendly amendment.
We'll go to Mr. McKay, Madam McDonough, and Mr. Menzies.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
That's fine. I think that's a useful clarification.
I'd just say that the five pools that are in international assistance are what the Government of Canada has used for the last 12 years to categorize, if you will, their international assistance. So it's not as if we're just picking this thing out of the middle of the air.
As to Mr. Menzies' issue, the whole point of the bill is to try to give some discipline to Canada's official development assistance. And the discipline is whether you can meet the three tests--poverty alleviation, human rights standards, and taking into account perspectives of the poor--so that it's not flavour of the month or flavour of the year.
If in fact the government wants to go to flavour of the month or flavour of the year, that's fine. But if it can't meet the test, it won't be ODA-able. That's the issue. That's the point of the bill.
Now, I think the testimony of the finance department people, or maybe it was the foreign affairs department, was that 90%--I think that's the number--of our international assistance is in fact ODA-able. So all this bill does is ultimately provide more precision, definition, and accountability to what we're trying to achieve here.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
I agree with the point that John McKay is making, but I was trying to respond to Ted Menzies' concern, if I understood it, with respect to the definition of international assistance. He was raising the concern about whether this itemization was sufficiently broad or sufficiently inclusive. His concern was that we not narrow the definition.
I guess all I would say, partly reiterating the point already made, is that if you think it's too narrow and if you can think of another single solitary thing that could go in there to make it even more all-inclusive, then fine, suggest it. But otherwise, it seems pretty darn broad. Any example you can think of seems to me to be covered by those categories.
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
That's what the government uses now. If what you're saying is that you don't think the government's definition now is broad enough, then throw something else into this pot. But otherwise, I would hope we could move forward.
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
It's a standard budgetary definition, on your budget as well as ours.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
Don't get me wrong. If this is going to become legislation, we want to make sure that we don't miss a big chunk. This was just handed to us this afternoon, so I don't have any template to gauge this by. I'm just trying to make sure we're doing it right.
Are we talking about taking the word “agencies” out of here? Let's just question, is IDRC an agency of the government? It's a crown corporation. We want to make sure that we don't drop IDRC out of this.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
But if it's an agency of the government, then we've dropped it by taking “agency” out.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Let's try to keep the dialogue between the chair and the others. That way, we aren't going to have any....
Mr. McKay.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Just to speak to Mr. Menzies' point, we have a specific amendment taking IDRC out of the obligations of the act. It's in here, in the package.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Are we ready for the question?
It's (a) and (b). It's both together. It's one amendment.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
To me, customary law is very narrow. Should we not look at international customary law, customary law in Canada, in Asia...?
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
“International human rights standards” means standards that are based on human rights conventions and on customary law. I would prefer it to say “human rights international conventions”, because it could be local conventions, and then which convention applies at that time?
We have a definition of “international convention”. I think it would be much better if we put “international conventions”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
There are still two questions. First of all, Mr. Menzies is still on the international customary law. Mr. Patry is also trying to include “human rights international conventions”.
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
If it's a friendly amendment, put “international human rights conventions”. I don't have a problem with that, Mr. McKay.
The other one, Mr. Menzies, what--
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
It's “international customary law”. Maybe we could use “international” once and combine it, just to make it simpler.