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.
5 p.m.
Committee Researcher
Yes, we give no more loans at all. The effort is 100% grant element. We stopped making ODA loans in 1986.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Committee Researcher
It's the international development assistance OECD floor, if you want to call it that.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Regarding (a) and (b), when you say that official development assistance is international assistance “(a) that is administered”, that's fine. With regard to “(b) that is provided”, is it that we need to have both together, or one or the other? Because you could have “administered” and you could have “promoting the economic development” if it's not a natural or artificial disaster. I just want to know about the wording. That's why we don't have just one, because it's (a) and (b). “Official” means (a) and (b).
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Well, it's both. You have “and” after (a). At the bottom of (a) there is “and”, so it involves both of those.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
But it means something. If we want to promote economic development in a country when there's no emergency, no natural or artificial disaster, we'll be unable to do it, because it says (a) and (b).
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
That's exactly what it involves. So (a) and (b) involve the two components: (a) is a non-emergency situation and (b) is the emergency situation. It involves both. That's why you have “and” after “section 4”.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
He's saying that official development assistance is both, not....
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I want to get it done properly. I'm not against it, but to me, the way I read it, if you don't have (a) and (b), you cannot give any official development assistance.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I don't think you're reading it properly, but I think you have a point. So would “and/or” do it?
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Caroline St-Hilaire Bloc Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
Mr. Chairman, I would tell you, with all due respect, that I think that Mr. Patry should quite simply suggest to his colleagues that we withdraw clause (b), because it contradicts clause 5 on humanitarian aid.
I would by far prefer Ms. McDonough's amendment, with all the respect that I have for Mr. Martin. We have some reservations with respect to clause (b),
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
The reason clause 5 is there is to exempt the minister from the obligation in the bill to provide emergency relief. Obviously emergency relief may have nothing to do with poverty alleviation. That's why you have clause 5 in the first place.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
So when there's a tsunami, she can still respond and she isn't going to be tied to that disaster assistance because of this. I think that's positive. It's saying that if there's a tsunami that hits Sri Lanka, the minister can respond immediately. What it also says is that both are eligible to be counted as ODA. All right?
We have Mr. Patry.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I just want to know something. You see in the first definition by Mr. McKay, when you talk about the one you want, that development assistance means funding that is transferred to developing countries and multilateral institutions by government agencies.
After that, we find out the rest. That's perfect. But it doesn't mean that it's not provided. We don't say to whom is provided the official development assistance. It could be provided also to developing countries and multilateral institutions. We don't say that. Is it necessary to say that or not?
December 12th, 2006 / 5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Because by accepting the one that's in front of us right now, we aren't talking about the funding transferred to developing countries and multilateral institutions by government agencies that is administered for the principal objective. We don't talk about this. Do we need to talk about this situation, yes or no?
5:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Yes.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I have a point of order, Chair, and I'd seek the guidance of the clerk on this.
We also had Mr. Martin's amendment, and I can't remember whether he's moved this or not. It's reference 2566760 on international assistance and international human rights standards. My recollection was that we dealt with that.
We did not deal with that?
As a point of order, so that members try to maintain some coherence to their thinking, and subject to what the clerk and you would say, Chair, we should deal with international assistance as the global universe of assistance of Canada and with international human rights standards, which I think there was some discussion about, but we didn't actually move the last time. That would ultimately lead to a withdrawal of NDP-5, which would be redundant then. Subject to Ms. McDonough and to Mr. Martin, I suggest that as an order of procedure.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
If we dealt with this and accepted it, it would automatically mean that hers are withdrawn. We don't have to ask her permission to withdraw, as long as she's aware. I appreciate that, because if there are going to be some consequential changes down the road, I want to warn those movers down the road.
Madam McDonough.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
John's quite right. I already made a note that when we got to it, having withdrawn in favour of Keith Martin's amendment, the consequences were that we would also withdraw NDP-5.
