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
Conservative
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
On 2566760, I'll state that clause 3 be amended by (a) adding after line 11 on page 2 the following:
“international assistance” means funding provided by government agencies for international development, international financial institutions, global peace and security, crises overseas and international development research.
and by adding after line 11 on page 2 the following:
“international human rights standards” means standards that are based on human rights conventions and on customary law.
That is 2566760. It's pretty basic, actually.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
This is in two separate amendments, but divided into two parts, (a) and (b). Are we going to vote on it separately and deal with it separately?
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
I have to raise a few concerns about this. It may limit what we can do. We're talking about official development assistance, and now we're down to international assistance. Is there an international platform for deciding what is international assistance?
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I truly cannot fathom what else one would want to include in the definition that I've offered, Mr. Menzies, unless you can provide the committee some--
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
Is it different from development assistance? Is it different from emergency assistance? Is it different from ODA?
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
International assistance is like this container. ODA is the water in the container. Not all international assistance is ODA, but ODA represents the bulk of international assistance. International assistance is the omnibus. It is, as Mr. McKay calls it, the universe. The sub-universe is ODA, which we identified.
Seriously, if you can think of anything else that would be construed as international assistance that would not be covered by that definition, please provide what it would be.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
On a point of clarification, I'd direct Mr. Menzies' memory to the testimony. You'll recollect that Department of Finance officials came to talk about providing police officers in Haiti, judges in China, and things of that nature.
It becomes a long stretch between poverty alleviation and money. We don't want to limit Canada's ability to do those kinds of things and simply cut off what might otherwise be good programs, but the bill ultimately wants to focus on the fact that what we're counting as ODA is for poverty alleviation. It's the sub-universe of the bill. We don't want to be put into a position where we inadvertently cut off the Government of Canada from doing those other kinds of things.
The minister might say he can't use the budget to provide police officers for Haiti, and that might not be a very good thing. He can't make a direct correlation between it and poverty alleviation. It's the reason we reworked the definitions.
The consequence of the two definitions passing, which I hope they will, is such that development assistance in the bill should be taken out. There would only be two definitions of assistance; you'd have international assistance and ODA assistance. The concept of development assistance, which is at the top of page 2, would be eliminated.
December 12th, 2006 / 5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
Thank you for the clarification.
If I can continue, I have a concern. I've talked to development agencies from different countries, and they share some of these concerns.
We're not able to recognize that we have a number of groups. In fact, the House of Commons supported us in aiming at the goal of 0.7%. But by making these definitions too tight, all of a sudden it becomes unattainable. We've put some of the definitions to some of what Canada does, the good things Canada does, the RCMP helping with elections in other countries, and those kinds of things.
As long as this limits it and leaves a big gap between international assistance and what we can claim as ODA, so as to embarrass us in the world, we're not doing what we set out as a goal in attaining development assistance that is recognized. I'm struggling with this to make sure we're not making too fine a definition.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Okay. I have a speaking list here.
I'd like to hear that answer from Mr. McKay, but I'm going to go to Mr. Patry. He's been waiting for a while.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I want to ask a question to Mr. Martin.
Keith, you said international assistance means funding provided by government agencies. What's happened? Is CIDA a government agency? It's a department.
I only want to know about it. Which agency do you want to tell me about?
On the other hand, we have IDRC, which is a crown corporation. Where do you put IDRC?
To me, it's very important. They have an independent board of directors, and they've created great jobs through research and a lot of things. Where do you put this for assistance? To me, IDRC is a must, and we need to keep it.
What main funding is provided by government agencies? Is it foreign affairs? It's not an agency. It's the Department of Foreign Affairs. It's the Minister of Finance who gives money and grants to some other places.
I only wanted to clarify this.
Conservative
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I only want to ask Mr. Patry this. Would you like to change the definition? Is there some other term?
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I only saw it this afternoon. I was only given this now.
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Is there another commonly used term to describe those elements of government that are responsible for this?
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
We have a friendly amendment, “provided for by government”.