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.
December 12th, 2006 / 4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
I had difficulty with this on different levels . First and foremost, it would make it easier if it “includes but is not limited to”, but what exactly is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? What body crafts that? When and how often is it amended? Does it tie you to a version that may change at any time, any place?
In a Canadian bill, should we have to be going to an international kind of statement on what democracy is? Should we not be able to do that ourselves without referencing a document that may very well change at some time in the future?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
The majority of that definition deals specifically with elections. When we talk about democracy, there's been so much to say that it's not just about the election; it's not that once you have the election you have.... There's not very much about human rights or about other principles of good governance. I would say that narrow definition could be problematic.
Mr. Menzies.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
I have no argument with the fact that's written somewhere, but in what context?
For us to be approving that as an amendment to what potentially could be Canadian government legislation, I'm very uncomfortable with that, because I don't know what it's based on. To take that as relevant to what we are talking about here, I don't think we should be accepting it as a definition in what we're discussing today. I have great difficulty with that.
Conservative
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Do you want me to go on first? You're so nice.
Ms. Bourgeois, I'm going to make the same comment I made earlier about the preceding amendment, namely, that this may be too restrictive. I am not sure, because I am not an expert at defining the word "democracy", but if we were to say that democracy means "among others" political and civil rights, and so on, that would take nothing away from the fact that if we wanted to add something later to the definition of democracy or if democracy could mean something else, there would be no impact on the bill. It is somewhat similar to the amendment regarding Canadian values.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
There are various interpretations of democracy. We do not have a definition of it here in Canada. The committee is looking into this, but at the moment, there is no definition of democracy. We know what it is, but there is really no one hard and fast definition.
So in that context, I think we could consider such an amendment. You would like to add the word "among other things"?
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Yes, "among others" or "includes but is not limited to", because we could add political, civic, human rights, and so on. Other rights could be included in the definition of democracy. So I would not want to limit the word "democracy" to political and civil rights.
I think we could say "includes, but is not limited to, political and civil rights", and so on.
Conservative
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, let me ask this question. Has Madame Bourgeois accepted Mr. Patry's friendly amendment?
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Mr. Chair, would you tell this gentleman that we do have.... For him to say “Call the question” is absolute nonsense.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
You said talk about democracy and do not allow anybody to talk about democracy. What kind of a democracy is this? Just keep quiet and let me finish my talking. Talk about democracy.
This is an attempt to define something that is larger, more important, and a fundamental right to Canadian values and democracy.
This is a very limited attempt to define this thing, and if Mr. Patry's amendment was even accepted, why are we going in this direction? You are absolutely right. We are learning about democratic reform here and doing all these things.
You and I have travelled in the world, and we find that democracy is far broader than as described here. So it would be very difficult for a Canadian bill to enter something that is this restrictive. If you leave it as democracy, I don't see any problems with the wider things.
All the time we have the same situation. This bill is becoming more and more restrictive in an attempt to define something that is a broader concept, a broader understanding. It will come to a state where this will be a totally regressive bill.
Bloc
Caroline St-Hilaire Bloc Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
We tried to improve the bill. As was already said, a new aspect has been added to clause 2, namely the promotion of democracy, and we felt that it should be defined. We humbly referred to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
If Mr. Patry wants to include the words "includes but is not limited to", that is one thing, but it is almost as if there were no more definition. Essentially, the definition is very broad. You can add the word "including" in referring to the covenant, but at the same time, it could be this or it could be something else. Personally, I would prefer not to include the words "includes but is not limited to" and leave the definition as is.
If this definition does not suit the committee members, we'll have to come to an agreement to find another one. We are not yet out of the woods. The government party does not seem to agree with the definition of the word "democracy", but its representatives did not propose another definition. I am not sure that they are able to do so.
That being said, I would humbly submit that the words "includes but is not limited to" are, in my opinion, limitative.
Conservative
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
In the interest of moving forward here, I think this is an honest attempt to respond to the fact that we have included democratic promotion, which government members were anxious to see happen, and are now trying to define democracy, as I understand it.
My question to government members is, in the spirit of trying to find some consensus, are you agreeable to the suggested change by Monsieur Patry that “democracy includes but is not limited to”, or «notamment», en français? I think you're saying you don't consider it perfect, but maybe it's a reasonable consensus that we could achieve so we could move forward.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Yes, I think that would be.... It would leave open what we have been arguing and not define it very narrowly. We have no problem in attempting to define democracy, but it's a subject we could all discuss for hours to see what we can do. In the interest of time, we can go ahead and do that.