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.
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
The thing we all need to remind ourselves of while we anxiously try to move this forward is that this whole effort represents a broad consensus by all of us to try to move this forward, if I can just insert that.
The proposed amendment simply inserts a new section defining “civil society organization” in a way that is more inclusive than the one in the act that defines NGOs.
Does everyone have this? I can read it out. It was distributed several meetings ago.
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
The amendment proposes that clause 3 be amended by adding, after line 19, on page 1, the following:
“civil society organization” means a not-for-profit or charitable organization whose governing structure is independent of government direction, and includes, but is not limited to, registered charities, non-governmental development organizations, community groups, women's organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, trade unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions, human rights organizations and advocacy groups.
I so move.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
I do understand the attempt made here to define “civil society”, but on a basic concept basis, we understand “civil society” to be a broader definition. Although you put it up, if you leave it as “civil society”, whatever you are trying to achieve is already there. We are not restricted. As a matter of fact, by just leaving the words “civil society” and not identifying what “civil society” is would leave broader room to get broader organizations involved. At a given time, we may not have known that they would be part of a “civil society”.
So I think it would be prudent for us to go with the broader aspect of it and leave “civil society” as “civil society”. Why do we need to define it? Just leave it open, and everybody can come in. More groups can come in. More representations can be made.
At times, Alexa, we may have groups that we never anticipated that could be included under a civil society. By just leaving “civil society”, we will achieve the objective you are trying to achieve, which is to make it broad by just leaving it as “civil society”. Why would you not just leave it as “civil society”? Why would you have difficulty with that?
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Actually, the argument you just advanced is precisely the reason why we thought making it more inclusive was the appropriate way to go. It's true that one can't always contemplate, for all time, what might evolve into an additional form of civil society. It seems to me that the point is to make it as inclusive as possible, as you've suggested. At some future date, then, one could make a change if somehow it wasn't inclusive enough.
But when I listen to your argument, it seems to support the amendment that I've put forward.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
This is why the clerk's advice was valuable. You build an act first, then you build your definitions to supplement your act. We're going about it backwards.
The reason that “civil society organization” exists as a definition is to be able to have precise meaning for other anticipated pieces of legislation that will pass.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
I think the attempt to define it really defeats the purpose of it, because while it is giving a number and a list of definitions, it also is saying “but is not limited to”. In other words, the list could go on and on, when in reality you're talking about a word that is very difficult to define and is best left under its own interpretation, on its own, without trying to put a definition to it that really is not a complete definition anyway.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I don't have as extensive a tenure here as others, but certainly one of the considerations that I've heard from other departments in other Parliaments is that when you start listing a comprehensive list like we have here, and then you miss one, they tend to say “They weren't specifically listed, so if they meant that, it would have been there even though it says it's not limited to that”. So I accept what Mr. Goldring says on that one.
Does anyone else want to comment on that amendment?
Mr. Menzies.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
I appreciate your intent, Ms. McDonough, but that is the case. It's the same thing when any of us stand up to make a speech and we want to recognize some individuals. You can bet your bottom dollar that you'll forget one person. You're better off never to start if you realize that you might not recognize everyone.
There will be associations evolving. There will be associations and NGOs in other countries that don't have Canadian chapters. To start defining the ones that we recognize today as civil society organizations may not reflect what we're going to see in the future. I'm concerned that we may end up leaving out some that would be valuable partners.
Mr. Patry, you're the one who wanted to talk about definitions. I'd be interested in whether or not this is a concern of yours, and more so, why we're talking about the definitions first.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I simply want to say that I fully agree with Ms. McDonough's amendment.
Following representations by different departments, including CIDA, we obtained the comments of the Department of Finance and the Department of Foreign Affairs. So, the definition of the term "civil society organization" is quite conclusive, and I think that it really includes any non-governmental organization. We need a definition. In fact, we cannot consider a bill without defining an NGO. I really think that this term encompasses all organizations that may be referred to as civil society organizations.
So I am in favour of this definition.
Bloc
Caroline St-Hilaire Bloc Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
I want to add to what my colleague said. To reassure the government members, the word notamment has been included. So I think that this is all-inclusive.
Consequently, I ask that the chair call the question on the amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I'll pose the question on amendment NDP-2.
(Amendment agreed to)
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Mr. Chairman, could we go to the Bloc Québécois amendment?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
We have a second Bloc amendment to clause 3. Its reference number is 2567892. It's in regard to Canadian values.
Madame Bourgeois.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill C-293, in clause 3, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 1, the following:
"Canadian values" means values of global citizenship, equity and environmental sustainability, as well as Canadian interests regarding security, prosperity, and good governance.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
This addition would appear after the definition of civil society organization.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
I think that this addition is very respectful of what the House of Commons and the Canadian government stand for.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I regard this as generally a friendly amendment, Chair. However, I would ask the honourable member to consider ending her Canadian values definition at the word “sustainability”.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
I fully agree.
I wasn't aware of that. So we would stop immediately after the word "sustainability". I apologize.