Evidence of meeting #37 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 finance.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
I think Mr. Martin just made a good argument for putting this in. Why on earth would we want to disallow the good things this country does to not be definable as official development assistance? Other countries do.
Is there some reason Mr. McKay's bill should have the intent of embarrassing the government by suggesting we don't do our fair share of official development assistance, because we can't define it and we've tied our hands with this piece of legislation? There's no reason on earth we wouldn't accept this as a friendly amendment, to make sure we are recognized for what we do.
I absolutely support Mr. Casey's amendment. I think it's absolutely critical. We listened to the witnesses. We just heard the testimony that we need this. It's absolutely unimaginable that we wouldn't want to put this in.
Conservative
Bill Casey Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
With all due respect to the comments, it's absolutely clear. Clause 4(1) says:
Development assistance may be provided only if the competent minister is of the opinion that it: (a) contributes to poverty reduction; (b) takes into account the perspectives of the poor; and (c) is consistent with Canada’s international human rights obligations.
If we leave that, there's no room for debt relief, no room to deal with the money laundering that was described to us, no room for funding landmines, judicial system training, or training police officers.
It's very clear. If an opposition member wanted to take the government to account when the Minister of Finance wanted to apply debt relief to another country, they could take this clause and say you're breaking the law.
It's very clear. It may not be what you wanted to do, but that's very clear.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
I agree with Mr. Casey.
It was very clear in some of the testimony before the committee and particularly with relationship to Haiti. We asked what the other essential elements are as part of poverty reduction. Of course the other essential elements are the security, the vetting of the police, the training, and many of the other elements. If we try to define and separate that from the good will of trying to reduce poverty, I think that would hugely complicate it. It would not only complicate it, but it would put some of these initiatives in jeopardy by trying to define them and put them into one category or the other.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Mr. Chair, I would have hoped that the government members had consulted with their own officials prior to making their argument.
You did the definitions in clause 3. This entire concern, legitimate as it was when the testimony was given by the finance department officials, has been entirely dealt with. There is no basis for the concern. Therefore, there is no basis for the amendment. And as I'm given to understand, in that some folks have dealt with finance department officials as recently as this morning, they are no longer concerned. So this amendment is not necessary. In fact, if it goes forward, it will leave a monster hole in the bill.
Conservative
Bill Casey Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
I just wonder, if the land-mine effort funding, debt relief, and policing in developing countries that are provided by Canada isn't aid, what is it?
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
It's unofficial development assistance, international assistance. It's not official development assistance.
Conservative
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
That's the point of the bill. The bill is that you connect your official development assistance to poverty alleviation. That's what we've been talking about for the last...how many times?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Mr. McKay, in all honesty, we've also heard the testimony that debt relief, for example, is one of the first steps you can take for poverty reduction. Those arguments can be made.
This is just making sure.... I don't know whether it's fair to say this is leaving a gaping hole in this bill. I think it's a realistic concern: we want the opportunity to go for debt relief. We want the opportunity to do some of this and to get credit for it, to have it ODA-able.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
There is nothing to stop the Minister of Finance from giving Mali $10 million or $100 million tomorrow—
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
—and having it connect to poverty alleviation. Who's to argue that it isn't poverty alleviation? But if they give the same $100 million debt relief to, say, Russia, it might not be ODA-able.
There's nothing to stop them doing this. If you leave this in place, it basically exempts the Minister of Finance from the bill.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
I fail to see why it would exempt the Minister of Finance from the bill. Once again, I think it's making a stronger piece of legislation that actually recognizes that the finance minister plays a role.
This is the argument I was trying to make yesterday, that we're dealing with a number of different ministers. We may be dealing with the public security minister in some of these functions, in security issues that we promote in other countries. Why shouldn't that be ODA-able? Why shouldn't that be part of the package?
If you have some advice from the finance department, please table it and share it with the rest of us, because I'm not willing to accept your word on this, Mr. McKay.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I can call somebody who's been doing the negotiations. Does that count?
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
I'm not asking for that. I think this amendment is a friendly amendment; it's helpful to the legislation; it defines it.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
With the greatest respect, I think your advice is behind the times. The evidence was given on the basis of the bill as it was drafted, and the Department of Finance was speaking about the bill as it was drafted. Now it's amended. There is no problem.