Foreign Affairs Committee on Dec. 13th, 2006

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I completely support John McKay's position on this. I think you're making an argument that would have perhaps had some sway before we changed the definitions.

But let's get back to first principles and what the objective is of what we're doing. It is to put into a legislative format the express desires, first unanimously by this committee and then by the House of Commons, to make poverty reduction the absolutely central priority of our official development assistance. That's what this bill does, and I think this subverts the very measures we put in place.

There's nothing here that precludes the government's doing all those various things you're talking about. But the ones that don't pertain to poverty reduction aren't ODA-able. That's the simple fact of it.

I guess the other thing is that it seems like a rather theoretical discussion when we're languishing at 0.32% of our ODA obligations. The real issue is how we are going to move forward on our poverty reduction commitments while the government can go on doing all kinds of things, some of them with the full support, some of them not with the full support of other members of Parliament and other parties in the House. But that's to be determined by the votes that take place in the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

When we talk about languishing at 0.32%, I think in fairness that is what the government side is saying. We all recognize a desire to work towards the 0.7%. But if there's $10 million or $15 million here because of something, and it isn't going to be counted, I'm wondering whether it's possible that a government is going to hesitate and say: “We get no credit for this. Why would we do it?” It's a consideration.

We have Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

I think if we go back to our visits to the Scandinavian countries and the consultations there, they added to it. They recognized that a number of things help and assist and help the poverty situation. There is governance, for example. How much funding has gone through poor governance, and how much more can be affected and impacted by it?

We had witness after witness here who repeated the same thing. We were very specific on Haiti and asked them what the essential components were. To leave out security, to leave out governance, and to put it into a different file or pocket could do harm to it. It's the overall feeling that to exclude this.... It really does make this bill much more important to have that excluded.

Mr. McKay, your one reference that we didn't take part in--because we all took part in the witnesses, so we know what the witnesses were saying--was your one reference from the department itself, on which you have nothing to produce here for us. But all the other witnesses--the government witnesses, what we heard abroad, what we heard from Haiti--would imply that this should be in this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

Go ahead, Mr. Casey.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

If I were the finance minister, and a member like Mr. Martin asked for medical aid for Ghana, for instance, I think I could say that I can't do that because it's against the law. Without the amendment I'm proposing, the finance minister can use that as an excuse for almost everything. He can shut off almost everything, because he can just say that the opposition passed an amendment that says he can't do that unless it contributes to poverty reduction, health care, policing, and things like that. That's what's going to happen.

If I were the finance minister and I didn't want to provide funding for a certain issue, I would just say that it's against the law and that I can't do it, as the amendment was passed. I think it's an awful mistake to not put the amendment in and allow the finance minister to proceed and do the things that finance ministers have done for decades.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

We'll have Mr. Martin, then Mr. Menzies, then Madame Bourgeois.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I just want to say that nothing of what Mr. Casey has offered is against the law, as he said. We are able to do all those things. I think we have to get back to first principles for the purpose of this bill. The purpose of this bill is to be able to define our ODA, and all the things you mentioned, all the wonderful initiatives you mentioned--debt reduction, demining, victim assistance, governance issues--could be defined as poverty reduction.

All Mr. McKay is trying to do here is give clarity to what ODA is and make sure that ODA is poverty reduction and not something else. All the things you've offered are ODA-able, and even if they were considered not ODA-able, they would still fall under the envelope of international assistance and therefore are doable and not illegal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Martin, when the world is striving to reach 0.7%, and indeed many countries have reached it.... Are some of the concerns that Mr. Casey has brought forward part of the ODA in other countries?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

You can make all the things, all the wonderful initiatives that Mr. Casey has mentioned and works on, quite frankly, ODA-able. If they are not considered ODA-able, they are still doable, because they fit under the envelope of international assistance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

They're still doable, but they aren't doable within the envelope of ODA.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

But they're doable under international assistance. All those—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

But in other countries they would be included within ODA.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

But all those things are ODA-able.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

In many countries they would be.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Under this bill they would be too. We just have to focus, I think, on why we are doing this bill. In fact, this bill has actually added to our international reputation and will actually enable us to buttress what is considered to be ODA-able.

What we have done historically is not attach initiatives and money that we have spent on international assistance to being ODA-able. That's been our fault. What we ought to be doing is including under our ODA a lot of the things we've done in all our poverty reduction initiatives. We have failed to do that. It's an oversight on our part. But if we were able to include this, then we would be able to say to the world that our actual ODA spending is a whole lot more than what it is and has been for quite a few years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll go to Mr. Menzies and then Madame Bourgeois.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

I think Madam McDonough made a good point when she raised the 0.32%, or wherever we're at now. That's the way the world views us.

If we narrow the definitions, as we've done—and I was not comfortable with the definitions that we approved yesterday, and that's why it is all the more important to put this amendment in—we will be held up as a non-performer, as not living up to our standards.

I've met with ministers of international cooperation from other countries who are at 1% of GNP and frankly are not comfortable with where the money's going. They say they get to that standard, they have to provide that amount of money, and they don't even know where it's going.

Here we are, leaving that standard in place, but by this definition. If we don't accept this amendment, we're setting ourselves up for an international embarrassment when we provide the assistance and yet can't be recognized for doing so by the rest of the world. That's the international standard. So why would we set ourselves up to not be able to be recognized for what we do?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I simply want to ask you to put the question, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Yes, I'm in favour of going to the question too, because I think we are going around and around the same arguments.

We have a difference of perspective here, but I want to say, at the risk of repetition—you might rule me out of order, because I think there is some kind of rule of repetition—that what's ODA-able is ODA-able. The definition of ODA is an international definition, so what is ODA-able for us is ODA-able for other countries. So that's not actually a valid argument.

But I think we should call the question, because I think we're not hearing any new arguments, and we should vote and move forward.

(Amendment negatived on division)

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

The next one is Mr. Martin's amendment, reference number 2564606.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I'll just read—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Keith, please give people a chance to catch up.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chairman, could you please say again what number that is?