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.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I don't think there's anything to restrict the minister's consulting with anyone. If it's the Government of Quebec or the Government of Ontario or the Government of Prince Edward Island, there's nothing to restrict the minister from consulting with them. But the minister will be obliged to show that he or she has consulted with international agencies and Canadian civil society organizations in order to be able to show that she's met the test of the act.
I don't see any restriction whatsoever, but the other part is mandatory.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Can we have a little more order here, please? There are too many conversations going on.
December 13th, 2006 / 4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
You talk about Canadian civil society, and I agree. But my question is also this. If the government would like to talk with—I don't know—Honduran civil society, if you wanted to give ODA to such a country, this would mean everything will be decided here in Canada. We won't be allowed to go abroad to the other countries to consult the other countries.
That's what we want. We don't want to export what we want to do; I just want to be sure we're going to be able.... If you just delete the word Canadian, you could consult with “civil society”, and that could be external civil society. Now you're just consulting, in a sense, with international agencies and Canadian civil society.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
And governments. It reads:
...subsection (1), the competent minister shall consult with governments, international agencies, and Canadian civil society organizations.
It doesn't say provincial governments; it doesn't say international governments; it leaves it at governments. I believe it was Mr. Goldring's amendment that we had the other day on this.
Mr. Goldring, did you want to speak? Did I have you on the list?
We're right on the edge on this, because we've said that once we deal with a certain line, we'll do it that one time, and we're kind of going back on that. But in fairness to Mr. Patry, we haven't carried this clause yet, and he has some real concerns about this. We want to address them.
Madam McDonough, or Mr. Goldring, did you have something, or no?
Conservative
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
I'm just seeking clarification. I'm not meaning to be insensitive to your concern, but are you satisfied that we have already inserted “governments” and that this deals with it?
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I'm satisfied with “governments”, because it is in here; “governments” is fine, and “international agencies”, but instead of “Canadian civil society”, I just prefer “civil society”. That means Canadian, for one, and other civil society in any other country.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Yes, the argument is just “Canadian”, just to delete the word “Canadian”, because we need to consult civil society in the other countries also, when we're doing ODA.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Mr. Chairman, we discussed this issue when we changed the word “may“ to “shall“. We said then that the minister was required to consult international agencies and Canadian non-governmental organizations, but that this would not exclude the countries Canada already consults at the present time. The intent was simply to ensure that he would also consult the agencies and NGOs.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I think in fairness, Mr. Patry.... And you know what? You may be right. But I think the fact that we have included international organizations could also take away some of the—
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I'm sorry, you're right. We've included “international agencies” and “Canadian civil society organizations”. Agencies, you're right, are not the same as associations or organizations, but I think that would still give enough leeway.
You know, international agencies would be consulted.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Okay, I'm not going to discuss it further. If you don't want to accept this, then I will accept being alone on this. But I want to point out one thing: if you want to go to a country like Colombia and focus on one area of Colombia, and there's no international agency over there that's working with you there, who are you going to consult? I don't know.
So that's what I mean. We need to consult civil society--Canadian civil society, all of civil society. I want to be sure that when we're doing anything for ODA, people abroad will be consulted, not just international, where it's big buddy. If we say “international agencies and local agencies”, that would be fine with me. I just want to be sure that we're doing something locally as well.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
Could I have some clarity on the exact word that you would feel more comfortable with? Is this simply about taking out the word “Canadian”?
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
No, no, unless we have unanimous consent, we aren't going back to revisit this. If we have a motion that we go back to visit this, and we have unanimous consent to do it, if it was allowed procedurally—
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I'm sorry, Chair, you cannot do this.
Even when you accept a clause, you can modify the clause. That's the rule. You can modify clauses. Even if you accept them one by one, when you're back at the end, if there is any amendment, it doesn't need to get unanimous consent.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I don't think you can do that at all. That's not true at all.