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
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
John, when you say “international agency”, would it not be better to say “association”? Some internationals are associations but not agencies, in a sense.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I don't think anything turns on the words “agency” or “association”.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
In terms of association, you can have international associations that are not agencies. I'm just asking you what you feel about this. I'm not objecting to “agency” itself. I just want it to be broader.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
The word “agency” is used throughout the bill. To my mind, it has a more precise meaning than does “association”. Presumably you are going to be directing the government to deal with recognized entities, and the word “agency” generally brings it within a concept of recognition from government to government and from government to NGOs.
My suggestion would be that you stay with the word “agency”. The more you loosen it, the less precision you get. For instance, paragraph 9(1)(e) states, “a summary of the Departmental Performance Report of the Canadian International Development Agency”. The word is used throughout. I think it's a bit more precise when you use the word “agency”.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I just like the other one, but that's fine.
(Clause 3 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 4—Development assistance)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Let's proceed to clause 4 and our first amendment. It is amendment CPC-1, which adds a new subsection.
Mr. Casey.
Conservative
Bill Casey Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Is that line 31 in clause 4? Is that where we are?
Conservative
Bill Casey Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
This addresses some of the concerns raised by Mr. Flack, of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
We want to add a third subsection. We don't want to take away from anything that's there. We're not trying to change subclauses (1) and (2). We want to add a subclause (3) just to address the Department of Foreign Affairs' concern that the scope is too large and will prevent the Minister of Finance from doing things he might want to do, like corrections training and all the things the Department of Foreign Affairs outlined—witness protection, peace process, land mines, judicial system training, and things like that—that aren't necessarily under development assistance. They might be things the competent minister might want to do, but they don't come under the poverty restriction or narrow scope. They just want to make sure the minister is free to do those things, and they were also concerned about requiring the minister to make reports on confidential events that happened at the Bretton Woods meetings, and things like that.
It has subclauses (1) and (2) already. We're not proposing to take anything away, we just propose to add this subclause 4(3):
(3) If the Minister of Finance is designated as a competent minister under this Act, this Act applies to the Minister of Finance only in respect of the Minister's powers under the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, and any development assistance provided under the Act shall be deemed to be in compliance with this section.
Conservative
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I would oppose this amendment, Chair. I think the amendment was put forward without the benefit of the clauses that we've already passed.
The amendment, if left as is, provides, if you will, a gaping loophole for the Minister of Finance to just drive a truck through. It would almost exempt the minister from ODA provided by the Minister of Finance.
Given that we've already rectified the concern by the new definitions of both “international assistance” and “official development assistance”, I think this particular subclause cannot survive.
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Yes, I would also speak against this amendment. I'm not suggesting this is the intention, but the effect of this could, in a way, do an end run around the entire purpose of the bill. I think it could really undermine exactly what we're trying to achieve here.
I'm not hearing what the rationale is for this, but in the absence of that, I think it's not supportable, so I'd speak against it.
Conservative
Bill Casey Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
As I recall in Mr. Flack's testimony, he said that things like debt relief might be prevented by this bill under the other clauses without this. Any of the things that Canada has done, like land mines...I think we all agree that was a great international effort, but it might not be possible to fund things like that.
Judicial system training.... We heard recently that the RCMP are training other officers in many other countries. That might not be possible, and so on.
Those are not poverty reduction issues, and all we're saying is that he'd be allowed to do those things outside the narrow purview of “only poverty”. If it's only poverty, we can't do these things.
Certainly I know opposition parties are often calling for debt relief for countries that can't pay their bills, and under this, theoretically, you might not be able to do that.
That was the position put forth by the Department of Foreign Affairs. That's why this is added.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Going by what our researcher says here, when the testimony was here, this amendment would have been put in place because of the testimony that there was a concern that there might be a conflict with the Bretton Woods Act, so this would take away....
Mr. Patry.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I would support Mr. Casey, in the sense that when the Minister of Finance came here, he said there was some contribution with the Canadian International Development Agency. There is interest-free lending of money. You see this for some countries. There is also the International Monetary Fund's poverty reduction and growth facility, and also the debt relief.
I think we don't want to stop the Minister of Finance, in a sense, from going along with this argument. I feel this is an amendment just to protect the Bretton Woods...and other international obligations with the Bretton Woods—
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
There were two issues raised by the Department of Finance. The first issue had to do with preventing the very things Mr. Casey is talking about.
The second issue had to do with confidentiality issues, and you'll see further on in amendments that we've dealt with the confidentiality issues, assuming we get to those amendments today.
With respect to this one, you'll recollect that I was describing what we were doing yesterday as the universe of international assistance, and within the universe of international assistance was the ODA. Because there is a difference between ODA and international assistance, all of the things the minister would wish to do with debt relief with respect to policemen in Haiti and with respect to various programs that are going on in Afghanistan could still be done by the minister. It just would not be counted as ODA.
When this bill receives royal assent, the Government of Canada will still carry on the way it's been carrying on. The issue will be whether policemen in Haiti count for ODA purposes, and that's the issue.
If this amendment goes forward, frankly, there is not much point to the bill, because the Minister of Finance will be completely exempt from the provisions of this bill.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I'll go to Mr. Martin, but first I'll just read the testimony from them.
Is this a quote?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Okay.
First, as currently drafted, Bill C-293 could affect not only the Bretton Woods Act, but also statutes from which the minister draws authority for other international but non-developmental-related activities.
I think this amendment was put in place to alleviate those concerns.
Mr. Martin.
December 13th, 2006 / 3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I understand what you're saying and what the representatives from finance said and what Dr. Patry said, but in point of fact there's absolutely nothing at all in this bill that would preclude the excellent work that is done and will continue to be done after this bill is passed in the House.
I hope we understand, as Mr. McKay said, that all ODA is international assistance but not all international assistance is ODA-able. Because of that margin, we are allowed to continue the excellent programs, as you quite correctly said, and more. Nothing will preclude that.
I think this motion, as well-intentioned as it is, will do nothing other than undermine the essence of the bill.