Evidence of meeting #40 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 afghanistan.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Let's have some order here. Mr. Obhrai has the floor, and he has the time to continue.
When you debate motions, you're given as much time as you decide to take. But if we can work together, we may be able to cut some speeches down.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
I'm giving you the reasons. These are the reasons you're going to get, and I'm going to lay it down.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
I'm going to give the reasons for the others. Maybe you don't want them, but the others do.
Because it was felt that there would be no repercusions at all on the services that these three G-8 countries, with their infrastructure and so on, were providing to these countries, it was decided that this consolidation—it's not a closure, but a consolidation of this mission—would have zero impact on that.
Taking that into account, the Canadian officers based there would be reassigned to other duties, and the local staff would follow the contract, which was the service package and everything out there.
The Government of Canada normally reviews its embassies and these things periodically, whether we open up new embassies or close old ones. This is what governments have been doing, including yours.
In the past, we had 43 new missions open up, but 31 were closed as we evaluated their effectiveness—where we were going to go and how best to do it. This was the exercise that cabinet followed.
There is going to be no change, as far as the loss of officers is concerned. The total savings on these closures is going to be $3.6 million, as part of the restraint that the cabinet directed for 2007 and 2008.
We worked with and informed the local governments as well. This is part and parcel of the government exercise that took place out there. This was the rationale, the reason for the consolidation of these things.
This is the answer you're going to get, Mr. Chair, if the minister comes—not the department officials, but the minister, if they want to listen to him, not to the one responsible, but to the one who will speak on behalf of the government. And I've just spoken on behalf of the government.
If the committee wants to carry on doing it and waste money, so be it.
Conservative
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Chairman, my aim was not to debate it today.
I appreciate Mr. Obhrai's explanation. Therefore I'm sure that somebody must have informed him, so those appropriate officials must be able to come before the committee.
Also, in the spirit of openness and transparency, I am sure that the reaction I saw from the Japanese ambassador and others indicated that consultation was clearly not part of the process.
I've already done an access-to-information request in writing, but in the meantime it would be very useful for members of the committee to have the information. Obviously whether it's the officials or the appropriate minister, someone made a decision and provided the advice. I want to know on what basis that was.
We've seen your critique, but I didn't think it would be appropriate for me to debate it today. What is appropriate is simply to call the question and move on to other business, Mr. Chairman.
I call the question.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
I think we have a responsibility here all the way around to maximize the benefits and cost analysis of what we're doing in committee. If there is a rationale that's available, and the parliamentary secretary has clearly enunciated it, we could certainly make it much clearer by an official letter from the minister.
Rather than tying up everybody in a committee meeting and having the minister's office here for the sake of having this information confirmed, I think we have a responsibility to go that route. Failing that, we could call a committee meeting on it.
I think it's irresponsible to go ahead with this when we have another avenue that is much more palatable and far less costly to the government.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
We have two studies going now. We have the study on democratic development. There are going to be times on Afghanistan here. So to take another day...but the motion has asked for that.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Obhrai is correct, and I guess one hour of the committee's time is an hour well spent.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Mr. Chair, we Liberals agree we could have an extra day, just an extra one-hour meeting. No problem with this.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Okay, then we'll call the question.
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
February 13th, 2007 / 11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
The way this motion is worded, if he's unable to come before... We didn't vote on the friendly amendment, did we? It was accepted. All right, it was accepted. I think the wordsmithing on the motion, now that it's passed, is poor. If he's unable to come before February 20 or 22, there is nothing saying then that he should have to come on February 27. But the motion is carried.
The next motion. We'll go to Mr. Obhrai.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
I move that the committee recommend to the Government of Canada that CIDA establish agriculture as a priority sector using the strategies and policies developed in the CIDA policy document entitled “Promoting Sustainable Rural Development Through Agriculture”, focusing on sustainability and the reduction of poverty and hunger.
Mr. Chair, this deals with the agriculture NGO for food. So I think this motion is a very strong motion, sending a very strong message that agriculture is a priority for this country, for the food grains. It is one of the strongest strengths of international development assistance.
Conservative
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm surprised this motion is coming from the other side, but it's a really good one.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Anyway, in all seriousness, the intent of this motion is very good.
I think we should have the CIDA officials here to describe to us a bit of the background on how we should implement this policy and go forward from there.