Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 20th, 2007

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

That's hard to do, because it's a complicated matter. It arises out of the widely shared concern about increased transparency, accountability, and effectiveness. I think it's well known that it is something we're focused on as a committee in regard to Canada's overseas development assistance.

It's very well known that the World Bank and IMF are putting more attention on it. Some of us who have had the opportunity to travel and meet with World Bank officials in Washington and in Kenya recently have seen it is very much an increased preoccupation of the World Bank.

I think there's a bit of an issue here around the accountability that we basically demand of ourselves around Canada's role and participation and commitments at the World Bank and through the International Monetary Fund. It's really about completing that cycle or circle of accountability and being sure that we know what we're committing to on behalf of Canadians. There is a timing aspect, in that this would logically follow the upcoming Report on Operations Under the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act.

I would so move. I hope that people see it in the spirit of our general commitment to increased transparency and accountability.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right.

Go ahead, Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

I have difficulty supporting this motion.

Canada has been a longstanding proponent of a stronger focus by both the IMF and the World Bank on strengthening governance. While recognizing that considerable progress is being made, Canada continues to press the World Bank for a clear results framework against which progress on improving governance can be measured.

Canada also is a leading advocate for debt relief for poor, highly indebted countries as an important means of promoting sustainable development. In 2006 Canada contributed $16 million in fulfillment of our contributions in clearing the debts of highly indebted poor countries.

The committee has the ability to invite the minister, should it be necessary, at the time of the release of the report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right, Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Obhrai was not able to be here this morning, so thank you for giving us some of the concerns Mr. Obhrai had in regard to this motion.

I think Madam McDonough mentioned that we met with the World Bank when we were in Washington. Certainly the World Bank has appeared before the foreign affairs committee in the past. This is asking for the ministers and directors and executive directors of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to be invited fairly soon, almost before the report is issued, and--

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

No, it's the following report that makes it clear.

[A voice]

It's within four weeks.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Yes, the report would be within four weeks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right.

Mr. Patry.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Madam McDonough, in a sense I agree with your motion, but it's so many people to invite. You want to invite the ministers of finance and international cooperation, the Canadian executive director of the Royal Bank, the IMF, government officials, academics, and civil society. If we have all these people come within one or two sessions, and within four weeks you put a framework, a deadlock over there, if the report comes, and we have two weeks' recess after the report, we're going to be constrained with two weeks at that time.

For me, if you say you want to meet some people such as the minister responsible for this, and we could have a session or two sessions, I have no objection to this, but with all these people, it's going to take us I don't know how many meetings to do it. That's my problem, you see. In a sense, I don't see why we should not invite, as I said previously, the ministers. All ministers are always welcome to come and appear in front of the committee. It's good to understand more and to determine what they are doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Patry.

Madame Barbot.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

My comments are along the same lines as those made by Mr. Patry. I fully agree with the objectives and with having a global vision so as to recommend a course of action to the Canadian government. However, in my view, we're dealing with a very broad issue. If we could decide how much time we have available to us and which witnesses we would like to hear from, I think this would be far more realistic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. Thank you, Madame Barbot.

Monseiur Patry.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I must say, too, in regard to this, if you're looking at the three last lines, you say, “and recommend measures to enhance government”. To be able to recommend measures, we need to study. We just cannot make recommendations to the board, the executive director of the IMF, and the World Bank. It's too much. If you just say, “That the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs invite the Minister of Finance, the minister responsible for IMF and the World Bank to appear in front of the committee”, I will fully agree with this. I think we can do a job by listening to the minister, and after that, if we're not satisfied, we could invite some other people in the second round.

I would like to amend it, if Madam McDonough agrees. We always say friendly. I'd like to make a friendly amendment: that we just invite the responsible minister for the IMF and the World Bank to appear in front of the committee. That's the Minister of Finance and of CIDA.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I think what Mr. Patry is saying, and it's a worthwhile argument, is let's continue to try to have, rather than a scattergun approach, a fairly limited approach to what this committee is going to study. This is a major undertaking if we are to come forward with recommendations in the midst of tabling a report on democratic development, in the midst of what's turning out to be a fairly comprehensive study of Afghanistan and all those, with limited time now to come forward with a group of recommendations without a real study.

Is there any way we could have a friendly amendment to the latter part of this that would amend or delete this idea that we would come forward with recommendations or a report to Parliament? I ask the mover.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I was ready to certainly consider favourably a friendly amendment, if that's what Bernard wants to propose—

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Yes, sure.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

—but let me just say quickly that we're very much focused on issues of transparency and accountability, I think appropriately so. We have witnesses who represent agencies that get very tiny sums of money from the Government of Canada. We subject them to quite a lot of scrutiny. We want to know and understand what they're doing, with what effect, and so on.

We're talking, in the case of the World Bank and the IMF, about huge sums of money, and concerns have in fact been raised before this committee again and again that, on the one hand, where we're delivering ODA, as paltry as our commitment is at the moment in relation to that of many other countries, some of our policies at the IMF and World Bank actually are quite counterproductive to what we state as our primary objectives.

You have structural adjustment programs that actually undermine our poverty reduction programs, in some cases. I don't want to start elaborating on that extensively, but I am saying I think it's a big issue.

On the other hand, I'm very happy to accommodate a friendly amendment, if the point is that we should hear first from the minister and whatever appropriate officials he's going to bring, and IMF and World Bank officials, with a view to further consideration along the lines I've suggested. In other words, it doesn't commit us immediately to a more extensive study.

But I would make the case that it's a very substantial sum of money we're talking about, and for us to be so consumed with transparency and accountability for tiny amounts of money in various NGOs and so on, but not concerned about the transparency and accountability of our own participation in IMF and World Bank, seems to be a very out-of-balance kind of view of accounting for our—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I appreciate your arguments, but I guess what I'm asking is that they be more specific to the friendly amendment.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Well, I'm waiting to hear what it is. You won't entertain it, unless it's specific.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I have the resolution in front of me.

I will say that to the fifth line it's fine. After you say “...the Canadian International Development Agency, and academics and civil society organizations, to appear before this Committee”, I would change what follows to “after the government’s tabling of its annual Report on Operations Under the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act 2005”. Period.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I'll entertain that, because I think it's progress. I think it's in the spirit of all-party consideration and—

[An hon. member]

I'll give it to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We've all heard that. If anyone has anything specific to the friendly amendment.... It is, “to appear before this committee after...”—so we've taken out “within four weeks” and have left it a little more open-ended—and then: “after the government's tabling of its annual Report on Operations Under the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act 2005”. Full stop.

[An hon. member]

That's it.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Agreed.