Evidence of meeting #12 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Oh, it's over here. Okay.
Mr. Martin isn't here. It won't work.
I know what you're saying. It's a close enough study. Right now, at this point, without Mr. Martin here, I can't say we'll just fold your motion into it. Unless Mr. Obhrai is willing to say it, I can....
Yes.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
No, no, no.
In reference to Madame Barbot and Mr. Dewar, CIDA is one component of food aid security, and I do not want to change the focus. Mr. Martin's focus on CIDA is not on food aid, but on other issues at this time.
Conservative
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Number two, in response to Madame Barbot, I want a comprehensive study. I don't want three or four witnesses. I've already had that in this committee. We've already had witnesses come from Foodgrains and this sort of thing, but it does not give us a comprehensive picture. So I would rather that this be a study and not just a couple of meetings.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Okay, thank you, Mr. Obhrai.
The question has been called. Are we all in favour of Mr. Obhrai's--
Bloc
Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC
I will read the motion in its entirety:
That the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade undertake a study investigating the effectiveness and quality of Canada's food aid policy [...]
I propose that the following words be added to the motion: “whether the local productive capacity of developing countries is sufficient to feed the populations and export agricultural products”. The motion would then continue with:
[...] and whether current methods of delivery meet the objectives established under the Food Aid Convention.
February 7th, 2008 / 5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Mr. Chair, I do understand the spirit and where it is coming from. I would not have any difficulty with these witnesses they call and the line of questions that she has just posed or put forward. It would form part of the overall study. But I want to leave it in the broader context of what it is. By trying to put more and more, we start going narrower and narrower. I say leave the motion as is. Whatever she has proposed, I just think it's going to form the bigger part of the study by witnesses that she would like to call. During her questioning and all these things, we can proceed on what her concern is on that. But I would rather leave it in the broader context that it is. I don't want to break it down.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
There still has been an amendment moved, so unless Madame Barbot withdraws that amendment, the amendment has been moved. It sounds as though Madame Barbot wants to keep it there.
In English, we have something fairly close.
Madame Barbot, listen carefully. Hopefully this has been translated closely enough:
That pursuant to Standing Order 108, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development undertake a study investigating the effectiveness and quality of Canada's food aid policy and to take a look at the capacity of local production of developing countries, considering their ability to feed themselves, and to export agricultural products and whether current methods of delivery meet the objectives established under the Food Aid Convention.
Bloc
Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC
I would like to make a small change, Mr. Chairman. I think the motion should say “taking into account” instead. I don't quite know...
I would put “taking into account” instead of--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. I'll just go from:
...International Development undertake a study investigating the effectiveness and quality of Canada's food aid policy, taking into account the capacity of local production of developing countries considering their ability to feed themselves and in exporting agricultural products....
And then we get into the methods of delivery to meet the objectives.
Mr. Obhrai.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
It is difficult for us to agree to that. We would be changing the scope of the study to go into something that is not what my intention was in the first place, which was Canada's food aid program—what Canada is going to do, and all the things I mentioned.
My question is, if I don't accept this motion, which we're going to vote on—which means I have to vote against my own motion, considering the fact that these guys are going to.... Does this mean I have the option of withdrawing this motion?
You're not laughing now?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
There is no question as to the Bloc's ability to amend any motion. That is without question. When we talk about how things work at committee, this is part of what we're working with. You have an ability to bring a motion, and the opposition can change every motion you bring. That is the way this Parliament works.
Conservative
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Mr. Khan will debate, Mr. Lebel will debate, and then I will debate.
Conservative
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
I just wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, that I think the amendment is in order. If I heard Mr. Obhrai correctly, it was something they wouldn't have a difficulty with in terms of the study. I think it's simply providing some focus, as part of the study, to flag that this is something we'd like to see. It doesn't preclude, of course, other elements in the study, but I would say it's in order and that we'd support it.