Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 7th, 2008

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Chair, I understand the intent of our colleague from the Bloc, but once again we are opening another can of worms, acknowledging another area for study that could consume a whole lot of time and take attention away from CIDA's policy framework, recognizing the importance of food security to allow people to protect and sustain their broader livelihoods. Just as poverty is a major cause of food insecurity, food insecurity can also reinforce poverty.

This is a very broad study. I think it is very important in this crucial study to focus on the real issues rather than go into the production of these countries. As Mr. Obhrai said, we can focus here and then expand into those areas, rather than take the focus away from this very important, crucial study.

If you keep a focus on food distribution, the security of food supply, the caloric intake of those people, and what the needs are and how CIDA itself is investigating whether and how processes work, whether they are effective, and how they can be improved....

I think it's a good motion. It has very good intentions. I'm sure our colleagues across would agree to that. If they want to do this, perhaps they can bring another motion, or expand this while the witnesses are here. But I think the key focus here is to concentrate on poverty, the distribution of CIDA aid, and how to improve it: is it working or is it not working?

I have no problem with what Madame Barbot is saying, but at the same time, bringing a change into this motion would, I feel, take away from it. It will take away the focus; we'll go into several different areas and not accomplish what we intend to accomplish on food distribution processes, health, and poverty alleviation. I think those are very crucial. I'm sure our colleagues have no question about how important it is to focus on poverty alleviation.

Therefore, I request our colleagues to please leave this the way it is. Let us concentrate on the work at hand so that we can achieve some results and assist those who need it the most.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Khan.

Madame Barbot.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I understand what my colleague opposite is asking, except I would simply point out that the proposed wording is taken directly from the Food Aid Convention. The motion truly takes up the spirit of the convention. Therefore, we are not at all off base by proposing this wording. On the contrary, we are putting the focus right where it should be, because of the reference to the convention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Lebel.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

If we're going to take this out of context, we need to know how it is going to be interpreted. This is part of the convention, not the whole convention.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

It reflects the spirit of the convention.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

All right. All I meant to say, Mr. Chairman, is that we are often criticized for being too inward-looking and for not sharing. We must not limit the scope of our study or appear reluctant to obtain information.

I understand that this is not the objective here. All I mean is that if we are going to undertake a study, we need it to be as broad as possible in order for us to achieve our initial objective, which is to get a clear idea of where we are going, in terms of our aid efforts and so forth. I do not want the scope of our study to be limited.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Yes, it may be part of the food convention, but if you look at this motion, the intent of our motion was to study Canada's food delivery system, Canada's food policy.

Madame Barbot would like to put forward another motion to do what she has just proposed. That's her motion, but I want to restrict this motion to Canada's food policy and whether the current methods of delivery meet the objectives.

In all fairness, when you start going into the local production capacity of a third world country, the developing countries, you are going into something that, by itself, is a huge study that would require a tremendous number of witnesses coming from overseas. I don't want just one or two witnesses showing up here and saying, “This is what is happening in the third world countries.” I have already stated quite clearly that the witnesses who have come over here have stated that climate change has become a very big problem, and the capacity of those countries is diminishing.

But we have to look at it from the aspect of what we are doing here ourselves, within our food aid programs, what the Foodgrains Bank said Canada can do.

Now you're going into the convention issue, and of course the convention is a very broad one. Why don't we just take the whole notion of the convention and say, let's go for the convention, if you want to pick this one here and that one there?

Let me just say, when you start talking in reference to production delivery of developing countries, if you go down to the Chiapas State of Mexico, where there are small-scale farmers, what you see is the impact of NAFTA that is happening there. These small-scale farmers find it extremely difficult to make a living, and in Mexico they don't have the cooperative factors.

I can go back to the time I left Tanzania. There was a policy of the Government of Tanzania, under President Nyerere, called the Ujamaa policy, where he moved people, where they were having this food aid, to try to bring a centralized delivery system—what she was talking about, giving the delivery thing.

And you know what was the result of that? A country that was exporting food. The whole system collapsed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Let's have order. Mr. Obhrai has the floor.

Just so we know how this works—

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Look, as I told my colleague before, I grew up in that country. I saw first-hand the effects.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Obhrai, just one moment.

Just so we're all aware of exactly how this is going, we're going to continue the debate on the amendment, then we will vote on the amendment, and then we will reopen the debate on the motion. At 5:30, that motion will be the order of business for every committee business that we have from now until we solve it.

Continue, Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you.

I would like to advise—

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

As a point of order on that, Mr. Chair, just to clarify, we had adopted our schedule for committee business. So we won't—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It won't change the meetings. When we come back to committee business, we will resume where we left off.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I just wanted to clarify that point, because we wouldn't want to have that affect the other business.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I am going to talk about socialism, because I grew up in that country and saw what happened in that country. I saw what she wants to talk about, a delivery system, and how a country that put the whole thing.... And for her to laugh at what has been my own experience in having seen this shows how they don't understand the international...or what happened. Now they want to make jokes of a country that has actually collapsed due to its social policy of bringing the small-scale farmer and delivery system....

They can laugh as much as they want, but this is a serious matter. I lived and grew up in that country, where at one time you had food available and then, within five years, you had no food available in the market. People were starving, and yet that country was rich, and it's all because of exactly what they want to....

[An hon. member]

That's exactly what we're talking about.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

No, it's not. This is a bigger, stronger study. It's not a joke; it's a study. This here is talking about Canada's food aid program to help them, not this.... We can bring country after country after country as examples of how.... Zimbabwe is an example. Let's talk about Zimbabwe for a minute here. Zimbabwe was a country that was exporting food, and today people are starving there. Why? Because of this thing.

Are you going to do a study? Let's go in and do a study. Put all your motions out there.

But this motion, Mr. Chair, deals with Canada's food aid. It doesn't deal with how delivery systems in other countries fail.

Let's talk for a minute about Afghanistan and how its whole agricultural system has collapsed.

Now when you want to bring such an important international study—we're talking about the delivery system of developing countries—then you start talking about bigger issues of where and how government policies fail, where there were no cooperatives out there, where issues like this.... It is not a small issue, and it will take attention away from this motion that we brought forward.

The problem I have is that this is a political aspect from there to go onto that. If they want such a thing, they should put forward their own motion to do this comprehensive study. But I am not willing to have six people sit over there and talk to us for about an hour on this whole issue and say, now, we know about international third world development over there and why their food security is falling down. It is a comprehensive issue as to why in the developing countries their food aid is falling down. It is a bigger issue, and you can take country by country to see why it is going down. For example, there is the effect of NAFTA on Mexico and southern Mexican states, because NAFTA now allows corn to be exported. So it's breaking down.

So why are we going to change the focus of this? I said I have no problem if she wants to do it. You said very rightly that the Bloc has the right to put forward a motion. If they want to amend this motion, I'm not going to accept it. But they can put forward their own motion and we can debate the motion and say what witnesses we want on this thing. But it will deviate from what is out here, Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do and what I am trying to do.

So for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I can't accept that.

Now, let me talk about, for a change, what is happening in Kenya today. This tribalism taking place in Kenya, this thing, has already had an impact on agriculture and the delivery process out there. So are we going to study Kenya? I remember when I was in Kenya, they used to have a cooperative called KCC, Kenya Cooperative Creameries, where they went to small-scale milk people out there—

[An hon. member]

And they kicked out a lot of countries.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

They joined together to create a cooperative. Today that cooperative is not able to provide the kind of management needed, so it's gradually falling down. Is that a study you want to do?

Which countries do you want to study? I only talked about Kenya. Now I'll talk about Tanzania. Let's talk about Uganda for a minute out here.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

We want to talk about the international system. Let's talk about the international system.

Of course, Madame Barbot is not listening. Why?

Let's talk about the international systems of delivery and the capacity building. I'm talking to you about the international system of what is happening in each and every country. Do you see this group? They're all unelected. Why? And that's why I think we are--

[An hon. member]

We don't need a study.