Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 12th, 2008

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

Thank you very much.

I really appreciate the comments of Mr. Goldring. If you had spoken before your colleagues, we would have saved a good 20 minutes. Just to let you know, I really appreciate your comments.

But for me, the issue is the main motion itself. It proposes that we do a study investigating the effectiveness and quality of Canada's food aid policy, but we don't even know what we're talking about. Is it just when there is an emergency? Is it food aid quality or effectiveness? Let's say there is an earthquake or a tsunami like we had in Asia, or anything else like that. What are we talking about?

If it's just about those, we need to call CIDA officials to tell us how they're doing those things, and you will get the answer. I know the answer, because they have appeared before our committee before. Is it just about giving money to the WFP, or international food aid, or about what we are giving to the Red Cross? How do we proceed?

Before doing a study, first of all, I would like the department to come here to explain in one hour what they're doing; and after that, we will see if we want to have a study, yes or no. It's as simple as that. But now we're just talking and passing the time. We have another six minutes.

Those are all my comments—but I don't understand the main motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'll tell you, because I just asked Mr. Obhrai, the intention here is to have exactly that, a very quick study done. Our intention is that we study Afghanistan. We have a motion that it be our major study.

I think that came up in a meeting before, when we had them here for just an hour or just one day. But the problem with the amendment is that it makes it much longer—and we don't want to divert the study on Afghanistan, because we could be on this one forever.

Madame Barbot.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am being given all manner of explanation why the amendment was made. But it is very simple, this amendment refers to the Food Aid Convention. This convention describes precisely how food aid is handled in the various countries. It is all very well to talk about Canadian food aid, but I feel that to be able to evaluate the effectiveness and the quality of Canadian policy, we must know where and to whom this aid is given and under which conditions.

We are not asking to go and study the situation in each country. In that context, I would like to have the translation again because I did not get it in writing. It did not seem adequate to me. Because the mover himself referred to the Food Aid Convention, we tried to identify the exact countries to which food aid is given in order to understand the nature of Canadian food aid. We do not give food aid here, we give it to other countries. As we examine our food aid, can we say whether it is effective in the light of each country's needs and resources?

If the matter needs an in-depth study on what is done elsewhere, that is not my problem. Furthermore, I completely agree with the colleagues beside me: we have plenty of other fish to fry. For me, the amendment was simply in order to get to a coherent study. I am perfectly happy to vote against the motion and not hear of it again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame Barbot.

Mr. Goldring, did you want to add to it?

Maybe we could even vote on this amendment here today.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

I think the main motion was very clear. It's a study on the delivery—

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

We can vote on the main motion if it's clear.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

You seemed to have some questions on it.

I think it's very clear that it's on the food aid policy. It's on the current delivery methods, the methods of delivery. Of course those are all relative questions on the effectiveness and how the delivery of the aid transpires, and it should be looked at on a periodic basis.

I can see huge logistical difficulties in certain segments of the world that we're trying to provide aid to. It should be looked at once in a while to see how effective that delivery system is, maybe even examining how other aid contributors are handling their distribution. We're looking at the long term here too, looking at biofuels and how much of the foodstuffs of the world are going into other forms of energy creation. I think all of those are relative for the future, as we look at how our delivery system is now, how effective it is now, and what we can do to make it better.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Monsieur Lebel.

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

I have certainly heard our liberal colleagues and Mrs. Barbot talk about the amendment making a course correction, but that was a complete change. Finding out the ability of a country to produce enough to feed its own people and finding out what Canada is doing in every country it helps are two completely different things. I understand when you say that there is some overlap. We can look at the two questions, but we do not have to study 180 countries to know what Canada is getting in return for the aid we are providing.

We are regularly criticized because we are not clear about our activities here, and that is completely wrong. We are going to be even more clear about the part of Canada's budget that deals with the aid we give to other countries. But when we set about it, we are told that it is not really necessary.

Is it more important to know what Canada is doing for all the countries to which we provide food aid, or to take each country and study what the political scene is there? We have to ask ourselves how we prioritize the questions we debate. We are here to represent Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Lebel.

Are we ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived)

(Motion negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, committee.

We are adjourned.