One of the reasons I asked about this is that I had the opportunity last spring to go to the DRC with the World Bank to look at projects they have funded. I spoke to our embassy people. I did talk to the ambassador about concerns that she had heard on the ground around the performance of companies in general and Canadian companies in particular. Then I talked to the Congolese. I talked to their ministers and to people in the communities and looked at the big projects and the smaller ones.
What was clear was that they obviously want to see more effective aid and poverty reduction, which is complementary to CIDA's goals, but they also said very clearly that the critical piece is really that those developed countries that can actually have oversight into their corporate activities need to do more. That was not just the ambassador having an opinion, because she was passing on what she was hearing, and I talked to other ambassadors as well.
When I see us engaging on something that I think everyone would laud, that is, to increase transparency and to look at the financial benefits that accrue from any development, but particularly from extractives because they're so profound in places like the Congo and Latin America, this bill actually would complement that. I can say that and I know you're in a position where you're not really able to give an opinion, but I note that what you're laying out here in terms of the direction that CIDA's taking--and I don't think anyone would have an argument with it--is to have more effective investment and aid at the same time.
So I would say to my colleagues across the way that I don't see a problem in terms of the mandate of CIDA and this bill. In fact, I would argue that it's parallel and complements it, certainly in terms of what I've seen and heard on the ground.
When we hear from CIDA that there is a focus on reducing poverty, can you really say that you can reduce poverty without looking at direct investment from the private sector? Isn't it part of the puzzle?