Evidence of meeting #16 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was initiative.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
It is a pity you feel that way about abortion. It's a shame you view it as...
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Madame Deschamps, thank you. We're going to move back to the question.
Go ahead. I believe that--
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
I'd like to address that comment here, just the third question.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
No. You had a question, and your time is almost up. We'll let the witnesses answer and then we'll move on.
12:40 p.m.
Director, Ottawa Bureau, World Vision Canada
What I'm seeing here is a reflection of the fact that we don't have consensus in Canada about this. We have different perspectives as individuals, as organizations, as individuals within organizations, within this coalition that has struggled over 18 months to develop consensus and to figure out what has the best impact and the lowest cost, and what we could all get behind together.
This is not about abortion. The G-8 is committed to looking at a wide basket of interventions: reproductive rights, family planning. In that whole list I've already read off, those things have already been agreed to. Every country can agree to contribute in a way they choose to contribute, but what we're trying to present here is a consensus around what will have the most impact and what all Canadians can get behind.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Let me just say that I've tried to understand. I was asking Ms. Biggs a question the last time to clarify what the Canadian policy is, and because of the miracle of communication today, a blog from Mr. Wherry at Maclean's magazine said he was trying to get clarity as well and apparently discussed this with somebody on Ms. Oda's staff, who said that “CIDA does not and has not itemized the spectrum of medical interventions performed by every one of these organizations”--every one of these organizations being all the organizations: hospital systems, national health care systems, clinics of various kinds, which are already funded by CIDA and will continue to be funded by CIDA. What I'm trying to clarify is, is it your understanding that this funding by CIDA, which is in place and which indirectly funds abortion services, will continue?
To recall the debate, Mr. Chair, the reason we had a discussion was that when Minister Cannon was in front of us and I asked him a question, he said family planning was not on the list. Then he clarified it and said it was. Mr. Abbott said in the House that it could be on the list.
It's important for us to be clear, to understand exactly what we're talking about here just so Canadians will know what's taking place. The policy of the Government of Canada agency called CIDA is that it does fund access to abortion indirectly--not directly, but indirectly--because it provides budget funding and provides funding for hospital services.
This conversation says today--the one I just read out--that CIDA does not and will not go through the list of hospitals and say they'll fund this, they won't fund that. They don't do that. They block-fund. It's the same way the federal government does for the provinces. The federal government doesn't tell the provinces they can fund this, they can't fund that. The debate has not come to that point in Canada.
I'm just saying this because I want to get some clarity here. Sometimes I hear from people.... Ms. Vandenberg and I have had a conversation about this, and I don't think I'm giving away any confidences when I say there is a concern that somehow the whole initiative is going to be derailed by this debate. Let me just say on behalf of my party--and to say we're here today--that initiative will not be derailed by this debate. This initiative is a good initiative. The initiative to focus on maternal and child care is a necessary initiative for the world. This initiative will not be derailed by the debate. But we should also try to understand exactly what our government is committed to, as you understand it, and is not committed to, as you understand it.
Perhaps I can ask any one of you, because I know you all have slightly different views and slightly different mandates with respect to your own organizational positions, and I respect that completely. We live in a society in which people do have different opinions, and charities will have different views as to what should be done. That has to be respected.
Do you understand this as I understand it, which is to say CIDA has its policy, and that policy will not change? The government is not asking CIDA to change its policy. The new initiative is going to focus on a range of things, which will not include abortion, but to be very blunt, that was never part of the plan anyway, because that's not where one would get access to these services in any event.
Is that a fair description, Mr. Fox? I'm looking at you a little bit, though Ms. Chiesa or anyone else who would like to respond.... I'd appreciate a response.
12:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Oxfam Canada
Our understanding is your understanding, but there are questions arising because the way the government has framed its position is different from the position it took in L'Aquila last year, in Cairo, and in all previous commitments. So we're trying to understand if this is a change or not. Part of the concern we have is that in the context—
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Have you been able to clear that up? Because it's an important question.
12:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Oxfam Canada
Indeed.
The president of CIDA gives us the assurance that it's business as usual, but the minister has been quite clear in going out of her way, I would say, to state something different, and that's why we're trying to clarify if Canada's position has shifted, and if new conditionalities will be introduced to our aid programs that never existed before.
As you say, we fund health care systems. These services are provided as health care systems, and it's important that they continue to be funded as part of health care systems. And we don't want critical dollars to be diverted from health care to be all of a sudden paying for bureaucrats within health ministries that are going to have to follow the Canadian dollars through the hospitals and clinics in order to ensure that Canadian dollar X, which had been a pooled resource with the Brits and the French and the Germans and others to fund health care, goes—
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
What Ms. Biggs said in answer to my questions when she appeared here, and what this comment from a staffer from Ms. Oda seems to indicate, is that frankly this debate—however we got into it, and we can all argue as to how it happened—seems to have gotten incredibly focused on something that may not really be such a fact at all. In fact CIDA's policy has not changed, and CIDA's policy will not change. And CIDA is carrying out this initiative. This is not some initiative being carried out by the Prime Minister's Office slush fund. This is coming out of CIDA.
I agree with you, we need to continue to clear it up in a way that tries to separate out the rhetoric from the reality of what in fact is being done and being proposed. I think we all have to try to do that, from all sides of the political spectrum. We have to try to say what the heck we are actually arguing about here. If somebody says we've always done this and we're going to continue to do it, how can somebody stand up and say we're not going to fund abortion, when you already are? You may not want to, but that's what in effect is taking place.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Director, Ottawa Bureau, World Vision Canada
I'm just pleased that everybody is supportive of this initiative.
12:45 p.m.
Voices
Hear, hear!
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
All right. We're almost out of time, but I'm going to take a couple of quick responses, because I want to talk about the agenda moving forward and I need to finish that off before we go.
Mr. Van Kesteren, maybe just a couple of quick questions.
May 6th, 2010 / 12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
A couple of questions? My goodness.
Mr. Reilly-King, I have some quick questions. This tax you're talking about, what countries? Just quickly.
I don't have much time, so I'm going to blast you through this thing.
12:45 p.m.
Coordinator, Halifax Initiative Coalition
Well, ideally it would be a global tax—
12:45 p.m.
Coordinator, Halifax Initiative Coalition
All countries. But, for example, in Europe, if the tax just took place in the U.K. and Germany, that would cover off 97% of financial transactions.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Coordinator, Halifax Initiative Coalition
Collection would be the stock exchanges in the individual countries.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Coordinator, Halifax Initiative Coalition
Who would administer it? It would be administered by the individual stock exchanges, but if it happened on a global basis—
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Somebody has to be collecting this money and saying “Okay, here it is”. Who's going to do that?