SRID Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

SOUS-COMITÉ DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT INTERNATIONAL DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, October 3, 2001

• 1604

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Members of the committee, I see a quorum. In conformity with the order of Tuesday, October 2, 2001, of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, your first item of business is to elect a chair.

I'm ready to receive—

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): I have a point of order.

The Clerk: I'm afraid I cannot entertain points of order. I am only allowed to receive motions to elect the chair.

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): I move that Beth Phinney be elected chair.

The Chair: Are there any other motions to elect?

Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): I'd like to nominate Ms. Augustine.

[English]

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): I decline.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have a point of order, and it's on the motion that's on the table.

The Clerk: All right.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I just want to get clarification in terms of where we're at. My understanding was that the full committee, the standing committee, had designated the membership of this subcommittee and that the subcommittee membership would in turn elect the chair.

I recall that a list of names was presented at the full committee by each of the parties represented. I know Mr. Obhrai was designated by his. I believe it was Mr. Pallister who indicated who it was. Mr. Dubé had been designated as well by Madame Lalonde. And my recollection is that there were three or four members specifically designated by the Liberal representative. That's my recollection.

I'm just seeking clarification from the clerk on whether substitutions are appropriate for those people or whether they were designated specifically by the chair.

It's a point of order. It may be that substitution is entirely appropriate, but I just want to get clarification.

The Clerk: I have a substitute...duly signed by me. It indicates specific substitutions for the names that were so indicated at the meeting yesterday. As a result, that is entirely appropriate.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Okay.

The Clerk: Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

It is moved by Mr. Easter that Beth Phinney do take the chair of the subcommittee.

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: I declare Ms. Phinney duly elected chair of the subcommittee. I invite her to take the chair.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)): Thank you very much. I hope I have the same vote of confidence at the end of our session as I do now.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Do you mean we voted for you without anything—no wine, no nothing?

The Chair: No wine, no nothing.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Jesus, Beth.

The Chair: I guess I owe you.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

• 1605

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: On a point of order, following up on what Mr. Robinson said, can you tell us who are the permanent members of this committee?

The Chair: Yes, certainly. Just going in order, it's Sarkis, Colleen Beaumier, Irwin Cotler, Marlene Jennings, me, Deepak, Antoine Dubé, Svend, and Bill Casey.

Can I ask for unanimous consent to proceed with future business?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: There is a motion—now being handed out—that the Sub-committee on Human Rights and International Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade be authorized to receive evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that the chair and two other members are present, including a member of the opposition.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you. I think it's particularly important when it's a small committee and sometimes people aren't here.

The next meeting, which we've already agreed to, is Wednesday, October 17. We'll be meeting with the Archbishop of the Episcopal Church of Sudan.

The suggestion that the researchers and clerk have worked on for the next meeting, October 24, has one group and then Warren Allmand from Rights and Democracy. He would be the second hour. The first hour is a meeting with representatives from the Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives. There will be four people in that group for one hour and then Warren Allmand for one hour.

Mr. James Lee (Committee Researcher): If I may, they actually wrote in to the subcommittee and said there were a number of Colombians who would be in Ottawa, and they proposed a meeting.

Warren Allmand's Rights and Democracy went to Colombia in May and June. They're releasing the report of that trip next week. So although Rights and Democracy did come to one of the earlier meetings, they would actually be coming to talk about the report of their trip—what they learned and what they're recommending.

The Chair: That's the Warren Allmand part of it. That would be one hour. Can you explain the group at the top?

Mr. James Lee: As I say, they wrote to Ms. Phinney as chair to say:

I would like to request that the subcommittee hear the expert testimony of four important Colombian witnesses, from highly respected partner organizations of the Canadian churches, who will be in Ottawa on October 23 and 24.

The Colombians include: 1. Jorge Rojas of paz Colombia (Peace Colombia), a network that includes hundreds of Colombian organizations from all sectors of civil society.

2. Ricardo Esquivia Ballestas, Director of the Commission of Human Rights and Peace of the Counsel of Protestant Churches of Colombia.

3. Nelly Albaran, representative of the Asamblea Permanente de la Sociedad Civil por la Paz (Permanent Assembly of Civil Society for Peace), a broad coalition of organizations working for peace in Colombia.

4. Armando Valbuena, President of ONIC, the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia.

They are going to be in Ottawa and the suggestion was made that we might want to hear from them.

The Chair: Is that all right? Is everybody agreed that would be the first hour?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Deepak.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Chair, I recall that in the previous Parliament we had agreed, all of us, that we would initially concentrate on Colombia and finish Colombia before we ventured into Sudan. That was what we passed.

In that spirit, although I'm in total agreement, we should stick to one subject and complete that subject before we go on to the next.

The Chair: Are you back at Wednesday, October 17?

• 1610

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I'm wondering how we got ourselves into this Sudan thing when we had decided we would finish Colombia and then concentrate on Sudan, giving it our full attention. That was what we had agreed to.

The Chair: Do you want my explanation of that or do you want more questions first?

Ms. Beaumier.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.): No, my question was exactly the same as Mr. Obhrai's. That's scary, isn't it.

The Chair: This is on the agenda because we had a letter from the Bishop of Ottawa saying this was the only time this gentleman would be in Canada. He just can't come at any other time. But you're right, we did agree to that.

Svend.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I agree with both Deepak and Colleen, so this is really an unholy alliance here.

The Chair: When he says he agrees with me, then that'll really be bad.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I agree that we should focus on Colombia. However, this gentleman is in Canada only at this particular time, and I think it's important that we do hear from him. He's recognized internationally as one of the leading people.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Yes, you're right.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So I'm saying, yes, let's go ahead with the seventeenth.

The Chair: The clerk was just mentioning that we've already had a motion accepting him to come—by you, Deepak. You already made that motion.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I made a motion?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: No, it has to be my twin or something.

The Chair: Can we move on, then, Deepak? You already made the motion. You were feeling in a more generous mood then.

So we have October 17, and October 24 is decided. For October 31, we had said when CIDA was here that we'd have them back. Last spring, when they were here, we'd mentioned that we'd have them back. They're doing a new report, with a whole new idea of how they're going to run CIDA, and we'd like to hear what they have to say. We had mentioned this earlier.

Mr. James Lee: If I may, there's just one question. CIDA is preparing a new policy framework, but my understanding is it's not public yet. Although it's up to you, they may say they'd rather not come and talk about it publicly. They may rather do it in camera until they can brief you and then make it public after your report comes out. That's your choice.

The Chair: She was busy talking, so explain it again.

Mr. James Lee: CIDA is redoing the country framework for Colombia but they haven't made it public at this point. I'm just saying I don't know whether you'd like to ask CIDA to come publicly and discuss the draft they're working on or perhaps come in camera and give you an update on where they are in the process, and then you report on it in your report. That's just an issue for you to discuss.

The Chair: So we don't know yet if they're going to be prepared to say they'll come and talk publicly about it.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Do we have any indication of what their timeline is?

Mr. James Lee: Informally, I understand that they're pretty happy with what they have, but I think they're probably waiting for your report and your recommendations to see what you say in terms of Canadian policy.

Mr. Svend Robinson: If I may, I think we should ask them to appear on October 31 in an open session and be prepared to raise questions and concerns with them. If they say, look, we can't discuss that because it's sensitive or something, well, let them do that, but it should be on the public record.

The Chair: Deepak.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: This is not starting on the right foot, because I have to agree with Svend again.

I don't understand; what is bothering them when they've had public consultations? They've gone out in public. They've given the document out in public. Now all of a sudden they feel they can't talk in public.

I don't think that's appropriate. I think they should come and just tell us exactly what's going on.

Mr. James Lee: I didn't say.... I hadn't heard that they wouldn't come, Mr. Obhrai; I'm just saying that my understanding is the document itself is not public yet.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Too bad.

Mr. James Lee: That's fine.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: We'll call them.

The Chair: So you're okay that we go ahead and call them, and see what happens?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay. That's for the October 31 meeting.

We have a letter from Stan Dromisky regarding Buddhist monks from Vietnam. The question is, do you want them to come on October 24 or 25—the only two days they could come—or do you want to wait until after we've finished our report?

• 1615

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: I don't know, but I think we're now getting too diversified. We've been working on this report, and when I chaired we had this same problem. We never, ever completed a report on the Congo because we had too many other groups worked in. I think we would be best to focus and get a report out of this committee.

The Chair: Is everybody agreed that we focus, and that we ought not to go off on another tangent?

Deepak.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Chair, can we have a timeline here? When are we going to finish Colombia?

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I have a question.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: There was some talk of our traveling to Colombia.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, that's the next one.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Will we be making this trip before we submit our report?

Mr. James Lee: It's your choice whether to hold further meetings before you leave or to make the trip before I start drafting the report. It's up to you to decide if we are finished or if we still have further business to attend to.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: To my mind, this trip is perhaps unnecessary and possibly even dangerous. All kinds of reasons can be given, but if we must produce a report, we could bear in mind what we observed in Colombia when we actually set about drafting the report.

Mr. James Lee: My point exactly.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Is there a French version of the document Future Business? I would assume so, given that all documents must be produced in both official languages.

[English]

The Chair: Mine's in English. Take mine.

[Translation]

Mr. Svend Robinson: No, I'm talking about the French version.

[English]

The Chair: Oh, you're asking why it's not in French.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes.

The Chair: It's because it was prepared for me, and then I thought maybe you people would.... Because English is my first language, it was prepared in English. Usually it's the chair who has the order of business and I thought it would be nice if you people had a copy. That's all I had handy. So that's why.

[Translation]

Mr. Svend Robinson: Regarding the trip to Colombia, we've heard from the Ambassador.

[English]

Certainly he's made strong public and private representations that it would be very helpful for the committee to travel. Before we issue our report I would hope that we would take that opportunity. I think we were talking about possibly in January. Any time before Christmas, frankly, is just unrealistic, but perhaps we would be able to schedule something for January. I just spoke briefly with the ambassador at—

The Chair: Excuse me. I just thought I would slip in the business about Vietnam. Is that finished, then? You've all decided no?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Right.

The Chair: Oh, okay. I didn't get a final answer, and I was wondering how this was going to connect up to Vietnam.

Mr. Svend Robinson: No, it has nothing to do with Vietnam. Sorry.

The Chair: Vietnam is off the agenda, then?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Postponed.

The Chair: Postponed. Okay.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm sorry.

The Chair: I just thought you were going to connect that up somehow.

All right. Now Colombia.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm suggesting that we ask our researcher to draw up a proposal for a delegation in January and consult with members as to appropriate dates. I don't think it's possible before that. On our return, obviously we'd be in a position to submit a report, hopefully.

The Chair: Why do you think it's not possible before?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Just in terms of scheduling. It's an incredibly busy time.

The Chair: Bill seemed to think that we could do it before. He also seemed to support the idea, which means we'd get the money. The earlier we do it, of course, the better it is for getting the report out. I mean, nobody is holding us to a deadline, but he seemed to be quite enthusiastic about it.

Mr. Svend Robinson: When I talked to Bill, he made the same point. He felt the trip was important. It's just that we should get the application in as soon as possible—

The Chair: Yes, we have to ask for the money.

Mr. Svend Robinson: —and get the authorization. As to whether it was in November or January, the problem is, if we want to travel when the House isn't sitting, which presumably we want to do, the week in November is the WTO trade conference in Doha, and a number of us will be participating in that.

The Chair: You mean you will be. Will anybody else on this committee?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Deepak will be as well, yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Monsieur Dubé has a question.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I concur with my colleague Deepak's suggestion that we focus on one thing at a time. However, if we postpone the trip, we'll be left with a void somewhere. Svend is a member of the committee and of the subcommittees, but we're not. Some important questions have been raised and that's why I would suggest we go in November, so that we can wrap up our study of Colombia as quickly as possible. Then we could move on without delay to another issue.

• 1620

I was disappointed last year that many weeks went by without our having any meetings. If we're here, we might as well work. I understand Mr. Robinson's time constraints, but the logical thing to do, in my opinion, is to continue in this manner.

[English]

The Chair: I need some advice from the clerk.

The Clerk: We could adopt a motion requesting the committee to then ask the permission of the House to allow this subcommittee to travel. I have a budget as well here that is tentative. I want to check the figures before we have a specific amount declared in a motion.

The Chair: This is the budget for the trip?

The Clerk: Yes.

The Chair: You have that almost finished.

Could we have a motion from somebody to present this as soon as possible to whoever it is who allows us the money?

I think Bill's in charge of that committee, isn't he?

The Clerk: Yes.

The Chair: That's convenient. Then we can find out right off the bat if we can get the money.

Does he have to have the dates when you hand in this application?

It's preferable.

Deepak.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: There is a little problem, yes. I agree with my Bloc colleague that there would be a gap, but I also agree that two of the members would be away doing trade issues in Doha.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: What are your trade dates? Maybe we can work around those.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Perhaps I can make a suggestion. Presumably, if we heard all of the witnesses up until the beginning of November, which is what we're talking about, and then conclude our witnesses, the only outstanding business would be the travel to Colombia and meetings there, and then when we return we would be doing the report.

I don't understand what the problem is with, as soon as we've finished our hearings on Colombia, then starting the hearings on Sudan. The only outstanding business on Colombia is the actual travel. Then we wouldn't miss any sessions. We could get started and hear witnesses on Sudan and continue the hearings on Sudan until the Christmas break, and then when we come back in February.

The Chair: We have two options. We could do that, or do you think the subcommittee would be allowed to go when it's not that week off? When is your trip?

Mr. Svend Robinson: It's Remembrance Day week that we're in Doha.

The Chair: So it's that week that we're officially off, right?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Right.

The Chair: Is it very often that the committees are allowed to travel when...?

Mr. Svend Robinson: No.

Mr. Bernard Patry: It all depends on the numbers. If it's just three, there's no problem. It's just a question of the number of MPs, that's all.

The Chair: There's not a problem?

Mr. Bernard Patry: No.

Mr. Wayne Easter: As long as you get your motion through the...as long as it's agreeable to the House leaders and they let it slide through the House, you can travel on Christmas Day if you like. It doesn't matter as long as that's what the committee wants to do and you get the authority of the House leaders to agree in the House.

The Chair: Why don't we try to do it before Christmas, if we can. If we can't, we have to do it after, that's all. We won't ask for that break week, because there are two of you. I don't know if anybody else on the committee is....

Mr. Svend Robinson: Maybe the clerk could consult with the people who are likely to participate in terms of when might be appropriate.

The Chair: I feel compelled to tell you that I'm not going to go back.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Go back where?

The Chair: To Colombia. I was there in June and I don't feel I want to go back. I feel I should tell you. Somebody might say to me, well, why didn't you tell me that before? I'm not willing to go back. That's just my feeling, and I feel compelled to tell you that.

The clerk is going to look after that for us. When we come back next week, maybe she'll have an answer.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I just want to state my preference. I won't be here in all likelihood at the next meeting. As such, it's fine if it's the last week of November, or December, or....

Mr. Svend Robinson: Or maybe the two first two weeks of December.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I won't be here either on October 17, as I'm traveling with a delegation to Beijing, China.

[English]

The Chair: Is there any other business?

The meeting is adjourned until next week.