FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, December 16, 1999

• 0924

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order. We have a quorum.

I apologize to members. I know that nobody wanted a meeting this morning, but because we have so many things on our agenda to deal with before we go, we just have to have a very quick meeting. I think we can get through in half an hour. I personally have to leave for the House at 9.50 a.m.

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I have a comment to make before we get underway. We have no problem with moving right along, because we too want to be in the House at 10 a.m.

• 0925

I regret that the committee adopted the EDC report in record time, in my absence and in the absence of all Bloc members. We were on our way from the House, but by the time we arrived, the report had already been adopted.

It's unusual for the committee to spend a mere half-day on such an important report. This isn't in keeping with the reports I'd heard, namely that the committee was usually methodical and approached its work very seriously. I'm new here and I have to say that I was disappointed. While I realize that the circumstances are exceptional, I think we should nevertheless be allowed to continue with our work.

The Chairman: Thank you. The report has been completed and your party has tabled its own dissenting report. I also regret the committee's organizational problems, which were due primarily to the week lost in the House because of the Reform Party and to the many other problems which arose in the House that week. All of the other parties represented in the House wanted this report tabled before the recess and we were only able to do this yesterday or the day before that. Representatives of the Reform Party, the NDP and the Conservatives were present and we took their views into account.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): The NDP wasn't represented. Our spokesperson, Mr. Blaikie...

The Chairman: Mr. Blaikie was in attendance and we did take his observations into account. Quite frankly, if the Bloc members had been on hand at 4:30 p.m., things might have gone a little differently. However, I don't know that they would have.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that on certain occasions, the committee was able to sit precisely because a number of Bloc members were present. Had this not been the case, the committee may not have heard from certain witnesses.

The Chairman: I never said that the Bloc didn't take its work very seriously. As I said, we are all a little sorry about how the situation unfolded and we hope that when the time comes for us to table other reports in the future, we won't be so rushed. I hope that when we draft our next report, we will be able to devote more time to this initiative and to reflect seriously on it.

[English]

That said, I think we can move on to the steering committee report, which you have before you. First, I'd like to suggest that we take out our first paragraph about the trip to the Caucasus. We're going to rework it, and we'll bring it back in February. We're not going to travel until April anyway. It won't go in under the budget of 2000. The clerk says we should just remove it. I'm going to suggest we just stand it down. We'll come back with a new proposition.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Are you referring to the first recommendation?

The Chairman: Yes, the recommendation dealing with our trip to the Caucasus. Since we need to rework it, we're suggesting that we stand it down.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I agree. Are you thinking about changing the dates? We had planned to make the trip in March. Will it now be pushed back to April?

The Chairman: The trip would be from April 1 to April 11.

Mr. Svend Robinson: From the 1st to the 11th of April. Fine. Thank you.

The Chairman: I think April Fool's Day is a good day to start off.

[English]

It's the two weeks before we close. The House is sitting at that time. We'll be back by April 11, so we can have three days of the House.

Madame Debien.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I thought we had decided to defer consideration of this recommendation?

The Chairman: That's right, since the clerk needs to rework it and make some changes before we can adopt it. We'll consider the recommendation at our next meeting. I just want you to know that this trip is still on our agenda.

• 0930

Ms. Maud Debien: We're still agreed in principle.

The Chairman: I think all parties agree on this.

Ms. Maud Debien: I imagine it's a budgetary consideration.

The Chairman: The budget is always a consideration. I have to say that it won't be easy convincing our lords and masters in the House to approve a $250,000 budget. I hope that all committee members will speak to their leader in the House so that the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs appreciates how important this trip is. I know the Fisheries Committee spent a comparable amount this year on its study. This trip is an important one for us and we have to ensure that our lords and masters in the House realize this.

[English]

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): What changes?

The Chair: They have to change the direction and the date. We want to get the dates of April 1 to 11 in as well. So perhaps we can stand that one down.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm sorry to prolong things.

The Chair: No, that's all right.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I wonder if because it would be in the next fiscal year as opposed to this fiscal year there would be an impact on the financing. We had talked about there being some resources available in this fiscal year. If we put this over to April 1, we're then into the next fiscal year. I'm not sure if that will be a problem.

The Chair: As usual, the financing of committee business in this House is of a degree of goofiness that astonishes all. At the moment the committees have no money. There is no money left for this year, in theory, but in fact there's $1 million that has not been spent. We all know, from the way things have gone in the past, that there is no way the $1 million that is committed to be spent between now and April 1 can possibly be spent between now and April 1.

So there really is money, but technically there is no money. We're in that kind of grey zone that we are always in at this time of year.

So we'll just leave it, and we'll put this budget into next year. But if we can maybe scoop a bit of it—well, never mind, I don't want to say that, because we're not allowed to do that. We're going to do what we're allowed to do but do it discreetly.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: It depends on how much clout the chairmen have.

The Chairman: It also depends on the Finance Committee. Fortunately, I'm also a chairman.

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Are the dates of April 1 to 11 cast in iron? Does it have to be at that time, or can it be changed?

The Chair: We can't keep changing it again and again.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I'm just asking. Can we change it?

The Chair: Those are the dates, April 1 to 11, and those are fixed.

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): For what, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: For the trip to the Caucasus.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Do you mean to Chechnya?

The Chair: We're sending you, Mr. McWhinney. We've got a map down there. You can speak to Dr. Patry. Your itinerary is there.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: I'd much rather do it in Moscow and speak to the friends I have there.

The Chair: You may get to Moscow before it's over. Mr. Robinson is desperate to go to Moscow too.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Is he is desperate for Moscow?

The Chair: Yes. He's a Moscow-type person.

Let's put this aside, guys, or we won't get to the House by 10 a.m. So we're going to put it aside, but I promise it will come back first thing with a reworked budget and a reworked itinerary.

Next is witness expenses. There's no problem, I hope, with $30,000 for witness expenses.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: On the role of Kosovo, that was Mr. Robinson's motion. Everyone was pretty well agreed we'd better have a relook at that.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, there's just one slight amendment on that. It wasn't just “Canada's role in the conflict in Kosovo”, but it's also “and the period following the conflict”.

The Chair: I think that's very true. We want to call people and say, hey, what are we doing now to make sure that the people there are properly looked after? We're very concerned about them. I agree.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Chair, I followed with great interest Mr. Robinson's motion. Do you think we could get some witnesses other than the bland experts we usually get? Leslie Green, who is well known to both of us, has written a very devastating critique of the Kosovo operation, and David Matas has also done so. It would be interesting to call them. They are respectable people, but they don't necessarily agree with the government.

The Chair: I think the Senate committee report was not exactly, shall I say, warm about the whole operation. The Senate is doing a report that is fairly critical in its approach.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Leslie, as you know, is a gadfly, but he's done the research, and its very pertinent.

• 0935

I don't know where Mr. Robinson is. He's disappeared. In any case, it would be very relevant to the discussion of his motion and our own reflection.

The Chair: Look, members, you know as well as I do that when we're going to do one of these hearings, every member who wants to propose a witness... Often, for example, we turn to the Bloc to ask their advice about who we should get from the province of Quebec because they often have very good contacts there. So anybody who has somebody on anything, please suggest to Mr. Schmitz or Mr. Lee a witness and we'll make sure they come.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: So could we take formal notice of my suggestion, Professor Leslie Green, an honorary professor now, I think, at the University of Alberta, and David Matas, of... What is his title?

Mr. Gerald Schmitz (Committee Researcher): He's from the B'nai Brith.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Yes, but the two were panelled together and—

The Chair: I believe Mr. Matas comes from Winnipeg.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: He comes from Winnipeg, and his father was the chief justice, wasn't he, or almost chief justice?

The Chair: Okay, we've noted those names. Thank you.

[Translation]

Do you have a procedural question, Ms. Debien?

Ms. Maud Debien: Can you tell me when the Senate report is to be released?

The Chairman: Mr. Schmitz has advised me that it will be available in February.

Ms. Maud Debien: Good.

The Chairman: You could always talk to Senator Stollery, who has a keen interest in this matter.

Ms. Maud Debien: I'd like to ask the research officer or Janice if we could have this report mailed to our constituency offices as soon as possible so that we might review it before we resume our proceedings.

The Chairman: This report won't be released until Parliament reconvenes in February. We'll all be back here by then.

Mr. James Lee (Committee Researcher): In fact, the report won't be tabled until February.

Ms. Maud Debien: I see. And the report is to remain confidential until such time as it is tabled.

[English]

The Chair: Well, maybe, but certainly I agree that it's relevant, and we don't need to replicate and duplicate what they've done. We should maybe use it as a base from which to take off. I think that's a good point.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I don't know how the Senate went about conducting its study. Could we give some thought to inviting Mr. Rugova to testify? I had an opportunity to listen to him speak when I traveled to Kosovo with Minister Axworthy. Mr. Rugova told us that if NATO had not done what it did, none of them would have even been there.

The Chairman: That's a good idea. If we can't get Mr. Rugova, maybe we could hear from a member of his team. When you were in Kosovo, did you meet with any of his associates? I believe a rather energetic woman was acting as vice-president.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: No, we didn't meet with her, but we did meet Mr. Thaci. I suggested Mr. Rugova because he seemed to be the most moderate of all.

The Chairman: I believe Mr. Robinson also has some local contacts.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes, I believe there's a woman who, along with Mr. Rugova, is responsible for foreign affairs. I met her during my visit to Macedonia. She is an individual with some outstanding qualities.

The Chairman: We had dinner with her.

Mr. Svend Robinson: We could suggest several other people as possible witnesses. Certain NGOs here in Canada and in Quebec would undoubtedly be interested in appearing before the committee.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: There are different viewpoints out there.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's right.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: And we must hear them.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Absolutely.

The Chairman: I urge you to forward your suggestions to the clerk as soon as possible because we need to make arrangements well in advance when we call in a witness who lives some distance away.

Mr. Svend Robinson: The committee should devote four or five hearings to this subject, enough time to do an in-depth study.

The Chairman: Fine. Let's move on to the recommendation that we convene a meeting with Red Cross and Red Crescent officials. I assume we are all agreed on this.

[English]

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Now, on Chechnya, that obviously was not able to take place because of events in the House.

So may we invite the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the last recommendation? It's normal when we're trying to get the minister. Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Also, members, you will recall that we had requested that Mr. Marchi come. He didn't come in this session, but he will in the month of February for sure.

• 0940

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Will my motion be considered under the item "future business of the committee" or will it be examined by a sub-committee? Will we be looking at it separately?

The Chairman: We'll begin by examining the motion on Colombia, then your motion and finally, the one tabled by Mr. Robinson, which means we have three items left to consider. First of all, let's start with the motion put forward by the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure concerning Colombia. I believe everyone received a copy of the motion two days ago.

[English]

Yes.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: We have three motions. One is Svend Robinson's, the other Colombia, and the other globalization. Which one are we—

The Chair: Are we not talking about Colombia?

We have three further issues to discuss.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Who is the author of this motion?

The Chair: We have the draft motion on Colombia, we have a request from the Bloc for Mr. Tremblay's motion, and we have Mr. Robinson's motion. We're now on Colombia.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: It's a Bloc motion.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: It's a committee motion.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: How about globalization? Is that subcommittee—

The Chair: I said we have three motions to deal with. We're starting with Colombia, then we're going to the Bloc, and then we're going to Mr. Robinson's—one, two, three. Okay? Now we're on one, Colombia.

It's Christmas. It's time for the Caribbean. It's time to get a little sun and relax, to go back to Grenada.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Chair, we have a motion here that is in one official language.

The Chair: Not you too, Mr. Obhrai. You wouldn't do this to me at this hour of the day.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I don't know. It's not my fault. They've been handing me pieces of paper over here.

The Chair: Oh, I know. Madame Beaumier put it under the table just to embêter you a bit.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: She probably did.

The Chair: It's Madame Beaumier's fault.

Now, on Colombia, I believe there were some members who felt that the motion as originally cast was not strong enough. But are there any recommendations now?

There are some changes that have been made. The paragraphs in black are the additions proposed by Mr. Robinson.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, if I may, on that, I think a number of members agreed that the original proposed text was helpful as a beginning but didn't accurately reflect the evidence we heard in terms of particularly the concerns around the paramilitaries and also a couple of other issues.

My office did consult with the witnesses who appeared before the committee, and particularly with Bill Fairbairn from the Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America. Certainly these are the areas that they felt as well should be highlighted, and I would hope the committee could support that.

The Chair: Mr. McWhinney, and then Mr. Paradis.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: I think this is a good motion, and I like the items that are highlighted. They give some substance to it and communicate the possibilities of action, so I will support it.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I think we're going to have quite a few problems with the wording of the last paragraph which appears in bold face. Will the Government of Canada have the authority to investigate? Shouldn't we instead be resorting to a mechanism which is becoming increasingly popular around the world, namely the international code of ethics applied by international companies working abroad? Isn't there some way to have Parliament, governments, non-profit organizations and private sector enterprises in Canada commit to applying this mechanism, namely the international code of ethics, to Canadian companies? Given the way in which the third-to-last paragraph is worded, I doubt whether the government has either the mandate or the ability to carry out this kind of investigation. That's my first comment.

• 0945

Secondly, instead of saying that the committee will hold a meeting early in the new year with the Canadian ambassador to Colombia, perhaps we should invite—maybe it's just a question of terminology—the Canadian ambassador to Colombia to meet with the committee. Usually, we extend an invitation, rather than request an appearance.

The Chairman: I'm sorry, you want to invite the Colombian ambassador to Canada to appear before the committee?

Mr. Denis Paradis: No, the Canadian ambassador to Colombia.

The Chairman: The Canadian ambassador to Colombia?

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's the next item.

Mr. Denis Paradis: I'm saying that we should extend an invitation to the ambassador, rather than summon him to appear. It says here that the committee will hold a meeting early in the new year. It comes down to a choice of words, Mr. Chairman. In fact, we're going to invite the Canadian ambassador to Colombia to meet with committee members.

[English]

The Chair: I don't think anybody's going to object to the terminology. It's your wording, but Madame Debien was first.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: I'd like to respond to Mr. Paradis's comment that the government doesn't have the authority to carry out an investigation. The government, acting through Mr. Axworthy, has just dispatched Mr. Harker to Burma regarding the Talisman matter. I think the government does in fact have the authority to conduct investigations in exceptional circumstances. Dispatching Mr. Harker to Burma is proof that it does have this authority. I'm sorry, he wasn't sent to Burma, but rather to the Sudan.

Mr. Denis Paradis: I'd like to clarify one thing. Right now, Mr. Harker is in the Sudan on a fact-finding mission. He's not necessarily there to conduct an investigation, but rather to look into a possible link between the profits generated by the oil industry and the arms regime.

Ms. Maud Debien: Yes, but nevertheless, the government does have the authority to conduct investigations.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Obhrai, and then Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I need some clarification here. Mr. Robinson, I don't have any problem with your motion when you talk about the UN High Commissioner, the next one, calling upon the Government of Columbia to investigate, and the other ones, but I definitely seem to have a problem when you talk about monitoring the impact of Canadian corporate trade and investment in Columbia. From my perspective, I agree with you that we can do the study and express our concern in reference to human rights violations, but when we are talking about Canadian corporate trade and investment in Columbia, then I think we are studying too much, and I would have a problem supporting that particular motion—but not all the others.

The Chair: But you'll see it just says to ensure that they're not worsening the conflict—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes, but—

The Chair: It's not saying... anyway.

Mr. Robinson, you may want to respond to that, and then Madame Lalonde, I think.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I remind members of the committee of the evidence we heard that this is one of the worst human rights violators in the world. People are disappearing and there are terrible atrocities. All this motion is saying is we want to make sure Canadian corporations that are involved in Columbia at this time of disappearances and brutality and violence are not in any way making the situation worse. Surely to goodness, that's not an unreasonable request to make.

This is a very difficult situation. As Madame Debien has said, we have taken similar steps in Sudan. If you want to call it a fact-finding mission instead of an enquête, fine. I don't have a problem with that. Surely to goodness, we recognize that there can be a role for the Government of Canada in making sure the activities of Canadian corporations aren't making the situation worse.

That's what this says. That's what the resolution calls for. And I would point out as well that the code of ethics Mr. Paradis talks about is a totally voluntary and toothless code of ethics that has been ignored time and time again. In the context of Columbia, that's not good enough.

• 0950

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Let me respond to Svend, if I can.

The Chair: Very quickly, because I have four other people—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: As I said, I don't have any problem with the motions where you're talking about human rights violations. I'm agreeing with you that the situation over there is quite serious and requires that. But as far as I'm concerned, your party is always coming out here and putting it into a way broader picture where it destroys the objective of it. I think in essence whatever you have stated in the others will do the job, minus the stuff you're talking about here. In Sudan, we're basically talking about one company, Talisman, and so it's convincing, but this is too broad to do that, in my point of view.

The Chair: That's fine.

Now I have

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde, Mr. Patry and Ms. Marleau.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I simply wanted to point out that according to the EDC report, the firm that conducted the investigations and made recommendations was concerned about the impact of these activities on human rights. It found that we should be concerned about human rights.

To address concerns about the Sudan, Mr. Axworthy sent in an investigator. That's the word that was used. I believe you used the word yourself in responding to a question of mine in the House. I could check in Hansard.

Therefore, the government does indeed have the means with which to investigate situations. This is not to say that it carries out formal investigations into particular countries, but rather that it has the means to do so. It has a responsibility to investigate how public monies are used, because that's the issue we're discussing, namely the use of public funds for investment and export purposes.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Patry and then Ms. Lalonde.

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): I think everyone can agree on the aim of the resolution as such. The problem lies with the wording, even in the English version. That's because by "investigate" , what we really mean to say is hold an "inquiry". Canada must make an effort to monitor the impact of Canadian corporate trade and investment in Colombia to ensure that the presence and activities of Canadian corporations are not worsening the conflict. You've added "or the human rights situation". I don't think the presence of Canadian companies makes the situation worse. The problem is the wording. The important thing is to ensure respect for human rights. That's the objective here.

Perhaps the word "investigate" is too strong. However, if we increase our everyday monitoring efforts, then we have to investigate to some extent to keep an eye on things. That's what we should be doing.

I would take out the word "investigate" and replace it with "monitors on a daily or ongoing basis".

Mr. Svend Robinson: Enhanced monitoring.

Mr. Bernard Patry: That's right, enhanced monitoring.

Mr. Denis Paradis: That's fine with me.

Mr. Bernard Patry: More stringent monitoring.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Enhanced monitoring.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Exactly.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Fine.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I would leave in the reference to the human rights situation.

The Chairman: Right.

Ms. Marleau has some comments.

Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): I have a question rather. I haven't been a member of the committee for very long and therefore I want to know if the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has been asked to provide a summary of the types of activities in which our companies are engaged? If we know the kind of activities in which they are engaged, then we'll have a better idea of the areas in which Canadian companies do business and of the kind of impact these activities can have.

I have a copy of the motion in French. It reads as follows:

[English]

“to investigate and monitor the impact of Canadian Corporate trade”. You compare it to Sudan where it's one company dealing with the government and the revenues from the oil are actually making the government rich. There's a very direct connection.

Before we go into this, I would like myself to have a very good idea of what kinds of activities are going on in Columbia, the overall picture, and then we can maybe say we should go and look more closely at what's happening. But maybe it's already happened.

• 0955

The Chair: We did have evidence before the committee that in fact Colombia is the country that has the most investment, but nobody said where it was or anything.

I'm going to have to leave, members, and I'm going to have Madame Beaumier take over the chair, because I've got to go up and put in our report in the House.

Before I do, I wanted to draw your attention to one thing. You may have noticed in this morning's Ottawa Citizen “NATO to review nuclear policy”. That is recommendation 15 of our nuclear report. Don't say the committee never has any effect. We've been working on this for three years. We finally got NATO to agree. And it was part of the work of this committee and talking to other members of Parliament from other countries that got it going. It's our recommendation. It's finally happened. So occasionally things do percolate through.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Do they acknowledge it?

A voice: They acknowledge Canada but not—

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: They acknowledge the Canadian role. That's excellent.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Make copies for us.

The Chair: I have to run to put our report in.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Madam Chair, I think a number of us have other meetings. Perhaps we can take Madame Marleau's concerns into consideration if we adopt the wording Mr. Patry has suggested, which would be,

[Translation]

and in English, "calls upon the Government of Canada to enhance the monitoring of the impact of".

In French, it would read as follows:

[English]

“to enhance the monitoring of the impact of” etc.

Mr. Bernard Patry: And you would withdraw “to investigate”?

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's right.

Mr. Bernard Patry: That's fine.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Madam Chair, we all have meetings to go to. Could we pass to the question if the debate has been exhausted?

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): I still have one point.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.)): Yes, after Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I want to make sure that we understand this and make it clear. We are investigating human rights violations in Colombia. We are not investigating Canadian companies. We have to make that very clear distinction. This is a blanket statement here.

Mr. Bob Speller: We took out “investigating”.

Mr. Denis Paradis: The link.

Mr. Bob Speller: Svend, can I ask you why you did not put anything in there on the kidnappings that were going on? There doesn't seem to be anything in there in terms of—

Mr. Svend Robinson: No, because actually the UN Commissioner for Human Rights has reported on the kidnappings specifically, and we've included in there the findings that violations of human rights... and one of the violations of human rights is the kidnappings.

Mr. Bob Speller: I think we should note the kidnappings, though, because in terms of what information came before the committee, that was a major part of what we heard, and it doesn't seem to be here.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: In response to Ms. Marleau, I'd have to say that we want more transparency precisely because we want to know more about the kinds of Canadian investments being made in each country. Unfortunately, the committee's resolution, which we weren't able to discuss, isn't worded as strongly as it should be. It would be useful to have a strongly worded resolution to deal with situations like these.

[English]

Mr. Bob Speller: It would be “condemns the repeated violence, kidnappings, and the abuse of human rights by all parties...”.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Sure.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Are you talking in the preamble?

Mr. Bob Speller: No, after—

Mr. Svend Robinson: It would be “condemns the repeated violence, kidnappings”—

Mr. Bob Speller: And the abuse of human rights.

Mr. Svend Robinson: —“massacres and the abuse...”.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Which paragraph is that?

Mr. Svend Robinson: The first one:

Condemns the repeated violence and the abuse...

[English]

So we're going to add explicitly “kidnappings, massacres, and the abuse of human rights”.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. Paradis.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: Madam Chair, I don't know if Mr. Robinson would object to adding "enhance the monitoring of the impact of". We're urging Canadian companies operating in Colombia to adopt this code of ethics immediately. This ties in with what I was saying earlier.

Ms. Diane Marleau: Apparently, they are not doing this now and we must encourage them to take action of some kind.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I think we can leave it as is.

Ms. Diane Marleau: We mustn't accuse them of not being ethical, because we don't know that for a fact.

Mr. Denis Paradis: You're right.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Fine then.

• 1000

Ms. Diane Marleau: I think we'd be going a little too far if we accused them of acting unethically, because we don't know if that's the case.

[English]

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Can we have the question, Madam Chair?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion as amended?

(Motion as amended agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Does the committee want to report this to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Now we are dealing with the motion on Burma. However, I'm not sure everyone has the amended motion.

Svend, do you have the amendment there?

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have the correct text of the amended one, if you just want me to read that out—

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Please.

Mr. Svend Robinson: This was as adopted—

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I'm sorry, Svend. We've come to my motion, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I'm sorry.

Mr. Svend Robinson: She's right.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize.

Madame Lalonde, would you like to read your motion into the record?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: You're right. We've only tabled one draft motion on globalization.

It gives me great pleasure to present this motion which I strongly urge you to support. You're aware of the work being done by our young colleague Stéphan Tremblay ever since he acted in a manner that wasn't exactly parliamentary. However, his efforts were recognized by many as a sign of his interest in the work of parliamentarians. He expressed a desire to take action at this level and to make parliamentarians aware of the social as well as economic impact of globalization.

Mr. Tremblay began by introducing a motion in the House. Unfortunately, it wasn't deemed votable, although it garnered the support of over one hundred members from all parties. After giving the matter some thought, we felt that this question could be brought to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade for its consideration.

We feel that the best approach would be to establish a subcommittee to examine the impact of globalization on a country's ability to maintain social cohesion. The French Parliament has recently studied this question and tabled a report. Given Canada's extensive commitments and expressed will to demonstrate leadership in various fields, it is critically important that parliamentarians examine this question.

We submit that a subcommittee of this committee should be mandated to take on this task. Moreover, we would be open to any suggestions which would ensure that this matter is brought to the committee's attention.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. Speller.

Mr. Bob Speller: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, first of all, let me tell my honourable colleagues how important I think this issue is, how this issue is in fact something that I believe this committee, at some stage, should certainly take a look at. I don't think we who have been around this place for a while and understand the problems of whips and House leaders could at this point set up a new subcommittee in foreign affairs. We now have two subcommittees—the subcommittee on human rights and the subcommittee on international trade issues—and this may be something that the subcommittee on international trade may want to take a look at.

• 1005

But I would suggest that the best place to go to first is that subcommittee, at its steering committee meeting, and bring this forward for that committee to look at. Certainly it's not the role of the full standing committee to set the agenda for the subcommittee on trade.

I certainly, number one, wouldn't support a new subcommittee. I don't think we would get any of the whips' or the House leaders' agreement to do that.

Secondly, if I could ask you to take this issue... I think it would probably be more appropriate to have it studied by the subcommittee on international trade, and I would ask you to take it there to be looked at.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Well, half of the thing has been answered by Bob anyway, but this thing was brought up in the House. I'm a little concerned about this. We did have a parliamentary committee on WTO, and we did listen to all those presentations that came in.

I think in the context of when we are negotiating the specific trade deals we do, like FTA and all these things, at that given time it's appropriate for all the groups to come in and put their point of view. I'm not opposed to listening to it, but I definitely do not feel that... if we are going to do a study of this, my biggest and most serious concern is that it will be taken over by special interest groups of the so-called civil society that have a completely biased view on this. I have a serious concern on that issue.

I do not find any problems in these groups coming and putting their points of view at that given time, when we are negotiating trade deals, specifically for the trade issues.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Madame Lalonde, if you would just listen to the comments from Mr. Robinson, we'll...

Mr. Svend Robinson: Madam Chair, I want to congratulate Monsieur Tremblay for his leadership on this issue. I am strongly supportive of the suggestion that this issue be examined.

I'm not sure what the most appropriate forum is for that examination. Unlike Mr. Obhrai, I welcome the involvement of civil society in this examination. It seems to me that it's absolutely essential that we hear from the voices of civil society on this—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I'm not saying to shut them down—

Mr. Svend Robinson: You're just saying don't listen to them, I guess. That's different. You're letting them exist, but you don't want to hear them.

In any event—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I disagree with you—

Mr. Svend Robinson: —it's very important that we do examine this question seriously.

[Translation]

Frankly, I'm very pleased to see that the Bloc is willing to revisit the impact of NAFTA, the MAI and other accords that it has wholeheartedly supported in the past. I'm very happy that we, whether it be the subcommittee or the full committee, are going to re-examine this matter thoroughly. I have no objections whatsoever.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Would the committee allow Mr. Tremblay to speak?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. Tremblay.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): I think you're all mindful of the fact that a growing number of people are concerned about globalization.

The issue here is not whether one is for or against globalization. Globalization has a profound impact on all of humanity. We can't ignore this phenomenon. Rather, we must seek to understand it because it is likely to monopolize our discussions over the next decade.

As Ms. Lalonde said, France has already released a report on this very issue. I believe a growing number of the world's countries will soon be following this country's lead.

It's not a matter of opposing trade. However, civil society is growing increasingly concerned about globalization. In Seattle, 50,000 demonstrators took to the streets to demand a debate on the social impact of globalization. By no means am I opposed to free trade, but I do think we have a responsibility to debate the social impact of this phenomenon.

Even the Senate underscored the importance of debating global phenomena and their impact on society in its report on social cohesion. If we don't talk about this, the public will become ever more concerned and we will see more demonstrations like the one in Seattle where the WTO was singled out.

• 1010

Demonstrators were not necessarily protesting against the WTO or trade. They were protesting against the kind of globalization we are seeing today. We need to define the kind of globalization we want for society. We have collected a total of 50,000 signatures on a petition. This many people cannot be ignored. Just think that 50,000 people have signed a petition calling for a study of this phenomenon. Moreover, 100 parliamentarians, several of whom are here today, agree that this matter should be given priority consideration.

It's the least we can do. Even Mr. Martin was advocating, or I hope he was, an improved form of globalization when he addressed the G-20 today. In my view, conducting a study of this nature is ultimately the responsibility of parliamentarians. Let me also say that this issue is, in my opinion, non partisan. Common world problems must be addressed by Australian parliamentarians as much as by Mexican or Canadian ones. We're fortunate that in this Parliament, people have diverse opinions. Mr. Robinson and Mr. Obhrai don't really share the same opinion where globalization is concerned.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Go ahead, Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you. As you can see, my brilliant young colleague is brimming with enthusiasm. However, I can't say that I really agree with Mr. Speller's motion because—and I hope I make myself clear—international trade is part of the globalization phenomenon.

This committee deemed it advisable to establish a subcommittee on trade and one on human rights. The subcommittee would be asked to consider the impact on social cohesion of trade and globalization, that is to say direct investment or the flow of capital abroad. Economic progress is one thing, but the redistribution of wealth is quite another. We all know that this is a problem here in Canada.

I recall reading with a great deal of interest some material prepared at the request of Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon, the former Clerk of the Privy Council, who was concerned about Canada's ability to maintain social cohesion. Fueling this concern was, among other things, the push toward globalization. In my view, assigning this study to the Subcommittee on Internal Trade would limit the scope of the review. Instead, why not assign this mandate to the full committee given that it is concerned about more than just trade issues?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. McWhinney.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: I think Madame Lalonde and Mr. Tremblay have accurately identified that the problem is more than a trade problem. If you examine the failure of the MAI, which had some very constructive and useful proposals in world trade but failed completely, I think there was an inability for political decision-makers to recognize that it would change the structure and base of world public order. As we move from the political-military base to an economic base, there are important political structural implications.

I recognize the extreme expertise that this subcommittee, Mr. Speller, brought to bear on MAI, but it's a tragedy to see it all lost, and I think the work on WTO will be lost unless it's recognized that you have to examine the implications for transforming the political-military base of world order to an economic base.

Maybe the answer would be some discussion between Madam Lalonde and Mr. Speller on widening the scope of that subcommittee and bringing in larger areas, but I think the WTO project is doomed unless it responds to these larger doubts that are now being expressed, not simply by the groups who demonstrate in the streets. Mr. Robinson is right to remind us that they have a legitimate role in participatory democracy today.

But I would think the doubts you're getting at the higher levels... MAI failed because it was viewed as a technocratic project by economists who were of high quality but totally undemocratic in their orientation. Anybody who has met the OECD bureaucrats recognizes they're profoundly elitist and undemocratic.

• 1015

It was lost and the good things went with it, and I fear this with WTO, so maybe Mr. Speller's idea to discuss with Madam Lalonde and work out some way of broadening the concept of this committee, the membership and the scope, would respond better to the problem.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I'm wondering, Madam Lalonde, if you would consider sending this issue to the steering committee in regard to looking at the viability of another committee. The steering committee can study this further. I think there is general agreement that there is a need. However, we're not sure of the vehicle.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Madam Chair, if we could agree in principle on the need for a study like this, we could leave this in the hands of the members of the steering committee so that the various parties can discuss things amongst themselves. I know that the party leaders have already discussed how best to go about conducting such a study.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I will formally move the motion.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Madam Marleau.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane Marleau: Globalization is an inescapable phenomenon. Whether we like it or not, whether we're afraid of it or not, globalization is here to stay and it's a dangerous phenomenon. Your resolution is so broad that the committee would almost have to be God Almighty. You're proposing that we study the effects of globalization on social cohesion in Canada.

I can appreciate the importance of examining globalization as an issue, but I don't know if your resolution is the best way to approach the subject. It's very difficult to say which committee should take on this very broad subject. We have to carefully decide how we want to proceed. Should we start by looking at one particular component of globalization, and then move on to other ones? With this resolution, even God couldn't provide you with an answer, and the committee isn't God. I think the major challenge we face in the next millennium is ensuring global democracy.

We can argue and yell at one another here in our nice little democratic country, but we mustn't let large corporations make all of the decisions and leave us with no powers at all. That's why we need to establish clear rules in this area, otherwise we're cooked. Although we can establish domestic laws, if we're not free to pass laws of international scope or to impose certain global standards, then democracy is finished.

Globalization is a critically important, albeit very vast, subject, one that cannot be broached easily. As you pointed out, the WTO talks failed. There doesn't appear to be rules of any kind in place at this level, and we're going to need some rules. While I don't know who is in a position to set these rules, I do know that we need to get this done.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: We'll initiate the process.

Ms. Diane Marleau: I think we should start by deciding how we want to approach this subject. We won't necessarily be doing what this motion suggests we do.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: If you heard me correctly, that's what I was saying.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: We don't object to a study of globalization. Ms. Lalonde takes the public's concerns very seriously. Before our negotiators went to Seattle, we prepared a report outlining our concerns. The public wasn't alone in having some concerns. The committee had many as well. You read the resolutions respecting civil society and the ILO and you saw what happened. The Seattle talks failed. Before that, we saw the MAI negotiations fail.

You say you want a broad study of globalization undertaken, but the scope is too vast. We need to reconsider the wording of your resolution and decide what the best approach would be. You allude to the state's capacity to maintain social cohesion. I don't think you're referring solely to Canada's ability, but rather to the capacity of all states as such, which is quite different. Do we need to take into account North-South and East-West relations and indeed relations with all countries?

There is much work to do and we need to decide where exactly to begin. We can't possibly study every single aspect of social cohesion and globalization. We need to select a very particular feature and do a comprehensive study. Then I would have no problem with this. We'd have to decide whether to assign this task to the subcommittee on international trade or to another subcommittee. I think we still have some work to do before we arrive at a decision. Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

• 1020

I'm just going to read the list, because everyone would like an opportunity. I have Speller, Augustine, Robinson, Obhrai, and Lalonde.

So now we have Mr. Speller.

Mr. Bob Speller: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, certainly I think it's the role of the steering committee to set out the agenda for this committee. I think given the fact that there seems to be a lot of enthusiasm on all sides for this issue, it's something those who are here who are on the steering committee will take to heart when the steering committee meets. So I would suggest we move on. We pass this on to the steering committee for its review and have them report back to this committee.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Does everyone generally agree to have it moved to the steering committee?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Madam Chair, I had a motion that in fact would accept in principle the importance. I think we want to take that step, to accept in principle the importance of a study on globalization, as proposed by Monsieur Tremblay, and that we ask the steering committee to determine the most appropriate forum for that.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Excellent.

Mr. Bob Speller: No. I don't think it's the role of this committee to put on to the steering committee those sorts of things. We have all the different members of the steering committee. We don't have the Conservatives, for instance, here today. It's their role to balance off all the requests of different parties and committee members and come up with an agenda. If we start putting on that steering committee certain sets of priorities here, then it will make it a lot more difficult for that committee to work.

Mr. Svend Robinson: If I may, I thought we had agreed this was an issue we wanted to study. The question is what the most appropriate format is for that study. That's all I'm asking, that we accept that this is an important subject to be studied and that the steering committee determine what's the most appropriate means of doing that. That would be the motion.

Bob, that's reflecting what you said yourself.

Mr. Bob Speller: No.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mrs. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine: I think, Madam Chair, my input is really in terms of saying I agree that we should do this, that it's an important discussion. I agree that we should be sending it to the steering committee for placement somewhere, whether it's within their own agenda, or within industry or the subcommittee of WTO—but find someplace for such a study to take place.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's exactly what my motion was.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I'm a little disturbed by what is going on here. First of all, this motion was passed. It was in the House. It was debated in the House. It was not made votable. To me, it seems it has been brought into the committee through a back door by the Bloc, by having this thing over here. I don't know if that's appropriate, but it does bother me that this has come back through the back door into the committee. Somebody else would have introduced that.

But in other aspects, I would agree that... I'm going to propose a motion that will go against the steering committee, that we should have a similar study done on the advantages of globalization, so that it is counterbalanced by this thing.

[Editor'Note: Inaudible]

A voice: —

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: That's right. It seems to me we have concerns about—let me just finish here.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): You can have one motion on the floor at a time, Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I'm not putting the motion now, but I will probably bring it to counterbalance theirs. So I will bring up the advantages-of-globalization motion, and then we'll decide whether it goes to the steering committee.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): All right.

Madam Lalonde.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: No, my third point in response to this is that at Seattle a motion was passed, unanimously agreed to by all the parliamentarians who were there, that there would be a parliamentarian consulting process tied in directly to WTO from now on. That motion was passed. That should be in the report here when it comes out. Parliamentarians will have a direct input into the future negotiations of WTO. That's all I have to say.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Madam Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes. This subject has generated a great deal of interest. Mr. Obhrai wants us to undertake a broader study of globalization and its positive effects.

• 1025

In fact, as I found out from our researchers, a number of studies have already been done, including annual ones, and these have endeavored to identify some of the advantages of globalization. However, we're now starting to see some of the negatives associated with this phenomenon. We need to begin by reviewing existing data and then agree on a work plan. In this regard, the assistance of the research branch would be much appreciated by the steering committee.

I'd like us to agree today to undertake a study of globalization and its effect on social cohesion. As the UNDP report does initially, I have no problem with our starting off by identifying the benefits of globalization. We always hear about the advantages. The public and civil society reacted as it did because parliaments refuse to consider the adverse effects of globalization in different countries and how it affects relations between countries. I think we really need to focus on these adverse effects.

Madam Chair, I hope that all members support this resolution calling for a study of globalization and its effects on social cohesion and that the research branch devises a work plan which, to address Mr. Obhrai's concerns, also calls for consideration of the advantages associated with globalization. Numerous studies have already looked at the benefits. Now we need to focus on how globalization affects social cohesion.

[English]

Mr. Svend Robinson: On a point of order, there is a motion on the floor. I have proposed a motion, and there has been some brief discussion. I just talked to Mr. McWhinney. In the interest of time, I wonder if I might just quickly try some rewording that may facilitate the discussion.

The motion would be that the committee, recognizing the importance of studying the issue of globalization, ask the steering committee to review this question to determine the most appropriate means of following up on it. That wording recognizes the importance of the subject, and it asks the steering committee to review the most appropriate means of following up. I would move that motion in the hope that it would receive the support of the committee.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion proposed by Mr. Robinson?

(Motion agreed to)

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Does everyone—

Ms. Jean Augustine: This is not a precedent, though.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That sounds like a good precedent to me.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. Robinson, would you like to read your other motion?

Mr. Svend Robinson: You now all have copies of the—

Mr. Bob Speller: We already voted on one for you. You got one, so that's it.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Merry Christmas!

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Svend Robinson: You've seen the final, revised version of the motion, but I'll just read it out.

[Translation]

I apologize for not having the final draft of my motion available in French. I'll see to having it translated.

[English]

The motion is that the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development urges the Parliament of Canada to recognize as the legitimate authority in Burma today the Committee for the Restoration of a People's Parliament, and further urges the government to consider the imposition of investment sanctions on the regime in Burma.

I move this motion and remind the committee that it was adopted unanimously by the subcommittee yesterday. I urge the committee to report it to the House.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Can I have a clarification?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: This was passed in the subcommittee and it has just been brought here?

Mr. Svend Robinson: It was passed unanimously.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): It was passed last night.

(Motion agreed to)

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I think we've completed our business for today.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Isn't there a motion on Kosovo?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): No, that was adopted.

So to all, Merry Christmas, and have a good holiday.

The meeting is adjourned.