FAIT Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 28, 2002
| ¿ | 0920 |
 |
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.)) |
|
Mr. Day |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mr. Day |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mr. Gerald Schmitz (Committee Researcher) |
|
Mr. Day |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mr. Day |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mr. Day |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mr. Day |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.) |
| ¿ | 0925 |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.) |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.) |
| ¿ | 0930 |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, British Columbia, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| ¿ | 0935 |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
|
Mr. Keith Martin |
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
|
Mr. Keith Martin |
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
|
Mr. Keith Martin |
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
|
Mr. James Lee (Committee Researcher) |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mr. Keith Martin |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mr. Keith Martin |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
| ¿ | 0940 |
|
Mr. Keith Martin |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mr. Day |
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
An hon. member |
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll |
|
Mr. Keith Martin |
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll |
|
Mr. Keith Martin |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mr. Keith Martin |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll |
|
Mr. Day |
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll |
|
Mr. Keith Martin |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mr. Day |
| ¿ | 0945 |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Ms. Marlene Jennings |
| ¿ | 0950 |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mr. Keith Martin |
| ¿ | 0955 |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mr. Tonks |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| À | 1000 |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mr. Day |
| À | 1005 |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
The Clerk of the Committee |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
| À | 1010 |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mr. Day |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll |
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll |
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Mme Aileen Carroll |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
| À | 1015 |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Ms. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.) |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Tuesday, May 28, 2002
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¿ 
(0920)
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.)): This morning will be on the full report. We will start with two motions and a report to the committee regarding the errors on the 19th report.
On the report on the priorities regarding the G-8, Kananaskis, are there any comments on this?
Mr. Day.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): This is just informally, since we don't have quorum, and subject to a discussion that goes in camera. Is that correct?
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Yes, exactly.
Mr. Stockwell Day: We have some concerns, obviously, with the report, with some of the recommendations, that we'd like to raise. If there is agreement to add that into the existing report, then we're fine with it. If not, we will meet the deadline to put in a dissenting report.
That's our situation right now.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Okay, that's fine.
Mr. Gerald Schmitz (Committee Researcher): There's a list of recommendations and conclusions at the beginning that we could go through systematically, and if you wish to raise particular concerns that you would like to see changed or reflected, the committee then could discuss those and come to a decision.
Mr. Stockwell Day: From a procedural point of view, can you give me some guidance here? What effect will that have if we haven't officially convened?
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): The effect, to my understanding, is that we can discuss the recommendations right now. If we agree, then I think when we come back with a quorum we'll still agree at that time. I don't think there will be any changes. If we disagree, as you mentioned at the beginning, you could at that time add a dissenting report at the end of this report.
Is that fine?
Mr. Stockwell Day: Yes.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Who wants to speak, Mr. Day or Mr. Martin?
Mr. Day.
Mr. Stockwell Day: Do you want to look, right now, from one recommendation to the other, or...just looking at the report itself, to give you an idea, first of all, I'd like to make the comment that I think the intention of the committee has been good. But from a realistic point of view, the timing.... I'm just being brutally realistic here, in terms of us having any effect on anything.
I'd like to hear from other members.
I believe, from what we're hearing, the communiqué for the G-8 meeting is probably already drafted. What effect are we going to have with this report?
On page 3, paragraph 1.4, it says the committee welcomes the undertaking of Robert Fowler to share this report with his summit colleagues at their final meeting. That's not very strong. Can I get a sense of whether this is going to go anywhere? Is it going to have any impact?
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): It is my understanding that the meeting is scheduled for next week, and we're going to report that--
Mr. Stockwell Day: Is that the meeting with Robert--
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Yes, with Robert Fowler and his colleagues. It's scheduled for next week.
Mr. Stockwell Day: Does anybody else share my concerns about the timing?
Again, I'm not questioning the sincerity of the committee, but with all the work everybody has put in, are we going to have any effect at this late date?
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): I think so. That's my opinion. I could ask the opinion of my colleagues.
Madame Lalonde.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): I believe that the effect will be a political effect: we are in politics. Will what we have put in this report have a real effect on the decisions made? We must not be pretentious. We know that the decisions will be made by the representatives of the eight richest countries in the world who already have--and although I am speaking French I will use the English term--their agenda and who most probably already have made up their minds on this.
Simply, the fact of having carried out a study in the whole of Canada, of having attracted attention, of having heard from the people and of having a text reflecting the positions of the parties will allow us to help Canada take the positions we would like to see the country take and help Canada push other countries to ensure that there is follow-up. In this perspective, it seems to me that the work we have accomplished is important and that it will not be too late, because we have something and if we are able to agree we will be able to exert pressure on Bill Graham and on the other countries.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you, Madam Lalonde.
Mr. Assadourian.
[English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I understand the point my colleague Stockwell is making, but I don't agree with him. The fact is that after everything's said and done, as was mentioned earlier, we can say to the minister, “Listen, we recommended this. Why was this not acted on?” That's point one.
Second, I think most G-8 countries are doing a similar thing; they're all in the same boat. So I don't think having the report one month before or one month after somebody else will make any difference in its impact on the G-8.
I think it's very positive. You can argue that everything we do usually doesn't have an impact. If we take that negative approach, we won't go too far. I think it's a very good report, so let's carry on with it.
¿ (0925)
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Ms. Carroll.
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Thank you.
I empathize with what Mr. Day has said. I try hard not to get cynical, but at the same time I do, so the timing concerns me, to a certain extent.
I think Madam Lalonde is right. Having done a serious job and having listened to Canadians, we should really wrap our report, our committee, and ourselves up with that fact, and push to input the process with those kinds of credentials.
Again, Madam Lalonde is right in saying that's the approach we should take as a committee--and I as parliamentary secretary--to the minister, and more than that, to other venues that are available to us to input.
I look forward to going through the report, when we get to it. Like all of you, I stayed up late to get through it, made all my little notes, and look forward to our discussions.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Ms. Jennings.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Madam Carroll, to follow up on Ms. Lalonde's intervention, I would say that we have simply looked at two recommendations contained in our report, namely recommendations 8 and 15. Recommendation 5 states that Canada should exert pressure in order for the G8 to adopt an action plan involving a long term integrated approach with regard to matters of peace and security in Africa. That is an example.
We are already aware that certain G8 countries prefer to speak only of the conflicts in Africa and not of NEPAD. Canada, on the contrary, wants to see the issues of security and peace discussed, but believes that we should go through NEPAD, given that the economic development of the African continent is what in the long term will ensure some level of peace.
Recommendation 15 mentions that in order for NEPAD to be truly put into practice, there is a need for cooperation between the G8 and African leaders in order for it to be possible, within the framework of the African action plan, to establish a credible process of evaluation, self-evaluation and verification. In my view, our recommendations serve to reinforce Canada's position and will also be an additional tool allowing our prime minister, our minister of Foreign Affairs and Mr. Fowler to put forward our way of seeing things and to give it greater weight.
As Ms. Lalonde mentioned, I believe it is also a way for the Canadian people to hold the government accountable for the results obtained by the G8 in Kananaskis. The report will be public. If the results do not fit the recommendations of the report, then the Canadian people will be able to ask the government why and say that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs did a study, consulted the public, made recommendations, but that such and such a recommendation was not followed.
¿ (0930)
Ms. Francine Lalonde: Let us say that I agree with the recommendation, but that the letter that precedes it does not answer the question.
The question was: “How is it that a document entitled Supplementary Opinion became Dissenting Opinion?“ How can someone in the clerk's office change a word? The people working in the clerk's office are supposed to be familiar with the rules, so how is it that the word “supplementary“ became “dissenting“? That is what I would like to underscore. As far as the rest is concerned, it suits me, but on this latter question, I demand an answer.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): The answer that I can give you, Madam Lalonde, is very simple. It is simply that there was a series of human errors at the time. The clerks who are normally responsible here, at the table, were at the time unable to work on this document. It is therefore an assistant or another clerk who made the mistake. It is not a matter of saying that it is the clerks' fault. There was a mistake and it is being corrected. You were right to raise the issue and the Committee has recognized the error made. I therefore hope that we will be able to proceed with the unanimous agreement of committee members, make the change and adopt this 20th report.
[English]
(Motion agreed to)
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): I need a motion to table this in the House. Ms. Jennings.
Now, there is a motion from Mr. Keith Martin, his notice of motion that pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee hold a meeting on Tuesday, June 4, 2002, to consider the situation in Iraq, and that Dennis Halliday, former United Nations humanitarian aid coordinator for Iraq, and Scott Ritter, former chief inspector, United Nations special commission to disarm Iraq, be called to appear.
Mr. Martin, do you want to speak about your motion?
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, British Columbia, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Dr. Patry.
The reason for this motion is clearly to ascertain what's taking place on the ground in Iraq. The reason for doing it at this point in time is that we don't know what's going to happen over the coming months, particularly with respect to Mr. Bush and his comments vis-à-vis Iraq. I think it's important for the committee to understand in a pre-emptive way what's happening there.
Certainly Mr. Ritter and Mr. Halliday can both give a very knowledgeable and objective analysis of what's taking place there; they're internationally respected. I think it would be a good investment of the committee's time to listen to these two gentlemen with respect to what's going on, so if something is going to happen over the next few months, this committee can make some intelligent suggestions on behalf of the committee to the country and to the government on what ought to be done.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you.
Ms. Carroll.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: I think Mr. Martin brings forward a good motion. I think if we can fit it into our schedule it would appear to be a good use of our time.
¿ (0935)
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Mr. Assadourian.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I appreciate the work of Keith Martin on this issue. I'd like to ask him a question.
There is a gentleman who is Australian or British who was originally head of this mission before Scott got involved. I don't recall the name. Perhaps you could give me the name.
Mr. Keith Martin: Richard Butler.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Butler. Would you be in favour of calling that gentleman here too?
Mr. Keith Martin: Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I have some questions I'd like to ask him. Is that okay with you?
Mr. Keith Martin: I think, Sarkis, if we can get an encapsulated, short, but effective analysis of what's taking place in Iraq at this point in time, we might be able to put forth some suggestions to the country--
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I agree
Mr. Keith Martin: --in a pre-emptive way, given what Mr. Bush is contemplating in that country.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I think Butler coming as a witness will add to that point you just made, to which I agree totally.
Mr. Keith Martin: Do you want to amend the motion? I'm certainly happy with that.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Can we add that to the motion?
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We'll see.
Madame Lalonde.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde: I am in complete agreement with this proposal. I also agree with the addition suggested by Sarkis, but I would not want that to delay the meeting, given the urgency of the situation and the fact that with what is going on in the House, the session might end abruptly.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Madame Carroll.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Chair, I missed Mr. Assadourian's comments, and it couldn't have been because I was talking. I'm just wondering if he would mind telling me again who Mr. Butler is--and I promise to listen.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Ms. Jennings
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde: He is an investigator.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Could we have, just before, the...
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Does everyone agree to amend the motion of--
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No. Who is Mr. Butler?
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Mr. Richard Butler.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: But who is he? That is what we missed.
[English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: She wants background information.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): He'll give you his title and everything.
Mr. James Lee (Committee Researcher): Richard Butler first was the chair of the Canberra commission on the elimination of nuclear weapons in Australia. Then he was the UN special representative on disarmament. Then he became head of the disarmament commission in Iraq. When Scott Ridder was doing the technical stuff, Richard Butler was his boss.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Fine, but now...
[English]
Ms. Francine Lalonde: He was unhappy with what was going on--not as far as Iraq was concerned, but as far as the U.S. was concerned.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I believe that the motion is excellent. I also believe that Mr. Assadourian's suggestion is excellent and I would like to add that, personally, I would appreciate hearing what the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs have to say about the situation. As you mentioned, Madam Lalonde, we would also like to hear Mr. Butler, but we do not want things to be delayed. Here, it is the same thing. I would like to hear the views of our own officials with regard to the situation in Irak, from the Canadian perspective. If they are unable to be here on June 4, when Mr. Halliday and Mr. Ritter appear, then we could find some other time in our schedule to hear them, but I believe that we have to have the whole picture, and the official Canadian perspective is one part of the picture.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Good.
Now, I have a motion from Mr. Martin, and I think Mr. Assadourian wants to make an amendment asking Mr. Butler and the officials.... But I just want to let you know that on Tuesday, June 4, we have Professor Isaiah Litvak coming from 9 to 10:30, so we're going to schedule this, with your permission, from 10:30 to 12, if everyone agrees.
I agree with the amendment to your motion proposed by Mr. Assadourian.
Mr. Keith Martin: And also Madame Jennings.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Yes, and Madame Jennings. It's also going to be the same motion.
Mr. Keith Martin: And the total time?
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): It's going to be an hour and a half.
Mr. Keith Martin: These people are coming from a long way, and what they have to tell us might take a little longer than an hour and a half. If the chairman and the committee sees fit, perhaps we can include a three-hour meeting with all involved.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): That's a problem. The problem is time and scheduling. We already have someone scheduled for nine o'clock. You saw this morning that we started close to 9:30 because we didn't have a quorum.
When people are here at nine o'clock, you have your planning schedule, planning details. We are going to have a professor of international business from Florida Atlantic University and from the University of Ottawa, Guy Stanley, international MBA director.
¿ (0940)
Mr. Keith Martin: Maybe there's a way around this. Madame Jennings suggested that we actually have the foreign affairs people on another day.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): If you don't mind, I have a suggestion.
We could have Mr. Litvak from 9 to 10 and have the other witnesses from 10 to 12. At that time, we're going to try to delete or to just postpone Mr. Stanley, who is from Ottawa. We can postpone him to another date and have Professor Litvak from 9 to 10 and then 10 to 12. It will give you two hours. It all depends on the questions, but I think two hours will be a good time.
Madame Jennings and then Madame Lalonde.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: That is an excellent suggestion. I would perhaps ask, if committee members' schedules allow, that we prolong the meeting. Instead of ending at noon, perhaps we could sit until 12:30 or 1:00 p.m., possibly. We have already sat from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. That would give us sufficient time to hear Mr. Halliday and Mr. Ritter as well as the officials and Mr. Butler.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Madam Lalonde, would you agree?
Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes, I agree with these changes, in other words with the possibility of extending our meeting to 12:30 or 12:45.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you.
Mr. Day.
Mr. Stockwell Day: I would support what Ms. Jennings has said, to go to one o'clock.
I would also say--and I speak as an offender here--that to reflect competency and professionalism, especially when there are witnesses, I think it is important to start right at nine. I notice the staff is always here, ready to go.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Some members of the government side are always here.
Mr. Stockwell Day: Some members, Sarkis, and I speak as an offender.
An hon. member: Mrs. Lalonde and I are always here.
[Translation]
Mr. Stockwell Day: Exactly.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Are we agreed with the motion as amended?
(Motion agreed to)
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Fine, that's agreed.
Now we have a second motion. Madame Carroll.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: The motion includes a request that I need to make for department officials.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Exactly.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Just to be clear, because I have to make the request, the committee has passed the motion and you're asking the department officials to be here from ten to one on June 4?
Mr. Keith Martin: That's department officals. We have Butler and Ritter....
Ms. Aileen Carroll: No, we have department officials.
Mr. Keith Martin: No, the department officials will not be ten to one. They'll be another day, right? From ten to one will be Butler, Ritter, and--
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): No, she added officials and--
Ms. Aileen Carroll: No.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Four groups.
Mr. Keith Martin: Four.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): That was the motion.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Madame Jennings added--
An hon. member: Are the officials here to listen or are they here as witnesses?
Ms. Aileen Carroll: No, they're here at the table. Right?
Mr. Keith Martin: Is that enough time?
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Yes, that's enough time. If they each speak for ten or fifteen minutes, that gives you two hours for questions.
An hon. member: Lots of time. If they speak for one hour, we have two hours for questions.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: So, Mr. Chair, you have Professor Litvak from nine to ten and then you have Halliday, Ritter, Mr. Butler, and department officials from ten until one?
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Yes.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Okay, thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): That's fine? Good.
The second notice of motion is from Mr. Day, on funding criteria and independent audits: That the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade call upon the minister responsible for CIDA to monitor and audit each grant by establishing clear guidelines governing the distribution of CIDA grants based on a clear articulation of expected benefits for moneys spent and by establishing a system whereby mandatory annual independent audits will measure the results achieved by each grant in relation to the expected results articulated in the original application.
Mr. Day, do you want to speak about your motion?
Mr. Stockwell Day: Yes.
First of all, as the official opposition, clearly we support aid to people in need, especially those in desperate need, whether it's domestic or foreign. Let me be very clear on that so that there can be no argument that we're saying anything else but that.
In order to make sure that people receive the maximum amount of aid, there needs to be a system in place that in fact states what the benefits are for a particular grant and then measures the results in an annual way.
Having had some experience with this when I was a social services minister, I recognize that some articulated goals of a particular program do make it difficult to do an actual audit. If the goal of a certain project is an attitudinal change, for instance, then that may be more difficult to audit.
But as we observed last week in the statements by the minister and in fact in the minister's own report, management's results, if there are any, are kept internal. That only causes unnecessary concern being levelled toward people who work at CIDA and people who administer the programs. I make the presumption that public servants are working hard to achieve the goals that are before them, and they should be able to demonstrate that.
We're looking at overall CIDA funding of about $2 billion. That's a huge amount of money, which comes off the backs of hard-working taxpayers in Canada, and they need the assurance that their hard-earned dollars are indeed going as directly as possible to the people who are in need of aid.
It would also open up the whole discussion on aid itself. We now have enough literature on different types of government funding, be it domestic or foreign, to know that some types of government funding actually make problems worse, rather than ameliorate them. There needs to be a way to look at that.
Having this type of system in place would greatly aid this committee, members of Parliament, and taxpayers in having a sense that their money is being well spent and that real gains and progress are being made, especially toward the people in need.
¿ (0945)
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Ms. Jennings.
Ms. Marlene Jennings: Well, there is such a system in place. CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, has developed a results-based management and accountability framework within which it has key agency results. These key agency results are part of a whole process to identify and measure the development results--that is, the actual outcomes of any contribution or transfer program, the enabling results, which are the strategies on how to get to those outcomes, and the management results, the tools that will be used. For the 2002-03 report on plans and priorities, CIDA's development results constituted the strategic outcomes.
I'd like to say as well that CIDA's very serious about the performance management side. It has adopted the principles of modern comptrollership. It employs three distinct but complementary internal review functions as part of its overall performance management approach. They are performance measurement, evaluation, and internal audit.
There are also independent reviews at the agency by bodies such as the Auditor General and by the Development Assistance Committee, DAC, of the OECD. And DAC, for instance, every four years undertakes a peer review of its members' ODA programs. Canada's ODA program is scheduled for a peer review by DAC this year.
I also want to mention that the Auditor General has noted that CIDA, and I'm quoting, “is developing an integrated enterprise-wide system that is designed to reduce the number of systems and provide users with both financial and non-financial information”. And in recent reports the Auditor General found that 97% of CIDA's contracts were being well managed and monitored effectively and efficiently and also that CIDA's agreements were well monitored.
So I think that the concern Mr. Day wishes to address via his motion has been addressed. I won't be supporting this, because I think it has in fact been addressed by the strategy and the tools that CIDA has put into place, which have been confirmed by the Auditor General. It would have possibly been more useful to have a motion where the committee in a year or two would conduct its review to see how this results-based management and accountability framework is working.
So I will not be supporting this motion.
¿ (0950)
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Madam Lalonde.
Ms. Francine Lalonde: I understand the purpose of the motion. I was happy to hear what Marlene Jennings said, but there nevertheless remain questions with regard to the efficient use of the money.
It seems to me that it is too late to do this during the current session, but perhaps at the beginning of the next session we could have one or several meetings if necessary in order to know what process exactly is followed between the grant application and the payment of the grant as well as what happens as far as evaluations are concerned. I believe that it is perfectly legitimate to request that the money be well spent, but it is another matter to trust the machine.
However, we know that we must be ever vigilant, and we are seeing proof of this these days. I know that the Liberals, when they were in the opposition, were extremely vigilant. We therefore, out of personal duty and sometimes citing you as an example, can but show the same vigilance. I would not agree to this motion now, because it seems to be infering that no such criteria exist.
Secondly, the second part concerns me because, Mr. Day, there are within CIDA different types of grants. There are, among others, grants given to NGOs; these are small grants for work that might have been done in a previous life and that relates, as you were saying, to attitudes, for example. I was told numerous stories in Africa about how long it takes to bring about changes in attitudes. When you are coming from the outside, you usually have to start by establishing your credibility. It is only then that you are able to have some influence, but on condition that the project lasts. But often, the project does not last. But while it was in place, someone did an excellent job.
Therefore, for grants given to one or two persons in some small village, are we going to, every year, carry out a verification, which would involve sending someone from here over there, someone who would not be familiar with the context? That would perhaps cost more than the total amount of the grant given. I am saying this knowing full well that in the eyes of some people this is not completely satisfactory, but that is nevertheless the situation in which we work in certain countries.
There are other grants that are larger, that are given to professionals. In those cases, we could question the portion going to administration and the portion going to the service itself. I am not against the idea of ensuring that the money is well spent, but I do not believe that this is the proper mechanism.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Monsieur Martin, monsieur Tonks et madame Jennings..
Mr. Keith Martin: Thanks, Dr. Patry.
This is a very interesting motion at this time, given what we're looking at with respect to their report. It is clearly consistent with the report we're looking at here. With Mr. Day's motion, we're asking member states of the G-8 to do exactly what is in this motion.
I think Mr. Day has introduced this motion--which I fully support--partly because a lot of people are highly dissatisfied with what's been taking place within CIDA, within the department, among NGOs, in the public, and in the recipient countries. It is a mess.
Despite the fact that they have what Ms. Jennings mentioned, it isn't working. So we need this motion to make sure the money we have is going to work properly. All one has to do is speak to people within CIDA. Many of them will tell you, on the side, that the situation is deeply dissatisfying to them, and they want to make the system work. The current monitoring processes do not work. That's why the billions of dollars we have spent in aid in many cases have had questionable results.
This motion will ensure accountability in the system and greater effectiveness of our aid. Indeed, I think it's something we should all support for the betterment of our CIDA program.
¿ (0955)
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Fine.
Mr. Tonks.
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South--Weston, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't think that anyone would be opposed to the spirit that Mr. Day is suggesting should be entrenched in our process of funding, whether it's through CIDA or whoever.
In another life I was the chairman of the international committee for the program that exists in partnership with the FCM and CIDA. That is a city-to-city, town-to-town program. I had the opportunity in that position to travel to where the projects were under way. I also received the reports that were done on a comprehensive audit based on matching with fair indicators, best practices, the objectives of the programs of the city-to-city international program, and the accomplishment of those objectives. It was an ongoing process.
I also was subjected to the anguish of the towns' and cities' staff who said that the process was so exacting that they found in their own comprehensive audits, in meeting their accountability through their processes, that they were spending so much time trying to apply the indicators and best practices that had been developed through CIDA. Until Ms. Jennings outlined the nature of that process, I had not been aware why I was getting so many complaints. I find this very interesting.
In order that we don't simply layer on bureaucratic practices on top of redundant bureaucratic process to the extent that we're in fact getting further and further away from accountability and closer and closer to absolute total frustration--I know that Mr. Day doesn't want to see that happen--may I suggest that the motion be tabled, and that the spirit of the motion be reported further through another meeting of the committee dealing with the processes that CIDA is using? Then Mr. Day and members of the committee can satisfy themselves as to whether the practices are airtight, watertight, totally accountable, etc.
I can only say, Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Day, that from my first-hand experience on the ground in the program I was involved in, Habitat II, the processes involved in the best practice that emerged out of Habitat II in terms of sustainable development and community development models, town to town and city to city, were working extremely well. I think we should provide the committee with the opportunity to see what those best practices are.
My suggestion would be we table this and we develop an agenda for a future meeting based on evaluating programs.
Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Because it's just a suggestion, and you didn't ask for it to be a formal motion, I'll ask Mrs. Jennings to comment on this.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I think I perhaps forgot to mention that the
[English]
results-based management and accountability framework that I earlier described was approved by Treasury Board Secretariat, January 2002. So this process of ensuring that Canada's goals in ODA and in OA, official assistance, are met and the strategies to get to those outcomes and the performance and evaluation are done was just approved in January 2002 and is integrated into CIDA's plans and priorities for the year 2002-2003.
Obviously, the reason why it's been put into place is to ensure we're very clear on what the objectives are that we want to achieve when we do make contributions and transfers and how we are going to get there and that we're clear on monitoring it.
So I think Madam Lalonde's suggestion, coupled with Mr. Tonks', is more appropriate in the sense of not moving on this notice of motion because what it's calling for, except for the issue of a mandatory annual independent audit.... We have an Auditor General who has the authority, if she wishes, to conduct an annual audit of CIDA programs and contributions. But definitely, within this results-based management and accountability framework, there is a whole process of audits that will take place, both country-wide and program-wide, that will result over a five-year period with almost half the programs being audited. That's the first thing.
I think it would make more sense for this committee, for its next legislative agenda that starts in September, to build in a process whereby we have the CIDA people come and talk about this specific new framework, how it's being implemented and, if any audits have already taken place under it, to bring us the results of that so we can review and determine how it's going.
À (1000)
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Fine. I'll do final comments.
First of all, a clarification. Mr. Tonks, you say tabling in the United States means to shelve, to put aside, not to deal with it. In the Canadian Parliament it means to place it before a House committee for consideration.
Ms. Marlene Jennings: No, no.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): I just wanted to know for clarification, because I was not sure what you meant by tabling it.
Mr. Alan Tonks: I didn't realize that. Thanks.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): I just wanted to let you know about this.
The other thing I want to mention to people is that Ms. Whelan, when she was here last week, said there is a study regarding the efficacy of all the grant interventions in their department and this study will be released next July. Now, we could have something in the fall, as Mrs. Lalonde mentioned before, about the strategy regarding the efficacy of studying this. I think we should be open to that, but for the moment I accept it.
I'm ready to pass the motion or to defeat the motion, but I'll recognize Mr. Day as the last speaker, because it's his motion.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde: Excuse me. Before Mr. Day takes the floor, might I speak about...?
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): I will give you 30 seconds, Madam Lalonde.
Ms. Francine Lalonde: For my part, I was in agreement with the motion to table. This is always a possibility. I would ask Mr. Day to accept that his proposal be tabled rather than defeated. Is there unanimous agreement?
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Francine Lalonde: There is not unanimous agreement.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I would like us to vote on the motion and, secondly, I would like the committee to decide how it wishes to do its own evaluation or review of this new framework.
Ms. Francine Lalonde: I find this unfortunate, because I would have liked to have seen the committee, in a spirit of cooperation, accept the idea of deciding on a way of evaluating CIDA's work. The motion could be tabled.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Mr. Day.
Mr. Stockwell Day: I'm not in any way questioning the sincerity of wanting to table and set aside for further study and further review--I'm sure those are well-intended sentiments--but urgency is upon us. We know, with the glacier-like speed of government--of any government, not just this one--that this would result in a protracted process; that we would still see hundreds of millions of dollars going out and not being properly evaluated. In my opinion, study will show that people who desperately need these funds are not getting the full benefit of them. There has yet to be a study that shows, in fact, which types of programs actually alleviate a problem and which types of programs actually make a problem worse. I have not seen anything yet that would deal with the comments made in an Auditor General's report on CIDA's geographic programs--and I'm quoting--which “did not comply with the Treasury Board contracting policy or the government contracts regulations”.
We have a situation right now before us in our House of Commons where a minister yesterday--and I appreciated his frankness--stood up and said there's going to be no more signing off, from his point of view of ministerial responsibility, on any more programs under his area until he has reviewed the guidelines, until he has reviewed the criteria. He has put a hold on it. I respect that and I appreciate it. He didn't put it out; he didn't table a motion; he didn't say there's going to be further study. He recognized that hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money are too important just to be subject to another study.
Here we have some Auditor General's concerns related to Treasury Board contracting policy not being complied with. I go on to quote:
“The terms and conditions for grants and contributions related to the geographic programs are very general and provide no direction on how and when to use contribution agreements... CIDA's use of contribution agreements to select executing agencies often varied from its stated internal policies and practices.”
Madame Jennings has three times used the words “internal review” and “internal audits”. Here we have an Auditor General's report saying there are variations from those stated internal policies. In that study the Auditor General reviewed 33 projects and found that 15 of the 33 agreements--I'm quoting directly--“...in our sample had unrealistic or unclear expectations of what was to be achieved. In all but one case, the projects had dropped one or more of the major expected results or were significantly behind schedule.”
Without the compelling request from our committee, I'm afraid this will lead to further study, or to whatever has been done in relation to the Auditor General's remarks still remaining internal. And we have no way of finding these things out.
For that reason, I recognize the dissenting view here, but I would suggest we go ahead and take a vote on this particular motion.
À (1005)
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Okay, but I'll just make a comment for myself.
I thought the proposition from Ms. Jennings was a little bit stronger than your motion, Mr. Day, but because you're just asking the minister to do something, and I think the proposition from Ms. Jennings was just to go ahead and do a study in the fall to look at a strategy on the efficacy of the way they're doing the grants and everything--to study it--if it's your wish to go ahead and call for the vote on the motion, we'll do so.
Okay, we're calling for the vote. Mr. Clerk.
The Clerk of the Committee: Is it a recorded division?
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Yes.
(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 2)
À (1010)
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Ms. Jennings.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I would like to table with the committee a motion flowing from the discussions that we have had pertaining to Mr. Day's motion. I am asking for unanimous consent to propose it.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Do we have unanimous consent for Ms. Jennings to propose a motion on the same subject?
Mr. Stockwell Day: When I proposed my motion last week, I asked for unanimous consent. I appreciate that unanimous consent was not given because people wanted time to look at it, so I would be guided by the decision that was given to me and would withhold unanimous consent. But I would like to see it at the appropriate time, when it is brought forward at a subsequent meeting.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: So I'll give notice.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde: Might we hear it?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes. It is very simple.
[English]
I don't know the exact wording.
I move that the committee do a review of CIDA's results-based management and accountability framework--RMAF is the acronym--in the upcoming fall legislative session.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): It will be discussed at a further meeting.
Ms. Carroll.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Earlier events and motions may have made my suggestion impossible, but I want to mention it.
On June 3 and 4, which is Monday and Tuesday--we have filled up June 4--Mr. Ali Ahani, who is the Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs for Europe and the Americas, will be in Ottawa. I suggested, as did others, he come before the committee to discuss Iranian foreign policy and advance parliamentary relations.
I am completely open to him coming before the committee, but obviously we have filled up the committee. An informal setting would also be good, but there is no time for lunch on June 4.
So I jumped to June 3, which is Monday. There's some discrepancy in my notes, but I'm going to consider Monday, June 3, to be open. I realize many of you are not here on Mondays. I think it would be a very good opportunity to meet with the Iranian Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, but I am concerned that we don't have a time slot.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I think it's a very good idea. I really like the idea of meeting with him. He's the deputy minister of foreign affairs, you say?
Ms. Aileen Carroll: He's Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs for Europe and the Americas. Maybe there's more than one vice-minister of foreign affairs.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I think it would be a perfect opportunity for us, as everybody else is trying to get in on the action. Let's get the news from the horse's mouth, as the expression goes. Then we'll see what we can do. It's a very important country in the region there, and we have to be open to expand our relations politically and economically.
That's a very good suggestion.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I think this is an excellent suggestion and I would be prepared to charge the vice-chair of the committee, who is the acting chair, with the responsibility of launching the process and of attempting to set something up, depending on the availability of the vice-minister, for either Monday the 3rd, or Tuesday, towards the close of the day.
Mme Aileen Carroll: Perhaps for the afternoon of the 3rd.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Madam Lalonde.
Ms. Francine Lalonde: I agree with that, but I would have another proposal to make.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We will finish up with this proposal first, before moving on to another one, if you so agree.
[English]
We'll try to find a date that suits everyone's wishes. I just want to remind you that the DFAIT deputy minister wants to invite the committee members to lunch on Monday, June 3. It's to be confirmed, so just be aware of this.
Madam Lalonde, if you want to go through Kananaskis quickly....
À (1015)
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde: Given that we have nothing slated for Tuesday afternoon, I would like us to hear at that time representatives from the group of Canadian parliamentarians who went to Palestine. I was one of them. I believe that I am a well-informed person, but what I saw over there goes much beyond what we read in the paper and in the magazines and what is reported to us. We for example want to hear the vice-minister for Europe and the Americas, but it seems to me that it would be very interesting for the Foreign Affairs committee to hear those parliamentarians who went to Palestine. We might also hear those who went to Israel. We could do both. I did both. Frankly, it would be really interesting to know first hand what is going on over there. These parliamentarians could at least make a report to the committee.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Are there any comments? Madame Marleau.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): I think it is a good idea, but I do not know how we should go about this. Representatives from each of the parties should tell us what they saw. Given that you were not part of a parliamentary delegation whose costs were covered by the government, you did not have a leader. It would therefore be very difficult to do what you suggest. However, I wonder if we could not do something informal. I would much like to hear what you and the others think of the situation, but I do not know how we could go about arranging an official meeting to this end.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): I just want to remind Madame Lalonde that this was discussed in camera a week or ten days ago. I cannot give you the exact date. The people who went to Palestine and also the people who went to Israel did so on their own behalf, not on behalf of this committee. It was agreed at that time that they could meet and discuss things informally, not as part of a formal meeting of our committee. That was the result of our discussion at that time.
Mr. Assadourian.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you.
On the point Ms. Lalonde made, I see that on Thursday the minister is going to be here for the main estimates. He has just come back from a tour of the Middle East, including Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Gaza, and the West Bank. I think that would be a perfect opportunity for us to raise with the minister the questions and concerns we have about the situation. I think he is just as well informed as any of us who visited the region in the last few weeks.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Is that okay, Madame Lalonde?
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde: I am sorry, but we spent seven days over there. We went everywhere, except to Tulkarem, where...
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Madam Lalonde, I do not want to...
Ms. Francine Lalonde: Very well.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Is everything all right? We have discussed this and I believe we reached a decision ten days ago.
[English]
The meeting will now go in camera.
[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]