SRID Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 26, 2003

¹

1540

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.)

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

The Clerk

The Chair (Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.))

The Chair

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.)

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

¹

1545

Mr. Bernard Patry

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Clerk

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

The Chair

¹

1550

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

The Chair

The Clerk

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Clerk

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

The Clerk

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

The Chair

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Clerk

Mr. Svend Robinson

¹

1555

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

---

CANADA

Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

---

NUMBER 001

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 26, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1540)  

[English]

    The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see a quorum.

[Translation]

    Pursuant to Standing Order 106(1), the first item of business is the election of the chairman.

[English]

I am ready to receive motions to that effect.

    Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): I nominate Mr. Cotler.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): I second that motion.

    The Clerk: Are there any other motions?

    I then declare Mr. Cotler duly elected chair of the committee and invite him to take the chair.

    The Chair (Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.)): I want to thank you for that vote of confidence. I understand that it meant nobody else wanted to do this. It came to me because I acknowledged I'd be prepared to do it for a certain period of time to get this thing up and running and to address some of the compelling issues that I think are before us.

    I just conferred briefly with the clerk. It seems to me that it would be useful to have a vice-chair for this committee, if it's in order to do so, and it is. That will allow for all-party involvement, maybe a steering committee, etc. I wouldn't mind having two vice-chairs. There would be a certain symmetry to that.

    So Deepak Obhrai and Colleen Beaumier have been proposed as vice-chairs.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Colleen, is that agreeable to you?

    Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.): Yes, it is.

    The Chair: Good.

    I see that people are assuming we're going to adjourn quickly, but I'd like to see if we can get some agreement on the order of business before us. As I understand it, there are four references from the foreign affairs committee. We have the notice before us. Those are the Falun Gong; the humanitarian catastrophe in several African states; le Rassemblement canadien pour le Liban, which wants to appear before us; and the matter of human rights in China, which could perhaps be integrated with the Falun Gong. But we also had the important issue of Sudan, which was left in abeyance, and I think that should be the first order of business.

    Marlene, you had your hand up.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): I agree with that.

    It's my understanding that over a year ago, if not longer than that, the then chair of the subcommittee received a request from the People's Party of Kazakhstan that the subcommittee look at human rights, freedom of expression, etc., in their country. The committee never dealt with the issue. So I think that's another request that needs to be added to the list.

    The Chair: On a procedural matter, I would like to put forward the following motion: that the committee employ the services of the Parliamentary Research Branch of the Library of Parliament to provide research and drafting services to the committee.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Thanks.

    Svend.

    Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): I just wanted to strongly urge that we do in fact put Sudan at the top of our priority list. There are, I think, some very serious issues that we have to address. There's an understanding out there in the community that we are going to be looking at this issue. I know that our Library of Parliament researcher did some work on a work plan, and perhaps he could update it. There was also a suggestion that we would actually be travelling.

    The Chair: We got approval to go, but then, as I understand it, for some reason approval for the budget to go was rescinded.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes, but what I'm suggesting is that we should get that back into the hopper as soon as possible for the next fiscal year. Bernard knows how difficult that is, but I think it's particularly important on a subject like this that we have an opportunity--

    The Chair: Maybe it's still lying around for this fiscal year.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: That I doubt. But in any event, I think absolutely Sudan, and we should just update our work plan and get that into the mill as soon as possible.

    The Chair: Okay. Mr. Obhrai, and then Mr. Patry.

    Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    While I agree with the committee that we left half a job done with Sudan and we should carry it on to completion, for this one here, which is the famine that is taking place in Africa, Ethiopia and Sudan included, can we not somehow...? That also goes to the travel that Svend was talking about. Since we're going to travel over there...this is happening now. There's no point in leaving this behind, because the crisis is happening as we talk, right now.

    So it becomes urgent for us, based on what we have, to add these together. If we can add these together, I don't see any problem with that. That would be my recommendation.

    The Chair: Okay, we have two proposals and, in effect, a suggestion that they be combined. The only thing is that the Sudan is a distinguishable issue even though it overlaps some of the other points. But on the matter of what might be called the pandemic of AIDS and starvation, etc., that is particularly afflicting Zimbabwe and Zambia, while geographically it's in Africa, I think what we have here are two distinguishable issues in terms of how we want to address them.

    Bernard, you were next on the list of speakers.

¹  (1545)  

    Mr. Bernard Patry: I just want to pinpoint two points. First of all, I think they are really two distinctive issues. You need to finish Sudan first--that's my opinion--and the other one is very important, but I think you cannot mix both together. The other one is a big subject also; it's going to take as much time as Sudan took.

    For travel budgeting, I just wanted to let you know that we presented a budget for the international trade and foreign affairs committee also, and for the budget of 2003-04, next year, half of the budget for travelling is already...I won't say it's spent, but it's already there for spending. This is why, if there is any budget, you need to work quickly. I'm not saying within a week, but it needs to be done, because I'm just going to let you know that by September or October there will probably be no more money available. It's going to be very tough to get any funding for travelling for anywhere, for any committee. I just wanted to let you know, so you are aware about this.

    The Chair: Mr. Casey, you were on the list.

    Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): First of all, Mr. Chair, I want to congratulate you on your election and I want to assure you that, had I been here, I would have voted for you.

    Some of us were twinned with members of parliament from Zimbabwe. We talk to them regularly--I talked to my colleague today--and their story is horrendous. I don't know whether we could tie that in with this Africa-Sudan approach or not, but they're going through terrible times. They're talking about the famine, the poor crops, along with the destruction of their economy and everything. I just want to put that on the table.

    There are specific things they want Canada to do. They want Canada to ensure that Zimbabwe is not allowed back into the Commonwealth. I don't know if we've actually taken a position on that, but they've asked us to do that. This is my member, who's an opposition member.

    Anyway, I'd just like to put that on the table for consideration as well: if there's some way to do that, to add Zimbabwe's concerns if we're going to focus on Africa.

    The Chair: Can I make a suggestion? Could we say that we'll try to move forward on both those dossiers at the same time because of both the urgency of the issue and the urgency to get that issue processed and financed that you would be preparing on our involvement in Sudan. Maybe at the same time we can prepare the considerations of the African dossier, at least that which is urgent in terms of Zimbabwe in particular and Zambia, recognizing that they're somewhat overlapping but distinguishable features.

    Svend.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes, I agree completely with both Bill and Deepak on the urgency of that issue. But I also want to flag that I believe Stephen Lewis is tentatively scheduled to appear before the full committee, the foreign affairs committee. There has been a discussion. Alexa McDonough indicated that she has had discussions on this subject and that he may be appearing on April 1. I think that was the tentative date.

    The Clerk: Yes, he confirms April 1, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes, that's my understanding. So there will be an opportunity to raise those issues, particularly famine, AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis--

    The Chair: At the full committee.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: --with Stephen at that time. But absolutely, for this committee, if we're able to get into that after the Sudan thing, I think it's critically important.

    Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Chairman, I agree. I think we all agree on what to do. That's not the question. I think it's a question of timing here--when to go, how to do it.

    I was just going to ask, because of the urgency--the famine in southern Africa is happening now--can we not somehow, as you suggested, run parallel, with both studies going on? With due respect, we did put Sudan off. Sudan is not right now, in my point of view, as urgent as that famine is. In a year's time, maybe the famine won't be there. So can we not just carry on doing both studies--or whatever this motion is--at the same time and meet both objectives? Is that possible?

    The Chair: We had the Sudan as something we thought we needed to consider first. It's an issue that was there from before. There is the urgency of the famine aspect.

    Let's say we'll try to work on both together and try to address both those issues contemporaneously in the best way we can. In other words, if we can meet twice a week and have one day on each, we'll try to do that.

¹  (1550)  

    Mr. Svend Robinson: Perhaps if we had a hearing on Zimbabwe in which we had either senior government officials or the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa appearing, then we could put some questions around Canada's position on the Commonwealth and so on.

    I think that might help.

    Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes, that was important.

    The Chair: Fine, we'll do that. We'll work on getting the Sudan thing up and going and we'll address the issue of Zimbabwe. I think you suggested well, because at least we'll know where we stand in terms of what the government position is on the humanitarian and other compelling concerns there.

    I don't know if this is appropriate in terms of protocol, but if Stephen Lewis were to appear before the full committee and there were specific aspects that we wanted to ask him about, would it be appropriate to ask him to come before the subcommittee at the same time?

    The Clerk: The subcommittee certainly could invite Mr. Lewis, by motion, of course. It would be just a question of timing.

    If the main committee meets on Tuesday and Thursday mornings from 9 to 11, or 9 to noon, the subcommittee cannot meet while the main committee is meeting. So traditionally, the subcommittees sit on Wednesday afternoons.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: To what extent are we locked in to Wednesday afternoons? I don't know about other members, but at least for me, Tuesday afternoon is better. I don't know how that works for other people. Is that a possibility?

    The Clerk: Mr. Chairman, if I may, certainly the subcommittee could meet on Tuesday afternoon. The only problem, of course, is it would not have priority on rooms. It could be bumped by other committees. But it would not be in conflict with the main committee.

    So there is a bit of a risk.

    Mr. Deepak Obhrai: If the main committee wanted, could they bump us off?

    The Clerk: No, you would not be allowed to sit on Tuesday and Thursday mornings when the main committee sits. In the afternoons, yes, certainly.

    Wednesday is a safe time.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: I just find on Wednesday afternoons there's so much else happening. I sit on the health committee now as well, and the health committee is in the Monday and Wednesday afternoon time slots as well, so it's impossible for me to do both.

    If it's possible to see if a Tuesday afternoon would work for members, that would certainly be helpful.

    The Chair: Okay, I think we can explore that. There seems to be a preference for Tuesday, so we'll try to do that.

    Okay, is there any other business, questions, comments?

    Yes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Should we come to an agreement now on the time to be allotted for speaking and on the order for questioning witnesses, or should we defer this until our next meeting?

[English]

    The Chair: Well, I'm prepared

[Translation]

    if there is a motion moved to this effect.

[English]

    Mr. Svend Robinson: The practice of the previous committee, I think, in terms of speaking--

[Translation]

    Mr. Yves Rocheleau: I propose that we adopt the practice used by the main committee, which would mean the Official Opposition goes first, followed by the Bloc Québécois, then the Liberals, and then the...

    The Chair: Wasn't that how we proceeded in the past? I think so.

    Mr. Yves Rocheleau: It seems to me that wasn't clear. Therefore, we're proposing that we take our cue from the main committee.

[English]

    Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes, it wasn't black and white under Beth Phinney. There was no procedure. You're absolutely right.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yves Rocheleau: For the sake of the clarity of the minutes, I have here the text of the chair of the main committee which describes the order followed. The first questions are allocated to the Official Opposition, followed by the Bloc Québécois, the government, then the NDP, back to the government, then to the Progressive Conservative Party, then back to the government, and so on. How's that?

[English]

    The Chair: Yes.

    The Clerk: Is there a question of time, Mr. Chairman?

[Translation]

    The Chair: Yes, but the question is this: how much time should be allotted to each party member for each question?

[English]

    Mr. Svend Robinson: The first round was ten minutes and then we went to five minutes after that.

    The Clerk: Mr. Chairman, the ten minutes is for when a minister appears. The first round is ten minutes for the first question from each party when a minister appears, and after that it is five. When there is not a minister, it's always five.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: In this committee, I don't think we were restricted to five minutes on the first round, were we?

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Deepak Obhrai: We were informal at that time.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: Why don't we stick with ten minutes? I mean, when we have witnesses, in five minutes you can't even catch your breath.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yves Rocheleau: According to this text, ten minutes when the minister is appearing, that is, ten minutes for the first round, and five minutes for each subsequent round.

[English]

    Mr. Deepak Obhrai: There's only one individual from each party, so ten minutes would be fair enough.

    The Chair: Okay, we can try it that way. If it needs to be amended we can always change it.

    Should we set a time now for the next meeting?

    The Clerk: If you wish, Mr. Chairman, or you could simply say to the call of the chair.

    The Chair: Okay, then we'll leave it to the call of the chair, because we'll see the determination of that.

    We're going to try for Tuesday the 18th; in other words, to meet immediately consequent upon the two-week break.

[Translation]

    March 18 it is then, immediately following the break.

[English]

So we can get started right away after the break.

    Thank you. Have a pleasant break.