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, June 11, 1998

• 0908

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. This morning we're going to be hearing from the North-South Institute, Mr. Roy Culpeper. I almost feel like it's quite nice having a witness I recognize and probably should recognize more than I do.

I think you were told earlier that we had some motions and some business to take care of, but we've changed the agenda and we are going to put you on the top of the list. We'll talk about the Canadian Development Report, and I think we'll get started, if you're ready.

Mr. Roy Culpeper (President, North-South Institute): Madam Chair, thank you very much, and good morning, members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to appear and present the Canadian Development Report, which I hope members of the committee will have a chance to read if they haven't looked at it already.

• 0910

The Canadian Development Report, or CDR 1998, is the second in a series of North-South Institute flagship publications. We're using these CDRs to explore issues of development at the turn of the century from different vantage points. This year's edition looks at the role and impact of the Canadian private sector on developing countries. We're already planning our next edition, CDR 1999, which will focus on the role and impact of Canadian NGOs in civil society. In our millennial edition, CDR 2000, we will be looking at renewing public policies for development, not just through the aid program but also through trade, investment, and immigration policies, and in each CDR we have a comprehensive set of statistics describing Canada's relations with the developing world. By the way, this year we also brought out a CD-ROM version of the report, which contains not only this year's report but also last year's report. So it should be a good resource for students and those who work on international affairs.

The institute's objective, both in this CDR series and in our research program generally, is to help forge policies towards the developing world that are consistent and reinforcing, and help to create a peaceful, equitable, and environmentally sustainable world. The way we see it, in the 21st century the private sector and civil society will be engaged in other countries as much or more than governments. Thus, as a Canadian organization, we feel that Canadians should ensure that government, the private sector, and civil society are all working together in our ventures abroad on shared objectives and on the basis of values that we hold in common.

[Translation]

The focus of this year's report is Canadian corporations and social responsibility. This is a key issue for the private sector as we approach the 21st century, namely ethics and how corporations behave toward society and the environment in a global marketplace.

The release of the Canadian Development Report 1998 also marks the launch of the institute's research program into corporate responsibility. We hope to collaborate with a growing number of businesspeople and corporations mindful of how critically important these issues are.

[English]

We're particularly pleased, Madam Chairman, to have been supported in the preparation of this year's CDR by a number of corporate donors, along with federal departments and agencies, private foundations, and labour unions—a broad base of donor support.

So what's new in CDR 1998? First of all, we're addressing issues of corporate ethics, codes of conduct, and environmental responsibility. These subjects are not exactly new, but they've come of age and they look like they're here to stay. In CDR 1998, we have sought to go beyond the horror stories of environmental calamities and of the exploitation of child labour, the realities that have in fact made more urgent than ever good corporate behaviour, particularly in the developing world where standards are often low and poorly enforced. While we allude to such practices in our report, we don't dwell on them exclusively. Instead, we have deliberately sought to survey Canadian businesses in order to identify good practices. This is for a particular reason. Psychologists have long known that positive reinforcement is far more effective than mere condemnation of bad or undesirable behaviour, and this is in fact the approach we take in CDR 1998.

Let me just touch very briefly on some examples of good corporate practices that are mentioned in the report. The report is laid out in a series of sectoral chapters, which attempt to survey the practices of Canadian firms in various developing countries.

In the engineering and consulting sector, for example, we point to the example of Acres International, which was recognized for its medium-scale hydro power project in Nepal. That project was interesting because the firm endeavoured to work with local communities and invited and received their participation in planning and designing this medium-scale hydro power project in Nepal.

• 0915

In the mining sector, we mention Alcan for using some of its reserve land in Jamaica, the land it has in use for bauxite production, to support local agriculture. INCO, for example, hires a large portion of its managers at its Indonesian mine to manage their facility there locally. Noranda has been recognized for its thorough and path-breaking environmental reporting.

In the telecommunications sector, Nortel has been recognized for pioneering an innovative CFC-free semiconductor cleaning process. What's particularly noteworthy is that they've given away this technology free to others, particularly those in developing countries.

In the banking and finance sector, we mentioned the Bank of Nova Scotia's micro-credit operation in Guyana, where some 3,000 poor borrowing clients have benefited from the bank's operation. However, that is conspicuous because it's so exceptional. It's not the kind of thing big banks do.

In the financial sector, we found that most of the innovation, particularly in the developing world in terms of corporate social responsibility, has been by the relatively minor players such as Ethical Funds Incorporated, the Social Investment Organization, and the Calmeadow institute, which also has promoted micro-credit.

In the manufacturing sector, there are several examples, such as Bata Shoes' Thai business initiative in rural development, which has created centres of employment outside of Bangkok that have benefited particularly women in rural Thailand and given them an alternative to going to Bangkok. Finally, Dominion Textile has been recognized for its comprehensive audits to ensure the high environmental health and safety standards among its outside contractors.

[Translation]

In conclusion, we have yet to do any comparative research with a view to contrasting the level of responsibility of Canadian corporations with that of their foreign counterparts. However, it is our view that Canadian corporations are often among the most progressive in the world.

[English]

In closing, Madam Chair, I would like to say that there are major challenges on the agenda of corporate social responsibility. Perhaps foremost among these is the question of turning responsibility and statements and codes of conduct into accountability, to ensure, in other words, that the fine words embodied in corporate codes of conduct are actually turned into action. The institute will be working on this and related issues in the months ahead.

I'll just leave it at that for now, because we've distributed quite a lot of information about the report. So I welcome your questions.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I think for many of us listening to what the North-South Institute does, or tries to achieve, is pretty exciting-sounding stuff.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Welcome, Mr. Culpeper, to our committee. I know you've been here many times before.

Something I have been doing that relates to this is talking to a number of companies, particularly in the oil industry in Alberta. Of course, for 50 years these companies have been travelling internationally and doing business internationally in pretty well every corner of the world. An awful lot of them are extremely interested in being involved in the full development of infrastructure in the area in which they work.

They're talking about how they would like to get involved in agricultural projects, in building hospitals, building schools, literally all the infrastructure. The motivation for that is they get security and they get a workforce that's trained and happy. There are a lot of reasons why these companies will buy into this whole concept. I guess what they would really like to do is get a tax credit or something to encourage them.

• 0920

So it would seem that maybe the days of CIDA and handing out money to governments and that sort of thing might be in some way replaced by a more corporate involvement in this kind of thing. Is that a saleable thing across the board for Canadian companies? This kind of works right into exactly what you're talking about. The guys I talk to, the CEOs of smaller companies, say it is so. Is it saleable on a wider scale in bigger companies?

Mr. Roy Culpeper: Actually, our perception is that it is much more saleable for the bigger companies because they have more financial leeway. It's the smaller companies that are more under the pressure of competition and are much more nervous about the bottom line that often have less flexibility to do this kind of thing.

It's a real issue as to why corporations would want to do this. I think you're right that the pay-off is there in terms of a happier, more stable, and productive workforce. If you don't treat the environment well, the environment is going to come back at you sooner or later, but this doesn't necessarily turn into bottom-line dividends in the short or medium term. That's not the challenge, I think, that corporations face, particularly the ones that are in much more competitive sectors.

As for CIDA and the role of government agencies, I would characterize the relationship as one of complementarity rather than substitution. In other words, there are certain things that the private sector will do and is very good at doing, and there are certain things they won't do.

For example, when they're getting into building schools and so forth, this is not really the traditional business of private sector firms. They might end up doing it simply for the reasons you suggested, which is that they want to make sure the workforce in the community is stable and happy and that they want to try to prevent the possibility of social problems of various kinds, such as unemployment and prostitution. These things often happen particularly in remote sites.

But at the end of the day, one has to wonder whether the responsibility of building schools and health facilities is really that of the local government. Perhaps the aid donors may have a role here in helping governments to establish and maintain sustainable health and education facilities. I would feel this is a very legitimate role for the aid program because you're talking about social investments, human investments that have a very long pay-off and, generally speaking, sit much more comfortably in the public sector.

I would tend to think of the relationship as one of complementarity. I don't see the companies coming along and replacing aid in any way, but in fact looking to aid programs and donors to complement their activities.

Mr. Bob Mills: The thing is, you could raise your level of aid. It's not likely to come out of the general budget. We know the problems, where we would like to be, and where we really are. We're less than half of where we say we would like to be. It would seem to me that this might be a way to raise that sum without the problems of trying to get it out of the finance department.

As I say, a lot of these guys I've talked to will go drill a water well, and that changes the whole attitude of the community toward them. I know one company that took some seed down. But it seems to be kind of helter-skelter. It was not a very well planned kind of an operation. It would seem to me that if you had agronomists as part of the package, then that would be a way certainly to become leaders. More important, it would put more money into the package if we really want to help these people help themselves kind of thing.

• 0925

Mr. Roy Culpeper: Yes. I think there are several ways of doing this.

CIDA Inc. has largely been used as a fund to try to identify opportunities for private sector investors in the developing world, and we're quite critical in the report of what CIDA Inc. has managed to achieve so far.

Perhaps a better way of trying to work with the private sector is in the kinds of ways you're suggesting; in other words, not sort of fishing expeditions that lead nowhere as much as working with companies that are actually engaged in the field and complementing their activities through investing in the social infrastructure or the physical infrastructure, where it has obvious development impact for the communities and the people involved.

Mr. Bob Mills: As I said, things like agriculture are most interesting.

Some of the genetic changes.... These guys have all heard my example of canola, but in my own case, I can now produce 40% to 60% more canola on the same piece of land, simply because of genetic engineering. I doubt very much that a third world country has the option of that sort of seed. These companies, however, could provide that sort of seed, and if you can increase your production 40% to 60%, that makes one heck of a difference.

I would just add that, and thank you.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Good morning, Mr. Culpeper, and thank you for coming here to discuss the particulars of a proposed code of conduct or ethics code. My comments this morning will focus on that particular subject.

I read with considerable interest the Canadian Development Report 1998 that you sent to us. I would like to start by making an observation. The questions will come later.

You may have heard that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade had planned—I use the past tense—to consider the possibility of drawing up a code of ethics which would state Canadian values for Canadian government agencies. Unfortunately, since opposition parties were not in the majority on the committee, this interesting proposal was shelved. In your opinion, should the committee have considered such a proposal or should it consider in future a code of conduct for the Canadian government for specific sectors?

If such a study were undertaken, do you feel that the Principles for Business developed in 1994 by the Round Table in Switzerland, the first-ever international ethics code created as a result of collaboration between business leaders in Europe, Japan and the United States, could serve as a kind of model for the Canadian government?

I would also like you to tell us a little about the code of ethics for Canadian business signed by 13 Canadian companies last September, in light of your comment that these businesses are leading the way in Canada in terms of corporate responsibility.

I would also like you to comment on the report's conclusions and recommendations to the Canadian government. This is a good time to discuss them. Fortunately, I won't have the time to go over all of them, but they are all very good recommendations.

I would like to focus on two recommendations in particular and get some additional explanations from you. In your second recommendation to the government, you maintain that the Canadian government should not financially support commercial activities in countries whose policies are inconsistent with fundamental Canadian values. First of all, do we have a code which clearly identifies what these fundamental Canadian values are or are these values in fact hard to define?

In your third recommendation, which I consider the most important and the most interesting of all, you maintain that Canadian values, particularly with regard to observing basic human rights and environmental responsibility, need to be integrated into programs supporting the commercial activities of Canadian firms and administered by CIDA, the Export Development Corporation and other agencies and programs of the federal and provincial governments.

• 0930

The Head of the Export Development Corporation has clearly told us that his sole responsibility is to recover the money invested and that no values of any kind are being imparted as a result of the loans awarded by his and other corporations. What responsibility does the Canadian government have in this area?

Mr. Roy Culpeper: Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau. That is a very complex question.

First of all, with respect to an ethics code and Canadian government responsibility, in our report, we state that the Canadian government could do much more than it is currently doing. To begin with, Canadian government policies are not uniform. As you yourself noted, the EDC has no policy in place for promoting Canadian values and we find this unacceptable.

The most recent example that comes to mind is that of the CANDU nuclear reactor sold to China. In my opinion, the government and the EDC should insist on there being a process in place to ensure compliance with environmental standards. However, as you know, in that particular case, the government made no such demand.

The problem is rather complex, because standards must be set. Perhaps this committee and the Department of Foreign Affairs should be encouraged to decide on conditions and standards which are acceptable to Canada and to Canadian corporations. This is by no means an easy task. For example, in many countries, human rights are violated. Some countries have a poorer record than others when it comes to human rights.

Therefore, the Department of Foreign Affairs could be doing much more. It could be monitoring conditions and advising Canadian corporations of the situation before they actually invest in these countries.

• 0935

As for the ethics code signed by the 13 corporations, as we mention in our report, while this may be an important first step, it is nevertheless only a small step. The code does not contain any kind of mechanism for ensuring that those corporations which signed the agreement in fact promote these values. That is why we state in our report that there needs to be some way of ensuring accountability, otherwise ethics codes are nothing more than empty words or principles. And we need more than lofty principles.

In conclusion, I maintain that the Canadian government and private corporations could be doing a great deal more than the currently are, and this holds true as well for Crown corporations like the EDC and CIDA.

[English]

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

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair. I too would like to welcome Mr. Culpeper before the committee again and thank him for his report.

[Translation]

I intended to ask exactly the same questions as Mr. Sauvageau did about the Institute's recommendations to the government. I appreciated Mr. Culpeper's answers. I do, however, have a few other questions for him.

[English]

My first question is with respect to your comments on the Team Canada concept, the Team Canada missions, and the role of Canada in trade promotion. In your report, in fact, you're critical of the impact of these Team Canada missions. You say that the Team Canada missions have led to a downplaying of environmental security, human rights, and democracy. One of your key conclusions is that the Canadian government has privileged trade promotion to the detriment of development of human rights and environmental considerations.

Those are very serious accusations as to the impact of Team Canada missions. It won't surprise you to hear that I share those conclusions myself. And those observations have certainly been made by other NGOs as well. I wonder if you could elaborate on them and perhaps indicate some examples of how the Canadian government has in fact privileged trade promotion to the detriment of the development of human rights and environmental considerations.

Mr. Roy Culpeper: Thank you. As you may have noticed, the media have certainly picked up on this as well. It's not the major message in our report, but it is a message that's very consistent with what we're saying. The critique is shared not just by NGOs but by a broad spectrum of critics, including people like Sylvia Ostry and people at The Economist magazine.

The Economist said about a year ago that it's very doubtful that trade missions—and they weren't singling Canada out, by any means—accomplished very much, that there are costs and perhaps benefits. The benefits are often deals that have been reached prior to the mission and the mission is simply a signing ceremony.

So in terms of the additionality of trade ventures, certainly we couldn't see a lot of evidence that suggested the missions had generated a lot of additional trade and investment opportunities.

• 0940

Then, when you look at the cost side, well, the costs aren't financial. A lot of critics of Team Canada put emphasis on the fact that this costs money. We should give the government some credit: there is cost recovery in that the businesses that go along are asked to pay and so forth. But those aren't the important costs. The important costs are the costs in terms of policy and politics.

It's very difficult for a visiting delegation, particularly a high-level delegation, to embarrass its hosts. It's not a very polite thing to do, particularly if it's very clear that the architecture and the principal purpose of the mission is in fact to have signing ceremonies and to clinch deals that have perhaps been cooking for a while. It's very doubtful, then, that you'd want to jeopardize those particular objectives.

In fact, this is exactly what The Economist said in an editorial about a year ago. Those are the unstated costs. Visiting delegations, if they're going to go through with these kinds of missions, assume that they will not raise embarrassing political questions, that they will not pursue issues such as human rights and democratization and other politically delicate subjects, because it would be doubtful if they'd be invited back if they were to raise such things, thereby paying a fairly severe cost in terms of one's political agenda in mounting these kinds of missions.

This isn't a very profound thesis, really, but I guess our bottom line is that we feel trade promotion can proceed without the benefit of the Team Canada type of missions, and that would have the added benefit of freeing our hands politically to pursue our agenda of human rights and democratic development in a promotion of those objectives in a way that I think we're encumbered in doing now.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Might you perhaps just give some examples of where this privileging of trade promotion has in fact been to the detriment of the development of human rights and environmental considerations? You mentioned the sale of the CANDU reactor to China. I assume you would also include the situation in Indonesia and the rather deafening silence in Indonesia on some obviously fundamental issues of human rights. Would you?

Mr. Roy Culpeper: Definitely. The Prime Minister embraced Mr. Suharto in a picture that was widely publicized, and Mr. Suharto is now history—and not a very edifying figure at that. One wonders what kind of advantage one gets out of those kinds of spectacles.

There's an interesting box in the report called “One Country, Two Views”. It's on Colombia. It's on page 126 in the English version. We'll make sure that members of the committee get copies of the report. All you have is the overview, which is the—

Mr. Svend Robinson: It's the big report that we don't have yet.

Mr. Roy Culpeper: Our office will make sure that everyone on the committee gets a copy.

Anyway, the country in question is Colombia and the box contrasts the report on Colombia done by the Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America—which documents what's happened to human rights along with the state of emergency and the amount of assassinations and disappearances—with the report on the same country that was issued by DFAIT and that points out that Colombia's economy is one of the most stable and dynamic in Latin America. One wonders if these two versions could possibly be referring to the same country.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have questions in one other area, Mr. Chairman.

• 0945

I guess the other glaring example historically was Canada rolling out the red carpet for Nicolae Ceausescu. This was before we sold them a CANDU reactor. We were quite keen to sell them a CANDU reactor. He came to Canada. There was a state dinner hosted by the Governor General. He was given honorary degrees and was recognized as a great, triumphant paragon of democracy.

Of course, Mr. Chairman, he's now recognized as having been a very brutal kind of dictator. I forget which government was in power when that happened. I believe it was Prime Minister Trudeau at the time.

I just have one other question, Mr. Chairman. This is with respect to this whole issue of stakeholders and the responsibilities to stakeholders. In your report, you referred to the financial services sector. You mention that the social investment organization has suggested that Canadian banks are leaders in Canadian corporate social responsibility.

One of the issues that I'd like you just to comment on—this is my last question, Mr. Chairman—is that one of the stakeholders—you've identified this—in corporations is employees. The fact of the matter is that when you look at Canadian banks in particular, but also at the Canadian corporate sector generally, their boards of directors are overwhelmingly, but certainly not exclusively, white men. When you look at the list of appointments in the Globe and Mail, you see the same thing. There are very few women, and certainly very few people of colour.

In evaluating and setting benchmarks in this area of corporate responsibility, you don't mention this area of employment equity, hiring practices, and employment conditions at all. How do they treat their employees with disabilities? Is their workplace accessible? How do they treat their gay and lesbian employees? Do they extend benefits to couples within the corporation?

I want to ask you whether perhaps you might consider in the future looking at this issue of corporate social responsibility and perhaps commenting on employment practices within these corporations since they affect directly one of the groups you've identified as a stakeholder.

Mr. Roy Culpeper: It's a very interesting example you bring out. Basically, what we're reporting here is the judgment of the ethical funds and the Social Investment Organization.

The reason they come out with the conclusion of giving the banks a high mark.... By the way, it's because the banks are given a high mark that the ethical funds include them very significantly in their portfolios. Since the banks have done so well, the ethical funds that have large bank positions have also done well. So there's an interesting set of relationships there.

The basic problem or issue here is how you arrive at a list of good corporate citizens. The way the social investment movement does this right now is through so-called negative screens. These are screens that screen out companies that are engaged in producing or selling harmful or dangerous goods like military hardware, tobacco, dangerous drugs, pesticides, and that type of thing. Those kinds of screens tend not to screen out the banks.

What we lack in the social investment movement are positive screens. Positive screens would inject the kinds of criteria you've mentioned. Banks have not been unionized, for example. They've resisted unionization. There are other attributes in terms of gender equity and employment equity.

I think the social investment movement is just about getting there now. But it's a far more difficult challenge to establish what criteria should be in those positive screens. So you screen out really the best firms. Then, of course, doing the judgment on each and every firm as it goes through the screen would be more arduous. This is not to excuse the fact that it isn't done; it's just to explain why it hasn't been done.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Is it something the North-South Institute might be looking at showing some leadership on in future evaluations in this area?

Mr. Roy Culpeper: Well, as I say, it's a fairly onerous and challenging task. Certainly in the work we've done in producing the report, we worked very closely with the Social Investment Organization and Michael Jantzi Research Associates. These are people who are actually working on the ground on this. I imagine that in our future work, we will be in fact working with them more closely and encouraging them to move in that direction. But certainly that's the direction in which we want this to go.

• 0950

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Culpeper.

Madame Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Good morning, Mr. Culpeper. I was very intrigued by one of the recommendations and sub-recommendations in your report. Unfortunately, I received only a summary of this document, but it does nonetheless contain the recommendations. Your Institute recommends that corporations adopt international codes of conduct with the view to improving the well-being of their employees and customers and of the communities in which they operate.

Just recently, this committee welcomed a number of witnesses, including a representative of a Canadian corporation operating in a country of the South. He stated very clearly to us that the corporation was doing everything it could to improve the well-being of its employees and to treat them fairly. However, outside the small region in which the corporation was operating, a civil war was to all intents and purposes raging throughout the state.

We talked to this person and he told us in no uncertain terms that if the corporation were to intervene in some way in the state, the authorities would not look kindly upon this and if the Canadian government were to intervene, the door might well be slammed in its face. If that were to happen, other non-Canadian international corporations would be ready to step in and take our place. Therefore, still according to this witness, there is a fine line between what corporations can actually accomplish in that country and promoting the concepts of fairness, responsibility and so forth.

You mentioned in your report that BCE, for example, is number 162 on the Fortune 500 list and that the Royal Bank of Canada, the country's largest bank, ranks number 50 in the world. These facts lead me to conclude that we are a very small player on the international scene. While we have some responsibilities, we do not wish to withdraw completely from the scene. I would like to know how you would balance out these considerations since this issue interests not only my colleagues opposite, but we in government as well.

We don't want to withdraw from this sector, but at the same time we are mindful of our responsibilities in the area of human rights outside Canada. It is a matter of finding a balance. I would be interested in hearing your comments on the subject.

Mr. Roy Culpeper: Thank you. Your first question is similar to the one Mr. Sauvageau raised. What criteria should be used to judge the practices of different countries? If a country is in the throes of a civil war, it is extremely difficult to promote human rights or democratic ideals. However, I cannot go along with the argument that if we do not proceed to invest in these countries, our competitors will move in and take our share of these countries' markets.

• 0955

Ultimately, there are major ethical issues to consider. If, as Canadians with human values, we deem it important to promote peace and human rights, it is extremely important for private corporations and the government to raise the issue of conditions in different countries and for the government to discourage Canadian companies from investing in politically unstable nations where human rights are routinely violated.

[English]

Perhaps some companies would lose such profitable opportunities, but I think it's more of a question of standards, and what you're willing to pay, and what you're willing to get back.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: From what I saw of this particular example I just mentioned, the problem was that if Canada withdrew or forced this particular enterprise to withdraw, the companies that would take its place would come from countries that have even less respect for human rights. We'd be replaced by companies who would not even respect the human rights of their own employees in that particular country.

I'm not trying to say that we should not withdraw; I'm trying to see just what kind of equilibrium exists between our responsibilities.... Sometimes you feel that at least you're there, and you're showing an example, and you're treating your own employees in a certain way. At least it helps those people, even though that stain of oil doesn't go throughout the rest of the country.

I don't know. I'm asking you a real question, because it's a real problem.

If you withdraw, the company that's going to take your place is going to be much more less respectful, if I can put it that way, of everything that's going on in terms of human rights in the country. Canada's withdrawal is not just a flag we're putting up, saying, “Hey, we're respectful of human rights”; it's also allowing other countries to come in and make the situation even worse there.

Mr. Roy Culpeper: It's never struck me as being a very strong argument that others have even worse standards than we have, so we can afford to overlook conditions. I can drive at 130 kilometres an hour because there are people who are driving 150 kilometres an hour, and they're the really bad guys. That doesn't seem to be altogether compelling to me.

The tricky thing, though, is to try to discern ways in which intervention or investment would in fact help to bring about peace or stability or improve human rights. If you take a country like Nigeria, for example, Nigeria is starved for investment and commerce. It seems to me that there are any number of ways in which companies, even if they're good corporate citizens in the way they treat their own employees, may in fact be giving support to the government either through the generation of taxes....

Just to go back to the example of the code of ethics that Mr. Sauvageau mentioned, Canadian Occidental was recently named as one of the firms exploring for oil off the coast of Nigeria, and they brought up this very pretext you're saying, that “Well, we're a good company; we—

• 1000

Ms. Raymonde Folco: It was a question. I want to underline that.

Mr. Roy Culpeper: Yes. But the question for companies like that is, you know, here you're investing in a country for whom oil is really the pipeline for the regime, and it sustains it in power, so—

The Chairman: Just a moment. Nigeria is an easy example. Maybe you could be helpful if you'd give this committee an official list of the opinion of the North-South Institute as to all the countries in the world that you say Canadians should not be investing in, bearing in mind that we want to have investment around the world to increase productivity. If you could give the committee the North-South Institute's list of all the countries you believe this committee should recommend to the Government of Canada that no Canadians invest in—and if it's more than Nigeria, Burma, and Sudan, perhaps, I'd be very surprised—it would be very interesting. That would be very helpful to us, because the rest is just not helpful, in my view.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, with respect, I'm glad you added “in your opinion”, because there are other views around the committee table.

The Chairman: Oh, I appreciate that. No, I shouldn't have been....

I'd like to see the list, because we hear this over and over again, and we debate this, but when it comes to the hard decision.... I get other people who come to the committee and say, “Look, without investment and enough productivity, there is going to be no development. Women are going to starve. Children are not going to get fed. There's not going to be peace in the world.” So where do we go?

What we need is some serious help about...okay, hard lines. Tell us which ones. I mean, do you say that we should have no investment in China? Do you say we should have no investment in Indonesia? Are you telling us we should have no investment...? I mean, give us the list, but be honest with us. At least give us a list.

Mr. Roy Culpeper: Well, I think the list has to be a sophisticated one.

The Chairman: That's right. That's what we're trying to deal with—sophisticated issues.

Mr. Roy Culpeper: And it doesn't mean that we have to completely blacklist China. We can work with academics in China who are involved in promoting the struggle for democracy. We can do a number of things in China through other channels, short of providing them nuclear technology and so forth.

The Chairman: Right. No, but....

Mr. Roy Culpeper: So I think it would not be helpful to establish a list that is a “no” list and a list that is a “yes” list. I think what we need to do is to be more sophisticated and establish lists of countries where certain kinds of activities would probably deal a blow to the struggle for human rights and democracy.

The Chairman: Wasn't that the thrust of what Ms. Folco was saying, basically?

Mr. Roy Culpeper: Yes. We've mentioned a few countries like that, but I think it would be a little misleading of us to come out with a list and say, “Let's stop investing, period, in these countries”, without going to the next level, and saying, “What kind of investment would further democracy or deteriorate democracy and human rights?”

The Chairman: That's true, but you'll agree that what we have to do, then, is collectively as a society try to decide which ones those are, and the North-South Institute doesn't have the absolute wisdom as to which those should be any more than I do or Mr. Robinson or anyone does. We're all going to have our opinions. We try to do that collectively as a society, but we can't, as you were telling us, really establish a hard list.

There may be pariah states. We might say, well, those ones are easy. When you get into the grey area, though, I think what you're telling the committee is that we have to then be conscious of where investments are taking us. Then again, we also recognize that we live in a democratic society, and it's not your job or my job to tell every Canadian or every business person where they can go or what they can do, either. I think you would accept that proposition as well, wouldn't you?

Mr. Roy Culpeper: Well, yes and no. If we as a country think that foreign policy objectives and principles that uphold certain values are important, then we should be willing to impose those, certainly on crown corporations that encourage investment and provide loans or guarantees, but also on private investors. I mean, we have rules for the private sector within our own country. Why wouldn't we have rules for the private sector from our own country in other parts of the world?

The Chairman: Okay. Sorry, I've interrupted too much, because—

Mr. Roy Culpeper: So you agree with that?

The Chairman: Yes, I agree with that, and I think your idea of the codes—I think we're all working on the codes idea. I think this is very good.

Mr. Roy Culpeper: But what we're saying in the report.... We're just at the beginning of this dialogue. We have a government now that doesn't even want to push this dialogue very far, and we're encouraging it to establish those criteria and to arrive at the kind of sophisticated lists I was referring to.

The Chairman: Okay. Sorry to interrupt. We'll go to Mr. Mills and then to Mr. Reed.

• 1005

Mr. Bob Mills: I guess I'm just sort of going to carry on with this. I've been going to China since 1979. I was there earlier with Mr. Marchi and 85 CEOs of companies, and basically I was able to help them make a lot of contacts. The minister hadn't been there before; I'd been there many, many times, and I know how much that helped Canadian jobs back home.

As far as I'm concerned, when I leave the border, I'm a Canadian and will fight for what's Canada, not play partisan politics.

A voice: That's for Canadian values like human rights.

Mr. Bob Mills: But I guess the point is, when I went out on the street in Shanghai, to where two blocks of houses had been bulldozed, and talked to some of the people out there through a translator, I said “What does this mean to you?” I asked little old ladies and so on. Some of them said, “Our family has lived here for 2,000 years and this was our place, but we walked three blocks to get water, we had no power, we had no sewage.” You've seen the picture, you've been there, and you know they carry their sewage and compost it and all of that. I said, “What do you think of this? You're now displaced.” What they said was, “We are now going to have power. We are now going to have water right at our door, right here in our own place.”

The improvements because of the economic viability of that country, because of the increases—and I could use other countries as examples.... Because they are improving, the people I think have moved a long way since...well, in China's case, 1979.

You must see those changes too. And as that happens, they are improving. Now, if we isolate them, I just can't see how we're going to improve the human rights of those people. It's fine for people to say, “Oh, how terrible it is; it's not like ours”, but then, it took us quite a while to get here, too.

Dealing with governing 1,300 million people, and in India governing 1 billion people—that's a heck of a lot different. I mean, look at the trouble we have with 30 million. So with those numbers, and in trying to deal with the infrastructure for those numbers, they are making a heck of a lot of improvements. They are moving forward, and I think that's because we're there, because we're helping them. If you close your eyes and build a wall around them—my God, they'll never get anywhere. I just have real trouble with that sort of a closed-eye, blinkered kind of concept of the world.

Mr. Roy Culpeper: Nothing we say in our report, or I hope that I've said, suggests we believe in isolating countries. The approach we're advocating and that I've advocated in many other places is that of constructive engagement. You do things that will help to improve conditions and will engage with civil society and the forces of democracy and human rights, and that includes trading.

What we reject, though, is the notion that you can sweep all those human rights issues under the rug, and that if we trade with them long and hard enough, sooner or later the human rights will improve. That's what we reject.

Mr. Bob Mills: But they're willing to sit down and talk about human rights any time you put it on the table. They will openly talk about it. They don't back away from it at all, and it has changed.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Nothing has changed.

Mr. Bob Mills: It has changed.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Not in human rights.

An hon. member: It hasn't changed in Cuba, either.

Mr. Bob Mills: It has changed. It has. You're living ten years ago, and ten years is a lifetime in countries like that. They're changing that fast.

Mr. Roy Culpeper: Well, I think you're right. Things have improved, but water and power and sewer and having jobs does not translate into the kinds of human rights standards that I think many Canadians would hope to see—you know, the absence of summary executions, forced labour, and a number of very well-documented human rights abuses. Those are the issues that simply are not going away, notwithstanding these very welcome improvements, which we should also be part of, and encouraging.

• 1010

So it's not isolationism but engagement on a number of levels that we need to try to do.

Mr. Bob Mills: Do you agree that if you increase their economic position in life, human rights will follow?

Mr. Roy Culpeper: No, not necessarily. Have you ever been to Singapore?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Excuse me, Mr. Culpeper.

This is such a strange notion, Mr. Mills. Excuse me for saying so. We've had terrible human rights atrocities in Europe, where conditions were fantastic.

Mr. Bob Mills: But that's the government's position.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That is your government's position, Mrs. Folco and you should defend it.

[English]

Mr. Bob Mills: That is strange. I'm arguing the government's position and the members are arguing the other side.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Raymonde Folco: No, no, no.

The Chairman: That's what makes this such a good committee, you see? We just get so confused.

Mr. Bob Mills: We should go home for the summer.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: It proves, Mr. Mills, that in the government there is room for all sorts of discussion, which I don't find on the other side.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): How could you condemn—?

The Chairman: What this conversation proves is that everybody believes we're out of here tomorrow. They've lost it.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Do we have a speaking order, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian:

[Editor's Note—Inaudible].

The Chairman: Wait a minute, Mr. Assadourian, please. We have to try to get some order. We only have 15 minutes left with Mr. Culpeper.

Ms. Folco, please.... We have Mr. Reed and about five people who want to get in, so we have to stop.

Mr. Reed and then Madame Debien.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

I apologize, Mr. Culpeper, for being out of the room when you were referring to Team Canada and its ineffectiveness. I'm not sure what you said, but you did refer to Sylvia Ostry and her comment that Team Canada was not an effective medium and so on. I read that same newspaper article too, but I read farther down the column, and it also said she came along and said she was joking. I don't know what you interpret from that.

In terms of the costs of Team Canada—the costs of promoting trade—it's fair to point out that the costs are less than one-tenth of 1% of the trade that has been written. They're actually about one-twentieth of 1%, at $ 12 million, compared to $ 23 billion in sales. I don't know any company in the world that promotes its product for one-tenth of 1% of its cost of doing business. If you looked at Kellogg's, you'd probably find out that the cost of promotion is 50%.

So I would point out to you in that regard, if you want to look at just the dollar costs of Team Canada, it's probably a very efficient way to do business and a very efficient way to introduce small and medium-sized businesses to countries that otherwise would not even give the time of day to small business. The presence of an elected government official gives some legitimization to the process.

Sure, by our standards, Canada deals with the United States business to business and with Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand, etc., but we're highly developed countries and we operate in a more confident and different mode than developing countries. So I put it to you that there's another side to the argument.

Another element has been missed in this debate, although it was mentioned once, and that is that since world trade began to activate after the Second World War, it has meant there have been no international wars. Yes, there are conflicts. There are internal conflicts and civil wars and they're tragic and they're terrible, but the fact is that as long as people are talking to each other and dialoguing and we know the face of that potential enemy, we're less likely to engage in conflict.

• 1015

So when you're looking at the impact of trade missions, the Team Canada thing, and international dialogue, you have to think in the broader context.

I also must say there's a Chinese proverb that the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. We're taking steps always. When we're on a road, we run into rocks, hills, mountains, gullies, streams that have to be forded, and so on, but that should never deter us from continuing along the road. That's only my opinion.

One of the debates we have and that obviously you can see around this table is whether or not.... You talk about Canadian standards in your report, but how do you transmit Canadian standards? Do you do it by decree: “Either you say you're going to be good boys or we won't trade with you”? Or do you do it by example? You can dialogue and maintain your own set of standards so that the way business is done, the Canadian way, is seen by other countries, rather than being judgmental or setting oneself up as some some self-righteous icon and saying, “Look at us. We're the most righteous in the world.” And we're not. We have our own sets of problems too. The world is not perfect.

So I suggest that when we're having this debate about our interaction with the world, the debate probably is a matter of degree in what we do. Quite frankly, Canada's position has been that it's better to keep the tracks open and keep the dialogue open than to shut off countries because they don't conduct themselves in a manner in which we would conduct ourselves.

• 1017

The Chairman: You've exhausted his time to answer.

Mr. Julian Reed: I'm sorry.

The Chairman: Can you give us a very short answer?

Mr. Roy Culpeper: I can't disagree with anything you've said—well, most of what you've said. The institute has done a lot of work on trade, for example. We've been of the view that we could be much more engaged in trading with the developing world than we have been.

I mean, trade is a two-way street, and it's important that we also open our markets to developing countries. That's the part that doesn't seem to enter into this discussion. Quite often when we think about trade it's Canadian exports to the developing countries rather than their imports into our countries. Quite often we find that our markets are closed or restricted to developing countries, either by tariff or non-tariff barriers.

Mr. Julian Reed: I have—

An hon. member: Whoa, wait a minute.

Mr. Julian Reed: Okay, sorry.

I guess we don't have time to get into this one.

The Chairman: Maybe we'll go to Madam Debien.

Who's running things here at the moment, anyway?

Madam Debien.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Culpeper, I had a rather disturbing experience recently which is somewhat related to the topic that we're discussing this morning. I travelled to South America, to the heart of the Amazon forest, to view the operations of a large Canadian oil exploration company. Even some of the company directors felt that the company should not be drilling in the Amazon forest because of the fragile ecosystem. These forests should be left in their pristine state.

There is considerable talk these days about codes of conduct or ethics codes that Canadian companies should adopt. Given the situation, shouldn't one of the goals of these companies be never to carry out operations in rain forests because of their highly fragile ecosystems?

• 1020

Getting back to the question put to you by Mr. Graham, you referred to a number of countries in which Canadian companies should not be getting involved. Shouldn't some consideration be given also to environmental issues?

My second question concerns the tying of aid. You mention this topic many times in your report. As you so rightly put it, it is a well-known fact that the goal of providing tied aid is to help businesses in donor countries. What percentage of CIDA projects involve tied aid? In your opinion, should we do away completely with this kind of aid? It often leads to corruption and to the misappropriation of funds by recipient countries...

What solution to you feel would be best, for both the donor and the recipient country?

Mr. Roy Culpeper: Regarding your first question, in our report, we also discuss social and environmental responsibility. We feel it is very important for Canadian companies to weigh social as well as environmental considerations. A growing number of Canadian companies are drafting sustainable development codes. Mining companies such as Placer Dome have already adopted such a code. However, it would be impossible for countries to adopt criteria which would preclude any kind of investment whatsoever. While Canadian companies are adopting standards, the Canadian government could assist them when it comes to dealing with environmental issues.

As for your question concerning tied aid, for a number of years now, the position of the North-South Institute has been that tied aid is a weak component of our aid program. I believe the proportion is at least 60 or 65 per cent, and perhaps even 70 per cent.

Ms. Maud Debien: The percentage of tied aid?

Mr. Roy Culpeper: Yes. In any event, the proportion of tied aid is higher in Canada than in other donor countries.

My sense is that CIDA considers tied aid important as a means of encouraging the private sector to back our aid program.

• 1025

I totally disagree with this because most Canadian companies operating in the Third World do so without the benefit of tied aid. It is completely unnecessary, either as a way of getting them to support our aid program or of encouraging investment in the Third World.

[English]

The Chairman: There are a couple of other members on the list, but we have five motions to get through and we have Mr. Grand here from Paris. I think we can get Mr. Culpeper back another time. He's local cannon fodder for us.

Thanks for coming, Mr. Culpeper. We appreciate it. These are very important issues, obviously. We're looking at some of the work you're doing, both with the conference board and the government in respect of corporate responsibility. I think it's very helpful.

Mr. Roy Culpeper: Thank you.

If members of the committee have other suggestions for follow-up work, we would certainly encourage those suggestions and do what we can, either in the institute or with the partners we have in our research program. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I'd like to thank Mr. Culpeper and invite him to come back again, since our Liberal colleagues now seem to be interested in a study on a code of conduct, something that they were not keen on before. The comments of Mr. Graham and Ms. Folco confirm the importance of discussing this issue and of doing a study. Thank you very much.

[English]

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: I'd like to just comment briefly on the tone that sometimes occurs in these debates, with everyone saying they have the monopoly on caring. As I pointed out to Mr. Robinson in Geneva, I have the luxury of having a socialist view because this poor little capitalist French-Canadian I'm married to has worked his buns off to afford me the luxury of being a socialist.

I think most of us have to acknowledge that social change occurs from within. We like to take the credit for South Africa. The reason the embargo worked on South Africa was because South Africa was ready. The changes in our labour code in North America occurred from within, and we all have to keep that in mind. If we're going to look at embargos and anti-trade, I don't think the Bloc would want us to send all the unemployed who result from that to their area, so maybe we'll send them to Mr. Robinson's instead.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Ms. Beaumier's observation was quite interesting. It only shows how quickly we can get side-tracked. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: If Mr. Sauvageau wants to move a motion of gratitude to Ms. Beaumier's husband for financing her....

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No, I only commented that it was easy for the discussion to get side-tracked.

[English]

The Chairman: We have quite a few motions here. I don't think any of them are seriously contested in principle, but there's some problem with language. We may have some problems on the ICC one. If we have serious problems with a resolution, I will stand it down until after we've heard from Professor Grand.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, when resolutions are circulated, I wonder if it could be indicated the source of the resolution. I have a piece of paper here with a resolution and I don't know who it came from or anything else.

The Chairman: I should apologize. To begin with, and I'll have to ask the permission of the committee, you're looking at a resolution there on Hong Kong veterans.

Mr. Svend Robinson: One is on the veterans, one is on the criminal court....

The Chairman: One is on the ICC, the criminal court.

Normally, we have a 48-hour rule about putting motions in. I asked the table officers to prepare those motions because those were two issues that had come up. The first, on the Hong Kong veterans, you'll remember was an issue that came up. It was something that had nothing to do with the committee. This announcement was made, and I think committee members would probably like to follow that before we rise.

I also asked the table officers if they would be good enough to prepare a draft resolution on the criminal court. I don't think you were here to hear that, but since we heard all that and I thought since it's our last day, maybe we should deal with it.

Mr. Svend Robinson: It would help in future if we knew the source of these.

The Chairman: They came from the chair.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Ex cathedra.

• 1030

The Chairman: Yes, ex cathedra and urbi et orbi. Blessings to you too, my son.

Poor Mr. Grand is going to think we're all quite mad, but that's all right.

The first resolution, in terms of time, was put forward by Mr. Grewal, and Mr. Mills has spoken to it. Mr. Mills, I gather you're going to take out the reference “pursuant to the standing order”.

Mr. Bob Mills: There are two things I should just note for the members here that we have agreed to and I think will work. It should read “Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2)”. That now means this coming fall. We will also change “future fiscal years” to “the 1999-2000 budget”. It is more specific then.

The Chairman: Okay. I understand that's acceptable to both Mr. McWhinney and Mr. Reed.

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): That's an excellent motion.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I trust you understood the resolution to amend the motion, Mr. Turp. The member is proposing to remove the reference to Standing Order 81 and to substitute a reference to Standing Order 108(2). Furthermore, he proposes to change "future fiscal years" to "the 1999-2000 budget". Is that correct?

[English]

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Could we just hear some clarification as to the objective of this resolution? Obviously we're concerned about the recent nuclear testing, but I think many of us are equally concerned about the failure of the five current nuclear powers to take any serious steps toward disarmament.

I'm wondering why we're singling out India and Pakistan for this study and ignoring the existing five. Maybe we could hear some clarification.

The Chairman: A quick question.

Mr. Bob Mills: I apologize for Mr. Grewal not being here; he's out of the country. Because of what has happened, when there are just general dollar figures in the budget he would like to know the specifics of where that money's going. Obviously, if it's going to NGOs, that's quite different from it going directly to government. That's the purpose of this. It's something we could call for about every country if we wanted to.

The Chairman: My feeling about the resolution was that we had evidence and were told that aid to Pakistan and India had been cut off, but not humanitarian aid. Nobody understands exactly what the difference is between humanitarian aid and other aid, so this is just information. This will go no further.

Mr. Bob Mills: This will just be for information.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: We think it's a good motion, and with the changes made by Mr. Mills it's an even better one. I think Mr. Robinson raises a larger issue. That could be the subject of a separate resolution.

The Chairman: I think it will arise out of our report generally on the nuclear issue. That will be in the nuclear report, but this is just a provision.

Mr. Svend Robinson: The fact that the Liberals agree with the Reform Party doesn't necessarily enhance the level of support.

The Chairman: No, but it's a start.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It's a union of another sort.

[English]

The Chairman: Look, we really are very short on time—

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that—

The Chairman: —so I'll put it to a vote quickly if you have serious problems with it.

Mr. Bob Mills: This has been discussed for the last three or four meetings.

• 1035

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I do want to ask why China is not included in this resolution.

The Chairman: It's because we cut off our aid to India and Pakistan. We didn't cut off aid to China. We're trying to understand the difference between humanitarian aid, and it arises directly out of the nuclear tests put on by India and Pakistan, as I said. Unfortunately, you weren't here for a couple of those discussions, but that's the purpose of the resolution and I think that's why everybody's supporting it. We'd all like to understand when the government says we're cutting off aid to India and Pakistan but not humanitarian aid...people want to understand what aid we're cutting and what aid we aren't.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And why we're continuing aid to China, which ignores its obligations.

The Chairman: I don't have any problem with that proposition, but I think it's something we'll address when we have the nuclear study as a whole, when we do our report. I think that will be the proper time.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Otherwise, could I say that we have general acceptance to the motion as amended?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Is there anybody with any problem with it?

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm opposed, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Robinson is opposed, but apart from that—

Mr. Ted McWhinney: We're opposed because it doesn't include China.

The Chairman: Okay, that's the first resolution.

The second resolution is Madam Beaumier's resolution, which is before us and which we've had for some time now. Would you care to move it?

Mr. Bob Mills: I have one question. My question is on the conflicting information we get. We have one minister, Ms. Marleau, saying we should increase this financial...and of course we have Mr. Axworthy saying we should cut off all aid. So I assume this motion reads that way. But just to clarify, this is going to Canadian NGOs that are working with the refugees who are in Thailand and with the democratic movement, which is working outside of the country. That's what I understand by this and that's what you are saying.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Yes.

The Chairman: We had the young man who was here who was with the Karen movement, and basically he said—

Mr. Bob Mills: Yes, that's quite different from working with the government.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Yes, and no one—

The Chairman: This is a follow-up of what we heard—

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: This is a follow-up from the meeting we had with the Canadian Friends of Burma group.

The Chairman: Madam Debien.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: Following up somewhat on Mr. Mills' observation, the issue here is not bilateral aid. I think Colleen confirmed that to us last time. Therefore, two words should be stricken from the French version. In my view, they lend a different meaning to the resolution. The third sentence reads as follows: "que de plus, le gouvernement canadien continue d'appuyer les ONG". The words "de plus" imply that something happened previously or that something should have happened previously.

Therefore, to do away with any hint of bilateral aid that could be inferred from " de plus", these two words should be deleted. Instead, the resolution should read "donc, que le gouvernement canadien continue d'appuyer les ONG". This removes any possible ambiguity from the French version.

The Chairman: Should the word "further" be deleted from the English version?

Ms. Maud Debien: The meaning is the same in English.

The Chairman: Therefore, it can be deleted without changing the meaning of the text.

Ms. Maud Debien: Fine then. Finally, "opportunité" should be replaced by "la possibilité" in the French version, since the former is an anglicism.

[English]

The Chairman: Are there any other problems with the resolution? Mr. Robinson, is it okay with you?

Okay, it's unanimous. Thank you, members.

Can we then have a quick look at the resolution on the Hong Kong vets? Is that acceptable? I think we should follow up on the Hong Kong vets since this matter has come up.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: With respect to the resolution on the Hong Kong veterans, I'd just like to say that essentially, what we have here is diplomatic language devoid of any meaning. Of course we can agree to continue to weigh new information and endeavour to resolve the issue as soon as possible in light of these findings, but we can also hope that it won't rain this summer or that the winter won't be too cold. As resolutions go, this isn't very credible. It reminds me of how the Liberal Party examined the whole issue of Hong Kong prisoners. There isn't much difference between drafting this resolution and not drafting one at all.

Thank you very much for your attention, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: You are opposed to the resolution because you find the wording too meek.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That's right.

The Chairman: I see.

• 1040

Mr. Mills.

[English]

Mr. Bob Mills: Just for clarification, I'm sure this new information is referring to the 1955 tax. In fact, it is now shown that the Canadian and British governments did have an opportunity to appeal this and chose not to. I think that's the critical information that's here. I assume that's what that means, but it doesn't say it. If that proves to be the case, then obviously, I think that whole case can be reopened.

The Chairman: Mr. McWhinney.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: These are two separate issues. One is an issue of fact. It's what occurred. The minister was extremely concerned when you wrote that, and we're trying to find out. The second issue would be the legal implications of it.

I have looked at the legal documents in a personal capacity. The one doesn't necessarily follow from the other. The minister is extremely concerned by this disclosure of activities, and he's following it up. The motion is one that we would welcome.

Mr. Bob Mills: Our concern of course is that the longer we wait, the fewer debts there are.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: That was eight foreign ministers ago.

The Chairman: Mr. Penson.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I just wish this resolution could contain a recommendation to pay these people out. This time last year the vets were before our committee. We spent some time discussing that with them. I feel we have an obligation to pay them out regardless of whether we're able to find new information or the fact that we may have signed off in 1953 or whatever it was. It seems to me that we should not discontinue that claim. In fact, because of what's come to light and what might be coming out of this, it should happen. But it seems to me we should move quickly to pay this out regardless of what happens. We should continue to pursue this.

The Chairman: Look, this resolution arises out of this new information. We're just trying to urge the government to have a hard look at that.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I know.

The Chairman: We've already dealt with this other matter. We've filed our report in the House as a view to force the committee. So we filed that report in the House. It's been done.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Where does it say to pay compensation?

The Chairman: This moves it along.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I agree with Mr. Penson on this and also Mr. Sauvageau. I think one way of responding might be to include in our recommendation a reiteration of the call to the Government of Canada to pay equitable compensation to every Hong Kong veteran.

Mr. Chairman, if we reiterate the call—

Mr. Ted McWhinney: You'll understand—I'll just raise a point of clarification—that the foreign ministry will do all in its power to get this thing to a conclusion. We're trying to find out the issue of the facts. The next issue is the legal consequences, which may or may not point in a certain direction.

But as far as the foreign ministry are concerned, we'll exhaust our competence. It may well be that what you're raising might have to go to another ministry.

The Chairman: Mr. Robinson, we'll take up your point very quickly and then we'll go to Mr. Grant.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: We welcome the—

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. McWhinney.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: I'm sorry.

The Chairman: To take up your point, what is the problem with the second “whereas” clause, which refers to our report urging the Government of Canada to recognize the claim by the—

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm suggesting that we include a recommendation reiterating our commitment to the earlier call to pay equitable compensation to every Hong Kong veteran.

The Chairman: We already said that in the “whereas”, so is the committee saying it again?

A voice: Exactly.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: It's already—

The Chairman: Wait a minute. Not everybody at once. Mr. McWhinney.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: As I say, the foreign ministry will do its work to the full. We'll explore the facts. We'll also see if they have any legal implications. As I say, I've informally looked at this already in my own capacity. But what you're saying would sensibly, if there's no remedy within the foreign affairs power, go to another ministry. As long as that's understood, I have no problem.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So with that amendment, Mr. Chairman, I then move that we include in the recommendations that we reaffirm our earlier recommendation to pay equitable compensation to every Hong Kong veteran.

The Chairman: So in other words, the operative clause is that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade reiterates its call to pay.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Exactly.

The Chairman: This is replicating what's in the “whereas” clause.

Mr. Svend Robinson: As in the “whereas” clause.

The Chairman: It's just saying what we've already put in our previous report.

I don't think there's any problem with that with anybody. Okay. Thank you very much. That's very helpful. Is everybody agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: That's passed.

We can't keep Mr. Grand waiting any longer. We're going to move to that. There's one more motion on the international criminal court.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Chairman, may I strongly suggest something? Two of our members, including myself, have a very important meeting with another committee in which we're going to come to a vote and a number of important decisions. So I would ask if we could vote on these two remaining motions right now, because we're going to have to get up and leave.

• 1045

The Chairman: Their problem is that Mr. Mills has a series of very complicated changes he wants to propose to that resolution. We'll be here for another 45 minutes discussing it, so you won't leave anyway.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ): What if we have some changes to propose?

[English]

The Chairman: So this is the problem.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Well, count me out.

The Chairman: If everybody was agreed to it, I'd agree entirely and I would vote on it. But unfortunately, I've consulted before and found that we don't have agreement. So it'll be a bit of a—

A voice: Will we do it today?

The Chairman: We may or may not get it through today on that basis. Okay? I'm sorry, Madam Folco.

[Translation]

That's the problem.

[English]

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): But if we leave at 11 a.m., it's not because we don't love you.

The Chairman: Yes, I know. You'll have to say that to Mr. Grand, our visiting professor. You may have to tell him that you don't love him. This will be a new international incident created by this committee.

I'm advised by the clerk that we're to adjourn the last meeting. I will then recommence.

The meeting is adjourned.