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, February 4, 1999

• 1114

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): Okay. The steering committee has considered these various items before us.

Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I would like your assurance that some time before the end of this morning's session, we will debate the motion that I have presented to the clerk.

The Chairman: Yes, we received it. This motion would normally be placed under the heading "Other Business".

Mr. Daniel Turp: I did not see it.

[English]

The Chairman: Let's just quickly run through these, and then if there's need for a discussion, we can do that. I mean, nobody's going to disagree that we invite ministers Axworthy, Marchi, and Marleau to talk about the performance review.

Approval?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: There is a typing error in the French version. It should have been “l'honorable Sergio Marchi” and not “l'honorable Sergio March”.

• 1115

The Chairman: The second item on the agenda is the NATO Summit in April. Mr. Turp, you told me that the suggestion has been made that we have a joint meeting with the Defence Committee on NATO issues.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I think that refers to the third point, Mr. Chairman. Only a few minutes ago, I was informed that the Standing Committee on Defence had invited the Minister of Defence to appear before it to talk about the UN Security Council, and that it was hoped that we might participate in this joint meeting along with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This is what they have just decided, and I think it's a good idea.

The Chairman: I agree.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I am pleased, because that will take place quite quickly.

The Chairman: The meeting is proposed for next Tuesday.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Tuesday afternoon?

The Chairman: Agreed, and noted. Unless you have any objections, I think that we should accept this invitation.

I would like to return to the second point. Do we agree to invite Mr. Axworthy to come before us to discuss NATO, especially in the context of our report?

Thirdly, in addition to inviting senior officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs to appear before us on the UN Security Council, we will attend the joint meeting organized by the Defence Committee.

Mr. Daniel Turp: May I make a suggestion, even though I am aware that it may not be possible? Could we ask the Department of Foreign Affairs to see if Mr. Fowler could attend? I know that it is not easy.

The Chairman: I think that it would be impossible because Mr. Fowler is the chairman of the Security Council. How could he leave his post?

Mr. Daniel Turp: I know that it would be difficult. Is the committee sitting Tuesday afternoon? If it is not sitting, it would be very interesting to have Mr. Fowler with us.

The Chairman: Furthermore, I believe that he is in the hospital. Nevertheless, we will try to ask Mr. Fowler to appear.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes, try. He may be feeling better. The Opposition may wish to send him flowers and Mr. Patry, chocolate. Chocolate is for the government. Who wants to send him candies?

The Chairman: I was told that there was an interest in talking about Kosovo at the joint meeting with the Defence Committee.

Mr. Daniel Turp: It would not be a bad idea to discuss both issues. We may as well take advantage of the opportunity.

The Chairman: The fourth point on the agenda. Comments? Problems? Is the motion approved?

[English]

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): What is being proposed here—that the meeting on the Security Council be enlarged to also talk about Kosovo?

The Chairman: No, there's some confusion. Nobody contacted me specifically about this meeting, but Mr. Turp was good enough to tell me on the way in that he'd heard that this was what the defence committee was going to ask for, a joint meeting. The question now is, what is the purpose of the joint meeting? My understanding was that the joint meeting was to talk about what we're doing at the Security Council, but it may well be that they want to talk about Kosovo as well.

I'm informed that they're going to ask us for...[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...Kosovo and the Security Council.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I suggest we leave that until we get the proposal from them and just deal with the items on the agenda for today.

The Chairman: You can do that if you like, but that meeting is going to be next Tuesday. So we're not going to have another meeting between now and then. It'll be Tuesday afternoon. So I'll just have to accept or not accept.

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Charlie Penson: Is it the intent to have a joint meeting before that? When is it intended to have a joint meeting?

The Chairman: My understanding is that Tuesday afternoon is their request, but as I say, I haven't seen their request yet.

Mr. Charlie Penson: It's a conflict for some of us.

• 1120

The Chairman: Yes, but that's a joint meeting with a lot of people. Around here, one thing we're going to have to do is double-book ourselves, because we can't all be everywhere at the same time.

An hon. member: And not overbook.

The Chairman: No, we're overbooked as it is.

Item four deals with the human rights declaration matter. You'll recall that we lost that opportunity, partly because of Ms. Cohen's death and the way in which there was a scramble at the end of the session. We would rather refer this matter to the human rights subcommittee.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: The figure 1 that precedes "50e anniversaire de la Déclaration des droits de l'homme" should be replaced by a figure 4. It seems that an incorrect version was distributed to all Bloc members.

The Chairman: In any case, I do not have the same version as you; mine has a figure 4.

The fifth point on the agenda is the parliamentary delegation from Estonia.

[English]

Group A or group B? That's mardi as well.

Any problems? No?

Next is item 6.

Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Can I have a copy of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure's eighth report?

I'm informed there are none left. I'll share it over here, then.

The Chairman: Anything in our possession is yours, Mrs. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: All right. Thank you.

The Chairman: We're now at the top of page 2, point 6, with regard to Kathleen Mahoney.

That was the request of, I believe, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Chairman, do I have an old document here? The top of page 6, for me, is item 5.

The Chairman: There's a real problem with the numbers. I don't understand. There are two versions.

If you use the version that has the House of Commons seal on the top of it, you'll find it's correct. If you use the version without the House of Commons seal, it's probably a draft, in which case it's not valid.

Our learned researcher tells me it has something to do with the electronic printing. I've always been suspicious about this. I prefer the days when we had people with quill pens writing things down. At least you could grab somebody by the throat when something went wrong.

Now, there was discussion about the Mexican delegation. The members of the steering committee were strongly of the view that we should... If a foreign minister was coming, say, we have in practice in the past occasionally met in camera. The Mexican foreign minister has asked to meet us in camera rather than in a public meeting. The members of the steering committee were strongly of the view that if we were to meet with a foreign minister on an official visit of this kind, the committee should take the strong position that this should be a public meeting. I have so informed the department.

Now, that may mean that the Minister of Foreign Affairs may choose not to come before the committee, in which case my understanding—and I don't know this—is that probably what will happen is that the Canada-Mexico parliamentary association will organize some event, and if people want to go to that and take advantage of a chance to meet the foreign minister, they will, but we won't have an opportunity to get to speak to him in committee.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Excuse me, but what would be the reason he would not wish to come in an open forum?

• 1125

The Chairman: You would have to ask the foreign minister. I mean, I'm speculating; he—or she, rather—may well say yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Have you done some research on previous practice?

The Clerk: Yes, I was told that there were two similar cases, specifically, the visit of the Irish delegation.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes, that's true.

The Clerk: Under the circumstances, the meeting was held in camera.

The Chairman: Yes, we organized a private in camera meeting for the visit of the Irish Prime Minister, Mr. Bruton, who wished to share his ideas on the Northern Ireland issue, but not in an open forum.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Was there another example? He was not a Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[English]

The Chairman: It was a prime minister.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes, but that's not the same thing. We're talking about a delegation.

The Clerk: I was told that there was also a delegation from Chiapas for whom Janice organized a lunch.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes, but that was different, and it was not long ago. Therefore, there is only a single example.

[English]

The Chairman: That was negotiated with the Chiapas federal government representative.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.): But that was a lunch...[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...an in camera committee meeting.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: There may be one example, but it was not even the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[English]

The Chairman: We transmitted the statement of the steering committee, and we're waiting for a reply. It may well be that Ms. Green will come back and say she doesn't mind, and will come before the committee. If she does, that's fine. If she doesn't, well...

Mr. Charlie Penson: It seems to me we need to differentiate here. If there was no formal meeting, if there was no structured meeting of the foreign affairs committee, then there was no structured meeting. Whatever form of dinner that might have taken place, it has nothing to do with this committee in the sense that we are struck as a committee.

I don't think we can have informal meetings. Either we have a foreign affairs meeting of this committee or we don't.

The Chairman: Right.

Mr. Charlie Penson: So I think any reference to what was happening in terms of those who might have met informally really has no bearing on this discussion. It seems to me we have to decide whether we're going to have a committee meeting and have it either in camera or in public.

The Chairman: Right.

Mr. Charlie Penson: The issue, in my view, is that it should be in public.

The Chairman: But there's always a trade-off in terms of whether it's, say, a sensitive subject. I wouldn't like to close the door to say that we would never have in camera meetings, because occasionally it may be necessary, when there are sensitive issues, to do that.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I didn't say that. I said I don't think there's any such thing as an “informal” foreign affairs committee meeting.

The Chairman: No, I think you're quite right.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: I think that's what we said. That's what we've already said.

The Chairman: I think that's very fair.

Mr. Bob Speller: But the point needs to be made, too...[Editor's Note: Inaudible]..and we may lose an opportunity to speak to the foreign minister of Mexico on these issues as a result of this stand.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): But she doesn't tell us how we operate our committees.

Mr. Bob Speller: It doesn't matter, Svend. I'm just saying that's a consequence, and we'll have to accept it.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's right.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: We could create a worthwhile future precedent. Any Minister of Foreign Affairs should be told that he will appear in a public meeting. It would be much more appropriate to inform him in advance, so that they do not ask, as Ms. Green had done, to be heard at an in camera session.

I hope that the chairman will not be tempted to invite Ms. Green to a lunch or dinner in order to do indirectly what we do not want to do directly, or to leave that to a parliamentary association or a friendship group.

[English]

The Chairman: I hope the committee's not going to take the attitude that they're going to control what I do for dinner. I have enough problems in my life. My wife already is difficult enough. I don't want Mr. Turp telling me who I can have dinner with as well.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: But I hear what you're saying. In other words, you don't want me to try to organize some non-official meeting.

Going back to the clerk's point, I think the meeting we had with the Prime Minister of Ireland on the Irish subject gave us insights we wouldn't have gotten otherwise. We have to bear that in mind; there may be cases.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: In what year was this?

[English]

The Chairman: It was about three years ago.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes, we were there.

[English]

The Chairman: It was when the negotiations were just beginning between the United Kingdom and Ireland. With the IRA and everything, he didn't want to be too far out ahead. It was very much that he wanted to tell us what types of negotiations were going on.

• 1130

Mr. Daniel Turp: Svend, had you agreed to that?

Mr. Svend Robinson: I don't recall. I don't think I was on the committee at that time.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Okay.

The Chairman: Next, with regard to Clifford Lincoln, we agreed that in fact while this was a good idea, it's something we had to put off. So I don't think anyone will object to that.

Now for the proposed work plan. I think you've all received the work plan, and seen it, so if you have any comments or questions maybe now is the time to grab Mr. Schmitz and speak to it.

Mr. Penson, sir.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the WTO work plan, I think Bob Mills made some points at the planning session that I would just like to add to.

There are a number of areas I would like to see an expanded WTO around, but agriculture, it seems to me, is the one missing link that we really haven't been able to resolve in the past. I think we have to make a concentrated effort to get some rules around agriculture.

I do know the ag committee is holding hearings on the WTO as well, but it seems to me our committee has to take a little broader look at this as it affects not just agriculture but also our entire trade relations.

To that end, it seems to me we would benefit from having some of the academics in terms of trade policy come before us and help us with what our strategy might be in trying to develop the best strategy we can to get the rules around agriculture that I think we need.

Therefore, I would hope that we could include those kinds of resources in our hearings.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz (Committee Researcher): Since Tuesday I've done a more detailed tentative outline through to June. I don't know if that's been distributed.

It has. It's called, “Tentative Outline of Stages for the WTO Study”. It indicates the initial series of briefings that will start next week, but then, as you will see, in the first weeks in March there is a series of panels and round tables envisaged for that. In fact, I put in one early on that would deal with the agriculture issues in particular, at a possible joint meeting with the agriculture committee, and a couple of other areas of preoccupation.

The idea is that we might start in the first week of March with precisely what you're suggesting, in a sense—that is, get some of the top people who have been thinking about these things within the country to come and kind of give us their overall perspective of how this should fit together, how we should advance our objectives and what those objectives should be.

So before the committee would actually start having public hearings outside of Ottawa, which in this plan is anticipated to start the week of March 22, there would be some very substantial input into the broad agenda of prospective negotiations that we already would have received.

The other thing, in connection with the briefings next week, is that we will be distributing a briefing book to try to keep it from being overwhelming. That is a bit of a struggle. There will be things in it that are just further reference for people who are really in for punishment, and a series of background issues, papers, and so on are in preparation and will be coming eventually from the department. I'm told their consultation site will be up this weekend. They can probably tell us more about that next Tuesday.

In other words, there will be a continuing flow of information and analysis, as the study proceeds, coming before members.

Mr. Charlie Penson: That will be helpful. I've attended a few of the...[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...committee meetings just so I could get an idea of the flow of what's happening there. What they're not dealing with is what Canada's negotiating strategy should be. It seems to me that's a pretty important element in all this.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: Exactly.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Should we be looking at it just sectorally in services and agriculture or in an expanded way? What are our best chances of getting some movement? If we have anybody who would be helpful in guiding us there, I think it would be beneficial to the committee.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: Absolutely.

• 1135

The Chairman: Is that...[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...to some extent? I mean, are we back in the old Cairns Group business again, or has that all unravelled? Presumably, a lone Canadian strategy on this issue is not going to do anybody any good. As with culture, there are different allies. We are going to have some of the allies in here.

Is it the Cairns Group still?

Mr. Charlie Penson: The Cairns Group is active, but of course that doesn't include the United States. I don't know if you are aware of it, but $60 billion is what the European Union spent on agricultural subsidies last year. It had big implications for us.

The Chairman: That was out of a $100 billion budget or something.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Yes.

The Chairman: Charlie, we're certainly aware of that, but on the other hand, I think there's a hope that maybe the agricultural committee will do some of our work for us. I mean, (a), we don't want to do something and then contradict what they're doing; and (b), we want to complement what they're doing. We don't want to redo it and contradict them. We hope we can work with them.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Yes, I'm behind that 100%. All I'm saying is that sometimes a sectoral approach is a fairly narrow point of view, and we have a national interest to look at as well in terms of credible positions on various issues.

I think our committee really should take a broad look at this.

The Chairman: By “sectoral”, do you mean grains and so on?

Mr. Charlie Penson: No, agriculture in general is regarded as a sector, or the energy sector, for instance.

The Chairman: I understand, yes.

No further questions about the work plan?

[Translation]

Excuse me, Benoît.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): At 10.1, it says: "It has been sent to potential witnesses by fax (departmental lists). Could you give us a copy of these lists?

The Chairman: Yes, there's no problem. If you would like to add additional names, I would obviously invite you to submit them to us.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: It's on the web site.

What's our web site, Mr. Clerk?

I'm informed it's “www.parl.gc.ca”.

[Translation]

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: We are always willing to have suggestions for witnesses.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It is important that when we visit Montreal and Toronto we be able to reach people who have limited mobility.

[English]

The Chairman: The other thing is that we're going to take two weeks to hold public hearings across Canada. The first week will be in March, correct?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Do we have an agenda for that?

The Chairman: We're working on it. This is pretty good. We have a proposal. Look at the tentative outline of stages for WTO.

This is important. We have to get our minds around this for several reasons. Scheduling is going to be difficult. We're going to have to split ourselves up, as we did with the Arctic study and everything else. The various parties are going to have to start figuring out who is going to go in what group. That will be one thing that everybody is going to have to sit down and strategize about.

The second thing is that you can all help me in that as chairman of the liaison committee, I can tell you right now that while there is cash available, there is notionally no money left for committees to do anything. It has all been budgeted for things that are going to happen. But the experience with the liaison committee and the experience with committees is that while we budget for all sorts of things, many of them don't happen.

• 1140

For example, before Christmas there were budgeted requests of about $250,000 for travel, but in fact the House approved only one trip, and $200,090 came back into the pot. So it's a very difficult thing.

I would just ask members of the other parties—I'll speak to the House leaders and things like that; we probably will need a little top-up in the committee budgets—to please, for heaven's sake, when we organize these trips, make sure your House leader, when it comes up for a vote in the House, votes in favour of it.

We've had situations before where the committee agrees, I spend my time, we prepare a budget, I take it to the liaison committee, I get it approved, and then, when we go to the House, somebody from another party will say, “No, we don't agree”.

So even though you've agreed at your level, you'll find that your House leader won't. This has happened. I don't point any fingers at anybody.

We all want this study to happen, so I think it behooves us all to lobby our own House officials a bit to make sure we don't get shot down at the House level. I'm just asking for your help in that respect.

Are there any questions about the travel provisions?

So that's the first thing. Next week, we'll split it up differently.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Chairman, the only concern I have is that I see we're planning on taking a trip to Washington. Is that going to be in conjunction with the IFI study? Is that right?

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: First of all, it was decided that there would not be a separate IFI study but that we would include an element or a chapter in the WTO study, talking about linkages with global economic reform and global financial reform.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I guess the reason I raise it—and this is just a caution—is that if we're going to be travelling to Washington, we had better make sure we confirm our bookings in terms of who we're going to be meeting with. I was disappointed when we were down for the non-proliferation meetings that our meeting with the Senate trade committee was cancelled just before we got there last year in March, and we had a very superficial meeting with the House of Representatives foreign relations committee.

You know, when you get 30 people in an hour, you only have time to introduce yourselves, which I think is a total waste of time. We'd better make sure we have a little more substantive agenda, or I won't be going.

The Chairman: Charlie, maybe we don't need to take up the full committee's time to talk about this. As you know from our Canada-U.S. experience, this is a big problem in Washington for anybody. I've talked to all my colleagues who are chairs of foreign relations committees all over Europe and everything, and they all say they cannot get to see American politicians.

I happen to have been in Washington two weeks ago, and I had 15 minutes with a senator on a very important issue and about 12 minutes with Mr. Gilman on another issue. That's all I got. But when I talked to colleagues of mine in other countries, they said, geez, they've been going for five years, and they've never gotten to see anybody. So we do have pretty privileged access.

But we'll do our best.

Mr. Charlie Penson: If we're not going to have a chance to have any meaningful input, why bother? That's the point I'm making.

The Chairman: There are two dimensions to it. First, there's the Brookings Institution, and that type of learning aspect. That's one dimension. The other dimension, I agree with you, we...[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...push it.

For example, if through some extraordinarily... Well, I won't put an adjective in there. If the Clinton trial is still going on, I'll tell you, the atmosphere in Washington makes it very difficult to get through to anybody, and after the Clinton trial there's going to be a huge pressure to clean up all the stuff that went unattended for that time.

So it's going to be tight, I agree with you.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I raise it, Mr. Chairman, because we're talking about tight budgets.

The Chairman: Yes, I agree.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I would far rather have the committee travel across the country to hold hearings on the WTO than the Washington part if there is a shortage of funding.

The Chairman: When there's no likelihood of seeing anybody important, yes.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Exactly.

The Chairman: I agree. I think that's understood by all.

Mr. Daniel Turp: When is the Washington part?

The Chairman: The week of April 12.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: But there is no longer any mention of a visit to Washington.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: No, and I have said that if the committee—

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: You have removed it.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, if the committee travels.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: What I have proposed is that leading U.S. trade experts could be brought here for a round table, because the U.S. position is very important.

The Chairman: Mr. Turp, your idea was to bring them here rather than...

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes.

[Translation]

The proposed timetable does not give us a lot of time to draft the report, namely from May 7 to June 1. We had intended to table our report in the week of June 14, even though it is often mentioned that the House may have already risen for the summer recess at that time.

• 1145

It seems to me that we should advance the date of the drafting so that the report can be tabled the week of June 7. It would be too risky to schedule the tabling in the following week.

The Clerk: That is what we have already done.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes?

The Clerk: In the week of June 7.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Nevertheless, the work plan says June 14.

The Clerk: I think not.

Mr. Daniel Turp: In my opinion, it should be tabled during the week of June 7.

The Clerk: Yes, June 7.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: Our public hearings may be finished before the end of April, perhaps even before April 23.

Mr. Daniel Turp: There's another thing that I find a little curious following our discussions of the other day. Someone said—and I think that he was quite right—that we should not visit only large cities, but also small cities because of the importance of agriculture. There is no farming in large cities. You have chosen no small cities.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: We plan to visit Windsor, Fredericton and—

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes, but those are not agricultural cities. We could go to the farmers instead of asking them to come to us in the large centres. I suggest that we review our itinerary and add some cities that are closer to the agricultural hubs.

The Chairman: Okay, we will see if that is possible. It is a question of logistics.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I know that it is practical, but that practical objection is always raised.

The Chairman: No, no, no.

Mr. Daniel Turp: We could perhaps go to one or two small cities.

The Chairman: I agree entirely, although I emphasize the fact that members of the committee as well as witnesses must be somewhat flexible. If all members cannot go to a small city, perhaps one of them could go there. That's what we did in the Arctic. We visited some very small centres, but that took time and was quite costly. We will take your suggestion into account.

Did you have a city in Quebec in mind?

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes, in my riding.

An Hon. Member: No, no.

Mr. Daniel Turp: We could go to Saint-Hyacinthe, where the agricultural colleges are located.

The Chairman: Mr. Penson could suggest some cities out west, with the exception of his own riding.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes, that is true.

An Hon. Member: The representatives of the UPA will come to Montreal.

[English]

Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Chairman, are we aware of whether or not the agriculture committee is doing just that? Are they holding hearings in some of the smaller centres?

The Chairman: That's a very helpful question. We'll find out.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I think it would be helpful.

The Chairman: Mr. Turp, I think Mr. Penson has made a good point. We should check to see if the agriculture committee has gone to various small places. There's no point replicating what they've done.

We'll investigate that. That's a good point.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: I would just say, though, that a lot of the witnesses who will request to appear will of course be based in the city. So if you have it in a smaller centre, you might end up having to bring them out there anyway.

The Chairman: Yes, but the fact is, the big guys are all going to come to us here in Ottawa anyway. The whole object of travelling is to have an opportunity for average people, citizens, because we get a different perspective.

Don't you think so?

Mr. Charlie Penson: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]...have in the agriculture area, Mr. Chairman. This is probably being addressed with the agriculture committee, but what tends to happen when you have hearings in Ottawa is that the organizations that supposedly represent them come and make the presentations, and ordinary citizens don't have that opportunity.

The Chairman: I agree.

Mr. Charlie Penson: In fact, many of those organizations that purport to represent agriculture really have basically no membership, and most people don't belong to them. It's a bit of a Hollywood front.

The Chairman: Well, you'll have to help us with that. Some of us don't have that knowledge of who's credible and who isn't, but you do.

Mr. Charlie Penson: But that's why, if the agriculture committee has a chance to go to some of the smaller centres, there's a better opportunity for people who couldn't travel to Ottawa to come to these meetings.

The Chairman: If we were to go outside of major centres in Ontario, Mr. Speller certainly knows the whole of western Ontario's situation very well, and we have other members around the table who can help us plan this if we want to do it.

You know the west and he knows western Ontario.

However, let's check with the agriculture committee and find out what they did. I think that's a very good suggestion.

• 1150

This will have to be a bit of a rolling, movable feast here. We'll keep trying to improve it as we go along. This is kind of an embouche.

I need an approval of 10.3 and 10.4 for retaining the services of Christopher Maule and Roy Hines. Can I get that approval, please? Any problem?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Am I to conclude that Mr. Hines will do a little less work than Mr. Maule?

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: That is correct.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Hines plans to put in fewer hours?

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: Yes, he will be away for a few weeks.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Okay.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Just for clarification, this refers to the period of January 18 to March 31. Today is February 4. Can we get some clarification as to why we would be starting this contract on January 18?

Mr. Daniel Turp: It's retroactive, because they were doing some work.

Mr. Svend Robinson: They may have done work, but they did that without the approval of the committee. It seems to me we wouldn't want to establish a practice of people doing work and then coming to the committee and saying, “Pay us $600 a day for the work we've done in the past”.

This is a very generous contract. I have no problem authorizing it, but it should be from the time this committee authorizes the contract, and not before.

The Chairman: May I speak to that? Then I'll go to Mr. Sauvageau.

This is a hugely complicated issue. We're expected to report by the end of June. We had to get this thing going in the middle of the holidays. We're asking your approval for this, but please don't tell us that in trying to organize the best thing, we can never do anything until the committee all gets together to do things, because if we have a plan like this...

If the committee says, “Sorry, we're not going to authorize that”, that's one thing, but I would urge the committee to authorize beginning the contract on January 18. We got those guys in and started them working because we knew we had to get going. If you don't want to authorize it, that's one thing, but I wouldn't like you to say we never should do anything like that. We were under tremendous pressure around here to try to get this thing going. Our researchers spent the better part of Christmas and the early part of January organizing it. We had a meeting, even, with Messrs. Maule and Hines earlier, and department people, and they've been in there working.

If we had waited until now, this thing wouldn't be done in June. I am asking for your sympathy in that respect. Okay?

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have a couple of questions. One of the reasons they are hired at this rate of $600 a day is presumably because that reflects the fact that they do preparation before they actually start on the contract itself. That's my understanding of these contracts. As I say, it's a very generous contract, and they're brought in on that basis.

Was the steering committee—and I don't recall this—approached before Christmas seeking authorization to bring these people on board? If it was, that's another story, but I don't recall that the steering committee was asked. I wouldn't have a problem if the steering committee—

The Chairman: No, you're right. What happened, though, Mr. Robinson, was that the steering committee...and everybody agreed we were going to do this study. We all talked about it.

Our steering committee meeting was set for December 10. All this stuff would have gone through the steering committee on December 10, but it collapsed because of the unfortunate death of Mrs. Cohen. The House collapsed. As you will remember, everything went into a total scramble. That's what happened. We wouldn't be in this position otherwise. We would have had the steering committee meeting, and you would have been familiar with it and already have approved it.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Have similar retroactive decisions been made in the past?

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Yes, other committees have already done that, but I could not tell you when.

[English]

The Chairman: We wouldn't be in this situation if we had been able to have that steering committee meeting on December 10. At least we would have said, yes, get going. There would have been some consensus; I agree.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's fine, but I wouldn't want this to be seen as a precedent. I assume we'll get a full accounting of any hours they did put in, in any submission.

The Chairman: No, no, I agree with that. I appreciate that. Certainly it's not my object to try to do stuff without consulting people first. It is just that this was an unusual thing, and we were getting a lot of pressure to get going.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Again, it would have been possible—and I don't want to belabour the point—for the chair to contact the members of the steering committee to seek authorization, at least informally, on this.

• 1155

The Chairman: This is true. I could have done that. There are many things I could have done and have not, and that's one of them. How does the Anglican prayer book go—there are things I have left undone that I ought to have done, and things I have done that I ought not to have done?

Can we get approval, at least?

Mr. Penson.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Chairman, before we do that, I need some information. The contract for Mr. Maule, as opposed to the one for Mr. Hines, shows that Mr. Maule is going to be working with the subcommittee. Can I just get an explanation of what the division is there?

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: Again, that has been modified from an earlier plan. The idea now is that all of the culturally related issues will be done in the context of the full committee's study of the WTO. The subcommittee will start next week, if it has its first meeting then, with FTAA issues.

Basically, Mr. Maule will concentrate on the full committee's study in the cultural and services area.

Mr. Charlie Penson: But not the specific...[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...or is he just...?

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: Primarily that, because it's the area of his major specialization.

Mr. Charlie Penson: The reason I asked the question is that as I see it, his contract is a bit more than Mr. Hines', who's supposed to be working with committee on future WTO—

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: It's a maximum amount. It is up to that, which is already approved in the budget. The reason for this is that Mr. Hines is not available for several weeks, so it's possible that Mr. Maule will be—

Mr. Charlie Penson: Maybe I can rephrase this a little bit. It seems to me our resources need to be dedicated to the future work of the WTO as a whole. If we're going to dedicate a lot of it just to one specific area, culture and services, then we are actually taking away from our ability to—

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: Well, it's not only those areas. We've divided it up into about 20 or 25, including competition policy, investment policy and so on. I mean, I could go through the whole long list.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Okay. As long as you have those arrangements.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: There are other very complicated issues beyond culture that he will be dealing with as well.

Mr. Daniel Turp: But culture is also important.

The Chairman: Madam Debien.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Chairman, Gerald just mentioned a subcommittee on cultural affairs.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: No, that is not what I said.

Ms. Maud Debien: Your remarks were translated as: "the subcommittee on cultural affairs". I was wondering what you were talking about.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: It is a subcommittee on international trade and trade disputes.

Ms. Maud Debien: That's quite different from a subcommittee on cultural affairs.

[English]

The Chairman: So subject to the observations, which I appreciate, do I have the approval for 10.3 and 10.4?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: I have a concern, Mr. Chairman. That part does not mention a trip to Europe.

[English]

The Chairman: Wait a minute, that's 10; it has nothing to do with 10.3 or 10.4.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Why?

[English]

The Chairman: That would be after the month of March.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: So it would be during the next fiscal year.

The Chairman: That will be a future step. At that time, we will evaluate if it is still necessary for us to go there.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Okay.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat concerned about the quality of the French that will be used. Do both people we plan to hire for the report have a good command of French?

Mr. Daniel Turp: If not, we will once again have to hire people and spend money.

The Clerk: It is too early to determine that.

The Chairman: Yes, it is a bit too early.

Ms. Maud Debien: We are asking you if these people speak French.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: I think they have some knowledge of French, although it is limited.

The Chairman: That is something we will have to bear in mind.

Mr. Daniel Turp: We will have to take those expenditures into account.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: We could perhaps think of hiring bilingual people.

The Chairman: Yes, but this is the best choice we could make, for lack of time.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Perhaps some of the best people who are able to speak both languages are here, in Canada.

The Chairman: Mr. Sauvageau, we perhaps made a mistake when we decided to limit our choice to candidates who are here in Ottawa. You will undoubtedly recall the logistical problems we faced in drafting our last report when we hired professor Gilbert Winham from Halifax. That is why we decided to try to find people from around here.

• 1200

I fully agree with you that it is preferable to hire bilingual people who are capable of working in both official languages, but for the time being, these are the two most competent people we have found here in Ottawa. Perhaps we could have gone to Montreal to find someone else.

Mr. Daniel Turp: As Maud just said, the consequence will be that we will once again have to hire an editor and bear additional costs, just like we did when we were drafting our report on nuclear energy.

The Chairman: Yes, probably. But a report is generally drafted in one language and then translated into the other.

Mr. Daniel Turp: There is always translation. Even if the Official Languages Act was passed in 1968, there are people in Ottawa who still don't speak both official languages.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: Professor Winham is not bilingual, but he is a renowned expert.

The Chairman: You have made some good observations.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: The Chairman appears to share our opinion and our concerns and will pay closer attention to that in the future.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I would like to remind you, Mr. Chairman, that some time ago I had proposed using the services of a young bilingual Quebec woman who has just defended her Ph.D. thesis in this area and who is available. That would perhaps be a way of ensuring that there is a linguistic balance in the choice of academics.

The Chairman: Yes, but that person's expertise is specifically in the area of international trade law.

Mr. Daniel Turp: And financial institutions.

The Chairman: Yes, but Daniel Dupras, our lawyer, works more or less in the same field. There would be duplication. I am not saying that we will never retain her services, but Daniel is already here and he will support us for the duration of the study. He already works at the Library of Parliament and it would be difficult for us to justify additional expenditures to hire another person in the same field. I agree that she is a very competent person, and we can come back to that.

Mr. Daniel Turp: We should not get caught up in the fact that hiring people from outside Ottawa can cause some logistical problems. When we look outside Ottawa, and more specifically in Quebec, we have better chances of finding bilingual people, who are able to work in both French and English.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I am sure that Mr. Patry is also of this opinion.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes, 100 percent. We must also take into account the availability of the best candidates.

Mr. Daniel Turp: You should not be worried. She is one of my former students and a good federalist. She ran as a candidate for the Liberal Party in Quebec in the election.

Ms. Sheila Finestone: What is her name?

Mr. Daniel Turp: Ms. Athena F. Ryan.

The Chairman: Mr. Turp, we are very much aware of the issue and I invite you to give us the names of the candidates you feel are competent. Like you, I have taught a bit in this field, which is quite recent in Canada and in Quebec and for which there are not a huge number of experts.

Mr. Daniel Turp: There are not many bilingual experts.

The Chairman: No, and they are always the same: Ivan Bernier, Jean Castel, etc. You know who they are.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Bernier could very well do the work requested of Mr. Hines, but unfortunately he is unavailable.

The Chairman: It is not easy to retain Mr. Bernier's services. I have often spoken to him at length.

Mr. Daniel Turp: In any case, let us go on to something else.

The Chairman: All right. Let us go on to something else.

[English]

There will be two briefing sessions from the department next week. That's good. We'll get the thing going.

Next, the subcommittee has been charged with free trade to the Americas.

Then we move to item 12. The request is that we seek budget authorization from the subcommittee for $15,000 to allow Ms. Bulte, the chair of the subcommittee, and two opposition members to attend the Canadian businesswomen's trade mission in Los Angeles.

• 1205

We had a long discussion about that at the subcommittee meeting, and we considered all angles. The subcommittee felt this was worth doing.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, with respect, this wasn't the motion the subcommittee agreed to. The subcommittee in fact stated that we would approach the foreign affairs ministry and urge them to fund this particular delegation. Should they not fund the delegation, the committee then would look at the request. That's what we passed.

So this is not what we passed.

The Chairman: Okay, sorry.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, I agree.

The Chairman: I also agree.

[English]

No, we are going to the ministry, but what we needed was a motion. If we get a turndown from the ministry, we're not going to be able to have another meeting to discuss this issue. It will be March whenever, and it will be gone, so what I need is an authorization.

If we agreed that, as a backup, if the ministry says no—

Mr. Svend Robinson: But the motion should reflect that, and it doesn't.

The Chairman: Yes, that's right. The chair is to first approach the ministry, and only if they refuse is it a backup. I agree with you. It should read that way. It will be amended to reflect that.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: With reservations.

The Chairman: Yes, with reservations.

[English]

Apart from that, could I have approval?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Now, item 13, human rights; this was Mr. Robinson's suggestion as well.

Maybe you would like to speak to this.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, there's no need to speak at any length. This has been one of the most useful visits by the subcommittee in previous years. I think Ms. Beaumier would agree that the opportunity to meet with Canadian NGOs at the commission as well as to be briefed on our activities at the commission has been excellent. It's been done in previous years. I think it's well worthwhile.

The Chairman: What are the dates of that? Do you happen to know them?

Mr. Svend Robinson: The commission itself meets from around the end of March until May, or something like that, but for those who participated—and a number of people around the table have—it's a working delegation that goes usually in April.

The Chairman: So you don't go during a parliamentary break. You go when Parliament is sitting.

Mr. Svend Robinson: It depends. There have been different times.

The Chairman: May I suggest that for this item we do the same as we did in item 12, in the sense that I go to the ministry? Because I think the object of this was to have the ministry pay. If for some reason they say they're not going to, maybe we should consider sending a parliamentary one, and do the same thing as we did in 12—namely, let's prepare a budget and see if we can get approval.

Would that be all right?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Okay. Let's have a backup plan. I think that's important, I agree with you. Who knows; their budget is pretty tight over there in the department these days.

So those are the items on the agenda.

Then we have two new items. Mr. Turp has submitted in writing a request. You all have it in front of you.

Mr. Svend Robinson: When was it circulated, sir?

[Translation]

I just received a copy of it. I hope that this is only a notice and that we will not be studying this matter today.

Mr. Daniel Turp: The members of the Bloc Québécois would be ready.

[English]

Mr. Svend Robinson: I assume you're giving us notice of this. It's not being voted on now.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I just wanted to present it to you.

The Chairman: We're not going to get it done this spring, given the other things anyway, but let's talk about it. We've gone over our time now, but maybe we could talk about it at another meeting. It's certainly worthwhile—

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: I'd like to make a presentation to you about this matter and I would like to have a vote on it at a later meeting.

The Chairman: Agreed.

Mr. Daniel Turp: This question has been debated and discussed during the past weeks and months, and I think it should concern our committee. This is an opportunity to form a North-American or even a Pan-American monetary union. The idea is supported by a declaration by Raymond Chrétien, who is involved in foreign affairs; he is Canada's Ambassador in Washington.

• 1210

In January 1999, Mr. Chrétien said that if the euro was successful, we should start thinking about setting up a common North-American currency. Argentina also said that this was a relevant matter. Of course, Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Martin do not seem to find this matter either interesting or useful, and would rather not discuss it at this time.

You are aware of Mr. Landry's position. Our colleagues Richard Marceau and Yvan Loubier have studied this matter and will be tabling a motion before the House so that the House may deal with it.

The Chairman: I do not know what Mr. Landry's position is. Has he officially declared himself in favour of the idea?

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Landry considers that the time has come to study the matter. Hence, I think that it would be very useful for our committee to take a look at it. This is not merely a partisan matter nor is it an issue involving Quebec's sovereignty, it is really an issue that concerns the whole American continent.

Our chairman, who knows community law, as well as international and commercial law, may feel that it would be appropriate to get a head start rather than wait for this to become an urgent issue before we begin studying it.

I would like you to reflect on this issue, especially as the Sub-committee on International Trade will be working on the American free trade area. No doubt, a debate will be launched in that forum about the idea of a common currency. I think the Committee for External Affairs Committee could be a trailblazer and take the lead regarding this issue.

The Chairman: Very well.

[English]

Mr. Speller.

We'll come back to this discussion.

Mr. Bob Speller: Okay.

I have a couple of points in terms of the protocol involved in bringing these forward. I mean, we have a steering committee that's responsible for looking at the future business of the committee. My understanding was that this Standing Order was there, to be used in situations where there was an important issue of immediate concern for which we didn't have time to get our whole steering committee together.

But this is a long-term type of study that I think would be more appropriately looked at by a finance committee than our committee, and that really should go to the steering committee first to be talked about before being brought to this committee. If we're going to spend all our time in this committee, first of all having a steering committee and then having people bring in other things on the side, that's all we're going to be doing.

So I would say this would be more appropriate in another committee, first of all. Second, let's set up some sort of protocol under which we deal with deal with these Standing Order requests.

The Chairman: We're not going to make a decision on this today, anyway, so we'll end up discussing it in the steering committee.

Mr. Robinson, and then I'd like to move on.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Could I just get a clarification from the clerk?

What does Standing Order 108(2)(e) actually state?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: This is a motion.

[English]

The Chairman: Our committee rule is that we give 48 hours' notice.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Does the clerk not have the Standing Order?

The Clerk: No, I don't have it with me.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And you don't know what it is?

The Clerk: I know 108(2) is about the mandate. There is no such thing as 108(2)(e).

[Translation]

Which paragraph are you referring to?

[English]

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm just a little bit curious, because I wasn't aware of a Standing Order that said a member of the committee could... I believe there's a Standing Order that says four members of the committee can propose business.

Maybe we can get some clarification on this.

The Chairman: We'll have a look at whether this Standing Order exists, actually, to be honest with you.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I just wanted to clarify that.

The Chairman: That's why Mr...[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...is a highly paid lawyer. He can invent Standing Orders when they aren't there.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: We'll just have to invent a paragraph because, as our clerk has confirmed, paragraph 108(2) does seem to exist.

[English]

The Chairman: When the clerk forgets to bring the Standing Orders in with him, it's not helpful.

Mr. Svend Robinson: The clerk usually does.

• 1215

The Chairman: He'll have them next time, don't worry.

[Translation]

Would the clerk have anything further to add?

The Clerk: Although there is no such rule in the Standing Orders, a motion tabled before a committee requires 48 hours' notice.

[English]

The Chairman: No, that's right.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: In light of what Mr. Speller said, I would add that my colleague Yvan Loubier will table a similar motion before the Finance Committee. This issue will stir their interest, and I think that my colleagues in this committee will also want to debate it as it involves both foreign policy and trade policy.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. We'll come back to this one. It's a very interesting issue.

I'd like to give a notice of information for members. When I was in Washington, I did meet with Mr. Gilman, chairman of the foreign relations committee of the House of Representatives. He's very interested in issues involving the drug trade in America and how we deal with it.

I would like to have your permission to invite him to come to Ottawa, and if he did, to appear either before or with our committee. I think it would be a very good opportunity to build bridges.

Mr. Penson was making the point that it's hard to get to see people. If we could get someone of Mr. Gilman's eminence to come to Ottawa and meet with our committee, I think it would be very helpful to us. I have spoken to him. I told him I would like to ask him, and he seemed to be positively disposed to doing that. So maybe we could get him to come.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I think it's an excellent idea, but I wouldn't want to restrict the agenda with him to just drug trafficking.

The Chairman: Oh, no, I'm sure if we got him here we could open it up.

Mr. Svend Robinson: There is Helms-Burton and a number of other things.

The Chairman: Yes, sure. Exactly. At Canada-U.S., we discuss Helms-Burton every time. That's right. Don't worry. We could open it up.

Thank you very much. I'll send him a formal invitation, then.

Thank you, members. We're adjourned.