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]

Tuesday, February 20, 2001

• 1108

[Translation]

Committee Clerk: Committee members.

[English]

I see a quorum.

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(1) and (2), your first item of business is to elect a chair. I'm ready to receive motions to that effect.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): I move that Mr. Bill Graham be elected as chair of the committee.

The Clerk: Mr. Patry moves that Mr. Graham be elected as the chair of the committee.

(The motion is carried)

[English]

The Clerk: I would invite Mr. Graham to take the chair.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): Thank you very much for your confidence in electing me chair. I apologize for being late. I was told there was going to be a big wrangle about who would be chair, and I was embarrassed to come, so I came late.

An hon. member: We're all behind you.

[Translation]

The Chair: This morning Ms. Lalonde told me that there would be all kinds of problems. She suggested that I stay away for a bit so that people could calm down.

[English]

Colleagues, our next order of business is the election of the two vice-chairs. Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): I nominate Madame Colleen Beaumier as vice-chair.

The Clerk: In absentia.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: No, she's here.

The Clerk: Oh, I'm sorry.

The Chair: Madame Beaumier, in her usual modest way, is sitting at the back of the room.

That nomination would be for the first vice-chair. Do I hear any other nominations for first vice-chair?

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): I would like to nominate Monte Solberg.

The Chair: For vice-chair as well.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Exactly.

The Chair: May I suggest, Mr. Lunn, that we have one election for the first vice-chair and then a second election, if that would be all right, so that we don't end up running against one another.

Colleagues, not hearing any other nominations for vice-chair, I take it that Madame Beaumier is elected vice-chair.

• 1110

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Congratulations, Madame Beaumier.

Can I have nominations for second vice-chair? Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I nominate Mr. Solberg.

The Chair: As there are no other nominations, I'm quite happy to announce that Mr. Solberg is elected vice-chair.

Congratulations, Mr. Solberg. In this committee you're allowed to get elected, but you're not allowed to give speeches.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Colleagues, the next item of business is to adopt the routine motions. I hope all of you have them before you. These are exactly the same as we have adopted in previous years.

The first is the composition of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. I think we should adopt these one by one, which is the normal practice. The first is that all parties be represented on the agenda and procedure committee.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The next is the usual motion on the retaining of research officers.

[Translation]

(The motion is carried)

The Chair: It is moved that the quorum for the hearing of witnesses be three people, as was the case in previous years.

(The motion is carried)

The Chair: We will now deal with the amount of time allowed for statements and the questioning of witnesses. This applies to the usual government witnesses, ministers and the others. We are much less formal when it comes to the other witnesses.

[English]

Just so everybody understands, the resolution for witnesses is really for when we have ministers and government members. Normally, if we're having a panel, we're much more relaxed. This is to make sure everybody gets a crack at government spokespeople when they come, usually ministers.

Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: We went through this at length in a couple of committees I've been on, Mr. Chair. I know in the fisheries committee, when my honourable colleague across from me was the chair, we actually had a set rotation where we decided on the times for the parties, and then it was up to the parties to decide who were the questioners, or up to the chair. But pretty much the parties would agree who would be the speaker on which rotation. Obviously, we have to take into consideration the number of members each party elected when discussing the amount of time. I have the procedure we used at the fisheries committee, which we could put forward.

When you say alternate between the people, do you go through the four Alliance members before you get to the other parties? How do you do that?

The Chair: No. What I have done in the past, particularly for, say, a minister, if we did all opposition parties for 10 minutes each—

Mr. Gary Lunn: No, alternate back and forth.

The Chair: —you'd have 40.

We have followed the precedent of the defence committee. This is for a minister or a government witness where we're practising the formal thing, as opposed to when we're having a panel, etc. Normally, I would go to the official opposition, the Bloc, a government member, the Conservative Party, and then the New Democratic Party—

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Not in that order.

The Chair: —sorry, the New Democratic Party and then the Conservative Party—then to a government member, back to an Alliance member, and then to a government member, and then back and forth. At that point it's five minutes.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I'd like to put forward a proposal. This is what we had at the fisheries committee. I'll just read it out so that you can take note. To start, the Canadian Alliance had a ten-minute round, then the Bloc had a ten-minute round, and then the Liberal Party had a ten-minute round.

The Chair: So far it's the same as what I proposed.

• 1115

Mr. Gary Lunn: And then we came back to five-minute rounds, back to the Alliance—let me just finish, Mr. Chair—the Alliance with five, the government with five, the NDP with five, the government with five, the Tories with five, the government with five, the Canadian Alliance with five.

Mr. Chairman, if you look at the number of minutes we have.... I appreciate some of our colleagues at the end would be opposed to that, but you have to recognize that we do have 66 seats as the Canadian Alliance, and they have 12. This would give us exactly 50% of the opposition time. There has to be some consideration of that in fairness. We do have four members here. They have one.

We did that on the fisheries committee.

The Chair: You managed to skip the Bloc entirely.

Mr. Gary Lunn: No, no, no.

The Chair: They've got some folks here too. They're looking a little unhappy.

Mr. Gary Lunn: It gives the Canadian Alliance twenty minutes, with ours at the end.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Gary Lunn: It gives the Bloc ten, and it gives the Tories and the NDP five, and the government thirty. I do think it's important that we resolve the issue.

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Ask the question. Let's vote on it.

An hon. member: Couldn't we just talk about it at least?

The Chair: We're trying to be fair. I appreciate that. But I think you've got to understand one thing—I'm sure Mr. Obhrai will speak to this—because you haven't sat on this committee before. I try to make sure there's a bit of a flow to this thing. I'm not trying to keep everybody to their twenty seconds, or we'll go crazy. I don't see myself as a timekeeper. I try to make sure everybody is getting a fair crack and we have a flow. So I don't want to have too rigid a system. I've heard your observation.

Dr. Patry and then Mr. Robinson.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chairman, in answer to Mr. Lunn, I would say that we work in a much more congenial fashion here.

[English]

We'll work together, okay?

If you want to go to fixed periods of ten minutes like this, I will tell you one thing: you're going to be the loser. Most of the time in this committee the chair is very respectful to all of the people. You're the first one to ask questions, and it lasts much more than ten minutes. Sometimes it lasts twelve, fourteen, fifteen minutes, because you're leading over there, and at that time I think it's not fair for the other parties.

It has always worked very well for the past seven or eight years. We didn't have any problems. I think we could stick with the resolution itself. If he's going to go with the clock, then I say it's not fair. I think we should stick to it as it is right now. It's not DFO, and we always worked together. You should try it as it is. I think it's going to work.

Very often you're asking for more time, because what's happened.... If it's not a minister, sometimes we're just four or five people. Sometimes we have a problem just to get a quorum of three or four, and nobody wants to ask questions. In those circumstances we've got more time. It's a question that needs to be the responsibility of the particular chair.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I understand.

The Chair: Mr. Lunn, respond briefly, please.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, I think there is a speaking order. He can respond, Mr. Chairman, when he has the opportunity.

The Chair: Why don't we let him respond to that issue, and then I'll get to you—okay? Just respond to that.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I just want to respond that I absolutely agree with you. We absolutely want to cooperate. The fisheries committee worked incredibly well. We used to say, “Listen, this is a really important issue for the member from Halifax”, and we used to just give them all of the time. So it was quite flexible. But at the same time, the point we are trying to make is that we do have four members on the committee, and we want to ensure it's not just one member who is given an opportunity.

The Chair: I understand what you're saying. So it is Mr. Robinson's turn.

What I take from what you're saying is that you feel because you've got four members and they've got four members as well, you should be getting half of the opposition time. That is basically the formula you're looking for.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Roughly.

The Chair: Yes, I understand that. Okay.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I want to pick up on a point Mr. Patry made, that in fact we have had for some time in this committee a system that works relatively well. Mr. Lunn, I appreciate, is new to the committee. He talks about the way in which the fisheries committee works. The fact of the matter is that our member of that committee has voiced concern about the way the questioning proceeds there, as I assume Mr. Lunn is aware.

Frankly, it's ludicrous to suggest that if we have an important witness, for example a minister, who's appearing before the committee on his or her estimates, somehow Mr. Casey and myself would have five minutes, by the grace and generosity of the official opposition, to question a minister. This proposal is totally unacceptable.

• 1120

The chair has been on the committee for some time, and I've been on the committee off and on for almost 20 years. The chair will know that in fact the initial round used to be 15 minutes. It was then cut down to 10 minutes, and we went from person to person down the table. Then that was changed, and we went over to the Liberals in recognition of the changes there. But, Mr. Chairman, to go beyond that and to suggest that somehow we then be cut down to five minutes would be quite unacceptable. I would hope that members of this committee would reject that proposal and accept the proposal that's on the table.

The Chair: On my list I have Mr. Casey, Madame Lalonde, and Mr. Obhrai. Mr. Casey, sir.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): I certainly take objection to the order that has been proposed by the Alliance member. I'd like to point out that there's only one member on this committee from all of the three maritime provinces, and that's me. That's 30% of the provinces. To give us five questions at the end of the second cycle, or whatever it was he proposed, is not acceptable. We may as well not be here, unless we have the original order we had, which has been the precedent all along.

The Chair: Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): I would like to add to what Mr. Patry and Mr. Robinson were saying. Given that the members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade work, as they said, in a relatively congenial fashion—and this is understandable, because the issues go well beyond the particular interests of a party—I have often seen it operate without all of the members in attendance. Indeed, its existence and its work truly depend on everybody's co-operation.

Moreover, the Conservative Party and the NDP are recognized parties. What would happen if they were not recognized parties and they were added on? I believe we owe the members from these parties a modicum of respect. As far as I know, the Canadian Alliance has never been deprived of the opportunity to speak; it is rather the opposite that occurs. The chair has always been generous and I would say that the committee is always accommodating when somebody is really intent upon saying something. There are four people and, by the way, I hope that the quorum will be composed of four people, when it is needed, for each period. The committee has nothing to gain by agreeing to Mr. Lunn's suggestion and I even think that the Alliance, in the long run, would lose out.

[English]

The Chair: Next is Mr. Obhrai, followed by Mr. Harvard. Then I think we'll cut it off and move on. Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Congratulations on being elected.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I was on the last committee, and of course I think this is one of the most congenial committees we have ever had. I think we all worked together, and there was cooperation. I can say you were pretty fair as well. So I don't really see that much is going to happen.

However, in reference to what my colleague from the Tories said, that he's from an Atlantic province and an area that represents 30%, the fact of the matter remains that it's the Canadian people who made that choice and who elected the Alliance in the official opposition capacity. What happened prior to that was a different issue because they had more members. But we have to respect what the Canadian people said. The Alliance and the Tories could have had some members from other regions, so I don't think that regional issue he brought up, which was totally wrong....

At the end of the day I do recognize that we all have to work cooperatively, and I think we can come to a better solution. But the fact remains that there has to be a recognition of what came out of the general election.

• 1125

The Chair: Mr. Harvard, can I just cede your place to Mr. Lunn, who I think wants to make a statement that may resolve the issue?

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Yes.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I understand that everybody wants to work in a cooperative manner, and I totally respect that. I ask for the discretion of the chair. What we're really talking about is that you recognize the opposition as members as opposed to parties, as you do the government. You don't treat it as five parties. You alternate back and forth. But you treat us, with some discretion, as the membership of the committee as opposed to the makeup of the parties.

The Chair: I've usually done that.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Exactly, but there are a few committees that didn't. We were instructed by our whip to bring this issue forward because in some committees they were recognized as opposition parties. We would like the chair to recognize the members as opposed to the parties. Quite often we would have two or three members who would go, but of course only one member would get recognized, and then they'd go to the parties, just as you want to recognize four or five. That's the only point I was trying to make.

The Chair: We have always treated every member here as a member and—

Mr. Gary Lunn: Each member having an opportunity to speak.

The Chair: Yes, we definitely try to do that.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Fair enough. That's the point I was trying to make, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Okay, that's your point.

Mr. Harvard, did you want to speak briefly, or does that solve your problem?

Mr. John Harvard: I don't know whether Mr. Lunn is withdrawing his suggestion then. Is he?

The Chair: Yes, I think he's—

Mr. Gary Lunn: Yes. I'm saying at the discretion of the chair and that we're looking—

The Chair: I think he's making a point.

Mr. John Harvard: The only thing I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that I think it's important for all of us to work as committee members and that there be a great sense of participation. I think it's important that the New Democratic members and the Tory members get involved in discussions as early as possible. I think that's why the current formula works best.

The only thing I would add to that is as a member who has served as chairman of other committees for several years, while I don't think it's right to hold members in their questioning to the absolute second, if Dr. Patry is right in suggesting the chairman allow a spillover of three and four and five minutes, that would not make me happy because I don't think that's fair to the people at the end of the line. I don't expect you to hammer this committee when the 10-minute mark is reached, but 14 or 15 is a bit much.

The Chair: I take that as a warning, but I think you'll find that quite often our meetings here are not just meetings with ministers and of political importance, but rather information sessions. We're all interested in getting information from panellists, and that's where we allow a little more give and take, as opposed to on the highly politicized things.

But I think Mr. Lunn has made his point.

Could I now put the question on this resolution as he put it? Those in favour of the—sorry.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): I would simply like to make a clarification, Mr. Chairman. Earlier, Mr. Casey indicated that he was the lone representative for the Maritime provinces. However, when I turned around, I saw George Baker who is, as well, one of the members of the committee. I would like to make this clarification, if I understood correctly.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey: Newfoundland is not a member of the maritime provinces, and that's perhaps a problem here. But it's even worse than that because there is nobody from Atlantic Canada on the opposition side at all other than me. Mr. Obhrai suggested that wasn't a legitimate argument.

The Chair: I don't know why we're getting into this in connection with this motion. I didn't know that Mr. Baker had divorced himself from the cold and the fog of Newfoundland, which is all by itself.

Mr. Bill Casey: The fact is that Newfoundland is not part of the maritime provinces.

The Chair: Very well.

Mr. Bill Casey: But I want to make a point on what Mr. Lunn said. He said we should treat all members as members and not as parties, which means we'd all be treated equally. But then he wants us to have only five minutes and he wants to have ten minutes, so he's trying to come and go at the same time.

Mr. Gary Lunn: No, I withdrew that.

The Chair: He has withdrawn that.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The next item is witness expenses. I take it there's no problem with that one.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Is there a problem with the item on working lunches? No.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The next item is visiting delegations. For the information of those colleagues who are on the committee for the first time, we get quite a few visiting delegations, including foreign ministers and other parliamentarians. In order to reduce the workload of that, we just divide the committee into an A and B team, and we'll say today it's the A team's turn and tomorrow it's the B team's turn. But anybody is entitled to come, if you feel like it. If a delegation you're interested in is coming, come. This is a nice, simple way of cutting the workload down a bit for visiting delegations. If that's all right, we'll leave that as is.

• 1130

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Gifts for foreign delegations: we find that they always bring us something, so it's nice to give them a book on Parliament or something like that. Any gifts we buy come from the parliamentary gift shop downstairs. It's nothing expensive.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The next one is 24-hour notice. This is what the committee operated under before. Shall we go to 48? Would it be better to go to 48? No? Okay, 24.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The creation of a subcommittee on human rights and international development....

Mr. Svend Robinson: On this motion, certainly there's no problem in agreeing to create this subcommittee, but perhaps the subcommittee would then elect its own chair. I believe that has been the practice in the past.

The Chair: No, the practice in the past has been for us to elect the chair. I would propose that we elect Madam Phinney as the chair of that committee and Mr. Harb as chair of the trade subcommittee. In the motion, we specify the chair and then the whips specify the other members of the committee. We don't have to specify them; this just specifies the numbers. In past practice, it has been for us to elect the chair. I would put forward the name of Ms. Phinney to fill in the chair.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for Ms. Phinney, but that has not always been the practice. It may have been the practice in the last Parliament, but certainly that hasn't always been the practice. Subcommittees could indeed elect their own chair, Mr. Chairman.

I would point out as well that this would also allow for members who are associate members of this committee and who may be sitting on the subcommittee but are not members of the committee itself to seek the possibility of being elected as chair. Again, I emphasize that this is no reflection at all on Ms. Phinney. I suggest that the committee do, in fact, have the opportunity to elect its own chair, if that meets with the approval of the committee.

The Chair: Okay. Did somebody else want to speak to that? Mr. Solberg.

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): It was not on that point exactly. It was on the composition of the subcommittee, the numbers.

The Chair: Okay, why don't you speak to that at the same time.

Mr. Monte Solberg: I just wanted to argue that perhaps we should look at having ten members on there and five from the opposition. Of course, we propose that perhaps we get some recognition in the subcommittee on the fact that we have greater numbers.

Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): We're not there yet.

I'd like to move that Ms. Phinney be the chair of the subcommittee. Can I do that?

The Chair: Yes. Do you want to split this then into two, and deal with numbers separately, or just deal with it all at once? You're moving that the motion read as it is, with the name of Ms. Phinney put in for the chair?

Mr. Gary Lunn: Are you dealing with both at the same time?

The Chair: Yes. The second subcommittee we'll deal with separately, the trade subcommittee.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Okay.

The Chair: Now, however, before I put this motion, obviously Mr. Robinson would prefer that Ms. Phinney not be named at this point but be elected by the members. However, she's been nominated and that's before us. As I understand it, Mr. Solberg is proposing that the subcommittee be composed of ten members, of whom five would be government and five would be opposition. Do I understand you correctly?

Mr. Monte Solberg: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Harvard, do you want to speak to that issue?

Mr. John Harvard: I would simply say that an even number of ten is not workable. I think you have to have an odd number so that the subcommittee in this case can reach a decision. And I think the governing party should have the majority, plain and simple.

The Chair: Okay. It's very hard to get members to come to the subcommittees. We all have a hard-working schedule and I think if we make it more than nine you're running the risk of it becoming a problem. I think nine is quite a few.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Procedurally, are we now on an amendment by the Canadian Alliance with respect to the number? Where are we procedurally?

The Chair: I don't know whether that amendment is being withdrawn.

Mr. Solberg, you are discussing that amendment. Do you want to hold to that, or do you want to recognize the fact that there has to be a majority for the government members, so you have to change the numbers?

Mr. Monte Solberg: We all vote freely on these things, so it doesn't matter.

• 1135

I can see the point.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Nine is fine. If you reduce it to seven, there are four parties here....

Mr. Monte Solberg: You can't reduce it to seven.

Mr. Gary Lunn: You have to have it at nine.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Leave it as is.

The Chair: So that's withdrawn. For those in favour of the motion as proposed—

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, does the motion as proposed include the specific reference to Ms. Phinney as chair?

The Chair: It does at the moment, yes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to suggest that the subcommittee be chaired by Irwin Cotler.

Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): I decline.

The Chair: That resolves that problem. You can't be nominated if you won't stand.

Mr. Svend Robinson: This is true.

The Clerk: Has Mr. Robinson withdrawn his proposal that the chair be elected?

The Chair: No, but I think if we adopt the motion as it is then Mr. Robinson's motion will be defeated.

Let me make it clear, colleagues, that I'm going to call the motion as it is but those who want to adopt Mr. Robinson's position obviously would vote against it on the grounds that they want to leave it blank.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Congratulations. Ms. Phinney is going to be the chair of our subcommittee.

And then the second subcommittee obviously is international trade and trade disputes and investment. The same issue—

An hon. member: Mac Harb.

The Chair: Yes. You would move that Mr. Harb's name be put in as the chair. Okay. And he is an associate member. Mr. Harb and Ms. Phinney are both associate members of the committee.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Okay. Those are all the procedural motions.

Colleagues, let me leave you with a couple of suggestions. Obviously we have to turn our attention to future business. I propose that we have a meeting of the steering committee a week from today to discuss that.

May I leave some thoughts with everybody? First, we have to decide whether we're going to complete the study we started on the Caucasus and central Asia. Some of you were not here, but you'll recall that a group of us went to central Asia and the Caucasus. Madam Marleau is nodding because she had the most exciting part of the trip. She was off gallivanting about the steppes of central Asia with various attractive political people. I would be in favour of completing that study, but the steering committee should reflect on that and the parties should reflect on what position they want to take.

Madame Lalonde, did you want to speak to that at this point?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes. If I may, I too would like to make a few comments. I attended the last Council of Europe meeting, when Azerbaijan and Armenia were given full membership status. Georgia is already a full member. Consequently, it seems to me that our work pertaining to the South Caucasus would result in nothing new.

As for our opinion on corruption, for example, the Council of Europe has requirements that are relatively clear and we are now trying to help these countries. Given that time has gone by and that things have changed quickly, I do not think that it would still be worthwhile to produce this report. However, I have no thoughts on Asia.

The Chair: Fine. We discussed the matter at the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure.

• 1140

[English]

You all know we should be getting what I call the water export bill, Bill C-6, although I'm advised that it will not be coming until after the March break. But obviously, as legislation, it gets precedence.

You may wish to provide suggestions for the committee to discuss. Mr. Robinson, I think you wrote a letter to us with some suggestions.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'll bring it to the steering committee meeting.

The Chair: You'll bring it to the steering committee.

Mr. Solberg, I think your suggestion was China.

Mr. Monte Solberg: I have an updated letter for you now.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Lalonde moved that the Quebec Summit and...

Ms. Francine Lalonde: The FTZA, the Free Trade Zone of the Americas.

The Chair: ... the Free Trade Zone of the Americas be discussed at one or more committee meetings, before the Quebec Summit. This morning, I had a discussion with Mr. O'Brien and he told me that he was quite prepared to ask Mr. Pettigrew to come and talk to us about the Summit of the Americas. We will, therefore, see whether or not we can organize something around that. Is that all right?

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Our work will not be limited to listening to Mr. Pettigrew, if I understand correctly, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: No, providing that you yourself bring the text, Ms. Lalonde.

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): That will not be long in coming.

The Chair: If you have any friends in the American Congress, you will probably find that the Congressmen have copies.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: As you can see, we are following the matter closely.

[English]

The Chair: So those are the only ones on the table at the moment. But, colleagues, advise the other members of the steering committee if you have specific issues. We will look at them.

Before we break, may I leave you a bit of propaganda for the Interparliamentary Forum of the Americas, which will take place here during the week of the March break. I have sent information about it to each one of your whips.

Parliamentarians from all of the OAS countries have been invited to come, as a result of a previous meeting we held in Washington, to establish what will be called the Interparliamentary Forum of the Americas, which will be associated with the OAS. Mr. Williamson from your party has been actively engaged in it. Some other parties have looked a little less favourably upon it, but it's certainly an idea we're all working on.

At the moment I think we have about twenty of the member countries committed to coming. I think it will be an interesting series. It will be the Thursday and Friday of the week of the break. We will have the opportunity to meet our colleagues from other countries in the Americas.

The object of the meeting will be to establish the forum and then to adopt resolutions or recommendations that will be passed on to the summit to take place in Quebec City.

I am hoping you will speak to your whips, and I hope some of you will be interested and able to attend that meeting, because I think it will give us an opportunity to exchange with our colleagues throughout the Americas some very interesting.... It's a great opportunity to meet with our colleagues in the Americas.

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde followed by Mr. Robinson.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would have liked to have known, before the meeting, that parliamentarians from all the parties of each country had been invited, because it seems to me that parliamentarians from other countries were invited before we were. Secondly, how many parliamentarians and how many countries are you going to be paying for?

The Chair: I cannot answer that question at the moment, the JIC doesn't have a huge budget. Last year, the joint committee established a $250,000 budget for the meeting. There was no provision made for funds to pay people to come. There was, however, a provision to pay for the expenditures of the people here.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: But will the Interparliamentary Forum of the Americas pay for the expenditures here?

• 1145

The Chair: They will be paid by the Canadian Parliament, but the travel expenses of participants will be paid by the countries concerned. There may be some countries that don't have enough money and they will have to submit a request to the OAS to obtain additional funding. The organization works a bit like that. I can talk to you about the matter after, if you would like, but I don't have specific information because I have not yet received a response from all of the countries and therefore I do not know who is coming and who is not.

[English]

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the information about the Interparliamentary Forum of the Americas, even at this late date. Obviously, there have been some informal discussions. I wonder if the chair, as, so I understand it, one of the key movers in this inaugural meeting of the forum, could indicate why it was decided to exclude Cuba. Cuba was involved.

[Translation]

Cuba was in Quebec City, I believe, for the COPA.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask why it was decided that elected representatives from Cuba would not be included. In fact it is, I understand, the only assembly not invited to attend this forum.

The Chair: This is an issue. There are several complexities. The first is that the “FIPA”, if you like, doesn't exist at this time; there is no such thing. It will exist once this inaugural meeting has taken place to create it. So there is no Interparliamentary Forum of the Americas.

There is a resolution by the OAS ministers that a parliamentary arm to the OAS should be created, and there is a resolution of representatives of some 28 countries who came to Washington last year saying, yes, we should create the Interparliamentary Forum of the Americas. An executive committee was created as a result of that, on which I sit with Céline Hervieux-Payette, a representative from Colombia, from Grenada, from Costa Rica, from the United States, and from Chile.

We have been meeting, trying to get together draft rules of order, constitution, all sorts of things, all of which will be put to the group when they come here. So there is no FIPA yet, if you like. Nobody has been included or excluded until we exist.

The reason, as I understand it, why parliamentarians from Cuba were not involved in the original discussion is that Cuba is not presently an active member of the OAS, because it's not a democratically elected government, and this is for democratically elected governments. Once Cuba has a democratically elected government and members, I don't think there will be any problem about including it. That's my understanding. I'm not prejudging this case, I'm just giving you information. That's the information I have.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, you've indicated that this is a founding meeting of this organization. So the question is then, of course, why representatives from Cuba would not have been invited to the founding meeting. We're presumably not restricted to countries that are members of the OAS. The representatives from Cuba certainly could have been invited, just as they were invited to COPA.

The Chair: Yes. They could have been, but this was basically an initiative concerning the OAS. Cuba is presently not a member in good standing of the OAS, because is it not a democratically elected government. I'm just giving you what happened. I don't know if it was a conscious decision.

But I'm sure, Mr. Robinson, once the meeting is up and running, the appropriateness of the membership of Cuba is an issue one could well discuss. Why not? It will be open to discuss anything.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Did I understand correctly that it was the OAS which, in the end, asked to have a type of parliamentary arm?

The Chair: That's right.

Mr. Denis Paradis: That's where it all started.

The Chair: That's right.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Cuba is not part of the OAS, and that's perhaps the reason why it is not...

The Chair: Yes, I understand the situation, Cuba is a member of the OAS, but it is not a member in good standing, so to speak. Cuba is a lapsed member, to some extent. This is why Cuba's parliamentarians have not been invited either. For the time being, although Cuba is part of the OAS, it is not carrying out its duties because of its undemocratic regime. This is why Cuba was not included.

• 1150

[English]

Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I have another point, Mr. Chairman, if I may.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have a comment. It's touching to see OAS's great commitment to democracy. For many, many years there were member countries of the OAS that were in fact brutal military dictatorships, so this seems to be a rather recent standard.

The Chair: Bring that up with Mr. Gaviria when he comes here or with somebody else. Don't tell me—or tell me if you like, but there's nothing I can do about it.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: To take advantage of the meeting, I have a quick commercial. You should all have received several invitations to a farewell reception in honour of Ireland's ambassador to Canada, Paul Dempsey. It is today from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. in Room 238-S, the Commonwealth Room. Please encourage members of your party to attend, and whether or not they are members of the great Canada-Ireland Inter-Parliamentary Friendship Group doesn't matter. New members are welcome, of course, but all parliamentarians are welcome to drop by and say farewell to a gentleman who has truly been a great friend to Canada while in the service of his country. Please encourage colleagues to come out.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Will there be Irish whiskey there?

Mr. Pat O'Brien: There'll be Irish whiskey.

The Chair: Will there be Guinness?

Mr. Pat O'Brien: There'll be two bottles of Guinness for you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: On that note, I think we will call this meeting to an end. We always end on a note of alcohol of one kind or another.

We're adjourned until next week.