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, May 29, 2001

• 1532

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): Colleagues, I'd like to call this meeting of the committee to order.

Since this meeting will be televised and it is unusual to televise clause-by-clause meetings, perhaps you'll permit me to give a short introduction for the public who are watching as to what we're doing, so they can understand the process we're engaged in.

This is our final proceeding re Bill C-6, an act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. This is clause-by-clause, whereby the committee considers each clause of the bill and either adopts it as presented or amends it to be sent back to the House for third reading.

This committee has had five hearings and has heard a wide range of opinions from Canadians about the importance of this legislation, which establishes boundary waters as an environmental resource that cannot be removed from the drainage basin in which it is found. Control over water in Canada is a shared jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments.

This bill is only part, but an essential part, of a three-pronged strategy of the federal government to work with the provinces to prevent the export of bulk water from Canada.

[Translation]

The government representatives tell us that most of the provinces and territories have passed the required legislation to implement the agreement to the whole of Canada. So, we now have to do our share at the federal level.

[English]

After we've completed clause-by-clause, if time permits, Mr. Obhrai has a motion that he would like to present to us concerning the actions of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and I think we'll probably have time to do that.

• 1535

Colleagues, before I go to clause-by-clause, I want to draw your attention to the representations of the Tlingit First Nation. You will have received from the committee representations from this important group of first nations located in northern British Columbia. They were received late, and therefore we are not able to have had their representations in person. But we have distributed their written representations, in which they establish their concerns for the proper management of the resources within their territories and set out their specific concerns about this legislation, in particular the need for them to be consulted. When we begin, I'm going to ask Mr. Ruddock if he will address the concerns referred to in their brief.

To date we have received four amendments, one proposed by the Alliance, two by the NDP, and one by the Bloc. I will remind members that this bill has come after second reading, so amendments are only acceptable if they're within the principle and scope of the bill.

I'd also remind the members that this bill is somewhat unusual, in the sense that it only has two clauses. So clause 1 actually provides that 16 different sections will be added to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. If I can put it simply, clause 1 has 16 proposed sections to it, and as I understand it, proposed sections 11, 12, and 13 are the key sections in that. So what I'd propose to the members is that when I say “Will clause 1 carry”, those who have amendments should say no, and then what I would do is go through clause 1 by individual sections, so we can ascertain where there are any proposed amendments.

Is that all right?

Before I go to that, I'm going to ask Mr. Ruddock if he would speak to the representations we've received from the group in British Columbia. Mr. Ruddock, sir.

Mr. Frank Ruddock (Deputy Director, U.S. Transboundary Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I saw it very briefly at the end of the last session. I haven't read the whole piece of paper, but it's an issue with which I and our department are quite familiar, because the issue has been ongoing now since 1998.

As a brief point of clarification, it concerns the Tulsequah Chief mine, which is a mining development proposed by the Province of British Columbia on the Taku River. The Taku River is a transboundary river that runs from British Columbia into Alaska. The issue that has been raised there by not only the Tlingit First Nation, but a number of other groups, plus the State of Alaska, is potential pollution on this transboundary river flowing into the U.S. There is no issue of bulk water removal. There is no issue of damming. There is no issue of flooding, covered under article III or IV of the treaty. So the issue is simply not pertinent to the draft Bill C-6 that you have before you.

However, the issue is an important one, and the concerns that have been expressed regarding the mine by the Taku River Tlingit First Nation and others are being dealt with at two levels. First, there's a federal-provincial harmonized environmental assessment ongoing. It was reopened one year ago by the B.C. Supreme Court, at the request of the Tlingit, to review a narrow aspect of the actual mine project. In addition to the federal government, through DFO and Environment Canada, the State of Alaska and the U.S. federal government is involved in this review.

There have also been bilateral discussions between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the U.S. Department of State and other federal agencies on both sides over the past three years to consider the concerns of the U.S. in this regard. The United States has asked Canada to agree to a reference to the international joint commission under article IX of the treaty. It's important to note that article IX is the part of the treaty in which the IJC provides non-binding advice to the government. In other words, it is not like article III and IV, where the International Joint Commission and Canada have powers of approval or rejection. Article IX concerns references where the IJC has asked to give advice. Governments are free to accept or reject any or all of the advice.

• 1540

So that's where the issue stands right now. It is the subject of an environmental assessment, and those concerns, as I say, are now subject to an order by the B.C. Supreme Court, and we continue to discuss it with the United States as well.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Does anybody have any questions arising out the Tlingit submission? No? Okay. We'd like to assure them that in future we'd be happy to hear their representations.

We will move to clause-by-clause.

(On clause 1)

(Proposed sections 10 to 15 inclusive agreed to on division)

[Translation]

(Proposed section 16—Licence)

The Chair: There is a Bloc Québécois amendment.

Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): My amendment, which has been distributed, is as follows:

16.1 Notwithstanding section 16, the Minister may only issue licences in respect of those uses, obstructions or derivations...

Those words are in the Treaty.

... that are subject to the application of the Treaty and that have first been approved in accordance with Articles III and IV of the Treaty.

The intent of this amendment is to make sure that nobody will ever use the review of the implementation to increase the powers of the Minister. There are many other things that we do not agree with but we believe that this amendment will be a definite improvement in relation to the powers given to the Minister, which are enormous. This was mentioned by several witnesses, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): I have a question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I have Mr. Keyes and Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the witnesses can give us some clarity on whether or not it is necessary, as the Bloc suggests, for the minister to receive approval in accordance with articles in the treaty before he or she can proceed.

Mr. Frank Ruddock: Mr. Chairman, we just received this three minutes ago. Can we have 60 seconds?

The Chair: Yes, for sure.

Do you want to speak on it, while the officials are consulting?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Here is my question, Mr. Chairman. I am trying to understand the point of the Bloc's amendment.

Section 16 in the original Bill referred to licences for activities mentioned in sub-sections 11(1) and 12(1). Those are licences relating to obstructions and certainly not licences for exporting or removing water.

So I believe it would be important that the licences mentioned in sub-sections 11(1) and 12(1) be limited, within section 16, to what has been the practice since 1909, which is certainly not the massive removing of water. Could you clarify that point for me?

• 1545

Ms. Francine Lalonde: What we want to make sure is that the Minister will not be able to use this amendment of the implementation act to do more. Articles III and IV of the Treaty apply to the same matters as sections 11 and 12. It is sections 11 and 12 that we are talking about, not section 13.

Mr. Denis Paradis: It is 11 and 12.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes. According to witnesses, among them Mr. Ruddock, the Department would wait for the International Joint Commission to have expressed its opinion. Our concern is that, on a derivation project for example, hearings would be held in a province, the Minister would do his own thing and we would only get the opinion of the IJC after that. So, as Mr. Ruddock mentioned—I based my amendment on his testimony—we would like the Minister to wait for the Joint Commission to have given its opinion. At the same time, this ensures that any uses, obstructions or derivations would indeed be those contemplated in the Treaty.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Could I continue my discussion with Ms. Lalonde, Mr. Chairman?

Section 16 as drafted states that the Minister may “on application”—which means there must be an application—“issue, renew or amend a licence to do any activity referred to in sub-sections 11(1) or 12(1)”. It is therefore important, I believe, that those sub-sections be mentioned here, in order to refer to sections 11 and 12 that we have passed and which do not in any way refer to massive removal. I believe it is important that there be no licence for any massive removal.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: We are in agreement on that.

Mr. Denis Paradis: We're in agreement. So, it is very clear. And the Minister may also include "any terms or conditions the Minister considers appropriate". I think section 16 as it is now drafted is very clear since it states that the Minister may issue licences, but only for things that used to be done in the past. In the past, there were hearings, consultations, etc., by the Commission and governments before any project could go forward. In the future, things will be done in a legal manner through the issuing of licences for dams or other types of activities but certainly not, and I would not wish it to be so, for any removal of water.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: If that were to be mentioned in an amendment to section 16, we might agree.

[English]

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Let's hear from the experts.

Mr. Jason Reiskind (Counsel, International Law and Activities Section, Department of Justice): There are two points we'd like to make with respect to this proposal. The first relates to the wording that says “that are subject to the application of the treaty”. It's redundant to mention that, since the entire act is the implementation of the treaty. If one looks at the rest of the act that will continue to exist, it's called “an act respecting the International Joint Commission established under the treaty of January 11, 1909, relating to boundary waters”. It's called the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. The format of the entire act is to implement the treaty of 1909. That's made clear throughout the act. So there's no real point in mentioning in addition that it's subject to the application of the treaty, because the entire act is to implement the treaty.

Another point we would make concerns the proposal to say

the Minister may only issue licences... that are subject to the application of the treaty and that have first been approved in accordance with Articles III and IV.

• 1550

But the issue of the licence itself is, in effect, an implementation of articles III and IV. Therefore, this wording I consider, with respect, quite confusing. Article III requires the Government of Canada to give its approval and for the International Joint Commission to give its approval to certain projects, so by issuing the licence the government is carrying out article III, for example. The wording is confusing in that it talks about issuing licences that have first been approved, when the issuing of licences is the approval contained in article III.

The Chair: Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: First of all, I want to answer Mr. Paradis. My amendment is not to replace section 16 as drafted. It refers to a new section 16.1. So, it refers to 16, not to 11 and 12. That was the intent. I am quite sure of that.

We have already discussed the possibility of duplication in the issuing of licences. I asked what would happen if the Minister were to grant a licence that would then be cancelled by the International Joint Commission. At the end of the day, even if the Minister says yes—if he says no, it is no—it is still the Commission that decides. So, if the Commission refuses, the Minister cannot have issued a licence earlier.

This is to make sure that the Bill will apply only to the implementation of the Treaty and not to anything else, which might happen if we were to give the Minister new powers that would not be based on the Treaty.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Reiskind, what we would ask you, as the lawyer expert, is to address the concern of Madam Lalonde, which is that under proposed section 16 the minister might issue a licence to do something that would not be authorized by articles III and IV of the treaty—in other words, beyond the scope of the treaty. So the purpose of this is to restrict any licence authorized by the minister to what is within articles III and IV of the treaty. If you can assure the committee that, from a legal perspective, you've looked at this and that proposed section 16 does not authorize the minister to issue any licence that would be beyond the scope of articles III and IV of the treaty, then I presume members might be satisfied by that. That's the question you have to be able to answer.

Mr. Jason Reiskind: I would repeat that the thrust of the act is to implement the treaty, and that's made clear throughout the act. If there should be an action by a minister that goes outside the ambit of the treaty, then it could certainly be challenged as going outside the ambit of the treaty, and therefore the implementation under section 132 would not stand and the minister's action would not be allowed.

There's an automatic control, in the sense that the act is within the ambit of the treaty and implements the treaty through section 132 of the Constitution, that is, implementing an empire treaty. If a minister should go beyond the empire treaty, the action could be successfully challenged in court, I would suggest. That is the general thrust of many acts.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Keyes, and then John.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I sympathize a little with Madame Lalonde on this.

Mr. Reiskind, maybe you can just boil all that down for us. This amendment says the minister may only issue the licence after it has first been approved in accordance with the treaty, specifically articles III and IV. The question, from my point of view, is can the minister issue a licence that has not been approved by the treaty, specifically articles III and IV?

• 1555

Mr. Jason Reiskind: If the minister attempts to approve a project that hasn't been approved by the International Joint Commission, then he would be acting contrary to the treaty, and he wouldn't have a basis to do that.

Mr. Stan Keyes: So you're tell me, then, he can do it, but he wouldn't do it because of the reason you've just given us.

Mr. Jason Reiskind: Could I just add a word? Essentially, no project can proceed unless it has IJC approval, on the one hand, and Canadian government approval on the other. Those two approvals are totally independent. If the IJC doesn't approve a project, it doesn't go forward.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Even if the minister wants it to?

Mr. Jason Reiskind: Yes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I look forward to Ms. Lalonde withdrawing her amendment, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Frank Ruddock: If a project falls under articles III and IV, the minister alone cannot approve it, simply because the IJC has to approve it as well. The minister simply can't go off on his own and approve it, because he'd be violating the treaty and the law.

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: I'm satisfied, after listening to the experts, there's a legal constraint there already that must be observed and recognized by a minister. Just because you put a legal constraint, as suggested by Madam Lalonde, I suppose a minister could challenge that particular legal constraint, as the minister might want to challenge the treaty itself. So I'm satisfied that the constraint is there. Unless Madam Lalonde withdraws the amendment, I would just suggest we call the question and have a vote.

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

A last word, Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Reiskind answered by stating that, if the Minister wanted to proceed and grant a licence that would be rejected by the Commission, this might be “challenged”, but how long would that take in the courts?

I believe it is important to make sure that this licensing system not become a new device for the federal government to be involved, to set up an infrastructure to do things that it would not be able to do otherwise. The amendment aims at establishing a normal constraint on the use of the powers granted under the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.

If you want to vote now, you may do so but I want my amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, it's clear from what we've heard that Madame Lalonde, for greater certainty, basically wants to make sure the minister won't go outside the terms of the act. But it seems to me, with due deference, Madame Lalonde, we don't put in acts that ministers shall not disobey the law. Basically, that is not a usual clause to put in an act.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Okay.

The Chair: That's basically what we're doing here, if we put this in. So I'm prepared to put the question at this point.

(Amendment negatived on division)

(Proposed sections 16 to 19 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On proposed section 20—Agreements with provinces)

The Chair: I understand we have two amendments proposed to proposed section 20, to add sections, and these come from Mr. Casson. I'd ask you, sir, if you could speak to those.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

The first part of this amendment is to have the minister table with the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade any regulation within 15 days after it comes into force. The second part is to have the minister appear at the committee on an annual basis, to bring the committee up to date on any items related to the implementation and enforcement of the act.

• 1600

The Chair: All right, we have some comments. Mr. Keyes and then the parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Stan Keyes: On the last proposed amendment to put into this bill an amendment that the minister shall appear before the standing committee on a regular basis, the fact of the matter is the minister already appears before the standing committee on more than a regular basis, during estimates and during inquiries on any given piece of legislation. A minister, from my experience on committees, is prepared to answer any question on any matter when appearing before a committee on estimates. So if Mr. Casson has concerns about a particular issue, these questions can be asked of a minister during the numerous appearances they make before a committee.

On the first, that the minister shall table any regulation with the standing committee, I dare say committees of this House have workloads they can't get to as it is because of the numerous requests made of them. To start to table with this committee each and every regulation 15 days after they come into force is a duplication of a process that is already available, and would deluge this committee, or any other committee that wishes to bring forward every change of regulation produced, with paperwork that would probably fill this room.

Those are my comments.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Paradis.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to repeat all of Mr. Keyes' arguments but I would say the same thing. The Minister is always willing to appear before the Committee, and he has demonstrated it.

But if the Committee were to send a formal notice to the Minister to advise him of the dates, hours and locations of his appearances fifteen days in advance, this might create some difficulties, specially for the Minister for Foreign Affairs. For example, this Minister is presently in the Balkans.

Considering that the Minister has always been available in the past, I don't see why this new section Appearance of Minister would be required.

Secondly, about the tabling of regulations, there is already a committee of the House dealing with regulations and that is where they would be sent. Furthermore, we might ask the Clerk of the Committee to keep on top of the regulations and to tell us which ones might be of interest to us, so that we could read them. However, there is a committee whose mandate that is.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Casson.

Mr. Rick Casson: Speaking from experience on other committees I've been on, I know at times when the minister has appeared we were only allowed to ask questions on the estimates. If we tried to introduce a question on any other subject, the chairman shut us down. We just want to be assured that we can get the minister here to answer questions on the implementation and developments in the act.

This committee may work more favourably with members than others, but that has been my experience. If the parliamentary secretary is suggesting on the regulations that we could maybe make that request and have it confirmed that it would happen, then we'd be fine with that. But if the minister is willing to appear anyway, what's the objection to the amendment?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Duplication.

The Chair: Several other people want to speak on this.

Mr. Casson, just speaking as the chair of the committee, I've never ruled out of order any question directed toward the minister on estimates.

Mr. Rick Casson: Well, others have.

The Chair: We consider it, in this committee, as a way for the members, particularly the opposition, to get an opportunity to question the minister on general government policy, as well as specific numbers in the estimates. That's certainly our practice. I think Mr. Obhrai would agree with that.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): That's because you're a nice guy.

The Chair: Madam Beaumier chaired the last two estimates, so she's the...

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.): I chaired the last meetings. Mr. Casson, at the last two meetings, where we had both the ministers to discuss the estimates, there was only one question at both meetings on the estimates. They were about everything but the estimates.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I lost my chance.

Mr. Rick Casson: I'm suggesting that at other committees that has happened to me. Chairmen change and...

The Chair: That's right. You don't want it to be a matter of discretion of the chair, I quite agree with that.

Mr. Obhrai.

• 1605

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: If I may, I think it happened at the committee that had the leader of the official opposition there. The chair absolutely ruled out—

An hon. member: That's right.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: —going to any other questions except what—

Mr. Stan Keyes: We don't want to go there, Mr. Chairman. We all know the gist of what happened at that meeting. There's a much larger story to be told. There isn't enough time in this meeting to deal with it.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: But the fact of the matter is, what we are asking in here does not apply. There is no criticism of the chair or the vice-chairs or anybody. It has nothing to do with this. We are looking at the setting of a precedent here, or rather something for the future, and we may have a chairman out here who may not do that. I think it's just a safeguard.

If the minister is coming, as all of you have said... and I can vouch for it. He does show up, he does come. We are very happy in this committee at the way we have been cooperatively been working together with all the other members, but that does not mean we don't have to put a safeguard in here.

My colleague is saying just put it in there, he's coming, so there's really no... I don't see anything wrong or anything; we're just safeguarding for the future.

The Chair: Monsieur Patry.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would say that I agree with the objections of my Liberal colleagues. On a purely technical basis, we cannot include in a Bill the fact that that Bill, before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade...

Several years ago, there was no Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, there was only a Committee on Foreign Affairs. Committees come under the authority of the House, of the Speaker, with the agreement of all the political parties. So, if we were to insert that provision in a piece of legislation, this would mean that there should always be a Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. As far as I am concerned, this is redundant.

The Minister may appear as frequently as he wants, and Members can ask questions as frequently as they wish. So, that is redundant. You do not include such things in a piece of legislation, it's as simple as that.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: My particular concern is the second suggested amendment, which would add new clause 20.2. I just would be uncomfortable with the precedent as set. I don't think the appearances of ministers should be written up in legislative form. I think we have other avenues for that. To require by law, as it were, a minister's appearance, I just... Once you go down that road, how far does that road go?

I think there are other ways of dealing with it. I can understand Mr. Obhrai looking to the future and wanting certain assurances that there will be ministerial appearances. I have some time for that, but I don't think that has to be written up in law, as it were, the way he or his party is suggesting.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Amendment 20.1 is important because this short Bill grants to the Minister, through regulations, the possibility to act against everything that is in the Articles. For example, proposed sub-sections 13(3) and (4) state that the description of the water basins may be changed through regulations. That is unbelievable. This might have very serious consequences in the future. The Minister could also provide for exceptions to 13(1) by the way of regulations.

When a piece of legislation that is supposed to ensure the implementation of a treaty includes methods to contradict its objectives, through regulations, it is very serious. It would be useful to hear the Minister before any regulations could be passed.

I don't know if my colleagues want to have a divided vote on this but it seems important to me that this new clause 20.1 be passed. About the others, I am more willing to trust the Minister but 20.1 is very important to me.

The Chair: All right.

[English]

Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I agree with not requiring the minister to appear each and every year on just this one topic, but I do have some sympathy for the yearly review idea. I've been part of committees where, it seems to me—and Mr. Casson can correct me if I'm wrong—we've built that into legislation.

So I wouldn't see any problem, subject to other colleagues' comments, in saying, look, this committee wants to review this act a year after it comes into force. But we don't necessarily have to specify that the minister be there. You could have officials. If this committee wanted the minister there, and it had built in a yearly review with officials, and then also asked the minister to show up, I can't imagine any minister worth his or her job not appearing.

• 1610

So if it's looking for a one-year review, I personally don't have a problem with that, but I agree with my colleagues who say we shouldn't build in a mandatory appearance by the minister.

The Chair: Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: My only concern is that it's fine and dandy for my colleagues to say yes, the minister will appear, and you don't have to do this because the committee has the power to call the minister any time it so desires and everything. But speaking from the opposition benches here, I can tell you that we have no power. The power is on that side. So it's very difficult, when we do need a minister, to call them in.

I think we are ready to vote, so perhaps you would put the question.

The Chair: Speaking personally, while this committee doesn't adopt a lot of legislation, certainly from a precedent point of view, if we put it in all the legislation—the WTO legislation, etc.—that the minister was going to have to come, we'd get a lot of repeat returns from ministers on every piece of legislation.

I mean, the slippery slope argument is always what stops everything from happening around here, but it is a bit of a problem, I think, from that point of view. I think Mr. Harvard was alluding to that.

I saw some indications that colleagues would like to vote on these separately, so rather than putting them together I'd like to call the vote on the proposition to add new sections 20.1 and 20.2.

(Amendments negatived on division—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: So is proposed section 20 carried on division?

Mr. Bernard Patry: There's another new clause 20.1.

The Chair: Yes, I'm sorry.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment and the one proposed to add new clause 21.1 are in the same vein, which is to recognize that when this law was originally passed, the pattern of consultation and recognition of first nations rights really wasn't on much of the political horizon at that time. So it's really an attempt to bring the legislation up to date.

Proposed section 20 requires the minister to consult with provincial governments, and it seems to flow naturally that he would be responsible to do the same with first nations and the other organizations that we've set out in that amendment.

The Chair: Before we go to statements or questions, perhaps we ask the officials what the practice in the department is currently in terms of consultation with first nations people.

Mr. Jason Reiskind: Perhaps Mr. Ruddock can explain our consultations in developing the amendments to give you an idea of the approach we have taken.

Mr. Frank Ruddock: We did, of course, consult very widely in the development of this bill, both before and during. In addition, when the bill was originally introduced—as Bill C-15 in November of 1999—it was provided to all provinces, territories, stakeholders, environment groups, environmental law groups, and first nation groups. That same information was provided again when this law was introduced. In other words, we went through the whole exercise with the revised package.

So I would note that the act of consulting has been basically a hallmark of this since the beginning. In fact, on the issue of regulations, we continue to consult with provinces, territories, and others.

The Chair: Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, at first blush the member, Mr. Comartin, almost had me on this amendment. But when you start to take it apart, it says the minister “shall consult with aboriginal governments, bodies established under land claim agreements”. I agree with the premise of Mr. Comartin's argument, but you can also clause yourself to death.

• 1615

Can you imagine for a moment that any minister, in whatever government in this land, would actually proceed to enter into agreements without the cooperation of, or consultations with, the province or aboriginal and native claim groups they would be dealing with? I can't imagine that happening in a heartbeat. So I will have to agree to disagree with Mr. Comartin on that.

The second part of your amendment, Mr. Comartin, says “and other interested persons and organizations”. How many persons is that, how many organizations? What is your definition of “interested persons”? How deep can you go and how long can you go around the table in consultations without saying, oh, you're against the bill because you didn't consult with this particular interested person?

So there's a lack of definition here. The idea that a minister would consult, but not consult widely, especially with aboriginal or land claim agreements, has the amendment collapsing under its own weight, quite frankly.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Probably you'll want to address these, Mr. Comartin, but what I'll do is go around and then come back to you at the end. You can perhaps deal with everybody's comments then.

Monsieur Paradis.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: Mr. Chairman, the Department already consults the Native peoples but, if we include this in the Act, what will happen when somebody claims not to have been consulted? The requirement in the amendment does not specify which groups will have to be consulted. Would it be the Chambers of commerce, the municipalities, the anti-poverty group? Any group might say in the future that it wants to challenge the Minister's decision to issue a licence because it was not consulted.

I believe this is much too broad, Mr. Chairman. We have to trust the government which has stated that it would not act without consulting Canadians.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Paradis.

[English]

Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: I certainly think Mr. Comartin's heart is in the right place. Presumably he is bringing forward this amendment to protect us from any minister in the future who might want to run roughshod over aboriginal peoples or anyone else. But I don't know how you enforce that.

For example, if you were dealing with some minister who is disingenuous, how would you impose the word “consult” on that person? What is the definition of consult? Is it one meeting, six meetings, a hundred meetings? Do you deal with several first nations groups, a whole lot, many? I just don't think you can protect these people from ministers who may not really care about aboriginals or other people.

As I say, I think your heart is in the right place, but you know, in the conduct of national life you have to leave certain things to politics and public pressure. You can't enshrine everything in law. If you have a minister who is irresponsible and doesn't give a damn, then you deal with it at that particular time.

So I just don't think this type of amendment carries a lot of weight.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Obhrai and Madam Lalonde. Then we'll ask Mr. Comartin to wrap up and we'll put the question.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I can understand the essence of Mr. Comartin's amendment here. My colleagues on the other side, when they talk about tying the hands of the minister, are going too deep legally into this thing with lawyer-type arguments.

What I don't understand, and maybe Mr. Comartin can explain this to me, is that all we are saying here is “shall consult”. It does not tie—and I'm not a lawyer, sorry—the government's hand. It does not tie it. All it does is... a perception that consult means he's talking to the broader group. I don't buy the argument at all where the lawyer is subject... he must meet twenty people, he must meet one person, he must do nothing. It's as broad as you can get. It gives the minister as open a leeway as you can think about.

• 1620

It says nothing. All it says is that the essence of a message is to have a broader consultation with the general public. I don't see anything wrong with that, so I have a difficulty buying the argument that says it's tying the minister's hands here. I think it's doing a wonderful job here for transparency.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, it seems impossible to me not to pass this amendment. You yourself stated that we received that submission at the end and that we could have consulted Aboriginal groups which might be affected. What we are talking about is not a minor issue for the Aboriginals. It might be a matter of changing the flow of a river, with all the consequences that it could have. It might be building a dam, under section 12, with some flooding. It might also be the massive removal of water. We know how closely the Aboriginal peoples are linked to the Earth and to the resource. That being so, let them be consulted. I think it is absolutely imperative.

Furthermore, for those who fear that this could be an unending consultation, I do not believe that politics as it is practised in this country has usually led to unending consultations, quite the contrary. When a project is contemplated, we set up one or two meetings and we invite everybody. But we're talking here of Aboriginal governments, organizations and others who would have important comments to make on major projects. I believe the majority of the Committee could give its consent to this amendment.

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: Just to clear the record—

An hon. member: Why don't—

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, it can't be left unsaid.

First, Mr. Obhrai mentioned that someone on this side said we were tying the minister's hands. We didn't say that at all. In fact, it was exactly the opposite.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: No, I didn't say that.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes, you did.

But the other problem with Ms. Lalonde's argument is that she's making it seem as though this committee, with this legislation in the hands of a minister, is the only kind of consultation that would take place if we were going to build a dam or if we were going to divert water.

Mr. Chairman, she probably has experience in her own riding, as I do in mine, with where the Canadian Environmental Protection Act kicks in. There are all kinds of reviews and processes that have to take place if you're going to build a dam. You can't build a dam any more just because you want to build a damn dam. You have to build a dam, then you have to put up with all kinds of environmental regulation, and all kinds of consultations. So the buck does not stop here. There are numerous opportunities for consultation if you're going to build a dam, change a waterway, or do anything else.

The Chair: Before I go to Mr. Comartin, then, we'll ask Mr. Ruddock, because I think Mr. Keyes has raised an important point.

I presume there would be consultations under the International Joint Commission as well, because, under articles III and IV, it would have to be approved by the IJC before it could go ahead. So you're going to have the IJC and local environmental consultations, but maybe you could tell us a bit more about the process, and then we'll get Mr. Comartin to wrap up.

Mr. Frank Ruddock: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I can assist the committee a little bit on this.

In spite of the fact it was written many decades ago, the treaty was in fact quite ahead of its time. Written into the treaty, in article XII, is a requirement to consult. That is one of the hallmarks of the IJC when it does its part of an approval. For example, for the landmark report that they produced on the protection of the Great Lakes, they had public hearings throughout the whole basin twice, both on the U.S. and Canadian sides.

• 1625

It is a sine qua non of the IJC that whenever they deal with any aspect, they must consult the public. So in addition to the consultations that we have done as the department—on this draft bill, for example—when it comes to issues that come before the International Joint Commission under article III or IV, they certainly hear from the public. That is an element that is provided for in the treaty already.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: —

It does not apply to that.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Comartin, perhaps you could wrap up in terms of rebuttal to the comments.

Mr. Joe Comartin: In response to the concerns or opposition from Messrs. Keyes, Paradis, and Harvard, respectively, I think their arguments about not tying the hands of the government would have a lot more weight if, in fact, they weren't doing exactly the same thing.

I'm sitting on the environment committee, and we're going through the SARA legislation right now. The words “shall consult” must show up in that piece of legislation a half-dozen times. It's no more defined than what's in this wording here. So your government, in another piece of legislation dealing with aboriginal groups, first nations, etc., is binding itself.

In fact, when you look at the potential impact of a development like a dam, Mr. Keyes, this potentially has much greater impact on an aboriginal group and government than SARA would. In spite of that, you're not putting the wording in here or, in effect, commanding the minister to follow this obligation, but you seem to be quite prepared to do that in legislation elsewhere.

With regard to the comments you made about the Environmental Assessment Act, Mr. Keyes, I'm also sitting on that committee. With regard to the proposed amendments, you're in the process of cutting back the extent of that legislation, trying to streamline and harmonize it—and that's before the House right now, in second reading. So there's no way of knowing what we're going to end up with and whether that legislation will provide us with any particular protection in the dam situation. So, again, it seems that it behooves us to put this type of wording in.

As for the IJC and their protection, Mr. Ruddock's points are well taken that those things are in the existing act, but those are their responsibility, not the minister's. And I guess the other problem with the IJC is that, given some of the financial cutbacks that agency has suffered over the last seven or eight years, I'm not sure how much we can rely on their ability to consult with these types of organizations extensively.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(Amendment negatived on division—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Proposed section 20 agreed to on division)

(On proposed section 21—Regulations)

The Chair: For proposed section 21, we have an amendment again, from Mr. Comartin. Before I go to that, Mr. Comartin, perhaps I could just ask Mr. Ruddock a question about consultation.

Something came up in the course of the hearings. There was some suggestion from one of the witnesses that the United States government had not been particularly consulted or that the United States authorities had not been consulted in the process of putting together this act. I wonder if you could address that, because I think it should be on the public record in terms of what consultations the department had with the United States in respect of preparing this act, since they are obviously partners in managing the boundary waters under the treaty.

Mr. Frank Ruddock: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I make a very brief comment about that, I would like to add, of course, that this is an act of the Parliament of Canada. Therefore, when we talk about consulting with the United States, it's not asking their permission. It's up to the Parliament of Canada to amend acts, and when we speak to them about this, we speak to them more in terms of telling them what Canada's doing and that we are interested in their views. But it is, of course, up to Parliament—

The Chair: Of course.

Mr. Frank Ruddock: —to change Parliament's acts.

Simply, since the bill was conceived back in 1999, we have kept in close touch with the United States so that they have been aware of what Canada has been doing in terms of the act and the impacts of Canada's actions. Simply, they've acknowledged what we're doing, and they have made no comment negatively of any sort.

The Chair: So we could draw from that that they're supportive of the policy of not withdrawing bulk water from boundary waters.

Mr. Frank Ruddock: I think it's fair to say, simply, that they haven't commented negatively. They've acknowledged what we're doing. I think, in this case, they're... it's an act of the Canadian Parliament.

• 1630

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Turning to proposed section 21, there's an amendment proposed by Mr. Comartin. Do you want to address that?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This provision again shows up in SARA now, as proposed, it's in the Parks Canada legislation, and I believe it's in a number of other pieces of legislation. It's not in this particular act, of course, because, as I said earlier, these issues weren't considered important enough to be reflected in legislation at the time it was passed. But they certainly are now as a result of just the developments of the first nations claims, and also because of the decisions we've had from the Supreme Court of Canada, in Sparrow, Marshall, and Delgamuukw.

Again, Mr. Chair, my position on this is that it is standard wording. It's beginning to show up regularly in legislation. I don't see any argument at all as to why it wouldn't be incorporated into this bill as well.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Paradis.

Mr. Denis Paradis: It already refers to section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. This section more or less repeats what is in section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act. If we repeat that, what would be the point? At first sight, you will wonder if this adds anything or why it is different from section 35 of the Constitution Act. I think it would be even stronger if we just referred to the Constitution, if we just left section 35 where it is, in the Constitution Act, rather than repeat it here. If we repeat here, people will wonder why that was done and if anything is different. I don't think we clarify anything by adding a new section 21.1 which would repeat the terms of section 35 of the Constitution Act. On the contrary, it would lead to confusion.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: When we speak of the Constitution Act, maybe the officials can give us a better insight.

Are you all lawyers, or is just one of you a lawyer? Jason, you're a lawyer, aren't you? Yes? All right.

If there is any abrogation or derogation from the protection of aboriginal or treaty rights when it comes to this legislation, are they already protected? That is, are the aboriginal people, the native people of Canada, already protected under the Constitution Act, 1982, anyway? Or do we have to include it in a bill because it appears politically correct to do that?

You don't have to deal with the political part, because you're a bureaucrat, but could give me an answer as to whether or not the aboriginal peoples are protected under the Constitution Act, 1982, for exactly what the member tries to propose?

Mr. Jason Reiskind: Yes, you're absolutely right, Mr. Keyes. They're protected under the relevant section of the Constitution Act. In my own department, I know that's the general view. When there are specific clauses that appear such as the one proposed, it raises the question of why they are in the act. Are they meant to mean something additional? They can create confusion, since the protection is already well provided for in the Constitution.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Thank you, sir.

I have one other question for Mr. Comartin: If the Constitution Act, 1982, is there to protect the aboriginal and native people from whatever it is that a minister or a government may do to abrogate or derogate from a given situation, my fear is the word that you have here, “existing”.

Mr. Joe Comartin: That's not my word, Mr. Keyes, it's from your government.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Well, it's your amendment. You have to sign off.

Mr. Joe Comartin: That is wording that's in a number of other pieces of legislation.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Well, whatever. I'm not dealing with other legislation, Mr. Comartin. I'm dealing with the amendment that you signed for and that you put before this committee. Whether it appears somewhere else or not, I have a problem with the word. Maybe no has picked this up. Maybe we're going to be the first and we won't see it in any more legislation.

Anyway, Mr. Comartin, for the words “existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples”, if we already have a constitution that protects our natives and aboriginal people with whatever is provided for under a treaty or aboriginal agreement, why would we suddenly limit ourselves to saying with this amendment only existing aboriginal or treaty rights?

• 1635

Those aboriginal or treaty rights could change next year, in five years, ten years. So then would we have to come back to this legislation and rewrite this amendment, because we don't want it only having existing aboriginal rights, but any future aboriginal rights? I feel—and the department has just verified—that they are protected under the current Constitution.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Again, I'm not sure the question should be coming from that side of the floor to me, Mr. Chair, because in fact this is exactly the wording they use elsewhere.

Mr. Reiskind, you know as a drafter of legislation that you try to obtain consistency, not only in this bill, but in all the legislation passed by the House, and that's not what we're doing here. If you vote this down you are in effect voting for inconsistency, because the legislation keeps showing up; this wording shows up consistently in bills from this government.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Why?

Mr. Joe Comartin: I don't have answers for that other than these two, and I'm not saying these are complete answers.

First, the Supreme Court of Canada has made it quite clear that we have to recognize these rights. So I assume on a policy basis the government at some point decided they were going to incorporate this into pieces of legislation.

My other point, Mr. Chair, is that I in fact drafted it this way in conjunction with the legislation the government has now drafted. There's another phraseology that, quite frankly, the first nations communities would prefer to have, and it addresses specifically the point you raised, Mr. Keyes, about “existing”. This other wording talks about their rights without using the term “existing”. Quite frankly, it is the wording they prefer using, but out of the hope that I might get a positive response from the other side of the table, I used the government's wording, not what the first nations would like to have.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Paradis and Mr. Harvard.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.

[English]

I only want to bring to the attention of the committee the text of section 35 of our 1982 Constitution, which reads as follows:

The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. ... In this act, “aboriginal people of Canada” includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.

So it's this short, but is says everything.

When we try to add 21.1 and say there's nothing in this law that goes against it, what do we mean? We presuppose there is something wrong with the law that goes against the Constitution. Section 36 of the 1982 Constitution also reads “promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians”. Do we add another article to say that nothing in this act is preventing us from promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Where do you stop?

Mr. Denis Paradis: And where do you stop—that's it. Would it add something, Mr. Chair? I don't see how it does.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: I have a short question for Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Comartin has already raised the so-called issue of consistency. But amendments of this kind, Mr. Comartin, really have to have some kind of real meaning in the real world. Do you believe this amendment of yours would in any way enhance access to, or the availability of, section 35 to the aboriginal peoples of Canada? And if your answer is yes, how?

Mr. Joe Comartin: If we are serious about recognizing their rights, then on a policy basis we should incorporate this in every piece of legislation. All it does in terms of the how is to confirm this government's position that they are in fact serious about recognizing those rights and about carrying them out.

Mr. John Harvard: If we are serious, Mr. Comartin, isn't that seriousness reflected in section 35? How many times do we have to repeat it?

Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm not sure. Your government may have to decide that they've certainly done it enough times already. But it is important, because the message needs to go out. It doesn't have to be only at the political level. It needs to work its way all through the civil service in order for it to be clear that we in fact believe they have these rights, we have a legal mandate to carry them out, and we're passing this message on to everybody.

Mr. John Harvard: Well, the Constitution is the ultimate play book, and if it's there, that's the ultimate statement of the people of Canada.

• 1640

The Chair: I'll go to Madam Lalonde, then Mr. Keyes, and then we'll put it to the vote.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I would like to ask a question to our experts.

Do you not think that Mr. Comartin's proposal ensures that Canada would not be able to put its international obligations ahead of the recognition of Aboriginal rights? I ask this because the provinces also have some constitutional powers. If there is a conflict between the two... Proposed section 14 states that:

14. Sections 11 to 13 are binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province.

[English]

Mr. Jason Reiskind: I've spoken to our aboriginal affairs section today. My understanding is that because of the confusion of adding such a clause, which simply reflects what's already in the Constitution, our aboriginal affairs section prefers to leave it to the Constitution.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Not so fast, John.

Okay, I'm going to take about five steps back here. Mr. Comartin, where did you get this wording?

Mr. Joe Comartin: It's the wording in SARA right now.

Mr. Stan Keyes: SARA. Does this wording exist in other forms of legislation or—

Mr. Joe Comartin: It's in the Parks Canada Act as well.

Mr. Stan Keyes: The Parks Canada Act. Is that the only act it's in so far?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Those are the only two I'm aware of. I understand there may be others, but I didn't have time to check them out.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Because what's important, Mr. Chairman, and to our officials... I don't have a problem with including such a clause in a bill, if in fact this is a clause introduced for greater clarity, given our work with the aboriginal and treaty rights of aboriginal peoples. If this is a standard clause being put into every piece of legislation from last January on, I don't have a problem with it.

Now, the officials have checked with the Department of Indian Affairs, and that's fine, but that's bureaucrat to bureaucrat. I'd like to know what the government's position is vis-à-vis the minister to members on whether or not a clause like this can—or the reason why it should not—be included in this legislation.

Can somebody answer this question for me?

The Chair: I'll ask the parliamentary secretary for advice on this.

I'm not really speaking as the chair. Mr. Comartin, you inform us that you've taken this from other legislation, so obviously this is something the government has done in the past and as a practice.

I'm tempted by the reasoning of Mr. Reiskind that in a sense it's just stating what is obvious—that the Constitution trumps any inconsistencies in legislation. That's the nature of the Constitution; that's what we have it there for. So we're saying this legislation can't contradict the Constitution. Well, we know that. Legislation can't contradict the Constitution, because that's what the Constitution is all about.

But if this is government practice, as you say, for the purposes you laid out—that it in fact reaffirms as a sort of a policy the recognition of the sanctity of aboriginal and treaty rights—then its purpose would be somewhat different. I'd be anxious to know whether or not that's true.

I don't know whether anyone can give us any advice on this. You've given us the advice, Mr. Reiskind, that the department has some problem with it, because it could create confusion. Can you give us any advice as to whether, in spite of that problem, it's been adopted in the past or not in other legislation? And has it only been adopted in circumstances where there might be a problem?

• 1645

This legislation seems pretty clear. There may not be a basic problem here the way there might be in other acts. Are you familiar with what Mr. Comartin tells us is a standard form clause adopted by the government in other legislation? If this is true, then obviously the members here should be aware of it before they oppose it.

Mr. Jason Reiskind: I know, for example, it appears in the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, but in speaking to the people who deal with aboriginal legislation today, their preference was not to have such provisions in, because of the confusion they cause. I can only take from this that it is not their practice to put it in acts as a matter of course.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I know on a personal basis that this in fact is not true. It is in the National Parks Act and it's proposed to be in SARA, so there is a practice. The information we just received from Mr. Reiskind is not true.

The Chair: Your information is it's in two other pieces of legislation.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes.

The Chair: I'll go to Mr. O'Brien, then to the parliamentary secretary, who may clarify things from the government position. Then we could put it to a vote. Individuals may or may not wish to vote on it, according to the way they see it, because of the importance it might have.

Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, without repeating what you've said, it's clearly redundant, but I have some sympathy for Mr. Comartin's point. If it's being put in other legislation deliberately as a reaffirmation of our commitment to the aboriginal peoples, then I want to know about that.

I would submit to you, Mr. Comartin, that its being in two bills doesn't make it a very strong trend yet, considering all the bills we pass, but we do need to know about that.

We've all been through enough legislation—although most of us aren't lawyers—to know each bill has its own purposes, nuances, and reasoning. That's why we do clause-by-clause for every bill.

I wonder how much of a trend it really is, but I'm going to hear from my colleague, the parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Who had better have an answer.

The Chair: The parliamentary secretary—

Mr. Stan Keyes: You're earning your money now, Denis.

The Chair: —in charge of legislative trends.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: After having heard everybody, Mr. Chairman, I believe like nearly everybody else that this is certainly not contrary to the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution since it just repeats that section.

It is up to the members of the Committee to decide. We heard that this has been done in the past in two or three cases. It is up to the Members to decide. I do not have any direction to provide about this, Mr. Chairman. I cannot say that one should vote for or against. If we vote for, we will follow the trend; if we vote against, we will not follow the trend, but I do not have any basic objection to voting for.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. It's clear then from a political perspective, as the parliamentary secretary has pointed out. We've heard from a lawyer about the problems with it, but we've also heard, colleagues, that this is a practice adopted in other legislation.

I'm going to put the question as to whether members wish to follow the practice adopted in other acts, whether they feel it's necessary in this act, because this act is fairly simple and clear and it may not be necessary here, as it might be in other acts. So I'm simply going to put it to everyone as to how they feel about putting it in this act.

Those in favour of the proposed amendment?

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde, are you for the amendment?

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Those opposed?

I see five in favour and one opposed. It would appear that the trend carries, and Mr. Comartin's amendment carries.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Proposed section 21 as amended agreed to on division)

• 1650

(Proposed sections 22 to 26 inclusive agreed to on division)

The Chair: Thank you. Now then, do I say the section, or just clause 1?

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I have a question for our experts. The maps that were distributed, were they for general information only? For Quebec, the limits are not appropriate.

The Chair: Do you want to include New York City or part of Ontario? You want Toronto now, Ms. Lalonde?

Ms. Francine Lalonde: The limits of the water basins coming under the Bill are not appropriate.

The Chair: All right. The map is not part of the Bill.

Mr. Ruddock.

Mr. Frank Ruddock: Ms. Lalonde, the map was distributed for information only. It has absolutely nothing to do with showing how the provisions of the Bill or the regulations would apply. It's only a technical aid so that, when one refers to a water basin, one would see what that is about.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you very much, Mr. Ruddock. It's on the blues.

The Chair: The map has no legal value.

[English]

(Clause 1 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clause 2 agreed to)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: On division.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House with the amendments?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Yes. Okay. Thank you very much, colleagues.

Again, for the public who are watching this, understand that this bill will be reported back to the House for third reading.

This then completes our work as a committee in terms of this bill amending the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, which will prohibit the removal of bulk waters from boundary waters, and is part of a three-part program by the Government of Canada to ensure that the provincial and federal governments work together to protect our waters as a precious natural resource of this country.

I want to thank very much the officials who have helped us throughout the process. Thank you, Mr. Ruddock, to you and the members your team, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Reiskind. We appreciate your support very much, and we will look forward to seeing you on another occasion.

Now, colleagues, before you get up to go, we have one other matter. Mr. Obhrai has a proposed resolution he would like us to adopt respecting the present situation in Afghanistan, and I believe that has been distributed to you.

Does everyone have that in front of them? Okay.

I'm going to suspend for two minutes.

• 1654

• 1656

The Chair: I'm going to call the committee back to order.

Colleagues, Mr. Obhrai has presented to you a draft resolution with respect to the situation in Afghanistan. We have three officials from the department who have come to give a brief introduction on the present situation.

I want to remind colleagues that both bells may start at 5:15. They would be 15-minute bells. We only have until about 5:25 to do this. Maybe we could keep the introductory comments fairly short.

Madam Marsden-Dole will lead off. Thank you very much for coming. We appreciate it.

Excuse me. Mr. Obhrai, can we hear from the officials first, and then we'll go to the specifics of your motion?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I suggest we state the changes and then we can hear from them.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Obhrai will point out some changes he has made.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: This is not to say the changes came from their department.

The Chair: We take it you're working in the spirit of collaboration and cooperation.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I'm trying to. It's pretty tough, but I'm trying to.

Mr. Chairman, this poses a very serious matter. When you start identifying minorities, it has major consequences. This proposal was put forward.

The change is where it says “That Canada sponsor a resolution”. We want to change it to read “That Canada, in association with other like-minded states, sponsor a resolution at the United Nations which advocates for the promotion and protection of human rights, including religious freedom and respect for international humanitarian law in Afghanistan”. It in essence is saying that Canada will take the lead.

The wording of “continue to support” creates a problem for me, in the sense that it does not tell us to take the lead. This resolution will tell us to take the lead at the UN and to work with like-minded countries. Is that possible?

Ms. Patricia Marsden-Dole (Director General, South and Southeast Asia Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Could I respond to that?

Canada ceased to be a member of the UN Security Council at the end of December of this year. Therefore, we have to work with others, through others. A likely partner for us would be to co-sponsor such a resolution through a country like Norway, for example.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: That's fine. I'm satisfied with it if in fact the words “sponsor by Canada” are in there. This one here says “continue to support resolutions”, which means Canada is not taking the lead.

I'm trying to get Canada to take the lead. We could say “support” or “co-support”.

Ms. Patricia Marsden-Dole: “Co-sponsor”, yes.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: “Co-sponsor” is great. Is that a possibility?

Ms. Patricia Marsden-Dole: I'm going to ask my colleague.

The Chair: Let me interrupt for a second before you do so. This is on television. We started without giving a general introduction for people to understand what we're doing.

Mr. Obhrai has proposed a resolution that would condemn the Taliban government of Afghanistan for their practice of insisting people of Hindu or non-Muslim religion carry with them an identifying badge. Then he asked the Government of Canada to sponsor a resolution at the United Nations condemning this violation of human rights by the Taliban, and insisting Canada work to isolate the Afghan government in the event they continue with this action.

That's the thrust of the resolution. We're now discussing the wording of the resolution.

Sorry to interrupt, Madam Marsden-Dole.

Ms. Patricia Marsden-Dole: Mr. Chairman, do you want to continue on the wording of the resolution, or would you like a background?

Mr. Pat O'Brien: On a point of order.

The Chair: Yes.

• 1700

Mr. Pat O'Brien: As one member, I'd like to know the exact wording of what's before us. Is the very last paragraph, on May 25, still part of the resolution?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: We are trying to just finish this thing properly. Let's go with the resolution.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: For one, I'd like to know what the resolution is before we hear any advice about it.

The Chair: So what are the exact terms of the resolution?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I am checking with the department, to say that since Canada cannot sponsor, we can co-sponsor. Is that right?

The Chair: I gather from Madam Marsden-Dole's comment to you that if such a resolution were sponsored at the United Nations, it would have to be done through the Security Council. Since we're not members of the Security Council, we'd have to get somebody on the Security Council to co-sponsor.

Ms. Patricia Marsden-Dole: That's so, unless you want to wait for an opportunity at the general assembly in the fall.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Can we go for a co-sponsor?

Mr. Stan Keyes: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, as I'm sure my colleagues would agree, I don't want to sit here to discuss Mr. Obhrai's wording of a motion with officials. Why doesn't he go away, get the motion written up properly, and then come back to this committee, so we can discuss it with the motion in front of us.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: No, forget this. I have made a public statement. If you don't... I'm not willing to change it, I will leave it the way it is.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Obhrai—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Then you can vote it down. We are trying to... Your House leader came to me and your government came here to get unanimous consent on this, so that we can have it properly done. But if don't want to do that, then—

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, Mr. Obhrai, I have every moment of time for you—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: There it is, there it is—

Mr. Stan Keyes: Wait a minute, wait a minute, Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: This is an important issue.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Who has the floor?

The Chair: Just to remind you, the public are not going to be edified by a spectacle of people wrangling back and forth. This committee usually doesn't conduct itself that way, so let's give each one an opportunity to complete his statement.

I would respectfully suggest to members that this is an important issue and we don't have more time. If we put this off, we will lose the opportunity to adopt such a motion. So I would urge members to take the time to get the wording right and to adopt it this afternoon, because Parliament is going to be rising soon and it would be a shame to lose this opportunity to deal with what is an important international issue.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I bend to the chair's request. Continue.

The Chair: Thank you. However, I appreciate your point, Mr. Keyes, because we have to understand what the wording is. So now let's get the wording, because I'm as confused as every other member is about it. Let's understand exactly what the wording is.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Chairman, are we going to put “co-sponsor” or “sponsor”?

Ms. Patricia Marsden-Dole: I'm going to ask my colleague who's been working on that language.

The Chair: Right, thank you very much.

Mr. James Junke (Director, South Asia Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): It's unlikely we would get a resolution through strictly on this issue. When the last resolution of the Security Council was passed in December, it was to impose further sanctions on the Taliban, and the Russians and the Americans led on this. They have other issues they want to deal with, specifically one-sided sanctions opposed on the Taliban, but not on the united front fighting against the Taliban, which is supported by the Americans, the Russians, the Iranians, and the Indians.

We were opposed to that, but we did support, for instance, the resolutions that dealt with the issue of terrorism and Taliban sponsorship of that and with the issue of the international drugs trade, which is a very serious problem. We also added into the resolution our concerns, which are principle Canadian concerns, about the really serious humanitarian crisis in the country and the serious violation of human rights, specifically of women and children.

So it's not likely we would be able to sponsor resolutions strictly on this dimension. We can go with wording that says co-sponsor, as appropriate, in association with other like-minded countries. We're certainly prepared to pursue that. Not being members of the council, we have to probably work through Norway or a similar like-minded country to get that done.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Okay. So what I want to do is change this to

co-sponsor a resolution at the United Nations which advocates for the promotion and protection of human rights, including religious freedom and respect for international humanitarian law in Afghanistan.

From what you just said about Canadian concerns on humanitarian matters, I think we can add in there,

Recognizing that the situation in Afghanistan is complex and the humanitarian crisis is worsening, Canada supports the Secretary General's April 2001 report calling for a comprehensive approach to the serious questions in Afghanistan and urges the Taliban to cooperate.

• 1705

So we'll add that part of the resolution to that. All right?

Mr. James Junke: We would like to add after co-sponsor, the two words “where appropriate”, because it gives us some ability to negotiate through other countries, with other agencies, and deal with the Americans and Russians, who will have an agenda very different from this one.

The Chair: So we're clear on this, we have before us a draft resolution presented by Mr. Obhrai with four introductory clauses. I take it there is no problem with any of those: “Regretting the serious implications”; “Recognizing that the Taliban continue to abuse the basic human rights of its citizens”; “Reaffirming the importance of religious freedom as a basic human right”; The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade recommends that the Government of Canada...”. Up to that point in this resolution there is no problem. Is that correct, colleagues?

Mr. O'Brien, do you have any problem with anything up to that point?

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I don't, Mr. Chairman. I have a question, if I—

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: It says: "abuse the basic human rights". I think we must add: "particularly of women and children", since we have all heard recently the horrible situation of women and children, young girls who are not allowed to study, etc. Freedom of religion is one thing but freedom of women is extremely important.

[English]

The Chair: I would just suggest then that it might be appropriate, in the second whereas clause, “Recognizing that the Taliban continue to abuse the basic human rights of its citizens”, to add, “in particular, those of women and children”.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Agreed.

[English]

The Chair: Would that be satisfactory to colleagues?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes. There is a document from the Department that...

[English]

The Chair: Is that all right by you, Mr. Obhrai, as an amendment?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Where is it, sir?

The Chair: It's in line two, “Recognizing that the Taliban continue to abuse the basic human rights of its citizens, particularly those of women and children”, along the lines of the amendment that's proposed by Madam Lalonde.

That takes us to the finish of what I would call the introductory clauses. Now we have to turn to the disposative clause.

Mr. O'Brien, sir, you have a question.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: First of all, I have great sympathy for what Mr. Obhrai is trying to do. It's a little difficult, because frankly I'm not sure what the wording is, so I'll probably request that we have somebody take two minutes and read it.

But on my specific question, is the last paragraph of the May 25 Afghanistan resolution part of the resolution now or not?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: We'll have to cancel that. You're right. That was replaced.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: If it is, I have a problem with the tone of it.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: That's been withdrawn, with the changes I've made.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Could I, then, on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, ask someone who thinks they have the full statement of this resolution to take two minutes to read it all?

An hon. member: That's what we're doing.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: No, we're not. I want to hear it in its entirety, not piecemeal.

The Chair: Okay. I gather, then, Ms. Ahmed, you're in a position to read to the committee the text of the resolution, as has been discussed between yourself and Mr. Obhrai.

Ms. Roohi Ahmed (Desk Officer, Pakistan, Afghanistan, South Asia Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Sure. The Afghanistan resolution as proposed by Mr. Obhrai is as follows:

Regretting the serious implications of the May 22, 2001 edict by the Taliban of Afghanistan forcing its Hindu population to wear a religious symbol denoting their faith;

Recognizing that the Taliban continue to abuse the basic human rights of Afghan citizens, in particular women and children...

This includes the changes we just incorporated.

The Chair: I don't like to interrupt because of the confusion, but it's been suggested by one of our colleagues that perhaps instead of saying “women and children” we should say “women and girls”, because it's male children.

Ms. Roohi Ahmed: Okay.

The Chair: Is that acceptable?

Mr. James Junke: There's the problem with child soldiers, child labour. That's more boys than girls, so it's children.

The Chair: Children, fine. Thank you for that clarification. We appreciate that. So women and children.

Ms. Roohi Ahmed: Okay, so we're all right with the second clause.

The Chair: Yes.

• 1710

Ms. Roohi Ahmed: The third clause is:

Reaffirming the importance of religious freedom as a basic human right;

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade recommends that the Government of Canada:

Immediately issue a statement condemning the recent actions of the Taliban in Afghanistan;

That Canada continues to co-sponsor, where appropriate, resolutions within the United Nations system, in association with other like-minded states, which advocate for the promotion and protection of human rights, including religious freedom and respect of international humanitarian law in Afghanistan.

Does everyone have that clause? I can read it once again. That's the amended... the additional clause.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Is that what's on the floor?

The Chair: Is that the end? Is that the last clause?

Ms. Roohi Ahmed: No, there's an additional bullet.

The Chair: There's an additional clause. So would you just re-read your wording of that clause, and then the last clause?

Ms. Roohi Ahmed: Sure.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Roohi Ahmed: It is:

That Canada continues to co-sponsor, where appropriate, resolutions within the United Nations system, in association with other like-minded states, which advocate for the promotion and protection of human rights, including religious freedom and respect of international humanitarian law in Afghanistan.

We have one last clause after this.

The Chair: Can we just clarify? Are those considered friendly amendments by you, Mr. Obhrai—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes.

The Chair: —worked out with the government?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes, we worked it out. But I have one question. When you say “continue to co-sponsor”, are you already co-sponsoring something?

Ms. Roohi Ahmed: Yes, we are, but not on this particular issue.

Mr. James Junke: As part of the material we're going to make available, we have a record of our activity in the UN system in various forums—the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Commission on Human Rights, UNESCO, and so forth. We're very active in a number of forums, and we have a list of them for you.

The Chair: We can come back to that when you tell us what the situation is, when we have the wording correct.

There's one more clause. I'm sorry to keep complicating your life, but I think you might find that the beginning... Just read the first few words of your clause. It starts, “the Government of Canada continues...”

Ms. Roohi Ahmed: “That Canada continues to...”.

The Chair: Yes. You may just find that since the disposative clause reads, “The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade recommends that the Government of Canada”, you might want to take out the reference to Canada in that line, because we've already said that.

Mr. James Junke: So it would begin with “Continues”.

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Roohi Ahmed: The final clause, which Mr. Obhrai accepted as well, is:

Recognizing that the situation in Afghanistan is complex and the humanitarian crisis is worsening, Canada supports the UN Secretary General's April 2001 report calling for a comprehensive approach to the serious crisis in Afghanistan, and urges the Taliban to cooperate in the delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance.

The Chair: That's good. That's friendly and helpful.

Maybe we can go back then, if you have a few introductory comments about the present situation. Then I can ask members if there's any debate.

Madam Beaumier, do you want to speak right now?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: I guess so. I have a question, and I think my concern is the same as Mr. Obhrai's. This seems like a very passive kind of resolution. If we say “Continue to co-sponsor”, there doesn't appear to be anything proactive in this. You say we aren't currently co-sponsoring these types of resolutions, but it's not directing the government to seek out partnerships for co-sponsorship.

• 1715

The Chair: Before we get into a debate about the wording of the resolution, I'd like to give you five minutes to tell us what the situation is and what you are doing at the moment. Then we'll go back to what we should do in our resolution.

Do you have a point of order?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: The text you have read is rather long and we do not have it. I refer to the final paragraph.

The Chair: No, it is new.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: We cannot have an intelligent debate if we do not have the text. You should read it to us. I am used to taking notes but, in this case, I still miss five lines.

[English]

The Chair: Perhaps you could reread your last paragraph, Ms. Ahmed, and then Madame Lalonde will

[Translation]

get the meaning of that.

[English]

Ms. Roohi Ahmed: With pleasure.

[Translation]

You refer to the last paragraph?

[English]

Recognizing that the situation in Afghanistan is complex and the humanitarian crisis is worsening, Canada supports the UN Secretary General's April 2001 report calling for a comprehensive approach to the serious crisis in Afghanistan, and urges the Taliban to cooperate in the delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance.

Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question?

The Chair: Yes, sir.

Mr. John Harvard: The first line in that last paragraph, “recognizing that the situation in Afghanistan is complex”, I find that to have a rather softening effect. Can we not just say the situation is worsening? I think that line tends to soften it. There's a disgusting situation happening in that country, and I think we should be a bit more forceful, that's all.

The Chair: I understand. I think that was Madam Beaumier's point as well, and also Mr. Keyes'. Without the wording it's difficult to deal with it.

Maybe we could take a few minutes to hear from you what the government is doing. Then we could decide within the ten minutes that will remain to us whether we can deal with this or we'll have to adjourn until after the vote.

Ms. Patricia Marsden-Dole: I'll summarize from the notes we have prepared for you. We've given you a package containing quite a bit of information regarding the government's various initiatives over the last while. I'm going to capture a few ideas out of this text, which will be handed out to you.

I think you have the background notes on what the issue is, so I'll just say that Canada has no formal relations with the Taliban regime, and we have had no diplomatic relations with Afghanistan since 1979. However, when we first heard of this edict, our high commission in Islamabad made an urgent démarche on the Taliban ambassador in Islamabad on the morning of May 24; that is, two days after we had first begun to hear about this edict. We learned at that meeting that the Taliban approach was that this was to protect the Hindus. That was the information we got from them. Of course they were concerned that, in their view, the media had misconstrued the story.

However, we stayed with our point. The Minister of Foreign Affairs issued a statement in which he deplored this edict from the Taliban government. We will be able to give copies of that to you. It begins, “Manley condemns Taliban identification of religious minorities”.

• 1720

On May 26, two days later, the High Commission in Islamabad met with officials of the Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who said that the Government of Pakistan shared our concerns. But they had not yet seen the edict. Nobody had seen the edict at that point because it hadn't been signed by the religious authorities of the Taliban regime who were responsible for it.

The Government of Pakistan referred to their formal statement issued on May 24 in respect of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, underlining those rights regarding religious tolerance and equal rights and opportunities for all citizens and emphasizing that these were the practices of the spirit of Islam.

I'd like to bring to your attention our final paragraph, which refers to Canadian humanitarian assistance to the refugees. There are two items here, humanitarian assistance and human rights, where Canada has focused its efforts, and we continue to do that. We continue to focus our efforts in Afghanistan on many of the projects we have in health, education, mine awareness, and conventional food aid. We support what the UNHCR is doing to address the displaced persons who have arisen from the conflict in Afghanistan.

I refer you to the last page of our handout, which lists the activities Canada undertakes in various international fora to support Canada's position on Afghanistan.

The Chair: Colleagues, we have seven minutes. Has this resolution received sufficient support in its present form so that we can adopt it as is, or is it your will that we adjourn and take it up first thing at our next meeting?

Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: First, Mr. Chairman, I don't think the resolution is strong enough. Second, Mr. Chairman, I don't have the wording of their resolution in front of me. I can't vote on just what I might be hearing in the air.

The Chair: I appreciate that.

Mr. Obhrai, we'll adjourn to enable you and the department to put together the resolution so that we can have a look at its actual wording.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I'm absolutely disappointed. I want this to be—

An hon. member: Oh, come on—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Let me speak. I have the floor.

I'm absolutely disappointed with what has happened here, because I brought forward a very strong resolution. Based on what the government and the department said, it's watered down. The issue is now, because it's important over there, and it did not get passed. This member over here is talking about all these things—

Mr. Stan Keyes: We're saying it's not tough enough.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: —when the issue is so important, and it came from him. Perhaps he should talk about it with his government.

The Chair: Colleagues—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: We want this thing to be done.

Mr. Stan Keyes: It's not tough enough.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Then you go ahead and ask them. But we want this thing to be done. I brought this issue over here to be done.

The Chair: Colleagues, order.

The situation is this. Mr. Obhrai, you brought a resolution forward, and you're to be commended for doing that. However, it was your desire that the government support it. I understand that the departmental officials did their best to work with you to present an amended resolution.

The members on the government side are not saying they're not willing to adopt the resolution. They recognize the importance here. If anything, Madam Beaumier and Mr. Keyes have said they don't feel the resolution has enough bite. So they're on your side on this.

I think the way in which we can deal with this appropriately would be to enable all members to have the wording before them before we actually adopt it.

We have this room until 6:30. Is it the will of the members to come back and finish? We'll have the vote. Somebody can put it into appropriate wording, and we'll distribute it to the members. We'll come back. Let's deal with this issue tonight.

That's the will of the committee. That's excellent. We'll come back after the vote.

Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, we have passed a unanimous motion on Iraq which was very important and for which we took the time to consider the stakes.

• 1725

As far as I am concerned, the Talibans raise an even greater challenge. I am very pleased that Mr. Obhrai moved this resolution but I think we should take the time to draft it correctly.

The Chair: Absolutely. Are you opposed to coming back after the vote? I believe there might be another problem, the parliamentary calendar. If everybody agrees with the intent of the resolution, it would be better to pass it today.

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): We will not be here.

The Chair: Okay.

[English]

We're going to come back after the vote, folks. Thank you very much.

• 1726

• 1802

The Chair: We will now resume.

Mr. Obhrai, am I right in assuming that in the first to fourth paragraphs, there are no changes or anything of significance to comment on?

Mr. Comartin is back, and we're now within striking distance of a quorum.

Mr. Comartin, I was just explaining to everybody that I propose that we settle the wording of this, and then we'll have a formal session to actually adopt it.

Mr. John Harvard: Are you suggesting that before you resort to the gavel, you'd like to work out the wording?

The Chair: We're now on the record, but before we go back onto the television, I'm going to work out the wording with you.

Mr. John Harvard: I'd like to make one suggestion with respect to the last paragraph.

The Chair: Right.

Mr. John Harvard: May I suggest it now, or perhaps after Mr. Obhrai?

I just feel that the way the last paragraph is currently written, over and above condemning what the Taliban have done, especially with respect to the non-Muslim population, we should be advocating or telling them to desist, to stop this.

We're just saying in the last paragraph “to cooperate in the delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance”. That's fine. I see nothing wrong with that, but I think we should be telling them to stop this.

The Chair: I agree.

Mr. Obhrai has circulated the third version now, in smaller type. The type is getting smaller, but the ideas are getting bigger. I'm asking you to replace the one you were given with this last one, which begins “Deeply disturbed by”.

In the first paragraph, is “Deeply disturbed by” all right? That replaces “Regretting” and is clearly stronger language.

And we agree that it will go on to say:

Recognizing that the Taliban continue to abuse the basic human rights of its citizens, particularly of women and children;

An hon. member: Agreed.

The Chair: It will say:

Reaffirming the importance of religious freedom as a basic human right;

Do we agree?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: It will say now:

The Standing Committee... recommends that the Government of Canada:

Immediately issue a statement condemning the recent actions of the Taliban in Afghanistan;

Some hon. members: Agreed.

• 1805

The Chair: And then:

Continues to actively co-sponsor resolutions, where appropriate, within the United Nations system which advocate the promotion and protection of religious freedom and respect—

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Take “where appropriate” out.

The Chair: That's understood anyway. You guys won't do it when it's inappropriate. The minister would never do anything inappropriate.

Ms. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Why would you say “Continues”? How about that the Government of Canada:

Actively co-sponsor resolutions within the United Nations system which advocate the promotion and protection of religious freedom and respect for international law in Afghanistan.

An hon. member: Absolutely.

Ms. Diane Marleau: Period.

The Chair: But don't you want to recognize the fact that the government is presently doing it?

Ms. Diane Marleau: No. This is like saying you do something. Yes, we know they do something. We want them to do something else.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. John Harvard: I think the word “Continues” is quite appropriate, because it's not the only initiative. It's adding to our arsenal.

An hon. member: Yes, but it's “where appropriate” that they want to scratch.

The Chair: Okay, colleagues, I would suggest to you that I get consensus on removing the wording “where appropriate”. Correct?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: That's pretty well from everyone. Okay.

So now the debate is whether we leave in “Continues”. You'd like to take that out.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I would like it to say “Co-sponsor resolutions within the United Nations”. That's the bottom line.

The Chair: Okay. Who wants to leave in “Continues”, and who wants to..

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): I think it's important that we leave in “Continues” simply because the statement above, “Immediately issue a statement condemning...”, does talk about the immediacy of our concern and the fact that we're deeply disturbed. But we want to continue to actively co-sponsor resolutions that deal with that issue.

The Chair: Right.

Ms. Jean Augustine: So I would like to leave that in, in light of the fact that we have that “Immediately” clause ahead.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: May I say something?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I understand the gist of what you're saying, and I understand that the department has been working on it and they've been doing all these things that are happening.

I think what we are doing here is specifically going after the one issue, getting this thing to go. That is why I'm narrowing it down. The department is doing it themselves. They are co-sponsoring. They're doing a lot of things out there. Let them carry on doing it, and then in the broader sense, within what's going on, we want the committee to recommend something on this particular issue. That's why I want it. Otherwise, you're right, we'll start losing the track of the whole thing. But I understand what you're saying.

Ms. Jean Augustine: But my argument is that this opens it up a little wider, because you've included in there not just the basic human rights or the recent action, but you're talking again about the promotion, the protection, the respect. It seems to me that you've opened it up a little wider, which is one of the reasons I would go for “Continues to”.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I think “Co-sponsor resolutions” means the same thing.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: I want to go back to the penultimate paragraph. May I?

The Chair: Can we settle this paragraph first, the final paragraph, since we're talking about that, before we go back to the penultimate paragraph?

Mr. John Harvard: Okay, fine.

The Chair: Mr. O'Brien, do you want to comment on the last paragraph?

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I do. I want to ask for the officials to comment, because we know how important wordsmithing can be at the UN. Would they prefer to see “Continues”, and if they would, why?

Ms. Patricia Marsden-Dule: I think it's a response to the point that we were making here—that is, that this is an ongoing campaign. But it's your choice. This is your resolution.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Diane Marleau: It's our resolution, so...

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I do appreciate that it's an ongoing concern. Nothing in this stops that ongoing concern. It's an ongoing concern, and it's going on. The intent of this thing was where it is, and we're addressing that. I don't see why we cannot address that particular issue.

If we start increasing it broadly, then we are talking about, as a policy, that we are moving towards that direction on many human rights issues and many things. But I want this thing to be specific on this issue, otherwise we're going to lose the gist of the whole thing.

The Chair: I think everybody knows where everybody stands on this. Let me take a poll quickly.

• 1810

Those in favour of removing “continues”...

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: That's because the TV's on.

The Chair: All right, those in favour of removing “Continues” so it just recommends that the government “Actively co-sponsor resolutions”. One, two, three, four.

Those opposed to removing “Continues”. One, two, three, four. You're opposed, Ms. Augustine, yes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I want it.

The Chair: You want it, so you're opposed to removing it. So it's five to four.

An hon. member: I think it's a minor part of the question.

The Chair: Okay. Anyway, it's a five to four—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: No, no, it's my resolution.

The Chair: Yes, but it can be—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: No, you can vote my resolution down.

The Chair: This is your resolution as it's here, you're right.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: You can vote down my resolution.

The Chair: Right.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: You can't. You're forgetting the gist of the whole thing. I don't want to play politics here, I want the gist of the thing to do it.

The Chair: Well, wait a minute—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: If you want to do that, that's fine. Then just leave my resolution, vote it down and end of the story. Forget it.

Mr. Stan Keyes: We don't want to do that.

The Chair: No, no, no.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I'm trying to do my best to cooperate over here, okay, but let's get to the gist of the whole thing. No, no, you are going to change it.

The Chair: I have to make a ruling as the chair so that we understand what we're doing here.

Mr. Obhrai, you put this resolution before us and I put it forward as your resolution. You can't now say you're going to change it and get mad at them for not wanting to accept the changes you want to make. This is now before us. This is what we're debating. This is your resolution, so you are, as they say, hoisted on your own petard.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]

• 1822

[Editor's Note: Public proceedings resume]

The Chair: Colleagues, we've returned after the vote and had an opportunity to consider the revised resolution proposed by Mr. Obhrai respecting recent events in Afghanistan. I'd like to read to you the wording that has been worked out among the parties with the usual collaboration we're able to establish in this committee. The resolution as proposed would read as follows:

Deeply disturbed by the May 22, 2001, edict by the Taliban of Afghanistan forcing its Hindu population to wear religious symbols denoting their faith;

Recognizing that the Taliban continue to abuse the basic human rights of Afghan citizens, particularly of women and children;

Reaffirming the importance of religious freedom as a basic human right;

Recognizing the Government of Canada's ongoing work in this area;

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade condemns the recent action of the Taliban in Afghanistan and recommends that the Government of Canada actively co-sponsor resolutions, where appropriate, within the United Nations' system which advocate the promotion and protection of religious freedom and respect of international law in Afghanistan.

Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: You just added a word. We had decided to take the words “where appropriate” out.

The Chair: You're quite right. My apologies. Thank you.

Then I take it there's a motion from Mr. Obhrai that the draft resolution as amended be adopted as the committee's third report to the House and I'd be instructed to report it to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Do I have unanimous consent for that?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Am I authorized to make any typographical and editorial changes as may be necessary, without changing the substance of the report?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I can add “where appropriate” if I deem it appropriate?

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Thank you very much, colleagues, and thank you, Mr. Obhrai, for a very helpful resolution. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.