FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, September 27, 2001

• 0910

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): Colleagues, we won't sit in camera.

I would like to suggest again that while obviously the terrible events of September 11 will inform to some extent our discussions and determine some of the decisions we're going to make, I don't wish to dwell upon it except to say that like all members of Parliament, I am personally devastated by it. I'm sure all of us are.

I would like to suggest that we might start our first committee meeting with a minute of silence, to remember those who died in the terrible New York attack, both Canadians and Americans, and some 65 nationalities who were in those buildings. But I would also like to suggest that maybe our minute of silence might be a prayer for ourselves and for our colleagues in foreign affairs committees around the world who are struggling with what is the best policy to adopt.

Finally, I don't know how many of you have seen the recent news, but you may know that there was a deranged person who went into the Swiss assembly this morning. I've been told a certain number of our Swiss parliamentarian colleagues, 15 I believe, were killed in an attack. I do not believe it was a terrorist attack; I believe it was some discontented person who was upset about what they were doing. But it illustrates the mood in which we presently do our work. In that context, I would like to suggest that we stop for one minute to reflect on all of those issues before we proceed.

[The committee observes a minute of silence]

• 0915

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.

We're here to discuss the work plan of what we should do in the next session.

As you know, the tradition and the practice is that legislation prevails over other business of committees, and so the two pieces of legislation we understand we will be shortly faced with will be, one, the EDC act—changes to the EDC act that reflect the recommendations this committee made to the government in the report we prepared about a year and a half ago.

So that will come before the committee. The other is the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement, which will be coming to the committee as well.

Both those pieces of legislation will come this fall and probably quite soon, so we'll have to decide within our agenda how we can fit them in.

My personal reflection is that the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement will not take a great deal of time. I've been briefed on it. It's a much simpler agreement than many other agreements. It doesn't contain a lot of complicated issues on investment or on services, and so I think it should be quite brief.

The EDC act might take more time. We might decide, if it's going to take too much time, to ask Mr. Harb, as chairman of the subcommittee for international trade, to take that. On the other hand, bear in mind that we'll have to ratify the decision in the main committee, so we might just do it in the main committee. In that context, Mr. Pettigrew obviously would be asked to come before the committee in connection with both those bills.

The parliamentary secretary has suggested that Mr. Pettigrew would like to discuss with us the upcoming ministerial in Doha. We would want to hear this before the early part of November, so we'd certainly want to fit Mr. Pettigrew in for a meeting early in October, or at his convenience in October, on all those issues. In talking to members I get the impression that we would obviously also want to hear from Mr. Manley about how he sees foreign policy developing in relation to the events of last September 11.

Those are again, I'm assuming, slots that we'll be working on with our researchers and with our clerk to fit in.

Then we have—

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, not to interrupt you, I think I mentioned it to you privately, but the minister at this point is available on the 24th—

The Chair: Of October?

Mr. Pat O'Brien: —of October, and he would like to discuss Doha with the committee. I wouldn't think Canada-Costa Rica would still be before us, but if either that or EDC is still kicking around here, he would obviously be available then. But we would hope that Canada-Costa Rica, as was Canada-Israel, would be rather easy to get through and could be done in one day. It's not very contentious at all.

EDC is possibly a little bit more contentious, but again, with a focused couple of days of hearings we would hope that wouldn't drag on. The minister would hopefully see it get through by the end of October, if the committee can accommodate that.

The Chair: Mr. Harb, and then I have Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I know the main committee already has so much on its agenda. We would be happy at the subcommittee to at least go through the clause-by-clause and do some of the hearings that are necessary to take part of the load off you. Once we bring it from the subcommittee level, after having gone through all the nitty-gritty stuff, the committee would have a chance to rectify it, and if they want to hear from one witness at that time before they give it their final approval.... Your suggestion to pass it on to the subcommittee is a wise one, and anyone who wanted to appear as a member of the subcommittee is welcome to do so. Just for the sake of making it go faster, I think that would be very useful.

• 0920

While on this matter, I just want to suggest that we would like to have a hearing, as early as next week, on the cross-border delays between Canada and the U.S., in terms of the trucks, as well as the movement of goods and services. I would like the main committee to first allow us to do that, and also to give us some sort of flexibility, in terms of when the subcommittee can meet, so we can do our job properly and bring a report back to this committee, so it can be taken to the House. Then the public will be able to see the kind of work this committee has been doing on behalf of Canadians.

Finally, I know this committee dealt with the political aspect of trade in the Americas, in a meeting that took place in Quebec City. At the subcommittee level, it has been suggested that we at least look at the whole aspect of the business case of free trade in the Americas and the potential it will have on the Canadian economy, if and when that free trade type of arrangement takes place.

So I would like the permission of the main committee for the subcommittees. Again, it's open to all members of the committee to attend and participate, if we can do a little bit of an in-depth study of that particular issue.

The Chair: I understand where you're coming from on those issues. We'll have time to get into that. If you're referring to the problem of the subcommittee having to meet only on Wednesday afternoon, we can certainly discuss that. I won't say that's beyond us, to some extent, but it's very much a whip's determination.

The whips have the problem of manning the committees, if they meet at the same time as the main committee. I don't think we can meet when the main committee is meeting, but if you can convince your members of the importance of the work, I'm sure they could fit something in on a Monday afternoon or a Friday, or something like that. That'll be your problem, not ours.

The clerk has brought to my attention one more piece of sand that always seems to get in the machinery around here. My understanding is that the membership will be put in the House this afternoon, I think. Until we have had a meeting of the main committee and elected the officers of both the main committee and the subcommittees, nobody can meet.

Mr. Mac Harb: I understand that a committee is a committee until the next committee goes through the House.

The Chair: That's right.

Mr. Mac Harb: So we have full authority to do everything we want to do and suggest anything we want to suggest—

The Chair: Until the moment when the document is filed in the House, at which point we will be functus and will need to have a new election. I understand that will happen this afternoon.

When do you want to have your next meeting?

Mr. Mac Harb: We want to have it as early as next week.

The Chair: Next Wednesday.

Mr. Mac Harb: Next Wednesday. Hopefully before.

The Chair: Then the assumption will have to be that if the document is filed in the House this afternoon, we will work to have our meeting by next Tuesday morning, so we can get ourselves constituted and up and running. But that's up to the clerks and the House officers to organize. We don't control that agenda. That's all I'm saying. We'll do our best, but we don't control the agenda.

Mr. Mac Harb: A logistical issue is that we will have to give some of the witnesses sufficient notice to appear, before next Wednesday. If it's approved, we can at least approach the witnesses.

This is an issue of national magnitude that's affecting over 30% of our gross domestic product, in a sense, in terms of trade. It's an urgent matter that we really have to deal with.

So I would like the committee to say we can go ahead and invite the witnesses to come in next Wednesday. Then on Tuesday, if you decide otherwise, we can cancel the meeting.

The Chair: Any approval we give will be provisional and won't be any good for you anyway. So you might as well wait until next Tuesday.

Why don't you do what we're doing today? We've decided to have this meeting even though, theoretically, we know everything's going to be changed. But we're having it because we need to get going.

• 0925

Why don't you assume that by next Wednesday you'll be ready to go, and if that doesn't work out because we haven't been properly constituted, then you won't be able to do it. But if I were in your position, I'd go on the assumption you could do it.

By the way, colleagues, I didn't have an opportunity to mention we have a new clerk with us, Mr. Stephen Knowles. He's not a new clerk; he's new to this committee, but he's certainly been around and has a great deal of experience. I'd like to welcome him, on your behalf.

The Clerk of the Committee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I understand we're in very good hands with you, so we're quite pleased to have you with us.

Next I have Mr. Robinson and Mr. Martin.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up and to join in welcoming Mr. Knowles to the committee, I think the committee chair might also want to pass on, on behalf of the committee, our congratulations to our former clerk, Janice Hilchie, who has been promoted to deputy principal clerk and is working at the table.

The Chair: Absolutely. It is a good thing.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's right.

The Chair: Why is it that only Ms. Hilchie seems to progress? Is this telling us something?

Mr. Svend Robinson: I would also just like to note—she's not here today, of course, because the committee hasn't been formally reconstituted—there's a new parliamentary secretary. Eileen Carroll is the new parliamentary secretary, and we look forward to her briefing the committee on national missile defence in the near future.

In terms of the agenda for the next four to six weeks, or I suppose until Christmas, realistically, I have just a couple of points to flag. On Canada and Costa Rica, I don't expect there to be any major delays, but would just note there is a domestic issue that has certainly been brought to my attention, and that's the issue of the impact on Canadian sugar refineries. Rogers Sugar refinery in British Columbia is certainly affected by this. I've met with their key people. We'll want to look at what the implications are there, and possibly have a witness or two on that issue specifically.

I certainly hope we can invite Minister Manley to appear before this committee, at the earliest possible opportunity, to brief us on the follow-up, from a foreign affairs perspective, to September 11. I hope we can also invite Minister Minna to appear, whether it's before the subcommittee or the main committee, on the unfolding humanitarian tragedy in Afghanistan, with the refugees that are fleeing. I think it's really important that we look at what role Canada can play effectively there.

On just a couple of other brief points, I was pleased to hear Pat suggest that the minister would be available to brief the committee on the run-up to Doha. I think that's important. We may also want to hear from some other witnesses, just to get some sense of what people are suggesting should be some of the key issues on agriculture and other issues at Doha. So we may want to look at that, in either the subcommittee or the main committee.

The chair has suggested—and I think it's a good suggestion—that in terms of a study, we look at Canada-U.S. I think it's timely, and there are a number of key issues we can address. There are bilateral issues, to be sure, but also issues that go beyond that. Agricultural subsidies is obviously one, but softwood lumber is a major irritant, to say the least.

There's also national missile defence, and the issue of Cuba and the impact of United States' policy with respect to Cuba. There have been some disturbing developments recently on that front, with a Canadian business person arrested, for example, under the provisions of American legislation. I think there's lots of scope for us to take a good solid look at that bilateral relationship, hold some hearings on it, and make some recommendations to the government.

Finally, I sent the chair a letter on August 7, following the tabling of the Hughes report, urging that this committee look at the issue of the role played by Jean Carle and the Prime Minister, at an early opportunity. I'll be putting that motion before the committee for approval.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Robinson. As usual, you manage to get ahead. But I would just suggest—and maybe I could jump in before I recognize anybody else—I pointed out what legislation we might get before the committee, and then there is the question of what studies we might choose to do.

• 0930

We had originally sort of had a consensus on doing Canada-U.S., and I was going to suggest to the members of the committee that, given the events of September 11, obviously the Canada-U.S. relationship becomes core to what we are doing. Through the prism of the Canada-U.S. relationship, we can of course look at the multilateral dimensions of what we have to do, etc., but we could sort of do it through that. Obviously, members of the committee are going to want to focus on Canadian foreign policy in light of recent events, but it seems to me we can do that through the prism of the Canada-U.S. relationship. We could then look at how we deal with these issues.

How Mr. Robinson managed to wiggle Cuba in there, I can't imagine, but anyway he did. So that too, no doubt, will be on the address. We'll discuss the matter of your letter when you formally deposit your motion before the committee.

So we'll turn to Mr. Martin and then

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau.

An Hon. Member: Mr. Rocheleau isn't here.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Paquette then.

[English]

That was a Freudian slip.

[Translation]

Mr. Paquette,

[English]

and then we'll have Madam Augustine.

So, Mr. Martin, sir.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

I thought we were going to have a schizophrenic morning.

Along the lines of what you were saying, Mr. Graham, given what happened on September 11 and given the public's concerns, I think we'd be remiss in not specifically focusing on and dealing with the issue of terrorism and international security. I think through that we can get to the issue of Canada-U.S. relations. The concerns people have both here at home and abroad and the security issues that are certainly of an international scope will require, in my personal view, that this committee deal with the issue on an international level. The committee should specifically focus on the international security aspects of terrorism and proffer some solutions to the government. I think that would be very, very helpful at this time for all concerned.

I would agree with Mr. Robinson's comments about the Afghani crisis, which is taking place as we speak. Certainly, hearing from some people on that would be helpful.

Also, there's a massive crisis taking place in Sudan, namely a famine, where potentially one to two million people are going to die in the very near future. It would be very helpful for the committee to hear, either here or in the subcommittee—which is doing Colombia at this time—about interventions being made and what we as a country can do on the international stage to alleviate that.

Those are the suggestions I have.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Certainly, without speaking on behalf of Ms. Phinney, who's the chair of the subcommittee—Mr. Robinson sits on that subcommittee—my understanding is that when they've completed Colombia, they intend to turn to Sudan. That is their order. They've undertaken that publicly; in the spring they agreed that they would do a study on Sudan, which possibly would mean having to travel there to examine the situation.

I think everybody has agreed that this is more important than ever in the light of events, and the clerk tells me that in fact the Anglican archbishop of Sudan will be coming before the subcommittee on October 17 at 3:30 p.m. He'll be in town, so you might want to put that in your diary, if you're interested in Sudan.

[Translation]

I apologize, Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Like everyone, I too believe the certain priorities are in order further to the events of September 11 last. I also feel it's important for us to consider these events in terms of their impact on Canada's foreign policy and Canada-US relations.

As noted, I also think that one of our short-term priorities should be the tragedy in Afghanistan. UN reports that we have been receiving since this morning are very disturbing. In the medium term, I think we should go along with Francine Lalonde's suggestion which she has conveyed to the clerk. Since Canada has committed to coordinating a study of a rescue plan for the African continent, I think the committee should also contribute in some way to this initiative.

• 0935

Unless the agenda has been changed, the African continent will be the focus of the G-8 meeting slated to be held in Canada in the summer of 2002. In light of this fact, the committee must contribute to this reflection process to be undertaken by Canada and other wealthy nations. At present, this continent is totally isolated and development has come to a virtual standstill. It's a tragedy, from a humanitarian as well as a political standpoint.

Therefore, I would like to reiterate her suggestion. We don't know if the WTO meeting will in fact take place, but in any event, there will be a meeting of this organization at some point during the year. In my view, the committee should be keep abreast of developments in the area, and in particular of any changes in Canada's position.

One issue that the Sub-Committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment may broach is milk supply management. As we know, a WTO tribunal has made a negative determination and Quebec's milk producers are very worried about the future. I'd like us to take a closer look at this matter.

Negotiations on a Free Trade Area of the Americas are also something that we might consider. I'm not sure how we're planning to proceed but I would imagine that this matter will come up during our discussions on Canada-US relations. The debate on free trade with Costa Rica will also be on the agenda. I'm not saying that we oppose free trade with Costa Rica, but we made a number of recommendations to the government which were not taken into consideration during negotiations. This will give us an opportunity to put these proposals back on the table. Moreover, I am concerned as well about how this might affect future agreements with the four Latin American countries, especially with respect to our refined sugar. Montreal is home to the Lantic Sugar refinery and I would also like the committee to take a closer look at that.

Obviously, we're going to continuing following the softwood lumber issue closely.

However, I believe that as a priority consideration, we should be examining very thoroughly the situation on the African continent.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A few of the items I jotted down, ones I think we should focus on, have been discussed, so I'll just go quickly over some of the things I have on my list.

I think that sugar is an important aspect of any discussion concerning the Costa Rica agreement, and as that is perused I think it's important...I am chair of the sugar caucus, and there are a lot of members around the table who come from areas where sugar and what we do concerning sugar...it's a source of employment, etc., and there are all kinds of arguments there that we need to add as a part of that discussion.

Second, I'm pleased that Sudan is going to be discussed at the subcommittee level because I had that on my list as something we should give some attention to. It's crying out. Yesterday I spoke in terms of the government's position, but I know emotionally that there were some things we ought to address and ways and means by which we ought to move.

We attended that conference in Durban where attention was placed on the issue of racism. I think maybe this committee should in some way either discuss what came out of there or in some way reflect on the Durban conference. I'm not too sure whether it should involve asking the minister or the head of the delegation, but in some way I think this should be of concern to us.

The Africa focus for the G-8 is another issue. I think we should be doing some work in order to offer some resources for whatever activities will be taking place as part of our participation.

And last, I think the free trade area of the Americas is an important issue. For my part, I've put forth several times my concern for the small states and their economies, and I know we've offered assistance. We have packages to help them with technological problems and in other ways, but I think it's important for us to be quite clear as to how, as the chair mentioned, this free trade will affect Canada. We need to look at it on a little wider basis than just how it affects Canada, such as how Canada is perceived by the smaller states as we move into the FTAA.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 0940

The Chair: Mr. O'Brien, and then Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, just to respond briefly to some of the concerns of my colleagues on Doha, I agree, the minister is...anxious, I guess would be the right word. He is certainly interested in discussing Doha with the committee. I met with some Japanese trade people earlier this week and they were concerned whether Doha would go ahead. Our position is that yes, it is going ahead, and Canada is anxious to see it go ahead. I think that would be an important discussion.

On Canada-Costa Rica, I would just note the committee did Canada-Israel in a day, and I guess that would be.... No?

The Chair: We had quite long hearings about what the rights of the Palestinian people would be to get access to the Canada-Israel agreement. We may have got the clause-by-clause through in one day, but we did have quite extensive hearings around what the relationship between Palestine and access to Palestinian goods would be under the agreement.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Okay, fair enough.

On Canada-Costa Rica, our hope is that we could do that expeditiously. If we need a few witnesses, then let's have them.

I would just note for colleagues that there is no refinery in Costa Rica. If you take a look at that deal on its own, it's pretty straightforward. I have concerns on this side of the House too, our side of the table from Montreal. We have the same concerns about sugar as some of the colleagues on that side. But the reality is it's not in this deal. It would be in a future deal where that concern would really surface. On this particular deal...there's not even a sugar refinery in Costa Rica.

The only point I'm trying to make is that each bilateral trade deal will stand on its own and should be looked at on its own. I understand the concerns we're getting from whatever side of the House, from sugar interests in Canada, and they need to be addressed. They're not in the Canada-Costa Rica deal because there's not even a refinery in Costa Rica. I just put that forward.

I will recall for colleagues that we want to help these smaller economies of the Americas, as my colleague from Toronto said, and we're free traders. Political pressure aside, we're free traders or we're not free traders. Anyway, I throw that out for discussion, Mr. Chairman.

We can't be like the Americans—free traders when we want to be.

The Chair: Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Welcome to the committee, even though you've jumped the fence a bit. But we understand you're on the committee in the future.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Yes, I appreciate that.

I just want to say I'm very much looking forward to the work we can do together here. In my provincial days, I found the committee work I was involved in to be perhaps some of the most satisfying time that was spent in the provincial House. I don't think there has very likely been a time, at least in some decades, in this country when the work of this committee has been of greater importance. I think we have massive challenges ahead of us and an opportunity to be a part of making a difference, and that's the reason we all get into politics in the first place, I expect.

Mr. Chairman, you can tell from the earlier comments that your perhaps hopeful attitude toward the Costa Rica agreement is not going to bear fruit. There are a lot of concerns that have been expressed already around this table about that issue. I come from Manitoba. We lost our sugar refinery. We lost our sugar-beet industry. Our foreign producers are no longer engaged in the production of sugar beets at the farm level. There are some very serious concerns that erosion of a domestic crop alternative to the farmer is one that is going to continue to erode, and this agreement, of course, raises red flags with many. So there will be further discussion on that.

I will make two brief comments. First of all, we must discuss Canada's role in the war on terrorism internationally. Though we cannot do as much as perhaps was once the case militarily, there is much we can do. I am looking forward to those discussions as to what it is we can do, and for us to develop ideas and recommendations around that theme is, I think, important.

• 0945

We have a great contribution to make as a nation. We have relationships that are very strong with many nations that some of our allies don't have strong relationships with, and we have an opportunity here.

Also, though, we have a challenge. We have a department of foreign affairs, which, according to many reports, is somewhat demoralized. We have a department that is in the midst of a time when it sees itself as being an important department, but it also sees challenges within itself, within its ranks. I think we need to also bear in mind that there is a responsibility here for us to make sure that department functions to the best of its ability in the future.

We have opportunities galore, whether they be in the area of aid policies...and certainly that is going to be a very important part of our deliberations, I expect, in the weeks ahead. Our embassies have been too often the site of criminal activity, and we have heard many reports, including, but not exclusive to, the sale of passports out of our embassies—visas and the like. This is an issue that concerns many of us. Our reputation abroad is, we hope, a good one, but we want to enhance it and we don't want to see it eroded by that kind of conduct. So our first line of defence would be our embassies.

That moves me to the domestic side of this. The issue that very likely will take centre stage certainly for the next while is the issue of perimeter security, and how we deal with that issue is obviously very important. I can't overstate the importance of it. The ramifications of our approach to issues of harmonization with United States policy in some areas will have ramifications for the frontier. The United States perceives its frontier, I hope at this point in time, to be something other than the Canada-U.S. border, and I would certainly hope we make every effort to make sure that continues to be the reality, for the cost of having the United States' frontier be the Canada-U.S. border is an inestimable one. So on the domestic side, perimeter security is something we're going to have a lot of opportunity to address.

The issue would have been at this committee had there not been this horrible atrocity two weeks ago, I expect; of principal concern, the issue of sovereignty vis-à-vis the closeness of Canada and the U.S., across the border. I've read and heard comments from a number of members on the government side—varying views—on where we should go regarding that relationship, regarding border security, regarding the elimination of the border: comments from the trade minister, from the foreign affairs minister, the immigration minister, and so on. Various comments have been made; naturally, various views are held. But the fact remains that the debate will not vanish. If anything, the debate and discussion around that issue is more important than it's been ever in the history of this country.

I'm very much excited to learn from my colleagues here, and I look forward to sharing our views and coming up with productive recommendations for our government in the weeks ahead.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Pallister. Once again, we look forward to working with you.

Mr. Dubé, I have Mr. Robinson on the list first.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief.

I did want, with respect to our new colleague, Mr. Pallister, to raise one serious concern. He touched on the issue here, and I wasn't sure whether he was going to. He made reference to widespread corruption and criminal activity in Canadian embassies abroad. He made similar allegations in the House of Commons.

This is the foreign affairs committee, and as one member of this committee, I want to put on the record that I categorically reject the suggestion that there's any significant degree of either corruption or criminal activity among the professional foreign service officers who serve this country. I think it's very important that we be extremely cautious in making those kinds of allegations and that we respect the professionalism of the foreign service officers who serve this country. That kind of allegation is, I say with respect, completely without foundation.

The Chair: Let's—

• 0950

Mr. Brian Pallister: You may have noticed, if you listened to my comments at all carefully, I said “associated with our embassy” and at no time did I malign our foreign officers. There are 200-plus cases documented of criminal activity associated with our embassies between 1993 and 1996 alone—documented cases, known to any who choose to do a modicum of research. So certainly these so-called allegations are well founded and certainly the concerns we have about our reputation abroad should be addressed by this committee.

The Chair: I don't think we want to get into a debate of the merits of that this morning.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Yes, certainly.

The Chair: However, I'll go to Monsieur Paquette, and then I'm going to come back to a couple of essential items, and then I think we can—

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Very briefly, because we don't want to debate the sugar issue, I would advise the parliamentary secretary to reread Homer's Iliad, particularly the part about the Trojan Horse. Clearly, it won't be easy saying no to Guatemala after saying yes to Costa Rica.

[English]

The Chair: I had thought that the parliamentary secretary was putting before you what we call the “sugar-coated pill”, Mr. Paquette, not a cheval de Troie, but there you are. A sugar-coated pill and a Trojan Horse may somehow go together. However, I'm aware of the fact. I agree, colleagues, on the sugar dimensions, because I'm a member of the sugar caucus myself. And while I wasn't able to attend the meeting, I'm certainly aware of the concerns the sugar industry has that while Costa Rica itself may not represent a threat to the Canadian industry, certainly the possibility that this agreement might be extended to other countries that do have a huge sugar-producing capacity could be. So we certainly will get into that, and I'm sure the parliamentary secretary will be able to deal with it and we'll be coming back to it.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: —is it, then, because there are obviously concerns more than I...? I'm aware of the phrase timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. My Latin teacher would be happy for me to remember about the Trojan Horse, but is this going to go to the—

The Chair: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Pat O'Brien: That's right, “I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts”. Anyway, is this going to go to the trade subcommittee? It sounds like there are concerns.

The Chair: We're trying to get a feeling this morning about things. We can't make decisions anyway until we're reconstituted, so this is to enable us to hit the ground running next week.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Right. It almost sounds like this makes sense.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: If there are concerns, I want to hear them and we'll discuss them, but the reality is that this stand-alone deal comes from a country that doesn't even have a refinery. If there's a larger issue with the rest, then we'll discuss that.

The Chair: Right.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: This deal, in and of itself, is pretty straightforward.

The Chair: That's right. But people do have concerns, so I don't think we can ignore them.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: No.

The Chair: The question is, in terms of the time we have available in the main committee, what should we do about it?

Mr. Pat O'Brien: We should send it to Mac's committee.

The Chair: We'll talk about it and certainly have a recommendation ready for the steering committee when we first meet to sort out these things. I think this meeting has been helpful because it gives us a sense that, yes, Costa Rica may take a bit more time than we thought, and maybe EDC too.

[Translation]

Mr. Paquette, your comments about Africa are very timely indeed. You may recall that last year, the committee drew up a report for the Quebec Summit. If we were to adopt the same approach for the G-8 Summit scheduled for June, our research officers would draft a plan for a series of meetings leading up to the Summit.

Another possible House initiative could be the striking of an all-party committee on Africa that could work closely with our committee. It could come up with a series of recommendations that we in turn could include in our set of recommendations on the G-8 Summit.

Therefore, I fully agree with you. Ms. Lalonde is proposing that we focus on the G-8 Summit as well as on Africa, and then turn our attention to Doha. Obviously, that subject is important too and the establishment of a parliamentary assembly in connection with the WTO has generated a lot of interest as well. That is something we could look at. Two weeks ago, I traveled to Europe to attend a meeting on this subject organized by the European Parliament. Both the European Community and the Inter-Parliamentary Union are lobbying hard for a parliamentary assembly. This initiative is of interest to us, because it's something we have recommended.

• 0955

[English]

Sorry, Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine: I have a note to add to your follow-up. There is a Canada-Africa parliamentary group that has been doing some work. Mr. Robinson is on that group. I chair that group. So that group could also be a resource to the committee. Thanks.

The Chair: Yes, of course. As I recall, you're the chair of that group, so we have a link and we can sit down and see what we can organize around that. That's great.

Colleagues, before you go, before anybody leaves, because we don't want to lose our quorum, you have before you the actual agenda in which there are four items I want your authorization on. Even though we have to be reconstituted next week, we need to authorize the clerk to work on them.

On Tuesday, October 16, there will be a joint meeting of the House and Senate affairs committee with the delegation for relations from the European parliament. That would be a normal committee A/committee B meeting, and I'd like your approval of that.

I'd like your approval to do a meeting on Tuesday, October 16, to mark World Food Day. You'll recall last year we did that in conjunction with the agriculture committee. It was quite successful. We did it in a television room. It was quite a good meeting with the agricultural people. I'd like you to authorize that. I'd like your authorization to get the subcommittee on international trade to invite the director general of the International Labour Organization to appear before it on Wednesday, October 17.

Mr. Mac Harb: No problem. Would it be in addition to what we have already agreed that the committee undertake next week, its hearing and so on?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Mac Harb: Okay.

The Chair: This would be October 17.

Mr. Mac Harb: Right.

The Chair: And then October 23 there will be a meeting of the political affairs committee of the Council of Europe.

Could I get someone to authorize all four of those events so we could get working on them?

So moved by Madam Augustine.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. We're adjourned until we're reconstituted. Thank you very much for coming this morning.