FAIT Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 21, 2002

0915

The Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke--Lakeshore, Lib.))

Mr. Alex Neve (Secretary General, English Section, Amnesty International (Canada))

0920

0925

0930

0935

The Chair

Mr. Alex Neve

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby--Douglas, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Alex Neve

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance)

0940

Mr. Alex Neve

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Mr. Martin

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ)

0945

Mr. Alex Neve

0950

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine, Lib.)

0955

Mr. Alex Neve

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Alex Neve

1000

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Alex Neve

1005

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland--Colchester, PC/DR)

Mr. Alex Neve

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Alex Neve

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Alex Neve

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Alex Neve

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Alex Neve

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Alex Neve

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Alex Neve

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

1010

Mr. Alex Neve

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Mr. Larry Brown (National Secretary-Treasurer, National Union of Public and General Employees)

1015

1020

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

1025

Mr. Larry Brown

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds--Dollard, Lib.))

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Mr. Larry Brown

1030

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Larry Brown

1035

Mr. Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London--Fanshawe, Lib.)

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. Larry Brown

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. Larry Brown

1040

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. Larry Brown

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. Larry Brown

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey

1045

Mr. Larry Brown

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Larry Brown

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Larry Brown

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Larry Brown

1050

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Larry Brown

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

Mr. Larry Brown

The Chair

1055

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

1100

The Chair

Mr. George Baker (Gander--Grand Falls, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. George Baker

The Chair

Mr. George Baker

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. George Baker

1105

The Chair

Mr. Baker

The Chair

Mr. Baker

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

1110

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

Mr. Rocheleau

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

1115

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

1120

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Svend Robinson

1125

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

1130

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. Robinson

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Robinson

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Ms. Lalonde

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Francine Lalonde

1135

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Ms. Lalonde

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

1140

Ms. Lalonde

The Chair

Mr. Robinson

The Chair

Ms. Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Phinney

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. Svend Robinson

1145

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Baker

Mr. Robinson

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Ms. Lalonde

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

1150

Mr. George Baker

The Chair

Mr. George Baker

The Chair

Mr. Baker

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Mr. George Baker

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Ms. Lalonde

The Chair

Mr. Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Baker

The Chair

Mr. George Baker

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. George Baker

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

1155

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Baker

Mr. Robinson

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Mr. George Baker

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

The Clerk

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Casey

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

NUMBER 066

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 21, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0915)

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke--Lakeshore, Lib.)): Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are today studying the agenda of the 2002 G-8 summit. We have before us, from Amnesty International Canada, Alex Neve, secretary general of the English section.

Welcome, Alex. You've come before the committee in the past. We're always pleased to have you with us.

You may begin your presentation. You have about 10 minutes or so. The questioning from members will follow.

Thank you for joining us.

Mr. Alex Neve (Secretary General, English Section, Amnesty International (Canada)): Thank you, Madam Chair.

As always, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to be with you here this morning.

[Translation]

As the Chair noted, my name is Alex Neve and I'm the Secretary General of the English Section of Amnesty International (Canada). This morning, I will be speaking on behalf of both sections of Amnesty International (Canada), that is on behalf of my colleagues with the French Section in Montreal. Regrettably, they could not be here this morning in person.

I will be making my presentation in English, but I would certainly be happy to answer any questions in French.

[English]

As many members of the committee likely know, Amnesty International is an international human rights organization. We have just marked our 40th anniversary, an anniversary that, I'm always careful to say, we haven't celebrated but have simply marked. We have grown to be a truly global human rights movement with well over a million members active around the world on every continent and virtually every corner of the planet.

Here in Canada, 75,000 Canadians consider themselves to be members of Amnesty International. So we have a strong national presence here from coast to coast--to coast, I might add.

We have focus and expertise in our human rights work. We have become, I think, very well known for the work we do on behalf of prisoners of conscience and the work we do to eradicate and end torture; to bring to an end executions, be they legal executions following court orders or summary executions; and to bring to an end political killings that take place out in the streets and in prison courtyards. We also campaign against the practice of disappearances and for fair trials for political prisoners.

That's our area of focus. In a broader sense, though, we are concerned that states take steps to fully promote and uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its entirety.

Over the years we have more and more paid attention to and grown concerned about international meetings of the type you're focusing on in these hearings, the G-8 summit. We have done so because we realize that the human rights potential, the human rights impact, the human rights consequences related to the decisions taken in meetings of that sort are considerable.

As such, we have found ourselves campaigning in new venues, venues that were not necessarily a major part of our human rights campaigning in the past. These places include the World Trade Organization, APEC, and last year's meetings here in Quebec City, the summit of the Americas.

There are obviously many issues that swirl in and around these meetings, major and profound questions about the world economic order, trade, globalization, issues of global governance, and increasingly, of course, the inevitable concerns that arise when protest and dissent erupts in and around these meetings, and the nature of the policing response to those protests.

We approach meetings of this sort with two particular areas of focus. The first is the agenda of the meeting. What are leaders and decision-makers discussing? What are they covering? It is here that we are insistent and strong in underlining the importance of human rights matters being at the forefront of those discussions and decisions, not a secondary concern added after the decisions have been made, or ten years down the road after an agreement has been concluded on trade, but there at the forefront from the very beginning, guiding and determining the nature of the decisions made.

Second, increasingly, we also monitor and speak out on and have concerns about how the meetings are held, and this is what takes us into the policing sphere. We by no means suggest that meetings of this sort shouldn't be policed, that there aren't security concerns. However, we've been increasingly preoccupied in a number of instances now about the nature of the policing response, and have spoken out on a number of occasions--I'll come back to this later in my presentation in more detail--with recommendations as to how we think policing needs to be done in relation to meetings of that sort.

One thing I should make clear at the outset is that we do not approach meetings of this sort with what might be characterized as an anti-globalization position or agenda. Neither do we come to it, though, with a pro-globalization agenda. If anything, when it comes to the issue of globalization, we say, yes, there should be globalization; there should be globalization of human rights. Whatever the venue, whatever the nature of the intergovernmental discussion, that must be the guiding value.

Turning specifically to the question of the G-8 and this year's summit here in Canada, there are two areas I would like to address this morning regarding our concerns about, and recommendations for, this year's agenda.

¿ (0920)

The first is the area of this year's focus on Africa. We have a number of recommendations that we've been impressing upon the G-8 governments as to concrete steps we believe can and should be taken regarding Africa. The second is with respect to terrorism, the war on terrorism, the campaign against terrorism, and the likelihood of that being a very prominent part of this year's agenda as well.

I'll turn first to Africa. Amnesty International and many other organizations very much welcome this year's summit focus on Africa. On many fronts we remain concerned that the international community has long paid inadequate attention to the many needs and challenges faced by African peoples. In fact, we have often drawn attention to the many unfortunate ways in which states worldwide have both deliberately and indirectly adopted measures or pursued policies that have added to the needs and challenges of Africa's peoples. This is most certainly the case on the human rights front.

Our concern with respect to this year's focus on Africa is that the G-8 response to Africa's needs and challenges be real and concrete, not illusory and rhetorical. You will certainly be aware that civil society, while pleased about the prominence of Africa on the agenda, is both dubious and cautious about that. We're dubious because in some quarters there is real concern that Africa's prominence this year must amount to more than simply an easy means of demonstrating that international meetings, often criticized by many as unduly focusing on trade and economy, have a human and compassionate face. We're cautious because we want to be sure that the primary basis the G-8 is using here, the New Partnership for Africa's Development, NEPAD, prepared by African governments, is received and acted on in full recognition that there is a growing sense within African civil society that NEPAD is flawed in some respects and could be improved. The G-8 response and implementation thereof must therefore ensure a full opportunity for civil society input in the months still leading up to the summit and thereafter, as a means of delivering policies that truly benefit African peoples.

That having been said, there is very much in the NEPAD model that we commend. There is a proposal from African leaders about Africa, for Africans, which recognizes that the solutions for Africa are about enhanced and improved international assistance and aid, but also about real, national-level responsibility. African governments are committing clearly to accountable, democratic governance, including areas that will make a real difference in the lives of those they govern.

We are an international human rights group. As such, our focus and expertise take our attention to aspects of NEPAD that directly impact on some of the human rights issues we focus on in our mandate. What I would like to do, therefore, is highlight some key recommendations.

One of the areas of concern that NEPAD focuses on is the importance of conflict prevention--a better approach, a stronger approach, a more proactive approach to conflict. Without question, conflict continues to be one of the continent's most pressing human rights concerns. Consider only the past decade: Rwanda, Angola, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Liberia, Sierra Leone. Horrifying, devastating conflicts, all marked by widespread human rights abuses that have, above all else, targeted civilians, including children. The result: hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people killed; widespread torture, including rape, maiming, and other brutal violence; massive displacement, be it within national borders as internally displaced peoples or to neighbouring countries as refugees.

¿ (0925)

NEPAD's focus on conflict prevention therefore makes a lot of sense. As well, the G-8 need to pick up on that focus could not be more paramount. I would like to highlight four specific areas in this domain of conflict and conflict prevention where we think the G-8 can make a real difference. And this is what we want to see this year. We don't simply want to see reiterations that G-8 countries remain concerned about conflict in Africa and will endeavour to do all in their power to ensure that conflict comes to an end. We want to see real concrete--even if some of them are small steps--things that can be measured, things that can be demonstrated as beginning to make a real difference on the front of conflict.

The four areas I'd like to highlight for you are the arms trade, conflict diamonds, corporate social responsibility, and impunity. Now, that's by no means to suggest that this should be the extent of G-8 action or concern in this area. Any other number of concerns easily come to mind: certainly support for relevant strong institution building in Africa to help avoid and prevent conflict, including human rights training and related resources for African police and security services; measures that provide greater international support for refugee protection in Africa; ongoing attention to the issue of child soldiers, still a pressing problem in many African states. And certainly in all of those cases, we are impressing upon G-8 leaders the importance of ensuring strong attention to the particular needs of women, children, and other disenfranchised members of African society.

Let me deal now specifically with the four issues I have just highlighted, beginning with the arms trade.

Behind conflict, widespread human rights violations, terrorist attacks, police repression, you name it, are arms--throughout Africa and worldwide, of course. Far too easily, lethal weapons end up in the hands of armies, guerrilla groups, and individuals whose main aim is simply to inflict harm on civilians.

The scourge of the arms trade is a blight worldwide. It is particularly scandalous in Africa, where these tools of death and brutality are often purchased at the cost of investing in health, education, and other areas of social need. The G-8 is deeply--and I cannot stress this enough--implicated in this horror. It is estimated that as much as 80% of Africa's arms originate either through production or export in G-8 countries--80%.

The problem is that the trade is either wholly or inadequately regulated in almost all G-8 countries. There is minimal effort or no controls or significant loopholes, which means that the arms easily end up in the hands of human rights abusers. And if anything, the situation is only getting worse. In the midst of the current U.S.-led war against terrorism, Amnesty International has documented massive transfers of military aid--most notably from the United States, but also from other G-8 states--to countries around the world, including Africa, that have shown little regard for the protection of human rights. And those transfers have gone ahead without any measures put in place to safeguard against the arms being used to commit human rights violations.

The multi-billion-dollar G-8-driven arms trade includes a wide range of weaponry and military expertise. In Africa, the most significant concern has been small arms. Without question, Africa is awash with small arms and light weapons--pistols, assault rifles, submachine guns, and other forms of weaponry--which are used by armies, opposition groups, paramilitary organizations, and others to commit drastic abuses. Recognizing this, non-governmental organizations, including Amnesty International, and a number of countries, including Canada, have been pressing the international community to tackle this problem through coordinated global action to prevent and reduce the proliferation and misuse of small arms.

¿ (0930)

In July 2001, the United Nations convened a major international conference, the Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects, which aimed to agree to a United Nations program of action containing recommendations to governments in this area. In the lead-up, groups pressed states to ensure that the program of action reflected four key principles. The conference failed, and it failed abysmally. These four key recommendations, though, which I'd like to share with you, remained central to tackling this issue and are of direct relevance to the ways in which the G-8 can take responsibility for the problems it has unleashed in this area and begin to help craft the solution to the drastic consequences of the arms trade in Africa.

The first transparency. This includes recommendations such as the need for United Nations and regional level registers to be established that would begin to record all small arms transfers. Also, there is the need for comprehensive annual reports at the national level that would be coupled with effective parliamentary scrutiny--an ideal place where a body such as this could play an important role in dealing with arms trade issues. And there is the need for an adequate and reliable means of marking arms, so that they can be more easily traced and tracked, which is simply not the case now.

The second key principle is closing glaring loopholes. There are numerous such loopholes where even when we have laws in place, it is far too easy for governments and arms dealers to get around those laws. These are ideas such as third country brokering, where the deal is actually carried out by a third country at the behest of the country that is the true producer or exporter, or licensed production options where the production of the arms actually happens by the G-8-based company but in a country abroad where there are no regulations. Here in Canada, we and others have often pointed to our concern that we pay inadequate attention to end use in our military transfers such that the majority of Canadian arms transfers, which go to the United States but almost certainly have no intention of remaining in the United States, are not regulated. There is no effort made to determine where they will be going after the United States. All of these glaring loopholes need considerable attention.

The third key principle is accountability. Most importantly here, we have been pushing for the adoption of an international agreement that would include rigorous criteria for transfers of arms and a mechanism for review of national systems for governing arms transfers.

Fourth is international assistance. There's a desperate need for aid and training projects and an international fund that would then help to provide resources to assist countries in regulating arms trade issues and also to assist them in collecting and destroying unlawful small arms.

As I said, the conference in July of last year was a washout. Predictions that it would be undermined by some key arms-exporting states, including two of the G-8--the United States and Russia--were well founded. With the G-8 so clearly implicated, with four of the permanent five members of the UN Security Council involved in the G-8 and with some G-8 responsibility for the failure of last year's conference, we believe the G-8 should this year put this issue high on its agenda and assert long overdue leadership.

The four principles that I've just identified could shape G-8 action here with a commitment on the part of all eight governments to take relevant steps nationally to act on those recommendations and an agreement to launch a coordinated effort to reinvigorate efforts at the international level to tackle the arms trade.

I'm running out of time, and I did want to touch very briefly on a number of other areas of concern. Maybe I'll just highlight them and then leave it to questions if anyone wants to pursue it with me.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: We allowed you to run on simply because what you were saying was important for us to hear. But if you could somehow encapsulate the rest of your presentation, we'd appreciate that.

Mr. Alex Neve: Certainly.

The other three areas I had highlighted as being very important in the area of conflict prevention were those of conflict diamonds. We've just wrapped up an important international meeting here in Canada--I was a delegate to it; we concluded it yesterday--that has come some way towards finally establishing an international system that can regulate the diamond trade and ensure that diamonds don't lead to human rights abuses. There is a significant flaw when it comes to the monitoring and verification of that system, and I think the G-8 provides the next very important opportunity for governments to reconsider that issue and commit to a strong, meaningful monitoring and verification system.

A third area I had highlighted with regard to conflict is the whole area of corporate social responsibility. More and more G-8-based companies are investing in Africa. Their investment directly and indirectly contributes to human rights violations. The potential degree to which companies could serve as human rights champions and promoters of human rights reform is dramatically underutilized. There is a need for significant, coordinated attention to this, and we're calling on the G-8 to consider convening a major international conference between this G-8 and the next G-8 on the issue of responsible corporate investment in Africa and to report back to the next G-8 with some meaningful recommendations that could then be implemented. We all know of the Talisman-Sudan issue here in Canada. It's only one small example of the many ways in which this plays out in Africa.

The last area, when it comes to conflict, is the whole area of impunity. We are concerned that one of the major reasons human rights violations continue at the scale they do in Africa is that those who perpetrate and commit the abuses have rarely been brought to justice, rarely held accountable. One way in which we think this could be dramatically improved is through widespread ratification of the Rome Statute for an international criminal court. Three of the G-8 states have not signed on to that: Russia, the United States, and Japan. They need to be pressed to do so. Only 12 African governments have signed on to the Rome Statute; that's less than a quarter of African nations. They need to be pressed to do so as well.

The Chair: That's a good place to stop. I think the questioning will bring out the rest of your paper. If you want to leave the paper with us, we'll make sure it's translated and circulated to the committee.

We'll go to questioning right now. Mr. Martin.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby--Douglas, NDP): Is there a document that can be circulated?

The Chair: No, I'm inviting him to circulate the points he's been making to us in some form we could translate.

Mr. Alex Neve: I have handwritten notes, which I will certainly undertake to put into a more readable version within the next day or two and provide to the committee.

The Chair: Thank you.

Dr. Martin

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Merci beaucoup, madame la présidente.

Thank you, Mr. Neve, for coming in front of us today. I had the privilege of visiting your offices in London, England, to meet with them on a number of issues I'm working on. They were, as usual, fabulous. You have provided enormous support over the years, for which I'm grateful.

On the issue of the NEPAD, I would like to just make a comment. Perhaps Mr. Neve can make a small response. It seems to me the credibility of the NEPAD is severely undermined by the actions of some of the authors of the NEPAD in their wilful and deliberate inability to deal with basic violations of the NEPAD in their own backyard. We're talking not only of Zimbabwe but of the actions of countries in the eastern part of the DRC, amongst many others. There, the implication and the actions of leaders in Africa leads not only to undermining people within their own country but also to actively destabilizing other countries around them.

Basically, what I'd like to know from you, sir, is do you not think one of the things that must come out of the G-8 summit is a basic bar--a small level of conditionality or accountability or action on the part of African nations that they must adhere to if we are going to invest in those countries? We are not, I hope, going to throw good money after bad, as we have done on too many occasions in the past. I hope one of the things that comes out of the NEPAD is a basic responsibility that must be put on the shoulders of African leaders to adhere to the basic norms of human rights: do not further conflict; do not transfer arms; do not get involved in support actions that are destabilizing countries, as well as supporting despots like Robert Mugabe, and many others, or engaging in sending their armies into places like the DRC for their own pockets because they want to utilize the resources in that area. Do you not think that would be a wise thing for the G-8 to do?

¿ (0940)

Mr. Alex Neve: I have two points in response. I absolutely share your concern about the fact that there are numerous African governments that continue to quite blatantly and severely violate human rights on a widespread basis, and Zimbabwe is a very good and current example.

While President Mugabe and the Zimbabwean government were not one of the key authors of NEPAD, his neighbour in South Africa, President Mbeki was. Certainly one of our major concerns--and we were quite outspoken about this--was that the South African response in the days leading up to the Zimbabwean elections, with the mounting violence, the mounting human rights concerns, and during the elections themselves and immediately thereafter, was lukewarm. We wanted and insisted that South Africa, with the influence it had over Zimbabwe, take more decisive steps to make it clear that what he was doing, the pattern of human rights abuses, was unacceptable and would not be accepted by African neighbours and the rest of the African community. We did make the point that NEPAD's credibility to a certain extent is at stake in a situation like that, because the message of NEPAD that African states will take greater accountability for problems on the African continent is undermined when a situation like Zimbabwe arises and governments do fail to take the kind of decisive action that was so desperately needed.

With respect to the question of aid and whether or not it should be tied to certain criteria or conditions, Amnesty never does take a position saying cut off aid. What we do, particularly when we're dealing with countries such as Zimbabwe, is we make recommendations as to who the aid should go to. Certainly in an instance such as Zimbabwe we would not by any means be endorsing that aid should be going to him. Instead, our recommendations would be about the ways in which G-8 aid, or any aid, can bolster civil society in the country, can help support institution building so that front-line human rights defenders who are out there doing research and gathering information about abuses, front-line agencies that are trying to address pressing social needs in their communities, are the ones who on a direct basis are receiving the aid and assistance. In the long run, that is best for everyone.

Mr. Keith Martin: Do I have any time?

The Chair: You have about 50 seconds.

Mr. Keith Martin: Okay.

I certainly agree with you. I hope this report comes out with a small arms registry. It's something many of us have been working on for a very long time. I think there's an incredible opportunity this year to link up G-8, NEPAD, and Rio-2.

As you know, Mr. Neve, there's some very exciting sustainable environmental projects that have been done, particularly in KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa, that have linked up sustainable environmental utilization and used those resources for primary health and education. It's an African-centric model that works exceptionally well and provides sustainable growth in economies in rural areas, retarding the urbanization factor that's having a huge impact on African society.

Thank you again. I much appreciate it.

I have to leave, but I'll be back.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Thank you very much, Mr. Neve, for your highly informative presentation. I have a few comments to make, as well as a few questions for you.

¿ (0945)

I think many of us were hoping that Africa would be the top priority at the G8 Summit, but after travelling to Washington with the committee and reading recent newspaper articles, I think the focus will shift to security issues.

I read in a specialized magazine that in recent years, military expenditures by countries of the South had skyrocketed. I can't recall which countries in particular were mentioned, but it was my understanding that a number of African nations experiencing unrest were singled out in the article. This fact has only compounded global development problems.

Regarding conflict prevention, you're proposing that considerable emphasis be placed on arms control, particularly light arms used extensively in conflicts. However, don't you think it's a little late for this? There are a tremendous number of unlawful weapons in circulation and your four extremely useful recommendations would do little to rectify the situation any time soon.

Finally, what role do you see education playing in resolving the crisis prevailing in much of Africa? I ask the question because I met with several elderly missionaries living in my riding. I met with them, not because of their religious beliefs, but because of their vast experience. One theme that came up over and over again was the need for education, education and still more education.

[English]

Mr. Alex Neve: I would pick up on three of the remarks and questions in response.

First, I, and many organizations, share your concern that the focus on Africa may be overshadowed, certainly, by Washington's intent to bring a real security focus to the summit. We're pressing as hard as we can in the overtures we're making to G-8 leaders to resist it. We're not suggesting they shouldn't speak about security concerns, but to not by any means diminish the commitment they made to focus on Africa this year.

More importantly, I suppose, in all and any discussions about security and terrorism, we must ensure there is a long overdue focus on the human rights aspects of the campaign and the degree to which many of the measures taken to date have significantly led to human rights abuses and quite seriously undermined human rights violations. The rhetoric of terrorism has been used in many countries now to shield and cloak abuses against ethnic groups, minority groups, groups that are struggling for independence or autonomy, and groups that in no way, shape, or form are terrorist in nature.

We need to get away from the discourse we've seen to date that suggests security and human rights are incompatible and contrary goals somehow, and bring the affirmation back to the reality that they are quite necessarily and obviously complementary and directly related. You cannot have human rights without security. If a state is not intervening to ensure the rights of its citizens are upheld at all times, you have no security. You cannot have sustainable global security without scrupulous attention to the basic rights of all people. The two together point the way forward.

We need to see the human rights aspects of the security debate more firmly entrenched. Whether it be at the UN Security Council or any other intergovernmental bodies, we're simply not seeing it. Human rights experts aren't being included on any of the international committees being established. Human rights concepts aren't appearing in any of the national laws being adopted on this front. Human rights principles are being ignored or given short shrift in some of the emerging international treaties, documents, and resolutions dealing with this as well. It has to change. It's of fundamental importance. This G-8 meeting gives a real opportunity to ensure it happens.

On the question of the vast amount of small arms that are already in circulation, we certainly share your concern. One of the pieces of our four recommendations points to the importance of international assistance to help governments in dealing with the collection and destruction of unlawful small arms already in circulation. Although there is already debate as to how you define unlawful small arms already in circulation, there are a number of proposals of a definition out there. Agreement needs to be reached on the definition, and then the assistance provided to governments to collect and destroy the arms.

Thirdly, education is absolutely across the front in terms of enhanced aid for primary and secondary school education, broader public education programs about human rights issues, education within police and security forces around human rights principles, and education on the small arms front. The word “education” I think you could highlight with regard to any recommendation in any area. It's inescapable and definitely points the way forward.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Madame Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine, Lib.): Thank you very much for your presentation. I have two concerns, one of which you addressed that I wish to discuss with you further, and the other one you did not address.

The first concern has to do with the issue of small arms. I think that Amnesty International's position that there should be a focus on the small arms production and trade, international and national registries, and more reliable methods of tracking them are all really important.

Let me just give one example for why that affects Canada. What used to be known as the Montreal Urban Community Police Service, which is now the City of Montreal Police Department, for a number of years has been pushing to have a change of its weapon, its firearm, to a more modern, more effective, more efficient, more accurate firearm. It was always understood that if it were approved, the small weapons they already have would in fact be returned to the manufacturer for destruction.

Recently the city approved the purchase of new weapons. They negotiated a deal with the manufacturer where they get a discount of $600,000 because they are allowing the manufacturer to re-sell those weapons. Given that we don't have the kinds of controls you're talking about internationally, there's a real concern that those small weapons could fall into the hands of people or governments we wouldn't want them to fall into.

I think that Amnesty International's view on that is one that's very good. I'd like to hear a little bit more from you on how Canada, at least within our own borders, can move further to have that kind of control.

The second concern is a concern I have that you didn't address. As parliamentarians, we've had some contact with our counterpart parliaments in various African countries. Most of them have no inkling about NEPAD, do not appear to have been consulted. Those of us who have contacts with Canadian NGOs that do work on the ground in African countries tell us that their counterparts in what we deem to be civil society have no inkling about NEPAD. So right there, for me that's a concern. It appears to be a top-down process. Given that it's a top-down process, what guarantees do we have that if the G-8, the international community, signs on, it's actually going to be effective?

I'd like to know what Amnesty International thinks about the fact that there doesn't seem to have been a consultative process with civil society within Africa. Obviously I don't expect totalitarian governments to consult with their people, but we do have some countries in Africa that are democracies, weak though some of them may be. How is it that there doesn't seem to have been this process, even an embryonic attempt or a nascent attempt at doing that kind of consultation?

I'd like to hear you discuss those two issues.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Alex Neve: Both very good points; let me address the second one first .

We do share that concern, and that's why I stress that as...the recommendation we're making to G-8 leaders, in how they shape and craft their response to NEPAD, needs to very much be aware of that. We haven't gone so far as to suggest that NEPAD should just be categorically rejected because of that. I think we're concerned that we not lose the opportunity this year's summit presents for there to be a real focus on Africa, with some meaningful, real decisions taken.

Although the process of NEPAD is obviously profoundly flawed, as a result, as African civil society starts to look more closely at it, concerns about this provision and that provision are starting to come to light now. In a bigger sense, the model or recipe that NEPAD imagines is of a proactive, preventive approach to African needs, of really anchoring responsibility for these issues in both the international community and within the African continent. The promotion of good, solid governance within Africa as the way forward, and African governments developing a sense of accountability to those they govern--those are good principles that run through the whole of NEPAD.

But the lack of consultation is a real concern. It's starting to happen now; there's a mad scurry, really, under way now, including by governments. Our own government has made money available for consultation exercises throughout Africa. Certainly NGOs that have strong partnerships with African NGOs are seeking views and input from their partners. So by the time the summit comes around I think we will have a fuller, broader-based African civil society response to NEPAD.

The G-8 response in June, therefore, needs to be reflective of that. It's going to be a bit of a balance, I think. On the one hand, we want concrete action, as I said. We don't want just a bunch of rhetoric and aspirational statements again; we've seen that, not just within the G-8 but within numerous international bodies, and for too long. It doesn't go anywhere. We gather again, and there's nothing there.

On the other hand, holding some of this lightly enough, there's the potential, as civil society views and concerns come to light, that the G-8 response can be shaped to take that into account. So I think it's going to be a balance there.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you very much, Mr. Neve, and again, thanks for the work you do, the incredibly important work you do. It certainly has been valuable not just in Canada but also globally, as my colleague, Mr. Martin, said.

I have questions just in two areas, really, because I know our time is limited. The first is with respect to the issue of the impact of September 11 on human rights and civil liberties globally.

I was elected last July as the rapporteur for the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly on Human Rights and Development. I'm in the process of preparing a report for the upcoming Parliamentary Assembly this summer precisely on the theme of what's happening in the OSCE region--as you know, it's 55 countries, east-west Europe, Canada, and the United States--on human rights and civil liberties in the context of the war against terrorism.

I'm wondering whether AI Canada or the international organization of Amnesty has written anything on this subject. I assume that there is some material; perhaps you would indicate what has been prepared and whether it could be made available to the committee. I'm sure all members of the committee would be interested in seeing that.

Mr. Alex Neve: Absolutely. I'm afraid I could drown you, because following the attacks of September 11 our work has very much been focused on monitoring the human rights impact and human rights consequences of the attacks and of the subsequent global response, be it how the conflict in Afghanistan has been waged; the degree to which refugee and immigration systems worldwide have begun to be affected; the human rights consequences of anti-terrorism legislation enacted in our own country and many others; and U.S. policies and approaches with regard to the detention of prisoners of war--as we would say they need to be called until determined otherwise by a court--and the degree to which minority groups in many parts of the world are suffering the brunt of the war on terrorism, being called terrorists when essentially all they're doing is seeking to exert their ethnic, cultural, or religious rights.

So it's vast, and I can certainly provide you with any number of reports. I will do that soon.

À (1000)

Mr. Svend Robinson: That would be great if you could do that soon. That would be very helpful.

I have a question in one other area, if I may, Madam Chair, and that's with respect to the issue around peaceful dissent in the context of summits--Quebec City most recently and the upcoming Kananaskis, a G-8 summit, which is the focus of these hearings.

I wonder if you could perhaps elaborate a bit on your concerns about what happened in Quebec City, because I know Amnesty did voice some serious concerns about that. But more importantly, looking ahead to June and Kananaskis, could you elaborate on what recommendations you would make to this committee and through this committee to the government with respect to the issue of the profound importance of ensuring respect of the right to dissent and to peacefully voice opposition to the agenda that is being discussed within the framework of the G-8.

Mr. Alex Neve: Certainly, beginning with Quebec City, we were very present in Quebec City both inside the summit and outside the summit and had numerous Amnesty International members from across the country who were involved in many of the peaceful protests and activities that took place outside the summit walls.

Most remarkably what we also had, though, was one of our international-level colleagues in Quebec throughout the duration of both the People's Summit and the official summit as part of an international monitoring mission that spent 18 hours a day out on the streets and in the jails observing the policing response to protest. As a result, we issued a report at the end where we commended some aspects of the policing operation but drew considerable attention to the concern that there had been an overwhelmingly excessive use of tear gas and plastic bullets in far too many circumstances where there was absolutely no evidence of a security concern.

We felt it very important that there be a public inquiry into the policing response to the Quebec City summit--a joint federal-provincial public inquiry--both to understand what had happened and why in Quebec City, but most importantly, we said, we needed some lessons learned. Policing in these contexts isn't easy. We don't pretend it is. But there has never been--be it Seattle or Washington or now Quebec City--an attempt after the fact to sit down and in a very public, detailed way look into how it was done, learn some lessons, establish some best practices, and use those for the next meeting. Certainly we pointed to the G-8 at the time as to why we said an inquiry into what happened in Quebec City would be important, that we could get some solid lessons learned and ensure that the policing response in the G-8 doesn't repeat some of the mistakes that were made. That didn't happen, unfortunately.

Now we steam forward to the G-8 without having had the opportunity to learn from Quebec City. Certainly we are again stressing to the policing services that will be responsible for security there that they need to give scrupulous attention to protecting the right to peaceful protest, which means two things. It may mean in some instances protecting peaceful protesters from non-peaceful protesters. But most importantly, it means there's not an excessive, intimidating policing response to peaceful events, such that people feel they cannot take to the streets. People feel silenced. People feel muted. People feel they're not able to come out and participate. That would be a profound disservice to some of our most fundamental values.

The one last thing I would point out is that we have been raising with the police forces the importance of again considering the idea of having some monitoring missions. It would be a very valuable exercise. We've indicated we'd be willing to be part of one. No firm decisions yet have been made about that. Certainly something this committee could press as an important recommendation would be to highlight that it was valuable in Quebec City, and that to have monitors out there on the streets again would be a valuable contribution to the G-8 experience also.

À (1005)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland--Colchester, PC/DR): Thanks very much. Good morning.

You mentioned that 80% of the small arms are implicated to G-8 countries. Is Canada squeaky clean?

Mr. Alex Neve: No, Canada is not squeaky clean. Unfortunately, one of the problems we have in Canada is that the information we get about arms transfers from Canada to the rest of the world is not provided in a prompt fashion, shall we say. Just recently the report was released for the year 2000. We don't have information as to what has or has not happened in the year 2001.

Off the top of my head, one of the countries that I remember figuring very prominently in the list of arms transfers for the year 2000 was Zimbabwe. There were other African nations as well. Egypt is one that comes to mind, and I'm sure there are others. Those are the two I can think of right now.

Zimbabwe is obviously a major concern. Even in 2000, we and many other organizations and UN bodies were pointing to the deteriorating human rights situation in Zimbabwe and the degree to which small arms were figuring very prominently in the commission of human rights abuses. So the fact that there were arms transfers--and I don't remember exactly what arms they were that went to Zimbabwe in 2000--does point to an area of real concern.

Mr. Bill Casey: What is the report you are referring to?

Mr. Alex Neve: I forget the official name, but it is the yearly report, which doesn't come out, as I say, on a prompt basis, which--

Mr. Bill Casey: It reports all small arms exports--

Mr. Alex Neve: Weapons, arms and weapons transfers, not just small arms.

Mr. Bill Casey: What are the other offending countries in the G-8?

Mr. Alex Neve: All of the G-8 countries are implicated in this.

Mr. Bill Casey: Which are the worst?

Mr. Alex Neve: Certainly the United States would be the most egregious. The United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Russia. Actually, off the top of my head, I don't know about Japan; I'd have to look into that. I don't know the degree to which they're directly implicated in some of this. But certainly all the others have some responsibility.

Mr. Bill Casey: Do you think there's any chance at all that they would agree to some kind of a registration system or a reporting system?

Mr. Alex Neve: As I said, the attempt to begin to do so last year failed, and two of the most prominent countries in leading the charge against the initiative were the United States and Russia. That's one quarter of the G-8 right there. So there would have to be some very concerted intense political work within the G-8 to start to move us there, and I don't doubt for a moment that we would get there by a small step at a time. We're not going to go from nothing to having an incredibly comprehensive international registry overnight. We'd have to get there in incremental steps.

Mr. Bill Casey: You focused some of our attention on Zimbabwe a while ago, and that was certainly timely and I appreciate it. What happened in Zimbabwe? There seemed to be a switch in approach by Mugabe at some point. He was not always the way he has been in the last few years. Can you tell me what happened there?

Mr. Alex Neve: I wish I could get inside his mind; I can't. On a simplistic level, it may be simply a matter that he's been in power for a long time and wants to remain in power. At the same time, civil society and new opposition parties were developing in Zimbabwe. And it's been in recent years, perhaps through the MDC, that the most significant, credible, popular-based alternative to his rule has really started to take shape, and that challenged him and threatened him in ways that throughout the many other years of his long regime he simply hasn't been.

It's not unusual in those instances for rulers who have any sort of autocratic tendency to then, amongst other things, turn to repression and intimidation and human rights abuses as a way of maintaining that power and keeping the growing opposition down.

Mr. Bill Casey: Thanks very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Alex, for coming before us and sharing some of the work that Amnesty International is doing, and also the concern you have for how the G-8 leaders could focus on some human rights issues. As I asked at the very beginning, if you can present us with some notes for our report and our recommendations, that would be most helpful. Thank you for sharing with us and communicating...until the G-8 meeting does take place in June and we come out of this having Canadians very proud of what we've accomplished there. Thanks again.

À (1010)

Mr. Alex Neve: Thank you very much for the opportunity. I would like to highlight two points that I'm sure the committee is aware of. The coming weeks I think are quite a decisive time to be making recommendations. We know that the G-8 governments are quite close to concluding the draft action plan for Africa; I'm sure you're aware of that. It's an important time to get the recommendations out there publicly.

The other event that's very much in my mind, which I know committee members will be aware of, is the Prime Minister's upcoming trip to Africa. I think it is very important that these kinds of issues figure prominently in front of him as he goes off to have those very important meetings as well.

So the window of time for opportunities you may have to contribute to both of those fronts is fairly limited, and I think your contribution could be very valuable.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We now go to our next witness.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Before we move to the next witness, could I possibly ask you to obtain a copy of the 2000 report on small arms control for the committee?

[English]

The Chair: We definitely have that and we will.

Now appearing before us, from the National Union of Public and General Employees, is Mr. Larry Brown, national secretary-treasurer.

Mr. Brown, thank you for joining us this morning. We're very pleased to have you here.

You have ten minutes to speak to the committee, and then, as you have noticed, there will be questions from the members around the table for you.

Mr. Larry Brown (National Secretary-Treasurer, National Union of Public and General Employees): Thank you very much. I appreciate the chance to be here in this lovely spring weather, allegedly.

We began to prepare our 10-minute opening remarks for this committee and ended up with a 24-page submission, which surprised us a little bit. I gather that because we were unable to have it in both languages, the committee doesn't have it yet and won't have it until it's translated. That probably puts me in the position where I'm the only one who knows what I'm talking about this morning, but that's happened to me often enough before that I can handle it.

In the submission, which you will eventually see, we make some arguments about a number of areas, but we also include a two-page appendix of other publications and documents that the National Union has produced on the relevant areas. We included that for a reason. We didn't want to be so presumptuous as to bring wagonloads full of studies and submissions, but they are all available if there is any one in particular that any of the committee would want to see. Please feel free to follow up with us.

We do take seriously the issues that are the subject of your committee. We still have the perhaps naive view that the Government of Canada should reflect the views of all its citizens in international dealings. Quite frankly, far too often we have been left with the feeling that our government at best ignores our views and at worst dismisses them, and that the only views that count when it comes to international dealings these days are the views of the business community. Quebec City would perhaps be the most stark example of that. The majority of people were outside the fence and the business community was inside the fence being full participants.

That's symbolically how we feel about a lot of the processes of international dealings these days, and it's something that we'd respectfully urge this committee to take seriously. There is a sense of disenfranchisement of a huge number of people in the country when it comes to international affairs. The feeling is that we are not represented, and that if you're not part of the business community, your views don't fully count.

It's obvious that with respect to the first subject of your agenda, economic growth, there's a huge focus these days on trade deals as part of economic growth. Certainly if the G-8 were to come to a consensus around these trade deals, it would be overwhelmingly convincing to the rest of the world that the G-8 is not a small player in international trade.

We are not sure at all about the assumption that freer trade, which really seems to amount to weaker governments with fewer powers to control the market, is automatically a good thing for the world economy. There seems to be a presumption that this is going to both create and distribute wealth, and we've never seen any empirical evidence that this is the case. In fact, since freer trade has been the norm, the wealth gap between wealthy and poor nations has increased, not decreased. There was a recent World Bank study that purported to say that free trade had been proven to be of economic benefit, but in fact the two countries it gave as its best examples were precisely the two countries that had the least free trade. Again, the empirical evidence seems to be that freer trade is not necessarily what it's cracked up to be.

In any event, when it comes to all the deals we're looking at internationally--again, the G-8 is such a major player in all of this that it has to be part of their discussion--we have some common concerns that we want to express as clearly as we can. These are all things that we see missing right now.

The first is that we would ask for transparency going in so that we know what 's on the table and we know what our government is negotiating on behalf of the Canadian population. We know the Canadian government has taken some steps in that direction, but the more the better. We need to be able to see what's on the negotiating table. We need to be able to know what is in fact being negotiated so that we can have some influence. When we're going in, when the Canadian government is putting together its position, labour issues, environmental issues, and public service issues should all inform the Canadian position as much as more narrowly expressed concerns about trade.

Secondly, we would strongly urge that we need more transparency of the processes, not the secretive star chambers that we now have that are in fact ruling on huge chunks of our economy. They're nameless, faceless, and unaccountable people operating in inaccessible fora who are making decisions of huge import on our economy.

À (1015)

It's interesting to us that there's less accountability in organizations that are making decisions, for example, about whether we can keep the Auto Pact. There's less accountability with them than there is if you get a traffic ticket, because the process of dealing with a traffic ticket is more accountable, more transparent, more open, and we all know how it works. In fact, the Canadian population doesn't have any right to participate in these forums that are making such overwhelmingly important decisions. So we need transparency there.

That clock is really remorseless, isn't it?

Let me deal with an issue that we think is of really fundamental importance and one that's often misunderstood. In all trade deals, whether it's the FTAA or the WTO or the GATT, or however many alphabet soups we want to look at, we would be absolutely vehement about the need for there to be a respect for core labour rights. Seemingly, it is often misunderstood that we're talking about labour standards, because that's the language of international dealings, but it sounds like we're talking about an international minimum wage or something like that, and we simply aren't.

We're talking about the fact that countries right now can enslave their workers literally, they can shoot trade union leaders, they can torture trade union leaders, they can require people to work in the most appalling conditions, have no safety standards whatsoever, and still avail themselves of the protection of trade deals. That strikes us as monstrous. It's completely unacceptable. What we're talking about are countries that don't give their workers the right to organize and bargain in trade unions, countries that don't stop enslaving their workers.

One of the standards we're talking about, Madam Chair, is that you can't enslave your workforce. Now, how can that be controversial? How can a country that doesn't promise not to enslave its workers have the right to go to the World Trade Organization or GATT or any other forum and pretend to be a legitimate player?

We have more sanctions in the Commonwealth with respect to Mr. Mugabe than we have in the World Trade Organization. He can go there and be a legitimate world player, notwithstanding whatever he does to his population or his workforce, and we think that's so absurd it shouldn't have to be argued, yet we feel that we're like that mythical person pushing the rock up the hill with his nose; it keeps on sliding backwards on us.

We had a huge victory in Doha because the situation didn't get worse with respect to core labour rights. I guess we'll take what we can get. It could have been worse, but, my God, calling that a victory is a strange use of the language.

So that's a huge issue for us, and again, we can't understand why we would have to argue for that proposition. It seems to us so self-evident.

We would argue that whatever trade deals governments need to retain the right to govern, we see.... I didn't have time to read the article fully this morning. This morning's paper again has another one of the alphabet soup tribunals that has ruled another law of the Canadian government invalid, and we don't even hear about it until it's sort of leaked out. It isn't a transparent process. But, incrementally, our governments are having less ability to govern, and we simply think that's very strange.

Individual companies seem to be able to operate with no restrictions at all and still go to their governments under these trade deals and complain about some other country. That's very odd to us as well.

Let me put it in stark terms. Enron would have been quite able to complain to the American government about the actions of the Canadian government and have those concerns taken quite seriously. By all accounts, they're not exactly a legitimate player in the economic scene, and yet there is no protection in trade deals that says that if a company has a terrible record of any sort, there is some block against them exercising their authority and their power. Under chapter 11 of NAFTA, they can still sue the Canadian government, even though they're a rogue player in their own economy.

Let me make two more points, and then I think I'm pressing my ten minutes quite seriously. We would advocate that there needs to be a general absolute exemption from trade deal coverage of all public services, health, education, water, down to jails.

À (1020)

Increasingly, we are being told by our lawyers and trade experts that the WTO, GATT, and the FTAA are endangering our public services.

It's interesting that we're being told we may not be right, but we've been right before when we were told we weren't. Nobody predicted that the Metalclad case would go the way it did. Yet a municipality was denied its right to govern. We just say there has to be an absolute protection of the right of Canadian governments to deliver public services. If Canadian governments decide not to do it, that's one thing, but to have a trade panel tell them they can't is another.

Finally, in this list we would ask for ratification. Provincial governments are going to have their power to govern affected by all of the trade deals the Canadian government is signing. We think that isn't acceptable without them having a say in it.

When you get our brief, you will see that there is also a section dealing with AIDS in Africa where we do commend the Canadian government for moving on this, but we advocate that it be taken more seriously.

We have a final section with regard to public security, which, among other things, makes the point that if we're going to cut public services across the board, as has so often been the case in Canada, we can't have the same public security we used to have. So we shouldn't be mesmerized by certain parts of peace and security. We should look at the whole picture, which includes public services.

Thank you for your attention. I'd be happy to answer any questions about what I've said and what you may assume I said in the written submission.

The Chair: Thank you so much. We will be reading the written submission, and rest assured that the points you didn't make will be picked up when we do go to the submission.

We'll now go to questioning by members, and we'll start with Francine Lalonde from the Bloc Québécois.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you, Mr. Brown.

Your presentation was very interesting. You are right in saying that your voice isn't often heard. I'd like to focus on your concluding remarks.

You stated that if even though no one is listening, often in the past the concerns that you've raised, particularly regarding Chapter 11, have proven to be justified. We too share your concerns and want to work to mitigate the adverse effects of Chapter 11 on the ability of governments to pass legislation. This is the real issue here.

I'd like to hear more from you about your definition of core labour rights. You also said that you are not an advocate of protectionism. We went to Mexico and the Mexicans felt our demanding that certain rights be upheld, not just labour rights, but environmental and other rights and freedoms as well, was akin to protectionism. Certain actions may have given them reason to believe this was the case.

What is it exactly that you would like to see spelled out in these agreements which would ensure that labour rights are respected?

À (1025)

[English]

Mr. Larry Brown: Thank you. I can't resist, in passing, making one comment about the approach in chapter 11. I don't think this committee is studying individual trade deals, but if the G-8 takes a position that certain things are not acceptable in this mix of trade deals, as I say, that would be profoundly important.

Chapter 11 basically gives foreign corporations more powers in Canada than a Canadian citizen has. We just think that's so odd that it can't be allowed to continue. International corporations can sue the Government of Canada for things that I can't as a citizen, and I've been a citizen all my life. So we think that approach has to be challenged, and if a group like the G-8, which really represents so much economic power, were to say this isn't an acceptable standard, then we think it would make a huge difference.

With respect to core labour rights, again I want to remind the committee that the language is a bit awkward, because in Canada, we talk about labour standards as being minimum wage and hours of work. In international law, the word “standards” actually means rights. What we would call here the right to unionize is, in international language, called a standard.

So when we talk about international labour standards, we're talking about standards that have been adopted by the ILO, the International Labour Organization, which is itself a tripartite organization made up of business, labour, and government. These aren't some kind of wild-eyed labour objectives; they are very rational standards that have been adopted by management internationally as well, through international business organizations.

There are five of them: freedom of association; the right to organize and bargain collectively; prohibition of forced labour; prohibition of child labour; and non-discrimination in employment.

If you look at prohibition of forced labour, though that's sanitized language, we all know what it means. It means prohibition of slavery.

Prohibition of child labour doesn't even need translation. It's what it is.

So there is an argument, and certainly we've heard it more often than we care to, that to adopt these rights is somehow protectionist. At face value, we say that's just not acceptable. If it's protectionist not to have slavery, then I'm a protectionist. If “protectionist” means we're saying to another country, you can't have child labour, then I'm a protectionist. If that's what it is, then so what? But in fact, that argument is verbal gymnastics at best. It simply says that if we label it protectionism, it must be.

What we would advocate is working with the ILO, which is a tripartite body internationally. It has the same status as the...it's a UN body.

Sorry--

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds--Dollard, Lib.)): Your time is up.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I would have another very brief question.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): You'll get the chance to ask it later.

Go ahead, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm prepared to give Ms. Lalonde 30 seconds to put her question.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): That will be subtracted from your time, Mr. Robinson.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I will put my question quickly. First off, thank you for saying what you did. We share your views and I am pleased that this will be reflected in the records.

What can we do to ensure that the rights set out by the International Labour Organization become a mandatory part of trade agreements?

[English]

Mr. Larry Brown: Thank you. I can't promise to be quite as brief in my answer as you were in your question. That's the problem.

First of all, we would be prepared to negotiate what I think is internationally called the modality. It's one of those words. I think that's what it means, the actual process. But essentially what we would say is that the International Labour Organization, which has a process of ruling on these things, would be asked to rule somehow, involving the World Trade Organization and all the other groups, wherever it applies.

If they rule that country A is violating core labour rights, then we would advocate that the response is to encourage them and offer them help in overcoming their violation. It wouldn't be a sort of “slam the door, the first instance is a penalty”. We'd offer a hand of support and help. If still there was a flagrant violation and no acceptance of the offer of help, then at some point there would be a statement saying, as long as you do that, you simply can't use the WTO rules; you're barred. That is what would happen in a number of other environments. If you don't play by the rules, you can't be part of the club.

We're saying as much as trade would be part of the rules, so would respect for the citizens of the country--core labour rights, human rights, and so on--and if you're not playing by those rules, then you don't get to go to the World Trade Organization tribunal and complain about something that you don't think is fair.

Again, the actual process would have to be worked out.

À (1030)

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thanks very much.

In the two and a half minutes that remain to me, I would like.... No, it's an important question. I appreciate Mr. Brown's clarification on that.

I would just note that I was in Doha and I recall the discussion. I met with a number of representatives of the international labour movement there. They made the point, I thought very eloquently, that if we can, in what are called trade deals, rigorously protect the rights of multinational pharmaceutical companies to their intellectual property, even when that threatens public health, surely we can find mechanisms so that the basic and fundamental rights of working men and women, and children, by the way, because one of the core labour standards or rights is that children not be exploited...that we can figure out a way to do that too. So I welcome Mr. Brown's clarification on that.

Because I have very little time left, I wonder if you could just talk to the committee a little bit about the extent to which, in the run-up to the G-8 conference in June, labour is being consulted on the agenda and on the priorities that will be discussed at that conference.

I guess a supplementary question to that is, what role do NUPGE and, to the best of your knowledge, other key members of the Canadian Labour Congress intend to play at and around the G-8 itself? What role will you be playing? Will you be participating in the G-6B summit, the alternate summit? Will you be at the table in any kind of way inside the G-8? Just what role do you envisage playing?

Mr. Larry Brown: Well, that's actually a profound question on both ends, I think. Certainly the Canadian government I think, and Mr. Pettigrew individually, would claim that the labour movement is being consulted--and I use that word not to be unfair to him--but it doesn't feel like consultation to us.

On the question, for example, of the core labour rights issue, I discussed with Mr. Pettigrew himself the question of what Canada's role was going to be when he got to Doha. I got an answer that simply didn't answer the question or didn't even come close to it. It was an answer that acknowledged that it was an issue, but it didn't tell me what the position of the Canadian government was going to be.

What the position turned out to be in Doha was that if somebody else championed the issue, Canada wouldn't object. Well, there are thousands and thousands of Canadian workers who would have expected more out of their government, especially when the Canadian Labour Congress, my union, unions across the board, and a whole bunch of NGOs said to the Canadian government “This is a huge issue for us”.

So we don't feel consulted. We don't feel that our issues are being listened to at all, let alone adequately. There is a feeling sometimes when I come out of these consultation meetings that my head has just been thoroughly patted in a patronizing way: “That's nice. Aren't you glad you came and talked to us? Now go away while we talk to the real people.” What that results in is that we have no alternative but to be in the streets.

When we went into Quebec City, we weren't behind the fence; we were on the other side of the fence. We're going to be listened to one way or the other. And if the Canadian government insists on acting as the spokesperson for the Business Council on National Issues solely in international dealings, then quite frankly we're going to be at the G-6s and in the streets of whatever Kananaskis has for streets. I don't know, I haven't been there for a while, but it seems to me they're very pastoral.

That's a simple reality. We represent hundreds of thousands of people who have legitimate concerns, as much as the business community does. If our issues are going to be treated with benign neglect, and if we're not going to be genuinely consulted as part of the process through the front door, then we're going to come at it another way. We're simply not going to be ignored. If that means and it requires--it seems to--that we do it through the more traditional labour mechanisms, then we'll do that. We don't intend to have this process just sort of sail along without us.

À (1035)

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London--Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I enjoyed Mr. Brown's comments right up to the last couple of points there, which I think could be described kindly as hyperbole. That's my point of view. Hyperbole? Exaggeration?

I'd like to ask a direct question. The name escapes me at the moment, but we had the gentleman who is the head of the ILO at this committee some months ago now. After he congratulated the Canadian government for its efforts around transparency and trying to protect labour rights, he responded to a question of mine, which was, do you think we should include labour rights in international trade agreements? His answer was a very definitive no, that would not be a good idea. I wonder if you'd comment on his opinion.

A voice: Who was it?

Mr. Pat O'Brien: The head of the ILO. He was very definitive about it, very categorical. He felt that we had been rather creative in the way we had been approaching it, and he was quite complimentary to the efforts of our government. It seems to be in direct odds to what you're saying today.

Mr. Larry Brown: Let me come back to that in one second. I know you're supposed to ask me questions and I'm not supposed to ask you, but I would really be curious as to what part of what I just said you find to be hyperbolic. That's a fairly sweeping statement, and I'm not sure which part of it you disagree with. I would be curious about that.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Well, of course, I'm just as ready to answer as ask questions.

The part about the BCNI characterizing.... There was a characterization of our government as speaking only for business. That's simply incorrect. Hyperbolic is a kind way to describe it.

When you have the head of the ILO--and I'd be happy to provide you with this, and in fact I would ask the clerk to provide the testimony of the head of the ILO when he was here around my question to him--effusive in his praise for the government in being creative in defending--

Mr. Svend Robinson: It wasn't effusive. Now that's hyperbole.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: It could be.

He was very clear in his praise for the government in defending labour rights, and he was absolutely, categorically definitive in saying no, you should not put labour rights in international trade agreements, and that you've been doing it in a very creative way. It seems to be at direct odds with what you've said. So now it's your turn to answer my question.

Mr. Larry Brown: Yes, I appreciate the chance. I wish we had time to follow up on that other point, because it would be interesting to continue the discussion.

With respect to the ILO and international labour rights, if you remember, I spoke to your colleague and said that the actual mechanism for this process would have to be worked out. My understanding of what the ILO's position on this is--and I don't guarantee that I have this exactly right--is that, if the question is should the definition of the rights themselves be moved into the trade agreements, or even perhaps the rights be moved into the trade agreements, which is in effect some kind of a contract and therefore subject to change within the contract, the answer would be no. But whether or not there should be respect in the trade agreements for the established rights is a nuance that I think the ILO would agree with.

The problem we get into is if the World Trade Organization is substantially--and if I can avoid hyperbole--or at least more oriented towards the business community than anything else--and if that isn't safe, then I don't know how to speak English--then it is certainly not a tripartite body. To have the World Trade Organization be the definers of international labour rights would be a step backwards, because at the ILO the labour movement participates with the business community and with governments in drafting those core labour rights.

So the question is, should the labour rights be in the agreement in the sense that they become the subject of negotiation in the agreement, or is there some mechanism in the agreement that acknowledges and says that the agreement will be governed by the rights that exist over there? It is a nuance, but I think it is an important one.

We would argue that the ILO should be a participant, but at some point the World Trade Organization, to pick one, or the FTAA panels, if they ever come to be and so on, would say that if the ILO has ruled that a country is substantially violating the core labour rights, then that would have an impact on their ability to keep on going back to the World Trade Organization and the FTAA.

À (1040)

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I understand your point. He was very clear that he felt parallel agreements, side agreements, or whatever you want to call them, were the most effective way to deal with labour rights--all labour issues--that it would essentially clutter up a trade deal and it wouldn't be a positive way to deal with it. I thought he was very candid and forthright, and I think he probably surprised a few colleagues around the table when he made those comments. He was very clear that parallel agreements were the way to go with this. He was--I won't be hyperbolic here--complimentary, very clearly complimentary, to the government in our efforts so far. It seemed to be quite at odds with what you're saying today.

Mr. Larry Brown: First of all, what the head of the ILO said, and what I just said, are not different things. Essentially what we're both agreeing to is that to put the core labour rights into the World Trade Organization agreements themselves is not the way to do it. It's referencing them and so on. So parallel.... Whatever language you use, we want--I think we all want--the World Trade Organization to be governed by the core labour rights that would in effect prevent countries that don't follow them from being full participants.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Fair enough, but you're not calling for the inclusion of them in the trade text.

Mr. Larry Brown: I don't know if I can be more clear on that. On the reference to them, yes, and being binding, yes, but to have them moved into the World Trade Organization documents moves them out of the tripartite arena into a very unipartite....

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I thought that's what you were saying. I'll make sure you get the comments I'm referring to, because it's simply not what the gentleman from the ILO told us before. But thanks very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. I think in avoiding hyperbole you were looking for clarity.

Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey: Thank you very much. When you get those quotes he wants to give you, make sure you get the whole presentation.

I often think labour and social activists underestimate the impact they have on labour agreements. Having said that, after you've been here awhile you realize how slowly things move.

I think there is a big impact on trade agreements, albeit slow and incremental, but I see dramatic changes that impress me, and I know they come from activists and demonstrations and all the work activists do.

I want to ask you a question on Colombia. We studied Colombia recently, and the trade unionists there are quite often under repression of some sort or another, and even subjected to threats in different areas. That's one problem of many.

Another problem of many is economic development. A lot of the people either join paramilitary organizations because they just have no other options, there's no other work to do, or they grow drugs because there's no other crop they can grow that they can sell.

So if we were faced with making an agreement with Colombia that would help provide economic development to that country, but not include rights for trade unionists, should we not help with economic development, or should we make a deal with economic development, and incrementally try to influence human rights and the rights of unionists, if you see what I mean?

There are two problems. Do we help them with economic development, even if we can't ensure and entrench rights of trade unionists in the agreement? Do we do one thing or not?

À (1045)

Mr. Larry Brown: In some ways, this is a “wisdom of Solomon” requirement.

Mr. Bill Casey: That's why I'm asking you.

Mr. Larry Brown: I'm never cautious about leaping in, but my answer would be no, based on some actual experience internationally. I would go back to the situation in South Africa. It wasn't a simple argument, but at some level the argument was that if sanctions were put on South Africa, the real people who would suffer the most would be the workers. They would be even more disadvantaged, so we should continue to support the South African government, while gently pressuring them to move toward ending apartheid. The world basically didn't agree with that, and because apartheid was so dramatically unacceptable, very effective sanctions were put on.

The result was that change came faster than it would have. We don't have a control group to look at it and we can't prove the opposite of what happened, but certainly apartheid ended more quickly than people expected because nobody in the economy was able to sustain themselves against the united front from the world.

I have colleagues and friends in Colombia who have been under physical threat. It puts it in a different context when you know the people who have to go back and participate in a very dangerous environment. But for us to offer Colombia support right now, without a requirement that they fix things, is simply going to prolong it. It's a very dangerous situation, as you know, and obviously from your question you probably know more about it than I do. I have more anecdotal evidence.

For us to say, “You're really not doing very well protecting your citizens and your workers, but as long as you promise to get slightly better, we'll funnel money in” is just going to be counterproductive. We have to take the line that they must fix it first and then they'll be rewarded by being a genuine member of the international community.

Mr. Bill Casey: I never thought I'd disagree with Solomon. I would disagree. It's only a disagreement from my point of view. I respect your opinion, for sure. I believe if we do engage these societies and become involved with them through trade agreements, then we have the opportunity to influence and change things.

If we cut them off and say “We're not going to have a trade agreement because you won't comply with the regulations we have in Canada, we won't do business with you, and go away until some future date”, I don't agree with it.

Mr. Larry Brown: Could I ask, sir, what is going to entice a country that has been violating the rights of its own citizens for years? If they're allowed to participate, and they have all the rights of international trade deals, what exactly is it that's going to make them decide they've done something they shouldn't continue to do?

Mr. Bill Casey: One thing could be if we gave them the opportunities for people to not serve in the military and not grow drugs, they might choose another route. The drug money wouldn't be there to help support the militaries, the criminals, and the guerillas. Rather than fight, people might choose to work in another area or maybe even join a union.

This is only an opinion. It's not an easy question. It's only my thoughts. Some of the trade agreements I see impress me with their approaches to democracy, human rights, and the inclusion of it.

It's not as far as any of us would like to go. We would solve a lot of problems if we could have the WTO demand that every country has total democracy, complies with all human rights, has rights to collective bargaining, and everything else. We would solve a lot of problems. I believe it's the way the WTO is going, incrementally, mind you, and slowly. I believe it's going that way.

Don't you think there are advancements in democracy clauses and things like that, along with mistakes like chapter 11?

Mr. Larry Brown: I think there has been a very valid and admirable embracing of the principle of requiring a democratic baseline, if you will, in some of the FTAA negotiations. The problem, though, is that I think it has already been watered down to the point where we don't exactly know what's transpiring right now.

I go back to my other argument about transparency. In the draft text, the requirement for democracy was really more that you salute it than practice it. In fact, I think it would have been a process of papering over some very undemocratic processes and practices in a number of the countries. They would be able to say they've pledged allegiance to this principle and don't have to do anything about it because it isn't the requirement.

À (1050)

Mr. Bill Casey: It locks them in at the level they are at, whatever level it is. Then they have to ratchet up; they can't ratchet back. It's my interpretation anyway. I think it's progress.

Mr. Larry Brown: Yes. There is a problem with all of this. If you have countries that are rogue states and are doing okay that way, then if you tell them to keep on being rogue states and we'll talk to you politely on coffee breaks, I'm not sure it's a strong enough answer for the people who are being shot in the streets.

Mr. Bill Casey: The other answer is to not talk to them on coffee breaks or anything. I mean, this is a debate. I've enjoyed the debate.

Mr. Larry Brown: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Casey. Thank you, Mr. Brown. It was good of you to spend the time in explanations. I hope you don't walk away feeling badgered. I think some of the questions to you were really difficult ones. You can see where the members are grappling with some of the concepts that you seem to be clear on.

Again, I affirm that your paper is going to be read. We'll take note of what you've written.

Mr. Larry Brown: In all seriousness, Madam Chair, I would say that I appreciated the response I got from the committee and their interest. If this looked like badgering, you've missed some of my better meetings.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll suspend at this point.

À (1052)

À (1054)

The Chair: Members, we are going to the business section of the meeting. On the agenda we have the motion of Mr. Svend Robinson for the appearance of the Honourable Alfonso Gagliano. The chair will make some observations here.

First, the motion you have before you, as drafted, presents a number of difficulties for the chair. It has to do with the reference, Mr. Robinson. Does the proposal wish to recall Mr. Gagliano pursuant to Standing Orders 110 and 111, in particular Standing Order 111(1), which permits the committee to call a nominee during a period not exceeding 10 sitting days? This is really not specified in that motion.

Secondly, Mr. Robinson, is your motion asking us to move on the premise of page 437 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice? Again, there is some difficulty as to where the reference should be. If we extend this according to your wording, according to Standing Order 108(2), we really can't go there. Standing Order 108(2) says we cannot look at the mandate, the management, the operation of the Department of Public Works and Government Services.

Again, the motion does present some difficulty. I would have to reluctantly say that, as drafted, it's out of order.

À (1055)

Mr. Svend Robinson: Could I ask a question for clarification?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Just to clarify the purpose of the motion--and I think all members understand it--following our meeting on Tuesday, at 12:19, the current Minister of Public Works, Mr. Boudria, issued a release with regard to the GroupAction contracts. Clearly, some very serious questions were raised with regard to that matter.

The Auditor General has been asked to review the two contracts in question, and I gather there now may be a third contract as of yesterday. There may be fraud involved. In the event that is the case, I understand that Mr. Boudria has also said that he may be requesting the RCMP to be involved.

The Chair: Therefore, I think--

Mr. Svend Robinson: If I can just conclude, all of this took place while Mr. Gagliano as minister was responsible for the operations of that department.

It seems to me that in light of this new evidence, it's entirely appropriate that this committee would have the opportunity to recall the ambassador-designate, Mr. Gagliano, for the purpose of examining him, and that in making a decision as to whether or not we wish to report to Parliament and through Parliament to the government, we have the opportunity to obtain his evidence on this matter.

I think it does raise very serious questions. It also raises questions, Madam Chair, about, frankly, the timing of that particular announcement. We can't do anything about it now, but it does raise these questions. That's why I'm proposing the motion.

I also want to get clarification on another item. I don't want to take a lot of time on this if the clerk is not in a position to provide it now. I think all members of the committee should be able to receive very clear certainty with regard to the events that transpired around the document the committee received on Tuesday. Exactly when that document was received and what has happened--

The Chair: But that's outside of the motion.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'll try to deal with that separately.

The Chair: Let's stay with the motion right now.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes.

The Chair: Madame Lalonde, are you speaking to the motion?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes, Madam Chair. Since we last met, new important allegations have come to light and there have been new reports in the newspapers about Groupaction which, as we know, reported directly to Communications Canada and the Department of Public Works.

I agree with Svend's motion, because the arguments we put forward on Tuesday have now become even more relevant and serious.

Moreover, Madam Chair, yesterday I read the transcripts of the meeting of March 21, 2000 at which Mr. Marchi testified and I noted that at the time—you were in attendance, but I wasn't, as Mr. Marceau standing in as the Bloc representative—the committee had ample opportunity to establish a link between Mr. Marchi's competence as ambassador to the WTO and his work as Minister. The entire first part of the meeting focused on this very issue.

I support this motion even more because as you know, I felt compelled to advise the chair that in my opinion, my right to carry out the mandate set out in Standing Order 111 was being denied, and my colleagues agreed with me.

Therefore, I support this motion wholeheartedly and I call upon the members opposite to allow us to pursue our work as parliamentarians. I think we understand that this whole business with Groupaction is more serious than we first believed. That's all I have to say.

Á (1100)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

I have three speakers indicated: Mr. Baker, Mr. Harvard, Ms. Jennings.

Mr. Baker.

Mr. George Baker (Gander--Grand Falls, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I understand your initial judgment, on which you have now opened to the floor for comments, it was to state that the committee is tasked under Standing Order 111 to be able to examine the qualifications of the person appointed as ambassador to Denmark and to have a hearing concerning his qualifications for that post. In your judgment, the standing order restricts the committee to examining only his qualifications and competence as they relate to the role of ambassador to Denmark. That is clearly, without dispute, what is in Standing Order 111, as you mentioned.

The honourable member for the Bloc Québécois has just said that the questions went beyond this in a previous meeting. Well, Madam Chair, in any meeting the questions can go beyond the subject under consideration if no one objects. One could talk about travelling to the moon in this committee if no one objects.

That's why it says specifically in the standing order that a member can object to a question put by another honourable member at a committee meeting. That is precisely what happened in the last committee meeting and what would happen in this meeting. I wanted to point this out to the honourable member.

I wanted to ask another thing as a matter of information. You are correct, Madam Chair, that it says you have a ten-day period in which to question the witness and the nominee, but you also neglected to mention that this ten-day period must be within the 30-day period. The 30-day period would end on April 12, 2002, through the normal sitting days available to members of the committee.

The Chair: Yes, April 12, that's right.

Mr. George Baker: How many sitting days would be left then before April 12?

The Chair: Well, after today, I think it's five.

Mr. George Baker: Let me ask the committee clerk. Would it be about five sitting days, Mr. Clerk? We have one day left tomorrow.

The Clerk of the Committee: It would be six, Madam Chair, after today.

Mr. George Baker: So that's six after today.

The original 10-day period in the original invitation would involve a completely new request, which would have to be within the 10-day period within that 30-day period. Isn't this correct?

Á (1105)

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. George Baker: It would have to happen within that period of time and the committee would have to dispose of the matter within that period of time. Isn't that correct?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. George Baker: Those are all the questions I have.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

We now go to Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia, Lib.): Thanks, Madam Chair.

I'll see if I can add a little bit to what Mr. Baker has said.

At one time around this place we had a government operations committee and it had a responsibility with respect to Public Works and Government Services. There is no more a government operations committee. It has been folded into something else. So where does that leave Public Works and Government Services? Well, it's kind of a strange animal now. Some of it comes within the purview of Transport, some of it comes within the purview of public accounts, I understand some of it comes within the purview of Heritage, and I guess some of it comes within the purview of this committee, Foreign Affairs.

It seems to me, Madam Chair, that to the best of our ability we should be delineating a clear line of responsibility between one committee and another. I mean, you could take this to the most ridiculous conclusion and the conclusion would be that we could have--if we agreed, if we acquiesced--Mr. Gagliano appearing here again. We could have him appear before Transport. We could have him appearing before Heritage and appearing before the public accounts committee. I think most would agree, unless you're an absolute, complete political partisan, that that would make no sense.

So then it brings the question, should he be coming here again? I repeat again, as I said at the previous meeting, this is not a confirmation hearing. I am not a fan of the American-style confirmation hearings, and we don't conduct confirmation hearings. We have a responsibility, as Mr. Baker has pointed out, to ask questions with respect to competency and qualification. Our job is to look forward with respect to Mr. Gagliano's appointment and ask him pertinent questions as to how he is going to carry out his responsibilities in his new office. I think that's what we have done.

What Mr. Robinson's motion would suggest is that he wants to go back and have this committee, in effect, carry out some kind of an inquiry into a certain part of Mr. Gagliano's past. I don't think that's the responsibility, in this regard. That is not a responsibility of this committee whatsoever.

I think this motion simply does not meet the test, absolutely doesn't meet the test, and I can't support it.

The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Madam Chair, I have to say right away that I support your decision to rule Mr. Robinson's motion out of order.

One of the reasons why I feel this way is that the Minister of Public Works, the Honourable Don Boudria, informed the House of his decision, as Minister of Public Works and Government Services, to ask the Auditor General to review the incident raised in Mr. Robinson's motion, including any other matter brought to light by the review. The scope of the Auditor General's mandate extends beyond that of the Minister in that pursuant to the legislation, the AG has the authority to conduct any reviews deemed necessary.

Our committee had time to call in the ambassador-designate, Mr. Gagliano, and to question him about his qualifications. On that occasion, owing to the attitude of certain opposition members, we debated for a full hour and 15 minutes a ruling by the chair in an effort to determine whether or not to allow the decision. We wasted one hour and 15 minutes, time that could have been spent putting questions to Mr. Gagliano.

In my opinion, the questions I put to Mr. Gagliano were relevant and the responses provided were sufficiently detailed to show he possesses the necessary qualifications for the ambassador's job.

I support your ruling to the effect that Mr. Robinson's motion is out of order. If the opposition disagrees and wishes to challenge it, then we should put the matter to a vote, in accordance with procedure.

Á (1110)

[English]

The Chair: Okay. I have a few people who have indicated they would like to speak to this. Maybe we can hear individuals. I'll ask that you be brief in terms of your remarks. I want to give everyone a chance to be heard.

I reaffirm and say again, the motion, as drafted, is out of order.

Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey: Thank you.

Could we forget for a minute that we're of different parties here? This is, to me, a really serious matter. I don't know if any of the charges are accurate or not. I have no clue as to whether they're right or not. If they are, the accusations are out there and seem to be growing.

If Mr. Gagliano is appointed and has to be recalled, it will be a messy recall and will be very difficult for us. It will diminish the credibility and reputation we have in the world, especially with our diplomatic corps, who have such a good reputation.

It may be responsible to ask for a little delay. Maybe Mr. Robinson might take the word “parliamentary” out of his motion and make it a full inquiry, which is really under way now anyway. I put forth that maybe a delay is appropriate.

I want to say this too. I hope the allegations are wrong. I hope there's no connection; I really do. I don't want a mess. I don't want this to be in the public and the international world that we have an ambassador in trouble. I hope he's not in trouble.

The allegations are there. They're real and are growing. To ask for a delay is not inappropriate, in my thoughts.

The Chair: Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to draw committee members' attention to the fact that last night and this morning, Radio Canada carried a report by journalist Pattrice Roy on the disclosure of a third contract awarded by Public Works to Groupaction and its affiliates, bringing to $1.6 million the cost of these contracts, which may not even be worth the paper they are written on. This reporter surmised that in light of these new developments, the Minister, Mr. Boudria, was somewhat exasperated and apparently said he intended to overhaul the system. If that's the case, then there was a system in place and the person overseeing it was Mr. Gagliano.

This revelation alone so damages Mr. Gagliano's reputation or credibility as a representative of Canada abroad that he must be called before the committee. Therefore, in my estimation, the motion put forward by my colleague Mr. Robinson is entirely relevant and bears testimony to the committee's credibility.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, briefly comment, please, if you can.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Perhaps I can suggest a means, having listened to my colleagues, that might resolve this matter, at least at this point.

Certainly, if my colleague from the Alliance wishes to speak before me, it's fine.

The Chair: I have a speaking list, Mr. Robinson. I was using the speaking list.

Mr. Svend Robinson: It's fine. I was prepared to speak later.

Á (1115)

The Chair: If you want to pass, I'll go on.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes. If you could come back to me, it would be fine.

The Chair: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you to my colleagues.

Basically, this issue smacked me very strongly yesterday. We were in question period dealing with the residue from the previous Public Works minister's administration.

We know we have a lot of articles in the Danish and European press.

The Chair: We don't know that, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: We do know.

The Chair: We don't know it. Nothing was presented to the committee; therefore, we can't make the assumption.

Mr. John Duncan: And there we had, in the gallery yesterday, the Finnish housing minister. I'm taken by the comments of Ms. Jennings, who wants a vote.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: You're contesting the chair's decision.

Mr. John Duncan: Well, of course, Ms. Jennings wants a vote. Of course, you do, because you know what the vote will do. What I think is going to happen here is that international pressure and our place in the world will require the ambassador's withdrawal.

Surely this committee does not want to be tarnished with the fact that we did zip in terms of doing our utmost to look into and make a recommendation--yes, we're not a confirmation hearing, but we can make recommendations--as to the suitability or appropriateness or not of this appointment. If not, then we have no mandate at all, and what are we doing here anyway?

As far as I'm concerned, this motion is not only completely in order, but it is essential to the operation and terms of reference and mandate of parliamentary committees that we take these kinds of duties and responsibilities seriously. We should follow the intent of that motion.

That's my position. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think Mr. Harvard earlier said it quite well. I would just add a couple of things.

Mr. Casey, setting aside partisanship here for a minute, I just don't understand why it isn't clear that this man does not have to prove his innocence. Yes, there are serious allegations, but he does not have to prove his innocence here, on the street, or anywhere else. Even in a court of law, if he were to be formally charged, he doesn't have to prove his innocence. I don't understand why my colleagues opposite.... I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that's the fundamental principle of the rule of law this country operates by. He doesn't have to prove his innocence. In fact, Madam Chair--and I agree with you, this is out of order, but let's assume for a minute it was in order--if I were the individual in question, I would refuse to answer every single one of your questions around this, because he doesn't have to prove his innocence.

It's fundamental to our whole system of democracy and rule of law, and I just don't understand why people don't realize that.

The question of delay that Mr. Casey raised is another matter. Whether you delayed the appointment or not is another matter. This motion doesn't speak to that at all.

This motion--

The Chair: Mr. O'Brien, if I may, delaying also puts us under another reference altogether and would take this outside of this committee.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Fair enough, Madam Chair.

I'll just conclude by saying I don't see where this committee, unlike what Mr. Duncan said, has the authority at all to do what this motion calls for. It's fundamentally contrary to our system of the rule of law in this country. He does not have to prove his innocence.

Á (1120)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.

Madame Lalonde.

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): A point of order, Madam Chair.

An hon. member: You should give Svend one last kick at it.

The Chair: Mr. Keyes, on a point of order.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I would only ask the chair to.... First, the chair has ruled this motion out of order, so why there is even discussion.... I can understand some latitude by the chair to allow discussion to happen, and that's fine. But I think one round per member is probably going to be enough. Otherwise all we're going to do is spend the next how many minutes, possibly hours, if we're allowed to counterpoint each other each time we have something to say.

Some of us, like myself, haven't spoken once yet. Madame Lalonde is going to speak for her second time. I just don't think it is necessary, quite frankly. With one round each, you're making your point.

The Chair: The chair was being lenient in allowing the members who felt they had something urgent to say to get it said. Again, the chair is attempting to be fair and to ensure that the voices are heard.

Yet the chair is going to stay with her position that the motion as drafted is out of order and that any amendments cannot be supported simply because it goes outside of the mandate of this committee. Government Operations will have to deal with this. It will have to be outside of this.

Madame Lalonde, do you have a point of order?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I want to respond to the point raised by Mr. Keyes. This is a point of order. I apologize, but a chair...

[English]

The Chair: All right. I'll take it as a point of order.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: It's important that you have all of the information. As you well know, this is an extremely important ruling. You've made your ruling, but allow me to raise a number of arguments that have yet to be raised in response to others that already have been. I won't go over the same ground.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

From a procedural standpoint, once the chair has ruled that a motion is either admissible, or out of order or deemed a matter relevant or irrelevant, if certain members, regardless of their political affiliation, disagree with the ruling, they can challenge it and an immediate vote is taken.

For our information, is that in fact the correct procedure followed?

[English]

Mr. Svend Robinson: On the same point of order, Madam Chair, the chair has indicated that she believes the motion is out of order. It has always been the practice that there is an opportunity for a discussion of that. At the conclusion of that discussion there can be a vote if an individual wishes to challenge the chair. That may or may not happen.

An hon. member: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Svend Robinson: With respect, Ms. Jennings doesn't chair the committee.

The Chair: Please address the chair.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Ms. Augustine chairs the committee. Ms. Augustine is following the long-established practice in these matters that where the chair indicates that at first glance there is a procedural problem, the chair has always given members of the committee an opportunity to be heard with regard to that matter, and that's exactly what the chair is doing.

I want to suggest, however--and this was the point I was trying to make before hearing from Mr. Duncan--that there may be a way out of this at this point that would avoid a challenge to the chair. My colleague, Madame Lalonde, raised a question of privilege in the House on what happened in the committee last Tuesday. I supported that question of privilege. Indeed, it was supported by all the members of the opposition parties. We are awaiting a ruling by the Speaker, Peter Milliken, on that very important issue. I am prepared to withdraw the motion at this point pending the ruling by the Speaker on that matter. Should the Speaker rule in favour of the question of privilege, then quite clearly this matter would have to be revisited. So on that basis, I will withdraw the motion and await the ruling of the Speaker.

Á (1125)

Mr. Stan Keyes: I have a point of order. Just a point of clarification, conversely--

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I have a point of order. Do we need unanimous consent?

Mr. Stan Keyes: I have the floor.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Oh I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were on record.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Conversely, Madam Chair, if, as Mr. Robinson has suggested, the Speaker does not see fit to recognize the point of privilege that was raised in the House, he will not bring forward this motion or entertain any more motions of this sort.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's correct.

Mr. Stan Keyes: But we also have a problem in this regard, and maybe the clerk can clarify this for us. If the motion has already been moved and the chair has already established that the motion is out of order, how can you withdraw a motion that has already been ruled on? Mr. Clerk.

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: With all due respect to Mr. Robinson, he can do what he likes with his motion. He can withdraw it. We as a committee are not bound to any conditions he brings forward. The Speaker can rule any way he wants. If Mr. Robinson feels he has room to bring in either this motion or some other motion in the future, I think he can do that. But we as a committee are not bound to any kind of withdrawal he makes. If he has withdrawn it, fine, but I won't recognize any particular conditions.

The Chair: The chair is not in a position to do any bargaining. I've made the ruling that the motion is out of order. I gave the committee the opportunity to express themselves on the motion and on the ruling that the motion was out of order.

But I'm not in a bargaining position here with Mr. Robinson. Since it is Mr. Robinson's motion, we've all had an opportunity around the table to express--

Mr. Stan Keyes: I haven't.

The Chair: Oh, you have not. We've had some kind of input from various people around the table, and we're at the point when we can call the question on my ruling.

I've been told by the clerk no one contested the ruling; therefore, the motion is....

Mr. Svend Robinson: Madam Chair, you leave no option in these circumstances but to challenge the ruling of the chair.

Mr. Stan Keyes: You just said you were going to withdraw.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I was told that wasn't possible, so we have no option.

The Chair: Let's call the question. Shall the chair's ruling be sustained?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Roll call.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

The Chair: The chair's position is confirmed.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I raised another issue, and in the interest of time, perhaps I could just ask if the clerk could forward, through the chair to members of the committee, the chronology with respect to the documents that were received from him by the department of foreign affairs. I'd ask that this be forwarded to members of the committee.

The Chair: I thought that was an item we had discussed, but anyway we can provide that.

Á (1130)

Mr. Bill Casey: On another little point of order, I agree with the intent of Mr. Robinson's motion, but I also agree with the chair's determination that it was out of order. I just want it on the record.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I think that was also dealt with, but as I recall, there was a motion from Mr. Pallister asking this committee to seek information, but there were objections to how slowly it had been received before the committee even dealt with the member's request. I had a lot of trouble understanding the logic there.

Quite frankly, whoever distributed the information went far beyond what they were compelled to do, in the spirit of cooperation.

Then there were objections to how slowly it was received, when it hadn't even come to the committee. It gets curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said in Wonderland.

Mr. Svend Robinson: We'll get the chronology.

Mr. Stan Keyes: But there is no chronology.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: May I address that, Madam Chair? When we dealt with it, I don't recall which member, but one of the members stated they were raising the issue of the request that had gone through from individual members directly to the department because they had been informed in this committee that they simply had to make a request to the department to get the information.

I'd like some clarification on whether this was the information that was given to members of the committee or not. Were members of this committee, when discussing how to best prepare for those hearings, informed they did not have to make a request through the committee to get documents, but could make the request directly to the department? If they made those requests and did not get responses in a timely fashion, it is an issue this committee needs to address.

The Chair: Ms. Jennings, the chronology starts with the motion that was put before us, with so many hours of notice. Within the hours of notice, the documents will.... But we'll provide--

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Madam Chair, I understand that, in terms of the motion that was made to the committee. I'm saying that when we discussed the issue, some members stated they had been attempting to get those documents directly from the department for weeks, and they had made those efforts on the basis of information they were given in committee. That's what I think needs to be clarified.

Mr. Svend Robinson: But they said they couldn't get it from the department. Pallister said he tried and couldn't get it from the department.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: But Pallister or someone else said because if....

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's a separate issue.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: No, it becomes an issue of the committee if the attempts were based on information they were given in committee that they could get documents directly from the department. That's what I'm asking the chair to do.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Let's look into it first.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Exactly.

The Chair: It seems to me it's something we can easily deal with.

All right, we'll move on then.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I request that the committee report back to the House on Mr. Gagliano's appearance. Such a report would give both the government majority and the minority parties an opportunity to say what they have to say and at the very least, would allow the committee, which has a good reputation, to uphold some minimum standards.

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: There are no precedents.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: The precedent in this case was the appointment of Mr. Gagliano. I think we need to set additional precedents. We never put forward a motion calling for...

[English]

A voice: If you want to move a motion, put it in writing in both official languages and we'll entertain it after the period of time we need.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: It would go to the week of the 8th to the 12th.

Á (1135)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: First off, and members can correct me on this, when the process was initiated to verify the qualifications of the appointee, Mr. Gagliano, I was informed that in the past, the committee had already initiates a similar review process either 10 or 11 times. I was also told that the committee does not report back to the House on such matters.

If that's true, then Ms. Lalonde's request is, in my opinion, not in keeping with this committee's traditional way of operating. Therefore, I think a formal motion is warranted, in accordance with the rules of procedures.

[English]

The Chair: Madame Lalonde, are you prepared to make a motion?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I can put the motion now, if you wish.

I move that the committee report on Mr. Gagliano's appearance.

According to Marleau-Montpetit, it is very clear that the committee, even though it does not have the authority, like the US or Mexican Parliaments, to reject the nomination...The aim is to give some control to parliamentarians. By all accounts, this is the first time such opposition has been voiced to an ambassadorial appointment.

[English]

The Chair: Is that the motion?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I move that the committee prepare a report in order to...

[English]

The Chair: Point of order, Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: I don't even know whether the motion is in order. I find it strange that somebody can bring forward either a notice of motion or a motion itself, and now I'm hearing arguments. I don't know whether it's in order. I have nothing in writing. If it's only a notice of motion, give us the notice on paper and we'll deal with it at the appropriate time. I think we have things backwards.

Let's meet the demands of the rules of this committee, and then we can hear arguments. So if it's a notice of motion, put it in writing and we'll deal with it after the break.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I have a point of order, Madam Chair. The chair is very familiar with the rules. I don't have to explain to our experienced chair.

If it's the unanimous decision of the committee to proceed with a motion from a member, I believe, and the clerk can correct me if I'm wrong, the rules are to proceed with the motion from the floor.

I think it would be timely to have the motion come to us now. We'll put it to the vote, make a decision, and get on with our lives. I'm all for accepting this motion, if you want to call it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Keyes, for the clarity. My intent was to get Madame Lalonde to make a concise motion and put it to us.

The clerk is saying all motions have to be put in writing.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's not accurate.

The Chair: Do we have unanimous consent of the committee that Madame Lalonde put a motion forward in concise and clear language, and that we move on her motion without debate?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Obviously, we can proceed with consent to do anything we want as a committee. To briefly note, in fact clearly we do have the power to report on any matter within the scope of this committee.

This is within the scope of the committee. I certainly would support the motion of Madame Lalonde.

The Chair: Madame Lalonde, please be very clear.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you. I repeat that to my mind, this committee...

[English]

The Chair: Only give the motion.

Á (1140)

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I'm sorry. I move then that the committee report on Mr. Gagliano's appearance by the end of April.

[English]

The Chair: Do you second the motion, Mr. Robinson?

Mr. Svend Robinson: It doesn't need a seconder, but I'm happy to second it.

The Chair: I want to make sure we are okay here. It is that the committee prepare a report on the appearance of Mr. Gagliano to the committee and that the report be completed by the end of April.

I'll call the question. All those in favour of the motion?

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

The Chair: The motion is defeated.

All right. We go to the next item.

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Is it appropriate that I move my motion now?

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Beth Phinney: It's the one that says “the cost of $110”.

The Chair: The motion is moved by Ms. Phinney. All those who support it? Those against?

(Motion agreed to--[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We have the motion of the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes, and Investment.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Madam Chair, on behalf of Mr. Harb, I just want to say that the only change here, other than dates.... I don't think the original motion spoke to dates anyway. As part of the FTAA study the subcommittee is doing, it was felt that it would be useful to also include Colombia. At very little extra cost or time, we could visit Colombia. There are a number of key issues there that members are well aware of.

Mr. John Harvard: Just don't get shot.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Yes. I'm not all that anxious to go to Colombia, actually, but I think it's important that we do that. If everybody has it in front of them, I'll just move it as written.

An hon. member: Seconded.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Pat, were these the dates that were originally anticipated? My recollection is that there's been some--

Mr. Pat O'Brien: That's a good question. There was some thought that the subcommittee would go earlier, in April actually. There are a number of reasons for the change, but the main reason is that the subcommittee now wants to also look at less developed countries and opening up market access for the least developed countries, which is obviously a very important theme of the WTO talks coming out of Doha. We need to lay on some additional hearings, and these dates just work better.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I fully accept that it does make sense.

On the motion, actually, I just note a technical point. “Columbia” is misspelled. It should be “Colombia” with an “o”, unless you're planning on visiting British Columbia.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: No, it's not my riding.

Mr. Svend Robinson: It's an underdeveloped province under the Gordon Campbell regime.

I have no objection at all to this. I might say that it may pose some difficulties in terms of its impact on other potential travel by other committees. I'm thinking here, for example, of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development, which was discussing the possibility of travel to Sudan around that same time. I suspect that may be a bit later now, the first two weeks of May.

Á (1145)

The Chair: May I call the question then? Do we support the inclusion of Colombia and the date change?

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Madam Chair, while I'm speaking, with your indulgence and the committee's, the Minister of International Trade is anxious to come to committee on the estimates. We're proposing a date of April 16.

His time is quite constrained. There's a Team Canada trip to India. Right after that there's the EU summit, the NAFTA ministerial, and the APEC summit at the end of May. The main estimates must be reported back by May 31, so the minister is going to have very few opportunities to get here. The request is that he appear on April 16. He wants to make sure he has a very open and transparent discussion with the committee, and that's his best date.

The Chair: Yes. I think we will make the necessary arrangements.

Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I move that we hear instead from Mr. Pettigrew during the week of April 8 to 12. Since we are awaiting Speaker Milliken's ruling on my question of privilege and the only time we have remaining is the week of April 8 to 12, if the Speaker allows my question of privilege, I move that we travel in Ontario and in Western Canada the following week, from the 8th to the 12th, and that during this week, Mr. Pettigrew meet with the committee.

[English]

The Chair: We try to accommodate the ministers' very busy schedules. We also have Minister Whelan to hear from, as well as Minister Graham and Minister Pettigrew.

We have the date of April 16, which his schedule can accommodate because of everything that's before and after the schedule. I think we should go with April 16 as a possible date. We'll make suggestions as to how we could accommodate otherwise, but I think if we have April 16 as a positive suggestion from the parliamentary secretary, we should accept that at this point in time.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I just want to get clarification from Madame Lalonde as to what she was suggesting. If the ruling by the Speaker is favourable and accepts the question of privilege, when would the subcommittee's travel to the west occur?

Mr. George Baker: And if it's not favourable.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm just trying to understand.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I'm saying that if the Speaker allows the question of privilege, we could hear from Mr. Gagliano during the week of April 8 to 12. That's the only time we have left to hear from him.

[English]

The Chair: We are talking about estimates right now.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: No, but that's true. We could hear from Mr. Pettigrew and then travel to Western Canada the following week.

[English]

Mr. Svend Robinson: I think we've been given the date by Mr. O'Brien of the sixteenth. I think we have to plan on the assumption that that's when we will hear from him. If circumstances change, and the wisdom of Mr. Milliken prevails, we may have to revisit it. At this point, I think we go ahead with the sixteenth.

Could I just ask about Minister Graham and Ms Whelan? What dates are we looking at for them?

The Chair: Minister Graham will appear before us on the twenty-fifth for the G-8. We negotiated that time for the G-8. We're looking at the month of May as the next date for the estimates, with Ms. Whelan as well as with Minister Graham.

Á (1150)

Mr. George Baker: When are we going to western Canada?

The Chair: Western Canada is scheduled for April 8 to 12. There is a bit of negotiating going on in the House. I'm not too sure what the involvement is there at this point in time. The House people are negotiating. I understand Madame Lalonde is definitely saying no to this. I'm not too sure how negotiations go, but until there is some consent by all the parties, we are on hold.

Mr. George Baker: Madam Chair, I was interested in knowing when we're going to western Canada because we have to make arrangements. Are you suggesting a political party in the House of Commons is opposed to this committee going to western Canada? Is that what you are saying, Madam Chair?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. George Baker: Which political party is that?

The Chair: The Bloc.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: On a point of order.

[English]

Mr. George Baker: We must tell the truth here; we can't tell lies.

The Chair: No, but it is--

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Objections were raised by four opposition parties, not just one.

Mr. George Baker: Excuse me?

[English]

The Chair: The four opposition parties are objecting to going to Ontario and to western Canada. Is that what you are saying, Madame Lalonde?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: You know that's not what I'm saying. We're objecting to the week of the 8th to the 12th, not to going to Western Canada. Come on! It's a matter of scheduling. The week of the 8th to the 12th...

[English]

The Chair: So you're objecting to the week of April 8 to 12.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Svend Robinson: On the same point, I assume, given the fact that the House is down for the next two weeks, and theoretically it would be immediately after that that the committee would travel, unless there is a motion in the House authorizing this by tomorrow, then the travel will not happen.

The Chair: Yes, it's lost forever.

The other important piece, Mr. Robinson and committee members, that you must know is that we have a deadline for reporting, according to the Prime Minister's letter to us. We need to get our input to the G-8 by the end of April. We need to give our researchers an opportunity to write a report. If our recommendations go in too late, after the process is rolling along, then it means all the work we have been doing and the hearings will not have the input in the way it should. So again, logistically I think it's important for us.

Mr. George Baker: So why can't we decide when we're going to western Canada? Isn't that a simple matter? We have decided? Okay, it's right on the sheet, so it is decided.

The Chair: The House has not ruled. We decided. We have started to make plans in terms of accommodation, because it's not something where all of a sudden we are gone. We have to make sure we have witnesses lined up. We have to make sure we have hotels and all of the accommodations for the meeting, etc. We have started that process for the week of the 8th to the 12th.

Mr. George Baker: Madame Lalonde says the 8th to the 12th is not acceptable.

The Chair: At this point.

Mr. George Baker: I'm totally confused, but I'll leave it alone. I don't know if anybody else understands what we are doing.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I think they're hoping to have a ruling from the Speaker that will allow them to have Mr. Gagliano back here. Isn't that the game plan?

Mr. George Baker: Oh, that's impossible.

The Chair: I'm not too sure the Speaker's ruling would have an effect on the committee's work. All of us as members of Parliament have stressed over and over the fact that committees are the masters of their own destinies.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Madame Chair, the point surely is this. The Speaker's ruling relates directly to the work of the committee. That's the point. So if the Speaker rules--and this is hypothetical, of course--that the chair--

The Chair: Then we don't study the G-8?

Mr. Svend Robinson: No, just listen now. If the Speaker rules that the chair, in her infinite wisdom, may have erred, may have made a mistake in not allowing us to ask any questions whatsoever about the minister's record, then obviously it would put the whole question of Mr. Gagliano's appearance before this committee on those issues back squarely before us.

If this were the case, then I assume--certainly I can only speak for my party--that the issue of travel to the west would be back on the agenda.

Á (1155)

Mr. John Harvard: But why does this have to be dealt with? It's all hypothetical. Why would it have to be dealt with in the week planned for western Canada? Why not some other time?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Because of the standing orders about the qualifications and confidence.

Mr. George Baker: The date is gone after the 8th, anyway.

Mr. Svend Robinson: No, it's April 12.

The Chair: Yes, it is April 12.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: No, after April 12. May I speak, Madam Chair?

This would be the last week available to hear from him. According to the letter sent to us by the clerk, we have to hear from him before April 12. It's as simple as that.

As for our interest in a study of Africa, as you know, because I was the one who suggested it, there's no question the committee will undertake a study so that it has some recommendations to make to the G8. We will get down to work on this.

[English]

Mr. George Baker: Madam Chair, now I'm totally confused. Madam Lalonde--whose motion before the House had to do with the types of questions we have--supported by Mr. Robinson, has just said that if the Speaker rules, that will hold up the ambassador's appointment?

Some hon. members: No, no.

Mr. George Baker: What has the Speaker's ruling got to do with it?

She says we have to have this meeting before the 12th. Why? Because he's being appointed on the 12th. This committee can hold up an appointment to a foreign nation? Madam Chair, that is absolutely ludicrous. What rules is she reading?

The Chair: All right, let's get on with this.

At this time we have agreed that we will work on getting the ministers here for the estimates, Minister Pettigrew on April 16. We'll negotiate to have the other two, Ministers Whelan and Graham, here during the month of May.

At this time I'd like to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I have a point of order, Madame Chair.

Can the committee agree to send Bill C-50 to the subcommittee, the Chinese accession to the WTO? We're doing a WTO study anyway.

Do you need a motion for this?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I would move--

The Chair: The accession hasn't come to us.

The Clerk: Madame Chair, if I may clarify, when the House refers the bill to the committee, the committee must take up the bill, and at that time the committee would have to order the bill to the subcommittee if it so wished.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Okay. Even if that committee adopted a hypothetical motion today, the committee would still have to theoretically deal with the bill, just in terms of planning our work if there's an agreement.

The Chair: Yes. That's where it will go, I'm sure.

Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey: Can I seek unanimous consent to have Gary Lunn removed as the PC/DRC/KFC representative to the international trade committee, replaced by me?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Is that what he wants?

Mr. Bill Casey: Of course it is.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.