Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 7, 1996

.0934

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Hon. members, I see a quorum. In accordance with Standing Orders 106(1) and 106(2), your first order of business is to elect a Chair. I'm ready to receive motions to that effect.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron (Verchères): I move that Mr. Bill Graham do take the Chair of the committee.

M. Dupuy (Laval West): Since I had intended to nominate Mr. Graham myself, I will be happy to second the motion.

The Clerk: Mr. Bergeron moves, seconded by Mr. Dupuy, that Mr. Graham do take the Chair of the committee.

Motion carried

[English]

The Clerk: I declare Bill Graham duly elected Chair of the committee and invite him to take the Chair.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Thank you very much. I appreciate being re-elected Chair of this committee and I look forward to spending the next six months with you in the Arctic.

.0935

The next order of business is to elect two vice-Chairs. There's a first vice-Chair and then another vice-Chair, not necessarily in that order. Do I have any nominations for vice-Chair?

Mr. English.

Mr. English (Kitchener): I propose Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): I would like to nominate Bob Mills as vice-Chair.

The Chairman: Mr. Ringma, you'll appreciate that the way system works, we vote on one person at a time. So we'll have to vote first on this motion that has been proposed. Then... [Technical Difficulty - Editor]

Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): Both arms went up together. You recognized that one and not this one.

An hon. member: This committee is the foreign affairs committee, not the fisheries committee.

[Technical Difficulty - Editor]

[Translation]

Mr. Paré (Louis-Hébert): ...the nomination of Mr. English.

Mr. Bergeron: I move that Mr. John English be elected Vice-Chair of the committee.

[English]

Mr. Assadourian (Don Valley North): I'll second that.

The Chairman: Perhaps before I entertain that, I should say Mr. Ringma had given notice that he was going to propose Mr. Mills. Of course you will appreciate that the rules are... [Technical Difficulty - Editor] ...therefore entertain a motion for a government vice-Chair. I heard Mr. Bergeron propose Mr. English. Is that seconded?

Mr. Ringma, you had comments to make?

Mr. Ringma: Mr. Chairman, it's precisely because we anticipated it going this way, that the government benches would put a Bloc Québécois in first, that I tried to get my oar in here. I just want to make the point that, fine, the government can do what it wants, and obviously is doing what it wants, but you're defying the democratic process by deliberately saying the Reform is going to try to get in there and make a nomination, and if they make a nomination for a Reformer, then.... We would ask to be counted and to show that the Liberal benches would deliberately support the nomination of a separatist - not that we have anything against the individual being nominated, but simply the concept of a separatist being there rather than a federalist.

I just want to make that objection, Mr. Chair, to the whole procedure. It was... What's the word? I just find myself somewhat frustrated that it's a cooked-up situation, trumped up: whatever you do, get the Bloc in rather than Reform.

The Chairman: Your statement is made and obviously you wish to get it on the record, but I just think it's inappropriate to use the term ``democratic will'', because in fact if you look at the result of the vote, you will see the results were ten in favour of Mr. Bergeron and only two against. That is the will of the committee.

The rules of the committee, as you know, are that we take one motion at a time. I am bound by those House rules. If you want to rearrange the rules of the House so we have actual races and things like that, we'll have to go back and try to rewrite the rules of the House. But to some extent we are constrained by those rules when we operate, and that is the will of the democratic majority, because that is the will of Parliament and the way in which those rules have been framed.

.0940

I don't agree that it has been undemocratic. It's perhaps not in accordance with what you would have liked, but that sometimes happens in a democracy.

Mr. Frazer: Mr. Chairman, you chose to recognize one nominator ahead of the other, and that was your own choice.

The Chairman: Yes. That is absolutely true. I did happen to be looking right instead of left. That is sometimes a criticism of this government.

Mr. Frazer: Which is unusual for you.

The Chairman: In the future I will try to look more to the left.

I call for the vote on the nomination of Mr. English.

Motion agreed to

[Translation]

The Chair: I wish to remind committee members that we must also adopt a series of fairly routine motions in a particular order. I would ask a member to move motion number 3 which pertains to the printing of copies of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence.

Mr. Sauvageau moves,

[English]

seconded by Mr. Assadourian, that we print minutes.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: Next is the hearing of evidence and publishing the same when a quorum is not present. Do we have a motion?

[Technical Difficulties]

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron: I would like someone to explain to me the substance of motion number 4 which says the following:

On the next page, we read the following:

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, you're being given two options because in the past, we've often encountered some problems keeping a quorum.

Occasionally, a situation arises where we have a quorum at the beginning of a meeting, but then the members are called elsewhere and we lose our quorum. However, we have to continue sitting, especially when we are hearing from witnesses who have come a long way. I would like us to be able to continue hearing their testimony, provided that at least four members are present.

Mr. Bergeron: I agree.

The Chairman: I take it you prefer the second option?

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre): Take a guess.

Mr. Bergeron: Since it covers all the bases, I have no problem with it, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Frazer: I wonder if we couldn't word it as you mentioned in your explanation, Mr. Chairman: that if during the meeting the quorum should disappear, then the proceedings can continue as suggested in the motion. It's a slightly different point from what you started. What this does is allow a meeting to be convened and conducted totally without a quorum. Is that not correct?

The Chairman: Mr. Frazer, since you're not a regular member of the committee, I should tell you that this committee regularly has to meet to receive foreign visitors. We sometimes get three or four coming through in a week, and it's a heavy demand on the time of the members of the committee. Therefore, we break ourselves into two groups. Quite often, even all the members of the groups can't come. So those are sort of pro forma meetings. We've never actually held a meeting where decisions were made or anything done that would have required a quorum. I don't see that happening.

Mr. Frazer: I bow to your expertise, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: I think we would like the flexibility of the formula as it is set out in here, but clearly there must be -

Mr. Frazer: I must admit that my comment was made as a result of your explanation of what might happen. I thought that perhaps it might be appropriate -

The Chairman: Well, that too has happened. Thank you very much, sir.

Those in favour of that...I understood Mr. Bergeron to be in favour.

.0945

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron: As I said, it covers all the bases. Therefore, I have no problem with it.

[English]

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: Item 5 is for a subcommittee on agenda and procedure. You will recall that we do have an agenda and procedure subcommittee, which currently would be constituted by the Chair and the two vice-Chairs. It has been our practice to have the parliamentary secretary sit on that committee too. Then we would have a nomination from the Reform Party.

I don't know whether, Mr. Ringma or Mr. Frazer, you want to make that person known now. In the previous committee it was Mr. Mills who sat on that committee.

Mr. Frazer: I would nominate Mr. Mills.

The Chairman: Is that satisfactory? Could I have a motion to that effect, that we would set up this committee?

Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso): I so move.

The Chairman: Moved by Mr. LeBlanc and seconded by Mr. Bergeron.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: I take it the members of the committee, then, will be me, Mr. English, Mr. Bergeron, Mr. LeBlanc, and Mr. Mills, unless I'm advised otherwise by the Reform. Thank you very much.

Next is transcripts of meetings in camera. Can I have a motion to this effect?

Mr. Speller (Haldimand - Norfolk): I so move.

The Chairman: Mr. Speller moved in camera transcripts.

Mr. Assadourian: I second that.

The Chairman: We don't need a seconder.

Motion agreed to

[Translation]

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: I would like additional information regarding motion number 5. It makes reference to the following:

The Chairman: I apologize. The motion may have been moved, however... You have a Vice-Chair and you are therefore entitled to have one member sit on the subcommittee. Since Mr. Bergeron is already Vice-Chair, he is already a member of that committee. It is the Reform Party Whip who must be consulted because there is no one from that party on the subcommittee.

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: I see. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: So transcriptions....

[Translation]

Regarding the transcripts of in camera meetings...

The Clerk: This matter has already been taken care of.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, that's done.

Next we have the Library of Parliament motion. It is moved by Mr. Lee... Mr. Flis.

Mr. Flis (Parkdale - High Park): I would like to move that motion.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: For those members of the committee who are joining us for the first time...the Library of Parliament members we have here, Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Lee, normally assist us in our deliberations. They were of tremendous help in writing the report on international financial institutions, and if we decide to continue our work on the Arctic, would be the primary researchers in our arctic study.

Expenses of witnesses: may I have a motion to this effect?

Mr. Assadourian: I so move.

Mr. Frazer: I second it.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: Motion 9 on your list is questioning of witnesses.

Mr. Iftody (Provencher): I so move.

The Chairman: Seconded by Mr. Frazer.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: The last motion perhaps requires an observation by me for the new members of the committee. We spent quite a bit of time -

[Translation]

Mr. Sauvageau (Terrebonne): There is a mistake in the French version of motion number 8. It should read ``à raison d'au plus deux représentants par organisme'' and not ``d'au moins''.

.0950

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: You're right. I was surprised to see the motion adopted as is. I thought there was a problem.

Mr. Bergeron: It's a translation error.

The Chairman: I always believed that knowledge of both official languages gave a person the advantage of being able to be ambiguous. Why do you want to eliminate this ambiguity? It gives the Chair a certain amount of room to manoeuvre, wouldn't you agree?

Thank you very much for your comment.

[English]

If I could go back to number 10, you will recall that in the fall we heard a great deal of evidence in respect of small and medium-sized businesses. There is presently a draft report, which each and every one of you, new members or old ones, should have received by now. Our first business proceeding will be to terminate and complete that report. In order to do that, we have to pass this housekeeping motion so the evidence we received before will now become evidence for this committee.

Would somebody be good enough to move that motion?

Mr. Bergeron: I so move.

The Chairman: Do we have a seconder for that? Mr. LeBlanc.

Sorry, Mr. Flis; did you have a comment?

Mr. Flis: Prior to the vote, could the Chair or the clerk please explain the word ``adduced''?

The Chairman: I prefer the French version: ``soient réputés avoir été entendus''. It will be understood as having been heard by the committee as a translation of the term ``adduced''. In French the version is ``soient réputés avoir été entendus'', which will be considered as if heard by the committee. That is the literal translation of the term ``adduced''.

I thought it might be ``traduced'', as in Shakespeare's Othello, but fortunately we are not into that yet. We'll get to that later. Iago's here somewhere.

Could we have a motion that we could have the evidence heard before the committee considered as having been heard by this committee for the purpose of the report?

We've had that motion.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: Is there any other business? Mr. Ringma.

Mr. Ringma: Going back to the vote for the vice-Chair, I would like to read into the record what that vote was: that the Liberal benches, specifically seven here, Mr. Assadourian, Mr. Dupuy - -

Mr. Speller: Is this in order? I mean, we can go on and discuss this forever.

Mr. Ringma: I want it on the record. You're not ashamed of your vote?

Mr. Speller: It's already on the record.

The Chairman: Let me just put it in this way. I think it'll end up on the record. It'll end up in somebody's speech on the record if it isn't on the record now. So why don't we get it on the record, and then we won't have to listen to it a second time when somebody else puts it into a speech somewhere.

Mr. Ringma: Very simply, it is that the seven Liberal members here - specifically, Mr. Assadourian, Mr. Dupuy, Mr. English, Mr. Flis, Mr. Iftody, Mr. LeBlanc, and Mr. Speller - voted for Mr. Bergeron as the vice-Chair.

The Chairman: As the lawyers say, I think the record speaks for itself. It was there, it is there, and it's clear.

Mr. LeBlanc: The appropriate way would be to ask for a vote. Then you would have a precise statement of what we voted on. Perhaps if there's concern about the vote in the future...the question of a roll-call vote.

[Translation]

Mr. Paré: I wish to comment briefly on what the Reform Party members said. In order to reconcile Mr. Ringma with democratic principles, I wish to remind him that Quebec is still a province within the Canadian Confederation and that the Bloc Québécois members received the support of nearly 50 per cent of the province's population in the 1993 election. Therefore, they should feel quite at home with democracy.

.0955

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Assadourian: Mr. Chairman, We discussed this with the members in the last few days. This motion has to do with the Helms-Burton bill. I'd like to read the motion into the minutes so we can vote on it today, if possible. May I present the motion?

The Chairman: Do you have a copy of it we can circulate?

Mr. Assadourian: I have only one copy. Sorry.

It is seconded by my colleague, Mr. Dupuy. It says:

That is the motion.

[Translation]

The Chair: Any further comments?

Mr. Bergeron: I would simply like to point out to Mr. Assadourian that had he taken the time to consult with us beforehand, he most certainly would have found someone in our ranks willing to second his motion. I think he can count on our support.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Assadourian, you say in your motion the committee should encourage the Government of Canada to communicate with the House committee. Would it be the will of the committee that on behalf of the committee I write directly to the Chairman of the House committee in the United States, saying this committee has adopted this motion and we wish to -

Mr. Assadourian: Okay, sure. That's fine with me.

The Chairman: The government is obviously already doing what it's doing. I think the intent of the motion was that this committee specifically get on the record that we are unanimously in favour of this.

[Translation]

I think Mr. Bergeron agrees.

[English]

Mr. Frazer, sir.

Mr. Frazer: May I suggest to Mr. Assadourian that we incorporate in the resolution that we also ask the government concurrently to institute the dispute resolution mechanism incorporated in NAFTA.

The Chairman: Could that be the subject-matter of a separate resolution? The reason I ask that is if this is to direct me, as your Chair, to write to the House committee, making a formal protest on behalf of this committee to that committee, letting them know how upset we are, that's one thing. The other would be an issue about whether or not we would ask our government to initiate a movement.... We expect to have the Minister of International Trade appearing before the committee shortly, at the request of the committee, to discuss the issue of subsidies and countervailing duties. I think at that time one could raise that issue.

Mr. Frazer: Whichever way you wish, Mr. Chairman. I would be prepared to make such a motion if you would entertain it.

The Chairman: You're certainly entitled to make the motion. I just don't know whether this is.... My own view, and this is just a personal view, is that maybe it's a bit premature at the moment. Maybe by the time the minister comes before the committee we'd know better whether we should be instituting NAFTA things at that time.

Mr. Frazer: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, the wording of the agreement says if a punishment procedure is either invoked or proposed...and certainly this bill proposes to do such a thing. Time's a-wasting, sir.

The Chairman: As I say, you're certainly entitled to move the motion. I don't know whether this is....

I won't saying anything more about it.

Mr. LeBlanc: That motion is not on the floor at present.

The Chairman: No, that's right. So let's hold that motion. Could we deal with the present motion?

Mr. LeBlanc: Before we vote on the motion, if it's in order, perhaps I could inform the committee of meetings I had in Montreal yesterday on behalf of the minister and dealing with this subject. If the committee would be interested....

The Chairman: Yes, I think that would be -

Mr. LeBlanc: Yesterday I was in Montreal, attending meetings of the council of the International Civil Aviation Organization. We approved a resolution that was initiated by the United States government and put in play by the secretary of transport of the United States, Mr. Federico Peña, who initiated an investigation by ICAO of the incident of February 24, the downing of the two American civil aircraft by the Cuban authorities.

.1000

At that meeting yesterday, where we were able to receive pretty good cooperation from all around the table, 33 members of the council of ICAO were there. As well, there was a Cuban representative, who was an observer at the meeting who was very much an active participant.

They introduced their own motion for consideration, and the council was able, I suggest through some quite judicious Chairmanship by the Chair of the council, to arrive at a motion that was adopted by consensus, which included the concerns of the Cubans as well as, obviously, the concerns of the United States on the question of investigating this incident thoroughly, in response to the request of the president of the Security Council of the United Nations, which was made to ICAO a few days after the incident took place.

I thought the committee might be interested in knowing that this took place yesterday.

The resolution launches an investigation that is to be completed within 60 days and will investigate the incident in its entirely. It also urges that the remaining states that have not yet ratified an article in the Chicago convention that deals with rules concerning civil aviation move to ratify those provisions, which set out, among other things, rules for how states can intercept appropriately or warn appropriately civil aircraft that are approaching their airspace and that they want to deter from doing so or that are in their airspace.

So I think that what we achieved yesterday at that meeting was a positive development.

I might say in closing, because it bears on the motion that is before us, that in his remarks to the press yesterday Mr. Peña, the secretary of transport, made reference to the Helms-Burton bill by saying - and he said this as one last point, because he talked mostly about this investigation, which I believe Canada regards as being the appropriate place to deal with this incident:

I will limit my comment to this: President Clinton has agreed to support the version of the bill agreed to on February 28th by a House-Senate Conference. He recognized the need to take strong measures after the downing of the aircraft. We will be consulting with our trading partners, including Canada, on implementation issues.

Thank you.

I think the motion Mr. Assadourian has presented to the committee is a constructive one, and this would be a constructive thing that we can do as a committee. So I just wanted to offer those comments.

Mr. Dupuy: I simply want to state that I seconded the motion in its original form, but I find it equally acceptable to have the motion modified to charge you, Mr. Chairman, with the task of conveying the sense of this committee to the foreign relations committee of the United States.

The Chairman: Normally I would write a letter on behalf of the committee and then show it to... [Technical Difficulty - Editor]... have a quick look at it and see whether they're all in agreement with the tenor of it.

Those in favour of that motion?

[See Minutes of Proceedings]

Mr. Assadourian: I appreciate the point that my colleague from the Bloc made.

Also, I apologize. Because there was no time, I did not translate it into French. I'll make sure I do it the next time.

[Translation]

Mr. Paré: A few days ago, representatives of a Toronto NGO, the Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America, which is actively involved in this area of the world in human rights projects, met with representatives of the Bloc Québécois to discuss the human rights situation in Columbia. They talked about arbitrary detention, torture and assassination.

.1005

This coming March 18, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights will be holding a meeting to which Canada will send representatives. We believe that Canada should take this opportunity to ask the Commission to denounce and investigate the human rights situation in Columbia.

Therefore, I move - unfortunately, my motion is only in French, just as the reverse was true a while ago - that the members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade ask the representatives of the Canadian government to denounce at the next meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights the human rights abuses taking place in Columbia and to recommend a more serious review of the human rights situation in Columbia.

The Chair: Mr. Paré, wouldn't it be more appropriate under the circumstances to use the word ``raise'', rather than ``denounce''? This is a more neutral word. I understand why you want to use the word ``denounce'', but at least this would give the government the opportunity... I am familiar with this Commission, as I went several times to the United Nations when I was a professor, and I feel that the word ``raise'' would be more appropriate.

Mr. Paré: I agree.

[English]

The Chairman: In English, then, instead of ``denounce'' it would be to ``raise'' the issue of human rights before the committee.

Does anybody have any comments? Mr. Ringma.

Mr. Ringma: My observation, very simply, would be that because we are temporary members of this committee, I would like to run this by our permanent members, to be sure we know what the implications are before voting on it. It might be a very straightforward thing and we would support it, but on the other hand I would hate to commit the permanent members to something that is perhaps....

[Translation]

Mr. Paré: The short deadline poses some problems. The meeting is scheduled for March 18 and I imagine that if the committee were to adopt this motion, it would have to pass it on to the government representatives. We need several days and that is exactly what we have.

In my opinion, the Reform members request is completely legitimate, but under the circumstances, it is rather difficult to agree to it.

The Chair: If we adopted the motion today, they would have it in time. If we postpone the adoption of the motion, we might end up with a trilateral motion but it would be of no use because it would come too late.

Mr. LeBlanc: We could add to the motion the words ``subject to confirmation'' to make it more acceptable to the Reform members. We could do this today even, if the Reform Party members agreed to proceed with their consultation quickly.

Mr. Dupuy: Mr. Chairman, obviously the purpose of your amendment was to ensure that no clear judgement was being passed, something that the word ``denounce'' implies. The word ``raise'' is a better choice. I fully support this amendment.

However, at the same time, in the fourth line of the text, perhaps we should be speaking about human rights abuses ``which are reported to be inflicted upon the population'' rather than ``which are inflicted upon the population''. There is some logic to this. When we review a situation, we cannot pass judgement on the nature of this situation.

.1010

Mr. Paré: If that would make the motion amenable to everyone, then I would agree.

The Chair: It's better like that. We have a seasoned diplomat in our midst.

[English]

That would be acceptable to the mover of the motion, I understand. If there are no further observations -

Mr. Speller: On a point of order, could I hear what the motion is, as amended?

The Chairman: Yes. It is proposed by Mr. Paré that the members of this committee request the representatives of the Canadian government to raise at the next meeting of the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations offences against the human rights of the Colombian population and recommend a more serious evaluation of the situation of human rights in Colombia.

The thrust of the motion is that we would raise the issue of human rights abuses in Colombia at the next meeting of the Human Rights Commission, which will be on March 18 at the United Nations.

Mr. Flis.

Mr. Flis: I want just a clarification. Are we going to do the same for every country, the Tamils in Sri Lanka and others? Why would we zero in on just one country? Does that mean we're paying less emphasis to the human rights violations in the other countries?

The Chairman: Last term we wrote the Guatemalan government - was it the Guatemalan government or the Honduran government - about children in prisons. We have on occasion singled out an opportunity when it was appropriate.

I understand what your observation is.

[Translation]

Mr. Paré: I can appreciate what Mr. Flis is saying, but as members, as representatives of our constituents, we have a duty to bring to Parliament's attention situations that are occurring not only here at home, but around the world. When we meet with representatives of credible NGOs recognized, among others, by CIDA for their work in the field, it seems to me that this is reason enough for us to be concerned about human rights, at least in these cases.

Of course, this may seem like piecework, but I feel that as members, we also have a responsibility to voice the concerns of Canadians when they are brought to our attention. We could use this as a criterion. If Canadians who are NGO members have well-founded concerns about human rights problems, at the very least we too can be concerned. However, I realize that our approach may seem like piecework.

[English]

Mr. Flis: Thank you for the explanation, but I have constituents and Canadians from across Canada writing and calling about human rights violations in China, in India, Sri Lanka. Do we all of a sudden place less emphasis on those violations as opposed to these? That's my concern. I agree wholeheartedly with the motion, etc.... I just don't want Canada to go to the United Nations with the perception that all of a sudden we've forgotten the bigger countries where we're doing a lot of trade and so on and zeroing in just on smaller countries. But I'm in full agreement with the intent of the motion.

.1015

The Chairman: Perhaps when we have dealt with this motion.... You'll recall that the last time we tried we got into a similar discussion, Mr. Flis. We sort of decided that the appropriate forum would be the human rights subcommittee. It could look into these issues. Because this meeting is on the 18th, maybe we could make an exception for this.

Again, we've tried. You're quite right. It seemed to me that at least in the last committee you tried to steer these issues more to the human rights subcommittee, because they would have the time to decide what a good procedure would be.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, you correctly pointed out that we are currently facing a tight deadline. That's why my colleague brought this matter to the committee's attention today.

I would also like to point out - as you briefly did as well - that we are not dealing with a precedent. An exception was already made in the case of Saro-Wiwa in Nigeria. Mention was also made several minutes ago of the letter written to Guatemalan authorities, if I'm not mistaken, regarding children imprisoned in this country.

I think we could also make an exception in the case of the motion put forward by my colleague for Louis-Hébert.

[English]

Motion agreed to

Mr. Frazer: Mr. Chairman, may I make the motion about NAFTA that I advised you of earlier?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Frazer: I must confess that not only do I not have it translated but I don't even have it typed. But it's written here.

The Chairman: Do you have it in your head?

Mr. Frazer: I do have it in my head.

I move that the Chairman of this committee write to urge the government to serve notice to the United States that they intend to institute the dispute resolution mechanism of the NAFTA agreement with regard to the Helms-Burton bill.

The Chairman: Is there a seconder?

Mr. Assadourian: May I ask a question?

The Chairman: Yes, sir.

Mr. Assadourian: Isn't that in the text already? Aren't we repeating ourselves?

The Chairman: In which text?

Mr. Assadourian: In NAFTA.

Mr. Frazer: Yes, but you have to institute the mechanism. Unless you say, let's go on this, this is a situation where this mechanism should be instituted, nothing happens. Somebody has to take the first step.

Mr. Assadourian: Who instituted the mechanism in the past? Was it the government or -

Mr. Frazer: Yes. We've done it with regard to softwood, fish, and so on.

But you have to start it somewhere, and this means that one government has to say, this is unfair, so let's institute the dispute resolution mechanism. If we do nothing, then nothing will happen.

Mr. Assadourian: But in the past they had it, you said, without the motion of this commission.

Mr. Frazer: Yes. I suppose the people who were being harmed - for instance, the lumber people in British Columbia, Quebec, and the Maritimes - complained about the tax that the Americans had put on our softwood lumber, and that caused our government then to take action.

I'm suggesting that even though it's early in the game, the proposal to institute the Helms-Burton bill will definitely affect Canada unless there are some other negotiations. So we should advise the United States that if it is going to proceed with this bill, then we intend to use the resources available to us.

Mr. Dupuy: I am sure the intent of this motion is very good. It intends to protect Canadian interests, and I don't think I would have any problem with the intent.

My problem with the proposition that has been made is basically this. The government must choose the most effective way in which to achieve the objective it is pursuing. At this stage a formal move along the lines that we would trigger action under the FTA would have no effect on the passage of legislation in the United States. It's almost there, and bearing in mind what the President of the United States has said, I don't think it will have any effect on his vetoing or not vetoing. The politics of this are quite clear in what is happening in Washington. So it would have no effect on the piece of legislation or the possibility of the president exercising a veto.

.1020

Then the question does arise, in these circumstances what is the best way to protect Canadian interests? There are a number of options. One option is to deal through the diplomatic channel directly with the American government to make sure the President can exercise whatever authority he has in the implementation of the legislation to safeguard Canadian interests. This is a course that is open to the Canadian government.

The other one, which you suggest, is a much more formal move. But once you plunge into the formality of it, you make it very difficult to pursue your objective through the diplomatic channel and the government-to-government contact. You've actually put the matter in the hands of the law, so to speak.

The Chairman: And the lawyers.

Mr. Dupuy: And the lawyers.

In these circumstances the first course, which is dealing with this through the diplomatic channel, does not exclude the second at a later stage. But the second virtually excludes the first. My concern would be why, at this stage, knowing nothing will be effective against the passage of the legislation and the exercise of the veto, should we foreclose a potentially useful and productive way of dealing with the issue by taking a formal move?

To sum up, while I share the preoccupation of my colleague about protecting Canadian interests, I think it would be, to put it in simple terms, premature to take the legal road.

Mr. Ringma: Mr. Dupuy certainly has more diplomatic experience than I have. But with respect, I would disagree with the thrust of his argument, in that this sends a signal - it sends a signal that we're concerned about the direction this is taking - and it does not cut the government off from its other measures. I think it continues with them, but it sends a reasonable signal there, saying we have this other apparatus in place that we can use, and we intend to use, because we take it that seriously. It then ties the whole NAFTA thing as an underpinning of seriousness to what is happening with the Cuba affair.

So I continue to advocate the motion.

The Chairman: Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Sauvageau: I will probably make my colleague for Laval West happy when I say that generally speaking, we agree with his comments.

The motion moved by our Reform Party colleagues may seem somewhat premature. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of International Trade have already begun negotiations with the United States and presenting only one aspect of the problem could undermine somewhat the credibility of the process.

Therefore, we are not against the principle, but this action is somewhat premature at this state of the negotiations. That is why we cannot support this motion today.

[English]

Mr. Frazer: I defer to my colleague's expertise in the field of diplomatic relations, but he's made a rather sweeping assumption, that Canada would consider doing this. I didn't say we were going to institute.... I said we should serve notice that we intend to consider doing this. Although that may not say it, that was my intention, and if necessary I'll modify it.

The point is that he said it would have no effect on the American government. Well, how do we know that? Right now they're instituting a mechanism that they're going to put in. They perhaps haven't even considered that under NAFTA this is illegal; it's not acceptable. If they realize that and go back to NAFTA and say, hey, this does contravene what's in NAFTA, it might very well affect their approach to it and therefore they would be more receptive to diplomatic efforts to say, hold on this. I think the more firepower we can bring to bear before this thing has become law in the United States the better off we'll be.

.1025

The Chairman: If you think the American government is not aware of the fact that this might be challenged, believe me, I have attended more conferences on this issue.... In Miami recently I was told by a group of congressmen they didn't give a fig. And it was clear the President of the United States intended to veto the bill until this unfortunate recent incident. So I think they know all their trading partners will be attacking them at each possible turn.

But I take it you would like to make a minor amendment to your motion, so it would not really read that we are serving notice on the United States that we intend to institute the...but rather are considering seriously doing that down the road.

Mr. Frazer: It makes it more palatable.

The Chairman: Mr. English.

Mr. English: I just want to support what Mr. Dupuy said. I think at this point a motion like that is premature, although it's obvious it would be considered by Canada. But first, it is still a bill; it is not yet an act. Secondly, in reading the commentaries on Helms-Burton...it's quite clear it will be challenged in American courts too. It will also be challenged by others besides Canada.

It would be best to work multilaterally in confronting this. This morning the European Union attacked it strongly. CARICOM attacked it last week, with the Prime Minister present. Mexico did the same thing; the other other NAFTA partner. For us to go forward at this point on this particular single direction seems to me to foreclose other options.

Some of the commentary that has been made suggests the bill will have no force in reality. You can't imagine the particular portion about confiscation of property...and enforcing that. I suppose Canada would go back to the Loyalists, where the Americans never paid them off. It really isn't the type of bill which, when it becomes an act, is very likely to have all that much effect. It will be challenged in many directions.

I think Mr. Dupuy is correct. Obviously this will be considered if it does have an effect on Canadian businesses that is very serious. But at this point it does foreclose some of our options.

Mr. Iftody: I think recently trade experts have been advising Canadian companies that have been calling and seeking advice on these matters, even non-profit organizations dealing in the U.S., to keep it rather quiet. They advise that in view of the politics of the matter, raising it to even higher stakes might in fact cause more damage in the long run. Probably, of course, given that it's an election year...and my own belief is that Mr. Clinton is going to try to steer this thing in two ways. First, he has to respond to public opinion on this matter in the U.S., as he rightly should. But secondly, he's smart enough to realize, and I'm sure his advisers would be as well, that taking this kind of action is not going to be particularly helpful.

So I think the suggestion made by some of my colleagues here, about taking a much more obscure approach, at least at this point is probably one that is going to be in the best interests of those Canadian companies trading in Cuba.

Mr. LeBlanc: Mr. Chairman, since I take it Mr. Frazer is proposing this motion in a constructive manner and wishing to contribute constructively to our policy in this area, might I suggest this. Given the fact that you have in a sense watered down the motion a little from your earlier one and the fact that Canada has already, through various channels, signalled that one of the ranges of options we have is to use the NAFTA dispute resolution mechanism - whether that's the appropriate channel remains to be seen - perhaps it would be helpful if.... If Mr. Frazer held on to his motion for the time being, I would undertake to talk to the foreign minister to see whether such a motion would be helpful at a later date, perhaps when we'll have had more information on this. Then you could make perhaps a stronger motion, which the committee could then endorse unanimously, and it would support the government in whatever efforts it is taking.

.1030

Given the concerns around the table that, although it's well intentioned it might be premature at this time, maybe it would be better to hold our fire until we have a better chance to know what we're shooting at. Does that make sense?

The Chairman: With your language, you're appealing to Mr. Frazer's reputation as a former general - and Mr. Ringma, as well.

Mr. Frazer: I never achieved that exalted position.

Mr. Iftody: But you should have.

Mr. Frazer: I understand what the parliamentary secretary is saying.

Perhaps my background inclines me somewhat, but I think action is better than inaction. His statement that in fact the Americans had already been advised about the possibility of the NAFTA mechanism was the first time I've heard that. It certainly wasn't brought out in the Prime Minister's response in Question Period yesterday. If that is in fact the case, then of course that is good news.

From the comments, I judge that this motion is unlikely to carry in the committee, but I would like to leave it forward, if I may.

Mr. LeBlanc: I'd like to make a short clarification. I wouldn't be presenting this information as news, but obviously it has been discussed by Mr. Eggleton with his counterpart, and we are presenting the whole range of options. We're looking at the whole range of options in response to this, obviously including matters such as this. So it's in that way that I made that statement earlier.

Mr. Dupuy: You mentioned earlier that Minister Art Eggleton will be appearing before this committee. It might provide an excellent opportunity to raise the matter with him, rather than proceeding with a vote now. So I encourage our colleague to be a bit patient. Perhaps this is a matter that we could discuss with Art Eggleton.

Mr. Frazer: When is he due here, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: We had a fixed date for Mr. MacLaren, but we now....

Mr. Frazer: I'd like to leave the motion on the floor.

The Chairman: I can't say that we have a specific date, but it will be within the next month. There's no question about that.

However, Mr. Frazer's indicating that he wishes to have his motion voted on, so could we put it to a vote.

Motion negatived

The Chairman: Although the motion has been defeated, Mr. Frazer, from the sentiment around the committee table it's very clear that the committee members are generally in favour of the spirit behind the motion and probably would entertain it again at a later date, if that's appropriate.

Mr. Frazer: I understand.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for the motion, sir.

Unless there is other business to be raised by the members, I would like to make three short observations and move on, because I know everybody's busy today.

The first, for new members of the committee, is about our procedures for dealing with foreign delegations.

We receive quite a few. Several members have already spoken to me about delegations they know of that will be coming to Ottawa. If some of you know something specific that you feel the members of the committee should hear, please phone our office, and we'll see what we can do.

In the past, in order to facilitate that, we have broken the committee into two. We just called it the A and B teams or the 1 and 2 teams. Then the members of that group obviously - although it's not a whip issue - are expected to come to meetings for that purpose, if this is possible.

These meetings are not held at the normal committee times. We try to structure the committee meetings on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but we tend to do these on a Monday afternoon or a Wednesday. The problem is that the foreign visitors don't come at a time that is convenient for us. They come when they happen to be here, so to some extent we have to make ourselves available to their schedules. That's why we split our committee in half.

.1035

But all members of the committee will receive a notice of that delegation's coming. Even if you're not on the team that's indicated, you're more than welcome to come. Or you may know of other members of Parliament who are interested in that country or that issue and you may wish to say to them.... For example, when the Irish Prime Minister came, several members of caucuses came who were particularly interested in Ireland but who were not on this committee. Because it's difficult to get a lot of people and sometimes these are very eminent delegations, it's worth while just to let other people know they're there and they can attend.

So that's what we do with the foreign delegations.

Secondly, we brought up the issue of the small and medium-sized businesses study. You'll recall this has now been circulated to the research assistants of all the parties. This is a practice we've established in this committee, and I think it's a successful one. Before bringing the report to the committee, we give it to the researchers of all parties present so they can get their comments in and then we don't spend hours arguing about things that could have been solved by them.

There may be some outstanding issues. Mr. Bergeron will advise us. But that has been done, and we will bring that report to this committee shortly and we will try to get it dealt with as quickly as possible. I hope you'll have a chance to look at it.

Mr. Alcock, a former member of the committee, has some observations he'd like to have included in it. He's going to provide those to me. Other former members of the committee, who worked very hard on it, may have some observations, and we'll try to make sure they're accommodated. The new members may also have some observations.

Thirdly, the agenda and procedure committee had adopted - this was ratified by the previous committee - that our next thematic area of study in this committee would be the Arctic; the geopolitical, environmental, and trade issues that are arising in the Arctic. As you know, there's an Arctic Council meeting next week in Yellowknife. I will be going to that meeting, which will address environmental issues.

It's not the Arctic Council. It's a parliamentary group from the Arctic countries - although I understand the United States may not send a representative, which is unfortunate.

That will be an important meeting. We then should be in a position to start that work.

The letters have gone out. We sent out about eighty letters. Then of course CARC, the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, put a notice in its newsletter that this was going to take place; and it has 6,000 members. So this is certainly an issue that is widely known in both the academic and other interested communities in Canada.

Are there any observations by members of the committee on what you think we should do in that study? My suggestion would be that it will require some travel and probably we should divide ourselves into three groups so we don't spend a lot of money travelling. We could divide into three groups and go in different directions, to different areas. We'll have an opportunity to discuss that when we get going on it.

Mr. Iftody: Of course I don't know what was discussed or what led to the decision by the committee to study matters pertaining particularly to the Arctic. I did sit on the industry committee, Mr. Chairman, for close to two years when we worked on the small business report. Particularly this year has provided another set of data and circumstances whereby the life chances of small businesses in Canada and their growth are certainly being redirected away from the U.S. and more particularly towards the emerging Asian Pacific Rim markets. Speaking almost parochially for a moment, if I may, about the Provencher riding, I know a number of the small companies have opened offices in Japan and so on.

Certainly I would hope at some time between now and the summer the committee would have some time - if indeed it's in the report on small business, Mr. Chair - to consider some ways in which we might be helpful to small and medium-sized businesses, in conjunction with the Canadian Exporters' Association, to explore more options through this committee for expanded export and growth opportunities in the Asian Pacific Rim.

.1040

I just toss that out as a point of consideration for members of the committee between now and perhaps when another decision will be made as to what our priorities will be over the ensuing weeks.

The Chairman: Mr. Iftody, would you be good enough to look at the draft report of any specific considerations about this that you could let us have? We could work them in so that other members would have an opportunity to look at them.

Mr. Iftody: Certainly. I would be pleased to do that.

The Chairman: In the agenda and procedure subcommittee we will considering the advisability of setting up a trade subcommittee and a human rights subcommittee, which we did before. Then that subcommittee will have to decide where to pursue.... I hope there will be a lot of opportunity there to deal with those sorts of issues.

The clerk properly draws to my attention the three other outstanding commitments of which the members would want to be aware.

The previous committee passed a resolution requiring Shell Canada to come before this committee to explain the situation in Nigeria. I specifically said Shell Canada because we don't have any jurisdiction over anybody else. You'll recall that Shell Canada put an advertisement in the local newspapers about Nigeria, so we felt it was appropriate to request of them that they come before the committee.

Shell Canada then informed me that they would be attending before the committee accompanied by representatives of Shell Nigeria. They are still prepared to do that. We expect to set a date for that. I think members of the committee are anxious to pursue that issue, and as soon as we know that date we'll let the members of the committee know.

Secondly, we had an outstanding obligation to the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, which is an umbrella group for the NGOs in Canada to deal with international assistance, to do a round table on what role this committee could play in facilitating and helping a parliamentary understanding of the aid process and international assistance. We will certainly set up that round table as well. When it comes to estimates, we spend a lot of time on international assistance, and I think it will be worth while hearing what Mrs. Plewes and her committee have to say.

Thirdly,

[Translation]

Getting back to Mr. Bergeron's request that the minister appear before the committee to discuss dumping and grants. I spoke with the minister and he informed me that he was certainly willing to appear before the committee. We will set a date as soon as possible to examine this matter.

Mr. Bergeron: Have we set a date for the forum with development agencies?

The Chairman: We are aiming for April 18. We had originally scheduled this meeting for February 8, but since the House was not sitting...

[English]

This meeting stands adjourned to the call of the Chair.

Return to Committee Home Page

;