Foreign Affairs Committee on April 19th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Are we ready for the question? Is there any other debate on this motion? All in favour, please signify.

(Motion agreed to)

The second motion before the committee today is a motion from Mr. Wilfert:

That the Committee invite the responsible Minister and appropriate senior officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade concerning the decision to close up to 19 additional consulates, to appear before Committee in order to examine the rationale, the cost and the implications of such a decision as well as the current Government strategy that is being applied when making the decision to close Canadian consulates.

Mr. Wilfert, could I ask you to speak to your motion, please?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chairman, as you know, in the past we had the closing of four consulates, and the minister came to committee and addressed the issue. I know at one time the comment was made that this was going to be it. Now we have up to 19 on the block.

At the same time, I understand—and I would support the government if they were going to open up additional consulates in China.... But it would contradict the notion that somehow they were being closed for economic reasons, if in fact they're going to open up additional ones somewhere else.

So I just want to find out what the strategy is, whether there are in fact even more, as I understand, that may be contemplated at some future date, and what this means in terms of our presence abroad—the impact it will have in dealing with countries.

Obviously, we have already heard from the Latvian ambassador with regard to the impact on the Baltic states. We're looking at the Balkans as well, and Cambodia, with which Canada has had a longstanding relationship, particularly through CIDA.

Inviting the minister—and the minister, I will say to his credit, did come the last time—is purely to get information with regard to this, and I put it out in that spirit, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.

To speak to the motion, we'll go to Mr. Obhrai and then to Mr. McTeague.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand the intent of the motion, which is to see that Canada has a very robust presence outside and that its diplomacy is not affected, and I can assure the member that this is the very intent of the government: to ensure that there is a robust diplomacy at diplomatic missions to portray Canada's foreign policy.

The difficulty is, as with the intent of the last motion, that no decision has been made. The Government of Canada has made no decision on these things. They are subject to review that takes place all the time. Opening and closure are subjects of review that constantly takes place.

But since no decision has been made.... This motion is saying, “concerning the decision to close”. Well, no decision has been made, Mr. Chair. If and when a decision is made to close or to open, you're more than welcome to resubmit the motion to ask why it was closed or whatnot. When a decision has not been made—when nothing has been made—what is the point of having a motion that says a decision has been made?

This motion is, then, saying that the government has done something it hasn't done. It's very difficult to support a motion when no action has been taken.

As to the rest of the issue—whether we're closing or not closing, opening or not opening—the members themselves have been in government; they know these are things the government constantly reviews.

Again I would say, let's bring this motion back if and when—and I'm going to say again “if”—a decision is made to close.

I say this motion is not really relevant, because no decision has been made, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Obhrai.

The motion is in order, but it's debatable as to whether or not....

We'll go to Mr. McTeague, Madame Lalonde, and Mr. Patry.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to get into a lengthy debate here. I am pleased to be back on this committee, but it is just for today.

Perhaps I should join the Ontario Bloc, because then I might have a better chance.

I have some experience with this issue, particularly as regards consular matters and consular offices. Of course, I support Mr. Wilfert's motion, but I would also like committee members to know that a document was circulated in the Department of Foreign Affairs in 2005. In it we said that we were very concerned that our efforts were very concentrated. We said that the vast majority of our diplomats always stayed in Ottawa, rather than being sent out to our consulates and missions throughout the world.

Donc, I would suggest that it might be helpful for the committee, as it proceeds with this discussion on this very worthwhile motion, to take into consideration the remarks that have been made and the fact that Canada's current diplomatic panoply is highly concentrated in Canada. We are lagging, certainly, behind many of our larger and equivalent-sized partners. The closure or the threatened closure or the perceived review of a closure of more consulates would only accelerate that process and I think remove Canada's efficacy on the international front in terms of its presence in important missions around the world.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. McTeague.

Madame Lalonde, and then Mr. Patry.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I would like to tell Mr. Deepak that our experience with both the Liberal government and the Conservative government is that it is better to discuss issues that concern us before the minister has made the decision, because once the decision is made, there is nothing we can do except criticize. I would like this to be discussed beforehand, if a serious matter is involved.

If he has a serious project, he should come here beforehand so that we can discuss it and express our views about the problem with the services. Consular services are extremely important, and Canada has made some decisions that benefit some continents at the expense of people from here.

Once the decision has been made, there is nothing we can do to get it changed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We're going to go to Mr. Patry.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

As my colleague Ms. Lalonde mentioned in a previous motion, the words "appropriate senior officials" translated as fonctionnaires compétents. All our officials are competent. So the word "concernés" should be used in the French version. That change should be made.

I agree completely with Ms. Lalonde, and not at all with Mr. Obhrai. We have to invite ministers before things are done. Once the decision is made, as in the case of Osaka and other regions, such as Milan, it simply looks like we are criticizing. If the department and the government came and told us why they are doing certain things in certain regions, first parliamentarians could apply some pressure and perhaps manage to see that these consulates are not closed.

The work done by consulates throughout the world is very important; we need them. The amounts of money saved are tinny compared to the total budget. Personally, I would be supporting Mr. Wilfert's motion without reservation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Patry.

Mr. Wilfert is after Mr. Obhrai.

Madame Barbot.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

I too would like to support the motion and say how important it is that we find out what is going on before a final decision is made. We have good reasons for thinking that there are problems in this regard, and if possible, we would like to stem them.

In the French translation of the motion, there is reference to the "stratégie actuelle du gouvernement en vue de la prise de décision". We need to talk about the decision-making process. It's not a strategy for making decisions, but rather one that is applied when the decision is made.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll make a note of that and the appropriate changes can be made.

We'll go to Madame McDonough, then to Mr. Obhrai, and then to Mr. Wilfert.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I'd rather go last, when everybody is finished.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Well, Mr. Wilfert has the final say on this.

Go ahead, Madame McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree with what my colleagues have said, and I would like to move a minor amendment that I think reflects the views expressed by other colleagues.

I want to just suggest a small amendment, which I think captures the concern that's been expressed. It would simply be--I intend it as a friendly amendment--to replace the word “decision”, because it currently reads: “concerning the decision to close up to 19 additional consulates”. Replace the word “decision” with three words, “status of the proposal” to close, because it does appear as though there is some question about whether in fact a decision has been reached to close 19 consulates. But it seems quite clear that such a proposal has been made. It's very much causing a great deal of concern to members of this committee and to a great many Canadians and to people in areas where the closures of such consulates would have very major consequences.

I think the other point is that, exactly as suggested by several other people, we want to have an opportunity to have some input before a decision is finalized.

For both those reasons, I would really urge all members to support that very small change and hopefully to accept it as a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I was going to suggest the words, “concerning the reported proposal to close”. What words did you have?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

“Status of the proposal”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I like mine better.

We have a friendly amendment. Is “status of the proposal” acceptable to Mr. Wilfert?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I accept the friendly amendment. Again, it's just a question of not buying flood insurance after the flood, so I'm assuming we want to be proactive with regard to this. I want to talk about rationale. I'd like to have it all on the table, so I would accept Madame McDonough's friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Chair, do I have the floor?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, you do, and then we'll go to Mr. Wilfert.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Chair, let me just say that the government can't support this motion for a couple of reasons. Most clearly, there is no proposal. There is no decision. This is just a rumour factory. We do not have a proposal. We do not have a plan. But we do have what we call a constant review to ensure that Canadian diplomacy is robust.

This is something that governments take, and Madame Lalonde was absolutely right. The last government, as a matter of fact, Mr. Chair--those sitting over there--closed 31 consulates. One would ask them why they closed 31.

[An hon. member]

How many were opened?