Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 5th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Am I correct, Mr. Obhrai, that this would not necessitate a response by a certain day?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

You are right, it won't, but when the government--

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chair, can you explain to me why there is a discussion or a dialogue between the two of you? We have to debate a motion and he does not represent...

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

There is no dialogue between the two of us.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Yes, there is, that is exactly what it is: a dialogue between the two of you. The motion is on the table for debate. If he is against the motion, well, he should vote against it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We're making it clear that we're stepping back from what we had said before, that we were waiting for government's response. We have now been made aware that this was not a committee report that was filed, so there is no timeline on the government response. If we're going to wait for that response, when there is no timeline, we could be waiting a long time, so I'm asking Mr. Obhrai that question. As the chair, I think I have the ability to do that, and I'm going to keep doing it.

Mr. Cullen, I'll go to you on this point.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I was going to ask the same question, because previously I was led to believe that there was a timeline. Now there isn't. So it seems to me it comes down to whether the government is being reasonable on the timeline that has been taken to respond. Parliamentarians have a right to hear an answer from the government, so we either pass the motion or the government gives some indication of when the response is going to be forthcoming. Surely the government can give some indication. Otherwise, the motion should say the minister will come to the committee by such and such a date, response or no response.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Barbot.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, I suggest that you find out what the rule is. I won't necessarily rely on what Mr. Obhrai has to say on this issue.

Personally speaking, I'd like you to go and check what it says in the rules and for you to give your answer at the next meeting. We are not sitting on the government side. We sit here as parliamentarians. I find it somewhat incongruous that Mr. Obhrai is constantly being addressed as if he had a political role to play within this committee. It is interrupting the flow of business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Would you rather have me address you?

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

No, I'm saying that you can...

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

If I were to address you right now, I would ask when you were expecting a response. Were you aware of the fact that the government was not forced to bring a response at a certain period of time? Were you aware of that?

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

All I'm asking for, Mr. Chair, is for you to find out, because you don't seem to know any more than I do. Find out, and at the next...

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I know. This is not—

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Then why are you asking?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'm going from what the clerk has told us. When we issue a committee report—as I think most members who have spent some time in the House realize—the government has so many days to report back. This is a different report that you've called for a response to, a round-table report. There is no time limit for that. So according to what we had mentioned before, do we wait for the government's response? Well, how long do you want to wait? I think I brought that forward to you.

The government side here is saying that I'm actually helping your argument, as I want to see a government response on this, and I don't want to wait until they table, or however they do it.

So there is no time limit on a government response to this. That's why your motion is in order and we can ask them to come and explain it.

Now we're going through the order here, and I have Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, let's just see what this report was and what the government promised. This report was out of a round-table conference; it was not done by parliamentarians, as Roy said. It was not a parliamentary thing, but was done at the round-table conference with all of the stakeholders.

For you to say that parliamentarians have a right to know, you should first have attended the round-table conference to know exactly.

The government undertook, at the time it was doing the round-table conference, that when the report was completed and presented to it, it would study the report and then report back to Parliament. This commitment was made at the round-table conference; it was not a commitment made to the parliamentary committee, under which timelines are set according to the bylaws. There were no bylaws for this. It was a commitment made at a round-table conference outside of the parliamentary bylaws, or whatever they are called. But the government is committed on its part to give its response, and it is studying and working on this.

Mr. Cullen, you have been in government and know very well that the government has to look at all the i's to be dotted and the t's to be crossed, and everything like, which they're now doing. At the given time, the government will present its report to Parliament. Now, at that time, I am sure the committee could say it wants the relevant ministers to come forward to talk about it. That would be my thinking. However, you are having this thing sitting until the government gives a response.

But at the same time, this motion, Mr. Chair, has a problem, because you are talking now of two other ministers. You are talking of the responsibility of the Minister of Trade and the Minister of Natural Resources who will do the presentation in Parliament and be responsible for providing answers—not the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I don't know, but it's up to the clerk to say whether we really need to call them. Would it be appropriate? I'm sure my colleague Mr. Dewar will not agree with this, considering that he wants me kicked off this thing, but would it be appropriate if the trade committee wanted to include this thing as part of its responsibilities, since it concerns the trade minister, or it will be part of the natural resources committee's responsibilities, if they want to do this?

So it's quite an open situation at this time as to what each of the relevant committees is going to do, but the Minister of Foreign Affairs does not have to take the lead in responding to this round table, but the two other ministers do. So there are no time limits. That is what I'm saying, Chair. So let's be very clear this is not what these parliamentarians want to do—and they can't put a timeline on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Lebel.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to say that as far as I am concerned you play a necessary role and you play it very well. When we require clarification from the government in order to move ahead with our business, you communicate with the secretary in order to obtain information on what position to take and how to advance the debate. That is my opinion.

I would just like to re-emphasize the confidence I have in you and the enormous appreciation I have for the work you do. I know that our adversaries do not always agree on that. I have not been here for long, but I believe you are doing this in order to enlighten the debate and to help us make the right decisions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Lebel, for that vote.

Madame Barbot, did you want to continue on in Mr. Lebel's--

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

That is exactly the type of comment that is making it more and more difficult to work here. Everyone is working on specific issues. This is not a question of the government or the opposition, as you often put it. It would be very helpful if that were the spirit and if there were not a constant effort being made to protect certain ministers or to prevent debates from taking place.

Given that the motion is in order with the amendment that was tabled, I think that we should proceed with our work. Mr. Obhrai's comments do not affect the motion in any way. I believe we have a proposal before us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame Barbot.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Perhaps I'll try a friendly amendment again, and I might be a little more successful this time.

The friendly amendment would read as follows, if it's acceptable to Madame Barbot:

As ten months has passed since the round table of the Advisory Group Report on the National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries (tabled on March 29, 2007), and the Government has not tabled a response, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development invite the Minister of Foreign Affairs to appear before the Committee to explain the Government's intentions.

First of all, we need to know whether that's acceptable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

First of all, we're either going to deal with this motion or we aren't going to deal with the motion. As soon as we bring forward an amendment, we open it up for debate all over again.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

First of all, we need to know whether it's acceptable.