Evidence of meeting #15 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lanka.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ken, one of the main questions that has come out from the hearings we had.... And I would like to tell you that whatever anybody wants to say, it did become a partisan hearing depending on what version was used--either the Tamil version or the Sinhalese version.
The question came up—you already alluded to it, it was put to you--as to what kind of a carrot and stick can we use on the Government of Sri Lanka at this given time to....
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
It's the Prime Minister calling on my cellphone telling me to ask a good question.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
I don't give answers, as you know.
You're grappling with this. If you want to use aid as a carrot, or, as many have suggested, stop IMF funding and all those things, we would probably lose whatever influence we have in trying to come to a final solution, which is the reconciliation process we are talking about.
What do you think would be a good carrot and stick approach that would tell the Sri Lankan government there is an angle here if they don't do this? I think there is some kind of thinking in the committee that when we finally issue a report it will have something along those lines. But I don't think that's a good idea, because it would have a negative effect.
Would you like to give your view on that? I'm putting you on the hot seat. Is there a hot seat? I don't think so.
5:10 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister (Asia and Africa) and Chief Trade Commissioner, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
There's a deep freeze.
Thank you for the question.
Let me go back to a standing committee I attended not that long ago where we were talking about corporate social responsibility in Sudan. Somebody asked a very specific question and said we were all concerned about a certain Canadian company that was operating in Sudan. Canadian values and ethics said that company should leave, and they eventually did leave. Were the people of Sudan better off because the Canadian company left? We looked at who bought them out, and you'd probably say they were better off with the Canadian company there.
I'm not going to make that argument now. I'm just saying the answer to your carrot-and-stick question can be very difficult.
There's a question of short-term humanitarian issues. The Government of Sri Lanka cannot cope with 160,000 people in IDP camps. It will be a mass disaster unless the international community contributes to that.
I guess you could say, from a stick side, “We wash our hands of you, a plague on you”, and walk away. But as you said, I think we would lose any ability to influence any future behaviour, and it would be at a cost to the people who are there.
In the short term we clearly have to be there to help the people who are at risk. In the longer term, things like the IMF are part of the economic downturn of the world. How do we get the world back in business so there is some long-term prosperity for people in Sri Lanka? There are some short-term carrots that are designed to ensure that in the longer term, Sri Lanka as a country is once again a partner with us, as opposed to a country with which we have ongoing problems dealing with people.
That doesn't answer your question, Mr. Obhrai, but it gets to the sense that the public policy we use right now must reflect Canadian values and ethics, and sometimes that will be at odds with what we want to do right now. Right now we want to stop the fighting. How do you do it? That's the issue.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much, Mr. Sunquist.
Thank you to both departments, Mr. Rahman from CIDA and Mr. Sunquist from Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Welcome back. We're going to move into committee business.
The first item on the agenda is the report from the steering committee. As you know, our steering committee met on Tuesday, April 28, 2009, and we considered the business of this committee. Hopefully you've had a chance to go through the steering committee report.
I would ask for a couple of amendments to be made to it. The first thing I'm told is that the Library of Parliament has never been in the habit of giving a legal opinion, but they will give a legal analysis. Could we amend the first recommendation to say, “That the committee request a legal opinion from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and a legal analysis from the Library of Parliament...”?
Is everyone all right with that?
5:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Good.
The other point is that on May 27 we were going to begin our consideration of Bill C-300. We've now been instructed that the minister cannot appear on May 25, but could be here on May 27. In our recommendations we could just exchange those dates, so consideration of Bill C-300 could start on May 25 and the minister could appear on May 27, if that is all right with the committee.
5:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Good. Are there any other points?
Go ahead, Mr. Abbott, please.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Chair, I've taken a look at this and I've had consultation with my friend Mr. Obhrai. I understand that he was not in favour of item 4 as written, and I can understand why. I'm taking a look at items 1, 2, and 3, which we should have in hand before we get to item 4.
I would appeal to the logic of my colleagues on the other side. There is no other value in my intervention other than the fact that if we go to item 4, which is that we would be dealing with Mr. Dewar's motion on April 29, we would be dealing with it in the same vacuum that we have currently, which was what I was trying to discuss on Monday.
If we get items 1, 2, and 3, we could then have a logical, cogent discussion based on fact and be able to arrive at the highest-value conclusion on Mr. Dewar's motion.
I realize that I'm likely not going to be getting Mr. Dewar's acceptance of this motion, but I would propose, whatever the parliamentary procedure is here, that Mr. Dewar's motion be dealt with immediately upon receipt of the information from items 1, 2, and 3. In other words, if we received that information on May 5, we could deal with it immediately. If we received it on May 3, we could deal with it immediately.
This is not to delay it, but simply to say that we have to have the information before we can have a cogent and responsible discussion.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Okay. It sounds like a logical suggestion, but there are two motions here, remember. The first motion is that we move his motion to the front.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
That's so that we don't have to continually go through the debate as to whether we should pre-empt all these other motions.
The first motion is to move it to the front. In fairness to what we have here, moving it to the top of the agenda is not the same as dealing with this motion right now.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Okay. I'm trying to make this suggestion in as helpful a way as I possibly can. My suggestion is that we move it to April 29, on the understanding that the content of the motion would be dealt with upon receipt of items 1, 2, and 3.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Again, I think the reason for Mr. Dewar's motion is to move his other motion to the front, so that it can be dealt with fairly soon. I would question how long it's going to take to get some of this information. It could be days and it could be weeks.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
The point is, why are we asking for it? If we're not potentially going to be using the information, why are we asking for it?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I understand. All I'm saying is that for item 4, I haven't conferred with my colleagues, but I don't see any difficulty. If, technically, we're moving the motion to the front in order of precedence, so that it can be dealt with, then that is the decision that is made. But the caveat is that it be dealt with upon receipt of the information so that we can have a responsible discussion.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
With respect, we had a fairly fulsome discussion. These points, 1 through 3, are related but not central to the motion I've put forward. It's a very simple proposal in front of the committee. Mr. Obhrai is moving an amendment and I would speak against it--at least, I guess that's what he's attempting to do. I just don't see the logic therein. We have a committee report. It asks for the motion to be dealt with ahead.... You're basically trying to kill the motion. I don't really think that's in order, in terms of the way he's presented it; therefore, I don't think it should be accepted.
Unless there are any other suggestions, we should move to accept the report, as amended, based on the amendments you made, Chair, the four items based on suggestions, etc.
