Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 29th, 2006

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I'm sorry.

This goes back to the strong urging that we not talk in terms of obligations, but rather in terms of standards. That was part of the presentation we heard yesterday from the departmental officials.

So the amendment is simply that clause 4 should be amended by replacing lines 26 and 27 on page 2 with the following:

(c) is consistent with international human rights standards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right, does any one want to speak to that?

Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I think you've made the point already, which is that it has to be tied to NDP-5, which defines international human rights standards.

No, I support that. It's a good idea.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Is there any one else with a comment on that amendment? I think we see some support over here on that.

Madam St-Hilaire.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

I have a short question. I'm not sure if this suggestion could be considered a friendly amendment, but it would be clearer to add: “is consistent with the international standards to which Canada is a party”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madam McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Yes, I'm concerned that that's too limiting. Some international human rights standards flow from treaties, covenants, whatever we've signed on to, but some actually wouldn't necessarily be fully encoded now in treaties or whatever. So I think, again, it becomes unnecessarily limiting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I would like to speak to that as well. If you go to the definition in NDP-5, it speaks directly to your issue, by saying “international human rights conventions and customary international law”, so we would not necessarily be a signatory to conventions and customary law. Customary law is law that's not necessarily statute.

I was just reminded, Chair, that this would possibly be an appropriate place to put in, after you deal with this, the exemption for the International Development Research Centre.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We have a number of other amendments on clause 4 that are on the books. We'll deal with them first, and we'll come back—

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Yes, I just don't want to forget that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

No, that's where you wanted it, and that's where we'll try to squeeze it in.

Mr. Casey. No?

Madam St-Hilaire, are you all right with that? If you aren't all right with that, we would ask that you move a subamendment. Sometimes if we can get a friendly amendment fairly soon, we'll do it. If we can't, then I'm going to have to have a subamendment just to keep things moving.

If you're prepared to move a subamendment, we can vote on the subamendment and then come back.

I think Mr. McKay is correct. I think some of what you draw out will be coming in another amendment that the NDP has proposed in regard to what's enshrined in treaties, covenants, and common practice.

So there is no subamendment? Then we will call the question on NDP-8.

One moment.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

So then, there is no change whatsoever? You were all talking to me at the same time. Could you repeat what you said?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

There is a change to the bill. There is the amendment. The amendment says “is consistent with international human rights standards” instead of “is consistent with international human rights obligations.”

I'm sorry, I should have read that out. Sometimes in the French the translation is different. This changes the word “obligations” to “standards”.

We'll call the question on NDP-8.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Now we will move to amendment BQ-2 on page 10 in your amendment documents.

On this one we have a line conflict with NDP-9. If BQ-2 is carried, NDP-9 cannot be proceeded with. Both could be grouped for debate. That's what I'm told by legislative counsel. So there is a conflict with NDP-9.

Go ahead. Maybe you want to explain your amendment, and then we can cross-reference it with NDP-9, Madame Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

A very simple change is being proposed here. The bill says that the competent minister “may consult“. We're proposing that this be changed to “shall consult”.

We're saying that the role of the competent minister is to consult and that indeed, it is his right to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Here's one of those cases where, if we accept this, we're going to be amending it, because there will be an addition later on with the NDP.

Mr. Martin, do you have debate on this Bloc amendment?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

May I make the proposal that BQ-2 be shelved in favour of NDP-9, which I think meets the standard of what the Bloc wants but is more comprehensive and explicit. So if you look at NDP-9 and BQ-2, you'll find that, in effect, what the Bloc wants to do is embraced by NDP-9, but NDP-9 is clearer and more specific.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

It's not the same thing at all. To say that “the competent minister shall take reasonable steps” implies that he can simply ask someone in his office to consult. Our amendment, on the other hand, says that the competent minister shall consult with NGOs and officials in the field. It's entirely different.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I see in English the word “shall” twice. I see that “may” has been removed and “shall” is included. Are you saying that the French version is different?

Go ahead, Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I think what she's saying is that there's a difference between her amendment and the NDP amendment. Right?

I have a problem with the Bloc's proposed amendment. It's not clear to me when the minister must consult with international agencies and Canadian NGOs. Does this mean that for each project, the minister will need to consult with every single international organization and every single Canadian NGO? I'm wondering if that's realistic. That's why I prefer the NDP's amendment which calls for the competent minister to take reasonable steps to consult. I prefer this wording.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

Madame St-Hilaire, Madame Bourgeois, Madame McDonough, and then Monsieur Goldring.

Go ahead.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

I have two things I'd like say.

First, which amendment are we currently examining?

If we're looking at the NDP's amendment, then could someone explain to me what is meant by “reasonable steps to consult”?

It's all quite vague.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

First of all, I want to explain the process. We're dealing with the Bloc amendment, but it's incumbent on the table to at least let us know. If we pass this amendment, we will not be dealing with the NDP amendment. If we pass this amendment, that negates the NDP amendment. So if there's no way of getting a friendly amendment, then we will vote on your amendment. If it fails, we go to the NDP one.

Continue, Madame St-Hilaire.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

I simply wanted some clarification, Mr. Chairman. My colleague has presented her amendment and I wanted to speak out on the NDP's amendment. I wanted to avoid any confusion.

Could someone clarify for me the meaning of “reasonable steps to consult”? To me, that wording is very vague.

Moreover, as Ms. McDonough has often pointed out, we must remember that this bill, which was long talked about, was introduced because of a desire for openness and cooperation with different NGOs. I believe it's important that we consult them.

Therefore, I intend to vote against the NDP's amendment.