Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 20th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

There is no way I can read that motion. Mr. Martin, would you read that, very slowly and carefully?

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

I will read it more slowly.

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, as part of its ongoing concern for the crisis in Sudan, invite senior officials from DFAIT, CIDA, other relevant departments, and experts in civil society to appear before the committee to share their knowledge about what Canadian initiatives Canada should champion to stop the genocide; examine what public and private funds are currently invested in Sudan; explore legislative initiatives that Canadian government could put forward to set regulations for such investments; and report to the House on its findings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Barbot.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

In order to avoid any misunderstandings regarding the term, I think it would be better if, instead of using the words “stop the genocide”, we said “crimes against humanity”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I know the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Prevention of Genocide was mentioned. Did you mention it again later on?

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Further on, he said “to stop the genocide”. I would rather we said “to stop crimes against humanity”, because the precise term is the focus of quite a debate. By saying “the crimes against humanity”, that gives the same effect. We do not agree on that. If we want the motion...

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Obviously in the first motion the genocide was not mentioned.

Read out the last part of that motion, from after you've taken out the “All-Party Parliamentary Group” and you've invited experts to appear.

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

...to appear before the committee to share their knowledge about what Canadian initiatives Canada should champion to stop the genocide; examine what public and private funds are currently invested in Sudan; explore legislative initiatives the Canadian government could put forward to set regulations for such investments; and report to the House on its findings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Barbot.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

I agree entirely that if we talk about genocide, it is much stronger. However, the international community does not agree on the word “genocide”. Given that this discussion is ongoing, in order for my proposal to be clear and understood by everyone, under the circumstances, it has the same effect if we use the expression “crimes against humanity”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Obhrai, then Mr. Martin.

If you guys can work it out where you're satisfied, and if not—

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I have a question, before you go there on that line, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

One has to look at the bigger picture when we say “Stop the genocide” or “Stop crimes against humanity”. On one aspect, this motion is talking about a study on a financial issue of the investment and everything, in relation. So when we are going to use a broader word of “genocide” or “crimes against humanity”, then, legally, using that term, where does it take us? Does it take us into the warfare, into the peacekeeping forces, into all this kind of stuff?

I think what we're doing here, Mr. Chair, is we are moving into an area of territory over which we don't have a legal.... I think we are overstepping into two areas with those words “genocide” or “crimes against humanity”.

Did you hear what I said?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I heard every word, and I am trying to determine whether or not, in two meetings... There are some big determining factors, and Madame Barbot is right. To have that kind of wording.... Madame Barbot is correct in her assumption. How can, as Mr. Obhrai stated, a study of Canadians' financial investments then be...?

All right. There may be another way of working this.

I think that's a very good point, Madame Barbot. I think I might have had to rule that out of order, because we are mixing apples and oranges here. It may be that the wording that is used here may very well be right, but our study is specific to Canadian investment and having the Department of Finance come, and then we're going to be....

Mr. Martin.

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

There may be a way to square this, Mr. Chair, and to stop the genocide and crimes against humanity, so we can put both down. It appeals to those of us.... China and—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Then you have a bigger study than what the original motion means. I think what Mr. Dewar has done—

Again, Paul, listen to me. What you have done is to word a motion that I think was thought out. It's not broadened. The scope in your motion here is manageable. But I think when you start now trying to satisfy Madame Barbot by saying no longer is it a genocide, because a genocide.... I mean, it's an addition to it.

Maybe you want a big study, but this motion did not ask for a massive study on Sudan--it asked for Darfur. And it did not make specific reference to genocide; now it does. Crimes against humanity was not mentioned; now it is. That's changing this motion. I think that unless we can come up with something that satisfies that particular aspect of it, we'll have to come up with another motion on another day.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Chair, I don't want to lose this motion at this point. I think if Mr. Martin would be willing to simply drop the genocide.... The crisis is what we initially had in the motion. I think it's interpretive. If we can drop “genocide, crimes against humanity” and go back to what was the intent of the motion, we'll get on with it. I accept his concerns. I agree with them. But in terms of this study for this committee, I propose we drop that language.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

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

Thank you for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Before we vote, we're going to have you read that again.

Mr. Goldring, then Madame Barbot again.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

That was my concern too, a very clear corporate social responsibility. The only suggestion of the genocide was in the mere mention of the group, and that certainly didn't imply that's what the discussion would be; the discussion would be the corporate social responsibility. But now, to add in the “genocide” or “crimes against humanity” I think is going against what the original purpose of this was: to study the corporate social responsibility.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

Madame Barbot, is that all right?

Are we ready for the question?

Mr. Martin, read the amended motion.

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

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, as part of its ongoing concern for the crisis in Sudan, invite senior officials from DFAIT, CIDA, other relevant departments, and experts in civil society to appear before the committee to share their knowledge about what Canadian initiatives Canada should champion to stop the crisis; examine what public and private funds are currently invested in Sudan; explore legislative initiatives the Canadian government could put forward to set regulations for such investments; and report to the House on its findings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I think that's better, and I think we may have some duplication in the “explore legislative initiatives”. I think you've already stated that earlier in your motion, basically, what initiatives we should take. Have you not?