Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 20th, 2007

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Thank you for the “ladies first”.

I do not see what would prevent us from doing the study that we discussed. Two changes would be made. Rather than talking about Darfur, we will talk about Sudan, which makes sense in that we will be covering a greater area. Furthermore, we asked to remove the words “All-Party Parliamentary Group” because these people are not experts in the matter. Insofar as the addition of the words “NGOs and civil society organizations”, it in no way implies that everyone will appear.

As usual, a certain number of witnesses will report, according to their level of expertise, on the situation, which has not changed. It is an issue of studying the public and private Canadian investments made in Sudan, and to think about legislation. If it is true in the case of Darfur, I do not see why it would not also be the case in Sudan. These measures are all subject to the Special Economic Measures Act, which in turn comes under the Department of Foreign Affairs. I do not see why we are being told that this issue should be studied elsewhere: it absolutely is our responsibility. As far as we are concerned, it certainly is in Foreign Affairs' area of jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame Barbot.

There was a case—this is just for your information—in the last Parliament in which a committee called people, and the witnesses came and were not relevant to the specifics of the study. The chair—and I think it was deemed rightfully so—then said you have to be relevant to the topic of study.

What we would be bringing in, then, are people specific to divestment.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible].

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right, you do that, but we'll do it in a balanced way, and that will determine the length of this study.

Madame Barbot has had her time. Next is Mr. Obhrai, Mr. Martin, and then Mr. Chan.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The government has very serious difficulty with the issue of making a study on public and private investment. If you're talking about private funds, you're talking about public pension funds, which foreign affairs has nothing to do with. It's not relevant.

Doing an economic measure, as was adopted with Burma.... That is not a study dealing with what private funds are doing, all those things. It's just an economic statement. We're not asking for economic sanctions against Sudan at this time here.

But to do a study with relevance to private funds, to pension funds, to all these things, that is not the purview of the foreign affairs committee; that's the purview of the finance committee. We're mixing two things together.

I don't have any problem if you want to do a study on Sudan dealing with other issues, like the comprehensive peace agreement and all these things. However, the difficulty is we are moving into an area that the Department of Foreign Affairs just doesn't deal with: private funds, pension funds, and all these things. It's nothing to do with economic sanctions; therefore, it is not under the purview.

Now, I'm asking you as the chair whether this is relevant. We feel it's not relevant to this committee. Unless there's a change in the wording, we would have difficulty doing that. I'm asking you, why are we studying private funds and these things in this committee? It should be done, appropriately, by the finance committee.

So I'm asking you to make a ruling on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Maybe I need to speak a little more closely with the clerk on this, but I think the motion would be in order the way that I view it at present. We already have undertaken a study on mining and social responsibility, corporate responsibility. That has already taken place in the subcommittee. That was already deemed appropriate for our subcommittee, which is an arm of this committee.

Although I agree with your assessment: there is crossover. We would be hearing much more from other departments than we would from our own department, but I think that part of it....

You may well be right. It may be better handled in a finance or revenue committee, but still, we have the precedent of studying social and corporate responsibility through the mining sector.

All right. Mr. Dewar had a quick one, and then Mr. Martin and Mr. Chan.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

In response I would just suggest that the government's recent actions in this area—to go back to Burma—obviously suggest that what we're doing here is congruent with what they've announced on Burma. I say that because they're talking about no new private investment as well as government investment.

A final point is that if we look at what we're doing here, this is to do a study to report to Parliament. For reasons that are very clear to all of us, we need to find out more about this issue. It hasn't been brought up in the Canadian Parliament; it has been brought up in other jurisdictions that have acted.

I might add that it's been brought up with other Canadian institutions, and they've acted. SEMA, which was brought in by a Conservative government in 1992, was put in place to do this kind of thing through the foreign affairs department.

I just wanted to lay those points down for the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Dewar.

Mr. Martin and Mr. Chan.

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

We would be remiss if we didn't deal with the first genocide of the 21st century, which continues unabated and is going to get worse, as I said before.

Is there a role for government--Mr. Obhrai says there's not--in both public and private investment? One only has to look at South Africa and the divestment that occurred as part of a government-mandated initiative under Mr. Mulroney to know that it is happening.

Furthermore, we also have a legislative tool that is largely directed by the Department of Foreign Affairs, and that's the Special Economic Measures Act. This is well within the purview of the government and also well within the purview of this committee.

So I've done the motion, Mr. Chair. Would you like me to read it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Not quite yet.

This is so we can better understand exactly how the committee views a motion like this. We've now had a major study on Afghanistan, and the interim report will be given on December 14. That report will be ongoing. We've said that.

How big a study are we looking at here? The table says that this could be done in maybe two meetings at which we have the department. Just so we get a general idea, we're not talking about a major study like Afghanistan. We're just wanting the specifics. That sounds positive.

Mr. Martin, before you go to your motion, and I'll allow you to do that, I think Mr. Chan wanted in on the debate, so we'll give him the chance.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

My support for having this committee study this issue is because of the political and social impact on Sudan and Darfur. This is why I would find it incredible if you didn't listen to the NGOs on the political and social impact of any private or government investments in that region. This is why we must hear the NGOs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Chan.

Are we ready for the amendment to Mr. Dewar's motion?

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

Would you like me to read the amended motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, just read the proposed amendment to the motion. Do you have it as the motion would read?

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

I incorporated everything, including some things the Bloc wanted. I'm trying to square everybody's interests here. We could even give this to the Subcommittee on International Human Rights as a recommendation if we wanted to. That's a possibility. They're the masters of their destiny. We could give it as a recommendation from the main committee, which would be a valuable thing for them to look at. Here's the motion:

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, as well as the All-Party Group for the Prevention of Genocide 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]

The problem here is that it's not what the Bloc said. The Bloc asked for the all-party parliamentary group to be taken out of the motion.

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

We can remove it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You would remove that then?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right, remove it. Can you then pass that up?

We'll go to Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

For the record, the government feels that this motion could best be handled by another committee, not by foreign affairs. This would be the government's view.

I just want to say, though, that Mr. Chan's point on the impact this thing would have was very well taken. And the NGOs should look at it from the social point of view, as well. I think that's a very strong point. We are just coming out and saying which recommendations, without listening to the NGOs. We are leaving one very strong segment of a development issue totally out of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

The NGOs are included.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Oh, they are.

But we feel that another committee can handle this better and would have better resources than the foreign affairs committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right, is there any other debate on the amended motion?

Do you want to hear it one more time?

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Could you reread the motion?