Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 10th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Obhrai, this is the process that we have to do. We have the word that they are going to allow us the opportunity to do that.

All in favour, then, of a retabling of the report that this committee drafted in the last Parliament?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

There were a number of abstentions.

Mr. Patry, would you move that, then?

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

We agreed to have a dissenting report or addendum. A dissenting report could be tabled, and at the same time, in the next two weeks.... Put a date on it. Make it February 24, 25, or 26. It doesn't matter to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Okay, before February 26.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Put it at February 26. That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Perfect.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right, so number one is effectively carried.

On the second point, that the committee consider the supplementary estimates, okay, we did that, so that's done.

The third item is:

That the Committee commence a review of Canadian foreign policy by studying different regions of the world and Canada's relations with them beginning with the Canada /US relationship, then looking at Canada's policy respecting the Arctic, Africa and other regions of the world. That in relation to this proposed study the Committee hear from witnesses on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

So that's tomorrow. Are there any comments on this? This was Mr. Crête's suggestion, and I think it's a good one.

Paul.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

That is a very accurate summary of the steering committee discussion. It is very well drafted. We would like a comprehensive study that would highlight the priorities, something that will allow us to move quickly.

If at some point we feel that it would be appropriate to report back to the House, then we could do so. I remind you that the steering committee was in agreement on that point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you. I think we mentioned initially prioritizing, but it's fairly broad. That's my opinion in looking at the table here.

We were wondering about adding this, Mr. Crête: “That the committee commence a review of key elements of Canadian foreign policy.” Your motion also lays out very succinctly some of the areas that you want to visit. Foreign policy could take a two-year study, but “key elements” would keep us focused.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Are we keeping the rest of the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes. So he is willing to have that as a friendly amendment....

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

The motion captures our debate and what we want to do in general. But my idea was to give input into the regions of interest to us. My problem is that we are putting down the names of areas. That wasn't the intent.

This is a very strong, long, and broad-based study. My thinking was that we would give input to the clerk to say, I would like to focus my study, as Paul was talking about, in the DRC and the other areas--the Sudan issue. I want to focus on this or that. The idea was not what is written here, but to give input to the clerk.

The only area that I understand is agreed to, if I am not mistaken, is the Canada-U.S. relationship. That's so we can have witnesses on Wednesday prior to the Obama visit. It is my understanding that we give...and then the next time we come back with a broader motion capturing what Paul had to say and agree on which areas we want to study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

When you look at the motion, Mr. Obhrai, I think it does lay out what we spoke of at the steering committee.

Your concern may be addressed with that phrase after “Africa”. It says, “respecting the Arctic, Africa and other regions of the world”. If all of a sudden we want to look at Canada's policy--and I don't want to throw out any suggestions--for example, on the Middle East, the words “other regions of the world” gives us that ability to do that.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Where is the road map? There's no road map. The talk we had was that we would give our input to the clerk.

There's no road map here. Anybody can stand up and say they want to study this or that region and then we'll do it. I am suggesting that we create a road map in advance. I have no problem with whichever region you want to study, but let's prepare a road map to say that first we'll do this region and then we'll do this region. Otherwise we will have motions every time somebody wants to bring anything forward and the study will continue and continue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Crête.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I believe that the text, with the amendment relating to the key points, is an accurate reflection of that to which we all agreed. I don't know what was so hard for the parliamentary secretary to understand. It was repeated more than once at the steering committee.

I remember coming back to the issue, at the end, to confirm that everyone was in agreement. You have to wonder about this. If every decision by a steering committee can be challenged later by one of its members, it will make things quite difficult. Steering committees would no longer be relevant.

It is important that the wording of the text be an accurate reflection of the compromise to which all members agree. I started by suggesting a comprehensive study, then some people felt that we should proceed in stages, and priorities were then listed. That was all done by consensus.

That is all I have to say. We will decide how to proceed as we go along. We already have determined the starting point, and we will see what happens later. Suggestions can be made to the committee. Our researchers must have an idea of what is required of them at least a few weeks, if not a few months in advance. We already have guidelines for the next few months. If we feel that other work has to be done later, committee members will have the opportunity to provide constructive suggestions and decide which parts are the most important.

That is essential. It's the first time that we will be following the lead of the steering committee. We cannot have a steering committee member challenge everything that the committee will be doing when it meets. I am not saying that we will always be in agreement, but when there is a consensus, that should be respected by the members of the steering committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Patry.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I agree with Mr. Crête. This was discussed, and what you said is what we understood the situation to be.

I really feel that we should start with the United States. I think it is very important. We don't need--

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Don't we go by order?

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

No, I really feel this is important. We have to have some witnesses from Canada. We could also have some witnesses from New York or Washington come here. We have the budget for it. We could request to have one or two to see the other side of the coin, to see what they think about this. I think this is important.

Now, on the road map, what do you mean by the road map? For us the motion is wide enough that they talk about Africa. Now, we might one day want to discuss RDC, but we need to get something from the analysts on who we can see. We need to be prepared. If one is talking about the RDC, we need to talk about what is going on in Darfur, and maybe in Zimbabwe.

Now, we would like to have maybe one or two sessions to discuss Sri Lanka, to see what Canada can do there. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have said they wanted to be more involved with Sri Lanka.

The only thing is that we don't want to be stuck with one study, as we did on Afghanistan. We're studying Afghanistan every Tuesday, every Thursday, and we're unable to do other work. We could one day have Haiti and see what's going on there. We just don't know. Last time we made a request for the Arctic, just to come up with a plan, just to get a brief look at what we can do for the Arctic--it's so wide, the Arctic.

But we're going to start with the Canada-United States relationship, in a sense, with the new presidency. This is quite important. It's going to change the way we do things in the world, because right now our government is following the United States.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

My fear is that we could generalize this thing so much that we'll just water it down. The tighter you keep it, the more effective report it's going to be.

That's why I really believe in the addition that Mr. Crête allowed to his motion: “the key elements of”. That's going to prevent us from going all over, with a full policy review on the Congo or a full policy on everything. “Key elements” will try to keep it tight.

I think Mr. Obhrai has a point. It's still very broad, but I still think it's workable, and I do agree that this was the feeling of the steering committee.

Mr. Obhrai, and then Mr. Rae.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Chair, I just want to go back to the attack that came on me.

It is my understanding; that is what I thought. That's the way I thought and I'm putting it down here. I thought the only unanimous consent we had there was that we were going to do a study...the issue of the road map. So for the member to start saying that we agreed on this thing....

But that's not the point here. I just want it laid down on the table that if we don't have a road map on this, it will disintegrate--as I know from the past--into partisan politics with partisan issues getting into it. At the end of the day, I have no idea what this report is going to be or when it is going to be.

When I was over there, I thought a road map was a good thing. Now I'm not very sure whether it really is. But I'm sure the coalition on the other side is going to warp anything I say anyway, so there's no point in--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Obhrai, you can't be sure of anything.

Mr. Rae.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I think, on the review that we've been asked to do, the warnings are out there that we have to have a sense of direction. Again, I think our subcommittee has to continue to look at particular subjects in the context of the review. That's what we do.

As members will know, I'm very interested in the Sri Lanka issue. I know Mr. Obhrai put forward a motion that we should do that. That would give us a chance to review our peace and our conflict work. It would give us a chance to review and have a particular couple of days to focus on that, get some witnesses in, take that as an example, a case study. We can agree on what the case studies might be. Zimbabwe might be another one. I know that your colleague Hugh Segal from the Senate has raised issues about Zimbabwe, and it's important to have that discussion.

I think the report, to be successful, needs to be about something. It can move around a little bit, but the topics have to be agreed upon and allow us to focus. So I would hope that the subcommittee could agree effectively to bring together the views as to what particular area we need to focus on.

If there's concern about the fact that there are a lot of different areas, just read the minister's statement. Quite frankly, it was a pretty broad description of a whole number of subject areas, some of which we've already covered and discussed and will be covered in other committees. But we have to have the flexibility to respond to particular events in this committee, and I think that as we get to work together, we'll become familiar with how we can do that.

So I'm not uncomfortable with the direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Rae.

Mr. Dewar.