Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 29th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Right.

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Reilly-King, this notion of governance that you talked about I find very interesting. I think it is time to contemplate what should be done as we go along. The G-7 became the G-8 and then the G-20. I would agree that this is not a bad thing. It's fine. But it seems to be a club of sorts. We're including more, but there are a lot of people on the outside. I think it's important to look at the majority of the world that isn't in. So I like that idea.

The idea that you have here, is it being developed with other groups? You mentioned that many civil society groups were meeting here in Ottawa. Is this a shared idea? If so, who is it being shared with? Just talk a little bit about that.

[Fraser Reilly-King]

The idea of democratizing the G-20 goes back several years. At the more official level, three studies have been done, two of them by former UNDP administrators, on how to go about structuring such a body. More recently, another was done by the UN Commission of Experts. It was chaired by Joseph Stiglitz, a former World Bank economist, and made up of central bank governors and finance ministers. They came up with the idea of a global economic coordinating council, which would be situated within the framework of the UN. It would operate on a constituency basis.

So there has been some work done on what this would look like. The three studies I referred to talk about including on the council representatives from the World Bank, the IMF, the World Trade Organization, the ILO, representatives from the UN system, and regional bodies that would nominate individuals on an annual basis.

On the civil society level, we have started a process. There have been meetings all of this week with 80 organizations from around the world. Over the next few months, Canadian civil society is going to start elaborating on these principles and forming a conception of the framework that should guide a G-20. We're hoping to do a number of regional consultations with groups that would inform the process. So we're hoping to have more.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

That's promising. I encourage you in that. Most people would like us to avoid repeating the problems with the UN. I think most people support the UN. There are challenges, and it's appropriate to look at what worked and what didn't in advancing the cause of economic stability in dealing with poverty.

Ms. Sussman, there are many issues to talk about when it comes to the G-20. That's why the idea that we should go and talk to Canadians about it is an attractive one. Your proposition for our committee is that we should hold meetings here and across the country. Did you have some ideas about where the meetings outside of Ottawa would be? Is this something you're putting forward as an individual, or is it something you've consulted about with your member groups?

[Amanda Sussman]

We've certainly consulted. What's more important is the principle of making sure that people in different regions have access to that communication. I believe in the Kananaskis process there may have been hearings in British Columbia in Vancouver, Toronto, Halifax, and one in Montreal. It's that sort of principle, just to make sure it's accessible.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I think it's not a bad idea. We would obviously have to plan ahead. I think this committee's job is to talk to Canadians about issues of foreign affairs, obviously, but in this instance it's about the fact that we're not talking about our going out in the world, it's the world coming to us. I quite like that idea. There's a precedent for it, and I think the timing is such that we probably could plan it, but that's up to the committee to deal with at a later date.

I'll just end it there, because we do have committee business. Thank you very much for your intervention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you. We do appreciate your coming to our committee today.

There is just one very quick question. Mr. Reilly-King, you mentioned you are doing an extensive consultation in the lead-up to this. Are you going to be formulating a report that would be public, that we'd be able to gain access to in order to see who you're talking to and some of the outcomes? When would that report be ready?

[Fraser Reilly-King]

Civil society is always ambitious, but I think we're hoping to have something ready by January, at least an initial report that would flesh out the principles a little bit more. If the committee were to have a hearing in February, then it could feed into that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We would certainly appreciate getting a copy of that report. You usually are pretty good at circulating those things, so just maybe send it to the committee.

Thank you again.

We're going to suspend and then we're going to move into committee business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right, we'll reconvene here.

First of all, we're moving into committee business. I'm going to ask the clerk to pass out the steering committee report. I think all those who are part of the steering committee that met last Tuesday would say it's fairly straightforward.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Chairman, do we not normally do committee business in camera?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

No. Committee business is public unless we request to move in camera for some item.

Has everyone received a copy of the steering committee report?

I am just double-checking on this. The steering committee meets in camera. They deliver a report. If you choose to go in camera you can, but it is public unless you choose.

We have four items on the steering committee report for which we would ask your support in passing. The first one is that the committee has scheduled two additional meetings to Bill C-300. This would take away from your schedule the two meetings that we had on Africa. That would be on November 24 and 26. This would also allow us the opportunity in December to then go clause by clause on Bill C-300.

Mr. Abbott.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

If I may, Chair, I think we need at least an additional two meetings. I'm just wondering, by passing this report, if it's going to then constrain us to two meetings. The reason I say this is because we have been hearing, on Bill C-300, all the way through, from dominantly people who have been in favour of Bill C-300. I think the first time, to my recollection, that I recall any really cogent argument against Bill C-300 was in one half meeting, namely EDC.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

No, we've had the departments here, and we've had a number of mining associations, and we've had Mr. McGuinty—who was on his own exploration group—and we've had the EDC. We're trying to bring balance to this, but there are a number of other witnesses. I'm told by the clerk this is not just to extend the study of Bill C-300, but to extend this for witnesses.

If we need extra time for clause-by-clause consideration in January, we'll do that, but this is really four extra hours. So it's two days, albeit four hours. I'm told by the clerk this would be sufficient to hear from the witnesses on the paper right now.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Okay, I wonder if I could get some comment from other committee members as to whether, in their view, the judgment of the steering committee is correct that, indeed, four additional hours will be more than adequate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

This wasn't an issue on which there was a lot of debate at the steering committee. If you want to add to text here that the committee should schedule at least two extra additional meetings, you might be able to do that as a friendly amendment.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Then, if I may, I would request that the committee schedule at least two additional meetings. It simply gives us the flexibility. If it's not required, it's not required.

Rather than adopting this committee report as tabled—which does absolutely constrain us—by using the words “at least”, it gives us the flexibility needed, should we decide we do need more meetings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. Because this is a friendly amendment, I'll consider this before going to Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Goldring, are you wanting to comment on the point made?

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

It's along the lines of that point, yes. It's on that point, because there have been some questions raised that haven't been answered, and it may take some exploring to get the answers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right.

Do we have an agreement here to add “at least” to that motion and then move it right along? That would imply that if we need three meetings, we'll have three meetings.

Mr. Patry.

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

The way it's drafted right now, you can have more than two. It just says “That the committee schedule two additional meetings”, but it doesn't stop us from having three or four. But at least it means to me that we can have more than two. It's a minimum of two, so we can have three, four, five, or six meetings, the way it's drafted right now. It doesn't matter.

[An hon. member]

Exactly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

So we don't need a motion on this. If we have the understanding that we need three or four meetings, we have that consensus here today.

Is there a consensus here?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right, then that's good. We'll leave it as is. And because we have consensus here, that means we can have more than two meetings if we want.

Mr. Obhrai.