Foreign Affairs Committee on March 18th, 2010

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

I'm on the cusp of that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay. We're all on the edge of our seats.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

You've been on that cusp for a long time.

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

I'm only 30 seconds away from that cusp.

The point I'm trying to make is that because of the unintended consequences of Bill C-300, the management decisions that the EDC, which is a crown corporation, would be forced to make, and their decisions on whether they are going to be releasing money, cannot be overridden by this committee. That's my 30 seconds.

The point is that you cannot have a committee micromanaging a minister or a ministry. That is not the way our parliamentary system works, nor should it. To take it a step further, you cannot have this standing committee micromanaging the EDC, the CBC, or Rights and Democracy. That is the essence of this thing.

The essence is that the opposition members in this committee--for raw political reasons, I suspect--have decided that because they have the numbers and can force the issue, they are going to force the government to hear certain witnesses at this committee. It is the position of the government that it is unparliamentary and it's really worse than just not being of value. It's a lot worse than not being of value, because it breaks down what I've been speaking about for the last few minutes, which is the relationship of the government of the day to the committees of the day, to the respective ministries or the respective crown corporations.

If we want to talk about micromanagement, let's move from the widow of Mr. Beauregard to the unions. Obviously when the unions make whatever their testimony may be, these representations would be best suited to a labour-management negotiation, and they would not be best suited to an open public forum. Unions serve very valuable purposes, and I'm not speaking negatively about unions for a second. I'm simply saying that there is a time and there is a place for dialogue and for discussion, and that discussion, in my judgment, should not be in public, but behind closed doors. Once they arrive at a conclusion or fail to arrive at an accommodation, then that can go to the public to bring public pressure on whatever it is that union and management are going to do.

Basically I visualize that bringing the union here would have a result something like this: I see the union making a recommendation--any number of recommendations--outlining the way they would like to see the staff relations and the entire Rights and Democracy organization run. Simply because of numbers and because we're in this minority Parliament, a majority report would come out of this committee vis-à-vis Rights and Democracy that would then take up an awful lot of the issues that had been put forward by the union--to what value? The union can make those representations in private or in public now. What value is there in making their representations to this committee in this forum? I fail to see what value this committee is bringing to this situation.

I'm going to get to the staff in a second, but I want to step aside from this for a second to go back to something that I report that I said in another meeting of this committee. I pointed out that there are, I understand, upward of five million women in the world who, in maternity, end up losing their lives. I pointed out that upward of half a million children never see the fifth year of their lives.

I pointed out the number of difficulties there are in which Canada is involved, whether it be Haiti, whether it be Chile, any of these situations, the horror stories we get from Sudan, or our necessity as a sovereign nation to put on the international public record exactly where we are coming from with respect to the Arctic, for example. It just goes on and on, the number of things, should the committee choose to have these meetings in the extended manner being talked about and with the number of witnesses. The committee is basically walking away from the responsibility we have to those situations that I just suggested, and there are literally millions more.

I think any government that does not listen to committees, that does not listen to reasonable, responsible testimony and reports of committees, is shortchanging the people of Canada, and I say that as a member of the government of the day. Committees have an exceptionally important value in the democratic process and in the governing of this great nation.

The difficulty I am having--and it is an immense difficulty, and honestly, it is a sincere difficulty--is the fixation over Rights and Democracy. I am not suggesting that what has happened in terms of Rights and Democracy has not been vexatious and concerning. Of course it has. It would have to be, to any responsible and reasonable adult. But to be saying that those vexatious issues here in Canada with one institution in fact are more important than dealing with what Canada's position should be at the G-8 and the G-20, with the opportunity this committee has to offer that kind of advice and counsel to the government in public, if the government chooses not to take the advice coming from the committee, that becomes part of the political dialogue we have in Canada.

The government is asking for input from this committee on the G-8 and the G-20, but this committee, the opposition members, are choosing to fixate on one issue. I must admit that I find it very disappointing.

Coming back to the union, the relationship of the union as a public union is a very interesting one, one that I dare say very few people in this room could appreciate in terms of the nuance, all the intricacies of the relationship.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

That's a very good point.

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

Because we do not understand it, in fact, if we were really going to do something about it, perhaps instead of having three or four meetings on Rights and Democracy, maybe we should be having 10 or 12; or why don't we go out until June? Then the G-8 will be done and we won't have to worry about commenting on it.

With respect to the fired staff, the people who were involved in the difficult situations there were at Rights and Democracy, of which we are all aware, there can be no question that they will have a message they want to get out into the public domain. And because we live in a democracy, they have every right to do that. They can go to any newspaper. They can stand in front of a television camera. They can speak on radio. They can collect some money, perhaps from the union, and send out flyers. We live in a democracy where they have the right to communicate their concerns.

So again I ask the question, and I'll be looking forward to Mr. Rafferty's answer to the second question, which is—

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I look forward to giving it.

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

Good.

I asked the question, what is going to be accomplished by this committee that could not be accomplished by the staff speaking to a television camera? I don't understand why this committee would be taking time to listen to that.

I do understand that if we have professors who can come and can give fresh new information to us again in public, in this public domain, we could listen to their criticism of previous happenings and build from those criticisms to where we should be going, where Rights and Democracy should be going.

I can see certainly the committee carrying out its responsibility—and this is a responsibility—of questioning the new chair.

I'm sorry. Is it the chair or the president?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

He is the chair and the president.

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

Questioning the chair and the president, Mr. Latulippe, is the committee's responsibility. The committee's responsibility is to ask him the kinds of probing questions that will allow him to give the people of Canada an idea, a sense of the direction in which he wishes to go. We are not opposed to the directors who have been appointed by either the current or the previous government--past directors and present directors, and I believe we're talking about one of each--coming and giving their perspectives, because those people are appointed by the Government of Canada. You'll see that I have gone full circle back to where I started. What is this committee about? What is any standing committee about?

Any standing committee has a responsibility to the people of Canada to ask the tough questions of the deputy ministers and the assistant deputy ministers, because those are the bureaucrats who are appointed by the Prime Minister. We have every right to speak to the ministers and their respective chiefs of staff, because those are the people who are appointed by the Prime Minister. Those are the people who are responsible for carrying out the activities. Therefore, by having a past director--a retired director--and a new director come here, we would end up gaining a perspective from people who have been appointed by the government, hence our responsibility. We would have a picture of the past--and if there are some controversies, there's no question, they'll be brought to the floor--and a picture of the future as to where that director sees us going.

As I said, certainly having the president and chair come will give us--and therefore the people of Canada through the fact that these proceedings are broadcast--an opportunity to understand where that person, on behalf of the current government, sees Rights and Democracy going. So it seems to me, if we were to carry out our true singular responsibility to the people of Canada, we would have some recommendations from knowledgeable professionals as to where we should go. We will have testimony from people who were formerly directors and involved in the current poor situation. We will have people who will tell us where we are going to go. Most importantly, we will have a better idea of where Rights and Democracy would be going, because, clearly, the new president, once he's gazetted, will be able to explain to us what direction the government wants to go.

Because this is a political issue, clearly it is going to continue to bring press. I can easily visualize that after any of those testimonies the opposition, of course, will be trying to enhance all of the negative that undoubtedly will have occurred as a result of the testimony of the prior director. They will be trying to downplay or certainly pick apart the testimony of the new president and the new director, because that's what the political process in Canada is about, and that's fine. I've had the good fortune of being involved in it for a fair length of time, and I deeply respect it. But I say again to this committee, the difficulty is that if we end up going down this route, whether we're talking about the CBC example or the EDC example, we are basically wandering off course. We are completely off course as to what a parliamentary committee is about.

I must say, considering the number of senior members of the House who are on this committee, I'm a little bit surprised that they haven't arrived at the same conclusion that I have. The only thing I can possibly think is that perhaps there is an issue of politics here. I don't know, it's entirely possible that the opposition at this particular point has so few targets at which to aim because our government is doing such a phenomenal job. I read headline after headline about how wonderfully we are doing in the world.

I should say these are not at all from what we would call friendly media. I mean, they are critical media, as they should be. When I see the kind of headline that I saw in The Globe and Mail last Saturday morning—which is a responsible publication, but certainly no one would ever say that they are on the government's side—I can understand why the opposition is trying to find any old target to be able to take a shot at. I mean, that headline said it all. I mean, it was talking about the fact that our economy was leading the class in the world. Certainly our currency is going ahead in leaps and bounds. In Britain at this particular point, with its election coming up in May or June, it's interesting to note the amount of attention they're paying to our banking system.

I'm going to say something positive. I want to say something positive about my Liberal friends. I think it's probably a half-decent example of who we are as Canadians. Having been in business long before I was crazy enough to get into politics, I can recall I used to get really frustrated with the banks and the banking system. It used to drive me crazy because we were all so cautious. Then we took a look at the way investments were made in Canada, and all of the rules and regulations that surround us. I mean, crumbs, if you want to open an account with a bank in order to trade shares, they want to know every possible detail, like how many fillings you have in your mouth. It's amazing. That used to drive me crazy, right up to the point that I realized successive Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments, prior to our Conservative government, have paid a lot of attention to banks, banking, and investments. I think it says an awful lot about us as Canadians.

I give credit where credit is due to prior governments of all political stripes—whatever they were, I give credit where credit is due. Now we have the entire world looking at where we are. Based on the foundation that our government was given of a sound banking system, of sound regulations regarding the CMHC, all of those things, based on what we were given, we took and we enhanced them. I will boast about the fact that we enhanced them, but the point is that we as Canadians have always had a very responsible attitude toward our banks and our security.

Now, I guess my point is that if I were in the opposition, I might be looking to try to fabricate some stories about Afghan detainee abuse, I might be trying to create more tumult over the Rights and Democracy issue, I might be trying to call down and implicate any number of people in ways that are not really beneficial to political dialogue. Regrettably, that is the conclusion I have to arrive at.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Abbott, I'm just going to break in here for a second. I have a liaison meeting at one o'clock. It's clear we have another four people on the list. I'm going to suggest that the opposition and the government get together to talk about this, because we're not going to make any progress at all unless we come to some type of agreement on where we're at.

I'm going to set time aside on March 23 to discuss the list again, because we're in a motion that we're going to continue to debate. I can only encourage the opposition and the government to discuss the final list that they want to have.

We do have people booked for March 23, 25, 30, and April 1. As I say, I see this continuing to move on.

I'm going to adjourn the debate for today. I'm going to set some time aside on March 23, after the president and acting chair of the board speak, to continue to discuss this, but I don't see any headway coming unless there are some discussions.

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

Just a quick point of order, Chair.

As we know, when a member has the floor he or she has the floor. I'm presuming I will continue to have the floor when we get back to committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Yes, you will. As I said, we've got the list here.

Just to let you know, Mr. Braun has confirmed. Mr. Gauthier is tentative, but we are pretty sure he can be here.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

He should be encouraged to be here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We started the conversation a week ago, trying to get them on the agenda.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

I'm reliably informed that he's in his office, so he's not out of the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

With that, the meeting is adjourned for today.