Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on May 8th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

My understanding, Mr. Sorenson, is that our committee's report on the Canada–China human rights dialogue will be considered by your committee Thursday morning.

I'm raising this only because I'm just suggesting members of this committee may want to communicate with their party's counterparts on the main committee to express the robustness of our study of this issue, as they haven't had an opportunity to sit through and listen to all the testimony, and I think Mr. Sorenson is indicating there might be some problems in that regard.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

One never knows if there are going to be problems or not. I know that there very well could be.

I wonder if it has ever happened before that members from the subcommittee go to the standing committee to be available to answer questions as to how comprehensive it was.

Now, obviously I sit on that committee; I'm the chair. As the committee's chair, I feel that to get into how much we heard and the amount of work we did on that—it will be fairly evident when they look at it—I want to be certain that it's not dismissed quickly because it's just a subcommittee.

I think that if each one of you talked to members of your committee, and maybe a couple of you—I haven't run this by my clerk or anyone else in the committee, and in fact I didn't know you were going to bring it up, but if you were there to introduce it and answer a few questions, I wouldn't see that as out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

I've been asked by.... Go ahead, Marcus.

[Marcus Pistor]

In terms of the history of the subcommittee, it's been the practice that the chair would try to be at the meeting of the main committee.

I think Mr. Cotler did, but I think you were in fact a member of both committees at the time. Mr. Bains did it, and I think Mr. Kilgour did it once as well, where the subcommittee chair would come to the relevant meeting of the main committee to answer questions, and explain the work of the subcommittee and the recommendations. That's the practice in the past.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Mr. Cotler, did you have a point on this?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I was going to make the same point that Marcus made and add that I've already spoken to my colleagues on the committee to impress upon them the seriousness of the inquiry that we undertook, in terms of the breadth and depth of the witness testimony and the importance of the recommendations. I acknowledged that they were tough-minded recommendations, but they were well founded and deserve to be supported.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

That is exactly my point. As you remember, this used to be the foreign affairs and international trade committee. So there still might be some of that leftover. It's not trade any more, but this committee was not thinking about trade or anything else. It was thinking about human rights violations. So I welcome and appreciate Mr. Cotler speaking to his colleagues. I hope we all can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Could I ask, Marcus, is it conventional for standing committees to adopt the reports of their subcommittees in toto, or is it conventional that they make substantive amendments to them?

[Marcus Pistor]

I can speak only to my experience. Regarding any of the substantive reports in which I've been involved, the subcommittee has been changed—to a greater or lesser extent than the main committee. Sometimes it's a word. Sometimes it's reflecting—

The main committee has just concluded a major study on democracy assistance, so they may want to make sure that the two studies make the same kinds of recommendations. Those sorts of things are standard practice. Sometimes the meetings in the main committee take longer to consider the report than the subcommittee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

I have one point to make, and then we'll go to Wayne.

I proposed one modification to reflect something that Madame St-Hilaire raised at the very end of our consideration of the report. I'm not going to get too much into the substance of it, but it concerned making a specific reference to the fact that there is a bilateral consular agreement.

There was some confusion about that, for which I apologize. I have apologized personally to Madame St-Hilaire, and I do so now publicly. We got focused on the Vienna Convention and forgot that there's also a supplementary, if you will, bilateral convention in this respect. We're going to be proposing that as an amendment.

I don't think that reveals too much of the substance of things.

Mr. Marston.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I'd be concerned if there were a substantive change to a report that didn't come back to this committee to be looked at. This is our report to them, and if they're going to change it, and it has my name on it, I'm not going to be too happy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

I share the concern. I gather that in fact when it's reported to the House, it is done in the name of the standing committee, not of us.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

But still, we've heard the witnesses, as indicated here, and if there is a substantive change, at least allow us the opportunity to take a look at it.

From what I'm hearing, there isn't going to be. It's not expected. But if that were to happen, the reputations of people around here might be affected by something. I'd be concerned that we didn't have an option to at least consider it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

I'd encourage you to accept Mr. Sorenson's informal invitation and to show up and make that point and ensure that your NDP colleague on the committee does so.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Yes, talk to Alexa, make sure she's read the report, and just voice those same concerns.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

That's why I raised the matter, Wayne, for precisely that concern.

Madame.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I have a question.

Even though we are not sitting in camera, this is the first time that I'm a member of both the subcommittee and the main committee. Perhaps my question is naive, but I'm just wondering if it would be appropriate for us to be present. For example, the Bloc Québécois has two seats. Would it be appropriate for members of the subcommittee to attend ass well?

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Why not? It is up to your party to decide whether or not you should be replaced during that meeting.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

That's up to your party. We're a subcommittee of the main committee. If Madame Barbot, like today--

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

I realize that, as a party, we can do whatever we wish. I just want to know if it would be a good idea to have all members present. I'm not just talking about our party members. Should Mr. Cotler or Mr. Silva, for example, do likewise?

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

I think we all agree that it would be a good idea. I, for one, will be there, and I believe that Mr. Sorenson has also invited other members to attend as well.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Very well. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Do we normally discuss future business in camera?

[A voice]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

We don't, okay.

Has this been made available to everyone?