Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue 1 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 5 p.m., pursuant to rule 88, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Denis Robert, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, I see a quorum. As clerk of the committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair. I am ready to receive a motion to that effect.
Senator Stollery: I would like to nominate Senator Di Nino as chair of the committee.
Senator Dawson: I second the motion.
Mr. Robert: Are there any other nominations? Seeing none, it is moved by the Honourable Senator Stollery that the Honourable Senator Di Nino do take the chair of this committee.
Senator Consiglio Di Nino (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Thank you for your confidence, Senator Stollery, and to all of you for making it unanimous. This is such a wonderful honour.
I should like to deal first with a couple of formalities. I am delighted to introduce Denis Robert as the new clerk of the committee. I have worked with Denis, as most of us have at some time over the years. He is one of the old characters around here. We thought we had retired him once or twice, but he keeps coming back.
Welcome back Denis and I know we will work very well together.
I would like to extend my thanks to Keli Hogan, who was our clerk for about a year. To add a little colour, Keli Hogan was also one of the pages in the Senate for a while. It was nice to have her as our clerk. She has been assigned to the Social Affairs Committee, and we wish her much success in serving our colleagues on that committee.
I would also like to put on the record our appreciation and respect for Peter Berg, who is not only very intelligent, but also very capable and pragmatic. After many years of truly strong service to Parliament, particularly the Senate, he has decided to retire. He has served us well. I wish to extend to him our best wishes for many years of enjoyment in his retirement. Hopefully, we can get him to come to us from time to time to help us on special projects.
As well, I would like to introduce our new researchers. Natalie Mychajlyszyn is a young lady with whom I have worked at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and who has truly impressed me. I extend her a very warm welcome. As well, we have Jennifer Paul, a young lady whom I have not met but to whom I also extend our warmest welcome.
Welcome and work hard.
Honourable senators, thank you once again for the honour of being chosen your chair. Most of us around this table have done this before, but there are a couple of new senators who have joined us on my team, if that is appropriate to add.
Senator Dawson: I thought we were one committee.
The Chair: We are. How many times did we have committee meetings when we had nobody on that side?
It is nice to welcome to our committee Senator Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis and Senator Pamela Wallin, in case anyone does not know you.
Senator Wallin: I am thrilled to be here, and I am looking forward to working with all of you.
The Chair: I think you will find that this committee is seldom political. It has produced very good work in the public policy area, and I know that you will make a huge contribution.
Now we will proceed with our formal agenda.
Senator Corbin: Mr. Chair, I understand from speaking to the clerk previously that there are minor changes to the usual procedure we will be going through. When we come to certain items, will you allow the clerk to explain the change?
The Chair: Absolutely.
Item No. 2 on the agenda is the election of the deputy chair. I would like to take this opportunity to put forward the name of Senator Peter Stollery as the deputy chair.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Stollery: Thank you.
The Chair: We made a good team before and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Clerk, please tell me when you want me to ask you to inform us about any changes.
Item No. 3 on the agenda relates to the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. We will set that item aside, as we have yet to finalize it. We will deal with it at the next meeting. Is that correct, Mr. Deputy Chair?
Senator Stollery: That is correct.
The Chair: Item No. 4 is the motion to print the committee's proceedings. It is one of the standard motions.
Senator Stratton: I so move.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I am told that the next item is one of those minor changes that we have added to the rules of our committee. Item No. 5 concerns the authorization to hold meetings and print evidence when a quorum is not present. We have added two lines to the motion. Basically, the addition stipulates that when hearing evidence, members from both the government and the opposition must be present. I understand this is also quite normal. Again, this is when a quorum is not present.
Senator Downe: Mr. Chair, is this rule unique to this committee or is it standard for all committees?
The Chair: I understand it is standard throughout. I also understand that it was this committee that did not follow those rules before.
Item No. 6 has to do with the financial report. Take a look at it, please. These were expenditures incurred during the last session. If you have had a chance to take a look at it, I would appreciate that a motion be moved.
Senator Andreychuk: I so move.
The Chair: All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We move now to Item No. 7. This motion allows us to hire the researchers that work for us. It is a standard motion as well, with no changes.
It is moved by Senator Corbin or Senator Grafstein. All those in favour?
Senator Segal: Could I ask a question?
The Chair: Certainly.
Senator Segal: Why would we limit ourselves to only people from the Library of Parliament? Is there some larger rule that forces us to do that?
The Chair: We do not. Whenever we have a study, we then ask authority to hire others if required. To quote the motion: ``That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts. . . .'' et cetera. We are getting that anyway.
Senator De Bané: The last paragraph of the motion states:
That the chair, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries, and draft reports.
When summaries are made of testimony, et cetera, I would like them to be distributed to all members of the committee.
The Chair: That is the procedure. We are talking about someone actually having to supervise it, and that is the role of the chair. The procedure that we have followed is that we always provide every member of the committee with a copy of any draft report for consultation, commentary, changes and discussion at committee, following which they may be approved with or without amendment.
Senator De Bané: Mr. Chair, I am not suggesting that committee members direct the research staff. I am suggesting that when they prepare summaries of what someone has said to us, these summaries should be distributed to us. I do not mean for us afterwards to direct them to add this or to add that but simply to have those summaries. The researchers are working for the committee. I am not asking that we direct them. That is something else.
By way of example, we met with someone when we travelled outside of Canada. There were no stenographers reporting the testimony. However, our research staff drafted a summary of what that expert witnesses told us. Summaries were made, and what was in those summaries was not reflected later. Members have no access to those summaries, and they sometimes do not have stenographic reports on which to rely. I do not see why summaries are just for the steering committee. It is so self-evident to have summaries.
The Chair: Senator De Bané, I do not really have a problem with your question.
Senator De Bané: I do thank you.
The Chair: Two things happen. First, the unrevised transcripts, or blues, are available to all committee members, so there is a verbatim record of the proceedings any time we have a meeting. Second, when there is a report or when someone asks for a summary of a particular part of a study, the researchers prepare the draft in conjunction with the chair. That draft is then sent to all of the members for review, analysis, commentary and, as I said, amendments. The report is then discussed and voted on before it becomes official at the committee.
I am not sure I understand what you are referring to. If you are referring to occasions when we will have not an official meeting but rather conduct a fact-finding mission, we prepare summaries of those, do we not? I am told that also happens. We do not have verbatim transcripts in that case.
I am not sure that it serves the committee well to have verbatim transcripts of fact-finding missions; but, again, the summary is presented to each and every committee member to invite commentary and or changes.
If we are not doing it, we should be doing it. I think we are doing it, is what I am trying to say. I checked with the clerk and he agrees that we provide to each member of the committee, every time, the information we have.
Senator De Bané: All I want is to ensure that the researchers are there for the benefit of every committee member around the table. I do not think that, as a member, I should be entitled to direct them in what they should be writing. However, the summaries that they prepare of witness so-and-so talking about five different points, for example, should be distributed to all of us.
Mr. Chair, I will give you one anecdote. I was with Senator Stollery in London, England, when we had the opportunity to have a dialogue with a world-class expert on Africa. Senator Stollery invited me to ask the expert some questions, which I did. The few senators who were there had a very good exchange with that expert. Most of the members of the committee were not there. Were there blues? No, there were not.
I know that there were summaries of that exchange, which were very interesting for those who had access to that dialogue with that Oxford professor. I think they should be distributed for members.
The Chair: I have no disagreement with you. We will do that. If we miss it, you will remind me.
Senator Stollery: Would the committee agree on the last paragraph of Item No. 7 whereby the chair, on behalf of the committee — just to make it a little more flexible — in consultation with members of the steering committee, works with the staff we are talking about?
The Chair: That makes it very difficult. This has been our instruction forever — when you were chair, when I was chair. In practice, we do that anyway.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
The next motion contains some changes. I would ask Mr. Robert to walk us through them.
Mr. Robert: If you look at the first and second paragraphs of Item No. 8, we now mention the Senate Administrative Rules. The motion used to refer to the Financial Administration Act, so that is one change.
In the last paragraph, in cases related to consultants and personnel services, the authority to commit funds and certify accounts now rests with the chair and deputy chair.
Senator Downe: Have these rules been approved by the Internal Economy Committee?
Mr. Robert: I do not know, but I think the Senate Administrative Rules are from the Internal Economy Committee.
Senator Prud'homme: Not yet.
The Chair: That is my understanding. Any changes to the Senate Administrative Rules come from the Internal Economy Committee or the Rules Committee.
Mr. Robert: The last paragraph of the motion is a direction from the Internal Economy Committee.
The Chair: The Internal Economy Committee, in effect, has suggested that we include the change to the last paragraph to confer joint authority.
Senator Downe: I am a member of the Internal Economy Committee. I recall considerable discussion about this matter, but I do not recall this being the decision.
The Chair: I am relying on my very efficient clerk, whom I have known for many years.
Senator Downe: I agree. He is very efficient, but I am wondering if we could stand this item until we find out.
The Chair: I have no problem with that. We can stand it until the next meeting.
Could we get a clarification on that, Mr. Robert?
Senator Downe: The clarification I would like to see is the minutes of the committee that approved this change.
The Chair: I understand that. That is the second item we are standing.
Senator Prud'homme: Mr. Chair, as a non-member — but highly interested in this committee, having been chairman for over 10 years in the House of Commons of both the national defence and external affairs committees — there is something that strikes me as different.
In the last paragraph of Motion No. 8, why do we see the words ``conferred jointly on the chair and the deputy chair'' instead of ``the steering committee''? I was of the opinion that usually you prefer, for more security, to have it that way.
The Chair: In practice, Senator Stollery and I have worked on that basis. We normally meet and deal with these things, but my understanding is these are the rules and the procedures that have been adopted by the administration of the Senate and approved by the appropriate committee, whether it be the Internal Economy Committee or the Rules Committee. Am I correct?
Senator Prud'homme: Okay.
The Chair: We will throw that component of it into the list of items to be clarified. We are standing the item.
Item No. 9 relates to travel and is unchanged.
Senator Grafstein: I so move.
The Chair: All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Item No. 10 deals with the designation of members travelling on committee business. You may want to take a look at that because this is an important motion, particularly for those committee members who are new. We will try to give you clarification, if required.
Senator Grafstein: Is that a new provision?
The Chair: No. It is just that there have been questions on this motion in the past. Again, it is my understanding that it is part of the standard rules of the Senate.
Senator Wallin: If we are away on Senate business, not business related to this committee but we are out of town when this committee meets, what then?
Senator Grafstein: You are just not here.
Senator Prud'homme: Senator Wallin asks a very good question. I am the one who raised it in the Senate and objected very vigorously and won. Once in a while you win; most of the time you lose.
I am adamant on this point and the explanation should be very clear. Senators appear in two columns. That is what you are referring to. When you look at who is present, a section has been added for senators who are away. Usually, they are travelling with an official parliamentary delegation. You will see, madam, that you are considered as being present.
There is a little dot in the second paragraph when you read the report every day. That, to me, is sufficient because you are putting too much burden on the shoulders of senators who are not travelling — who do not choose to go — to carry the quorum.
Some senators will say, ``Well, I am on official business, so therefore I am considered as being present.'' To me, that is something that must be handled very carefully.
I am here only to provide background information for you and those who are interested.
I think you should be very careful about that. It is not usual practice. The practice is very clear, I think. I stand to be corrected by our very able clerk, and I am pleased to welcome him as the new clerk of this prestigious committee.
I thank the chair for having attracted the attention of members and non-members of the committee to the importance of something that seems to be new. When something is adopted, we have to live with it; but I am not sure it would be accepted by the Internal Economy Committee or the Rules Committee.
Senator Stollery: I move adoption of the motion, Mr. Chair.
Senator Andreychuk: I agree.
Senator Prud'homme: I was sure you would.
The Chair: All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Item No. 11 deals with travelling and living expenses of witnesses and the fact that we can pay for their expenses and hotel room, et cetera.
All those in favour of the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Next is Motion No. 12 on the agenda, regarding the electronic coverage of meetings.
All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Time slot for regular meetings.
[English]
Just take a look at it and make sure.
Senator Stollery: It is the same as usual.
The Chair: In the last Parliament, we changed the time slot for regular meetings to 5:30 p.m. The 5 p.m. time slot seemed to have been a little problematic because of the fact that we too often would have witnesses waiting for a long period of time. It is not a big deal, but we found during the previous Parliament that a 5:30 time slot seemed to work better. That is something I understand we can change ourselves, as long as it is not before 5 p.m.
Senator Grafstein: We could change it to 5:30 or 6 or 7 p.m. as long as it is not before 5 p.m.
The Chair: Leave it there.
Senator Grafstein: You have the discussion, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: All right.
Can someone move this motion?
Senator Grafstein: I so move.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Is there any other business?
Senator Corbin: Are we going to keep our regular meeting room, 160-S, or will we be shifted around all the buildings?
The Chair: My very strong recommendation is that we have the same meeting room and that we have it all the time.
The only time we were shifted was when committees met on government business, such as budgets and so forth, and needed the ability to televise their proceedings. We are certainly intending to fight for that.
Senators, I have two motions that I would like committee members to approve for presentation to colleagues in the chamber. One is that the committee be authorized to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to foreign affairs generally, with a reporting date of June 30, 2010.
Senator Segal: I so move.
The Chair: All those in favour?
Senator Corbin: There is something missing. This is the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, but the last sentence does not mention international trade. Is that limiting the scope of our work?
The Chair: I do not think so. That is what we had last time, but we can include it.
Senator Corbin: We should include it because there was a change in the name of the committee to include international trade.
The Chair: Yes, that is fine. Thank you for that.
Are all in favour of the motion, as amended?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Prud'homme: That is the one point on which I ask the indulgence of the committee. During my 45 years on the Hill, I have paid attention to this committee in the Senate and in the House of Commons. I will give you a preview of what I will say when this matter is raised in the chamber.
It is my view that the Foreign Affairs Committee could be the limelight of the Senate. It could be the most important committee and have the biggest impact on Canada, depending on what is studied and the ensuing recommendations.
I must admit that I have been disappointed in the past with a committee that I consider to be the most prestigious. I always apply to be a member of it but for reasons that many of you understand, it is always difficult for me to do so. However, I am a team player, and so I accept the responsibility.
I beg members of the committee now and I will beg senators in writing in the full debate in the Senate to not hesitate to study controversial subjects from time to time. I am pleased that Senator Segal has brought forth such a motion in the house and I will participate with a speech on the situation in Iran. It is extremely important. If any committee should pay close attention to this issue, it is this committee. This committee could have the greatest number of good witnesses from all sides of the issue. Such activity of the committee would be reflected in Canada, and the Senate needs to be in the limelight across the country. I tried to determine which committee had the potential to be well known across Canada, and it is this prestigious committee.
I would hope that in this next session the committee will have an order of reference to study highly controversial subjects that are of great interest to all Canadians. It is a source of major disappointment for me that we are hesitant to touch upon subjects that put the sanity of the world in question. We do not have the reputation that we used to have and this committee could help by touching upon hot issues. I thank Senator Segal for having raised a most important issue that, I hope, will be well debated in the chamber and that could be debated here as well.
My point will be more orderly when I rise in the Senate in consideration of the committee's report. Thank you for your patience; I will not abuse it.
The Chair: Senator Prud'homme, we always welcome any member of the chamber to attend this committee. It has been our practice to allow senators to express their opinions and to participate other than in votes if they are not official members of the committee. You are always welcome to attend.
Senator Prud'homme: I like working with you.
The Chair: I will state that the motion we just passed gives us the authority to do as Senator Prud'homme has suggested, which is undertake any issue related to foreign affairs and international trade.
The other motion relates to the mandate to the committee during the last Parliament. The deputy chair and I determined that the committee should continue with and complete that mandate. This motion would seek the authority of the Senate to continue and complete the mandate authorized in the previous Parliament.
Senator Stollery: In explanation to people who were not here in the last Parliament, we have amassed a large body of tremendous testimony on the record. However, because of the political timetable, we were unable to complete the business then. Both the chair and I believe we would be misspending taxpayers' money if we did not complete that business. This committee has had a reputation of completing what it starts. It is not controversial in terms of being a party issue; am I more or less correct, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: I think so.
Senator Downe: We decided to set Brazil aside, but I wonder whether we should add it should we choose to go back to it. We would then have the mandate to do so.
The Chair: We decided to set Brazil aside mainly because of the time that it would take. That may be revisited at any time in my opinion. We have untaken, looked at and received testimony on all three nations. We have amassed a large inventory of testimony that has focused this order of reference for us. It might be best if we finished it. Perhaps the next project should be Central America and South America.
Senator De Bané: Mr. Chair and colleagues, my earlier suggestion was to distribute summaries of testimony, in particular given that we have not touched upon the issue for several months. As well, we have several new members and this would acquaint them with the information. I would suggest that if summaries of the many testimonies exist, they could be distributed. It would save a great deal of time rather than reading the committee proceedings in full.
The Chair: I agree. I believe that some have been prepared, although not yet in final form. When that happens, they will be distributed to members of the committee and any other senator who so wishes. We do not restrict such information.
Senator De Bané: Thank you.
Senator Segal: It is really the walking-and-chewing-gum-at-the-same-time question.
The Chair: We do that well.
Senator Segal: I will ask colleagues to consider maybe upping the pace a bit. The notion that we would put off looking these days at the Canada-U.S. situation and the Americas, particularly because the relationship with the Americas writ large is a government priority — or what my good friend Senator Prud'homme has raised with respect to Iran — and because we have a process that is proceeding with China and India, indicates that we are delighted to actually detach ourselves from any pressing issue.
I wonder whether colleagues would give some thought to continuing, because of the expenditure of time and effort that has been made, the Russia-India activity. We do not have to meet every week and do two hearings on the same subject. We can have one set of hearings on one set of activities and another set of hearings on another set of activities. I think we have the membership and capacity to do that. It gives us some flexibility.
I would be on the side of not discontinuing the areas of activity already undertaken by the committee to the public interest in the past, but to also see if we cannot actually have two things going at the same time, as that would allow us to connect a little more directly to some of the issues that will be very pressing in the next 18 to 24 months, if we have that much time.
The Chair: Thank you. You have actually saved me a little time because you have anticipated my next item, which was that for the next meeting we should have some ideas of what else we want to study. Do we do it concurrently? Do we do it from time to time? I do not presume to speak on behalf of committee members — and as your humble servant I certainly receive your comments — but that is precisely the point that I wanted to make and the next item I intended to put on the agenda.
I concur that we should look at that, and other members may have other opinions or ideas. We will then decide as a group where we want to go from there.
Senator Grafstein: I agree with Senator Prud'homme. I disagree with him on facts from time to time, but we tend to agree on overarching issues.
As a personal experience, I encountered the same problem that Senator Prud'homme alluded to when I became Chairman of the Banking Committee. I discovered that we were spending countless hours and years on committee reports that were thorough, thoughtful and good — but they took years to complete. With the consent of the committee, I asked to move up the pace a little bit, taking exactly the same time but having shorter terms of reference, breaking down into subcommittees if we had to, following the American style, in an effort to deal with these issues.
We have three topics on the table and I agree with them all. Number one: Iran is a burning issue. The Foreign Affairs Committee has not said a thing about it, nor has the House of Commons, of any substantive variety. We again congratulate Senator Segal for at least putting it on the table. Again, it is slow motion. The Senate is slow motion. The question is how to accelerate the committees to be more with the times as the Americans do, or as the British House of Commons and House of Lords do. After making a study of the House of Lords and of the American system, I decided we would do shorter studies with shorter time frames, focusing on issues thoroughly but completely.
I agree 100 per cent with tackling the issue of Iran. Iran is on everyone's minds. It is on the minds of Americans. It is the top-of-the-line issue in the United States. It will be the top-of-the-line issue in Europe, and we do not have an inkling of what we should be doing on that particular file as it evolves.
Number 2: Read the headlines today and you will see that the biggest issue in Europe, Asia and Canada is rising protectionism. The WTO is falling apart as we speak, and we have not said a word or done any studies about that.
Number 3: Looking at some of the other substantive issues on the human rights side, we have the Human Rights Committee. I do not know what they are doing, but they move slowly, as do other committees. This is not being critical, but analytical. At the end of the day, we should try to accelerate the activity of the committee. The Conservatives have new senators, new life. The Conservatives cannot rely on the fact that, as they used to say, they cannot man committees. They can man committees and subcommittees, but I am looking for our chair and deputy chair to come up with an activist agenda. We have bushy-tailed senators here who want to do work; let us get them to work.
I suggest those two issues: Iran and protectionism.
Senator Segal: On a point of privilege, I have never before been called ``bushy-tailed,'' but I take it as a compliment.
Senator Downe: I am not familiar with how the Social Affairs Committee works, but it seems to me it has a subcommittee of its main committee. I know this only because I am on the Internal Economy Committee and the Social Affairs Committee comes to us for different budgets. Different members of the committee, the chair and the deputy chair, seem to chair different parts of the committee to do what we are talking about, which is to fast-track various projects. In other words, you split up into two or three committees, coming back, of course, to the whole committee for discussion and approval of the final report. That might be a way to achieve what we are talking about here. I would be in favour of that.
Senator Wallin: I would support the suggestions of Senator Downe and Senator Segal. We do have to move on Latin and South America. They dovetail with the actual protectionism in the Canada-U.S. relationship, because if we do not get the north-south trading house in order, it will be a difficult issue for our country. That is absolutely urgent in priority and that is an excellent way to deal with it.
As one of the new senators and having not been involved in all the research that was gathered on the BRIC minus Brazil study, I would be happy to shift my focus into the new area. That is a good way to deal with it.
Senator Stollery: I would like to remind everyone that the committee, for reasons that the committee does not have any control over, has not met since last June because there have been elections. We are contemplating that there may be an election in the not-too-distant future. I do not know. The fact of the matter is that the committee has not met for eight months and no other committee has met for eight months either. We have not been able to meet because there has been no Parliament. I think that members should keep that in mind.
In terms of China and Russia in particular, because that is where it has gone to, I would recommend to anyone to read the testimony of the recently-retired Peter Harder, former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, before this committee, which was devastating on our trade and our ability to increase wealth in the country. He made some statements that I was surprised myself to hear. The ambassador recently retired to Moscow. These are important areas that the committee has not been able to complete, not because we do not want to, but because suddenly we are adjourned and there is an election and one thing and another. We cannot help that.
I am supporting the chair to try to get this motion passed.
As we will all discover, there is only a certain number of us and the world is a big place. We can talk about Iran.
By the way, this committee completed an extremely thorough study of NAFTA. We went to Mexico, as Senator De Bané remembers. I am a fluent Spanish speaker. I know the region like my hand. We completed a thorough report. You were with us, I remember, Senator Grafstein.
Senator Grafstein: I spent lots of time in Brazil.
Senator Stollery: I am just pointing out that we have thought about some of these issues. We are knowledgeable about NAFTA and have published reports on the agricultural disaster that has driven millions of Mexicans off the land to cross illegally into the United States. This committee is familiar with all of that. We have a long history; we did not just study Africa, although that was a pretty big deal.
Regarding the Middle East, Iran will immediately become the Palestine-Israel question. This committee got into that before my time. I was not here, but I believe Senator Grafstein was.
Senator Grafstein: I certainly was.
Senator Stollery: Senator Prud'homme, were you involved in that study? It was not a happy experience.
Senator Prud'homme: It was a very sad experience, boycotted by people from 1982 to 1985.
Senator Stollery: I am making no comment. I was not on the committee, but it was not a happy experience, I am told, because I knew some of the people who were on it.
I am just making a suggestion and supporting the chair. If we let him put this motion, the other issues can be discussed by committee members. I do not think anyone is against that, but we must start with the first step. Then, if there is interest from members in establishing subcommittees, we can do that. However, we have got to get back in business. We have not done anything since June.
Senator Andreychuk: I do think that the Americas is the critical issue where we can add something.
We could start a debate on the Iran issue, and we would inform the public. I do not know how close we can come to facilitating foreign policy. It is one of those thorny issues. We could offer a value-added service, but I do not see us as critical on that one.
On the subject matter of the Americas, the first study we did when Senator Stewart was still our chair was on the effects of NAFTA. For example, do we extend NAFTA or participate in bilaterals? We were one of the first committees to review that matter. We have an expertise and history in that area, and we should do that imminently. I would lean toward doing that study.
I do not think we would waste the work that has been done on China, India and Russia, but it is time-dated already. We would have to update it anyway, so whether we put that in abeyance for a further time period would not be detrimental in respect of costs and efficiency.
My other problem with that study is it was a little like the Africa study. Foreign policy on China, Indian and Russia was too broad. If we decide to go that way, I want to know what aspect of foreign policy we will study because we cannot do it all, which is the dilemma.
With respect to the Africa study, we started off globally talking about absolutely everything that could possibly touch on Africa, and I wondered where we were going. When we honed in on agricultural reform, I thought we were doing a good job. Unfortunately, the report went in different directions.
If this study continues, I would hope that the steering committee could narrow our focus to a particular foreign policy aspect. Otherwise, we are trying to bite off the whole world, and we will not do justice to the study.
Senator Wallin: I was not suggesting that we do NAFTA or Mexico again. I was specifically talking about doing everything south of there. We have done all of that, and it helps give us focus. There is a fairly narrow look at that, which is that the Americans have vacated the field with the protectionist mindset on free trade agreements, so we have some base work, but, in turn, we should extend that down. That was my only point.
Senator Grafstein: Again, I urge energy to the committee. Look at the facts: We are now at February 11 and we will not start our work until March 1, unless we step up to double time and move more quickly. I do not know why we cannot get the committee organized the day we come back and be ready to go the following day. The chair can canvass people and get things done.
I pointed out to our Senate colleagues that there are about 45 days left. We have not been active on major committees for the better part of eight months. I just give one comparative example: The Banking Committee in the United States in the last 60 days has had 59 hearings on the banking issue. We have not had one.
If we are a Senate, let us act like it and start activating ourselves. We did have an excuse, which was that the Conservatives could not fill the slots and were not ready to go. Well, we are ready to go and now have no excuse. Let us get on with the work. We have some 45 days left, and I urge the steering committee to get on with things. Take the ideas in. We do not have to wait to have a meeting about whether to have a meeting. Cut it short; come up with a recommendation. We have heard some recommendations here; let us get the committee moving.
I urge action on the trade front because that is a pressure on Canada. We heard today that for the first time in 33 years Canada is in a trade deficit, and we are a trading nation. Trade is key to us. There is no other committee that will do this. On the house side, frankly, they are political and inept.
If we want to get serious about the work of Senate — I agree with Senator Prud'homme that this is a prestigious committee — let us make this committee prestigious in name and in action. I urge you, chair and deputy chair, to get on with the job. Come up with recommendations and break down the committee. The committee is prepared to work. It is not a question of not working, and look at this wonderful staff we have. We have got Showboat here. This is terrific. Let us put these guys to work.
Senator Downe: I have been raising points for the last two years about the importance of this committee looking at Central and South America. I am delighted that the tone of the conversation seems to be going that way now, so I am jumping on that opportunity.
The Americans, because of their occupation in other parts of the world, have more or less abandoned those countries, particularly the Caribbean, where they look to Canada with great respect and for leadership. The stability in those countries is very fragile, and we can help them on governance, policing and other areas. We can make a tremendous improvement in the quality of the lives of the citizens of those countries, but we cannot do it if we are all tied up doing one thing. We should split up and take on many jobs.
Senator Prud'homme: I am following a good suggestion by the new senator on the committee, Senator Wallin, and I am sure it is going to be seen.
I remember that a subcommittee studied Canada-Latin America in the 1970s. It reported to the full committee. If you read that committee report, you have the beginning. Take the years away, and you will say, ``My goodness, it was done last year.''
Senator Stollery will remember that following the report of that committee, I created the Canada-Latin America Parliamentary Group. I asked Senator Stollery to be the first chairman because he spoke Spanish and because he was Chair of the National Liberal Caucus. That goes back 30 years. If you read that subcommittee report, which was adopted by a full committee with many minority reports, you will have plenty of food for thought to start anew because many of the things written there are still relevant today. Instead of redoing all the work, I am sure Senator Wallin would be extremely happy to see what took place there on every subject — human rights, trade and so forth — and that was done by a subcommittee. I only chaired the full committee, but the subcommittee did a marvellous job.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Prud'homme.
Senator Segal: Mr. Chair, could I just ask a procedural question of the more experienced senators around the committee? When the ratification of the free trade agreement with Colombia comes to Parliament, will it not come to the Senate first, and would it not normally end up before this committee in any circumstance?
The Chair: That is my understanding.
Senator Segal: By definition, that would bring us into a discussion of the Americas in some way, shape or form.
The Chair: Exactly.
Senator Segal: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: What just took place is what I was hoping would take place at the next meeting, and maybe even a little more so. This is useful. I think it is healthy, but I think it needs some reflection. If I were to summarize, we would probably have five different objectives to achieve and five different areas to look at besides our previous reference.
I do not totally agree with Senator Andreychuk that the information we gathered and the testimony we received is dated to the point where it is no longer useful.
Senator Andreychuk: I did not say that. I said it was dated.
The Chair: Certainly. The week after you hear testimony it will be dated.
First, we made an investment that I think the committee thought was a good one, and we actually received valuable testimony that would be useful in the public policy area. I understand that these things can go off the rail a bit. The order of reference talks about the rise of China, India and Russia in the global economy; in other words, the economic issue and the implications for Canadian policy. It is not quite as wide ranging as one might have thought.
My hope is that we at least ask for the authority to continue studying this reference. However, perhaps we can put our thinking caps on, reflect on what each other has said and at the next meeting come up with one or two other issues that we should undertake as the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee and then prepare a plan to move forward.
Senator Stollery: This motion has to be moved.
The Chair: We have already done that, and this is the discussion.
Senator Stollery: I am moving the adoption of the recommendation from the chair.
The Chair: Of the motion to be presented.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you kindly.
Senator Andreychuk: Which motion was that?
The Chair: The one about continuing the reference.
Senator Segal: Mr. Chair, does that not mean now that we are at least three weeks away from being able to bring another motion to the Senate for the authority to discuss other matters? Is that the practical reality of it?
The Chair: We are two weeks away.
Senator Downe: Given that we have full attendance, or more or less full attendance, could we not spend the next few minutes now rather than at the next meeting deciding what we will do? I hear a consensus in the room on at least one issue and possibly a second one.
The Chair: I am at your service. When I responded to Senator Segal, I said that he anticipated the next item on the agenda, which was precisely to have this discussion. It is useful that way.
As I sit back and try to understand and take in what has been said, there were several different suggestions. Do you want to continue discussing them? At 6:15, I have to attend a meeting of the National Finance Committee.
Senator Stollery: Mr. Chair, I am sorry to go on to another suggestion.
The Chair: This motion has been approved.
Senator Stollery: I understand that, but with respect to the comments of Senator Downe and Senator Andreychuk, if I am not mistaken, I think there is a feeling that we might look at the Spanish-speaking countries of the Western Hemisphere, as I call them. I have been to Colombia 32 times, I believe. If you want to get into that, it is something that the steering committee could study and consult with members. A study of that sort would seem to be of interest to some senators. I do not have anything against it, personally. I am not certain that it takes us very far, though.
Senator De Bané: Mr. Chair, I think we must conclude the study about those important countries. That study has been started. It must conclude as quickly as possible.
If you are inviting us to propose other topics, I have one that I would like to bring forward. However, I do not see how the BRIC study that was started — now without Brazil — can be put aside. It has to be concluded as quickly as possible.
There are other topics that I would like to bring to your attention at another time.
Senator Dawson: It was my understanding that we were setting up the committee today and that we would be debating what we should be doing at a future meeting. I have a whole bunch of projects. I can put them on the table and, trust me, they will all be worth 10 minutes of discussion. However, Mr. Chair, you had told me that the meeting would be brief. There are other committees sitting at 6:30.
I do believe that there are other subjects to study and I think we should debate those topics. I do not mean that because I did not speak to the other subjects that I disagree, but this is not the time to do it.
Senator Grafstein: Mr. Chair, may I suggest that each committee member send you their top three priorities and then come back with recommendations?
Senator Dawson: That is a good proposal.
The Chair: Send them to me and I will distribute them to the steering committee.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is there any other pressing matter that should be discussed under ``Other Business'' at this time?
Senator Mahovlich: The President of the United States is visiting us next week and we do not have a U.S. ambassador. They are our closest friends.
Senator Wallin: That is normal.
Senator Mahovlich: Is that normal? I always thought you had an ambassador here before you had a visit from the President.
The Chair: As we conclude this meeting, I would like to inform all of our colleagues that the Leader of the Government in the Senate is quite strongly opposed to the creation of any subcommittees and has made that point. Obviously, the committees run their own business, but I thought I would let you know that as a matter of information.
If there is no other business, I will adjourn the meeting. Thank you for all of your suggestions.
The committee adjourned.