Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue 1 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 4:18 p.m., in accordance with rule 88 of the Senate, for an organization meeting.
[Translation]
Gérald Lafrenière, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable Senators, we have 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 Nolin?
Senator Nolin: I nominate the Honourable Senator Andreychuk.
[English]
Mr. Lafrenière: Are there other nominations? It is moved by the Honourable Senator Nolin that the Honourable Senator Andreychuk do take the chair of this committee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Lafrenière: I invite Senator Andreychuk to take the chair.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Senator Di Nino, on behalf of the committee, I thank you for your work as former chair of the committee. I understand that you will continue as a committee member, for which I am grateful, so that you might help to steer the current project and to provide the committee with your continued advice. You were chair of the committee for several years and I am sure that you will continue to follow the work of the committee, in particular given your duties for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. We will be mindful of you, in particular those of us on this side, because you are now our esteemed whip. Maybe we will find some opportunity to have a little cheer and something else to honour our outgoing chair.
We will proceed to the second item, election of the deputy chair.
Senator Mahovlich: I nominate Senator Stollery.
The Chair: Seeing no other hands, it is moved by the Honourable Senator Mahovlich that the Honourable Senator Stollery be deputy chair of this committee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Well done.
The next item is the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. The practice is to have consultation before we proceed, or we can proceed with the real usual practice and move to appoint the third member.
Senator Stollery: I propose Senator Di Nino.
Senator Di Nino: With most sincere appreciation, I unfortunately will not accept your kind invitation.
Senator Stollery: Rejection.
Senator Di Nino: I am sorry to reject you.
The Chair: We have had some consultations and Senator Finley is prepared to be the third member of the steering committee. Is it agreed that Senator Finley be the third member of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Next, I need a motion to publish the committee's proceedings.
Senator Smith: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Smith that the committee print its proceedings and that the chair be authorized to set the number of printed copies to meet demand.
On the fifth item on the agenda, I need a motion for authorization to hold meetings and to receive evidence when quorum is not present:
That, pursuant to rule 89, the chair be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the publication of the evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that a member of the committee from both the government and the opposition be present.
Senator Finley: I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: On item 6, I have been advised by the clerk that we produce the draft first report on the previous expended budget, which is prepared in accordance with rule 104. I understand this draft report creates a dilemma because not all the items have been brought forward to compile the budget, although they should be ready in one week's time, which will still allow the committee to comply with the rules. With leave of the committee, we will defer this item to next week's meeting. It means that some of the expense accounts on the China trip and perhaps the Russia trip have not been submitted from some of the embassies. It will take a few more days to complete that process. We will set aside item 6 for further deliberation at next meeting.
Moving to item 7, it is moved by Senator Downe:
That the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign analysts to the committee;
That the chair be authorized to seek authority from the Senate to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of the committee's examination and consideration of such bills, subject-matters of bills, and estimates as are referred to it;
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the committee; and
That the chair, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries, and draft reports.
Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I need a motion on item 8 for authorization to commit funds and certify accounts:
That, pursuant to section 7, chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority to commit funds be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair and the clerk of the committee;
That, pursuant to section 8, chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee; and
That, notwithstanding the foregoing, in cases related to consultants and personnel services, the authority to commit funds and certify accounts be conferred jointly on the chair and deputy chair.
Senator Wallin: I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Honourable senators, moving to item 9, it is moved by Senator Fortin-Duplessis:
That the committee empower the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure to designate, as required, one or more members of the committee and/or such staff as may be necessary to travel on assignment on behalf of the committee.
Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: On item 10, it is moved by Senator Wallin:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to:
1) determine whether any member of the committee is on ``official business'' for the purposes of paragraph 8(3)(a) of the Senator's Attendance Policy, published in the Journals of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 1998; and
2) consider any member of the committee to be on ``official business'' if that member is: (a) attending an event or meeting related to the work of the committee; or (b) making a presentation related to the work of the committee; and
That the subcommittee report at the earliest opportunity any decisions taken with respect to the designation of members of the committee travelling on committee business.
Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: On item 11, it is moved by Senator Mahovlich:
That, pursuant to Senate guidelines for witness expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for one witness from any one organization and payment will take place upon application, but that the chair be authorized to approve expenses for a second witness should there be exceptional circumstances.
Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: On item 12, it is moved by Senator Wallin:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to direct communications officers assigned to the committee in the development of communications plans where appropriate and to request the services of the Senate Communications Directorate for the purposes of their development and implementation;
That the chair be authorized to seek permission from the Senate to permit coverage by electronic media of the committee's public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings; and
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to allow such coverage at its discretion.
Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Item 13 refers to the time slot for regular meetings, which is Wednesdays when Senate rises but not before 4:15 p.m. and Thursdays at 10:30 a.m. The Tuesday date no longer applies. I do not know whether there was previous discussion at committee on this change.
Senator Stollery: There has not been any discussion, and I would like to know the reason behind the change. We have had the Tuesday and Wednesday time slots for a long time.
The Chair: I am curious about it, too.
Senator Smith: I assumed the leaderships agreed to the change. For the meeting that begins at 4:15 p.m. when will it adjourn usually? I am on another committee that same day. Will it adjourn around 6 p.m.?
The Chair: It begins when the Senate rises on Wednesdays, which is usually 4 p.m. if the motion passed today. I believe the committee will adjourn at 6:15 p.m.
Senator Smith: I want to clarify that because I have another subcommittee that starts at 6:30.
The Chair: We have to vacate the room anyway.
Senator Di Nino: I informed the committee that the leadership, in conjunction with Heather Lank, Principal Clerk of the Committees Directorate,had meetings and decided to restructure the sittings of committees based on acceptable arguments on behalf of both sides. This change is the result, therefore, yes, the leadership agreed on these changes.
The Chair: I understand now it is in blocks, so there are no —
Senator Di Nino: It is mainly because of that. I did not want to go through the whole exercise of the meetings, the discussion, and the pros and cons, some of which I may not fully articulate properly.
The leadership met at the suggestion of Heather Lank. Apparently, a meeting takes place every new session or every new Parliament, and it was decided to restructure the committee meetings at these times.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Downe: When the Liberal whip sent out the forms concerning which committees senators were interested in serving on, the new time slots for this committee were indicated on that form. I am sure the Conservative whip did the same thing.
Senator Stollery: I will not die over it, but I am always concerned. This committee is a senior one, and I am always concerned that we not be hustled. It happens around here.
If everyone thinks this is okay, fine. However, it is not unknown for a committee to lose its slot. For people who do not know about the process, it is competitive. We operate on a slot system, and it is complicated: If they change one thing, then they have to change a whole series of things.
With all respect to Heather Lank, who I have known for many years, I am a little bit puzzled as to why, after at least 20 years, a meeting was called when everyone who knows this committee knows when it meets and calls witnesses. It can be easier to have people appear on a Tuesday than on a Thursday, and all that kind of thing. I find it peculiar.
The Chair: These are the time slots we were given. I guess we will live with them for the moment.
Senator Stollery: Personally, I would argue that the time slot is up to the chair, but I think that question should be discussed with the leadership and with the Committees Directorate because I do not think it is proper to change the time slot, just like that. It has all kinds of implications. I am leaving, but it will affect people who are here long after I am.
The Chair: Your point is taken. We have other business. The meeting is an organizational meeting but we are in the middle of a study on Russia, India and China. We have had many witnesses, both by teleconference and in person. There was a visit to Moscow, Khanty-Mansiysk and also to China. I think it is an appropriate point for Senator Di Nino to tell us what is left to complete in this study in his eyes. Then, perhaps Senator Stollery can add to Senator Di Nino's comments, since they were in the leadership on this committee before we broke.
This has been a public meeting to this point. Should we go in camera for this part? Do you want to discuss future business and the report in camera?
Senator Di Nino: For the record, other than personnel matters, I do not think any meetings of the Senate should be in camera. That is my opinion.
The Chair: Can I invite the analysts to come up? I think we have Natalie Mychajlyszyn here, if you have questions.
Senator Di Nino, can you tell us what your expectations were for the study?
Senator Di Nino: Chair, we have invested a great deal of time, energy, effort and money into a study that we believed, and still believe, to be an important study. The Foreign Affairs Committee deals with trade issues — the relationships between Canada and the rest of the world — with an emphasis on those three countries; Russia, India and China. Trade is probably the single most important economic issue that our country deals with on a regular basis. It is probably as important to Canada as it is for any other nation — perhaps more so than for most others.
I believe we should complete the study. At this point, I am not prepared to make specific recommendations, but I believe we should complete the study. The Russian component of the study should be updated for any changes that have taken place since we completed our visit and prepared the interim report, which was never tabled.
I think the China study is nearly at the same level, though maybe not as far advanced, since the report is still in draft form. We did not have a chance to discuss it before we rose. The third component is the component on India. We have met with a number of witnesses in Canada. We did not travel to India. Whether it is necessary or important to travel to India we will leave for another discussion, but I think we should at least complete the part of the study that relates to the Canadian component.
India has taken a huge interest in Canada, and ministers are travelling to Canada on a regular basis from India. They are seeking to increase and enhance the relationship. I was asked to meet with a minister, and I am not sure what his exact title is, who will be in Ottawa — and I stand to be corrected — on March 24 and 25 to discuss trade relations with Canada. If he is not the trade minister, he is related to that portfolio.
I think we should invite the minister to come and chat with us. At this point, I am reluctant to recommend that we undertake any travel until we have some direction and indication from the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration regarding where they see the expenditures of funds for the Senate for the coming year, particularly as the expenditures relate to international travel. The Prime Minister made a comment on this issue, in effect suggesting that some consideration should be given to reducing international travel during this fiscal year.
Regardless, I strongly believe that we should complete the study. Two thirds of it, or perhaps 85 per cent of it, has been completed, and we should undertake to complete the rest, report it and then move on to other things.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Di Nino. A draft of a generic order of reference for the committee has been circulated to you. We can either pass that draft today or defer it. The other one is basically the wording of the existing order of reference for Russia, India and China. That is for your consideration.
Senator Smith: With regard to the Russia trip and our report, of course, we have been out of commission since prorogation. Therefore, we have not been focusing on it.
For those who were on that trip, the issue that came up more often than anything else was the visa problems. We heard a lot about them in Moscow and even more in Khanty-Mansiysk. There is a fundamental clause in the statute that, frankly, may not work well. This clause relates to countries that were non-democratic and to people involved in previous governments not being eligible for visas, including a committee chair in the Russian Parliament. We heard much about that issue when we were there.
We gave indications to Canadian business people how this issue triggered other problems, and also we gave indications to the Russians with whom we spoke that we would look into the issue. I believe our thinking at the time was that we would have witnesses from the department appear, to try to get a handle on the problem. Minister Stockwell Day was here about 18 months ago and, as I recall, he acknowledged there were issues, but we were not focused specifically on that issue.
I do not suggest what conclusion we should reach, but I think we need to do our homework on this issue. We need to do what we said we would: study it, hear witnesses who have expertise on the problem and hear suggestions how fine- tuning might fix the problem. This issue may require an amendment to the current law.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Madam Chair, there is no question that the committee should complete this study. Such fastidious work cannot be abandoned.
That said, with all due respect, I think that we are being a little generous by giving ourselves until December 16. We could take care of this by the summer adjournment.
[English]
We have four months to finish that study. Then we can start on something new. To Senator Di Nino's comment that 85 per cent of the work has been done, let us finish the last 15 per cent.
Senator Segal: To support my colleague, Senator Nolin, it would be dreadful if we spent the whole year on a study and did not complete it. We can complete it sooner.
There are pressing issues. There are 10 flights per week between Caracas and Tehran, some of which are transport flights. The concept issue for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is being sorted out before the end of fall, which is a serious foreign policy question for Canada.
We will have discussions under the chair's leadership on what the next agenda item should be, but I agree with my colleague that completing this other study as quickly as possible without travel will be constructive.
Senator Stollery: I endorse what Senator Di Nino has said.
One point that has not been raised is that Senator Di Nino had what we all thought was a good interim report on Russia. As you will remember, chair, Senator Di Nino suggested in Russia that we would prepare a special report on Russia and we all thought he had a good report. Unfortunately, we did not anticipate prorogation and it was not passed as quickly as it could have been. However, it can be passed any time.
I also agree with having this report wrapped up by the end of June. I think that is right. It seems to me that the proof was with Russia and China. It is always like that. We sit around the table here and hear witnesses, which is important. However, when we go somewhere, everyone changes their mind in about 24 hours and suddenly they have a totally different view of the situation. That was the case in Russia and China. It was simply amazing.
I support that we go to India. The study should be wrapped up by the end of June. I completely subscribe to that goal. We need to have witnesses appear before the committee because we have not had enough witnesses address India. We can complete the entire study and include a trip to India.
In addition, if the Indian government looks at this committee, they will see that we had a valuable working trip to Russia. I think the people who participated will agree with me. The trip to China was also valuable. In one week, we visited Beijing, Shanghai and Canton to see all the factories and such. It is not easy, but we accomplished this goal in one week.
I think we should try to do that in India. I basically agree and endorse what Senator Di Nino said. This trade is Canada's future. Our biggest trading partner is the U.S., but that trade has been declining, and trade with these countries is obviously important for Canadian jobs.
Senator Wallin: I propose the longer draft motion regarding this trip that the standing committee continue to examine this subject with the amendment that the study be completed by June 30 and that we ask the subcommittee to wrestle with the issue of travel and to come back to us with a report.
The Chair: I have no problem with the June 30 date because it makes us sharp. If we cannot meet it, we will have a justifiable reason for an extension. I prefer to approach it that way rather than having the longer completion date, if there is agreement. I presume there is no difficulty with the other draft on our generic terms of reference. We will have to move that motion.
Senator Nolin: Senator Wallin made the comment I wanted to make.
It is up to the subcommittee to decide. Listening to Senator Di Nino, when members of the leadership talk about freezing costs, they are not saying it for fun. Let us start thinking of a plan B. We may have to use teleconferences to finish the study. However, if the Internal Economy Committee decides we can travel, let us do it.
The Chair: Does anyone else want to express an opinion? If not, I gather that we can pass the first motion and I will ask for a mover.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I so move.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Then we will proceed to the Russia, India and China study, changing the completion date to June 30.
Senator Smith: We make the change with the understanding that we can extend it if necessary. I think the odds for needing an extension are about 95 per cent.
The Chair: It is suggested that if we move to June 30, we retain all powers necessary to publicize findings —
Senator Nolin: End of the year?
Mr. Lafreniere: Most other motions we have are 90 days or 180 days after tabling the report.
Senator Wallin: We do not want to have the date in the summer, therefore we should agree on 180 days.
The Chair: Okay, with those amendments —
Senator Smith: What is the date now?
The Chair: The final report shall be no later than June 30, 2010, and retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings no later than —
Senator Wallin: Simply put, it is December.
The Chair: We should leave it at December 31, 2010.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Madam Chair, I move the motion, as amended.
[English]
The Chair: We have a mover. Let us deal with Russia, India and China. We have the two amendments that we are clear on. Senator Fortin-Duplessis has moved that motion. Is there agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We also have what I call the more generic order of reference to examine issues.
Senator Wallin: So moved.
The Chair: Is there any discussion? If not, is it agreed?
Senator Nolin: I have a quick question. I am all for that order of reference, but how will it work? The subcommittee will monitor the world and come up with suggestions, or will the committee give suggestions?
The Chair: Both: Also, if there is a visiting delegation, the steering committee determines whether the committee should meet with the delegation or meet informally. It gives us the flexibility to deal with international issues, but it still must follow the routine.
Senator Nolin: Good.
The Chair: We have agreed to the two motions. The steering committee will then meet to determine the remaining work on the Russia, India and China study.
Senator Nolin: We have to agree to that.
The Chair: I asked if there was agreement and there was, yes; I did not hear a ``no.'' I think we will leave it with that, with any further suggestions or input on the China, India and Russia study. So that it is not open-ended, I heard that we have more witnesses. I will look at the list that the steering committee had before, and speak to our researcher on that part. If there are any other witnesses that you want, can you bring their names forward as quickly as possible? If you think we need more witnesses who have not been identified to the researcher, bring them forward now and not later.
Senator Di Nino wishes to raise an issue.
Senator Di Nino: I assume that this part of the meeting is not in camera; it is public, open.
Madam Chair, one of our fine analysts, Jennifer Paul, who spent about a year and a half with our committee and performed great work on the report of the Export Development Corporation as well as on the study we talked about, Russia, China and India, has moved on to bigger and better places. I wanted to put on the record that we appreciated her support, her great work, and the extra hours that she normally put in to look after our needs. She has been a valuable member of our team. Officially, I want to thank her and wish her luck.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Stollery: Our side seconds that. We were all in China together and she worked hard.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I will convey that appreciation in a written form to her.
(The committee adjourned.)