FAIT Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, June 11, 2003

º

1635

The Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.))

The Honourable Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs)

º

1640

º

1645

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance)

º

1650

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Bill Graham

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.)

Mr. Stockwell Day

The Chair

º

1655

Mr. Bill Graham

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Bill Graham

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Bill Graham

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Bill Graham

»

1700

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Bill Graham

Mr. James Wright (Assistant Deputy Minister, Global and Security Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade)

Mr. Bill Graham

The Chair

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ)

»

1705

The Vice-Chair (Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.))

Mr. Bill Graham

Ms. Francine Lalonde

»

1710

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau)

Mr. Bill Graham

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau)

Mr. Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Bill Graham

Mr. Art Eggleton

Mr. Bill Graham

»

1715

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau)

Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.)

Mr. Bill Graham

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau)

»

1720

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP)

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau)

Mr. Bill Graham

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Mr. Bill Graham

»

1725

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau)

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ)

Mr. Bill Graham

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Mr. Bill Graham

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau)

Mr. Bill Graham

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau)

Mr. Bill Graham

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau)

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

---

NUMBER 042

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, June 11, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

º  (1635)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.)): Order, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), for consideration of the content of the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004.

    We have the pleasure to welcome here, and to welcome back to Canada, our Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Bill Graham.

    As well, we welcome as witnesses, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Mr. James Wright, Assistant Deputy Minister, Global and Security Policy, and--soon, probably--Ms. Kathryn McCallion, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Passport and Consular Affairs.

    Minister, two weeks ago we had the deputy minister here in front of the committee regarding the estimates. Now it's a type of follow-up concerning the estimates and requests from the members.

    The floor is yours, Mr. Minister, if you have an introductory statement.

    The Honourable Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, colleagues. Please note that there is a foreign delegation here, so I hope you'll be polite to me today and not teach them any bad habits. Please do not teach bad habits to our guests; that's my recommendation to each and every one of you.

    I'm glad to be here. I apologize to all of you that I was unable, because of my strenuous travel program, to appear on the estimates. As you said, the deputy minister was able to brief you.

    Let me quickly bring you up to date on the reasons I was travelling so much. I was at the G-8 meeting in Paris--and I'd be happy to answer specific questions about it--where we covered transatlantic relations, counter-terrorism, North Korea, and non-proliferation.

    I also did a group of bilateral visits in Europe, including Budapest and Warsaw, where some of our colleagues today are here from.

    I then attended, with the Prime Minister, the Canada-EU summit in Athens, primarily focused on taking stock of two main exercises begun at the summit last December in Ottawa--namely, the design of a trade and investment enhancement agreement between Canada and Europe and the review of our relations with European Union.

    At the NATO ministerial in Madrid, discussions focused on the future of the alliance. Participants reaffirmed NATO's readiness to take on roles and missions in new parts of the world. Major issues raised included NATO support for ISAP in Afghanistan. We considered this, colleagues, a success of our policy. We spent a great deal of effort persuading our NATO colleagues that NATO would play an important role in the support of ISAP, which enables us to play a better role. Assistance for the Polish-led stabilization force in Iraq was discussed, and cooperation with the EU.

    We also reviewed the implementation of the NATO Prague summit commitments, and noted progress in enlarging NATO.

    Colleagues, I think I would note that Canada was the first NATO ally to ratify the accession protocols for admitting the seven new NATO partners. They were extremely appreciative of that.

    Yesterday, as you may know, I arrived back from meetings in Chile of the Organization of American States, where I chaired two meetings with the foreign ministers from Central America and from the Caribbean. Discussions at the OAS focused on the crisis of democracy in the hemisphere and how to strengthen institutions in order to bring the benefits of democracy to the people of the Americas.

    At that time, I also handed over, on behalf of Canada, the chairmanship of the summit process to Argentina, which will now carry it forward. Canada was carrying it up to the Quebec summit and following the Quebec summit, and now it's Argentina's responsibility to organize the next summit in 2005.

    So I hope you'll agree that my delay in appearing before the committee was the result of international engagements that are an extremely important part of representing Canada abroad.

    As you pointed out, Mr. Chair, you were briefed a few weeks ago by the deputy minister on the main estimates. He outlined the current financial situation of the department and some of the relevant considerations of the international environment in which we operate.

    Very briefly, the department's main estimates for 2003-04 total $1.75 billion. This represents a net increase of nearly 6% from last year. That's the good news. As my deputy minister informed you, however, that increase must be viewed in light of the rigidity of the department's budget on the one hand and the effects of cuts, over a decade, in our resources.

    These cuts have reduced the department's A-base by nearly 26% in real terms since 1990-91. Meanwhile, the volume and scope of the department's work has increased. I don't have to tell people around this table that globalization has meant that a great number of issues we once considered domestic are now considered international, requiring a negotiation of new instruments and treaties and extensive cooperation on various initiatives with international organizations.

    As well, the number of relations we manage on a bilateral basis has multiplied since the creation of many new countries following the end of the Cold War.

º  (1640)  

[Translation]

    The need to deal with new threats here in Canada as well as to Canadians abroad has prompted the commitment of additional resources to my department, but we have also reassigned funds internally in order to respond to these pressures. For example, the enhancement of our representation and advocacy programs in the United States has resulted in the injection of new money in the last budget.

    However, dealing with new threats caused the department to substantially exceed its resources. The impact of these pressures on departmental resources was very clear to the Canadian public, since Canadians who took part in our Dialogue on foreign policy told me they wanted our country to play a more active role on the international scene.

    Citizens want us to keep on doing what we already do and also to take new initiatives abroad. So the political system will have to think of our foreign policy priorities and of what we need in order to support it.

    I will get back to the process of the dialogue in a moment.

    But first, Mr. Chair, I want to commend this committee for its comprehensive report on North American relations, which was tabled in the House in December, and for its recent support of the Dialogue on foreign policy. These reports with help stimulate the reflection of the government on these issues.

    Your next report on Canada's relations with the Islamic world will definitely be very helpful and will provide us with an very useful tool to address such a complex and important issue in our present world.

    I am also looking forward to your report on humanitarian crises in Africa which I understand to be almost ready. These conflicts have killed, maimed and displaced more civilians in Africa than in any other region of the world. Their catastrophic consequences included the propagation of disease and the destruction of health care, agricultural and education systems.

    In the Africa Action Plan that the leaders of the G-8 agreed upon last year in Kananaskis, peace and security are considered as essential conditions to end crises in Africa and ensure future development of the continent.

    At Evian, the leaders of the G-8 agreed on a plan to reinforce Africa's capacity to undertake peacekeeping operations. They also agreed to keep working together in support of mine action and small arms control in Africa.

    One of the most dangerous challenges that we face in Africa is the situation in Eastern Congo, which is presently the theater of human rights violations and crimes against humanity. The Secretary General of the United Nations has asked member states, and particularly France, to provide troops for a temporary international emergency force to limit hostilities until the United Nations observation mission in Congo can receive reinforcements.

    Canadian forces have played a role in this region contributing two Hercules aircraft and the support staff presently on site to prepare airlift operations in support of the multinational force. Eight Canadian staff officers are also being deployed to the United Nations observation mission.

    Since 1998, Canadian military and development assistance to the Congo exceeded $80 million, of which $6 million were directed last year to the Eastern provinces. Since January 2003, more than $9 million went to humanitarian aid.

    Mr. Chair, I will skip my notes because I know you are in a hurry. So, in closing, I want to stress that in the last few years, Canada played a major role internationally in order to keep Africa's needs in the forefront of world issues. Obviously, Africa's many crises cannot be dealt with easily or rapidly. Their resolution will require all concerned stakeholders to show patience and perseverance.

º  (1645)  

[English]

    Finally, I would like to bring this committee up to date with the dialogue on foreign policy, which was launched in January. The public consultations were diverse, innovative, and highly successful in gathering advice from citizens across the country.

    I understand that many of you as MPs participated in these activities. Some 12,000 copies of the dialogue discussion paper were distributed. I took part in 15 town halls across Canada, attended by more than 3,000 people. There were more than 60,000 visits to the website, with 22,000 copies of the paper downloaded. We held 19 expert round tables, and I attended a national youth forum as well. We received written submissions from a huge range of civil society organizations, private sector groups, and individuals. Provincial and territorial governments were consulted, and parliamentarians participated by holding meetings with their constituents.

    As I mentioned earlier, this committee itself has contributed importantly to the dialogue through its hearings and numerous reports.

    Out of the variety of views we heard, there was common ground on some major themes. A large majority of participants strongly believe Canada can best advance global security by working within the framework of the United Nations to strengthen the multilateral system based on the rule of law. At the same time, Canadians want to see reform in international organizations to make them more effective.

    Most dialogue participants also stressed that Canada's position as a long-standing friend, neighbour, and ally of the world's only superpower makes close relations with the United States a fundamental foreign policy priority.

    Canadians strongly endorse a broad notion of security that sees our own security at home as dependent on the stability, order, and prosperity of the global community. Across the country, Canadians voices urge that the benefits of globalization must be shared more widely within and between countries.

    I also was struck by the strong desire among citizens to make our country better known abroad in all of its diversity, opportunity, and expertise. Through educational and cultural channels, through trade promotion and diplomatic outreach, and through the concrete achievements of a reinvigorated foreign agenda, in agreement with this committee's recommendation and your own dialogue report, citizens urge greater coherence between what we call the “three Ds”--diplomacy, defence, and development--to enable us to achieve more in the world.

    Widespread engagement in town halls, on the website, and in written submissions reaffirm for me that Canadians want global engagement more than ever.

    This month I'll release a report to Canadians summarizing, from what we have heard, their advice from informed discussions that we'll be having in the cabinet and with others, as the government proceeds with the work of policy development.

    Thank you for this opportunity to tell you what I've been up to recently. I welcome, obviously, any questions you have.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

    I just want to tell my colleagues that there will be a call for a vote at 5:15, which has left us with 40 minutes. We'll have nine-minute rounds. I'll be very strict on the nine minutes.

    We'll start with Mr. Day, and then Mr. Martin and Mr. Obhrai. If you want to ask all your questions, and the minister can't answer all of them, he can submit a written answer afterwards.

    Mr. Day, please.

[English]

    Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what we propose. We realize that time may prohibit the minister from responding publicly here, and we would appreciate the written response.

    I do want to thank the minister for his time and also for the time of his staff, who are always diligent about getting back to my office in terms of the requests I send there.

    Mr. Minister, through the chair, there are conflicting schools of statecraft, as the minister knows as a former international relations professor. There's the old realpolitik school, which taught us to be concerned principally with oil wells and battleships; our national interest had little to do with values itself. This is how western democracies approached the whole area of diplomacy. On the other side of the equation, democracy should have no problem allying with this dictator or that dictator as long as the amoral alliance served our amoral interest.

    On the other side, the other school, of course, is the idealist school, which taught democracies to advance democracy and freedom simply as moral goods, regardless of national interest.

    As you know, I suggest a different perspective. There's the realist goal of advancing our national interest and the idealist ambition of advancing our values. These are actually compatible and mutually reliant.

    We will not fully realize, in terms of Canada, our economic prosperity or peace in international arenas until we live in a world where more people enjoy their natural right to individual freedoms--freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise, freedom to own property.

    We as Canadians won't be truly secure until a larger part of the world is democratic. It is in our enlightened national interest to advance freedom and democracy around the world, and to do it vigorously.

    This all begs the question, how has our government specifically performed in the function of advancing democracy, and how have we confronted the worst offenders against democracy? Specifically, for instance, there's Iran, a theocratic dictatorship implicated with weapons of mass destruction, with intelligence reports that the regime in Iran is headed towards and has the intention of producing nuclear weapons, and yet a government minister from Canada invited a minister from Iran for a parliamentary lunch. I do not have a problem with that. It's good to have that communication. But when asked the question, our government minister said he never once raised the question of weapons or terrorism, nuclear weapons, or human rights.

    Kim Jong-il's Stalinist regime stated this week its open intention to build a nuclear weapon. They stated that openly. Australia is now in discussions with the U.S. about a mission to intercept North Korean ships suspected of carrying missiles, and yet to our knowledge, Canada's playing no role in the mission and is not vocalizing any support for that. Why is that?

    On the terrorism side, the Assad dictatorship in Syria welcomes Hamas and other terrorist groups to their headquarters in Damascus, and these are the same Syrian-funded terrorists responsible for the evil bombing murders we witnessed in Israel this morning. And yet our government....

    I'm saying, Mr. Minister, the appearance is that we see a lack of specific strong and public confrontations against these terrorist states.

    My question specifically--and I do mean specifically--is what has the government done, and on what dates, to publicly confront Syria's state-sponsored terror or Iran's state-sponsored terror and North Korea's weapons proliferation and the direction they have indicated? Specifically, what is the government doing to encourage democracy in those three countries?

    I'd like the minister to be specific. I realize he may have to do some of this in writing about the dates on which he and other government ministers specifically took action on these questions.

    The next question goes to Dr. Martin.

º  (1650)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Day.

    Dr. Martin, please.

    Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Graham, Mr. Wright, and Ms. McCallion, thank you for being here.

    I have two questions, Minister. And we're just going to pose our questions--

    The Chair: Yes, we'll proceed with questions from the Canadian Alliance. If you can't answer them because there's no time, you can give a written answer.

    Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you very much--

    An hon. member: Mr. Chair, I have a problem with that.

    Mr. Bill Graham: In terms of statements that are made, my understanding is that ministers Dhaliwal and Rock met with the Iranian minister, and both raised human rights and WMD concerns with them. The Canadian government's policy with Iran is always to do that. We did it with the G-8 foreign ministers, and we're working on that--

    An hon. member: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

    Mr. Bill Graham: I don't mind giving written answers to the questions, but I think if we're going to start to front-load the questions with a lot of allegations that I have trouble with, I think you have to give me an opportunity to answer the allegations.

    The Chair: Madam Carroll.

    Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): I have a point of order.

    I realize that Mr. Day is enjoying the benefit of the television cameras, and it would appear to me that the tirade was exactly that. I think most of us understood that the minister had given of his time to come and honestly have a dialogue with members. I object to any tirade like that, which is deliberately designed and timed to prevent any possible dialogue.

    Mr. Stockwell Day: On the point of order, Mr. Chair, this is supposed to be a democratic institution. We are not like some of the regimes I just mentioned.

    Because the minister has a very busy schedule, we get him for 10 minutes, and we're going to ask some questions. We will not be stifled by government members who are worried about the tone of the questions.

    The Chair: Mr. Day, that's not a point of order, first of all. I chair the committee.

    Five minutes have already passed of the nine minutes. I'll ask the minister if he wants to give a very short answer to Mr. Day, and after that we'll go to Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Graham, a very short answer, please.

º  (1655)  

    Mr. Bill Graham: Very quickly, I agree with Mr. Day in that I think we need a balance of, I can say, a realistic view of Canadian interests, but at the same time one that's informed by our values. Where our problem will come, of course, is that we will differ necessarily in values in some circumstances, and that's what politics is all about.

    In terms of confronting terrorism, there's no question about where we are. It's been clear from what we're doing in Afghanistan, our previous role in the Persian Gulf, and our efforts there.

    Specifically on Iran, I'll tell you, Mr. Day, I spoke to the foreign minister in Paris when I met him there. I specifically raised all of these issues.

    We're quite active in the IAEA with our colleagues, particularly from the United States. I spoke to Mr. Powell about that when we were down in Santiago.

    On North Korea, we strongly support the U.S. position in terms of making sure there's a multilateral negotiation; they feel this is the best way we can deal with it. We certainly made that clear to the North Korean government.

    With Syria as well, we've made it clear that we do not tolerate support of terrorism.

    So that is what we all have in common. We'll probably disagree on specifics, but I think Canadian foreign policy, and I think Canadians, would strongly support those positions.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

    Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Keith Martin: Again, thank you, Minister Graham, Mr. Wright, and Ms. McCallion for being here today.

    Two quick questions. One, DFAIT allocated $30 million in the 2002-03 estimates to fund the Centre for International Governance Innovation. This is one-third of the department's peacekeeping contribution, and this contribution has nothing to do with peacekeeping.

    While we're 31st in UN peacekeeping contributions in the world right now, why do the departments spend a third of our peacekeeping budget in this endeavour that has nothing to do with peacekeeping?

    My second question is, a few years ago we put forth a document--

    Mr. Bill Graham: Can I ask you a specific question? Is this the centre that is located at the University of Waterloo?

    Mr. Keith Martin: It's called the Centre for International Governance Innovation. I don't know where it's located.

    Mr. Bill Graham: Okay.

    Mr. Keith Martin: Second, a few years ago, Mr. Minister, we put forth a very brilliant document, The Responsibility to Protect, and yet in Congo five years later, after three and a half million people have been killed, we're starting to get involved. In Zimbabwe, eight million people's lives are at risk. In northern Uganda, more than 200,000 are dead.

    We're not on the radar screen. We're not on the map. We don't match our rhetoric with action. Why have we not breathed life into the Responsibility to Protect document to prevent genocide and to protect innocent civilians?

    Mr. Bill Graham: Very quickly, I'll give you a written answer on the Centre for International Governance. I'm not too sure about the specifics of where it's located in the budget, but I do believe it will perform a very important function in terms of global governance issues, which is extremely important. In fact, I'll be in New York later this week meeting with some top people from the international financial community, looking at how Canada can make a greater contribution. That will be tied in with that centre's work. I'll check on the provenance of the funds, but I believe this will make an important contribution.

    You mentioned Responsibility to Protect, which was of course a report that this government was very supportive of in having it produced by the United Nations. I agree with you there's a challenge to refine the concept as to when we're entitled to intervene in the internal states of other countries under that, and we are working on that.

    On the specific issues you mention--I believe you mentioned Uganda--of course we see northern Uganda as being tied to Sudan. I raised that with the Sudanese minister when he was here. I agree with you that it's a terrible situation. We are working with IGAD as closely as we can to try to bring peace. We believe that if we can bring stability to southern Sudan, we'll be going a long way to being able to resolve the issue in northern Uganda. That's the approach we're taking there.

    On Congo, as I mentioned in my introductory comments...and I was on the phone to Marc-André Brault, the special envoy. You could speak to him directly, I would suggest, because I know you're very interested. You might want to talk to him. He's in contact with the UN. I'll tell him that he should speak to you, if you like, or we could give you his coordinates.

    Basically, of course, we have our two aircraft in support of the French mission, which, I don't hide from you, we have some concerns about, but we believe it's a good start at least to starting peace, at least around...

»  (1700)  

    Mr. Keith Martin: Bunia.

    Mr. Bill Graham: Bunia. And if we can get that going, we have a chance then of reducing it.

    As you know, at one time there were six hostile armies operating within Congo. We actually have the army sort of settled down, and now it's a question of settling down the civilian or terrorist groups or non-regular groups, if you like, that are operating in the area. It's a big challenge, but we've started it.

    And I'm sorry, the other country was...?

    Mr. James Wright (Assistant Deputy Minister, Global and Security Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Zimbabwe.

    Mr. Bill Graham: Right.

    Zimbabwe remains a preoccupation of the Commonwealth. I spoke to our Commonwealth partners in the Caribbean when I was there on Monday. I continually raise this as an important issue that we should be engaged in. I will tell you, we're getting some support for our Commonwealth colleagues from the Caribbean. I think that's very important for us, because we don't just portray it as, you know, the white colonial powers against an African country, which is what Mr. Mugabe seeks to do.

    So we want to recruit people to work on this. It's going to come up at the Commonwealth in Nigeria, when the heads of government meet there. We will have to deal with it there.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

[English]

    Mr. Obhrai, one 30-second question, no answer. You will get a written answer.

    Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): That's fine, Mr. Minister.

    When NEPAD was first set in Kananaskis, I pointed out the fact that the peer review system was its Achilles heel. Yesterday we had a round table conference on Africa and NEPAD here at Parliament Hill, and this was pointed out by the South Africans over there that, one, the president of Namibia has said the peer review system.... Well, he totally brushed it aside. And now Mr. Mbeki is saying that the peer review system for NEPAD is actually a voluntary system and will not be applied wherever the other country does not want it. This will put NEPAD back into jeopardy, and will again bring the same concerns that everybody had.

    So what is actually your government's point of view on NEPAD? Specifically, what are you doing about the peer review system?

    The Chair We are going to go right away to Madam Lalonde. Mr. Graham is going to give a written answer.

[Translation]

    Madame Lalonde, please.

    Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Minister, thank you for coming. We noted that you were unable to be here last week, so I will not speak about the budget and I will get right away to the hot issues of the hour.

    The first hot issue, not only for me but for many Quebecers, I'm sure, is the commitment made by Canada to negotiate with the US about its participation to the ballistic missile shield. The security argument is not very convincing to me because I'm sure it's much safer to stay out than to opt in.

    Yesterday, an expert told us that there was no way Canada could negotiate the use of space by the US and that Canada would have nothing to say about it. In his opinion, we should participate in order to get information. But I am absolutely incapable of publicly defending such a position. Far from convincing me, his arguments reinforced my opposition to the idea.

    What is dangerous is a new arms race triggered by the end of the balance of terror. What we need is a powerful multilateral movement, a strong action by the international community to influence those who want to move away from the policies agreed upon in the past. Canada can surely have a distinct role to play in that regard.

    That being said, Mr. Minister, I want to stress that the foreign policy review was rather short and that many people feel that we need a true review so that everyone will know what the major thrusts of the Canadian strategy are. In that regard, the fact that we find it difficult to contribute to missions such as the one to the Congo may convince me that we need an increase in our defence spending but I would want to be sure the money will be used to fund peacekeeping operations and not, in any shape or form, an involvement in the ballistic missile shield.

    I also have a question about Kabul. For security reasons, you are delaying the opening of a Canadian embassy until January. Isn't the situation alarming? Do we have to expect difficulties similar to those experienced in Iraq?

    I mentioned the Congo. We held a press conference – others will talk to you about it – asking unanimously to seriously consider sending a substantial number of Canadian soldiers and civilian police because without security, there is no development. The Congo and neighbouring countries form a large part of Africa.

»  (1705)  

    The Vice-Chair (Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.)): Thank you, Madame Lalonde.

    Mr. Graham, please.

    Mr. Bill Graham: I will begin with Afghanistan. Obviously, it would be naive not to be concerned with this issue: this a far away land, the situation is complex et there are huge problems. That being said, I don't agree when you say that we delayed our decision regarding the embassy. Circumstances make it necessary to plan ahead the opening of this embassy. It's a matter of security. Kabul is a complex and unsafe environment. We need security first. But we will have people on site in July. CIDA has already some officials there. Therefore, we have representatives in Kabul and we will pursue our policy.

    I agree that there is a relationship between security, development and our foreign policy. I talked about it when I went to NATO and the G-8. In Paris, I attended an international conference on the drug routes from central Asia to Europe organized by the French Department of Foreign Affairs. Everyone agrees that we must coordinate our action, but we need security first. This is why we're providing 2,000 troops in Afghanistan starting early July, for a period of one year, with the help of NATO. We consider this to be very important.

    As to the review of foreign policy, I can write to you about it since, obviously, it's a matter of government policy. However, I believe the first phase of our dialogue with Canadians was a success. Now, I have to discuss things with my Cabinet colleagues in order to determine exactly what our second report will look like.

    On the issue of the ballistic missile shield, I was concerned a few years ago about a possible new arms race because Russia was opposed to the idea. Two things have changed in the last couple of years. First, as you know, Russians withdrew their objections. Second, the Americans are going to do it, with or without us. Now, the question is to determine how we can influence future events. We believe we would be in a better position to do it if we are sitting at the table. This is what I said to Mr. Powell when I met him last week.

    Obviously, you have a different point of view. Ours is that we have to be there to influence events, Canada's security and the use of space. So, we're going to do it--

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: But Canada has considerably more to loose than win. People among the staunchest supporters of the ballistic missile shield told us that Canada would have no way of influencing the United States on matters related to the military use of space. When you know that the United Kingdom sided with the United States on Iraq and that being there with the Americans did not help the British influence the US administration, you can hardly imagine how Canada – with its image of multilateralism and cooperation with others – can side with the United States and its new strategic doctrine based on the ballistic missile shield, which very clearly says that in phases 2 and 3... I have lots of statements here:

[English]

    “U.S. planning to control outer space”.

[Translation]

    Canada has everything to lose. You cannot get involved this way without doing much harm and betraying a major part of what was--

»  (1710)  

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): Madame Lalonde, if you would give Mr. Graham time to respond, he may provide you with a very brief answer.

    Mr. Bill Graham: We remain firmly committed to our policies on multilateralism and non-weaponization of space. To get back to your last comment, I believe that we stand a better chance to assert our point of view if we are sitting at the table than if we were absent. But on the issues of multilateralism and North American defence, we have always closely cooperated with the United States. On North American defence, we have an unparalleled bilateral relationship. We have NORAD and we have a defence agreement. It's in our own interest. Therefore, it's also in our interest to have discussions with our American colleagues to determine how we can benefit from this system and guarantee North American defence and Canada's defence.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): Thank you, Madame Lalonde and Mr. Graham

[English]

    We're going to go to Mr. Eggleton.

    Again, we're going to try to stick to the time limits, please.

    Mr. Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.): Minister, as you know, there are many challenges in the world today with respect to peace and security, but to me, and I think to many members on this committee, the most compelling at this point in time is Congo.

    In Congo, the international community and Canada need to stop the genocide. We all watched what happened in Rwanda. We said we would not let that kind of thing happen again, and yet here it is, happening again.

    Our response to it at this committee has been to pass a resolution indicating our concern about it. Perhaps you're aware of that. At the same time, we said that we felt there needed to be more of an involvement in particularly military or policing operations. I regret that we aren't doing more than what has been allocated.

    I think this should be a major priority, which means either the reallocation of troops maybe from Bosnia or an addition to the defence budget that would provide for more troops. I know that's not your department. Nevertheless, the concern about being able to stop the genocide is something we could be providing a greater response to. It's a very inadequate response in terms of what we are providing at this point in time.

    I wonder if you could comment, though, about the international community in general and what it's doing. We know France is sending peace support operation peacekeepers there. That doesn't seem to be enough either. Is there more happening? We know that even the peacekeepers going there are confined in terms of the area. They are not covering perhaps a large enough area to deal with this problem.

    And what more can Canada do? We really should be doing an awful lot more, particularly when you remember our experience in Rwanda.

    Mr. Bill Graham: That is a highly legitimate observation, but I'm not sure I'd start from the premise that it is the greatest challenge to peace and security. I think the biggest challenge to peace and security relevant to Canadians is solving the complicated puzzle of what's happening in the Middle East, including Afghanistan, Iraq, and so on--

    Mr. Art Eggleton: I mean urgent, in an urgent sense.

    Mr. Bill Graham: --in terms of security issues of what we have to face in getting rid of terrorism and things like that. So I think we'd all agree that this is...and I think that is where we have put our emphasis. That's one reason why we can't put resources everywhere; we put substantial resources in Afghanistan in terms of military, with a huge commitment in terms of our aid.

    Accepting that, then, I accept your premise that Congo is a big issue. How we can contribute effectively to that is the question I put to Marc-André Brault, our special envoy. As I said to Dr. Martin, if you want to speak to him directly, I'm sure he'd be happy to tell you in more detail than I am exactly what we're doing. He's been very active in the past couple of years. Now, as you know, he is seconded by General Baril, who will be working specifically with Secretary General Annan's special envoy to see if they can reconstitute the armed forces in Congo.

    Going back to an earlier observation by one of the members, clearly security is the first thing, and there isn't security in the eastern part. We're starting that process by contributing to the Bunia operation. An argument could be made that we should be more aggressive, but basically the Secretary General authorized a certain type of operation there. The French and the European Union are largely driving it. What they requested from us was air support capacity, which we've been able to furnish.

    So within the framework of the international response, we're a player that's acting in response to trying to make sure that international mission works.

    In terms of our own activity, as I pointed out in my introductory remarks, we've put in substantial humanitarian assistance in Congo, amounting to $80 million since 1998. We've been putting more money now into the eastern provinces; some $9 million in humanitarian assistance has been allocated since January 2003. I understand that development minister Whelan is looking at another allocation.

    So we're trying, as usual, to see if we can combine developing security with humanitarian assistance and ultimately development assistance, because that's the challenge.

»  (1715)  

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): Thank you.

    I will go to Mr. Cotler, seeing as the Liberals haven't used up their nine minutes yet.

    You have approximately four and a half minutes, Mr. Cotler.

    Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Just to follow up, Congo has emerged as almost the greatest threat to human security, both in terms of the genocidal threat.... In fact, we've had acts of genocide already. As you know, Minister, over 3 million have died in that conflict since 1999. That is a horrific number.

    Right now, as I'm speaking to you, there's the threat of acts of genocide again, with some 16 million who are otherwise at risk in terms of urgent humanitarian assistance. I wonder if Canada can take the lead, because it seems to me what is needed at this point is for some country to take the lead, some country that will sound the alarm, that will generate wake-up calls to the international community.

    The United Nations' authorized force of 1,400 is simply limited in its resources and limited in its mandate. It's supposed to protect Bunia, as you mentioned, but most of the population from Bunia has fled to the countryside, where the massacres are taking place.

    In terms of humanitarian assistance, food aid can't come in. Medicine can't come in. And I could go on and on. It appears to me that Canada may be able--if it cannot itself redeploy its own forces, through the UN rapid reaction force, which we chair, through sending out a kind of warning that those who perpetrate these acts will be brought before the international court for crimes against humanity--mobilize international effort and humanitarian assistance.

    In other words, can we take the lead in a wake-up call to the international community?

    Mr. Bill Graham: There are a lot of issues in there, Mr. Cotler. I know your committee has been following the issue in Congo. I don't disagree with your analysis that this is a tremendous challenge, a tremendous threat to human security. The loss of life there has been terrible.

    What is the best way to go about doing it? Certainly, I believe strongly the best way we can contribute to doing it is to make sure that there is an effective multilateral approach to this. You say Canada should take the lead, but we don't want to go off independently. We have to try to work within the framework, particularly of the United Nations, because Secretary General Annan is seriously concerned about this too. We discussed it with him. As I say, he has his special envoy, and now General Baril. He is putting together a framework operation, based on a Security Council resolution that's been adopted, which authorizes the European Union and the French to take the lead in terms of the military muscle, if you like, to establish security.

    Could the rapid reaction force be used? My understanding is that technically the rapid reaction force is a matter for chapter 6, and this is a chapter 7 authorized operation. So it's kind of a complex thing, but we have been looking at that.

    I'm not averse to looking at all possible things we could do to be helpful in Congo. I know members want us to do that and I know Canadians want us to be responsive. As I said, Minister Whelan is looking at what additional aid she can find in her aid budget to be helpful in that area as well.

    What we're seeing at the moment, in my view, is the beginning of something. I think if we can get this started and have some success in Bunia, then I think we have an opportunity to move from there to extend it. But I think to go in there in a way that does everything at once would risk not succeeding, and then we'd be in a worse position.

    So we're starting with something. Let's get working on it. Let's take advantage of the fact that we've now got the UN mobilized. We've got countries mobilized. Canada's behind it, and we'll continue to see how we can be helpful.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): Thank you very much.

    I'll go now to Ms. McDonough for nine minutes.

    If you don't use it all, then I might get someone else in.

»  (1720)  

    Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Thank you very much.

    I appreciate Mr. Minister being here with the committee today.

    I have just come, as others have, from a seven-hour peace symposium, where there was a recurring theme, one of several, about the concern that the foreign policy expressed aspirations of this government in effect have become subservient to the defence dog--in a way, the defence dog that's now been brought to heel by the Bush administration.

    I want to just raise a concern about a couple of the areas that came up for mention.

    With respect to missile defence, I think it's fair to say that people are genuinely horrified at the denial by this government of the overwhelming evidence that's there for all to see that the Bush administration's intention is to weaponize space, and this is an important step in that direction; and that for Canada to sign on to that is to become complicit in not only the weaponization of space and the escalation of the arms race but also what will be a dangerous diversion of resources from what Canadians genuinely want this government concentrating on, which is the genuine human security agenda, which is to be fighting the issues of poverty and pollution and pandemics.

    So the question really is, what will be done about the extent to which the foreign affairs department's expressed aspirations seem now to be more and more subservient to a seemingly disconnected defence viewpoint of this government?

    Secondly, genuine interest is expressed by a great many of the peace academics, researchers, and activists around a role for Canada in the kind of rapid response, military capability that could deal with the kind of crisis in Congo, that could be informed by the horrifying lessons of Rwanda, for example. Again, there's a real concern that the diversion of resources into the madness of what is clearly part of Bush's foreign policy doctrine will mean that those resources won't be there to do the retraining and the reorientation of Canada's military to play that kind of very important interventionist role to prevent genocides and massive killings.

    The second area, and I'll just speak about this very directly, and not very flatteringly, references the fundamental ambiguousness of Canada's policy towards nuclear weapons. I'm just going to quote directly from one of the presentations.

    While ruling out the acquisition of its own nuclear weapons, Canada “also supports the continued possession of nuclear weapons by its allies, participates in a nuclear-armed alliance, and endorses NATO's plan to retain nuclear weapons 'for the foreseeable future.'” And while the Canadian government condemns any reliance on nuclear weapons by non-allied countries, it “continues to treat those same weapons as a useful--even necessary--element of Canada's defences....”

    The question really is, where is the integrity in Canada's policy with respect to nuclear weapons if one looks at that kind of ambiguity?

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): Minister Graham.

    Mr. Bill Graham: Starting with the last point, I don't see that our alliance in NATO is in any way inconsistent with our consistently expressed desire to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world and ultimately to get to where the nuclear non-proliferation treaty says that everybody will give them up. But we have to recognize that we live in a world that is extremely complex and not without danger, and that NATO remains one of our most important alliances, and the United States--

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]...safer with more nuclear weapons?

    Mr. Bill Graham: I mean, let's take this statement; you don't want us associating with anybody with nuclear weapons. So for defending North America we're going to cut ourselves off from the United States? I don't think the majority of Canadians believe that is a way we should go in terms of protecting ourselves. We have to protect North America.

    NATO in fact is looking for a way in which it can play a more positive role in the world. It really is. Take a look at this business of helping in Afghanistan. I think that's the very way in which NATO...it's out of exercise. A lot of people are looking at it. NATO itself is trying to understand how it can be more effective as a way of getting security.

    Within NATO we've been pushing for a nuclear review. We agree we have to constantly push for reducing nuclear weapons. But I wouldn't honestly say that I find it inconsistent in any way, in dealing with people that have them, by saying, well, we're part of a security alliance of colleagues that have them, while constantly pushing to try to get rid of them.

    To be quite frank, I congratulate the United States and Russia on some of the things they've been able to do in reducing the tensions between them. I was at the NATO meeting a couple of weeks ago in Madrid. It was amazing to see the Russia-NATO alliance, with Igor Ivanov sitting there across the table; we started arguing to some extent about trade matters. I said, ”This is wonderful. Instead of arguing about nuclear missiles, we're arguing about trade matters.” But that is where NATO...we're all converging on this.

    So I don't accept the fact that we're not pursuing our agenda of trying to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction of every kind. I don't conceal from you that I have a lot of frustrations with what's going on in Geneva with the disarmament commission. We're going to come out with a policy soon that we hope can show how we can have a renewed initiative there. We can do both of these things.

    On ballistic missile defence, I go back to what I said. The Americans have decided to do it. Let's find out and discuss with them. We don't have to go in; if it's going to mean a huge diversion, I agree with you. If the United States were to say to us, “You're going to have to put $20 billion into this thing”, I think maybe you'd find the appetite for being there would be reviewed in the light of that. But we don't know any of those things until we discuss with our colleagues in the United States.

    So let's have the discussions with them. Let's review with them what they intend to do.

    Space weaponization, by the way, is against the laws of the United States. I know there's a lot of speculation going on down there, but in fact I saw some congressional testimony the other day where in fact the Congress said it wasn't even in accordance with the laws of Congress.

    So there may be people talking about it, as there have been forever, but the Americans themselves....

    This particular ballistic missile defence that we're talking about joining with is a strictly land-based, modest attempt to deal with missiles coming in, in a defensive way, over North America. So that's what it is. If there's something more sinister about it, we'll only find out by sitting down and talking to them. Let's sit down and have the discussions.

»  (1725)  

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): Thank you.

    I'm going to allow one very quick question from Mr. Bergeron, and then we have to go and vote.

    Very quickly.

[Translation]

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Madam Chair, I would like to get back to the budget.

    Mr. Minister, you said in your presentation that to allow the department to pursue its mission, which requires the commitment of ever increasing resources, you had to rationalize and internally reallocate resources within your budget. I know that you consider parliamentary diplomacy as an extremely important complement of the government's traditional diplomacy.

    Can you confirm that one of the measures taken by the department to rationalize and reallocate resources internally is to limit the logistic support provided to parliamentary delegations by Canadian diplomatic missions abroad?

    Mr. Bill Graham: I will inquire about this because I would find it very surprising. As you mentioned, I am very much in favour of parliamentary missions. As I said, I went to the OAS conference in Santiago and I repeatedly stressed the importance of meetings of parliamentary groups from the Americas. As you know, the financing of parliamentary representation is a responsibility of Parliament and not of the department. It's the JIC or Joint Inter-Parliamentary Council.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm talking about the logistic support provided by Canadian missions abroad when parliamentarians travel. There was a reduction of this support to parliamentary missions.

    Mr. Bill Graham: I will enquire and report to you.

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): I'd like to thank you, Minister Graham. Unfortunately, we must go and vote.

    Mr. Bill Graham: Madam Chair, our whips always interfere with the best times we're having....

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): Oh, I'm sure.

    Mr. Bill Graham: Thank you, Madam Chair, for having me here today.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): Thank you very much.

    We are adjourned.