Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on 
Foreign Affairs

Issue 1 - Evidence, November 3, 2004

OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 3, 2004

The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs met this day at 4:05 p.m. to join the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade for a joint meeting in order to meet with a delegation of German parliamentarians.

Senator Peter A. Stollery and Mr. Bernard Patry (Joint Chairmen) in the chair.

[Editor's Note: Some evidence was presented through a German interpreter.]

[English ]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Patry): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This is a joint meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), in order to meet a delegation from the German Bundestag.

Welcome to our parliamentary colleagues from Germany. It is a pleasure to meet visiting parliamentarians. While our governments do a good job of managing international relations, we all know that we can often learn things from parliamentarians from countries with which we might not otherwise have contact.

I know my colleagues from both Houses will be interested in engaging you on many topics, from developments in the European Union to the future of multilateralism and trans-Atlantic relations. The latter is particularly interesting on the day after the U.S. election. I might mention that a few of us were lucky enough to meet two weeks ago with a former colleague of yours who is now the coordinator for North American relations in your foreign ministry.

Both the House of Commons committee and the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee have spent a considerable amount of time in recent years on issues of mutual interest to Canada and Germany, from trade and other relations between Canada and the European Union to broader issues such as relations with the countries of the Muslim world.

The most important thing about this meeting, however, is that we can improve our understanding of these broader issues while learning more about developments in Germany.

Our two countries are different in many respects, yet, there is also a great deal of overlap in both the challenges we face domestically and internationally and the approaches we take to them. On both sides, we will probably benefit from paying more attention to each other and from strengthening parliamentary cooperation.

For this reason, we commend and thank you for your visit. I will pass the floor to my colleague from the Senate.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Stollery): Sehr geehrte Gäste, Mitglieder des deutschen Bundestages.

Honourable senators, dear colleagues from the House of Commons, as Chairman of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, I have the pleasure of welcoming you to this joint session with the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

As we all know, ties between our two countries are very close. As a matter of fact, over 1 million Canadians have German roots, forming other fifth largest ethnolinguistic group. That is not all. Annually, there are still roughly 1,000 German citizens who decide to emigrate to Canada, some 2,000 who come here to study, another 2,000 to work temporarily and an impressive 420,000 German tourists who choose Canada as their destination.

[Translation ]

Since we established our diplomatic relations in 1951, Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany have maintained strong links and cooperated in every field: political, economic, cultural, social, military and, of course, parliamentary.

Germany is now one of our most important bilateral allies.

[English ]

Mr. Patry has had to leave; he informed me previously that he has another meeting to attend and will be back at about 4:30.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Acting Joint Chairman) in the chair.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Stollery): Zum Schluss, ich heisse Sie noch einmal herzlich willkommen!

I would now turn the floor over to Ms. Lietz, who I understand has something she would like to say.

Ms. Ursula Lietz, Member of Parliament (Bundestag), Christian Democratic Union (CDU); Chairwoman of the German-Canadian Parliamentary Friendship Group: Honourable senators, honourable members, thank you very much. We are all very happy to be here and are thankful that you took the time to talk with us. I hope we have enough issues to cover in the time that has been allotted to us, because wherever we go in Canada, whoever we talk to, we discover that we do not have any big problems, which is also good news.

We spent two days in Toronto, where we spoke mainly to German investors and companies that have their branch offices in Canada. We are here today and tomorrow to talk politics with you. We just had a short talk with the Speaker of the House of Commons and through him extended an invitation to several members of Parliament to visit us. We also asked the Speaker to help us to enforce exchange programs with different people in Canada, including politicians.

We have a big international exchange program — the United States cooperates — with 50 countries around the world. There are young people from the former Eastern Bloc who are coming to Germany, from the Ukraine, from Romania and from Bulgaria. It is important for us to talk to this generation of people, who will take on responsibilities during the coming years.

We are looking forward to enforcing exchange programs at the high school and university levels, with young workers and young people in management, and we would like to exchange opinions with politicians on a regular basis also.

We will be here tomorrow to talk about federalism, which is an issue that we are both working on at the present time. We will then go to Montreal, where we will have some talks, before we go back home on Saturday.

There are a number of issues we have talked about in the past couple of days, and we have discovered that it is extremely nice to talk to Canadian parliamentarians and that we agree on many different things. This does not mean, however, that we should not continue to talk. In order to agree, we have to talk.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Stollery): Does anyone else wish to say something?

Mr. Menzies: Welcome to Canada, to Ottawa, and to this joint session with members of Parliament and senators. I am pleased to hear your comments about exchanges. About 15 years ago, a German exchange student spent the summer with us on our farm. He was from somewhere in northern Germany, between Lingen and Meppen along the Ems River. We learned a tremendous amount about your country through that, and I certainly echo what you have said about the potential for exchanges at whatever level. Certainly, the exchanges with the young people are beneficial, but exchanges with parliamentarians who understand the issues between the two countries are also beneficial.

I have one quick question about free trade agreements. I understand that Germany has signed some free trade agreements. Canada has them also. Of course, we have one that we are quite proud of in this hemisphere, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which has been very beneficial to us.

I wonder why there is not a free trade agreement between Germany and Canada because I see tremendous benefits to something like that. Perhaps we are at fault.

Ms. Lietz: I could start by saying that I was afraid you would ask. We have been talking about this for many years. I get asked whenever I talk to the ambassador why this has not been brought to a further point, especially since we do have a free trade agreement with Mexico. The usual answer is that we are working on getting Mexico up to the standards where we are already, but we are taking with us from here the hope that we will talk with our foreign affairs committee about these things and maybe bring it up again.

It has been delayed for quite a while. Since I am not a member of the foreign affairs committee, I would not be able to give you a definite answer as to why that is the case. I promise we will talk about it when we get back.

Mr. Menzies: Please keep us in mind and keep our names ready at hand. We would like to help with that process.

Ms. Lietz: It would be to our benefit also. Getting into NAFTA via Canada would not be too bad.

Mr. Menzies: This country sees great potential in the World Trade Organization, but we also see the benefits in free trade agreements with partners other than just our North American partners. Certainly, we would encourage that.

Senator Prud'homme: Welcome to Ottawa. I would like to underline the outstanding work done by your ambassador in Canada and by his staff. It helps a great deal for those who believe in close relationships between Germany and Canada.

You will see by the questions that, even in this country, there are people who strongly support your policies in Europe. I am thinking for instance about Iraq. As an example, 200,000 people in Montreal, which is my city, demonstrated again the war; as well, 10,000 marched in Toronto, where you visited yesterday. I am very pleased that you are visiting Montreal tomorrow. That demonstrates that there is a good equilibrium and shows that there could be the same philosophy among us. There are those who will say that this is not the correct language to use here, I am sure, but being the oldest, it is my prerogative.

NATO has always been one of my concerns. I studied it in 1968. I would like to hear your comments on how you perceive NATO, because people confuse allies and friends. You can be friends with a country without being its ally. We are both allies and friends, which means that we are part of you and you are part of us. People make speeches about ``friends'' and ``allies.'' An ally is different from a friend.

What do believe the role of NATO to be, with its immensely enlarged membership?

Ms. Lietz: That is a question I can answer because I am a member of the defence committee, so NATO is part of my parliamentary work. NATO has changed during the last years, certainly. NATO will probably change again. As far as I am concerned, and as far as my colleagues are concerned, the European part of NATO is willing and hopefully able to take on more responsibility as far as Europe is concerned. We are practising this in the Balkans right now. Quite a few German soldiers are working in Kosovo. Quite a few are working in other parts of the Balkans, like Bosnia and Macedonia, and I think they are doing a good job.

We are both working together in Afghanistan, which is a common responsibility outside of Europe. We are slowly, very slowly — but on the right path — bringing this country to a democratic status. It will take years, I am sure. We talked to Mr. Jim Wright this morning about these matters. He is the ADM at DFAIT.

President Karzai has just been elected in Afghanistan, and there will be more elections in Afghanistan next year. The process of bringing this country back to peace and back to democracy is a mutual responsibility that we share. It is on a good path, which does not mean that we will not have any problems in the future.

We are now establishing regional groups to reconstruct democratic structures. I know that you are considering going into regional construction. We are working in Kunduz and in Faizabad, which is a dangerous but important mission. We talked about this this morning. As well, the question of how we deal with the drug problem in Afghanistan is something that will keep us busy for quite a while. There are quite a few things to do, and I think European NATO will be taking on its share of responsibility.

Let me emphasize that the trans-Atlantic connection to the United States and Canada is very important to us, besides the responsibility that we want to take in Europe. There must be a very strong connection between your country, the United States and the European NATO partners. If we stick together, I am quite sure that we can solve many problems.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Sorenson): By way of introduction again to the committee, there are a number of members of Parliament and senators here. As well, a number of political parties are represented. I would, therefore, ask members to introduce themselves and to tell our delegation whether they are a member of Parliament or a senator and with which political party they are affiliated.

Mr. Menzies has already spoken. He is a Conservative member of Parliament.

We will now go to Ms. Lalonde.

[Translation ]

Ms. Francine Lalonde, MP, Bloc québécois, La Pointe-de-l'Île: I am the foreign affairs critic for the Bloc québécois, the party who won 54 of the 75 seats in Quebec in the last election.

I had the pleasure of participating in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in Berlin. I was charmed by your hospitality and your magnificent parliament.

I also had the pleasure of working with several German colleagues at the Council of Europe, particularly M. Binding, who is still with you and who is very well known at the Council. Their hard work was remarkable, in particular in defending rights.

Please allow me to ask you a few questions about Germany because you have been a very important player in the European Union ever since the extraordinary success of reunification under Chancellor Kohl. Even if it has cost you a lot, you have become an exceptional player.

As such, I would like to know what is going on in your country regarding the European constitution. Will it be hard to ratify after the admission of Turkey and following what I will call the necessary exit from the crisis in Iraq? Notwithstanding the remarkable work you have done in East Germany, do you see a growth in certain concerns that we would prefer not to see ever again?

[English ]

Ms. Lietz: I will try to answer these three or four points, then ask my colleagues to answer them, because, to be honest with you, we have different opinions as far as parties are concerned. I would like every one of them to get a chance to state their own opinion, especially on questions regarding Turkey, for instance.

Before we do that, it would be wise if I asked the members of my delegation to introduce themselves so that they can tell you what committees they are on and you can put your questions to them.

I will start with the two deputy chairs of the German-Canadian Parliamentary Friendship Group, Ms. Monika Heubaum and Ms. Sibylle Laurischk.

[Interpretation]

Ms. Monika Heubaum, Member of Parliament (Bundestag), Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD); First Deputy Chairwoman of the German-Canadian Parliamentary Friendship Group: Thank you very much. I will speak German because I know you have some wonderful interpreters here and it will be easier for me if I use German.

We have been given a whole bouquet of interesting questions. The EU has been mentioned. We were all very pleased with this development because it expands considerably the area of countries with whom we live in peace. The peaceful policy that we have secured is strengthened by economic ties. To that extent, we are extremely happy about this, and we were not only given the reunification of Germany but also the progressive reunification of Europe itself, which we all welcome.

In this context, of course, the question of including Turkey arises, which is a matter of controversy in Germany. This issue is being discussed because the EU has just admitted over 10 countries, and the process of economic climatization is ongoing. The number of countries and institutions that are working in Brussels is increasing, and a framework has to be worked out. Nevertheless, the discussion began as many as 40 years ago with regard to the possible inclusion of Turkey in the EU. We now have to continue with this discussion. There is no question at this point of directly including Turkey in the union, but we must begin to discuss the process. These are two quite different matters, because this is a very large framework.

There is also the Copenhagen criteria, a criteria that must be met before a country can be included in the European Union. Turkey will have to make an enormous effort to fulfil the preconditions. A great deal has already been achieved in terms of legislation with regard to aspects such as the abolition of the death penalty, respect for human rights, and other issues such as the independence and the control of the military.

If we were now to say that we are not going to begin discussions with Turkey, it would be ridiculous. It would have the very serious effect of slowing down and stopping the process in Turkey. It cannot be the goal of our policy in Europe to block this, but when we want to bring the process forward, we in the EU must begin serious discussions of the inclusion of Turkey.

There is a wide range of opinions on the topic. I am a member of the Social Democratic Party in the coalition. The Christian Democratic Union, to which Ms. Lietz belongs, views this matter somewhat differently, but I am convinced that we must proceed on the path we have chosen, even if it takes 15 or 20 years, to fulfil all the preconditions for the inclusion of Turkey as a full member.

Ms. Sibylle Laurischk, Member of Parliament (Bundestag), Free Democratic Party (FDP); Second Deputy Chairwoman of the German-Canadian Parliamentary Friendship Group: Honourable senators and members, I would also like to thank you very much for the invitation. I belong to the Free Democratic Party, to the liberals. I have been a member of the Bundestag since 2002. I come from the southwestern part of Germany.

Some say a great opportunity was missed where Turkey's membership into the EU is concerned. It would have been more meaningful to do this before the eight new countries were incorporated into the union. There are now 25 member states that will have to agree, which will be an initial test.

The widespread opinion in many European countries is that we must get this proposal approved by the population in many countries. We liberals also believe this, but we are a minority in the German parliament on this issue.

It is an important and central question in the European Union that we have a constitution to provide a unified basis within the union on constitutional law issues. The Council of Ministers has to introduce a large number of legislative instruments in the various countries. These are bills that come from Brussels that on the basis of agreements must be translated into national legislation. This is an extremely complicated process for us, even us as members of Parliament.

A great deal of national legislation is influenced by European legislation. Public perception in individual countries makes it rather difficult to anchor Europe as a concept in the hearts of Europeans.

You asked about Turkey. As liberals, we believe that we cannot make any agreements in the short term, but we must approach this issue very carefully and seriously. We cannot ignore the fact that we have in the past promised Turkey that negotiations with the EU would begin.

Turkish expectations are great, and for that reason it is important that individual member states approach this issue in a very sober and clear thinking way and that we look at future prospects without excluding them. At the same time, the EU must decide carefully about its standards for incorporating new members. We must monitor the future developments in Turkey and wait to see the outcome.

There are some serious and difficult processes that we as Europeans have to come to grips with. The incorporation of the new members that we have just taken on is a situation we have to come to grips with first.

With regard to Iraq, I cannot say a great deal on this issue. I will leave that to my colleagues who are greater experts on the subject than I, but I regard the issue as a critical and dangerous one.

Mr. Klaus-Peter Flosbach, Member of Parliament (Bundestag), Christian Democratic Union (CDU); Member of the German-Canadian Parliamentary Friendship Group: Honourable senators and members, I have been in the Bundestag for two years and am a member of the finance committee.

Up until 15 months ago, I knew Canada only from picture postcards. I had no personal knowledge of it. Last June, I spent two days in Canada with our finance committee. We were in Ottawa for one day and in Toronto for one day. I liked Canada so much that as soon as I got home to Germany I joined the German-Canadian Parliamentary Friendship Group.

In that capacity, I would like to mention a word that is often talked about, ``globalization.'' In 1969 when I was in school, I went to France for three weeks on an exchange with a French family. My eldest son, six years ago, spent an entire year in the U.S.A. on a student exchange, and he was not alone. Other students in his class went to the U.S., Australia and Canada. This will give you an idea about how open young Germans are to the idea of getting to know other countries. This goes beyond the concept of national economy.

Fifteen years after the fall of the wall, Germany is open to influences from all sides. As an example, we are experiencing competition in different ways than before. Germany was a very strong economic country for many years after the Second World War, and suddenly we are forced to compete with countries that have labour costs that are one seventh of ours. This has an extremely serious impact on our markets. At the same time, we are endeavouring to bring 25 countries into our union.

Imagine what would happen in Canada if you had to incorporate another 10 provinces into the Canadian union. We are incorporating many different countries and many different peoples, and the situation with the competitive nature of work is important for us.

When I became a politician, I remember one of the things that Helmut Kohl said. He said that France is our most important neighbour but that the Americans are our most important ally. We cannot limit our interests to those two countries, but we must bring many countries together who have the same values. I have found that particularly true in Canada, for we have the same values and the same economic order. It is important, therefore, that we strengthen and expand the links between Germany and Canada.

I would like to make my own opinion known about Turkey. It is important that the negotiations begin. It is difficult enough at the moment to bring 25 new countries into the European Union. How much more difficult will it be to bring an entirely different culture into the European family — a country that has had nothing to do with the old European culture? If we incorporate Turkey into the EU, why do we not make preparations immediately to accept Russia and Ukraine, for example? I believe it could be too much for us, even after 15 years, to take in Turkey.

I feel that in the next few years the original countries of Europe, the first six countries — the French, the Italians, the Germans, these old core countries of Europe — must strengthen the core and then incorporate the 25 that we have now accepted.

Mr. Eberhard Otto, Member of Parliament (Bundestag), Free Democratic Party (FDP); Self-Employed Entrepreneur: Thank you very much for your hospitality in having us spend time with you today. I am a member of the liberals in the German Parliament. I am not a member of the parliamentary group, but I am a member of the transportation, building and housing committee, which deals with infrastructure and the building up the East. I experienced reunification 15 years ago from the other perspective. I am also a member of the regional economic planning committee, and within my own caucus, I am more active in the economics sphere.

In my private career, I have been a businessman active in the economic field in the construction and transportation industries.

I come from one of the northern states of eastern Germany. The expansion of the EU has been for me a great challenge. Many issues need to be addressed and many of them are technical, such as the expansion of the EU to the east.

Just before the first of May, I was in Poland with German President Johannes Rau and had discussions about Europe growing together. I must say that there are significant technical problems that come with EU expansion to the east. It is not something that will be done in a short period of time. Bringing our countries together will take many years in terms of expansion to the east.

We thought we could get the reunification of East and West Germany over with quickly, but it has taken much longer. Fifteen years into the process, we are still not where we intended to be, and it will take another 10 years before we get there. I transpose that experience to the problems of EU expansion to the east.

The cooperation between Belarus and Poland is a wonderful example. They have an entirely different railway gauge. The trains get to the border and cannot go further because the track is different. Hence, when a train gets to the border, its cargo must be unloaded and then reloaded into trucks. An enormous amount of excess work goes into that. Over the next few years, we will have to address and find solutions to these problems.

As far as Turkey is concerned, I must say that this is really not an issue for me at this time. If discussions are entered into, they will likely take at least 15 years. However, at this point it is unknown as to whether they will lead to a positive or negative conclusion.

Look at what the GDR and East Germany looked like 15 years ago. We reached a peaceful conclusion with regard to reunification. However, from my perspective, I do not want the say anything at this point about the membership of Turkey. The EU already has 25 member states. Romania and Bulgaria — which are candidate countries — will be coming into the union soon. All of these countries have a different structure. It is not like the North American continent, where there is a certain unity. In Europe, there are drastic differences in terms of language, structure and traditions, and it will take a very long time. How it will all turn out is something that we will only know in the future.

Mr. Bernhard Brinkmann, Member of Parliament (Bundestag), Social Democratic Party of Germany (SDP); Member of the German-Canadian Parliamentary Friendship Group: I have been in the Bundestag since 1998. My constituency is the beautiful, fair city of Hildesheim.

My colleagues have spoken on the major issues facing Germany, but I wish to say one thing about the issue of negotiations with Turkey. In Germany, one sometimes gets the impression that the Germans are the only ones involved in the decision regarding Turkey's admission into the EU — as if we were the only ones on the boat making the decision of whether to allow Turkey into the EU. Can we get off the boat? This will be a very long process.

As my colleague Mr. Otto said, the process will be a long one and will ultimately lead to a decision. However, what that decision will be is not something that we can know at this point.

We agree with our Canadian friends vis-à-vis not sending soldiers to Iraq. Daily we see the dangers that exist in Iraq. People are blowing each other up; killings take place every day. Questions of religion and beliefs play an enormous role, far greater than those we are familiar with in Europe or North America.

I am an economist, but I will not give you a lot of economic figures. There are many economic problems in Germany, serious financial problems. The reasons for this are twofold. On the one hand, our economic growth is not adequate. On the other, we have ignored a democratic trend over the last two decades. Even in the early 1980s, it was perfectly obvious that our system of social solidarity could not continue forever. Our federal budget for 2005 talks of 250 billion, of which 150 will be going into pensions alone. Approximately 30 per cent of the entire intake is spent on pensions. Either we cut that or we increase markedly the amount we take in. This would lead to unemployment and many ancillary problems.

I would like to express my thanks to Canada for inviting us to participate in this committee.

[English ]

Senator Milne: I had intended to ask about what will happen with the EU constitution, given that the EU expanded by 10 members but did not ratify the constitution prior to that expansion. However, you have touched on that subject, so I will leave it.

I will turn to what Mr. Otto was saying about the reunification between East and West Germany, former separate entities. I must say that I am discouraged by what you are saying. A couple of years ago, I was approached by a group of farmers from East Germany who wanted to unilaterally deal with some agricultural exports to Canada. In this case, it was hemp. They spoke of how, at that time, they believed they were being regarded as second-class citizens by the western part of the country; they talked about how, in their opinion, the government was not working on their behalf as much as it was on behalf of the western part of the country.

I was hoping that that would have changed; it may be the case that it has and that all is well within the unified Germany. Perhaps someone could comment.

[Interpretation]

Ms. Laurischk: My family has lived on both sides of the border in Germany and has experienced the division. We see now how difficult it is to grow back together. You raised the issue of second-class citizens, and this was formerly seen as quite true. However, these issues cut both ways; we have a challenge before us in Germany to which we must rise. One of our responsibilities is that of our membership within the European Union itself.

My eldest daughter attends university in Leipzig, in the eastern part of Germany. Because of the mobility of our young people, Germany is growing together. It is clear that our young people are perfectly happy to study and to travel not only within the European Union but also to go across the pond to the Americas. As well, student exchanges, young people getting to know each other, are a vital way of bringing us together.

Ms. Heubaum: You mentioned the agricultural community, Senator Milne. Agricultural policy is largely determined by the European Union itself. In excess of 50 per cent of the entire European budget consists of agriculture subsidies. If East German farmers feel they are being treated differently from the former West Germans, it is because the farms are very small in what was formerly West Germany.

A farmer in Bavaria may have 18 hectares of land; a farmer in lower Saxony may have 60. In these much larger units were farms of the old German Democratic Republic and the communist system. In addition, we have the issue of the 10 new countries in the European Union — and remember, these newcomers have a great deal of agriculture in their economy. The impact of this expansion has been to drive down the subsidies for East German farmers. The problems and the inequalities between the experiences of farmers in West Germany and East Germany have much to do with the European policies.

[English ]

Senator Milne: Perhaps I could add that, in Canada, European agricultural subsidies are a big issue. We are working vigorously to try to get you guys to lower them.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Sorenson): Before we go to the next questioner, we should draw attention to the fact that the ambassador from Germany to Canada is here, Mr. Christian Pauls. Welcome to our joint committee meeting.

Mr. Flosbach, you said that having had the opportunity to visit Ottawa and Toronto prompted you to go back to Germany and join the German-Canadian Parliamentary Friendship Group. I would invite you to visit the western part of Canada — Alberta and British Columbia. The problem, however, is that you may never want to leave Canada once you have visited there.

Mr. Day: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You anticipated my comments to Mr. Flosbach.

Thank you and welcome. Your comments are helpful to us in our perspectives. My German is not very good, even though my mother-in-law is German. I will speak in English, but I will share with you the only phrase she taught me: Frohe Weihnachten und ein gutes neues Jahr. I have no idea what it means, but people seem to like it when I say it.

You are also interested in reform at the United Nations, which is encouraging. I know that you are interested in membership at the Security Council. Can you share with us what your key arguments will be there? We would like to be sympathetic towards that.

Our Prime Minister was recently at the UN. He has been promoting a new policy to prevent future genocide. The UN was not able to do anything related to Rwanda, and there is some paralysis right now related to Sudan. Prime Minister Martin refers to the ``responsibility to protect.'' He says that ``sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states.''

Have you had any discussions amongst yourselves on what criteria you might look at as a nation in terms of being part of a group of nations that would take on the responsibility to protect when others cannot? Have you discussed any criteria that might be helpful to us in our discussions?

Ms. Lietz: Let me answer that, because I am a member of a committee that has the goal of reforming the United Nations towards more democracy. I must tell you that I have family in Canada who farm, so I am familiar with the problem.

We are discussing the democratization process in the UN. We have recently encouraged all factions to put this issue on the agenda. We have many reasons to do this — especially after our experiences with the Iraq war. There were 14 or 15 resolutions telling Iraq that the next time they not do comply we will come in. Instead of following through on each of those occasions, we put forth another resolution. What we must do is ensure that, in the future, one country is unable to veto important matters.

You are aware that Germany is trying to obtain membership on the Security Council. I know that Canada is not supporting that. I think it is a matter of discussion for the next period of time.

The main point is that we all must face the fact that, as of now, two thirds of the member nations in the United Nations do not have democratic governments, and yet it is important for us to talk to them. We cannot just tell them to leave, because, as I said in the beginning, it is better to talk and thereby keep the peace instead of throwing them out. On the other hand, I believe we have to find a way and a process of making the United Nations more effective. In Germany, someone recently said that the United Nations, to date, has never been able to avoid a war, which is true.

The same thing goes for issues regarding Africa. We also talk about resolutions in that instance, but we do not really put things into practice via the United Nations. I believe we must get out of this paralysis, which is what it really is. However, it will not be easy, because a number of nations are not interested in more democracy in the United Nations.

The process is a long one, and one that has to be enforced by countries like Canada, Germany and others that have democratic governments. We should not keep out nations that are in the process of becoming democracies.

There are very many things that we must talk about. For example — and this is something I talked about this morning with Jim Wright — I find it unbelievable that Mr. Qaddafi has been Chair of the United Nations Human Rights Committee for many years. Things like that, if you ask me, are simply ridiculous. If Mr. Qaddafi were now to change his mind on many things, he would be welcome to do so. However, we must have a democratic means of deciding that the United Nations is representative of all the nations that are members, and it is very important that they become more effective.

We are working on it and I hope that the other states are working on it. I hope that we come to a good result, but I am sure it will take years before we get there.

[Translation ]

Senator De Bané: Madam Chair, dear colleagues, the relationship between our two countries is excellent. However, I would like to say a few words about Canada's relationship with the European Union, where you have a very important role to play.

Canada has been trying for years to reach an agreement with the EU, and that agreement is just beginning to take shape. We sensed that the EU, and particularly its officials in Brussels, was not very interested in reaching an agreement with Canada, whose only neighbour is the United States, as you all know. One of the objectives of the EU, apart from very noble projects, is what has been called in the 70s the ``European Union fortress,'' to compete with the American economic supremacy. Canada is trying to diversify its trade relations and has put a lot of effort into a ``rapprochement'' with the European Economic Union. But I must say that we have a lot more success in Asia these days than we do with the EU. Therefore, while our relationship with Germany is excellent, we feel that the EU is a lot more interested in dealing with other countries, in Latin America or elsewhere in the world, than with Canada, considered as a Trojan horse for the United States.

Many Canadians concerned about our relationship with Europe think that the Europeans are not very keen on helping us diversify.

[Interpretation]

Ms. Heubaum: The problem is undoubtedly the question of the structure of legislation within the EU. The European Union does not have a federal structure, with a government and an opposition, but the council, the ministers and the individual member states are of equal importance, as is the European Parliament and the commission.

I do not know whether it is any consolation to you, but we have similar problems to yours in our dealings with the commission bureaucracy. There is perhaps a difference in the perspective of the European Commission when you talk about Latin America and providing economic assistance to developing countries, newly industrializing countries in Latin America. It is rather a different situation to that of Canada, which is a G8 country.

Developing a context through the commission is a rather different question; it is not a simple issue to find a single opinion within the European Commission on this issue. As you know, all the countries are represented there, and it is very difficult to get a single opinion. For the commission to draft framework legislation that can be adopted by all 25 members is not a simple process. I cannot tell you today that we can go back to Brussels and say, ``Let us do this.'' I will certainly take your concerns back to Berlin and speak to our colleagues about it.

[English ]

Mr. Goldring: Welcome to Ottawa. I am sure everyone in this room has family and friends from the German- Canadian community, and some have roots there. My mother's family came from Germany, and my sister-in-law's family came from Germany in the 1950s. There are a great number of warm relationships with the German community.

My question is about the constitution and how it appears to commit to a common defence policy. How would the mechanics of that work, given your earlier comment about the United Nations possibly not being involved in a situation where one member country could veto a Security Council ruling? Is there some idea or formulation on how that would be set up?

Would foreign policy for committing troops to specific areas be done by a security council? What would be its makeup and structure? Would there still be provisos and allowances for countries to independently commit troops into certain areas and regions, or are they bound to the overall constitution?

Ms. Lietz: We are at the beginning of a process. Let me put it this way: The questions are asked but the answers are not yet given. We are in the process of collecting questions and talking to the different countries, as I said, with a different democratic status. I am sure it will take an extremely long time before we come to satisfying results.

The questions you are raising are questions that all the different countries and people working for this purpose are asking, but we have not reached the point where we can give the answers.

Mr. Goldring: Are you saying that the possibilities it might be formulating or working toward have not been advanced? If not, do you have a time frame in which to decide this — five years, ten years? How are you dealing with this issue?

Ms. Lietz: It is probably ten years as opposed to five years. One must be very patient.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Stollery): Mr. Sorenson has a question, and then we may have come to the conclusion of our meeting, depending on how members feel.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Sorenson): Actually, Mr. Goldring asked the question that I had intended to ask in regard to the common defence strategy. Obviously, with 25 countries in the EU, many are in NATO. Others have neutrality and others are not part of NATO. Obviously, it is a significant concern. When the EU talks about a common defence strategy, we question how they intend to achieve it.

Do you see any prospects of greater cooperation with the Canadian military? Do you see Canada playing a role at all?

Ms. Lietz: As a matter of fact, that was a question I wanted to ask you. Most countries in the European Union are NATO countries. Turkey is a NATO country, which is an interesting consolation. With respect to taking Turkey into the European Union, it will take a while to solve the issues of human rights, treatment of minorities and democratic jurisdiction.

European NATO partners are very much aware of the fact that we must take on more responsibility in Europe. My country is now an independent NATO country, and we have full responsibility within NATO. We have learned during the last couple of years to take on more responsibility. As you know, it was only in the last couple of years that we, for the first time, started to take part in the mission in the Balkans. Until then, before reunification, we had always been an army that defended itself but not one that was supposed to defend other countries. We are now working on a structure in Germany that would enable us to participate in missions worldwide, which is taking some getting used to by Germans. We are in the process, and I think we are doing very well, considering that we are not only in Afghanistan but also in Kosovo. We have been in Africa and we are in Djibouti. Hence, we are working our way into this world. However, contrary to other countries, every procedure in which we participate has to be voted for in the parliament. Our defence minister cannot just decide to —

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Sorenson): In the EU parliament?

Ms. Lietz: No, in the German parliament. Every time we send our army some place in the world, the German parliament has to decide to do that.

It is a process that only a few other NATO countries are going through. In most other countries, the defence minister or the cabinet can decide to send the army some place in the world. It takes some getting used to, but we are adapting. I do not have any problems with that. I find it very interesting and very challenging to observe that and to be part of it.

We all realize that, at present, the biggest, the richest and the technically best established NATO army is the United States. None of us, not even you, is close to what the American people are doing as far as peace in the world is concerned. I believe we should take on responsibilities where we can. The United States is taking on responsibilities in some other parts of the world, where we — Germans, like Canadians — do not see the possibility for our countries to participate. We are past our capacity. We would not be able to participate in Iraq with an army. Therefore, like you, we are now offering to educate policemen and do other things to help on the side; but Germans will not be in Iraq as far as we see.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Sorenson): What military capabilities does the German army have compared to Australia, for example?

Ms. Lietz: We are down to 275,000 soldiers.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Sorenson): You have 275,000 soldiers?

Ms. Lietz: Yes. As far as I know, you have about 100,000. Is that correct?

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Sorenson): We have about 55,000.

Ms. Lietz: If we may, we would like to ask you about your politics on safety and defence concerns for the next couple of years.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Stollery): What is the situation with national service in Germany?

Ms. Lietz: By that, do you mean compulsory service?

The Joint Chairman (Senator Stollery): Yes.

Ms. Lietz: Personally, I would like to see it continue in the future.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Stollery): What percentage of the armed forces in Germany is a result of compulsory national service?

Ms. Lietz: At present, we have about 100,000 young people who are in the army on a compulsory basis. This number is going down, though. The defence minister has decided to decrease the number of young people who are drafted.

Different factions in the Bundestag have varying opinions on that matter. The Christian Democrats — Klaus-Peter Flosbach and I — would like to continue to have an army that is drafting young men. Others do not want to see young people drafted. That discussion will probably be ongoing for the next year or two, before we arrive at a result.

Mr. Day: We have some submarines for sale, if you are interested.

Ms. Lietz: I am afraid to tell you that you can keep them.

We are interested in your opinion on politics of safety and the army.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Sorenson): Unless there are any other questions —

Ms. Phinney: Ms. Lietz asked what we plan to do about security in the next couple of years.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Sorenson): That question is better posed to the government side or, at least, to the defence ministry. However, I think we can say that we have recognized the need for security. We have taken certain measures with our border security, recognizing that our trade is so dependent on it. I cannot speak on behalf of the government vis-à-vis what Canada is doing, obviously. I am in the opposition party, so I may be much like you.

Ms. Lietz: That is something we share, sir.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Sorenson): That would be a question that you may ask at a defence committee or in your consultations with other government officials.

Mr. Day: I sympathize with your constraint, Mr. Chairman.

It is fair to say that the opposition has some differences with the government in terms of overall defence policy. The government announced a couple months ago that the Prime Minister wants to fully engage with the United States in terms of missile defence and continental defence. We were a bit surprised with that headlong approach, but that was the announcement. Also, from the opposition side, we are encouraging the government to raise the amount of resources for our Armed Forces. That should give you a very basic understanding of where we are at.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Stollery): I think it is fair to say that, in Canada, we have a similar discussion and debate between the government and the opposition that you have in Germany. Obviously a lot of people would like to have much larger Armed Forces and other people argue that the money should be spent elsewhere.

I am sure that we could interchange ourselves in the discussion. That is the situation in Canada.

I would remind everyone that this is not the defence committee; this is the Foreign Affairs Committee. Though there is a certain overlap, it is different.

Senator Prud'homme: I share with you the fact that if there is to be an engagement, there should be a vote in Parliament. I speak for myself, and I am sure my views are very well shared. The matter should come to vote; the government cannot decide alone.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Stollery): That is right, Senator Prud'homme, but I must remind everyone that you are an independent senator.

Senator Prud'homme: I used to be the chairman of the Defence Committee under Trudeau.

Mr. Goldring: Having been a member of the Royal Canadian Air Force in the early 1960s and having familiarity with the equipment we had at that time, I believe there is a common consensus that we are overdue on re-equipping. From an equipment standpoint and from the standpoint of doing better in terms of equipment for the troops, the problems that we have with the helicopters, which were 40 years in procurement, is well known, as are the problems with the submarines — which was the subject of an earlier comment.

There is a recognition, finally, that we must do better from the equipment end of the equation, whether it be helicopters or other pieces of equipment for military use. That is a very real realization.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Sorenson): We want to make it abundantly clear that Germany and Canada are friends, close allies and good trading partners. Although we have a major trade deficit with Germany, Germany is a major part of our economy, as Canada is with yours.

We welcome all representations from your country and from the European Union. We hope that while you are in Canada, you will enjoy this country. We love our country, as you love yours. I hope that the rest of your stay is a very pleasant one.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Stollery): Mr. Sorenson, I totally subscribe to what you have said, so I will not repeat it.

Thank you to all.

The committee adjourned.