[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, November 28, 1996
.0915 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Pursuant to Standing Orders 108 and 110, we welcome today Mr. Juneau who is our ambassador to the European Union.
Welcome and thank you for coming here this morning. Committee members are very interested in our relations with the European Union. I would ask you to give us a brief overview of your work which you took on three months ago, I believe. The members will then have some questions for you.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Juneau (Head of Mission, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Canada to the European Communities): With your permission,Mr. Chairman, I will read a prepared opening statement and then I will be happy to answer your questions.
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, I am pleased to be here today in response to your invitation and to answer your questions. But first, I would like to make a few opening remarks about Canada's relations with the European Union.
The European Union has been progressing steadily for the past 40 years. While the pace of this forward movement has slackened at times, there has never been any backward movement. Very shortly, the European Union will have over 20 members, its gross domestic product will greatly surpass that of the United States and it will be by far the largest importer and exporter of goods, capital and services in the world.
In addition to its integration and expansion projects, the European Union is also working on formulating a common foreign and security policy. This ambitious project will enhance its worldwide sphere of influence.
[English]
The European Union is of primordial economic and commercial importance to Canada. After the United States, the European Union is our second most important trade and economic partner. In 1995 our trade volume - exports and imports - totalled $39 billion. Europe is also our second most important source of foreign direct investments. In 1995 those investments amounted to about$36 billion. The average yearly increase for the last ten years has been 13%.
The European market is still expanding. It represents an extraordinary opportunity for Canadian exporters. Canadian exports to Europe and European investments in Canada are a main source of jobs for Canadians.
The European monetary union will have significant economic repercussions for Canada. It is still difficult to determine what they will be, but we cannot simply choose to ignore them.
We share with the European Union a history of values and languages. Together Canada and the European Union can do a lot to promote democracy, human rights, and global stability. To achieve the objectives we have identified to reform the leading international institutions on which responsibility lies to lead us into the new world order, Canada and the European Union must work together. Canada has set out its concern about the need for reform in leading international institutions. If we wish to have these working well as they take on their responsibilities in moving us towards a new world order, we must work with the European Union to achieve these objectives. We have worked together to pursue the same objectives in the former Yugoslavia, in central and eastern Europe, and now in Zaire. We share the same view on the Helms-Burton legislation.
[Translation]
We run the risk of being excluded by the European Union from the decision-making process unless we ensure an active presence in Brussels. The EU's decision-making process is exceedingly complex. The Europeans have a very heavy schedule for the next few years and Canada is a minor concern compared to the formidable interests at stake in Europe.
We must make our voice heard, otherwise we will be quite simply ignored, something which Canada cannot afford. The official contact program works very well. Last June, we held a summit in Rome attended by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chrétien. Foreign affairs policy directors met in Dublin last October, foreign affairs ministers met in New York and international trade ministers gathered in Seattle last November. The number of productive meetings between experts and officials is increasing.
.0920
However, we must shift into another gear and breath new energy into our relationship with the European Union, otherwise we run the risk of seeing this relationship dominated by a dialogue between the United States and Europe from which we could be excluded.
[English]
If we do not succeed in energizing our relations and in making ourselves heard, we will have a difficult time achieving greater access to the European market for Canadian exporters. We will also have difficulties in having our priorities and concerns respected in matters of common interest where the decisions of the union could affect us, in areas such as immigration, criminality, and environment.
May I draw your attention, finally, to the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Senate entitled European Integration: The Implications for Canada. It takes up some of the themes we have touched upon.
[Translation]
That is all for the moment. I will now be happy to answer your questions. Thank you,Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
Mr. Bergeron (Verchères): First of all, I would like to thank the Chair and my colleagues for waiting for me earlier. As you know, one has to heed the call of nature.
This being said, welcome to our committee, Mr. Ambassador. I understand that you were somewhat perplexed at having been called to appear before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. As you no doubt know, it is our prerogative to convene people who have been appointed by Order in Council to posts abroad. While we are exercising this prerogative, it is in no way our intention to call into question the qualifications of Canada's representatives abroad. Moreover, your curriculum vitae is most impressive. However, this is not the purpose of this morning's meeting. Quite the contrary.
We merely want to discuss the great importance to us of the European Union, the world's second economic power. We also want to discuss the important role played by our representative to the European Union.
Having said this, I would like to discuss an event which caused something of an uproar between the European Parliament and the Canadian government a number of months ago. Undoubtedly you are aware of the Berthu affair. During the 1995 referendum, Mr. Berthu, the head of the European delegation in charge of relations with Canada, came to Canada on a personal visit to see how the referendum process worked. I believe he came here strictly for personal reasons.
However, at one point, he attended a meeting where reporters were present. At the conclusion of this meeting, he was asked a question about federalism and its chances of survival in Canada. He responded that in his opinion, federalism had no chance of surviving in a state which had more than one national community or more than one nation.
Mr. Berthu's statement was by no means intended to embarrass the Canadian government or Canada, but you have to understand that he belongs to a group within the European Parliament called the Europe of nations. This movement is opposed to the vision of a federal Europe, precisely because of the national character of the various countries that make up Europe. His answer was totally consistent with his position, but after he made these comments, the Foreign Affairs' Minister of the day got into a flap, intervened through the Ambassador to the European Union, Mr. Jacques Roy, and called for Mr. Berthu's dismissal.
.0925
As you know, the principle of the separation of powers is very important in a democratic system, although the separation between the executive and the legislative branches here in Canada is more theoretical, to the extent that the executive branch flows from the parliamentary majority. However, in most European countries, the principle of the separation of powers is absolutely fundamental.
Not only was it inappropriate for the executive to interfere in the affairs of the legislative branch, that is for a government to intervene in the affairs of the European Parliament, but it was all the more disturbing to the Europeans to see a foreign government attempt to intervene in the internal affairs of a parliament, in this case the European Parliament.
You know the twists and turns to this story. Unable to secure Mr. Berthu's dismissal through diplomatic channels, the Canadian government, through the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, asked that he be removed from office, even going so far as to block a visit by European Parliamentarians last February, arguing that the parliamentary delegation responsible for relations with Canada did not respect Canada's federal character and so forth. Everyone knows the whole story.
What concerns me about this matter, Mr. Ambassador, is that among the delegates, we had and continue to have people who are strong allies of ours when it comes to such contentious issues as trapping and the fur industry, and I think that we alienated these individuals with our somewhat hard-line approach last year.
We have called upon the government on several occasions to put an end to this witch hunt and as a result of our efforts, the Minister here in Ottawa was replaced, as was the Ambassador to the European Union.
How do things now stands in the Berthu affair? What is the position of the Canadian government? Are we continuing to act like we are conducting a kind of inquisition, since I believe this hinders Canada's and Quebec's interests on the European scene?
[English]
Mr. Assadourian (Don Valley North): I fail to understand the question. Can you explain,Mr. Chairman, the point of this question?
The Chairman: Let me just start by saying that Mr. Juneau is here by virtue of articles 108 and 110 of the regulations, which really are designed to probe more his qualifications to serve as ambassador in the post.
I understand the purpose of this meeting, since it's somewhat outside the scope of that original hearing. We're taking the opportunity of having Mr. Juneau here to explore in complete depth the nature of our relations with the European Community.
The thrust of Mr. Bergeron's question is whether the problems arising out of Mr. Berthu's visit here are still poisoning the atmosphere in terms of our relationship with the European Parliament or not. I think that's a very interesting question for us to consider. I'm sure Mr. Juneau won't have any trouble dealing with it. I see it being within the scope of what we're trying to do here today.
I was going to ask a few questions myself about the nature of the parliamentary association and parliamentary members, so let's see where it goes. If it gets too far away from the purpose of the hearing, we'll stop, but for the moment I'm happy.
Mr. Assadourian: I came here because a couple of weeks ago you went to Europe to discuss the Arctic Council. That was my intention in participating in this meeting. I'm not here to debate separatism. This is ridiculous.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: We are not talking about separation at all. You don't get it. This has nothing to do with separatism, but rather with the relationship between Canada and the European Parliament.
[English]
Mr. Assadourian: He's not here to discuss unity either. He's a separatist. He's pushing separatism. He's costing taxpayers -
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: No, it has absolutely nothing to do with that.
[English]
Mr. Assadourian: I'm tired of it.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Juneau.
Mr. Juneau: Thank you. Let me repeat that I am happy to appear before the committee. I did wonder why I was being called to testify, as this is something fairly new for appointed ambassadors.
I arrived in Brussels three months ago to the day. Since my arrival, I have spent much of my time meeting with the people with whom I will be working, and these officials can be grouped into three categories: first, officials from the European Commission in Brussels, namely the commissioners and directorate officials who oversee the administration of the European Community, second, officials from the European Council, the so-called extended secretariat which provides support services to the rotating chairmanship of the European Union - currently, Ireland is presiding over the EU until the end of next month - and finally, officials from the European Parliament, an institution that I visited for the first time some 15 days ago to introduce myself and meet with parliamentarians covering with issues of interest to us.
.0930
I must say that to avoid getting into a debate over the Berthu affair, I mainly sought to establish contacts with parliamentarians working on committees examining issues of interest to us.
You mentioned the fur issue, the environment committee, asbestos, an important issue, and the matter of the pinewood nematode. During my initial visit, I focused on our concerns rather than on the Berthu affair.
In my opinion, Mr. Berthu is a relatively unimportant figure, both in France and within the European Parliament. Of course, people brought up the matter when speaking to me, although I did not try and contact Mr. Berthu for the simple reason that Mr. Berthu made his comments not within the context of the European Parliament, but while on a visit to Montreal, which is an entirely different matter. It is understandable, therefore, that we were somewhat annoyed by his actions.
I also have to say that this individual is a member of a political movement with which few Canadians have any kind of affinity. Mr. Berthu has positioned himself far to the right on the political spectrum and as Canada's Ambassador, I have to say it is not my job to associate with this type of individual.
I think Mr. Berthu's mandate is drawing to a close. Moreover, it seems that the group which he formed no longer exists since one member resigned for some reasons unbeknownst to me. A new President of the European Parliament will be elected in early 1997 and a new head of delegation in charge of relations with foreign countries will be appointed.
I think that where Canada is concerned, there will certainly be a new parliamentarian. I'm not lobbying on behalf of anyone in particular. In any event, I don't know the 626 members of the European Parliament very well. However, you will understand that as Canada's Ambassador, it is normal for me to want to see someone appointed who is prepared to accept us as we are for the time being. As for the future, we will see how we can work things outs between ourselves.
The Chairman: Mr. Bergeron, I would ask you to restrict your questions to relations between Canada and Europe instead of focussing on people's personalities.
Mr. Bergeron: I believe I was doing just that.
The Chairman: I understand.
Mr. Bergeron: I was just going to say, Mr. Chairman, that...
The Chairman: I was just going to say that our committee should not focus too closely on the internal affairs of the Parliamentary Association, as this is another matter entirely. However, if we're talking about relations between Canada and Europe then it's alright.
The matter in question concerns the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association. Are you not a member of this association's executive?
Mr. Bergeron: I'm not trying to defend a person by the name of Georges Berthu or the political movement he represents, since the European nations no longer exist within the European Parliament.
.0935
The issue is not the political party he represented within the European Parliament, regardless of what these individuals might have said. Perhaps this will ease Mr. Assadourian's exaggerated concerns. That is not the issue.
It is not a question of separatism or non-separatism. What does concern me is that we had a falling out with the parliamentary association in charge of relations with Canada. Some members of this association defend Canada's position on the issue of trapping and the fur industry, for example.
My concern is as follows: do we simply wait until the members of the delegation are replaced to reestablish contact with the parliamentary association or do we try to maintain contact with the delegation in charge of relations with Canada, whose members are staunch defenders of our interests in Europe, quite apart from the individuals themselves or the parties they represent?
Are we maintaining our contacts with these individuals so that we can keep our allies until the delegates are replaced? As you rightly pointed out, these people could be replaced within the next few days. It's not my intention to defend or not defend Mr. Berthu and his group. Not at all. I am concerned mainly about the quality of the relations that we have with this particular delegation so that we will always have within the European Parliament people who defend views consistent with our economic interests, particularly as regards the fur issue.
Mr. Juneau: I understand. I've met with members of the Canadian delegation, but as I said earlier, I did not meet with Mr. Berthu. My initial strategy was to approach these committees. I have a certain number of issues to deal with which are rather pressing, such as the fur problem. I also mentioned the pinewood nematode. Preparations are underway for the ministerial conference in Singapore where we will discuss the liberalization of trade in the information, technology and telecommunications fields.
That's how I've spent most of my time up until now. I believe the European parliamentarians who are members of this delegation also, for the most part, serve on other working committees. Some committees are very important, for example, the Environment Committee.
As far as we are concerned, it's an important committee because we are somewhat vulnerable. In fact, in terms of the European Commission, the initiatives which proved to be the most damaging to Canada often emanated from Parliament. The whole problem of the fur industry and leg-hold traps started with a resolution passed by the European Parliament. Our forestry management methods are also a concern to the European Parliament.
The parliamentarians who sit on the Environment Committee are interested in this subject. It's a matter of personal judgement because I must say that I do not take orders. I met with officials for two days and scheduled my time around several one-on-one meetings with parliamentarians who have an important role to play in so far as these issues which closely affect us are concerned.
I can mention the names of several people: the member for Vries, Pimenta, the Portuguese member of Parliament and one of the most active members working on issues of interest to us, British members and of course, French members of Parliament.
Since I had spent many years of my professional career in France, I also wanted to quickly establish contact with these people who, incidentally - on a final note regarding the Berthu affair - all seem to be somewhat embarrassed. This affair embarrassed everyone. Everyone is anxious for it to be resolved and to get on with other issues that concern us. I honestly don't believe it hurt our interests in any way whatsoever.
.0940
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Assadourian.
Mr. Assadourian: Thank you very much. It's good to have you here again. I had a meeting with you yesterday. I was very pleased.
Mr. Ambassador, a couple of weeks ago one delegation from this committee went to Russia and Finland and another delegation went to western Europe and the Scandinavian countries. The purpose of our visit there was the Arctic Council. I wanted to see what the situation was like in the circumpolar region.
They mentioned the fact they had already organized the Nordic Council, a group of nations in the north that joined together. When we were in Copenhagen they sent a message to us saying ``We have the Nordic Council already. What's the point of having the Arctic Council?'' The fact is that eight nations including Canada signed the agreement. As my colleague here says, a baby was born. Can you elaborate on those two concerns and why they think the Nordic Council should supersede the Arctic Council?
On my other question, it may or may not go forward, but 1999 is the target for Eurodollar, a common currency for Europe. What kind of impact will that have on our economy here? We are so closely tied to the U.S. economy. If you could elaborate on that point, I would really appreciate it.
Mr. Juneau: Thank you very much.
On the first question, I don't know for sure to what extent I can give you a satisfactory answer. The fact of life now is that in the European Union, following its enlargement to Finland and Sweden, you now have three so-called Nordic countries - Denmark, Sweden and Finland - but they still have all kinds of regional organizations among themselves. They have a Baltic Council for the countries around the Baltic Sea, with the Baltic states. You have the northern cooperation.... At one point, for example, when we started getting involved with the Zaire crisis, a high official from one of these countries got in touch with us, saying he was phoning on behalf of the Scandinavian countries. So you have various geometries there as far as cooperation is concerned.
The Arctic Council is not something I have encountered recently in my career, but I did a few years ago. The main objective was to regroup all the countries bordering on the arctic area into an organization to promote exchanges and cooperation among the northern populations.
One of our objectives was to make sure our American friends would come along with us. When we started discussing this we were still speaking about the Soviet Union, but now the situation is changed with Russia, and I don't think there is - if I am not mistaken - anything equivalent in the world in terms of regrouping all the countries bordering the arctic area. As a result of that, I think it's a new forum.
It's a useful forum, and hopefully it will promote cooperation among the Nordic populations. As we all know, there were not too many contacts among the northern population of Canada and the northern population of Russia or Scandinavia, so that's an area that is certainly going to be important for those populations.
Did I answer your question?
There is no particular dimension in the European Union in relation to that, but I should mention one point here. We signed an education agreement with the European Union last year and now six projects have been approved. One of those projects, which I can describe to you if you are interested, is about cooperation among the academic institutions of Sweden, Finland and Canada. It's related to the forum and the preoccupation you just expressed.
.0945
As far as the monetary union is concerned, obviously something important is happening there. One point I would like to stress at the beginning is that I don't think there's any doubt that on January 1, 1999, you will have the start of a process of monetary union that is going to culminate with the obligation to use a common currency on January 1, 2002.
I mentioned a study we had with the Senate. One of the recommendations of that study was to make sure we would have a better look at all the implications of the development of a monetary union in Europe for relations with Canada. I would like to mention to you that our department has now commissioned a study with a professor from Saint Mary's University in Halifax, Professor Patrick Crowley, who is going to look at the effects of the European monetary union on Canada's economic interests.
When we look at these affects, we can see there will be some challenges and there will be some benefits. I may mention just a few to illustrate what I mean.
It's quite clear that when you have a monetary union in the European Union that may regroup seven, eight, or nine countries, not all of them at the beginning, you will have a force of attraction there for foreign investors. A question we may ask ourselves is whether that means investors who are coming to Canada may decide it would be more beneficial for them to invest in the European union rather than in other countries. That is the first question.
The second point that is going to be problematic is when you have that monetary union the central banks of these countries are going to disappear. As you know, they have to keep a certain percentage of hard currency in their reserves to guarantee their loans and operations. Generally speaking, there is the idea that if you have a monetary union of seven or eight countries, the central banks of these countries would get rid of something like $50 billion in U.S. dollars that would be sold because they would not need those reserves any more. They would still keep U.S. dollars, but they would naturally get rid of some of these currencies.
Another point we have to keep in mind is what that means for our participation in international monetary organizations. If everything goes well, you will have the U.S. dollar, you will have the yen, and then you would have the Eurodollar. In comparison with these currencies the Canadian dollar would be in a different category.
.0950
But there are some potential benefits. For example, we think these European countries may decide to continue to diversify their portfolios. They would keep some U.S. dollars, they may decide to keep some yen, but they will want to keep something else. The Canadian dollar would be in a very good situation to be a reserve currency for those countries. If everything goes well - and let us imagine it's going to go well because it's difficult to see it otherwise at this point in time - if the economic situation is still good in Europe, then naturally to have only one currency in something like seven, eight, or nine countries would help us with our exports. It could help our companies to increase their business, because you won't be affected by exchange rates and various kinds of currencies.
It may also be good for our investments. You invest in one country and then you have access with the same currency to the whole of the European Union market. We are speaking of about370 million people. So if we have seven, eight, or nine of them, we can have 270 million people, which is still a fairly substantial population.
But we are looking at it now in a more proper way, through analysis and through consultations we are having with the European Commission. In fact, the Deputy Minister of Finance, David Dodge, was in Brussels a month and a half ago to have the first discussions about it, and we know people from the commission are going to come here to discuss those issues with us.
What is important at this point in time - and I think your question is very appropriate in this respect - is that for a long period of time people were discussing it but at the same time suggesting it would not really happen. Now I think people understand it is going to happen - it is going to happen for sure.
The 15 countries are not all going to be there at the beginning. We will have a core of something like seven or eight countries: Germany, naturally; France; Benelux; maybe Ireland, bearing in mind that we have important investments in Ireland that would be beneficial to us in that respect; Denmark; Finland.
After that you have all kinds of question marks. How are they going to play with the criteria? You open a newspaper in Europe now and you ask, is Italy going to be there? Is Spain going to be there? They all want to be there, but I don't think they're all going to be there from the beginning.
A good question mark is Great Britain, because it's obviously our most important economic partner in Europe. The view that is being expressed from time to time is that the British may not be there right at the beginning, such as 1999, but not too long after that they will join the crowd.
So you have plus and minus, and we have to look at it in a more systematic way now.
Mr. Assadourian: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a point. Based on the answers we received from the ambassador, I would suggest we get involved in this exchange. Every time there is a delegation from EU here, we could call them as a witness so we could question them.
The other thing I would suggest -
The Chairman: Are you thinking of your retirement investment portfolio, Mr. Assadourian, as to what is the safest currency you can put your pension in?
Mr. Assadourian: His name was Patrick from the university -
Mr. Juneau: Patrick Crowley.
Mr. Assadourian: If we can call him as a witness before it starts, I think it's important.
The Chairman: You're right. I don't disagree with you. This becomes a geopolitical issue. When we were in Europe we were hearing this might well affect the trade relations between Europe and the United States. If in fact the Euro currency replaces the U.S. dollar in oil transactions, it could have an impact on the Canadian economy that far transcends -
Mr. Assadourian: That's my concern, what could happen to us.
The Chairman: I think it's a good opening question and something we have to bear in mind. I agree with you, sir.
Mr. Assadourian: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Paré.
Mr. Paré (Louis-Hébert): In replying to Mr. Bergeron, you alluded to Canada's constitutional debate which will of course have to be resolved internally. You said that we had to wait to see how things unfolded.
.0955
I think you are being rather philosophical. However, I'm not naive. I'm well aware that in the course of your discussions and relations with European parliamentary colleagues, this issue has resurfaced and I think it would not be normal for the Canadian Ambassador to say that he could not talk about these matters. Therefore, I think you have no choice but to broach these issues and you are undoubtedly called upon to express your opinion and respond to questions that are put to you.
With all due respect, I would like to ask you a question which falls within the purview of Standing Orders 110 and 111 pursuant to which we invited you here this morning.
Basically, you are my Ambassador to the European Community. You are also the Ambassador of over two million Quebeckers who, in the last referendum, voted for a sovereign Quebec. My question is as follows: as Ambassador to the European Community, does your mandate enable you to present the facts objectively as you see them?
My second question is of a more technical nature. You alluded earlier to the issue of forestry management. Stephane talked a bit about the trapping issue and I would also like to hear your views on sealing, on Canada's treatment of its aboriginal peoples, on asbestos and on the fishery. Do you have a plan of action to address these problem areas where Canada's image has not always been positive?
Mr. Juneau: Thank you. Regarding your first question, we have to remember that for the time being, Quebec independence is not a topical issue in Europe. When people see me arrive on the scene, they are not seeing someone who represents a country that is in the process of breaking up. My point is that even if this question is of great importance to us, the same cannot be said for our European partners.
Secondly, I am, of course, Canada's ambassador. I represent a country which, on the European scene, is a relatively important political and economic entity.
However, I am dealing with individuals who are totally obsessed with their own internal development, with the development of a common currency, with anything having to do with the reform of their own political structures before the European Union can be expanded to other European and Eastern European countries. I am dealing with countries facing major social crises, such as 18 million people who are unemployed, with countries that all have major political problems, such as the crisis in Ireland, terrorism in the Basques, in Corsica and so forth.
I have to say that I do not get involved in discussing these issues. When I see an Irishman standing before me, my first thoughts are not about the crisis in Northern Ireland. My job is to promote economic and trade relations between Canada and European Union countries. My mandate is highly political, commercial and economic. However, I think it's important for Canada to maintain a critical mass in order to take effective action on this front.
.1000
Since my arrival, I've made a special effort to work rather closely with the members of the Quebec delegation. I find that we are dealing with people who represent a sizeable entity. As I mentioned earlier, the European Union represents 15 countries and 310 million people and its gross national product is already much higher than the gross national product of the United States.
If we are to maintain our credibility, we need a certain critical mass in order to establish some dialogue with them.
We will have to see what the future holds on this score. As the expression goes, we will cross that bridge when we come to it.
Before leaving, I met with Quebec officials and I told them that quite naturally, they shouldn't expect me to be an advocate for Quebec independence. They all accepted my position and recognized that this was not the role of Canada's ambassador. Therefore, if a European member wishes to discuss Canada's political situation with me, I can be objective.
As for the issues that you raised, namely forestry management, sealing, aboriginal peoples, asbestos and the fishery, let me try to describe my strategy for you. I will take two rather concrete examples, namely asbestos and the fishery, to demonstrate my position.
Since Spain joined the European Union, the fishery has been a source of tension between Canada and European Union nations. However, substantial progress has been made in recent years, that is since the signing of an agreement with the Europeans in April 1995, following the crisis with Spain.
Following the signing of this agreement and the discussing of an action plan with the European Union, we decided to reopen our ports to European fishing vessels last June, after keeping these ports closed for over 15 years.
We also conveyed our willingness to cooperate more closely with European countries on joint commercial ventures such as investing in the fishery.
We also agreed to set up a working group which would oversee the establishment of a dispute settlement mechanism for the fishery sector.
I mention all of this because these objectives were identified in the 1992 agreement that we negotiated with the Europeans, but which was never ratified and is now outdated because it has been superseded by subsequent agreements. Approval was given at the NAFO meeting in St-Petersburg early last September.
It is also important for us to have the Europeans acknowledge that in terms of the TAC, that is the quota for catches in zone 2J-3K-3L, 95% of this quota should be allocated to Canada, 5% to non-Canadians and 63.4% of this 5% to European Union countries.
As you can see, things are progressing. I should have made one thing very clear at the outset: we now have an observer program in place on all European fishing vessels operating off our coasts. The coverage is 100% since each boat has at least one European observer on board.
.1005
If, in light of the observations made, the operation of these vessels proves to be unsatisfactory, the commission can step in and review the situation and the vessels can be inspected by European inspectors and, where necessary, by Canadians as well when these vessels return to port.
As you can see, we are proceeding logically. With respect to the fishery, we are tightening our controls over vessels fishing off our coasts. As I mentioned before the meeting got underway, we have to understand that the operators of these vessels believe they should have as much freedom as possible, but in light of the fact that resources have declined substantially in recent years because of overfishing, it is important that the operation of these vessels be tightly regulated. This is our strategy.
I will now say a few words about the asbestos issue.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Ambassador, I'm sorry to interrupt you.
When Mr. Bergeron and I were in Germany, two points were made relating directly to our relations with Europe. The plan of action between Canada and Europe, which is important for us, is stalled largely because of the fish issue. At the core of that issue is our law extending our jurisdiction beyond the 200 miles of our economic zone, etc. I wonder if you could tell the committee how the fish problem impacts on...if in fact this is true, and if there is any chance of moving the plan of action, and to what extent the fish discussions are likely to resolve that or not. All the members of the committee have heard a great deal about this, and we would be interested in where we're going on that.
[Translation]
Mr. Juneau: When the Prime Minister met with the European and Italian presidents in Rome last June, he was unable to finalize this action plan. I would like to relate to you the progress that has been made in this area in the intervening months.
[English]
Foreign Minister Axworthy met with the foreign minister of Ireland and Commissioner van den Broek from the European Commission in New York on September 25. They had various issues to discuss, but when they discussed the issue of the action plan, our European partners suggested they would like to propose a text that would resolve the two remaining issues. The first point was a clause on extraterritoriality. The second point was a paragraph on the fisheries.
Eventually we discovered there was a third problem. Quebec wanted to have a reference in the action plan about the role of the provinces in the implementation of the action plan, but they suggested they would like to propose the text themselves. That was on September 25. We did wait for their text until something like three weeks ago. Then we got their text. We got their text three weeks ago.
I have to say that in the meantime we have resolved the issue that was a preoccupation for Quebec.
[Translation]
We included a clause which was acceptable to Quebec officials and which states that in terms of the implementation of this action plan, provincial authorities and other subnational entities will have a role to play in the activities affecting their area of responsibility. Everyone was in agreement. As for the...
The Chairman: What about our constitutional system?
Mr. Juneau: That has been resolved.
Secondly, there is the paragraph on fish and on the fishery. The fish issue was also resolved.
.1010
All that's left is the paragraph on extraterritoriality.
[English]
I have to say that when we speak about the action plan, we speak about two documents. We speak about one that is called the action plan and another document on the side that is called a political declaration.
The paragraph on extraterritoriality is supposed to be included in the political declaration, which means that when we are speaking today, in fact, everything has been agreed on for the action plan.
When we describe it like this the European Commission doesn't like it, because they are all linked.... Yes, they are linked, but basically the action plan is done. So now we are looking at the political declaration and the text on extraterritoriality.
I'm going to be very frank and very honest with you by telling you that we received the text and we didn't like it. We wrote our text and discussed it with them. They made suggestions for modifications, which we accepted. At one point the people with whom we were, let us say, discussing - if we don't want to use the word ``negotiating'' - said we had the basis.... So I came back to my authority, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, told him what we had and asked if he agreed with it. The answer was yes.
Then we had to sell that to our member states. Obviously they started with Spain - I wasn't going to tell them how they should run their system - and it blocked there because Spain felt that basically we should say in this text that we were going to renounce the use of Bill C-29. They felt that the new fisheries act was strengthening the legislation that we had originally as Bill C-29.
We had some discussions about this in which we tried to explain again and again that withdrawing Bill C-29 from our legislation had never been on the table. We explained that we needed it as a deterrent, and in fact history shows that it has demonstrated its efficiency in the sense that as soon as we had Bill C-29, all the fishing boats that were using a flag of convenience - and which were basically chartered by Spanish companies - have disappeared and have not come back.
So that's where we are. Is it possible to resolve this remaining issue? I think it's possible, but for this to happen the Europeans have to accept the fact that we are serious when we say we want to ensure good protection of straddling stocks. If they would make some intellectual efforts, they would understand easily that Bill C-29 and Helms-Burton are not the same thing. That's what they say all the time, that it's the same kind of legislation. They say that because they have not really looked at Bill C-29.
This is the main argument I use with them when I speak to them about it. I say it's a deterrent. It's to deter those boats and to make sure that those boats that are fishing out there are going to live up to the commitments that have been negotiated among ourselves within NAFO.
The Chairman: Thank you.
I know Mr. Paré was interested in amiante as well. I interrupted him and I apologize for that.
Mr. Juneau, I just wanted to draw the members' attention to the fact that the bell for the vote has been going. We have about 23 minutes left. We need 10 minutes to break, so we have about13 minutes left. We have the continuation of Mr. Paré's question. Then I have Mr. Flis andMr. Bergeron on the list to ask a couple more questions. If we tighten it up, we will be okay. When we come back, we'll have to move on to something else.
.1015
[Translation]
Mr. Paré: As I said to Mr. Juneau, as far as I'm concerned, the asbestos issue is closed.
[English]
The Chairman: Maybe the rest of the committee might like to know this. Is the asbestos issue settled?
Mr. Juneau: No, it is not settled. The asbestos issue is one that has to be handled very carefully. It's a difficult issue because the majority of European Union countries have already banned the use of asbestos.
At this point, as far as the European Commission is concerned I think we were able to avert a major problem when the DG 3, which is basically industry, was looking at the possibility of moving toward regulation that would ban, with a few exceptions, all use of asbestos in the European Union, as they did in France. But they were not able to get the support of all the member states for this. At this point we say controlled use of asbestos can still take place in some European countries. For example, Spain is supporting us well on this particular issue, and so are Ireland and Greece.
I would like to mention something about another subject. On leg-hold traps, the deal is there. I am looking at Fred because we had the negotiating team in Brussels. I spoke with them yesterday and when I asked them what I should say to the committee, they said tell them we will have it. It's going to be done.
The Chairman: It is in draft form, waiting to be initialled.
Mr. Juneau: Yes.
The Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Juneau: It's going to be a real achievement because we have been at it since 1980.
The Chairman: This is very encouraging news. Thank you, Ambassador.
Very quickly, Mr. Flis and Mr. Bergeron.
Mr. Flis (Parkdale - High Park): I have three questions. I don't know if I'll get to all of them, but the first one is this.
In Ottawa we do have the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association. We meet quite regularly. We invite the European diplomats and it has been very fruitful. But there is a misperception out there that Canada has been looking toward Latin America with NAFTA and now Chile, etc. We are in the Asia-Pacific now. We'll be hosting the next APEC conference in our country in November of next year. There is a feeling out there that Canada has placed less emphasis on Europe. We've forgotten Europe. They pull out figures and say our trade figures are going down.
As plenipotentiary ambassador, what are you doing to correct this misperception and to continue increasing our trade between Canada and the European Union?
Mr. Juneau: Thank you, Mr. Flis.
I think it is easy for them to say this. They like to say it because they would like us to feel we have neglected them in one way or another. I disagree very strongly. In fact, you may remember when Roy MacLaren was the Minister for International Trade the ambassadors complained to former Minister MacLaren about the fact we were paying more attention to our relationship with Latin America because of the free trade agreement. They complained we had to do something because we were bringing back our troops from Germany.
This was one of the main reasons why former Minister MacLaren suggested we should have a free trade initiative with the European Union. You may remember in December 1994, the Prime Minister, in a major speech he delivered in the French Senate, proposed we look at the possibility of negotiating a free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union in order to put our economic policy approach toward Europe on the same footing as what we are doing with Latin America and Asia.
.1020
You know the result. Some countries reacted very positively to that, like Great Britain and Germany. Some other countries were more resistant, like France, for reasons that are quite understandable, suggesting that first we have to digest the Uruguay Round and ensure a good start for the new World Trade Organization.
They suggested also that bearing in mind that the European Union has to prepare itself for its enlargement and because of that they will have to modify their agricultural policy, they knew as soon as they started discussing free trade agreements with North American countries that one of the first things we would put on the table would be a look at the common agricultural policy - all this to say that there was a lukewarm reception to the idea.
Then we move to the action plan. In fact, this action plan on which we are working is the result of a working group we had with Germany at the initiative of the German foreign minister, Minister Kinkel, who suggested that he wanted to work with us on that. We produced a document, the Germans sent that to the rest of the members of the European Community, and it was used as the basis for the communication that was prepared by the European Union on the plan of action.
If they mean what they say, I fail to understand why they cannot simply say, okay, we'll go ahead with the action plan - bearing in mind that they have many problems - and that's what I told them. I said you have problems with Helms-Burton. Do you say you'll freeze the action plan with the Americans because of that? Do you stop the negotiation of the agreements that are going to come out of the action plan? No. So why do you play with this?
The Chairman: I now want to draw to the members attention that we've changed the timing. The vote is now at 10:30 a.m. I think Mrs. Gaffney would like to leave, but Mr. Flis, with your permission, Mr. Bergeron has one last question. Unless you're desperate -
Mr. Flis: I thought the official opposition had one hour and 15 minutes.
The Chairman: I quite appreciate that. I'm not suggesting that -
Mr. Flis: Since we don't have time, I would like to put my other question on the record so we can get an answer in writing. It's about the transition countries.
Mr. Juneau: I'd like to make a comment about the economic relations, because your point.... I'm just going to mention one thing.
When they say that trade is not increasing as much, you should tell them that the European Union foreign direct investments in Canada have increased by 135% between 1985 and 1995, while U.S. foreign direct investments have increased only by 66%. So it's developing. It's doing well.
It's the same thing with our own investment there. It's increasing by something like 87%, or a figure like that. We know what's important to promote the development of trade right now is investment.
Mr. Flis: This will be very helpful in our future meetings.
The other question I'd like to table is regarding countries in transition.
Could you maybe give this committee - and if the committee isn't interested, I certainly am - the countries in transition that have applied to the European Union, those that have been accepted, those that are about to be accepted, and those that it looks like it will be a long time before they're accepted. When we bump into the ambassadors here, this is the question they ask us. What's Canada doing to help our entry into the European Union?
The Chairman: Mr. Veenema, who is here from the European Union division, would be able to answer that question later on, and then we can quickly deal with any specific issue Mr. Bergeron wanted to raise with the ambassador. Then we have to run.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Ambassador, I'm sorry that you have to leave so soon. Relations between Canada and the European Union are, to my mind, so important that we could have spent many more minutes in discussion with you.
You stated earlier that in your opinion, the Berthu affair had not affected Canada's relations with the European Union. I beg to differ with you on this.
.1025
You pointed out, and rightly so I believe, that the Berthu affair had embarrassed everyone a little. That's a fact. Firstly, Mr. Berthu's statements were embarrassing in themselves, as was Canada's milk toast response which so embarrassed the Europeans that they pushed for the inclusion in the Transatlantic Accord of a clause calling for respect for national sub-entities and for provinces.
I also disagree with your statement that Europeans are not really interested in the national, Canadian and Quebec issue. On the contrary, Europeans want to know with whom they are dealing when they're doing business with Canada. Are they dealing with a country united at vitam aeternam or with a country that in the coming months or years, will see a new referendum on sovereignty and eventually, the emergence of a new sovereign country on the international scene? I think it's inevitable that they ask you this type of question.
I would have two questions for you concerning theses preliminary remarks. First of all, when questions are put to you concerning sovereignty or the last referendum - and I'm not calling into question your objectivity - are you in a position to give them a fairly accurate picture of the situation here, namely that there is a movement representing almost 50% of the population, or do you simply tell them that people have misunderstood the issue and that this should not happen again in the future? Or do you tell them we're trying to resolve these problems internally, so that Canada remains united? I'm not quite sure how you answer these questions.
Secondly, I have a much broader question concerning the Transatlantic Accord which is very important. How far have the talks on the Transatlantic Accord progressed to date? Furthermore, in light of the clause that has been agreed upon, how are the provinces, in particular Quebec, involved in the negotiations and in the eventual signing of the Accord?
Mr. Juneau: You are talking about the ``national'' issue. I merely said that this was not a topical issue for the moment. I didn't say that it was of no interest to them. It's not on the agenda for the time being, but perhaps it will be later on. As I only recently arrived on the scene, you can understand that my agenda is to deal with crises as they arise.
I want you to know that it was not the Europeans who demanded the inclusion of the provincial clause. It was included further to representations by Quebec officials to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Axworthy. At the time, we were somewhat surprised to learn of their concerns, but we felt that they must be justified. We then began to look at the issue and finally, shortly after my arrival in Brussels, I spoke about this to Quebec's Delegate General. We agreed to draft a brief text which was approved by ministerial officials.
Mr. Bergeron: That's a good thing.
Mr. Juneau: As for the Transatlantic Accord, I discussed this matter earlier when you were absent. I explained the situation in considerable detail. When people ask me to talk about the political situation in Canada, I always answer - and I truly believe this - that Canada will be able to resolve its own problems internally.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. We have two minutes to get to the House. Thank you for coming. I know that colleagues will want to continue their discussions of European issues. Thank you very much.
.1030
.1112
[English]
The Chairman: I call to order this meeting of the committee.
Your Excellency, we are very pleased to have you here this morning. I apologize for the confusion, but you were good enough to tell me you're a former chair of a committee yourself, so you're perfectly aware of the exigencies of parliamentary life, and votes take precedence over all other forms of activity. Unfortunately, that's the nature of the beast.
We're most interested in what you have to say because this committee, along with the Senate, early in this government's mandate prepared a report on the future orientation of Canadian foreign policy. One of the key chapters in that report was what we called culture and learning, and how that forms our foreign policy.
I think the members of this committee see this as a process whereby our Canadian cultures and values are extended out into international institutions and then come back through international institutions to us. So as the globalization process takes place, I think the role of UNESCO is of extraordinary importance in today's world.
We're very pleased to have you here today with us. As I say, I apologize for the fact that so many of our members are trapped in the House, but welcome to the committee and thank you for taking the time to see us.
His Excellency Mr. Federico Mayor (Director General, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)): Mr. Chairman, I feel at home when I am in Parliament because I have been very honoured to have been elected to the Spanish Parliament and, afterwards, to the European Parliament.
Also, as director general of UNESCO, I realize the parliaments are the only solution for our common future. It is the way in which we can, through discussion and debate, redress the present situation. There is no other force than the force of the word - the force of the parliaments in which the people, as you know, talk. This is what parliament means.
.1115
We are extremely interested in promoting democracy throughout the world, because it's only through sustainable development that we can have peace in the world. Peace is a prerequisite. Sometimes I think we take for granted that we are living in a context of peace and therefore can have the right to education, housing, government and justice. All these rights fade out when there is not this context of freedom in which both women and men can express themselves.
Very often it is said that what matters is the empire of law. This is not true, because the law cannot be just. I remember particularly that in this century there has been, in Europe precisely, one empire of law in which the nicest laws were laws that were unjust, because the people were unable to express themselves. Therefore, the only means by which laws are just is when you have freedom of expression, when all the citizens are able to participate.
I'd like very much to say that only to the extent that all citizens can participate can a democracy become a genuine democracy. We have so many countries in which the people are not prepared. They have not had access to education; therefore, the participation is very limited. As citizens, we must say that because we participate, we therefore exist. If I do not participate, I do not exist as a citizen. I am counted in the polls and in the elections, but I do not count for my country.
This is only to tell you the extent to which I feel at home. I am happy to be in one parliament, because it is only to the extent that citizens will be represented fully in a parliament that we can have a democracy. Having these principles of democracy applied, we will have a sustainable, less asymmetric development.
Today we still have a very important gap that is rooted in extremism, fundamentalism and terrorism. This difference between the haves and the have-nots is so big today that we must redress it, and the only way for redressing it is precisely through a democratic context throughout the world.
We in UNESCO studied the roots of conflict, because finally we were a part of the United Nations system for building peace through endogenous development, education, science, culture and communication. We were to do it in such a way that all the citizens could act as full citizens and not be excluded.
What are the roots of exclusion? When we studied that we realized there are economic, social, cultural, gender - there is a gender exclusion that is very important in many countries - and educational exclusions.
We now realize that with the formal educational system, there are many people who are excluded after they have five, six, seven years in it, and the train of education will never again pass by their door. Therefore, we considered also that for education for all, we must have education throughout life. That's because it's the only way by which you can catch this train, which is the one you lost because you were not living in a village or city where there was a school or higher education centre. You can always again catch this train you lost if you have education throughout life. This is a dimension that we consider extremely important.
Today we have these problems and challenges at the worldwide level of population growth. Every day there are 250,000 more people on the skin of the planet. This is a real problem.
Today we can announce that there is already a decline. From the beginning of 1991, with the increase of education, there has been a decline in the population of the planet. That is only through education in all contexts, whatever they are. They could be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, animist, Shintoist or Confucianist. Whatever their belief context is, when education rises, the population, the fertility, decreases.
.1120
We have realized it is only by giving to each woman and man the capacity of mastering their life that you can achieve these very important targets of population moderation in the next years.
Also, for immigration, Canada is a country that in my view is particularly important at the world level, because of this attitude you have of being one multicultural, pluralistic society, because of immigration flows. But we must be careful, because these immigration flows can become extremely relevant in the next years.
In Europe today, as you know, we are already paying the price of not honouring our promise. In 1974, in a United Nations resolution, we said to the countries around that we would give them 0.7% of our GNP in order to promote their endogenous development. Today they could even be clients of these countries, but today the quality of life in the rural areas is very bad. Therefore it is only through education that you can increase capacity in the rural areas so quality of life rises and the immigration flow decreases.
We have already good examples of this in UNESCO, together with the World Bank, UNDP, UNICEF and the Fund for Population Activities. We have had a very big alliance since 1990, and we have chosen nine countries. We applied this throughout the world, but there are nine countries on which we have focused our activity. They represent 72% of the illiterates on the planet, from 15 to60 years of age. They represent 53% of the whole population of the planet.
The results are very good after five years of application of this education for all throughout life, with their own reshaping of their budgets. With external support, you can promote or trigger activities, but education is a fundamental right. It's their own budgets that must be reshaped with new priorities.
In China, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria, Brazil and Mexico, with this effort we are trying to approach 6% of the GNP by the year 2000. The results are already very encouraging. There is a decrease in the immigration flows in this country, there is a decrease in fertility, and what in my view is very important is that the quality of life in the rural areas is rising.
They need skills-intensive learning in their own language, because another problem is language. Sometimes we put literacy before skills. We must now change this approach to first skills and then literacy, if we can, in their own language. We must have a multilingual education.
Here again Canada is for us a good point of reference, as you are a good point of reference in the vision of the globality of the problems in the world. For most of my life I've been in the poorest countries of the world, and I can assure you that you are well perceived. Canada is well perceived because of this vision that you will not have peace and security in Canada for long if you do not take into account the peace and security in the other parts of the world.
In my view, in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s the world was only attentive to economic growth. The international development strategy, which is approved every ten years in the United Nations, was always based on economic growth. It was based on economic growth at first.
The present ideas in the international development strategy of 1990.... And we worked very hard. I personally worked very hard on this. For the first time, besides economic growth, you find two pillars: one is the alleviation of poverty and the second one is human resources. This means education - education through the media, education to reach the unreached and to include the excluded. These are the two very big aspects that I consider can redress some of the present trends.
.1125
These are some of the aspects that I could give you in a nutshell. I know the problems you have today with the votes at the same time. I repeat that in my turn I was in your place in the Spanish Parliament, and I know everyday events in Parliament sometimes change the prospects you have prepared.
I am very happy only to leave here a very recent report. This is the report of the commission that was chaired by the former president of the European Union, Mr. Jacques Delors. It is very important, because we are here learning to live together. That is one of the most important aspects at the end of the century.
This is the report of the Javier Pérez de Cuéllar commission on culture. Here again, this is very important. Canada can pass on the values you have and also the distinction you have for your multiculturalism. It's very important.
Also I have a review of the reforms I have introduced in UNESCO in order that UNESCO can really act as a tool for peace at the world level.
I'll leave these with you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
I appreciate very much your consideration and your realization that the problem of the vote is no disrespect for you or your institution. It's just the exigencies of life here. We really are going to have to adjourn to get back, because our whip is insistent that we be there for this particular vote.
Excellency, I would like to just say in concluding that we'll make sure the members of the committee receive a transcript of your remarks. They feed into a great deal of what we're trying to achieve in this committee. We're very sensitive to the fact that foreign affairs and international trade are inextricably linked with culture, learning and education. We regularly debate many of the issues you referred to, and we're privileged to have had you here with us today.
Thank you very much for coming.
Mr. Mayor: Very well. If you wish, I can perhaps send you from Paris a summary of what I intended to say in some more detail.
The Chairman: That would be helpful.
Mr. Mayor: You can distribute it to the members of the committee.
The Chairman: That would be wonderful. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Before leaving, I would like to give you this very nice medal from UNESCO.
The Chairman: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: One of the monuments we have restored is the Parthenon in Athens. Here you have a very beautiful caryatid, and on her shoulders and her head she has all the weight of the Parthenon.
The Chairman: There's no politics in this, nothing to do with the Elgin Marbles or anything. I see nothing political in this.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mayor: No, nothing political.
The Chairman: We have a small something, which I will arrange to send you.
Thank you for coming, Excellency.
We're adjourned.