FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 15, 1999

• 1524

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): I want to call this meeting to order.

Members, you recall that this was to be our session on estimates, but Mr. Axworthy has suggested that we use it as an opportunity to bring ourselves up to date on Kosovo. So I'm going to ask the minister if he'll make an opening statement on Kosovo, and then we can go into estimates later on.

• 1525

The minister has said that he's quite willing to continue his discussion on Kosovo through the estimates, so we'll try to be as flexible as we can about that. Some members may want to ask questions about Kosovo, some may want to ask questions about the estimates.

[Translation]

Mr. Turp, are you raising a point of order?

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): No, I just wanted to make sure that we would also talk about the Main Estimates and not only about Kosovo.

The Chairman: We are here to discuss both.

[English]

Mr. Minister, I would ask you to begin.

Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Turp is so soft-spoken, I can't hear his interventions.

The Chairman: That's when he's most dangerous.

[Translation]

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: May I begin, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes, please, Mr. Minister.

[English]

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the main estimates of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. We're working to adapt these resources to meet the priorities of our foreign policy framework.

[Translation]

This is already the third time I appear before the committee this year. This shows the profile and the...

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

...of our relationship and it also reflects the importance and usefulness of this committee, as well as the commitment of members of Parliament to our foreign policy.

Monday's debate again demonstrated the fact that members of Parliament can and should contribute to the debate, and I would like to thank all members for their thoughtful reflections and the many recommendations I received.

[English]

Chairman, in response to the request you made on behalf of the members of the committee, we will be providing regular bi-weekly briefings on Tuesdays and Thursdays to the committee. It's my understanding that the committee would open up those hearings to all members of Parliament, all interested parliamentarians in fact, so that they can be in attendance and that we could maintain an up-to-date information and examination of developments in the Kosovo region.

I thought before turning to the actual main estimates themselves I might provide with you an update on the most recent developments in terms of what's happening in Kosovo and some of the responses we're making.

I don't have to tell you, because I think you see it with your own eyes and can get the reports coming out of the region, that the terror and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo is continuing. The number of refugees is now estimated at over 660,000, almost 40% of the pre-conflict population of Kosovo itself.

What I thought was particularly disturbing, members of the committee, was the report we received from Olara Otunnu, the special representative for children of the secretary general. He pointed out, in terms of his examination from just being in the region, that 65% of the expelled Kosovars were children, and perhaps even more disturbing is that 50% of the families have one or more members separated from them, which shows that there is a very severe disjunction taken place.

Lucie Edwards, who is our ADM... I should have introduced Lucie. Don Campbell and Jim Wright I think you all know. Jim of course is now a star of stage and screen in terms of his daily briefings. Lucie, who has experience in Africa, pointed out to me that those are figures that have comparison to what happened in Rwanda. I think one can draw at least some initial conclusions from there, but it does demonstrate the degree to which the civilian populations there had been victimized.

We're also extremely concerned for those who remain in Kosovo. They face an extremely difficult situation. It's not easy to get a full fix on it, because there are such limited sources of information, but if there's a positive side to it it's that the international community is developing its ability and capacity to deal with the plight of refugees. NATO, the UNHCR, the international organizations of migration, ICRC, the humanitarian organizations are working really in overdrive to provide for settlement and basic necessities. I think that out of the scenes of chaos we saw a week ago some real order is being established.

• 1530

NATO is increasing its presence in Albania to support the humanitarian effort. So is the OSCE. And as you know, Canadian General Maisonneuve heads a team that provides help to the humanitarian organizations on the part of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. We have sent Ambassador Raphael Gerard as our special envoy to the region to assess the situation of refugees and to keep contact with the Albanian and Macedonian officials. Teams from the Department of Foreign Affairs and from Citizenship and Immigration and CIDA are liaising with authorities to support the work. CIDA has an active mission, and, as Madam Marleau has announced, some $15 million in humanitarian assistance has been provided since March 30.

At the NATO meetings on Monday, the meeting of foreign ministers, there was a very clear determination and sense of unity of purpose to maintain the effort to confront the activities of the Yugoslav government under Milosevic to depopulate, cleanse, and in other ways victimize people in that area. The assessment given at the time is that the air campaign is the most appropriate means. I think, as the declaration of Secretary General Solana indicated, that these are the basic principles upon which we're working. We seek an immediate end to violence and repression, withdrawal from Kosovo of the Yugoslav military and paramilitary forces, deployment of an international military presence, and the return of refugees. It's important to note that those principles were endorsed this weekend by Secretary General Kofi Annan issuing a statement and meeting yesterday with the EU heads of state to confirm that.

As I said in the House of Commons today, I also had the opportunity to speak with Secretary General Annan this morning, and he reiterated the fact that he thinks those five principles can form the basis of a negotiation. He was urging us, along with others, to support the activity in that regard. He himself is actively engaged in a variety of diplomatic overtures to different parties. I think there is the sense that we must continue to put as much pressure as possible on the Milosevic regime, which is responsible for the crisis, to make them understand that this kind of repression of their own population is unacceptable by international humanitarian standards, that you can't terrorize your own population and get away with it.

There's been a lot of discussion about the German proposal. Let me give you background on that. I explained part of it during question period. At the meetings that were organized last weekend with senior officials of the G-8 countries, of which Canada is a member and which includes Russia as a member, there was a very active examination of how there could be proposals that might form the basis of a settlement. Those were issued by the German chancellor and foreign minister to the EU members. They're one of the elements within that proposal. As many of you know, it was the idea that if there was an agreement by the Milosevic regime to withdraw its military police and paramilitary troops there could then be a conditional holding of the bombing while that withdrawal took place.

The other element I think is important is to determine how we could be of assistance to the international aid organizations to provide immediate aid within Kosovo itself and then to follow through on the other conditions that have been established by the secretary general, by NATO itself, leading toward some kind of agreement.

I want to make very clear that we welcome this. These are important issues. As I listened to members of Parliament in the statements that were made on Monday night—well, I wasn't there, but I had the chance to review the transcripts—I think that reflects the views of everybody in Parliament. It is important.

I want to emphasize that this is a process. I know that there's been a feeling that Parliament should endorse this plan, but the plan is only a plan when it becomes an agreement, and at this point in time there are nuances and variations of that being discussed as it goes between various capitals.

• 1535

The Prime Minister indicated today that he will be speaking to various NATO leaders. I had further discussions this morning with Foreign Minister Ivanov, which again I think was very constructive. I have a sense that the Russians are very interested in playing a positive role in trying to find some resolution to the conflict. But the one major sticking point we still face is there is not yet agreement, in any way, shape, or form, by the Yugoslav regime. Until you get that agreement to at least begin responding to these overtures and initiatives, you can't go very far. It takes two to make a deal, and right now the other side is silent and has set its preconditions that at this point are not acceptable.

I want to tell the committee that we are doing what we can, as are other NATO countries, the United States, the Russians, and other countries. I don't want to underestimate. We are deeply committed to finding out how the diplomatic circuits and contacts can be used to seek out some form of agreement. I don't think I've ever felt anything more deeply in my life than the need to find those kinds of solutions.

It's not easy; it's not something that will happen overnight. There are no panaceas or quick-fix solutions. It's going to take some serious hard work, and I hope we will be successful as soon as possible. We will keep members of Parliament continually up to date, and not only through the briefings.

If there are any changes that I think indicate that further progress is being made, we will be in touch with the individual critics to keep them up to date on that. Then if it requires a further committee meeting on a short term, we will be very happy to provide it. That's where we are. I am certainly prepared to take any further questions.

If I might just turn for a moment to the estimates themselves, the figures on expenditures of resources are in front of you in the estimates book. They highlight the wide range of instruments we have to try to promote the human security agenda. They go everywhere from a variety of peaceful tools of negotiation, persuasion, involvement, and initiative to the more robust action, including in this case military options.

We will continue to try to refine and develop the department's assets and facilities, which by the way are primarily human resources. Departments of foreign affairs are really dependent upon the capacity and skills of the people who serve the department. We don't have a lot of heavy machinery, but we do have some very effective and very proficient public servants.

On the areas in which we will continue to be active, I want to point out that in early May of this year we will be helping to convene some 70 countries in Maputo, Mozambique, to deal with the founding members of the landmines treaty—those countries that have signed the treaty into force. We're working with the Mozambique government to organize that. We see this as a major platform for the continuation and expansion of the landmines campaign.

The statute of the International Criminal Court has been subject to very extensive discussions in the preparatory committee. I want to indicate to you that I think we've made some real progress. Some of the objections raised by some of the key countries, including the United States, are now being dealt with. There's a much more positive attitude being expressed. There is a campaign being organized for ratification, so I feel the International Criminal Court itself is taking on some real substance and activity.

As you all know, we were elected to the Security Council this year. I already reported to the committee the last time I was here about many of the activities we're undertaking. Right now we are engaged in major discussions on the Iraq panels, on humanitarian assistance, arms control, and the return of prisoners. Ambassador Fowler is organizing a major visit to Angola as chairman of the Angola sanctions committee. We are also very actively involved in the Sierra Leone file.

• 1540

Our colleague David Pratt, the member of Parliament for Nepean—Carleton, just returned last week from being our special envoy to Sierra Leone. If I can make a suggestion, I think it would be very helpful to have David brief members of the committee. I think he's come back with some very important recommendations. He'll be my representative at the United Nations. I think Friday there will be a meeting on Sierra Leone at the Security Council, where we will begin to look at a plan of action to deal with the serious humanitarian problems arising there.

We're also actively involved in Sudan. I met with a number of the NGOs. I've also met with Talisman Energy, which is a major Canadian oil producer in Sudan. We're hoping we can come up with a policy framework that will deal with how we can get a peace zone. We're working closely with the Norwegian government on negotiating peace settlements in Sudan.

Speaking of that, I would indicate to you that on May 17 and 18 there will be a meeting of the H-11—the humanitarian 11. It's a group of 11 countries we've organized, along with the Norwegians, to deal with human security matters. There is a quite interesting agenda being developed for joint activities on behalf of issues like children in war, small arms, and an international program of human rights education we can pursue as part of our track.

A major commitment this coming year will be the involvement of Canada in taking a major leadership role in the hemisphere. As you know, the trade ministers will be meeting this fall. The OAS general assembly will be held in Canada. The leaders of the summit will be held here. If I may, Mr. Chair, I will remind members that the Pan Am Games will be hosted in Winnipeg in the summer. It's the first major hemispheric event. You're all invited to come. There will be many leaders there.

A voice: Winnipeg?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Surprisingly, yes. It happened before—I didn't have anything to do with it, Mr. Chairman.

One of the areas on which I wanted to provide a paper to the committee is the Youth International Internship Program—something we initiated two years ago. It provides each year somewhere between 300 and 400 graduates of our colleges and universities with international experience overseas. I think you'd be very proud of these young men and women. They're doing an extraordinary job working on environmental problems, human rights issues, and trade promotion. The program has provided direct employment for over 1,000 young Canadians, and 81% are now employed as a result of that. I think the work they're doing, in combination with everything from trade organizations to NGOs and so on, is really exemplary.

Just to give you an example, Project Ploughshares has placed 26 interns with security research institutes in South Africa, Costa Rica, and the Demilitarization for Democracy program. The University of Saskatchewan has placed 15 aboriginal interns with indigenous organizations in New Zealand, Guatemala, and Costa Rica.

Just as an interesting sidelight, we've all been intrigued by the establishment of Nunavut a week or so ago. We just approved a major program for Nunavut to send some of our Inuit graduates to Bolivia to work on indigenous problems there, to share the knowledge they've had in self-government in the north. So the youth internship program has those kinds of activities going on.

Finally, I'd like to speak about some of the third pillar activities. We have increased our allocations this year for international, cultural, artistic, and educational events,

[Translation]

which represent Canada abroad. It's an essential part of our Department's work. For instance, we will continue to do all we can to reflect and promote Canada's full cultural diversity abroad. Through our cultural programs, we can support events, big and small,

[English]

from tours by the Montreal and Toronto symphonies to Nova Scotia Celtic singer Mary Jane Lamond; through programming at Canada House in London and the Centre culturel à Paris, to events in New York by the National Ballet, tenor Ben Heppner and singer Diana Krall, who is a great jazz artist, and I recommend her highly; from a tour this spring by Theatre Ubu of Montreal, to performances by Inuit throat singers in Belgium and France—a great hit, by the way, out there.

So through this public diplomacy area there is a very strong effort by us to establish a Canadian presence abroad and demonstrate to outsiders the incredible richness and diversity of our culture.

• 1545

I'd also like to mention that we are actively engaged right now in the preparedness for the Y2K problem. We're mandated by the Prime Minister to look after the international connections and relations with other countries. We're devoting resources to minimizing the risks for Canadians abroad. It's a very significant issue, members of the committee. At any one time, there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians in a variety of places. You know from your own experience with consular services that it's important to maintain effective communications, contact, and opportunities in order for Canadians to get the protection they need. Therefore, we're working very actively in the Y2K preparedness area, and I think the deputy is here to provide any further information.

Finally, I would just like to comment that in the human resources area we are trying to make some major improvements. I reported to the committee last year that we were experiencing a very serious attrition rate of young officers. They were being wooed away by higher salaries and sometimes simply by the lack of overseas opportunity. I can report that over the past twelve months, the attrition rate has dropped substantially, from 25% of young officers last year to 8% this year. I want to pay tribute to Miss Edwards and the work she's doing as the ADM in this area, because I think it's been a very important area.

We are also undertaking a new, quite ambitious resource strategy from the point of view of recruitment, in order to ensure a far more representative foreign service, to provide better career planning and support for our headquarters staff, and to provide training for our locally engaged staff abroad, because they represent 80% of our overseas staff. We are also looking at the very difficult problem of how we can provide better support for spouses of foreign service officers in their overseas programming.

Workload, overtime, and burnouts are still major issues. These days, the lights are burning very late in the missions, and they go on very early in the morning. I can attest to that. It's not just Kosovo and crises like that; it's the great consular workloads and the variety of inquiries that we receive, many from members of Parliament. I want to provide my own personal thanks to the members of this department, who I think are performing extremely well.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude my remarks and take questions.

The Chairman: Thank you, Minister.

We won't take your last cri de coeur for a higher salary for the minister because of all the questions you're going to get asked by the members of Parliament.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I just want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that it's up to the committee, should they want to amend the estimates upwards at any point in time.

The Chairman: You'll always get support in this committee, but there's another committee that sits in this room that we often have to fight with, I think.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Thank you.

Mr. Minister, I too would certainly pay a lot of compliments to many of our people working in the foreign affairs department around the world. I've met many of them over the year, and certainly most of them are doing a darned good job and deserve our thanks. I don't think you're here to hear those compliments, though, and you would really think something was wrong if I followed on that approach.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Be my guest, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: Anyway, starting off, I'd like to ask you three questions, and because I'd like to get answers to all three questions, I would ask you to limit your answers as much as possible.

First of all, obviously I think all of us were pretty upset by the tragic deaths of innocent civilians that we witnessed today. Again, on the horrors of war that have gone on in Kosovo, all of us are abhorred by what we have seen.

Because you're here to talk about the estimates primarily, I guess I'd like to refer to page 7 to start off my first question on the new approaches to foreign affairs. You say there is a great increase in the number of stakeholders, and at the bottom of the page you say “The Government is committed to public engagement in foreign and trade policy development.” I think that's very commendable. As a populist, I think that's exactly how it should be. But how can you really be consistent when this week we asked for a vote on something as important to Canadians as possibly sending troops to Yugoslavia in a conflict situation... How can you reconcile those two somewhat contradictory points of view when you want engagement, you want commitment, and there are more stakeholders out there, yet we're not allowed to vote on something as basic as that? That would be my first question.

• 1550

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I think the answer to that is reasonably simple, and I'll make it short.

There was no plan to send additional ground troops to Kosovo, so there wasn't much to vote on. The only commitment we've made is to provide peacekeeping troops for an implementation. There is no plan. There is no decision. NATO has not made any decision. The Government of Canada has made no decision.

Mr. Bob Mills: What if we do? I think that's the point.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Mills, you don't vote on hypotheticals in Parliament. You vote on real things, on something that actually happens, on presentation.

Mr. Bob Mills: What we want is a commitment that if—

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: To vote on something that may happen in the future, without knowing what that may be, what it may do, who may be involved, doesn't make a lot of sense.

Mr. Bob Mills: But simply, if we want to send ground forces, will we have a vote in the House of Commons? If we don't send ground forces, we don't need a vote.

The Chairman: Talk to us about cabinet government.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I'm glad Mr. Chair prompted me on that. I think the point we have made is that there is an executive responsibility to make these decisions within the parliamentary system. The Prime Minister has indicated—and I think we've followed through on it very actively since we've been in government—for a wide variety of parliamentary debates and engagements of the committee. We use the example that in the British House they haven't even bothered to ask the members of Parliament for their opinion on any of these activities.

I think we have to be very careful that we don't end up in a similar... If you want to revert to the republican-style government or congressional-style government, the Americans are facing the enormous limitations of the Tonkin resolution, which provides very severe limitations. Let me give you an example. Canada had to fill in after the United States Congress told the President to get out of Haiti after six months. There was no reason to get out, because the job wasn't done. The Congress said to get out, however, because the Congress was controlled by a different party from that of the President. We're in a situation in which I think we have to be very careful that we don't begin providing those kinds of limitations.

I want to emphasize that I know there's a fixation on the vote, but frankly I think the debates themselves have been very instructive, very heuristic, and when there are very specific requirements for votes when we have to have implementation legislation on treaties and matters like that, of course we'll bring it to Parliament. But I must maintain that we're very open and very active in working with Parliament. As I said, this is my third appearance here within four months, which I think is probably a record for a Minister of Foreign Affairs. I recall that when I was opposition critic, sometimes we didn't see the minister from one year to the next. Maybe you'd prefer it that way. I don't know.

Mr. Bob Mills: Let me get on to my second question, then. On page 20 of the estimates we find the statement about our seat on the UN Security Council:

Promote effective management of international crises by the Council and develop institutional capacities at the UN and regionally for effective crisis response.

I know you endorse that, and I know you believe in that. I also know that you said the following in 1991: “For us to become a combatant, for us to be on the front lines, will destroy and eliminate the ability of Canada to play a peacekeeping role.”

Keeping that quote in mind, I again ask whether we don't have a serious credibility problem, or whether we have created a serious credibility problem. In the estimates we say we are going to play an important role and that this is the value of having that UN seat, but we then have your quote saying that if we get involved in combat, we are going to destroy our credibility. Bringing that case forward, I wonder what we have done to your foreign policy dream.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Mills, I could give you a very long answer, but I'll instead tell you what we're pointing out in the estimates. As the international scene has changed so dramatically, where conflict has become not aggression across boundaries but a series of internal conflicts, we in Canada have constantly put forward the importance of protecting civilians, providing a standard of human security, and ensuring that people aren't overly victimized. We're using the United Nations actively to promote those causes, through everything from the International Criminal Court, to the initiative we took at the United Nations Human Rights Commission this last week, to establishing at the Security Council the proposals for the protection of civilians.

• 1555

It comes down to this: The record, as we have seen beginning in Bosnia, and reflected equally in places like Rwanda and Somalia, and now in Sudan and Sierra Leone, is that there are regimes, both governmental and sometimes of warlord or non-state varieties, that victimize people, that kill them, that commit the worst atrocities imaginable. I just gave you the figures on what's happened with the refugees over there. Over 60% are children, and we know they've lost their parents.

If you're going to provide a rule of law to protect against those sorts of things—and we are trying to slowly evolve towards a new rule of law internationally on the humanitarian grounds—you sometimes have to be prepared to enforce it. It is a difficult decision. It's the last decision you make.

Mr. Mills, because we've talked about this, I think you know that, beginning last summer, we did everything possible to bring the Kosovo issue in front of the Security Council. We weren't even a member of the Security Council then, but we kept saying that it had to engage on this thing because it was a ticking time bomb, that there were things happening there and that the council had to start addressing them. Through NATO and through the UN, there were all kinds of efforts. There were at least two UN resolutions condemning the ethnic cleansing, condemning the atrocities that were being committed. But finally—and I suppose this is where we had to come down as a member of NATO—the Security Council was stymied because of the use of the veto. At the same time, there is the charter, there's the Geneva Convention, there are genocide conventions. Someone had to take a stand, and we felt NATO had the capacity to do it. We did feel that if we don't take a stand on enforcing those new humanitarian standards, then we will have utter chaos.

Mr. Bob Mills: Of course that's where my criticisms of soft power have been. You and I could sit here for several days and discuss soft power 1960 and the whole bit, but that's not why we're here.

Turning to my third question, in today's edition of the Washington Post it states: “Kofi Annan is eager to travel to Belgrade to investigate the possibilities of a negotiated settlement, but western leaders are opposed.” That's the quote from the paper. I know you have personally argued that this seat on the United Nations Security Council will help us to become more global and provide global leadership. I wonder what your position is exactly on whether or not Kofi Annan should go to Belgrade, and whether you are promoting that, arguing for that within the UN and NATO.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I haven't had the advantage Mr. Mills has had in being able to read the Washington Post today. I was otherwise occupied. But I did speak to Kofi Annan directly. We had about a twenty-minute conversation this morning. He did not mention in any way anything about going to Belgrade. We did talk about the five-point proposals he put forward last weekend. We talked about the possibility of finding some area of agreement, particularly around the establishment of some international force. We talked about the ways in which various negotiations could take place. He encouraged me to speak to the Russian foreign minister, which I did about an hour and a half later. But he did not talk about going to Belgrade, so it didn't come up as part of the conversation.

I think the Secretary General is deeply committed to this issue. I think he wants to find a solution, but one also has to sparingly use one's diplomatic position and credits. I'm just responding to your question in that even though Mr. Annan did not raise it, if he does go to Belgrade and comes back with nothing, he will have really have taken a real shot in the dark. Maybe the timing is not right. But I have enough trust in Secretary General Annan's diplomatic judgment that when he feels the time is right he'll talk to the rest of us to get that endorsement.

Mr. Bob Mills: But just on the other side of that, isn't this just weakening or making the UN look weaker and weaker because he's not doing anything? Of course we did it with Iraq, but now we're not doing it.

The Chairman: Bob, you're really kind of abusing the time.

We'll turn it over to Mr. Turp, and maybe the minister in the meantime can be advised. When Mr. Annan has had a chance to read the Washington Post, he'll know he has to go to Belgrade. Until he's had a chance to read the Washington Post, he'll be making up his own mind.

Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: I would also like to highlight the fact that we appreciate the Minister finding the time to meet with us. Just yesterday, his House leader told us he would be available after a debate which never took place because of the Reform Party. As the Minister knows, I have a lot of respect for some of the officials working in his Department, especially one person whom we see every day, Jim Wright, whom the Minister must be proud of. But in a few moments, I'll say something about people who are not quite as proud of their Department and who in fact have a problem with it.

• 1600

The second part of my questions will deal with the budget and the Estimates. You have to distinguish between these two things; it is important for you to respond more specifically to questions on the budget and the Estimates of the Department.

I would first like to ask you a few things about Kosovo. Even though you've tried to speak French recently, which is much appreciated, Mr. Minister, the language sometimes plays tricks on you. A little earlier, in the House, you used the expression of support for a vote; that's why our parliamentary leader thought you had chosen to hold a vote in the House on this issue. I will also do my best and ask you a question in English, just to be very, very clear.

[English]

You said you were deeply committed to this, and probably you are. But I don't think you and the government are deeply committed to informing properly the Parliament, this committee, opposition parties, and the Canadian people.

I'll give you just one example. This afternoon in question period we heard the Prime Minister say that there might be six more CF-18s that would go to the theatre. Your Minister of Defence said he was evaluating the idea of sending more planes there. There is a problem. There is a lack of transparency.

I believe you're deeply committed to this, but you're not committed to informing the public properly. There's something you're not doing properly.

We appreciated getting phone calls from Heidi Hulan during the three or four first days of the conflict, but then it fell flat—no more phone calls. We were promised some briefings. Well, we will have briefings, but there is a lack of transparency. You have to realize that.

What do you want and what will you do so that the public is better informed? You saw what Clinton said today in his administration and the Secretary of Defense: it's much more specific. What do you want to do to inform us properly about what's happening?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I disagree with Mr. Turp. Since it started, not only were we in touch with critics on a daily basis... I don't know if it lapsed; I think we made every effort to contact people. We also had a major briefing that Mr. Eggleton and I attended during the period of the parliamentary break. We were in this room for close to three hours. We put forward everything we knew at the time. We provided daily briefings in the most transparent way. Mr. Wright, who you compliment, and members of the defence department are there to answer questions. During the parliamentary break Mr. Eggleton and I appeared when there were any policy decisions that had to be made. We're in question period every day, which is far more open than anything Mr. Clinton ever has to face, as he's often said, or Madam Albright.

We have now had at least three major debates on this issue: last October, last February, and on Monday night. I think that is—

Mr. Daniel Turp: No specifics, Mr. Minister, generalities all the time during question period and committees.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Turp, what do you mean by generalities? When you're talking about whether there will be six more planes, the fact is the decision hasn't been made yet. We've received a request from NATO. The defence minister is doing what a defence minister is supposed to do: he's evaluating it. He will then make recommendations to the Prime Minister. He'll ask for my opinions on this. He'll ask for opinions of certain other ministers in the committee the Prime Minister has established. That decision hasn't been made yet. I mean, we could give you false information, that we're going to do it or we're not going to do it. Ministers have to make decisions; that's what we're sworn to do.

I don't think anybody was holding anything from you. You got exactly the straight goods. We've been asked, and we haven't decided yet. The Prime Minister has to receive the recommendation from the Minister of Defence, which he hasn't received yet.

Mr. Daniel Turp: That's not very convincing.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: What more can I say? That's the way it is.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Give more information. Share information, as other governments seem to be sharing with their populations, with their MPs. It's fine that Jim talks to the media; it's very important that the media be well informed. But parliamentarians need to be better informed, in the House and elsewhere.

• 1605

Let me go on to something else now. On voting, you always bring in the issue that we're in a parliamentary system where there's cabinet government. You bring it up all the time when I discuss treaties. You say we're not in a republican system. Well, obviously it happened when the Conservatives here voted. You even wanted us in the House to vote, and the Conservatives accepted. That's nothing about being republican in a republican system.

Why do you not want to have the support of this House on the idea that there might be troops sent? Why don't you want that? Because we're in a system where government should make all the decisions, and not need parliamentary approval on important issues like this?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Turp should go back to a little recent parliamentary history. During the Gulf War the Canadian government sent warships to the gulf. It was August, and Parliament was on a break; it was not brought back until September 22. There was no debate, no discussion, in fact no briefings. I was the critic at the time, and I remember. So there was a period of six or eight weeks when there was absolutely nothing. During that period of time I think there were two parliamentary debates—no votes—during October and November. So a period of about six months went on without any votes. There was finally a vote in January on the very specific motion dealing with the United Nations.

I think the Prime Minister has indicated that he's open to look at these things. But when you keep coming back to the question, frankly, you're a parliamentarian and you've studied it. I've been around for close to 26 years, and Parliament has never voted on a hypothetical issue. And this whole question about sending ground troops is right now hypothetical. We had a parliamentary debate and we heard the points of view of parliamentarians Monday night, but the government has made no decision, and NATO hasn't asked for any decision. So why would you vote on something that is hypothetical? You then have Canadians saying the government is sending troops to... If you ask me how many, where are they going, what are they going to do, I have to say I don't know, because nobody's asked. So let's be realistic, okay?

Mr. Daniel Turp: Are you personally committed to having a vote, if it's not a hypothetical thing? Would that be consistent with cabinet government?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: No, I think that—

Mr. Daniel Turp: You don't want a vote in Parliament?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I didn't say that. I said those are decisions that will be made by the Prime Minister when he thinks it's appropriate. He said that in the House.

To be honest, what I find somewhat strange is that we are engaged in a crisis that changes from day to day, and we're spending all our time here talking about whether we'll have a vote or not on it. Frankly, let's get on to the substance of it, to be honest with you.

Mr. Daniel Turp: You know we're interested in substance as well.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Then ask the questions on substance.

Mr. Daniel Turp: This is a discussion of substance: having Parliament have an important say on this, not only government, not only through debates. You know what these debates are. You see what those debates are. I'm frustrated as a parliamentarian who sees what the debates are all about: people getting up, making speeches, which could be very interesting, but then it ends. This debate on Monday, you know how it ended: at eight o'clock someone stopped the debate and it was all over. It didn't end in the soul and fashion in which it should end, as other debates end: with a vote on something.

That's why I think the practice should change, and Parliament, like other parliaments in the world, should be involved. If other parliaments are involved, why not this one? Why do we not change the practice here?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, let me just read it into the record. In Belgium, NATO member: no debate has been held yet; one was scheduled perhaps for today. In France: decision to take part was made by the president; parliamentary consultations were not required. In Germany: two debates have been held so far. Italy: two debates and two votes. The Netherlands: two debates have been held, no votes. Portugal: no debates, no votes. United Kingdom: no debates, no votes. United States: the appointment was made by the president.

When you say “all these other parliaments”, I'm telling you that's simply not the case.

Mr. Daniel Turp: That's not convincing. It's not because others don't do it that Parliament shouldn't do it here.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: No, but I'm telling you the reason why.

You may have a low opinion of your colleagues' speeches.

Mr. Daniel Turp: No, I don't.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I happen not to. I have read those transcripts, and I have found them to be extremely helpful. They have given good advice. They have indicated the support for what the government has done so far. When a member of Parliament gets up to his or her feet to speak, I respect what they have to say and I listen very carefully to it. You may disregard it; I don't.

• 1610

Mr. Daniel Turp: I don't disregard it, but if it ended with a vote, it would have even more weight and it would help your government. You had a consensus, and you may still have a consensus, but you might lose the consensus. You might lose ground because you're not informing Parliament properly and you're not allowing us to vote on this important issue. You don't seem even to want to allow us to vote on the issue even when it is not hypothetical any more.

The Chairman: Okay, I have to pass now to Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.

Mr. Minister, members of Parliament are receiving between 200 to 300 e-mails now—we don't receive mail any more, we receive e-mail—and we see it from all over the world, basically. I got some from Russia too. But Canadians, especially Canadians of Serbian background, are asking us whether, after everything is said and done, when we have peace—hopefully tomorrow... Do you think we are in a position to send in peacekeeping troops to maintain peace after taking part in the war?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Yes.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Would you explain that, because I think people would like to hear how you are going to handle that.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Well, I thought the NATO action was based upon the understanding that there would be an implementation force. The one thing that came out of the Holbrooke agreements that were negotiated last October is that the verification mission, as hard as they worked and as committed as they were, were simply bypassed and in fact oftentimes restricted in what they could do. The protection of civilians in Kosovo itself was really limited. They weren't able to provide the monitoring, the policing, the enforcement that was required to make the deal stick.

I believe that the opportunity, if we can get an agreement from Mr. Milosevic, has to involve those who've been going into the action for the purpose of protecting the people there. It's very important that there be a sense of confidence and trust among the many refugees who have been kicked out of the country at the point of a gun that there will be people there to protect them.

I don't say it has to be exclusively so. I think one of the useful results of the discussions on the weekend was the notion of an international force. It doesn't have to be a NATO force per se. No one has yet to find who exactly would participate in that. That's part of the negotiations that are ongoing. But I think it is important for those 600,000 people outside and the hundreds of thousands inside that they feel there is going to be someone there to protect the agreement and that it be people they have trust in.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Would you also consider peacekeepers from Russia and China, or is that in the negotiations?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I certainly think that in my discussion today with Mr. Ivanov there was indication that Russians could participate. I don't want to commit their government, but as I said today, I think the Russian foreign minister and his government are attempting to play a constructive role. But at this point in time we're still missing the point that Milosevic has not agreed to any kind of international presence, regardless of who makes it up. Until we get to that point, until we find that agreement, then all the other conditions we've set won't work. That really, as they say in the language, is the deal breaker.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I have one final question, if I may. The Prime Minister of China is going to be here in Ottawa sometime this week—

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I think he's here now, or he'll be here soon.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Would you be discussing the Kosovo issue with him?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I know the Prime Minister intends to. He'll be with him tonight. There'll be meetings with the Prime Minister tomorrow, and I'll be meeting with Foreign Minister Tang tomorrow. I certainly will bring it up. I know the Prime Minister intends to. And then there's a joint meeting.

I think it's very important to enlist the support of the Chinese, because they are veto-holding members of the Security Council and clearly could have a very important role to play. I think in a way, the Chinese premier being here at the time these negotiations are going on gives us an opportunity to help play a constructive role in working with them.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank the minister for indicating that he does take very seriously the views of parliamentarians, and I believe him. I do believe he is sincere about this. I think all the members of this House are really sincere in wanting to see this conflict come to an end. This is why I am returning again to a topic I raised in the House.

• 1615

I know the minister has been around longer than I have in terms of foreign affairs, and he probably knows a lot more about this than I do. But I want some clarification on this. The minister said earlier that everything possible had been done to try to get this matter before the Security Council, and it was because of the veto power that it was stymied there.

My understanding of this resolution 377(V) is that it is for just this very purpose, that if one can't get unanimous agreement, this resolution can be made and it would enable the matter to be brought forward to the General Assembly of the United Nations. When we pursue this, we are saying that this is a practical avenue through which this matter can be brought before the General Assembly. Then the assembly would be empowered to consider the matter immediately with a view to making recommendations to the members for collective measures, including, in the case of a breach of the peace or an act of aggression—which is certainly the situation in this case—the use of armed force when necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. This is what we've been saying from the beginning, that we feel we should have this kind of sanction for the action that has taken place—the sanction of the General Assembly.

So I would ask if I'm off base in my interpretation of that. If not, then why not consider using that? I know you mentioned in the House about wanting to give the German thing a go, but I'm saying it would have more thrust if it went through this resolution 377(V). I'll stop and let you answer that.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Earle, as I said in the House, we're not discarding that as one of the possibilities. About ten days ago I visited the United Nations to determine, through discussions, what could be the possible options that might be explored. In the course of those meetings, which were quite extensive, the feeling was that even to use the Uniting for Peace resolution to try to move it from the council into the assembly itself would not bring about consensus over an agreement that would actually be enforceable.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I don't want to interrupt, but is that not the hypothetical thing that you talked about? You're presupposing that it would not be useful.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: No, I wasn't presupposing. It was based on pretty serious discussions with representatives of the different blocs of voting groups within the United Nations. There are, for many, real uncertainties—differences of points of view. Anything the United Nations has to do has to be credible, which means it has to be enforceable. We've already had resolutions that have set out standards, set out criteria, but right now we're looking for something that will work. I hope we can find something that will work.

All I'm saying right now is that the secretary general has put forward his five points. He engaged in active discussions with the European Union leaders yesterday. There was a G-8 meeting of senior officials on the weekend. We're attempting to see how there can be agreement, at least at that level, and then how you can get agreement from Mr. Milosevic. Even if there were agreement at the Security Council or at the General Assembly, if you don't have the agreement of Milosevic, you have a big, big problem.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I recognize that, but what I'm saying is that right now we don't have the agreement of Milosevic. We have Milosevic versus NATO. If we had the agreement at the General Assembly and they were empowering whatever international force to proceed, you would at least have the full backing of the General Assembly versus Milosevic, and it wouldn't appear to be simply NATO, U.S.-dominated. It would give more authority. When you mention that Kofi Annan has endorsed the principles, is he doing this as an individual, or is it officially on behalf of the General Assembly? That's another question I had.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: No, he's doing it as the Secretary General of the United Nations, in his position in that office. I think the authority of that office is important. As I said in a response to a question Mr. Mills raised, I think you have to be careful how you use that authority. It's like any political office: you can expend your currency and exhaust it if your timing isn't right or if it's not at the right moment. I think this is where we get into some of the cross-currents.

• 1620

The field of international diplomacy is not cut and dried. There are no fixed criteria. Sometimes it's the right feel and the right judgment and the right timing. How can you develop a consensus and agreement around these things? That's a process that's going on now. I hope it's successful; I can't give you a guarantee.

I want to make clear that your proposal is one that is there. It's an option, but it's an option that I think that should be used with care. If you use it and it doesn't work, then you really have put the United Nations in a box.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Okay. I understand that it did work in the case of the Suez Canal, and it was a very powerful situation there. I guess until you give it a try, it's hard to discount it.

When you mention about the secretary general acting in his capacity as secretary general, the power of that office would come from, I would assume, the General Assembly. The office doesn't exist in isolation. I can see the balance you're talking about. That's why I asked about who he is officially representing.

I would like to move on to one more point just before you respond to that. Again, this is putting forth what I feel would be a practical suggestion. I'm not the kind of person, and I'm sure most other members aren't, who wants to sit on the sidelines and give ideas and feel we've done our bit. We like to participate if we can. When you say cabinet governance, I recognize the limitations there too. The reality is that we're dealing with a war, a very serious situation, and I think everybody wants to help.

Has any thought been given in cabinet to expanding its, if you want to call it this, war council or expanding its council of people who are making decisions on this beyond cabinet, so that you could perhaps invite the leaders of each of the opposition parties, as has been done I think in the past, to be a part of those decision-making processes? That way we could get more ideas into the mix. We would feel more informed in response to the concern that has been expressed by my honourable colleague here. We would feel more informed and it wouldn't be a matter of feeling you have to give a briefing here and there every time something comes up, because people would be involved. It wouldn't take away government's right to govern, but you would be involved in a consultative way. Has any decision been given in that regard?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Let me say that this would be something the Prime Minister would have to decide, but I will, to use that parliamentary phrase, “take your comments as representation”, and I'll pass those on.

On the other point, I think you raise a very serious question about how you develop an agreement that will provide a solution. Our former colleague John English has written two very interesting books on this matter, where he discussed actively what happened in the Suez crisis. If you read them carefully you realize that in this case you were dealing with the British and the French, who were prepared to accept the decision that was taken under the Uniting for Peace resolution. You're now dealing with Mr. Milosevic, who hasn't shown a great aptitude for accepting anybody's recommendation on anything. In fact, we wouldn't be where we are if he had any sense of standards of international behaviour.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I don't doubt that for one minute; I think that's a very crucial factor.

I think also what's happening is that what is being recommended is coming in pieces. You have a NATO suggestion, you have a German suggestion, you have maybe another suggestion coming, but if it had the force of the General Assembly, including the very strong partners like Russia, the Slavic brothers and sisters of Milosevic, I think it would bear more weight coming from that kind of assembly, as opposed to coming through primarily a NATO-led force. That's the point I'm making. That's why I think it's important to get it there.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Alain Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Minister for meeting with us this afternoon. I think it will become a habit for the committee to meet like this in order to stay informed and to hold regular consultations. We appreciate it very much.

Mr. Minister, I will not talk about a vote or a motion in the House. The Bloc Québécois will introduce a motion on Monday and will then have the opportunity to discuss the issue. I have a question for the man in the Department of Foreign Affairs who is the equivalent of Steve Flanagan. Steve Flanagan was the Hydro Quebec spokesman during the ice storm. Mr. Wright, that was a compliment.

• 1625

Let me quickly remind you of the chronology of events during the Gulf War, when three votes were held. I submit this with all due respect.

Would it be possible to obtain a chronology of the events and the actions taken by the Canadian government to try to involve the United Nations in case of an intervention? Could you provide us with a chronology of events and the actions you have taken, excluding, of course, confidential matters? That would be greatly appreciated.

If you don't mind, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Minister, I will ask my questions all at once, since we don't have much time.

We know that there is currently a great deal of trouble in Montenegro, an integral part of the Yugoslav Republic. Does NATO or Canada have any solutions or scenarios aimed at helping, in one way or another, but especially from a military point of view, the Montenegro government remain in place in the event of civil unrest?

Do you agree with this statement that it is now clear that the air strikes, although not responsible for the ethnic cleansing, can be directly blamed for the acceleration of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo? Do you agree with this statement, which comes from the American Secretary of State?

Since the start of NATO's intervention in Kosovo, the military effort has doubled, if we round off the figures. The military effort has doubled in three weeks. There is an impression in some quarters that this is an ad lib war, an improvised war, unlike the Gulf War.

I don't want to play politics but, as you know, during the Gulf War, everything was in place and we intervened on a huge scale. No additional commitments were necessary. Everything was in place for a rapid, tough and credible force, and we didn't fiddle with it every day of the conflict. I would like to have your impression of the military preparations for Kosovo to date. Did we underestimate the conflict and Milosevic? What do you think about the doubling of military resources?

What is your opinion of the meeting that took place yesterday in Belgrade, between the representatives of Yugoslavia and Byelorussia, in the wake of the resolution adopted by the Yugoslav Parliament to form a union with Byelorussia for military or other purposes? I would appreciate your opinion on this.

On page 34 of your Estimates, one thing surprised me. It has nothing to do with Kosovo. It reads:

Promote national unity

Ensure that foreign governments are aware of the flexibility and evolution of Canadian federalism, as well as the importance of the continued international role played by a strong and united Canada.

Do you have a document justifying this statement on page 34? What sum of money are you going to set aside specifically for this? Thank you.

The Chairman: All that in five minutes.

Mr. André Bachand: We're taking advantage of the opportunity, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Minister, if you could give fairly terse answers, it would be helpful.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: The answer to Mr. Bertrand's first question is yes. I can't give you an exact time. I'll consult with Mr. Campbell and Mr. Wright, but we will try to give you as full a chronology of the events, actually going back to last summer, as we can. In fact, as you know, Mr. Wright was our special envoy to Belgrade.

Jim, it was in October, was it?

Mr. Jim Wright (Director General, Central, East, and South Europe, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Yes.

• 1630

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Wright was our special envoy at the time, when we tried to engage the activities of the Belgrade government to get them to agree to some of these conditions, so we'll be very pleased to provide that for you.

On the question of Montenegro, various statements by NATO ministers and others have indicated full support for the democratic government in Montenegro. We don't have a military presence in Montenegro, obviously. There is quite an interesting balance going on between the Serbian army that is in existence in Montenegro and the Montenegran police, which is responsible, in effect, to the state government of Montenegro.

I'd like to say I personally am very respectful of how the Montenegro government has maintained its position over these very difficult times. They've maintained quite an open communication system on their television and radio, which is quite unlike what we're seeing in Serbia. They have maintained their independence of action and they have clearly taken strong objections to the attempt to call up people for the draft and reservists. They really deserve our respect for what they're doing.

At this point all we can do is say we fully endorse and support what they're doing. I think if there were an effort by the Milosevic regime to try to take them over there would quite clearly be something of a call for serious consideration by the NATO council to determine what its action would be.

On the question of the military effort itself, going back to last fall, when we had, as you recall, the debate in the House of Commons, the military committee of NATO had been asked to prepare a series of options. So the SACEUR, which is the arm of NATO in this area, prepared what they thought would be the most militarily effective way to try to get a resolution. What they reported Monday when I was at the meeting is they feel they are on track. They have experienced setbacks because of weather difficulties, and there was a period of almost a week... They are, as you all know, trying to be extraordinarily careful about where the bombs fall.

We had the tragic event yesterday, which Mr. Mills brought to our attention. But NATO pilots are under very strict orders not to release munitions if they're not sure the target that has been specified in fact can be hit. That's why some newspaper reporters... When planes come back without doing their thing, that's the reason.

The bad weather really deflected a lot of that. And because a lot of the munitions are laser-targeted, they have to have reasonably clear air in order to have that pinpoint accuracy. I think the call-up is simply that we're moving into what they call the second phase now, the active second phase, which is to substantially attack the infrastructure, communications systems, energy systems, fuel systems, and to cut off support for the Serbian army and police in Kosovo. That takes a high level—

Mr. André Bachand: I'm sorry to interrupt you.

[Translation]

You say that we're moving into the second phase, but this phase, if I understand correctly...

[English]

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: We're in the second phase now.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: In which phase did you send over the six additional Canadian aircraft and the 300 American planes? It was surely not in a phase that was already prepared. Why? Because the Minister takes the time to think and react. It therefore seems that the six additional planes that we are being asked to send, as well as the 300 additional American aircraft, were not part of a multi-phase plan. Is this true or false? Could you explain it to me? Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: We're still in the second phase. I think what NATO ministers asked for on Monday was an intensification of that phase to try to more broadly concentrate those activities. And as you know, there is a real effort to try to attack ground troops of the Serbian army and police in Kosovo itself. We were very much taken by the plight of displaced persons inside Kosovo, so NATO ministers at that time said they would see how they could intensify some of those attacks on the ground in Kosovo.

That's really where they're at now, to fully go after that infrastructure system in Serbia and Kosovo itself—bridges, transportation, communications, fuel. For example, I think the head of SACEUR indicated that almost 60% of fuel supplies had been destroyed, and that is clearly having a major impact on cutting down the mobility of the Serbian forces inside Kosovo. So that's really where they're at on that issue.

• 1635

When you mention the Gulf War, remember, that bombardment went on for almost three or four months before there was any further mobilization, and we're only two and a half weeks into it. I know people would like to see this thing resolved. I would like to see that too. But in the gulf it went on for a very long time before they felt they were ready to move and take direct action on this matter.

On the question of the meetings that took place yesterday, those are really meetings among parliamentarians to look at some kind of parliamentary union between the speaker of the Russian Duma, Belgrade, and Belarus. I don't think it reflects necessarily what the Russian government is trying to do at this point in time. In fact, again, in my discussions with Mr. Ivanov, I would like to repeat that I felt there was a very strong commitment by the Russian foreign minister to work... They have differences; I don't want to deny that. There are strong differences. They do not like the NATO action, and they said so in a very strong case against that. But they also recognize that they have to be part of the solution and are prepared to do so.

The Chairman: Thank you, Minister. We're well over the time there, so I'm going to go now—

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I was going to say, if I could, Mr. Chairman, we don't have a specific document.

I said in my earlier document that we have a third-pillar issue where we support a variety of Canadian studies programs abroad. For example, we support a variety of visits of ambassadors when they come back from their postings. We ask them to visit various parts of Canada so that all Canadians understand what this country can do overseas. We also have programs where, through say a variety of cultural events overseas, we can express the diversity of Canada. I think it's very important that people around the world see what an incredible richness we have as a country in our cultural diversity, and those are the kinds of things we're doing. That's really part of our third-pillar program.

What we could try to do, if I could maybe ask the deputy minister, is to prepare a certain assessment of the various activities being undertaken at this point in time.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Cannis.

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, welcome. It's nice to have you here.

It's too bad that the Kosovo situation is really taking up the entire agenda, because I think we would have wanted to focus on the estimates and this internship program, which I think is a highlight. But I too, unfortunately, have to address my questions to the Kosovo issue, the most unfortunate issue.

Chronologically, I want to make a statement and then maybe get your response on it.

Given what has happened in the last 24 hours and the innocent loss of lives with the bombs and what have you, I recall, Minister, that about a week and a half ago I was listening to the CNN and the Serbian deputy prime minister was saying “Please, stop the bombing and let's talk”.

I'm puzzled here, and I want to get your view or your opinion as to why we did not call them out on it. For all we know, maybe they were misleading us; maybe they were manipulating. Maybe they were conniving; maybe they were misleading us. I don't know, but given the innocent lives that since then, until today, have been unfortunately lost, why didn't we bring them to the table and hear indeed what they wanted to talk about? Maybe they had a proposal, and maybe we could have avoided the bloodshed that has unfolded.

I recall that during the initial peace talks in France there was confusion as to who would be at the table, whether it would be KLA or the other groups, and so on. Eventually they settled on a committee, and then there was supposedly an agreement to be signed, and it all fell apart. In your opinion, did that fall apart because the request was an autonomous, independent Kosovo? Is that what the media is telling us? And what are we advocating? Are we advocating an independent Kosovo at this stage, or are we advocating an autonomous Kosovo within Yugoslavia?

• 1640

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

A voice: —

Mr. John Cannis: I've lost my train of thought now.

The Chairman: You still have some words in your mouth there, Mr. Cannis. Don't let them get you down.

Mr. John Cannis: I'm glad I don't listen to the Bloc.

The Chairman: That's good.

Mr. John Cannis: I'll stop right there, Minister. I'm sorry. I just lost my train of thought.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Well, John, on the two questions, we've said all along that this thing could stop tomorrow if the Milosevic regime stops the repression against the Kosovars. The offer that was made by the deputy premier did not include willingness to stop the actions of kicking people out, engaging in a variety of atrocities that are being reported, and withdrawing their troops so that there could be some sense of security.

Of course we'd like to see a resolution, but it's very important that as part of that resolution we don't fall into the trap of simply allowing the Milosevic regime to continue a very well designed program of cleansing in Kosovo.

I recommend for your reading—I don't have copies here, but I would be glad to share it with members of the committee—an article from Mr. Mills' favourite newspaper, the Washington Post, that was printed on Monday, which was a very extensive historical assessment of the initiatives put in place by the regime to get rid of the Albanian Kosovars, going back years, but particularly over the last seven or eight months. It didn't happen by accident. It was an extremely well developed and ruthless program, and that's what we're facing now. It's the ruthlessness that we have to put—

Mr. John Cannis: In my own simplistic way, what I'm really saying is when they put that proposal on the table, had NATO or the international community moved in right away to engage in a dialogue, I believe they would also have been able, at the same time, to observe what atrocities, if they were... And if they were simultaneously engaging in the so-called genocide and ethnic cleansing while trying to create peace, then I think we would have had the edge on them.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: But the problem was that didn't include any opportunity for any international presence in Kosovo to determine all that. It really was a one-sided proposition, and I think that's what we have to face. I don't want to be picking on it. We've had some discussions about this.

The Milosevic regime has committed some of the worst acts of repression of any government in the last half of this century. You ask what happened at Rambouillet. It was because they refused to sign on. It wasn't the autonomy issue as much as, again, accepting a form of international presence. And I understand that is precedent-setting, but I've argued that we are setting new precedents because we're in a very different kind of world, and if we're going to try to protect people against these acts of repression, which really go far beyond any acceptable standard, then we have to be prepared to get involved. That's where we're at, and that's where the balance is shifting.

Mr. John Cannis: I'm happy, Minister, and in my own humble opinion, if I may suggest, I think the message that has to get out through us and in the international community is that we're there to protect innocent lives on both sides, and we have to focus on the Milosevic atrocities, as you clearly pointed out. I agree with you. And I think I have to say that my colleague from the Reform Party knows where I stand on this position. I think that's the kind of message we have to put. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: If I can make one comment, because I know Mr. Cannis has a few more minutes left...

The Chairman: No, I think Mr. Cannis has slid well over with his last comment, but if you want to quickly—

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: One of the other aspects of the proposals that had been talked about in the last two or three days, which hasn't received that much attention but I think deserves the attention, and I think the committee may take note of it, is that there are proposals being looked at for a broader reconstruction program in the entire region, recognizing that the fragmentation in the Balkans that has gone on has been part of the problem. It has been a breakdown of governance. It has been a breakdown of the economic well-being, including in Serbia itself, that part of Yugoslavia.

• 1645

I think one of the incentives, one of the ways in which we can provide some advantage for those Kosovars or Serbians or Bosnians, is to say that peace is important and there is also a dividend that comes from it, which is in the redevelopment of the region itself. I think that also will be part of the commitment we have to make.

The Chairman: Thank you, Minister. I'll turn now to Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you.

I hate it when people do this, but shucks, this is politics, so I'm going to do it anyway. Let me just quote again about Canadian credibility, as Mr. Assadourian raised. This is a comment that was made about the Prime Minister, who then said yes, we can bomb and then we can send in peacekeepers. This was the comment of January 15, 1991:

What kind of convoluted logic is the Prime Minister using? What kind of cuckoo-land does he draw his ideas from? You do not become a peacekeeper when you have been shooting at the other side.

I don't really need to say who said that, but I think enough said in answer to Mr. Assadourian's question.

My question is in terms of what's happening with NATO. Obviously there are very important meetings occurring at the end of the month, and we're talking about where NATO is going, the strategic concept of what it's all about. What we signed on to, of course, was a defence alliance. After the breakdown of the Cold War, of course we got into a new role in Bosnia, and now we are into a very different role in Kosovo. I'm really concerned and would like to hear from the minister, as he approaches these meetings in Washington, what exactly he might be thinking at this time in terms of the new role for NATO, and whether he would bring that back to Parliament before agreeing to a new mandate, a new role, that NATO might undergo as it re-examines itself.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, first, going back to the original proposition, I think it is important to remind the committee that in the recent history in Bosnia, there were air strikes. Canada participated in those air strikes. Canada is also involved as a peacekeeper in Bosnia, along with 40 other countries. The logarithm, I think, is clear. I think it's partly in response to Mr. Assadourian, because it was part of the Dayton Accord that we were attempting to protect in Bosnia innocent civilians. We also were able to get an agreement. I'm not saying it's an exact replica model that can be used in Kosovo, but it does demonstrate that one can participate, as we did in Bosnia, in the air strikes and at the same time convert that role into peacekeeping along the way.

As for the NATO meetings, I think we did have one session where we discussed NATO itself, but the original plans were a new strategic concept that was being talked about. The preparation of a paper is under way. Of course the role of NATO is being defined every minute and every hour as we speak, in Kosovo itself. I think what we're defining here is the fact that what was a collective security organization originally organized to protect against aggression across borders in its original Cold War formulation is now an organization that is trying to protect the security of human beings in Europe. That is a definition that hasn't been written down on paper yet, but I think it will be the subject of a pretty active discussion among the leaders of the Washington summit. How that will be formulated, exactly the words that will be worked on, would be in the form of a communiqué.

There are other stricter issues. I don't want to open another discussion, but there will be discussions on the nuclear role for NATO. We've been playing an active role in that area. There will be questions of the European identity force that will be talked about. But the key issue in the role that will be played is that NATO has taken a very major step: that is to say that where there is clear evidence of acts of extreme repression that take place within the European region, NATO is prepared to provide protection for those civilians against that repression.

• 1650

I think it's going to be very important, and we are in a transition. I mean, nobody has written the textbook. Most of the textbooks we use are out of date, frankly. That's one of the problems we're finding in our universities—they're simply working on old manuals.

In this transition period this is one of the things we should be working on. I would be very happy, frankly, and I would welcome the opportunity, perhaps not necessarily in a formal session like this, to engage the members of the committee on this question of how you protect human security. How do you protect individuals—

Mr. Bob Mills: There are 21 countries where this sort of ethnic cleansing is going on right now, today. Does that mean NATO may consider—

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: No, I think there is clearly... NATO is a regional organization within Europe.

Mr. Bob Mills: So Chechnya—

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: But can I give you another example, Mr. Mills? I want to put something in perspective.

It's in my opening remarks that you should talk to David Pratt. David came back with a report that in Sierra Leone, Ecomog, which is a peace force of west African countries, have suffered 1,400 casualties since January in the objective of trying to restore order and protect people in Sierra Leone. I mean, we get very agitated about certain casualties taking place, and rightly so, but the peacekeepers—Canadian, Nigerians, Togos—in the Ecomog have suffered 1,400 casualties. There are 600,000 refugees on the border of Sierra Leone, who have been there for years, not weeks, where the displacement inside the country is untold hundreds of thousands.

So I agree with you totally. And that's one of the reasons why in this world where we are trying as Canadians to get engaged in Sierra Leone I sent David over. There's a meeting at the UN this Friday. We're going to take this to the Commonwealth meetings because we feel there is some responsibility there as well. So I agree with you.

It's not easy, but at the same time, if we don't do that, if we don't try to provide some support for what the west Africans are doing... But it gives you a perspective on what's going on in Kosovo. I don't think a Nigerian mother or father likes their soldier to come back in a body bag any more than the Canadian or American or Brit or French, but they've been doing it for the cause of trying to restore order and maintain peace in that area.

Mr. Bob Mills: Add Sudan to that list as well, which this committee's been looking at for a year and a half.

The Chairman: Thank you. We're now going to go to Madam Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, in the House we have this weekly custom of asking the same question each week, and I have an annual estimate question that I ask. That is, I was told last year that there were some measurable goals. I want to ask how minorities are doing in the Canadian missions abroad, and also in the foreign service, as foreign service officers.

I'd like to throw my two other questions on the table at the same time, maybe while you look up the numbers for me.

The Chairman: I think Ms. Edwards is ready for you since last year—

Ms. Jean Augustine: Oh, she is.

The Chairman: I think she came with double-loaded barrels. Anyway, you had two other questions, so go ahead.

Ms. Jean Augustine: I was pleased to hear the last few words you spoke in terms of the responsibility for Africa, because I can tell you that I'm really conflicted about a whole series of issues. Our response, the world response, as we watch the Kosovars and the world's response as we watch the Rwandan refugees coming down the road, bags on the head, babies in arm, etc.—it seemed to me the responses to those two issues were just a little different.

Anyway, here are my two questions that I want to put on the table. First, how does the Kosovo expenditure affect your planned spending for 1999-2000? Also, the PM's announcement about debt forgiveness—how does that play in terms of where you're heading with your expenditures?

The third thing I want to put on the table is the issue of what your human security agenda is, and the expenditure on the portion that could be called “poverty issues” and how poverty plays into insecurity in areas around the world.

• 1655

Also, I was leafing through this a few minutes ago and saw that we're increasing our spending in terms of international organizations by about $20.3 million. Yet if you listen to so many of the organizations out there who work in development and are looking at ODA, they're saying to us that the ratio of ODA to our GDP is falling, and we see it's increasing in terms of international organizations. So is there a relationship between our involvement in international organizations as we pull back on the home front?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I'm going to let Ms. Edwards answer the first part of your question.

Ms. Lucie Edwards (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you, and I would like to thank Ms. Augustine.

Every year—we call this our examen de conscience—this is our opportunity to provide a report card on how we're doing on this very important issue. We would be frankly disappointed if we didn't get the question, because it's important for us in terms of our own work, just as it is important for us and we do report on access to information to the Treasury Board every year.

The department's record of achievement on employment equity, that is, for being representative of groups who have been identified as being under-represented in general in government—women, visible minorities, aboriginal people, and the disabled—is similar to that of the rest of the government within more or less 1%, with one important exception, and that's the representation of women.

The public service as a whole is now 50% women, while the Department of Foreign Affairs is still at 44% women. So we're 7% behind. The disparity is particularly noticeable at senior levels, where women represent 15% of heads of mission and 13% of our executive population, which is comparable to 22% in the government in general. So we still have to work very hard on the whole issue of women's representation.

I know you like specific numbers. In terms of last year's recruitment, we recruited 68 individuals. We had representation from across the country; every region was represented. We recruited 50% women, 9% aboriginal, 20% from visible minorities—30% francophone, 70% anglophone.

The general population in Canada, the working population for visible minorities, is about 8%. So we're doing significantly better in terms of recruitment in this area.

Last year the Prime Minister appointed one aboriginal head of mission and one head of mission from a visible minority. We also have 19 heads of mission who are women at the present, so we are working as well in terms of senior appointments.

In general, we do as well as the public service as a whole for headquarters positions for women, but the challenge is recruiting for the foreign service, which poses particular pressures in terms of work-life balance. You have to make significant sacrifices when you go abroad as a family.

The real challenge, in our view, is no longer recruiting. People are coming. We had nearly 6,000 applicants last year from all walks of life and all parts of the country. The real challenge is keeping people.

Until recently we were losing 25% of our young recruits, male and female, after seven years of service. Clearly, better salaries and faster promotion have helped, but there are a series of issues that our young officers tell us about that are real issues. Spousal employment, child care, and elder care are all important issues.

I would give you one very telling statistic, which is that 76% of the men in the department are married, whereas 57% of the women are unmarried. So we still find that the whole question of balancing family and career is a challenge for the women in the department.

Where we are focusing our attention now is not just on recruitment, which has been an issue for some years, but on retention. That will be a major challenge and one where I can say the minister has been spurring us on very much.

Steady progress is being made. Since 1993 we've succeeded in recruiting a 50% ratio of women at the entry level. Moving up, 33 women were promoted to the middle management level in the last promotion list. This spring we hope to recruit another 75 young officers for the foreign service and management consulate group.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I'm sorry, Minister, unfortunately we don't have a lot of time left, and we're well over the time of the five minutes. We're now into six and a half minutes of these five-minute time things. I don't know whether you can answer quickly as to human security and—

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: No.

The Chairman: —the whole balance of poverty. I totally agree with the question; I agree with the thrust of the question.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I'll just maybe make a couple of footnotes to what Ms. Edwards said.

First, it's my expectation that on the heads of mission there will be even a further improvement this year. I can't say exactly how, because we're still working on that with the Prime Minister, but I think there will be an improvement.

• 1700

The other thing I would like to draw to your attention—and Lucie mentions the whole issue of family life—is what we're also finding is that increasingly a posting abroad in a number of locations is becoming, because of environmental concerns, a very serious issue, simply because of the deterioration that's going on in so many environmental positions. We're finding that a major problem.

Just to give you a quick answer on whatever expenditures the Kosovo activity might cause us, most of those will be encountered by the defence department and by CIDA for its humanitarian efforts. The only impact we see probably in our department is that we have shut down our embassy in Belgrade, but we've also had to open temporary missions in both Tirana and Skopje to provide direct services for the other departments working, as well as our own diplomatic representation. So there will be some extra costs. I think the deputy estimated it would be perhaps between $1 million and $2 million, which may not sound like a lot, but for this department it's a big item, I can tell you.

On the human security issue, I think when you really come back to its fundamental, the risks people now face are transcendent risks. They are everything from terrorism to drug trafficking to environmental degradation to civilian conflict and victimization. Those are issues that nation-states no longer can solve by themselves. They need international cooperative solutions. That's why we're in Kosovo. It's about as simple as that.

I think where it applies on the poverty situation, Jean, is that so much of the investment that we make through development can be undermined or eroded for lack of security. I remember very vividly an NGO in west Africa telling me that it's very hard to get somebody to be focusing on developing a new crop if there's a 13-year-old with an AK-47 staring them in the face. Actually, that's one reason why you deal with children in arms, because they become sort of a killing machine in their own right. Therefore the Department of Foreign Affairs complements what CIDA does on the development side by trying to provide that security against risk for people.

It also is clearly something for our own citizens. We could consider that there are probably twenty million visits a year of Canadians abroad. I think Mr. Mills, from his own experience in his former life as a travel agent, knows they're increasing their risks out there. The only way we're going to protect people against terrorism is to have international cooperation to stop terrorism. The way we stop the drug trafficking in Canada is to try to get international cooperation on that. We can't stop it at our own borders.

That's why that thrust of our policy is becoming increasingly more important. It doesn't take away from the other more traditional concepts, but I think it is one that is now being faced by virtually every government, how to come to grips with it. That's why the work of international collaboration is becoming so much a part of it, and that's why our involvement in international organizations is a priority for us.

That's about as quick a summary as I can give, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Minister. It was a very good summary in that period of time.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin.

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Chairman, if I may, I will be sharing my allocated time with my colleague.

The Chairman: If you have five questions—

Mr. René Laurin: I have only one question, but I would like my colleague to ask his two questions before the minister responds.

Mr. Minister, we are at war in Kosovo. To date, we have always justified Canada's presence in Kosovo in terms of humanitarian considerations. In the past, when Canada has been present in other countries for humanitarian reasons or as a participant in peacekeeping operations, it has been aware of the limits on its financial commitments and it was able to halt its intervention when these limits were reached. We proceed the same way when there is a natural disaster: we provide assistance to people in keeping with our financial capacity and we set ceilings on our assistance.

In the case of Kosovo, we are dealing with war. A war does not end until it has been lost or won. It may be short, or it may be long. In this case, we don't know how long the war will last. Could the Minister clearly explain to us Canada's position on Kosovo? Will we be seeing this war through to victory or to defeat or, as part of our commitment to NATO, will we be able to pull out at any time, that is, when we decide that we have spent enough money and that Canada has reached the limits of what it can do?

• 1705

Mr. Daniel Turp: I would like to ask two very brief questions about the Estimates, Minister. On page 56 of the English version, there's a reference to the Canadian Business Centre in Mexico, which states that revenues of approximately $100,000 a year are expected over the next four years. Personally, I had understood that the Centre in question had closed. Could you tell us whether it has been closed, and, if so, why revenues are expected over the next four years?

My second question is about the embassy in Berlin. I don't want to cause you too much concern, because we are continuing our research, but there is one thing that bothers me about the embassy in Berlin. Apparently you want the private sector to help build the embassy. It would be a partner in the financing, construction and management of the project, and this runs counter to the Financial Administration Act. Those are my two questions.

[English]

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: First, in response to Mr. Laurin, we have not made a declaration of war against Serbia. We're part of a NATO action. My definition in this case is not win or lose in the traditional sense. As I said to an earlier question, some of the old definitions and concepts that we used to use just don't apply, because we're fighting internal wars, we're fighting acts of repression, we're fighting atrocities, we're trying to establish standards against those repressions.

What I would consider winning is when we are able to find a governance in Kosovo that would protect the rights and integrities of the people of Kosovo. That, to me, is a victory. It's not whether NATO wins or loses; it's whether Kosovars have a right to live out life in their own homeland with full protection of their rights. To me, that would be the definition of victory for us in this case.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: How much would it cost?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: How much would it cost? I don't know exactly. As I was saying, the Department of Foreign Affairs is planning to spend 1 or 2 million dollars, but the Department of Defence will probably be spending more. I think that at the moment we are talking about $15 million, but I don't know the exact figure.

Mr. René Laurin: But we have no way of controlling these amounts that we will be spending.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Rest assured that the Department of Finance controls all expenditures made by all departments.

[English]

Mr. Turp, on your question on the centre for business in the embassy in Mexico, I'm told that we in fact have closed it but we have incorporated its activities inside the embassy itself. So the services are still provided, but not as a separate centre of activity.

Ms. Edwards, can you answer the question on the embassy, on the tendering issue?

[Translation]

Ms. Lucie Edwards: If I understood your question correctly, Mr. Turp, you would like to know whether we can ask the private sector to help build the chancellery.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Is that in keeping with the provisions of the Financial Administration Act?

Ms. Lucie Edwards: There were lengthy consultations with the Department of Justice and Treasury Board regarding the construction of the chancellery in Berlin. The purpose was to determine whether the proposed financing method, which is a joint venture, was in keeping with the Act. We used the same model as we did in the case of the chancellery in Tokyo. So there is a precedent, and both Treasury Board and the Department of Justice confirmed that the joint venture was in keeping with all our Canadian laws.

The Chairman: Fine, thank you very much. Mr. Bertrand.

• 1710

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Since the beginning of the bombing, Minister, we have heard almost nothing about the members of the Kosovo Liberation Army. Can you tell me whether or not they are still active?

[English]

Some media reports have suggested that maybe we should arm the KLA to counterbalance the Serb attacks. I was just wanting to know your views on that.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Bertrand, they are still active in small ways. We've seen some of the border conflicts that have taken place in the last week or so. I can't give you an exact description of what their strength is. They are a guerrilla force, and they therefore work in very indiscriminate ways.

I can give you assurance that there is nobody, aside from some U.S. congressmen, talking about rearming the KLA. I think that would sort of work against every standard we want to establish. It would break the arms agreement and everything else. I just think that it would be the wrong move to make.

I'm reminded that in fact the Rambouillet agreement talks actively of disarming the KLA as part of the agreement. I think any agreement would have to include that. I go back to what Mr. Assadourian said: there's not just one side that's responsible for some of the problems; the KLA is responsible, as well. All the more reason for an international presence, to make sure that both sides respect any peace agreement.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand.

Mr. André Bachand: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't think I would have an opportunity to ask another question, and I would just like to make a comment.

On page 40 of the English version, you say that you want to extend passport services to regions where the Passport Office is not yet present. I would invite you to move in this direction quickly, Minister. All MPs' offices currently offer passport services to their constituents, and we would appreciate it very much if you could bring some of those services closer to the regions.

As you know, Canada has had a few problems involving passports with a particular country. On page 41, you talk about a Re-engineering of Passport Application Processes, and you say that the new forms will be simplified. Your Department will be investing a fairly significant amount of money in the technology required to implement its computerized production system. We know that every million dollars is important to your Department, as you said very well. I think the passport application forms are simple enough in their present form, and I would like to know what further simplifications are planned.

[English]

Mr. Don Campbell (Deputy Minister, Foreign Affairs and International Trade): First of all, we're providing more points of entry for the passport service, both with passport offices and, over the last year, with an arrangement that's been made with the Canadian Post Office whereby people will be able to receive application forms at post offices. The postal clerks in these post offices will be the first point of review. So that will be an opportunity for people to get corrections to mistakes they may make in their applications immediately.

The forms themselves are going to be simplified, as well. And of course we are also on the verge of moving to a new form of passport to replace the current system, although we haven't completed the preparations for that as yet.

• 1715

The Chairman: Mr. Mills had a follow-up question, I think on passports.

Mr. Bob Mills: Yes, a concern for the security of passports, and it's just on that point of post offices. For a lot of years a great many travel agents right across the country have been the first point of review of passport applications. One of the first training that any of my staff went through was how to make sure you had these basic things right, the birth certificate, the money in the right form, etc. I would hope you might consider them as well—I'll put in a plug for my old colleagues—because they are very capable of doing that, and of course they have a vested interest in doing that, to make sure people can travel and don't have to make two trips to Calgary—in our case. So there are other people out there, I think, who could review and broaden that.

I was going to ask—and I think you've partly answered it—about the need to do everything we can to secure our passports, because there is still a concern out there. Passports are for sale. I have done some research on that and have found a great many places where Canadian passports are for sale, whether they're legitimate or not—sometimes it's questionable. But you can buy Canadian passports in quite a few places in the world. I have a lot of oil workers and others come back and tell me about the open market. That's just a comment, Don.

The other thing is—just very briefly because I know everybody is tired—in terms of writing off a foreign debt, and this is my only other question, where is that going? How much broader do you see that getting, and how many dollars might be involved?

Mr. Don Campbell: On foreign debt, Mr. Martin has announced work that's been ongoing in the Department of Finance, which is looking at extending the so-called HIPC initiative, which is the heavily indebted countries. Most of the countries of the G-8 have now made announcements. It's my expectation that at the Cologne summit in June of this year there will be a debt initiative.

I might say that Canada is ahead of almost all of the other G-8 countries already, so the work that most of the other G-8 countries, including Germany and Japan, will be doing will bring them up to the standard we have. We will, however, be providing additional debt relief. I don't have a dollar figure on that, although compared to other countries, as I said, who are significantly behind us in terms of their HIPC initiatives, it will not be anywhere in the order that other countries will be providing.

The Chairman: I think you're probably aware, Mr. Campbell—and, Minister, I'm sure you're aware—that there's great public support for that.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Just to provide one footnote that I think the members would find useful, I have spoken to Mr. Martin and he has undertaken quite active representation at the World Bank and the IMF to provide certain amounts of debt relief for both Macedonia and Albania in this particular time, to try to relieve the pressure they face. So I think it's part of that broader reconstruction issue I talked about.

Mr. Bob Mills: Would it be possible for us to get some of those figures?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Yes. The Prime Minister gave a speech last week that outlined some of them.

The Chairman: That would be helpful, Minister. As you know, this is a matter that is of considerable concern to many Canadians. We're very pleased to see that Canada has been in the forefront, particularly in the HIPC movement, to deal with the highly indebted countries, etc.

Mr. Assadourian, you said you had one point.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: A short question, Mr. Minister, regarding Partnership for Peace with NATO. How far have we gone? Can you give us a small report on that situation?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I think there's been quite a good deal of development in that area. For example, there have been a number of agreements for military-assistant training. We have a number of Partners for Peace in the NATO system being trained in Canada at the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre and in other areas, particularly around peacekeeping issues. I think we have agreements with the Ukrainians, the Poles, others, in terms of that kind of assistance. There is also a number of other cooperative ventures just in helping to deal with internal matters. NATO has set up liaison officers, for example, in the Ukraine to provide information on certain related security issues, the training of military, things of that kind.

In terms of contact, on the occasions when there are NATO council meetings, Partners for Peace are always invited. They put the issues forward that are important to them. Then of course you have the opportunity in the corridors and at lunch time to talk with them. It has established a very broad contact that's been very helpful for Canada because we've been able to maintain, through those regular meetings, those direct, personal contacts at the official level, the ministerial level, that allow us to work with them very closely.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: They will take part in the upcoming conference in Washington.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you.

• 1720

The Chairman: I'd like to make a couple of observations before you leave, Minister, but I promise there will be no questions. I have a couple of announcements and a couple of observations.

I just want to say how pleased I was to hear what you said about the issue of reconstruction in the area. A very interesting article by Mr. Soros was published in Le Monde and various other publications some months ago before all this took place, and it said that if we don't address the root causes of the problems in the area... So in my speech in the House the other night I said if we're going to blow everything up there and then just walk away and leave it in total ruins, we're just sowing the seeds of a future humanitarian disaster. I hope we can work on our allies to make them realize that maybe every time the United States lobs a million-dollar cruise missile over there, you should write another million dollars down to repair the damage it caused, because that's what we're going to have to do. So I was pleased to hear you say that.

I'm sorry Mr. Turp isn't here, but I'd like to just share with you my personal view on this pressure for a vote. I got elected to this Parliament too. I don't want to put pressure on your vote. I believe there's a reason we've never had votes before. It isn't just a constitutional reason; it's a practicality reason. I believe Canadians voted a government into office that can act effectively in circumstances. I don't think they want us to go to a congressional system that will make it impossible for you and for us to act in the best interests of Canada when you have to. That's what we got elected for, and that's what we're there to support you for.

So when we're considering votes, I want to urge you and your cabinet colleagues to look at this very carefully before, under pressure, you accept what is ultimately a constitutional amendment that will not be beneficial to the people of Canada. I personally would resist it for that reason, not just a constitutional arcane argument, but one of enormous practicality for how we carry on the government of our country. So I'd like to leave that thought with you.

In closing, I want to remind the members that Mr. Pratt, whose name the minister mentioned several times, will be appearing before the human rights subcommittee. We're very grateful for the work he's doing.

We have requested a briefing with the defence department on Tuesday morning from 10.15 to 11.45. That's optional, obviously, for members. The committee will not be sitting that morning, and hopefully we could go over to the defence department and have a briefing similar to those we had during the gulf conflict. I know that the defence department officials will be happy to accommodate us.

Minister, again, thank you very much. I know you've been under a lot of pressure, and we're very grateful for the amount of time you spent with us this afternoon.

Mr. Bob Mills: If you want Mr. Graham and I to argue that point about the vote, I have as many good arguments on the other side as to why we should have one in this case.

The Chairman: I thought maybe somebody should try to get something else in than just what we're hearing all the time.

We're adjourned.