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]

Monday, June 7, 1999

• 1537

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.)): I call to order the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Today we're very honoured to have with us the Honourable Seamus Pattison.

I believe, Mr. Pattison, you have already been given the drill; they've told you what's expected, what you can do today. I'd like you to introduce the panel you've brought with you. The floor is yours. However, I must caution you, we have some pretty sharp people here who may come up with questions, so don't open anything you don't want to be discussed.

Hon. Seamus Pattison (Speaker of the House of Representatives, Parliament of Ireland (Dáil)): All right.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

Mr. Speaker Seamus Pattison: Madam President, we've very honoured and delighted to be here this evening. I wish to assure you that our visit to your great country has been most enjoyable and most productive.

I should at this stage introduce the members of the delegation here, starting with Michael O'Kennedy of the Fianna Fáil Party, which is the major party in government at the present time. Also here is Austin Deasy of the Fine Gael Party, which is the major party in opposition at the present time. Mr. Brian O'Shea is our deputy to the house and is a member of the Labour Party, which is in the opposition benches now. And we have two members from our upper house: Senator Tom Fitzgerald of the Fianna Fáil Party, who is from County Kerry, and Senator Willie Farrell of the Fianna Fáil Party, who is from County Sligo. So we have a mixed delegation between government and opposition.

• 1540

And I am now in the position of Ceann Comhairle, which is the term we use for Speaker. While I occupy that position, I have to remain completely politically neutral, but I was and have been all my life a member of the Labour Party.

There are many historical and ethnic ties between Ireland and Canada. Cultural links between our two countries are also very strong, and these continue to flourish. There are a number of vibrant Irish societies and associations in all of the provinces of Canada. We experienced one of those vibrant Irish societies in Halifax on Sunday. These societies help to provide Irish culture through the organization of a varied range of activities. I know St. Patrick's Day, which is our own national feast, is celebrated in many locations throughout Canada, and I believe also here in Ottawa there's more green evident on St. Patrick's Day than on any other day of the year. And I'm informed that a number of other festivals are organized each year. Of course I am aware of the Shaw Festival held at Niagara on the Lake, which features productions of his plays.

Irish emigrants have played a large part in the building of Canada's cities, the shaping of her legal and political institutions, and the education, both academic and religious, of her people. Irish involvement in Canada could be said to have begun in the 6th century, with the reputed arrival of St. Brendan in North America.

With the famine in 1845, the Irish emigrated to Canada in even greater numbers, and by 1867 they made up a considerable proportion of the population in cities such as St. John's, Halifax, Quebec, and Montreal. Many of them, too poor to take up land, were to be the labourers and skilled workers who enabled these industrial cities to grow.

As Confederation approached, the Irish in Canada became an important and influential part of the country's political life. Prominent among the early figures was Francis Hincks, who travelled to Canada as a young man and engaged in journalism before entering politics, and later served as Prime Minister between 1851 and 1854.

There were others, such as John Costigan, leader of the Home Rule movement, and Edward Blake, leader of the Liberal Party for many years and who as Minister of Justice in 1875 was responsible for the establishment of Canada's Supreme Court.

Probably best known of the early political figures of Irish origin is Thomas D'Arcy McGee, who as member of the Young Ireland movement was implicated in the abortive uprising in Ireland against British rule in 1848. He escaped to the United States and settled in Canada in 1857. He came to political prominence in 1858 and was elected to the first Dominion House of Commons in 1867. He was in fact one of the architects of the new nation. Tragically he had little chance to put his talents to use in the services of the new Dominion, as he was assassinated one year later, in 1868. A monument of Thomas D'Arcy McGee has been erected in Carlingford, County Louth.

As you are probably aware, the most important event in Ireland in recent times was the implementation of what is known as the Good Friday agreement, which was reached by the Irish and British governments and by the Northern Ireland political parties in Belfast on Good Friday in 1998. This has been the overriding priority for the Irish government over the past year. To that end, intensive work is continuing between the two governments and the parties involved. While we are aware that difficulties have been encountered in the formation of the executive, it is important to remember that in just over a year, considerable progress has been made.

• 1545

The agreement was overwhelmingly endorsed by the people of Ireland in referenda north and south. This success was followed by elections to the new Northern Ireland Assembly, which of course has been meeting in shadow form since last July. The institutional, equality, and human rights aspects of the agreement were passed into law in Westminster last November. The number and demarcation of departments the executive will oversee has been agreed by the assembly.

In March of this year the government signed supplementary international agreements on the establishment of the North-South Ministerial Council, north-south implementation bodies, the British-Irish Council, and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Council. The legislation necessary to give these effect has been passed in both jurisdictions.

All of the necessary provisions are now in place for the installation under the agreement to go live once the current impasse over the formation of the executive has been resolved. The nub of the problem is that unionists are not prepared to see the executive appointed in advance of some progress on decommissioning, while for their part Sinn Féin argue that the agreement contains no such preconditions and are calling for the formation of the executive immediately.

The key to the resolution of the current impasse lies in the building up of trust and confidence on all sides to enable people to move forward. It is encouraging that the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Féin have recently had direct dialogue, which can only make a positive contribution to the search for a solution.

The two governments and the Northern Ireland parties are totally committed to finding an honourable resolution of the impasse and are anxious to move forward sooner rather than later. I, together with my colleagues, remain hopeful and optimistic that with determination and goodwill all around, the outstanding difficulties can be successfully overcome.

Strenuous efforts have yet to achieve a consensus and a way forward. The two governments have put forward a number of possible solutions at Hillsborough and most recently at Downing Street. None has so far proved acceptable to all sides, but the search for a breakthrough is continuing.

It's important for us to state here too that in the search for peace in Northern Ireland, we have been moved by the huge support and encouragement we have received from our friends abroad. We are grateful for the support of the Canadian government and its people for the peace process. We owe a great deal of gratitude for the unique contribution made by General de Chastelain together with his fellow co-chairmen of the multiparty talks, Senator George Mitchell and former Prime Minister Holkeri, whose Herculean efforts brought about the Good Friday agreement. Even today, as we are here in Canada, General de Chastelain is continuing to work extremely actively towards facilitating a permanent peaceful solution.

Before I conclude, I would like to express Ireland's appreciation of Canada's support for the International Fund for Ireland. The fund, which was established in 1986 by the Irish and British governments, has as its objectives to promote economic and social advancement and to encourage contact, dialogue, and reconciliation between nationalists and unionists throughout Ireland. The contribution made by Canada to the International Fund for Ireland has amounted to over $3.5 million Canadian. These donations are particularly focused on economic cooperation and the training of young people. By the end of 1999 the fund will have spent some £380 million on some 4,000 projects in Northern Ireland and in the six-county border area.

Ireland and Canada have always enjoyed and continue to enjoy excellent bilateral relations based on close and well-established cultural, historical, and ethnic links, which I referred to earlier. The relationship thrives at both federal and provincial levels. It is sustained by an ever-increasing number of official visits on both sides. Our President, Mary McAleese, made a state visit to Canada in October last. She was the first head of state from Ireland to pay such a visit to Canada. A number of ministers have visited Canada in the recent past, and of course next week we're looking forward to welcoming your Prime Minister Chrétien as well as Minister Marchi and a number of other parliamentarians.

• 1550

That, Madam Chairperson, is an outline of the current situation in Ireland. If there are any questions, my colleagues and I will do our best to deal with them.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

I believe Mr. Mills would like to start.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): I'd like to welcome you on behalf of the opposition parties in our Parliament. It's great to have you visit us.

I have several questions I'd like to ask you.

First of all, because we have a couple of senators here, I'd like to know the method of appointment of those senators and what sort of mandate they have in your Parliament.

Secondly, at the Cologne summit, the European Union has decided to set up a commissioner for foreign and security policy issues. I wonder what your reaction might be and what you think the implications are, and of course I'd like to know Ireland's position on that.

And finally, with the upcoming parade season and the IRA not being disarmed yet, I wonder what potential you see for future conflict. I know it will be a guess, but I'd like to know where you might think that is going.

Mr. Speaker Seamus Pattison: First, as Speaker of the House of Representatives, I wouldn't dare presume to speak on behalf of my better halves. So I'll hand that question on the senators over to Senator Tom Fitzgerald, who is the government chief whip in the Senate, and on the other part of your question, I think Deputy Michael O'Kennedy will take up those matters.

Tom.

Senator Tom Fitzgerald (Parliament of Ireland (Seanad)): Thank you, Ceann Comhairle.

I believe I can answer your question, because I have qualified on all fronts. I've been defeated, I've been elected by popular vote, and I have been also nominated by the Prime Minister.

Our Senate, the upper house, is made up of 60 members, 49 of which are elected and 11 of which nominated by the government leader of the day. Of the 49 who are elected, six are from the universities—the National University and Trinity College, three from each. The remaining senators are elected from five different panels. I hope I can think of all of them now. There's a labour panel, an administrative panel, culture and education, agriculture and fisheries, and industrial and commercial.

So we go through an election. Whenever the government falls, whenever there's a general election, there's also a Senate election. There is one difference. We remain senators until we lose our seats or until we're re-elected. With the Parliament, the very minute an election is called, that is the end of the duties as far as the members of Parliament are concerned, except for ministers, who remain on in office.

The method of election then is this. For a start, every one vote has a value of 1,000. In my particular panel, when I was elected, I needed 75,000 votes to get elected, which in effect was only 75 votes. All members of the house, upper and lower, have a vote in the Senate. Four corporations—namely Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Limerick, and recently Galway—have a vote, and all of the local authority members of each county have a vote.

• 1555

The total vote for the entire country would be about 950 votes or thereabouts.

Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you very much.

Senator Tom Fitzgerald: The first time I was defeated, then I got elected, and on the last occasion I became one of the 11 people nominated by the Prime Minister. And as the Ceann Comhairle has said, I'm the government chief whip in the Senate at the moment. I think they look to me as one of the older guys who could afford to stay in there for a while.

Thank you.

Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you.

Mr. Michael O'Kennedy (Member of the Parliament of Ireland (Dáil)): I'm in the unusual position of actually having started my career in the upper house, the Senate, in 1965, and having been demoted subsequently to the lower house of Parliament.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Michael O'Kennedy: Then I came back to the Senate some years back and then was demoted again.

It is quite significant that you have an interest in it, because in our constitutional balance and structures, our upper house does play a very significant role.

Obviously one of the things that is always necessary is to ensure you're not going to get a conflict between the upper house and the lower house, which in our case is clearly, like yours, directly elected. As Senator Fitzgerald has pointed out to you, the upper house is not directly elected by the people; it's elected by an electoral college comprised of members of both houses and members of local authorities. The government guarantees its majority in the place by having 11 directly nominated by the Taoiseach of the day.

That's what I have to say of my experience in both houses.

I found the level of debate, discussion, and analysis in the Senate was much more enlightened, much more sophisticated, than what goes on in the lower house, where I've now been for some time.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Michael O'Kennedy: I said it half in jest, but only half in jest. It doesn't have what you might call the political, confrontational arrangement, but then that of course is a necessary part of all political debate in any event.

On the other question you mentioned, I'm a former foreign minister, so I think I might be reasonably expected, if not qualified, to comment on your question in relation to that particular position.

Ireland's role in foreign policy as far as we're concerned has always been characterized by our independence and, I think one would say and could say, our neutrality. We're not neutral, though, and never were, between totalitarianism and democracy. We weren't neutral between communism and democracy. But we were in a whole range of areas pursuing independent foreign policy.

When we joined the European Community in 1972 and when the people endorsed our decision with 83% in the referendum, which is a huge endorsement, we made it clear to the people that we were not joining a security group, and that if it were to evolve into that, the Irish people would have to be consulted, under our Constitution. For that reason you get different views from our different groups.

Personally, I would have reservations about a security buildup through our membership of the European Union. Our former foreign minister, who is a member of the Speaker's party and who was a very distinguished foreign minister, Dick Spring, was mentioned indeed as possibly a serious candidate for the position you speak of. But it wasn't surprising in a way that our partners in Europe felt the Irish might be a little bit iffy in that job, even someone as distinguished as Dick Spring, because in security cooperation and consultation, it clearly has links to NATO, and as you'll be aware, we are not members of NATO.

I'll stop after this point. This is an indication of how we can throw questions back to each other in an informal fashion.

You'll be aware of the fact that we have a very consistent role, with your good selves, that we're very conscious of in peacekeeping internationally. Ireland and Canada would like to think we have a lot more in common than divides us in that area. But we ourselves would have reservations about that position. It does seem the security dimension of the European Union is growing stronger all the time, and perhaps understandably, in view of developments in Bosnia and more recently in Kosovo.

• 1600

Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker Seamus Pattison: Could I ask Deputy Austin Deasy to make a comment?

Mr. Austin Deasy (Member of the Parliament of Ireland (Dáil)): Thank you, Ceann Comhairle.

I am vice-chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the Irish Parliament and a member of the main opposition party.

My views on membership of NATO and our neutrality are quite different from those of other members of the delegation. The views I express are my own, because the official line of my party is not in conjunction with what I'm going to say to you.

Basically I'm very ashamed that we're not members of NATO, because we have benefited from all the economic progression we've made over the past 26 years by our membership of the European Union. We've benefited tremendously. While we do contribute in ways economically in return, I feel there's a duty on us, being in a key position in the north Atlantic, to be a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We are in a pivotal position, as you are on this side of the Atlantic. If you look at a map of the northern hemisphere, you will see our position is crucial to the workings of that organization.

Recently in Parliament we agreed to become members of the movement called Partnership for Peace, which is looked upon by many people as a halfway house between our neutral position and that of being members of NATO.

Our neutrality is a very vexed issue as far as I'm concerned. There's a small party in Ireland called the Green Party; it's much larger in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. They have been advocating that there should be a referendum even as to whether we become members of the Partnership for Peace movement. I believe the vast majority of people in Ireland want to be members of the Partnership for Peace organization. I do believe there's a very significant number who also want to become members of NATO. So it is a fairly significant thing for public discussion. We don't have enough of it in my country.

The question of neutrality really goes back to the occupation of the northeastern six counties by the British. That would have been a real issue up until the late 1960s or early 1970s, but since then we have all agreed, north and south, particularly us in the south, that we have no ambitions to secure the six northeastern counties of Ireland by force. We have no ambitions for that.

Therefore the question of our neutrality doesn't, in my view, really arise. We're not neutral. I'm not neutral. I'm pro-American. I'm pro-west. I'm pro-NATO in the Kosovo war. I would have been pro-alliance in the Gulf War. A lot of people in Ireland would likewise be in that position.

A lot of politicians, particularly in my own party, while they might share that point of view, feel it's a sensitive issue and would rather not go before the public in an election on that very issue, because it might cost them votes.

Some people generally do feel we should be neutral. I don't. I think it's a lot of hocus-pocus.

The other question that was raised, which I think you'd like referral to, is the question of the Good Friday agreement and the question of the handing up of arms by the IRA, which is crucial to the whole process. We're all republican nationalists. The parents of most of us here would have been members of the old IRA, back in 1921. We are nationalists by nature and republicans by nature in our attitudes. But I do feel the IRA have been wrong, and very wrong, not to have handed up their arms, because there is goodwill all around.

What seems to me to be the likely outcome of the present impasse—and this is very important to note, and it's my view; it's only an opinion—is that Mr. Trimble, leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, may find his position, as leader of that party and as first minister in the new executive, untenable shortly, because we're just about to enter into the marching season in Northern Ireland.

• 1605

It's a highly emotive issue, the marching season. The Orange Order and its members and quite a number of the Protestant majority march through Catholic districts and through sensitive areas where you have mixed Catholic and Protestant citizens. It's a very vexed issue, and Mr. Trimble's position could well be untenable, and if it becomes untenable, it will be a huge setback for a peaceful solution to the problems in Northern Ireland. It will be a huge setback.

I would like to see the IRA—and I think we would all like to see the IRA—give up an appreciable quantity of their arms, if not all of their arms. I would take on trust the goodwill of the British government and that of Senator George Mitchell and your General de Chastelain. I would take those on trust. But there seems to be still a lot of distrust. I feel Mr. Adams and his colleagues are hedging. They're hedging. They have a difficulty such as Michael Collins, one of our great leaders, had in 1922: if they are seen to give way, they might be regarded within their own organization as traitors.

It's a very sensitive issue, and it's fraught with danger. But when you get into very tight political situations, basically what politicians are elected for is to show leadership and to have courage. It's a situation that is crying out for people with courage who will take tough decisions, and I find at this stage people are backing off. If Mr. Trimble comes down and one of the die-hard unionist people are elected leader, then we've gone back maybe 20, 25, or 35 years.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): First off, I too would like to welcome you to the House of Commons. This is the House side, the Senate is over there. It's becoming the red chamber. I don't know whether your Upper House in Ireland is similar to ours.

In any event, I want to welcome you on behalf of my party. It is a great pleasure for us to meet officials from your Republic. How could we ever forget that your nation has produced three Nobel Prize winners for literature. When I think of Ireland, I think not only of George Bernard Shaw, but also of William Butler Yeats and Jonathan Swift. I think about Dublin which I had the good fortune of visiting last summer, after spending a few rather somber days in Northern Ireland as part of a delegation that witnessed the Protestant marches and parades in Porterdown and on the Lower Garvaghy Road.

I witnessed for myself the marked difference that Mr. O'Kennedy alluded to earlier between Belfast, a city in Northern Ireland, and Dublin, a young, dynamic and very beautiful European city. The hope is that Belfast will one day achieve the same status and become an equally dynamic city. I was able to draw some comparisons between these two cities. There are many who would like to see the two become closer on more ways. Moreover, that was one of the objectives of the Good Friday agreement.

• 1610

When I think of Ireland, I also think of Roger Casement, someone with whom you are all familiar and who once said:

[English]

Loyalty is all about love and not about right or law.

[Translation]

I've also been struck by this lovely image chosen by one of your country's patriots after fighting for the freedom of the Republic of Ireland.

My first question in fact concerns the Good Friday agreement. The deadline set by Prime Minister Tony Blair for the implementation of the agreement is June 30. Is this also the deadline that has been set by the Republic of Ireland? Do you view this as a critically important date?

You may not wish to answer the next question because you are politicians and undoubtedly you dislike hypothetical questions, but what do you think will happen if the parties fail to reach an agreement on June 30? What options does the Republic of Ireland have, as far as the peace process is concerned?

My second question pertains to Europe, not to the person who will be heading up the PESC. In passing, apparently someone who is by no means neutral, namely the Secretary General of NATO, Javier Solana, has been chosen to chair the PESC. Be that as it may, I would like to know if you are satisfied with the economic and monetary union to which the Republic of Ireland has become a party and what you expect in the future for this new component of European nation-building.

[English]

Mr. Speaker Seamus Pattison: Deputy O'Kennedy will respond.

Mr. Michael O'Kennedy: I'll make some observations on those points.

In relation to the deadline, 30 June, the whole basis on which this agreement is constructed is agreement. Agreement between both governments, agreement between north and south, and agreement within the north are the three strands of agreement. Obviously, to put the agreement into effect, you had to have target dates. As my colleague, Austin Deasy, said earlier, those target dates have not now been reached. But the British Prime Minister has expressed this deadline, as you call it, for the implementation of the agreement on 30 June.

The important thing to recognize, as you implied yourself, is that no one likes to contemplate the alternative at this point. So it's not so much what you might call a “gun to the head” deadline, but rather an agreement between the governments and the political parties that this is the optimum date. We all feel that if it runs any longer, some of those elements that my colleague, Austin Deasy, referred to—the non-political forces—might begin to rear their ugly heads again. Therefore, for the moment, we are all in that sense thinking in terms of a “deadline”, but not so much a deadline as an effective target date.

But I can tell you this. It's significant that the Ceann Comhairle, or Speaker, welcomed the British Prime Minister to our Parliament some two or three months ago to address our Parliament. This was unthinkable 10 years ago, much less 20 or 30 years ago. The significant thing about that event that day, when the Ceann Comhairle welcomed him, was that it seemed almost normal.

There is very close agreement between both governments and very close agreement between both Parliaments. I myself am co-chairman of the British-Irish parliamentary body, and we will work together in agreement to achieve that deadline. But at the moment, we do not want to contemplate the alternative.

In relation to your second question, on the EMU and matters of that kind, I was a member of Parliament in 1970, and I was a member of government actually when we joined the European Community in 1972-73.

• 1615

Our experience in Europe has always been that taking a positive, confident, vigorous position in partnership with our partners has been very successful for us. Therefore, at all stages in relation to the union and those areas, we have taken that position. As a small, open economy, we're in a somewhat vulnerable position, particularly if Britain stays out, and they have for the moment.

Equally of course we are a bit concerned that the evolution of the Euro is not quite as stable as we would have all expected it to be. But that said, that's not surprising for a new currency that has been developed in a Europe that's trying to embrace people outside the existing membership to the east as well. So our position generally is we are very positive on that.

Could I throw a question back, just while we're here? I'd like to get your view on something. It arises from something my friend, Austin Deasy, said.

You'll note already that as friends, we are treating you with the respect friends are entitled to, so that you can get the flavour of differences from our views here, as we would in any family.

One of the reservations expressed by some in relation to military alignments with or attachments to NATO groups is about the armaments industry. A number of us in Ireland have very grave reservations about the armaments industry and the unchecked, unlimited export of armaments. It's more that than anything else that we have reservations about. Some of us in the security field see the consequences for innocent wretches around the world of the uncontrolled export of armaments. There is a strong feeling in Ireland against that. I'd like to get the Canadian view on that. What is your position on that?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I'd like to suggest something. There are others who haven't commented. My comment would be, if any of us doubt where Brian Tobin from Newfoundland gets his gift of the gab.... It's very eloquent. However, we can certainly see traces of it here, and I was wondering if there was someone else who wanted to answer that.

I would think the answers to any questions you are asking, if you want the government position, would have to be from the parliamentary secretary, and I'm not sure if he's prepared to respond on this.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Madam Chair, I'll do my best.

One of the things Canada has been moving towards of course is disarmament in fairly major ways. This committee just completed, a few months ago, a very complete study on nuclear armaments. Naturally Canada feels it's in our interest to eliminate nuclear weapons and to work towards eliminating them. Each time we do one of these studies, we try to push the wall a little farther towards elimination. One of the resolutions in that study is to persuade NATO to, when it's re-examining itself, re-examine its position on nuclear armaments.

In that study, we did not enlist the phrase “no first use”, but we did enlist a phrase that asks countries to back away, to take a step back, from having their finger on the button. The argument was put forward—and I'm sure my colleagues in the opposition will agree—that a “no first use” agreement is only as good as the two countries honouring it, and if one begins to suspect that the other one is doing something, then all of a sudden it becomes redundant. So we are very anxious that this should proceed in that direction.

• 1620

The other thing my minister has been involved in is the question of the transshipment of small arms to countries waging internal wars. As we all know, the casualties of the modern age have been innocent civilians rather than the military. One of the observations you can sadly make in Africa particularly is that AK-47 weapons are being put into the hands of 10-year-olds. That is one other thrust.

Of course another one, which you're all familiar with, is the business of the elimination of anti-personnel landmines through the Ottawa accord.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you, Mr. Reed.

Madam Finestone.

Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): I thank you very much.

First of all, I welcome you here. It's nice to see parliamentarians and senators. It really doesn't matter which way you get elected into which house. When you're serving the public good, that's what's important. You have a common goal in the interest of your citizens. That's where we measure the effect. Differences of opinion and different goals are very important to be discussed, and in the end, democracy prevails, I hope. So it's really very nice for us to greet you here.

I was listening to Monsieur Turp as he enunciated the list of your famous artists, poets, and novelists. I was going to tell you I have an entirely different view. It's not that I don't acknowledge and recognize that, but I lived in a house where the backyard looked out on a school called D'Arcy McGee. The D'Arcy McGee school had their play field outside, so I watched them all playing very happily under the sign of D'Arcy McGee.

I also happened to have been involved in the design for Grosse-Île. I don't know whether you're going to have an opportunity to visit Grosse-Île. I would hope if you don't this time, you will next time. It is a recognition of the very difficult circumstances under which Canada benefited from the immigration of a really marvellous part of our personality and our history.

Last but not least, I invite you to Montreal for St. Patrick's Day. We paint the street green, we have a huge parade, and everybody wears green.

You mentioned the Prime Minister's trip. My colleague, Jean, has tried to convince the Prime Minister that she really is Irish, and she thinks she should go on that trip.

Voices: Oh, oh!

A voice: She's wearing green.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: So you're more than welcome, to say the least. And we did have Mary Robinson here too.

I'm glad Julian mentioned the anti-personnel landmines, because I know the Irish vote and the Irish signature was very important with respect to international humanitarian law. And the transshipment of small arms is very important.

My question is quite different. I learned that you have a very interesting form of proportional representation when you vote for your house, and you consider it an excellent form, so I'd like to know what it is. How do you do the complex tabulating of votes, which is very time-consuming, and yet it's a very good system? Could you tell me about this voting system of the house?

Mr. Speaker Seamus Pattison: I'll ask Deputy Brian O'Shea to deal with that.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you.

A voice: He'll need two days to do that.

Mr. Brian O'Shea (Member of the Parliament of Ireland (Dáil)): Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I'll start by saying that when I was studying in college, my lecturer said proportional representation is the fairest system of all. It's quite complex, but if you come to the point where you don't know what happens next, think about the fairest thing that can be done, and invariably you'll be right.

We have three types of constituencies in Ireland: we have three-seat, four-seat, and five-seat constituencies. When the voter gets a voting paper, the candidates are listed, and the voter marks them 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, down to the very end, if they wish, in the order of their choice.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Where is the party banner?

• 1625

Mr. Brian O'Shea: The party banner is beside the candidate's name on the polling paper.

A voice: There's no list system.

Mr. Brian O'Shea: There's no list system as such. It's just a straightforward election.

To be elected, a candidate must reach the quota. The quota is calculated by dividing the valid polled by the number of candidates plus one.

A voice: It's the number of seats.

Mr. Brian O'Shea: Excuse me; it's the number of seats plus one. In other words, in a three-seater, you divide by four, and in a four-seater, you divide by five. And you add one vote onto that.

A voice: It's complicated.

Mr. Brian O'Shea: It's quite complicated.

If a candidate reaches the quota, that candidate is then elected. If, for instance, on the first count, the candidate has exceeded the quota, then that candidate is elected, and the surplus votes of that candidate are then distributed. This is where it becomes complicated.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I think we'll stop there.

Mr. Michael O'Kennedy: You'll have to come over to find out.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much, Mr. O'Shea. I like the “first past the post”, which we have here at this moment, under a highly designated party system, but I'm always interested to hear what is done in other countries.

My last part of that question would be, how many parties sit in the house?

Mr. Brian O'Shea: There are five presently, but effectively there are three major parties. One party consists of two members, the other of one member.

I believe that in a country where there are minority views, or let's say where there are parties that in the “first past the post” system would have very little chance of being elected, you can be eliminating certain points of view from a national Parliament.

I would say there's probably a body of thought in Ireland that would like to see proportional representation, but a list system being introduced. One of the difficulties is this. It's not so much a difficulty in my party, because we're the smallest of the three main parties, but because of proportional representation, you probably have more rivalry between two deputies of one party in one constituency. That's not a healthy thing. If the party vote is high enough, the established person is going to be elected. That puts in a safeguard. My own view at the end of the day is that will lead to better government.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

Mr. Speaker Seamus Pattison: Deputy Deasy wishes to make a brief comment.

Mr. Austin Deasy: Actually it's so complicated that quite a lot of politicians in Ireland don't understand the system.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: So I'm in good company is what you're saying.

Mr. Austin Deasy: Yes, you are. Particularly when it comes to distributing surpluses, it gets extraordinarily complex.

I would agree with you about the “first past the post” system. I would prefer if we had that. We've all been elected for a long number of years under the existing system. It leads to an indecisive government at the end of the day. When I say “indecisive”, I mean no party gets an overall majority. We haven't had a single party with an overall majority for over 22 years, and it's proven to be very destabilizing in recent times. We have coalitions that are not natural coalitions. We see right-wing parties coalescing with extreme left-wing parties. So it's leading to a lot of instability. The “first past the post” system, in my view, would be much better.

I want to refer to a point that was raised by this gentleman over here about the Northern Ireland situation and whether we agree with Tony Blair on this and that. The two Prime Ministers—Tony Blair in England and Bertie Ahern in Ireland—issue joint statements. Everything is done in unison. All the declarations of postponement of deadlines are done in unison. The two governments were never as close as they have been in the last couple of years, particularly since the Labour government recently came into power in England.

We in Ireland find it very easy to work with the “New Labour”, as they're called in England. We find it very easy to work with them. There is no distrust whatsoever. The Prime Ministers even attend soccer matches together. They're social buddies as well as everything else. There is no distrust at all. The distrust is within the communities in Northern Ireland, no place else.

• 1630

Mr. Michael O'Kennedy: I have just one other brief comment.

There are two extremes in our political systems. The straight vote, which Britain has, is extreme on the one hand, because you can have someone elected with, say, 33% of the vote, and you get a huge swing, as happens in Britain from time to time. That's one extreme. We're the other extreme, quite honestly. Yes, our system is fair, but as Austin Deasy has pointed out, it's not a system for actually electing a government.

We have a number of individual independents in Ireland, some of whom were elected on something like whether or not they should have a television mast in their constituency or the state of the roads in their constituency. Three or four of those, at this point, as we talk, have the balance of power in determining the Government of Ireland. That's nonsense, total nonsense. That's the extreme application of the multi-seat PR system. But somehow or another we've survived.

For those who would have an enthusiasm, ours is an extreme form of PR. I think generally, if we were starting all over again, we would come to the conclusion of having a single-seat transferable vote with some kind of list system to protect smaller parties as well as everything else.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): We were going to let you go at 4.30, but I'm wondering, Excellency, do you have another 15 minutes?

Mr. Speaker Seamus Pattison: Well, we certainly don't want to detain you, but we're quite prepared to remain. We don't want to inconvenience anyone on the other side.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): We'd like you for another 15 minutes anyway. Thank you.

Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I too want to join my colleagues in welcoming you to Canada and to this committee. Since it seemed as though confessions were being made around the table in terms of who knows who in Ireland, I want to make a confession. I was schooled by Irish nuns, and I think Sister Immaculata would have liked me to ask a question today.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Jean Augustine: I noticed in some of the material I read that 95% of your constituents are Roman Catholics. I wondered if you could speak about the relationship between the church and the state in terms of some real issues that face us in Parliament, whether we're talking about the definition of “spouse” or a whole series of issues as they pertain to women and women's issues. Can you speak of the social environment where this discussion does take place?

I also notice that all of you are gentlemen, and I wonder—

Mr. Michael O'Kennedy: Not yet.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Jean Augustine: What is the percentage of women in your caucus and in your party, and what is the participation of women in terms of those social issues?

Mr. Speaker Seamus Pattison: I'll deal with that.

I've seen a great change in my time as a member of Parliament. On the question of women, already the name of President Mary Robinson has come up. She was elected the first woman President of Ireland. When her term of office ceased, she didn't seek re-election; she was appointed to another high position on the world stage. But her successor was another woman, President Mary McAleese, who was also elected.

In our government at the moment, two full, senior cabinet positions, including the vice-premier, are occupied by women. We call it the Tánaiste. About 20 members of our 166 members are women—slightly less than in the previous Parliament, but there has been a great deal of advancement in that area.

I'm sorry; I should have said we have three women in cabinet. There are only 15 cabinet positions in Ireland, and three of the senior positions are held by women, including, as I said, the vice-premier position.

• 1635

We have one woman on our Supreme Court. And of our 15 members of the European Parliament, two are women, and that number is likely to increase in the forthcoming election. So we've come a long way in that regard.

On your other question, we could say a lot, but things have changed there too. We had a referendum. As you know, divorce was unconstitutional—in other words, our Constitution prevented laws from being passed to provide for divorce—but the government some years ago initiated legislation for a change in the Constitution. That change was adopted by the people, and we now have provision for divorce, which, as you know, is a major separation of the church influence from the government.

There have been other matters too. Because of the kind of history we had, perhaps it was understandable, in the early years of the state, to have a close connection between church and state. But certainly there's a clear understanding now on both sides that that needn't be and that one is completely independent of the other. It's working satisfactorily.

Mr. Michael O'Kennedy: It hardly needs to be said that there's no such thing as an established faith or church in Ireland. The reality is that over 90% of the population are Roman Catholic—not all of them practising Roman Catholics, incidentally—but there is no link whatsoever between church and state in laws or otherwise, none whatsoever. For instance, in law, the state went well ahead in some areas, and we're well behind the church in other areas. I'm talking about the Catholic church now. I shouldn't use that term, “church”, without acknowledging that there are other churches that are very significant in our community.

In any event, the Catholic church acknowledged nullity for quite a while, which wasn't available in the state. I myself was in the first case where the courts introduced nullity. We got a decree of nullity. The only thing I would say in this case is, wearing that hat, we've gone a good bit, but I'd like to think that wearing the other hat, as parliamentarians, we would introduce legislation to give effect to nullity. The courts actually—and I was in the case myself—introduced nullity on a civil basis some time back. The legislature hasn't followed, but I think it's only a matter of time before we do.

Ms. Jean Augustine: The other question, which we're grappling with in our own situation, was around a definition of “spouse”, lesbian and gay rights, etc.

Mr. Michael O'Kennedy: In all of those areas, I can tell you this. It might seem we are proclaiming ourselves to be virtuous or whatever, but I don't mean that. A long time back, way back at the turn of the century, in terms of property rights, women were subservient to men. In inheritance law, women took second place. That was changed significantly in relation to domestic law in 1957, when the Married Women's Status Act gave the same rights to women as men.

In terms of custody of children in the event of separation or divorce, it used to be that the man had the first right, way back, but now that's gone. Now I'm glad to say we've advanced to a more enlightened position still. We do not now talk at all in terms of the husband's right or the wife's right to custody of the children. What we look to exclusively is the well-being of the children. That is the only thing that will guide the determination by a court in instances such as that.

There's no such thing as parents being allowed to contest on the basis that it's their right, as distinct from their spouse's right. The courts won't listen to those arguments, fortunately. We've advanced very significantly in Ireland on those fronts.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Thank you.

• 1640

Mr. Austin Deasy: What Jean was alluding to was very much the case in Ireland: the Catholic church and the state were synonymous. This would have been so up to 10 or 15 years ago, but it's no longer the case. They opposed the legalization of contraception and then the legalization of divorces. As Michael has stated, they were defeated on those issues.

As well as that, they have come into a position of disfavour or disorder, I suppose, because of a lot of child abuse cases involving people in the church.

Mr. Michael O'Kennedy: That's going back now 30 years, but it's all only emerging now.

Mr. Austin Deasy: Yes, it's coming to the surface now.

As well, some senior figures in the Catholic church in Ireland have shown themselves to be rather hypocritical on issues about which they were preaching. This has undermined their moral authority.

We feel, as politicians nowadays, quite independent. Most politicians and about half the people in Ireland are practising Catholics. I'm not, but it doesn't make one iota of difference when it comes to an election. I think that answers your question. We can be quite independent of mind in what we state, whether or not it impinges on the views of the church, and we can survive by doing it.

So the regime of Sister Immaculata is over.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I don't think anyone has the monopoly on hypocrisy, and it's always nice to hear it when people actually get up and state that.

Mr. Cannis.

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

Let me also take this opportunity to welcome you all here to our country.

I have one suggestion. You spoke about having so many parties. We have a similar problem here in Canada, as you well know: we have five different official parties. There's something called the united alternative, and you might want to embark on that and maybe bring some consolidation.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): However, there is a difference. There, one or two members can be a party. Here you have to have a certain number of members to be a party.

Mr. John Cannis: That's true.

I'm always disturbed when I hear these things, because indeed it does bring a destabilizing environment to any country. In listening to your response, I thought, “God, how do they run that country?” I say this with the greatest of respect to you. In Italy, for example, every year or six months, they have a new government. It has to be a mess.

I wanted to ask you about something. In 1993 or 1994, I believe, you embarked on an infrastructure program, if I'm not mistaken. I was wondering if you could comment on that and tell us about the results of that infrastructure program, its successes, and its downturns. And have you looked at or are you looking at a phase two?

As you know, in 1993 we talked about an infrastructure program that brought some very good results from one end of the country to the other, and we did it in a three-level partnership, federal, provincial, and municipal. Could you compare yours with ours and the results of that?

And I have one closing comment. You mentioned that the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, is a strong soccer fan. I was wondering if you could comment on some of the news I've heard recently about the team from Yugoslavia not being permitted to play with the Irish. Why are politics going into the sport world? It's very unfortunate.

Mr. Michael O'Kennedy: I certainly would like to comment on that one, and some of my colleagues might be able to deal with the others.

Mr. John Cannis: The infrastructure program I'm really interested in more.

Mr. Michael O'Kennedy: On the team in Yugoslavia, for what it's worth, we've taken a position of principle in relation to a number of issues from time to time.

When I was foreign minister in 1977-79, probably the greatest injustice known at that time was the injustice of the apartheid system, which literally condemned certain people to second-class citizenship. We could never accept that.

We like to keep politics free from sport as well, but World Cup golf was organizing in Ireland at that point for the major World Cup competition. I went to government in 1978 and asked government then, as long ago as 1978, to withdraw any support for the World Cup golf competition in Ireland—which would have been a big boost to us at the time, a huge boost to us—because we felt we were not entitled to give any signal in any way at all to the participation of a sporting team from a regime that denied the most fundamental rights at that time: the right to life, the right to the privileges we all enjoy. Our position hasn't changed, and hence what you recently saw.

• 1645

Ireland is a great sporting nation, as you know. We love sport. We were looking forward to that game. Most of us would have been at that game. We would have been cheering for Ireland. But it was significant that the total membership of the Dáil, or 90% of them anyway, were all of one view: that the government decision to withhold the visas, in the event that the football organizations didn't do the necessary thing themselves, was the right thing.

We couldn't contemplate the notion that we would be at sport with a team from a regime that, while we were playing with them, was literally engaging in genocide. That would be totally contrary to this.

On the other points, maybe Brian or someone would like to comment, but on that one we have a consistent position.

Mr. Brian O'Shea: Chairperson, I'd like to make one brief comment about the government decision, which I support, and indeed I called for it in Parliament on Tuesday of last week. The football team in Yugoslavia is very much interlinked with politics and with the military there, so it's not a straightforward sport situation.

I firmly believe, and it's always been my position, that politics and sport don't intermingle, but this was a different situation. I believe the government did the absolutely correct thing and made the political statement.

You asked about the structural funds that came to Ireland from the EU, at or about £8 billion. A program was put in place from 1994 to 1999 for infrastructural development. A big part of the funds that were provided were to make good the deficit in our infrastructure and to take on as well the difficulties we have as an island nation in getting our goods to the markets in Europe.

Quite a lot has been achieved in our road system and our ports. Quite a lot of this money too was invested in human resources to bring up the competence of people, because this is a problem we now have in our own development economically. There are areas where we cannot find sufficient staff, and indeed people are coming in from other EU nations.

A new tranche of structural funds has been negotiated recently. Ireland, because of its economic development between 1994 and now, doesn't qualify for the same level of funding, except in 13 counties out of the 26. Those counties are very underdeveloped now. I won't go into the Irish controversies in relation to how this came about. Certainly we get less money now, but there still is a great deal to do with our infrastructure. The money has achieved quite a deal heretofore.

Mr. John Cannis: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

Did you have a quick one, Mr. Turp?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Earlier, I was somewhat surprised, although not completely so, to hear about the problems your country will face in dealing with a common defence policy with the European Union. That must be cause for some concern, particularly since barely a few days ago, the new President of the European Commission even said that Europe should have its own army.

If that's the case, what position will the Republic of Ireland adopt with respect to the eventual formation of a European army within the EU, an army which could take over in many ways from the western European Union forces? Where do you stand on the adoption of common defence policy and on the establishment of a European army?

[English]

Mr. Michael O'Kennedy: Well, you're obviously touching on a very sensitive nerve, as you will have appreciated. From the views you've already heard expressed here, you can get the idea that this will be a lively political issue.

• 1650

On the one hand, the view has been expressed at all times that when we joined the European Community, we did not join a community that had any defence commitments whatsoever, and there was nothing in the treaties that implied a defence commitment, and that if we are to engage in any treaty or any defence commitment, that will require first of all an amendment to the treaties we joined under, and secondly, we are not free to do that without having a referendum with the Irish people.

I have no doubt at all as to the second part of it. It would require a referendum certainly, because the Irish people did not at any stage endorse a defence link. What they might or might not do is another issue. I think there would be a sizeable group who would say there is no defence obligation in the treaties of the European Union as they are now that binds us under the treaties we signed.

So that's going to be a delicate issue for us, quite frankly. In every other respect we are totally unreserved, unqualified members of the European Union, and it has always been acknowledged to be so.

On the defence issue, we will have some difficulties, and there's a lot of discussion and understanding to be entered into with our partners if such a proposal is made.

Mr. Austin Deasy: Our Prime Minister came back from the summit in Cologne on the weekend and said there was no question of us being part of the European army that you referred to. I don't believe that position is sustainable.

At the moment, the EU is entertaining applications for membership from a number of countries, such as Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Estonia. And a little further back in the queue you have Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Malta, and some of those countries. The Hungarians, the Poles, and the Czechs are absolutely delighted to become members of NATO, which they have become.

You link it all to what the gentleman said about the structural funds. We can't expect to continue to get preferential treatment from Europe where structural funds are concerned if we don't contribute to the military effort as well. That's my view. It's only practical. We will have to change our attitude. We will have to contribute to the defence of Europe if we're going to benefit from the economic gains.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

It was a pleasure having you appear before the committee. Certainly with all the posturing of my colleagues here, it brings back what my father said, “There are only two kinds of people in the world: the Irish and those who want to be.”

It's been a very informative session.

Mr. Graham is on his way, so I'm going to adjourn the meeting now, and perhaps members who didn't get an opportunity to have their questions answered can have them answered informally. Thank you once again.

The meeting is adjourned.