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]

Tuesday, February 17, 1998

• 1048

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.): I call to order the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. This session we are going to deal with the department, with Mr. Laverdure. He is our assistant deputy minister for Europe, Middle East and North Africa and our special envoy to Algeria.

I'm sure you have appeared before committees many times, so I don't have to give you instruction. Please begin now. Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Laverdure (Assistant Deputy Minister, Europe, Middle East and North Africa, Special Envoy to Algeria, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Madam Chair, while I don't want to dwell on this too much, I would like to point out, as I just mentioned to you, that for several weeks, I have been working under the impression that I would be appearing before the committee this morning in camera. There were no indications to the contrary until 15 minutes ago. I realize that some people have taken the trouble to come and listen to the committee's proceedings this morning. Thus, rather than disappoint them and say that I had an agreement with the committee, I will comply, and make a public presentation.

I would like to say at the outset that I was planning to mention some information which was given to me in confidence by people whose life could be endangered if I quoted them too exactly. Consequently, I will avoid references to some of this confidential information, and if the committee agrees, I will simply give you a quick overview of my mission, its objectives, and the results of it. After that, of course, I will be pleased to answer your questions.

• 1050

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): That would be perfect.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Laverdure: I should start by telling you why I went to Algiers. It has sometimes been said that the idea was to establish a dialogue with the Algerian authorities. I would like to state clearly at the outset that the dialogue already existed. Minister Axworthy had already met with his counterpart, Minister Attaf, on several occasions. Naturally, the issues discussed included security, terrorism and political and economic development.

You will recall that in early January or late December, there was a sharp increase in the number of massacres. Together we tried to determine how we could intervene in order to establish a more substantial and ongoing dialogue.

It was decided that Prime Minister Chrétien would write a letter to President Zéroual to mention a number of points that I will come back to. We also decided, to make a point, to have the letter delivered by a special envoy. This is relatively unusual in Canadian foreign policy. Our objective was to make the point that we considered this a very important initiative.

[English]

What was in the letter itself? I think it's been told repeatedly, publicly, that first of all we reconfirmed that we were offering our sympathies and condolences to the people of Algeria. Second, we condemned terrorism in no uncertain terms. Third, we said if the Algerian authorities saw a need for it we were ready to offer humanitarian assistance. Fourth, we said we felt there was a lack of transparency and communication on the part of our Algerian friends, which meant in some circles that rumours were started and people were wondering about what was really happening in Algeria because there was a lack of communication with our own NGOs, with our own media, and even with our own parliamentarians.

So the letter made a few suggestions as to how the Algerian authorities could improve upon this situation and become more transparent and easier to access for our compatriots.

[Translation]

By delivering the letter, I wanted to initiate this ongoing dialogue and open a door. Up until that time, the discussions had taken place mainly outside of Algeria, and we had to find a way to get to Algiers to meet with the authorities and those who described themselves as the opposition.

So I wanted to start by opening the door, first and foremost for Canada. And that was done. I'm sure you will understand that another of my objectives was to leave the door open when I left. I did not want the door to be closed behind me, thereby nullifying this opportunity to pursue a dialogue.

In light of the hour-by-hour developments that occurred when I arrived, because I was the first special envoy who was able to go to Algiers, I wanted to leave the door open behind me for our European colleagues and for representatives from the United Nations. The fact is that the door still seems to be tightly closed, sometimes more for them than for me.

In this regard, I think we can express satisfaction with the initiative. I received a warm reception. I had some frank discussions, I believe because I was bringing the Algerians a frank message from Canadians. I got answers to many of my questions.

• 1055

I was also given an opportunity to meet with people who generally describe themselves as being in the opposition. They included members of Parliament, editorial writers, the president of the Human Rights League, the president of the Association of Victims of Terrorism, and the retired Secretary General of the FLN. So I was able to bring together a number of people and ask them the same questions I was asking the Minister of Foreign Affairs to try to get a better understanding of the situation and explain to them the concerns of their Canadian friends.

Why was I received so warmly? I think it is because Canada has always had an excellent reputation among Algerians. Neither the authorities nor the opposition representatives see Canada as a country with a hidden agenda. They do not see Canada as a country that interferes. They see it as a country concerned about what is happening in another country, which it considers a friend. Canada is seen as a country that wants to understand and perhaps help find a solution to the problem.

Naturally, you will appreciate that I did not get an instant reply to all the points made in Mr. Chrétien's letter. It goes without saying that when you deliver a letter, the person to whom you deliver it promises a written reply. Consequently, the Minister of Foreign Affairs read the letter in my presence and made some comments on it. He said that we would have to wait for an answer from President Zéroual.

The answer came last week. It responds to the various paragraphs contained in Mr. Chrétien's letter. That did not stop me from telling the Minister of Foreign Affairs, since we were face to face, that there were a number of issues I wanted to raise with him. I particularly emphasized humanitarian aid, the needs of victims' families, the effort to fight terrorism and the whole issue of transparency and communication, both within Algeria and with outsiders, beginning, of course, with Canadians.

As I said, I raised the same issues with the other people I mentioned earlier. Generally speaking, these people defended their own ideas. Thus, I cannot say there was a consensus among them in the answers to my questions. As soon as I raised a question, it was quite likely that I would get seven or eight similar responses, but there were always some subtle distinctions among them. The only point on which there was absolute consensus was to tell me clearly and specifically that they saw no involvement or participation by the authorities, by the Armed Forces or by the police in the massacres that had been going on in Algeria for some months now.

Second, just as much as the authorities, they all fear some type of intervention. Third, they felt that for the time being Algeria did not need humanitarian assistance. Algeria can meet the needs of victim's families, and, in their view, is doing so.

I also stressed a point that may not be unique to Canada, but that has been clear for several years at least, namely, that efforts to fight terrorism are more likely to succeed when they are carried out by a team of countries. Working alone, even a great country like Algeria could have trouble finding a solution to such a dramatic problem. So while I did not offer any type of technical support, I did remind the people I was speaking to that even within the G-7, it was decided a number of years ago that a joint effort was required in order to fight terrorism.

• 1100

Before moving to the questions, I would like to report on what I would describe, not as the results of my mission—I make no such claim—but rather some developments that have occurred in the past four weeks.

First, the mission of the European troika did go to Algeria, and I think we were able to play a role in this. I had a bit of a struggle with the Minister of Foreign Affairs to convince him that he should receive this mission, even though he was under the impression that it had been poorly presented to him. Immediately after our discussion, I turned to our European friends to tell them: "Be careful, if you continue in this way, you will not be able to go to Algeria. However, there is a way of reaching an agreement, and it is worth it for everyone to make some compromises in order to make the troika mission possible."

[English]

Secondly, when I was there, the opposition parties in Parliament were not successful in getting an emergency debate on the security issue, which as a Canadian I found totally astonishing because I thought it was really an emergency situation. I insisted with the minister, saying it would never be understood by parliamentarians in Canada, or by the Canadian people, that in such circumstances they were finding ways to suggest no emergency debate was needed and things like that.

I think I was listened to. Fortunately, a few days later—it was reported to us by our ambassador—there was a seven-hour-long meeting between the Prime Minister and all the parliamentarians, and in it he had to answer questions about the security situation and what they were doing about it.

When I was there, I also got on-the-spot assurance from the minister that they would be welcoming a delegation of Canadian parliamentarians whenever we offered them dates and suggested names. I was also told that whenever Canadian journalists or Canadian NGOs asked for a visa to visit Algeria the minister himself would ensure that such a visa would be issued without any delay.

I understand as well, again from our ambassador, that there are now, regularly, television programs describing the situation and giving more and more information to the people of Algeria about what is happening, what is going on. We now have an agreement with the Algerian authorities that even though they suggest there is no need for humanitarian assistance, they have no objection if, on the part of Canada, we increase the amount of money available to our embassy in order to deal with children's issues, women's issues, and so on, related directly or indirectly to the political situation.

I understand as well—this was a long discussion I had with the minister of foreign affairs—that within the next couple of weeks Algeria will present a report to the Human Rights Committee in Geneva before we meet at the end of March. The minister promised me that they were working on it and that he was hoping we would see there was transparency, there was openness, and they would be willing to give us information on what is happening, what works, and what doesn't work.

As well, you saw that in recent days there was a delegation of European parliamentarians. I understand that today or this week there is in Algeria a delegation of Spanish parliamentarians. I understand the Japanese parliamentarians want to send a delegation to Algiers.

All of that is to say it's not because I was there for a day or so that this is all happening, but I believe we did manage to open a door, and because of the way we handled the mission we did manage to leave it open behind us.

• 1105

If there was a message I heard from the people of the opposition I met with, it was to the effect that they wanted us—and they all agreed on this—to send as many visitors as possible to Algeria, be they parliamentarians, NGO leaders, or media people, so that every day there would be lots of people in Algiers and in Algeria asking questions and inquiring about what is going on in the country with various people.

This would ensure that more and more there would be transparency in what was going on and the authorities would get used to having visitors like that and would get used to the idea that you have to sit down, listen, and explain. I'm not talking about an investigation; I'm talking about people who are concerned, people who want to know more, people who want to understand better what is going on in Algeria.

Mr. Chairman, if you agree, maybe I will stop here. I know it's a very brief summary of my mission, but I would prefer to leave it open to people around the table to ask questions. I have plenty of other things I could have said, but I think I'll limit myself to this presentation and answer questions.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.)): Sure.

Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, Canadians are concerned about security issues, terrorism, social revolutions, and the loss of innocent lives in Canada.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): No, in Algeria.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: In Algeria; I'm sorry. Canadians are concerned about the situation.

The government's role in Algeria has been critical. Transparency has been lacking, and as you mentioned, emergency debate was not initiated. Whereas the rest of the world felt there was an emergency, the country itself did not feel there was an emergency. Our Prime Minister sent sympathy and a few other things, but sympathy alone is not enough under these circumstances.

I have four main issues to be dealt with.

The aid we send to Algeria should be tied with human rights. I would like to know your views on that and on what we have done with the recent CIDA aid going to Algeria. What role have we played so far and what role can we play? What are your recommendations, after assessment of the situation and talking to the delegations from other countries?

International reaction to the Algerian situation has been pretty slow. The international community should have been a bit faster. Canadians are looking for quick action on situations where innocent lives are lost.

Finally, I would be very much concerned about the export to Algeria of military aircraft equipped with infrared technology. I think America exported military planes and Canada was involved in it. How can Canadians condone the export of military equipment, particularly to a government whose record in human rights is so bad? What are your comments about this?

Mr. Claude Laverdure: You referred first to CIDA assistance and the issue of human rights in Algeria. Yes, there is a CIDA program. It's not a huge one, but we have been involved over the last few years in supporting the establishment of a private sector as well as the establishment of better institutions in a country that is discovering both.

These programs were put together in cooperation with the Algerian authorities, and those sectors were identified as priority sectors. It is not at all directly linked to the present situation. They are ongoing programs, and as long as the security situation does not worsen, we hope the Canadian experts who implement these programs will be able to keep their work going. When I spoke with the non-government people and the parliamentarians, I think they all agreed that we were involved in the right sectors and that we should pursue these programs.

• 1110

As I also said earlier, we have a Canada Fund project at the embassy to deal with non-governmental organizations, and this we intend to increase. That's the quality or the value of our program in Algeria, and I think we should maintain it at least until further notice.

Second, you ask what role a country like Canada can play. I think we have been playing a role already. We have shown that there is a need for a dialogue. We have shown that, as a friend, we are encouraging Algeria to be more transparent. We are encouraging Algeria to wonder, in a way, about its own reputation abroad. If it does not open up to our own people in order to enable us to have a better understanding of what's going on....

We have offered humanitarian assistance. Eventually if there is a request, we will consider assistance in the field of the fight against terrorism. We also intend to pursue our discussions with their own NGOs, with their own parliamentarians, with their own journalists, in order to ensure that the values that we care about will be respected in Algeria.

On your question about the reaction or tardiness of reaction on the part of the international community, in a way I share your concern. This is an issue that I was able to discuss with my European colleagues as well, and with people at the UN. The difficulty has been the fact that we are dealing with a very proud people. We are dealing with a people who are always worried about interference in domestic affairs. We have to find the right approach in order to establish a really good relationship that will show that our concern is real and that we're not trying to do anything that would be, according to them, totally wrong.

I did insist with the minister of foreign affairs on the issue of the UN. Unfortunately, until recently—and maybe even until today again—everything that is UN was more or less persona non grata because of some statements that were not appreciated by the Algerian authorities. Nevertheless, I hope the various UN institutions will be able to work in Algeria, and I do understand that UNICEF, for example, which went for two years without a permanent rep in Algiers, now has one who is a Canadian citizen. Hopefully this will help the UN set foot in Algeria again in order that it can show it can play a useful role.

On your question about the export of military aircraft by the U.S., I do not know much about it. When you say there would be some Canadian content, I can only assure you that if this is or was to be the case, our ministers would have to approve an export permit. As far as I know, this has not been done.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Can I quickly comment on this one, Mr. Chair?

The Acting Chair (Mr. Bob Speller): Mr. Grewal, you have time for a very short question.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you.

I tried to find out why Canada authorized that export permit for military equipment, and I actually read the answer in a newspaper. I was not given any answer directly. It was that the aircraft only came here for French translation of the instructions on the infrared equipment that was to be used. I don't think that explanation is worthwhile. About 45 aircraft have gone to Algeria equipped with infrared technology to track the rebels and to be used against the public, actually.

• 1115

Mr. Claude Laverdure: But the Canadian content would be...?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: There was some Canadian equipment in it. But there was a sort of white-wash. The explanation was that it was simply a translation of instructions and that's why the aircraft came to Canada.

Mr. Claude Laverdure: I will check on it, because I'm convinced personally that we have not given an export permit of that sort.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Bob Speller): Thank you, Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): I would like to start by thanking you for appearing before us, Mr. Laverdure. I should say that I am somewhat surprised that you were not told that this would be a public meeting, because at our meeting last Thursday, the chairman of the committee—and I believe the parliamentary secretary was present—told us that it would be a public hearing. I personally insisted on this, so that people interested in Algeria and your mission, such as NGOs and journalists, could learn about your mission.

We do not know exactly what your mandate was. The letter you referred to was never made public. I hope that it will be made public, and I think that many people would like to know what questions you asked. I would also appreciate it if the reply from the Algerian authorities could be made public. I would make this request, and I would like you to tell me whether or not you can comply.

I have three questions.

I would like to hear your assessment of the relationship between the President and the National Assembly, that is between the executive and the legislative branches in Algeria. It was suggested following the constitutional referendum that relationships between the executive and the legislative arms were very imbalanced, and that the National Assembly had little or no real power. I would like to know as well how you see the relationship between the President and the army, and to have your comment on the role played by the army in Algeria at the moment. in addition, I would like to know whether you met with any representatives from the armed forces and, if so, what they told you about the situation.

My second question is about the reluctance of the Algerian authorities to agree to inquiries conducted under the auspices of the United Nations despite the fact they have been requested by many individuals, organizations and international institutions. I would remind you that the NGOs were not alone in calling for such inquiries.

I would like to know why the Algerian authorities are so virulent regarding the NGOs. This is a fact, because Algeria's ambassador to Canada said that he did not at all appreciate what the NGOs said about the situation over there. The NGOs are not the only bodies calling for an international inquiry. The Europeans, through the Council of Europe, have done so; the United States have done so; and we in the Bloc Québécois also think that one way of having a transparent process is to agree to the idea of an international commission of inquiry under the auspices of the United Nations. Even this committee thinks that a commission could be a good way of finding out what is really going on in Algeria.

My third and final question is about the delegation of Canadian parliamentarians that may be going to Algeria very soon. Look, while there may be some transparency problems with Algeria, there may be some with Canada as well as regards this delegation, because we have not really been told what the delegation's mandate is to be. Although we in the Bloc Québécois were asked to send a representative on this delegation, at this point, we have no information whatsoever as to whom the delegation might be meeting and under what circumstances. I would therefore like to know whether you are involved in the preparatory work for this mission. In your view, under what circumstances should the delegation go to Algeria? Do you think such a delegation could play a useful role in the outcome of this situation?

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Bob Speller): Mr. Laverdure—

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: At the same time, I would like to know whether you think journalists should be part of the Canadian delegation, because I understand that some of the other delegations included journalists.

• 1120

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Bob Speller): Mr. Laverdure and Mr. Turp, you had more than three questions, but on your first comment, in terms of whether or not this committee should have an open or a closed meeting, maybe the committee can deal with that issue later. I'd rather not get into that now.

Also, in terms of the political questions, there could be questions in there that might be better answered by Mr. Axworthy at a later date. But I'm sure, Mr. Laverdure, with your long experience in the foreign service, you know which ones to answer—

Mr. Laverdure.

Mr. Claude Laverdure: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The first questions were really about an analysis of the political situation in Algeria. I was not necessarily able to get an in-depth understanding of this during my mission to Algiers. These are matters we look at daily with our ambassador, and with our contacts in Algeria we try to assess the situation, but it is definitely not easy. During my brief stay there, among other things, I was able to listen to opposition parliamentarians and raise the same issues with ambassadors from Western countries in Algeria. Our ambassador assembled them for me, and I had an informal discussion with them.

What strikes all observers is that Algeria is going through a transition period. Since independence, Algeria has had a regime that was not necessarily very democratic according to our understanding of the term. It was a regime in which members of Parliament did not play the role we would like to see them play.

The opposition members I met with did agree that some political developments had occurred during the transition. However, generally speaking, they remain dissatisfied and frustrated with the role they can actually play.

I did not find them defeatist or pessimistic. This is something they fight for every day. They try to gain some ground. I am sure that if I were to return soon, those who told me that an emergency debate was necessary and that there would be one, would at least be pleased to have taken that further step. They realize, as I was saying, that a transition of this type takes time. I think they are showing some patience. I also think—when I listen to them and when I read the newspapers—that they are very skillful at putting forward their ideas and at making improvements in the role members of the National Assembly may play.

You also asked about the relationship between the President and the armed forces. I should say at the outset that I did not meet with members of the armed forces or the police. I would say that it is very difficult to try to determine from the outside what is going on in the inside, given that there is almost no information available.

The impression is—and this is something I heard several times—that the armed forces are rather close to power, that they play an important role. Some members of the National Assembly think that the President is not completely free to take action, and could therefore be getting advice or instruction from the Chief of the Defence Staff or other generals. From the outside, it is very difficult for observers, for diplomats to try to draw any conclusions when we cannot get inside and see exactly what is going on.

• 1125

The people who can help—and I must say the journalists that I met seemed extremely competent—are the people from the media. Even the opposition members recognize that Algeria now has a very free press, which states its views freely, which criticizes and which asks questions. I think there is some type of alliance between a number of political parties and some journalists to ensure that this is another way of advancing democracy in Algeria.

Fortunately, for the time being, these newspapers seem to be able to continue publishing. I know they complain sometimes about the printing plant and the way in which texts are scrutinized, but I think they are quite clever at conveying ideas without getting themselves into difficult situations.

I did refer very briefly to the matter of an inquiry during my presentation. I wouldn't want to get into semantics, but the Algerians are extremely good at defining words and their meaning. They will tell you clearly...

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Perhaps Mr. Bachand would like to elaborate on this; otherwise we'll get back to Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Madam Chair, the witness must answer these questions. They are important. So far, he has just answered the first question.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): That very well may be, Mr. Turp, but as I understand it you used most of your time in asking the question, and there are others who have questions who would like to have them answered as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Do that, if you want to prevent us from getting good, useful information; use the time that way if that is what you want. I find it rather ridiculous that important questions, to which the witness would like to respond, are being left unanswered.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Excuse me.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Even the secretary is involved in this.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. Turp, once again you are using up more of the committee's time here unnecessarily.

Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Before going any further, Madam Chair, I must say that I do not agree completely with what my colleague, Mr. Turp, was saying about holding the meeting in camera, rather than in public. I would like to ask you, Mr. Laverdure, and at the same time thank you for being here, of course, whether you think a brief in camera meeting might be necessary to help us understand your work on Algeria. Yes or no? Excuse me, but I don't want to use up all my time.

Mr. Claude Laverdure: Look, until 10:30 this morning, I thought the meeting was in camera. I accepted the fact that it was not, and I hope, without causing prejudice to anyone, to be able to answer your questions without necessarily going in camera.

Mr. André Bachand: You are a fine diplomat, and I accept that as a given. I would therefore make the humble suggestion, Madam Chair, that if the committee agrees, given the importance of this issue, we could meet in camera for 15 minutes or half an hour, from noon to 12:30, to ensure that we get all the information. This is a very important issue, and it would be good for the committee to hear from Mr. Laverdure for 15 minutes or half an hour, without necessarily asking him any questions. Mr. Laverdure could take whatever time he needs. This is important to ensure we have a proper understanding of the issues involved here.

At the international level, we know that diplomatic efforts are under way publicly and privately. We do that ourselves here, before a vote in the House.

We have heard about the Algerian government's fear of interference, and I understand them. I do not necessarily agree with the whole argument, but I do understand.

Let me give you an example very quickly even though I would hasten to add that analogies or examples are always somewhat clumsy. During the Oka crisis, international organizations came to see what was going on, and Quebeckers and Canadians were disturbed at the fact that an international organization had come to see what was going on during the Oka crisis. Some saw this as interference. So you can imagine how this would be seen in the context of the Algerian crisis. It is an extremely difficult situation.

Did you go to see other neighbouring countries such as the Kingdom of Morocco, and so on?

• 1130

What work have you done with the countries in that part of the world with which Algeria has certain affinities, including religion? What do you think Canada could do to be helpful with these countries close to Algeria in the geographic, religious and even political sense?

Mr. Claude Laverdure: Your question comes back to what you said at the beginning about interference. We have regular discussions with the Tunisians, the Moroccans and the Egyptians, not to mention people on the other side of the Mediterranean. However, the situation in that case is different.

We are afraid that if the situation in Algeria is not resolved, neighbouring countries may eventually suffer the consequences of a prolonged Algerian crisis. I believe the people in these neighbouring countries feel under threat, particularly the Tunisians and the Moroccans.

However, they have an approach and an attitude that are different from ours, namely they are also countries that often fear interference, that therefore do not want to get involved in their neighbours' affairs and are rather inclined to tell us that our concerns may be exaggerated and that they think their neighbours, their friends, their Algerian counterparts have the situation under control. It is a question of time; they will come to an understanding, and friendly countries such as Canada should not exert too much pressure and compromise this development.

Thus, when we speak with our Tunisian, Moroccan and Egyptian friends, we can only explain our concerns. However, they do not necessarily always understand us very well, because they see things differently, and it is hard to say that we are right and they are wrong. They are Algeria's immediate neighbours. As you say, they share the same culture and the same religion and they are less likely than we are to worry about what will happen, because they think their Algerian brothers have the situation under control.

Mr. André Bachand: In closing, Madam Chair, I would like to repeat the request I made earlier. I would therefore like to know whether the committee could decide before the meeting is adjourned, whether to continue in camera. I know that everyone has a very tight schedule. I am not asking to stay on here because I am on House duty today, but I would make a humble request for a couple of minutes at the end of the meeting, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): No, I understand that and appreciate it, and if we have agreement by the committee I suppose we could extend it to an in camera session. Is there some discussion on that?

Ms. Jean Augustine: How long—

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: I don't want to delay things now, but if the committee agrees we could take a few minutes to discuss this at the end of the meeting before we let our guests go.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Ms. Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval-Ouest, Lib.): We could complete the first round, and then, if there is time, we could consider the member's suggestion.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): We'll deal with this issue at 12 o'clock.

An hon. member: Merci. Thank you.

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

Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Laverdure, I think we'll all agree that there is a crisis in Algeria. I think we'll also agree that there were three irritants, if they could be called that, that cry out not only to the international community but to the Canadian public. One is the silence of the leadership. The other is the failure to prosecute any of the Islamic individuals or the army. The third is what is seen as control of information by the regime.

You've been there and you've been saying some things that I'm trying to put together. They're a proud people. They're using democratic approaches, they're very skilful, they've shown patience, etc.

I'd like to ask if your sense, coming out of there, is that they respect the international community and the conventions to which I would imagine they're signatory—the issue of human rights, and that a government has a right to protect its citizens, and all these niceties that are accepted in the international arena, and that they also have a right to bring to justice individuals who have created that crisis in their society. What is your sense of their recognition of those international rights and obligations?

• 1135

Mr. Claude Laverdure: I believe we are seeing now that they are concerned about their own reputation and what the international community is saying about what's happening in Algeria. They are not indifferent. I hope more and more parliamentary delegations and more and more media will go to Algeria so Algerians will have an opportunity to show that according to them—and this is what I'm sure they will be saying—they are playing the game by the rules and have signed a number of international agreements they do respect.

But we need opportunities for people like you to sit down with them, as I did, and raise these issues and maybe at times question their answers. The minister of foreign affairs told me in no uncertain terms that he has a very clear conscience about human rights and other similar issues, and he's willing to discuss with you, me or anybody else the situation in his own country.

On the issue of human rights, I think they already recognize there might have been times when their own armed forces and police forces have not respected human rights. They tell us they have lists of those people who are before the courts and will be judged. So there is a recognition that in some cases human rights are not respected, even by the armed forces.

I hope the report I referred to earlier to the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva will put more light on the situation and will show—because this is an area where many of us had doubts until recently—that Algeria is concerned about the image it projects abroad, especially within friendly countries. I think it wants to make sure it maintains our friendship and we will have reason to believe we know what's going on.

So there is a need on its part to be part of the international community. It doesn't want to be judged just like that without having an opportunity to explain.

Ms. Jean Augustine: On the image it projects, I saw the European individuals who went—there was a piece on television—and it seemed to me they were being quickly hustled out and around. It seemed to me that wasn't openness in terms of saying, yes, we do want parliamentarians to come, move around and ask questions. The clip I saw just showed them being directed and at the same time not permitted to freely do what you're telling us it might be possible for us to do.

Mr. Claude Laverdure: When I was questioning the Algerians about visas for Canadian journalists, the minister of foreign affairs said he preferred to have bad articles written by the international press than to see one foreign journalist killed. That is the explanation given for why Canadian journalists, and I'm sure Canadian parliamentarians and Canadian officials like me, have to travel within Algeria and even Algiers with a lot of security around them. You might feel people you speak with will be worried about what they say and will not be as transparent, especially when you meet with people on the street, but I'm in a difficult position to question this explanation, because there is a risk. There is danger and there is terrorism in Algeria, and the local authorities are ensuring that nothing happens to you.

• 1140

Of course we're not used to that in Canada, but that's the way it is today in Algeria, so you will always move around town with a police escort, and they will always be close to you when you walk around or you want to meet with people, but not, of course, within an embassy or within a room where you meet with individuals. There were no witnesses to my discussions with people in the opposition, but on the street you are always accompanied.

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

Madame Folco, would you like to use the rest of Ms. Augustine's time?

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Certainly. I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak with you today, Mr. Laverdure. We looked forward to your presentation this morning, and I know that your responsibilities called you elsewhere. I hope we will be able to have an in camera session, perhaps immediately after my question.

I have two questions I would like to ask. You say the Algerian government may now accept other delegations. You mentioned Japan, Canada and Europe. There may be others, all of which would seem to show that while the doors may not be wide open, they may have opened a little. That is a start.

How can we ensure that the results are helpful, to avoid having situations in which delegations a superficial understanding of the situation after 48 or 76 hours in the country? How can we ensure the delegations get a broader view of the situation, and that the result is not, for instance, simply a recommendation to put an end to summary executions?

My second question is about...

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Can you stick with that one question this time? We'll come back to you after the next session in order to keep it to ten minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): I would like to raise a point of order, Madam Chair.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: But I have ten minutes, Madam Chair!

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Since we know how impartial you are, I would just like to point out to you that Ms. Augustine started speaking at 11:32 and that it is now 11:42. In other words, the ten minutes are up.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): No. I have 11.35 a.m. for Ms. Augustine here.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Since you are hardly generous in the time you allotted us, I would ask you to do the same here, and to give us an opportunity to ask our questions. Thank you very much.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Excuse me, Mr. Sauvageau. I have 11.35 a.m. here and that's what I can go by.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): You may continue. But as I said, if we can just do the one question, we'll come back to you in the next round. Okay?

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Claude Laverdure: The results obtained by parliamentary delegations depend on the objectives they set. It depends on the agreement reached with the Algerians about the content of the program, its duration, and the ability of members of Parliament or officials like myself to draw conclusions after a visit that lasts 24, 48 or 72 hours. That is not an easy thing to do in a country— and I should perhaps have mentioned this in my introduction—in which most of the people to whom I spoke told me, when I asked them what was going on in their country, Algeria, that they were not sure. I always work on the principle that in order to find a solution, one must first know what the problem is. They say the situation is very complicated, and that they do not necessarily understand what is going on in their own country. And I am talking about people who were born there, who are involved, who play a role in their country's development. We arrive cold, even though we have read everything we can before we get there, and after a 48 or 72- hour visit, we would like to draw conclusions and make recommendations.

• 1145

I think we all have a role to play. I trust, for example, that when Canadian members of Parliament go to Algiers-and it is not up to me to tell you what you should do—there will be some follow-up to your visit. I hope that in Algeria you will have discussions about maintaining a dialogue—I don't know whether you do that through Canada-Algeria parliamentary associations—and about continuing the discussion and encouraging the Algerians to come to Canada to see how our Parliament works and how our parliamentary committees function.

There are things that we can bring to Algeria and that are not necessarily aimed at the present security situation and terrorism situation. We can promote democratic development, and I think that nobody is in a better position to do that than parliamentarians. While commenting on the situation as it exists at present, you can make a contribution. That is perhaps the main role of a parliamentary delegation, but I do not want to go too far on that topic. I am not a parliamentarian.

[English]

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

We're down to five-minute rounds now, so pace your questions accordingly.

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you very much, Madam Beaumier. You are very kind.

Mr. Laverdure, Mr. Turp made two requests regarding two letters, and you have unfortunately not had time to answer them. Will you agree to the request to make those letters public?

Mr. Claude Laverdure: Listen, I think that that is not my decision to make. You have to let me talk about it to my minister and ask him the question.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: All right. And you will provide a written answer to the committee?

Mr. Claude Laverdure: Yes.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you very much.

If you can, please tell us what the mandate of the Canadian parliamentary delegation should be when it goes to Algeria in order to follow up on your visit to Algeria.

Mr. Claude Laverdure: I like the fact that you use the expression "follow up". I would like to see a link between these missions. I hope that Canadian journalists will also go there, either with you or separately. I also hope that some Canadian NGOs will ask for visas to go to Algeria.

In my view, following up means keeping the door open, continuing to tell our Algerian friends that we want dialogue and that we are not there to judge them. We want to understand, and afterwards we may be able to make suggestions or proposals, and maybe even continue to insist—I don't know if my Algerian friends will criticize me for saying this—that even a country that had a certain amount of wealth can benefit from humanitarian assistance. There are things that we can provide that are perhaps not available as quickly and efficiently in Algeria. We must continue to encourage them to discuss co-operation with us in the area of anti- terrorism.

As I just said, that is part of the follow-up, which I feel is very important. What is needed is to try to establish strong ties among parliamentarians that will enable you to correspond and to help them when they are facing another situation. In my opinion, there is no question of interference when parliamentarians are working together and helping each other by saying, for example, "In our country, this is how we arrange an emergency debate". I don't see anything wrong with that.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you very much for your answer.

Given that the delegation will be leaving in a short time, we are told, if the mandate is not clear or if there is no mandate, should this type of tourist visit be considered acceptable or should a clear mandate be required before we put together any delegation like that? What do you think?

Mr. Claude Laverdure: I would prefer for the answer to come from the parliamentarians themselves. Quite simply, I feel that it is not a tourist visit, and that you should, among yourselves, set your objectives and submit them to the Algerians, so that everything is clear before you leave; you should tell them: "This is why we are coming. Here are the types of programs that we intend to set up".

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You also think, as you said two or three times, that journalists should accompany this parliamentary delegation.

Mr. Claude Laverdure: Whether they go with you or separately depends on their schedule. I saw a number of them in Paris last week who intend to ask for visas, but I do not know whether they wanted to accompany the parliamentary delegation or go individually.

• 1150

It is important for Canadian journalists to go back there, because they went in November, I believe.

[English]

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

Mr. Speller.

Mr. Bob Speller: Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, will be brief; I know we have a short time.

I know it's a very tragic situation there and it must be hard to get the right information out of people, especially people who are in opposition, and gaining access to them. I'm not sure if I heard in your comments whether or not you had met with the opposition, or what some of their comments are to the charges that they are responsible for a lot of the deaths throughout the country.

I'm wondering also, on the other side, what the government's response is to the fact that they're claiming there have been some 20,000 deaths since the elections, and the world community is claiming 80,000. That's a fairly significant difference. Is there an explanation there?

Finally, I'm trying to put it in perspective. We've had situations like this, obviously, in the world. With your long history of diplomacy, are there any good examples we can take as an international community where these sorts of situations have been resolved? It seems at the outset of looking at it, you almost throw up your hands. There are such great differences. Are these differences generally settled with the gun, or do we have some good examples of ways to settle these?

Mr. Claude Laverdure: Yes, indeed. I met with members of the opposition—people who have been duly elected. Those are the people I spoke with for the longest period of time, for hours and hours. I kept asking questions because I was interested and concerned. I was asking them how they saw the situation and how it could evolve.

As I said earlier, unfortunately many of them suggested that they find it hard to explain to a foreigner like me what exactly is happening in Algeria. Of course, that makes it even more difficult to find a solution. That does not suggest they are not looking at it carefully and trying to find out whether or not there is hope, light at the end of the tunnel.

What is the purpose? What is the objective of the terrorists? Are they trying to take over? Do they have political ambitions, or are they just trying to destroy and destabilize a country? Those are basic questions, and I'm not sure that my interlocutors were able to give me a very clear answer.

Of course, I hope that if parliamentarians and others go, then you will be able to complement the information I was able to get.

As to the numbers, that's a crazy game that's going on. If you meet with the minister of foreign affairs, he will indicate to you that within cabinet there have been discussions for the last few months as to whether or not in a case like that—a crisis situation—you keep this information to yourself and don't give it to the people, or you do give numbers. It seems that maybe their own cabinet was divided, and those who favoured becoming more transparent won.

Nevertheless, what those who were objecting to being transparent were suggesting seems to be happening, according to the minister again. There is inflation. Whenever the authorities say there were 123 people killed, automatically, according to him, the press will say 400.

Mr. Bob Speller: That's the policy.

Mr. Claude Laverdure: Yes. They suggest that if you say 123, you're hiding part of the truth, so you have to complement it. This is why we have these discrepancies in the numbers, and I think very few of us will ever be able to find out exactly where the numbers are. The Algerian authorities will keep telling you categorically that the numbers they will provide you with are the real ones, and they have the count, they have the bodies, and they say that the press has a tendency to inflate these numbers.

As to the solutions and precedents we've lived with in the past, there has to be a solution. I don't know exactly what needs to be done today, next week, next month. I hope all the Algerian people together will arrive at some sort of a strategy, some sort of a plan, on how to get from here to there. I hope the parliament will be involved. I hope the people of Algeria will be involved.

• 1155

I hope steps will be taken to show that the “need” for terrorism has disappeared. People started killing for some reasons. Maybe those reasons have changed. Nevertheless, they have not been able to suggest, as of today, that those reasons do not exist any more. How do you eliminate terrorism if not by showing to the majority of the people in the country that it makes no sense?

But I can't give you examples I've worked on before. I've worked in very special places and I'm not sure those places I was in have ever found a solution. But I'm still optimistic.

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

Madame Debien, please.

[Translation]

Mme Maud Debien (Laval-Est, BQ): Good morning, Mr. Laverdure. I will get right to the point with three very short questions.

You told us that Algeria's position regarding the UN was very negative. Why are they so afraid of the UN?

You also said that Algeria was preparing to submit a report to the Human Rights Commission in Geneva. Should Canada support the appointment of a special UN rapporteur on Algeria?

You told us that the situation was very complex, very difficult, and that even some Algerians found it difficult to understand. Do you not believe that, because of the complexity and the seriousness of the situation, only an international commission of inquiry under the auspices of the UN can shed light on it? How many more massacres will we have to stand by and watch before the international community takes action?

Mr. Claude Laverdure: Why the negative attitude toward the United Nations and its institutions? It was not explained to me clearly, but it seems to be mainly because of statements made over the past few months, either by the Secretary General or by heads of UN institution, on the situation in Algeria, and to the effect that there should be an inquiry and that Algerian authorities were responsible for ensuring protection of their citizens, and so on and so forth.

The Algerian authorities seem to have built up a list of such irritants, as they see them, and they have come to the conclusion, which I find very regrettable, that the United Nations is not an ally. I think that things should improve, because these institutions can surely contribute something to Algeria.

You say that Algerians are going to submit a report to the Human Rights Commission in Geneva. Should Canada, after examining the report, perhaps support the sending of a UN rapporteur?

As you know, the Human Rights Commission first has to discuss the subject, review the report and see what conclusions they come to. Is the sending of a general UN rapporteur a solution? do we need instead to send specialized rapporteurs, since there are a number of types of rapporteurs at the United Nations? Could they do useful work? Are there other solutions to help Algeria achieve a greater degree of transparency?

I feel that it is a little too soon to make such a decision. I am eager to see what the Algerians will give us as a working document for the Human Rights Commission. On the other hand, if we find there is little information in the report, I believe that, with our allies in the Human Rights Commission, we will have to see how we can encourage Algeria to give us more information.

• 1200

However, I think that the Algerians will make an effort, in the report, to ensure that there is a chance to satisfy the friendly countries, because I know how much they oppose the idea of sending rapporteurs.

Nonetheless, the Minister, and I think he said the same thing to the European troika, said that if the Human Rights Commission came to the conclusion that a rapporteur should be sent to Algeria, he would agree. We will have to see the quality of their report.

With regards to a commission of inquiry, the response that you will get, categorically and quite bluntly, from the Algerian authorities is: "If you want to come to Algeria to find out who is doing the killing, don't come because we know who is doing the killing". All Algerians in the street, on the sidewalk, in the cafes, people in opposition and journalists know who is doing the killing. They will all tell you and they will all give you the same answer.

Therefore, it's not just the Algerian authorities who are against an international investigation, but all the Algerians whom you meet. I did not hear a single one say: "Yes, we need an international inquiry." Therefore, perhaps the right terms are not being used or things are not being properly presented, but when they are presented that way, they are accepted.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Before dealing with Mr. Bachand's suggestion that we go in camera, we should perhaps see if the witnesses are available.

Would you be available for an extended period?

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Laverdure: Yes.

[English]

Ms. Jean Augustine: Could we have a time on it? We have other commitments.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Shall we put a 15-minute time on it?

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: If you agree, Madam Chair, and if the committee agrees, we could ask Mr. Laverdure to give us a 15-minute presentation. Unfortunately, we would not be able to ask certain questions, but Mr. Laverdure could at least give us an overview, which would allow us to ask other questions afterwards. I don't know whether the committee would agree to allowing Mr. Laverdure to complete...

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): So 15 minutes in camera?

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: Exactly, yes.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Okay, thank you. Do we have a consensus on this?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Madam Chair, since we want this to be in camera and we considered it important that all the meeting take place in camera, we will now leave. However, we would like to thank Mr. Laverdure for having agreed to appear before the committee.

Mr. André Bachand: It is not the Supreme Court, here, gentlemen. You are welcome.

Mr. Daniel Turp: But, Madam Chair, it is quite logical.

Mr. André Bachand: Yes, but Mr. Turp does not have all the information.

Mr. Daniel Turp: We would like the meeting to be adjourned.

Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Laverdure indicated that if he said certain things he might perhaps be endangering some people's lives, and you are leaving. People will realize how important you consider the destiny of Algeria to be, Mr. Turp.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Order, please. I believe we are going to be continuing with this meeting in camera. The decision has been taken.

Mr. Bob Speller: The Bloc is going to try to politicize this issue. I find it very hypocritical that they would endanger people's lives by walking out and asking our witnesses, who came here and said they want to give us evidence in private because it might endanger someone's life...that you would try to politicize the situation and walk out and say that somehow the Government of Canada is trying to hide something.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: That is not our intention, Mr. Speller. Our intention was to have a public discussion. We believe that a public discussion is enough; we had the additional information. Mr. Laverdure, as a diplomat, gave us the information we needed and I really see no point in having the meeting continue in camera. Our position is quite consistent, and we don't want to politicize this discussion, with you having privileged information that the journalists and other people will not have.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Turp, that means that we should not expect to see you rise in the House during Question Period to say that you didn't have the information you wanted to have.

Mr. Daniel Turp: No, that is correct. But I think that the meeting could continue in public. Mr. Laverdure has answered our questions clearly, insofar as he could, but there are people here who would like to obtain further information. You alone have information which should be shared with the press and representatives of non-government organizations here with us.

• 1205

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Okay, I don't believe we have a consensus on extending the meeting.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: No, it's not that. The Bloc Québécois agrees to the committee continuing in camera. However, its representatives say that they will leave. The Bloc is not blocking the continuation of work by the committee. What it is saying is that it would have preferred every meeting to be in public. I do not believe that the Bloc members want to stop the committee's work. Not at all. They have expressed their viewpoint and I think work can continue. That is important.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): But I think there is an opinion in this room that it's going to be used as a political tool. Rightly or wrongly, there is this feeling in the room, and I don't believe we have an agreement to continue on in camera. Shall we take a vote? I think perhaps it would be best if the members could talk to the witnesses after the meeting, if you in fact would like to do that.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: I don't understand why Mr. Speller is standing up. The government party seems to be in agreement and the opposition parties agree to continuing in camera for 15 minutes at most, but the Bloc members will not attend. Therefore, why should the committee be prevented from continuing? I see that there is a consensus in favour of continuing for 15 minutes in camera. Why should the committee be prevented from continuing? I think we have to trust one another, whether we are talking about the government party, the Bloc or the Conservative Party.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I'm in the hands of the committee. How do you want to proceed?

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam Chair, we've already lost about half the fifteen minutes.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Yes, you're right.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: I will undertake to discuss it with the minister, because it might be possible to have Mr. Laverdure return—

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): A return visit?

Mr. Ted McWhinney: —for a session in camera or another session openly. But I think you're now down to seven minutes or so, Mr. Bachand, malheureusement.

Mr. André Bachand:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

[Translation]

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Yes, but we can come back.

[English]

Mr. André Bachand: Come on.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): No, members have other commitments. I think we have wasted a good deal of time on this debate, and I think Mr. McWhinney's suggestion of perhaps inviting Mr. Laverdure back for an in camera session would be the best choice.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: And/or an open one.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Yes.

Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.