FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 30, 1998

• 1533

[English]

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

We're pleased to have with us today the Hon. Lloyd Axworthy, accompanied by Lucie Edwards and eventually Mr. Campbell, I imagine. Minister, thank you for coming. We're here obviously to talk about estimates and other questions the members might have.

First, I'd like to thank you very much for agreeing to two hours because the members requested that, and we appreciate your coming for two hours instead of the usual hour and a half.

Secondly, I have a request to make of you. I wonder if you would ask the department, when you are good enough to put replies into the House—and thank you, by the way, for your replies, both the Arctic report and the MAI report—to make sure some copies are sent to the committee clerk, so that we get them at the same time. We're always scrambling around trying to get them. We will actually want to get quite a few copies of those replies to distribute to people. They would be for members, but we also have various witnesses who come before the committee and things like that, and so we need to get quite a few copies.

Thank you, Minister. Did you have an opening statement?

Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): First let me apologize, Mr. Chairman, for that. I'll certainly make sure that in the future when they're released all members will receive a copy with that.

• 1535

With the indulgence of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to use the opening period to relay some thoughts about the changing nature of the role of the Department of Foreign Affairs and how that's reflected in the estimates.

I think we're really on the cusp of issues that require a balance between servicing the traditional, conventional lines of activities that foreign ministries normally provide in terms of good consular services, protection of Canadians abroad, dealing with a series of bilateral relations and multilateral relations, and as we've done traditionally in Canada, focusing on key areas of interest such as Canada-U.S. relations, our relations with NATO, our commitments in the United Nations and so on...

But increasingly I think we're having to respond to, adapt to and find the right framework for responding to the new conditions of what I guess you would call the new world disorder, as opposed to what was once heralded as the order of things, and at the same time, do it in a way that will allow us to maintain a fairly efficient expenditure pattern so that we can get proper value for what we're doing. I think it, quite rightly, has spurred some debate on questions of the size of the aid budget, or what is the proper connection between development and foreign policy and what is the relationship in terms of foreign policy and defence. Questions have been raised about equipment and so on.

I suppose if I had to describe what the operational standard is, it's to try to do things in the smartest way possible. And that is to take a hard look at the structures that have built up over the years and to reorganize them, to build upon, again, a traditional orientation based upon desks for different regions but apply it to a whole new set of issues.

I think in the past in this committee we've had the opportunity to talk about how the shifting nature, almost a tectonic shift, of world affairs is throwing up a whole new set of issues. We've talked about how the landscape we occupy is one where borders no longer have the same degree of sanctity and are much more porous, where the remnants of the Cold War are having their vibrations, mainly in the minds of people as opposed to the events that we're dealing with. In particular, the one I'd point to is the way that war itself and the whole security issue, which is a primary function of governments, have gone through a quite substantial alteration.

Evidence shows that the traditional notion of war, which is a conflict between states or across state borders, with one or two exceptions is almost non-existent. Professor Holsti, a professor at the University of British Columbia who has just done an interesting book on the state of war, points out that since the 1970s there have only been one or two...that 90% of the conflicts now take place inside borders. They are civil, they are internal, they are based upon challenges to internal authorities or in ethnic areas. And what is even more dramatic is that in those kinds of conflicts 90% of the people who are victimized are civilians.

So the traditional concept of war, which is professional militaries fighting each other, no longer really applies or exists and it is now very much a messier, much more ambiguous, much more tortuous and certainly much more dangerous situation. And that notion of a new sense of the changing nature of conflict itself and what it throws up is one of the things that requires a significant shift in the point of view of one's foreign policy and the way you organize it.

At the same time, the notion of security as it's affecting individuals has also broadened out to include the threats that emerge from globalization of the drug trade, of terrorism, of environmental problems, or human rights issues and public health epidemics.

So what we've really come to is a fundamental concept that human security is now one of the primary issues that Canadian foreign policy must address—this means issues that affect individuals, not states themselves—and that we have to provide, as much as we can, protection for individual Canadians. That means protecting them against the threat of terrorism, which exists around the world and affects Canadians. It perhaps does not affect them in as severe a way as some of the regions of the world, but if you look at the number of Canadians who have been casualties of terrorism around the world, because so many more Canadians now travel, we're certainly affected.

• 1540

I think by our last estimate—and one of the officials, the deputy or Lucie, could correct me—we had about 80 million trips abroad last year by Canadians; students, tourists and business people. That's a lot of people crossing. That means that basically our population, if you did it on average, is crossing somebody's other border about two to three times a year, and of course many do it a lot more than that. But those are the kinds of things that we're now having to contend with.

And it means that the international community is faced with an ongoing dilemma of how you deal with these increasing humanitarian issues, these human security issues, while at the same time dealing with the question of sovereignty, which is the traditional legal precept for the nation state and which is entrenched in article 27 of the United Nations charter. The UN itself wrestles with that problem every single day. How does one intervene to deal with a civil war in central Africa? How do you deal with the problem of a massacre or a genocide taking place in other parts of the world? And how far do you go in terms of balancing those issues of the sovereignty versus the sheer humanitarian crisis that's been forced upon us in so many different ways?

One of the areas that I think we are trying to then develop as a response to this is refining the tools that we use in foreign policy. That also creates with it a need for some reorganization and the reallocation of resources, which I think we're engaged in at the department right now. To give you one example, in the last year we have created two new divisions in the department by merging and aligning—and the deputy's here who can speak to them. One is called public diplomacy. But we've brought together those elements on information, communication and policy planning simply as a way of recognizing that now the capacity to communicate around the world and influence the behaviour of other states and other people through the power of communication is becoming a very major tool of foreign policy.

I'd be very glad to get into more detail on that, but it has now required a refocusing and I think also if you look at the estimates, a reallocation of resources, we're now putting more into the public diplomacy part of the role of the department.

Similarly, we've reorganized a deal with a new division called global issues, which does deal on an ongoing basis with the problems of drugs, with human rights, with terrorism activity, again recognizing that the traditional organizational framework of regional desks now must be overlaid with an ability to cross-hatch on those areas and provide a convergence, or a horizontal connection or a new kind of matrix, to deal with it. And it's not easy to figure this out, because we're still in a sense trying to merge the old with the new and deal with these new sets of issues, in a new way. I've been taken to task by some academics for using the words “soft power”, but the fact is we're finding that this capacity is where Canada has a special role to play, and a special niche to play, in utilizing the soft power techniques and tools as a way of influencing the behaviour of other nations.

I can use the landmines treaty as a good example of that, where we used everything from parliamentary delegations to Internet systems to the traditional diplomatic interventions as a way of trying to mobilize a broad-based global consensus around the need for landmines control. In that way, to use the popular vernacular, it's a way of punching above your weight, whereby you no longer simply acknowledge that your power or influence is based purely on military indicators or even economic indicators. It brings into things your skill at negotiating, at building coalitions, at influencing behaviour, at helping to...

What really is happening is that given these new human security issues, it's no longer a matter of the conflict between one state or another. It's building coalitions of states to deal with these trans-global problems and to come to grips with it in a way that puts the premium on this kind of partnership. That also includes the new players. The one other acknowledgement that we have to take—and it's hard for a lot of people to come to grips with it—is that you have now a new group of international players. Clearly, the large corporations have taken over an immense role in terms of influencing policy and behaviour around the world.

But—and this is something that we don't perhaps give enough credence to—so do the NGOs. So do the new international organizations. For example, there is the role of the International Red Cross as a major influence now on setting new standards and the reacting to events and crises. There is role of the international campaigns, which we saw first probably at the women's conference in Beijing several years ago, when a coalition of women's organizations came together, used the power of the Internet, and basically set a new agenda for women's and children's issues around the world, on which governments now have to follow through. Clearly the experience of landmines has been a good example of that.

• 1545

What I really want to come to—and I won't take much more time; I'm giving a short, quick summary—is that the combination of the new issues and the new tools is giving us an opportunity to start creating a new generation of humanitarian law in the world. If you go back in history to the end of the 19th century, 100 years ago, there was a movement that took place primarily between Europe and North America to set rules about how to conduct relations, particularly to protect civilians, outlawing of dumdum bullets, a chemical convention, rules of war that would protect prisoners, and so on. There was a move to create this new cadre of international humanitarian law.

We are now engaged in exactly the same thing. Emerging now are new sets of international humanitarian standards. Landmines is one very clear example, where the protection of civilians outweighs the military utility that the weapon might have.

We're now dealing with the same thing on the question of child soldiers, providing protection against the recruitment and use of children in armed conflict, and setting rules and standards that nations will have to come to grips with and be accountable to.

That's why one of the key issues—and I'd just use it if I could, Mr. Chairman, as a platform—the emergence of an international criminal court, is so critical to this emergence of a new humanitarian law, because it's one way of providing a deterrent for individual behaviour.

Right now, the individual in some place who decides that they are going to engage in hate propaganda, with the point of view of generating conflict between one ethnic group and another, can hide. We've responded to it on an ad hoc basis, by The Hague tribunal in Bosnia and Rwanda, but the existence of a court means that all of a sudden you provide a place to arbitrate the questions of individual behaviour as it relates to humanitarian law issues.

At the same time as we as a country are now increasingly working with several other countries to push that humanitarian law agenda into a new focus, we also recognize that we need to strengthen the multilateral institutions to make sure there is a capacity to hold people accountable.

That's why one of the major issues we're engaged in right now is seeing how we can help mobilize support for an international criminal court. That's how I think we can make a very fundamental contribution in this area.

So I want to use that partly as a way of explanation for some of the adaptations you see in the estimates, to indicate that we are making, step by step, the reorganization within the department so that we can mobilize resources and human skills we have in the department to begin focusing on this new human security issue and undertake what I think is an incredible opportunity, not without its own difficulties in the next decade or so as we move into the millennium and everything else, to start putting in place a new framework, a new network of humanitarian law that will set standards by which we provide better protection in a global situation for individuals against the kind of issues they face.

In that case, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to mention that we see one way of doing this is to prepare our young people, young Canadians, for this new role they will be playing.

I estimated when I was the human resources minister that about 30% to 40% of Canadians who were presently studying in high schools will be making their living in an international environment, everything from business and trade and investment to human rights, to NGO work, to teaching, education, whatever.

One of the things we've taken on as a special project is to begin an internship program for young people. This year we will have 3,500 young Canadians, graduates of our schools and colleges, working in a wide variety of international internships, in everything from helping to establish a new constitution in a country to working on promoting Canadian culture overseas, to helping develop trade programs in Central America.

For example, at the Santiago meetings two weeks ago, the Prime Minister announced that we would be establishing a NetCorps, which will be taking some of the really good young Canadian men and women who have studied information to help in the Caribbean and in Central America and Latin America, to give them the capacity to use the new information technologies. We've established a program through the IISD, the International Institute for Sustainable Development, a program for environmental monitoring where, again, our young graduates have set up a series of Internet connections in different parts of the world to set up this kind of early warning system for natural disasters and tragedies.

• 1550

I could give you a long list, but the point is that we have this new internship program, and that also adds to the exchange programs—worker exchanges, student exchanges—where this year I think we'll be moving up rapidly from about 8,000 to 12,000, and our target by the year 2000 is 25,000 young Canadians engaging in this kind of international experience, along with the internship programs. So we're putting this emphasis on getting Canadians ready for the international role they'll be playing, and who knows, some of them may end up working for Foreign Affairs, the way we're going.

What is interesting about it is that in the first round of evaluations—and Lucie Edwards can talk to you about this—we estimate that between 60% and 80% of the interns are already getting a first job in an international environment as a result of providing that bridging between coming out of school and moving into an international organization. They proved their worth simply by being there and showing what they can do.

So that is one area. The other thing we've decided, again to use part of our natural advantage as Canadians, our comparative advantage, is to use the increasing level of international interest and awareness of aboriginal Canadians to begin developing international networks for trade purposes, for human rights purposes.

As you know, we've established a special office in the department. Blaine Favel, who is the chief of the assembly in Saskatchewan, is now our major counsellor. Part of his role, again in Central America and in the north and so on, is to begin establishing trade, investment connections, human rights connections, political connections, with aboriginal groups in other parts of the world both to give them the opportunity it presents, but also to use the skills and confidence that our own aboriginal groups have acquired in the last decade or so and bring them to bear and, once again, put sort of a Canadian stamp on organizing a new kind of international player, which will be a network of aboriginals beginning to deal with their own very severe problems.

It's in those kinds of areas that I think we can begin to meet some of the challenges I described in dealing with these kinds of new security issues. I don't want to say to the committee that it is as yet a fully blown sort of exercise. We are working at it. It's a movable program, and it's one where we're trying to put in place the elements of that framework. I hope perhaps in another year or so we'll be able to come back to the committee with a much more cohesive framework, but I want to give you the kind of sense of where we're going in changing the orientation of the department.

I would say this to the members of the committee: that I think the work that's going on in the committee, in terms of the study on the nuclear issue, or the study into new parts of the world that are emerging, the kind of thing that's done on the Arctic Council, is very much part of the product, and we need to help put that broader, coherent framework together. So I want to express my gratitude to the members of the committee for the work they're doing in that area.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. That's sounds very interesting. I'm sure in our Arctic report, where we put an emphasis on the relationship between aboriginal peoples in the north, there was a germ of an idea that I hope you found useful as a department in that respect. I think we're all finding many of those elements that you mentioned.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: If I could say, Mr. Chairman, I think the Arctic Council is right now the only multilateral group that has aboriginals as full participating members around the table. When I talked about breaking down this sort of nation-state role, we're now saying the states are sitting around, but so are the major aboriginal groups of the circumpolar countries actually sitting around the table to make decisions. I think the first thing we'll be doing at the Arctic Council meeting this fall is dealing with the question of children in the north. So we'll be able to get the best experience of the Nordics and the Russians and ourselves to begin sharing how you deal with the very fundamental issues children face in going through the transitions that are taking place in northern environments.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Minister, for coming. As I told you earlier, I'm sorry I have to rush off. I've been looking forward to this for a long time.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: So have I, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: You've been here for two hours, and now I have to leave. As I pointed out, it's because of a 10-time offending pedophile in my riding who was just arrested, regarding whom I've been working with the parents to try to prevent that from happening. So it's not for a happy reason that I'm rushing off; it's to face 300 parents back home who are not very happy.

Anyway, I do have my questions prepared, enough to last at least two hours. What I will do is give you a copy of those, if you'd kindly deal with them.

• 1555

Certainly I want to start off by saying that I had a chance again this year to visit a number of our missions—from Chile, Argentina, China, etc.—and I would have to say that overall I think they're doing an excellent job. There are an awful lot of people we can be very proud of as Canadians working for the good of all Canadians around the world.

Having said that, however, there are some questions I would like you to deal with. I'm going to just summarize these and then I will give you the copy.

Then, I'm sorry, but I have to leave.

Basically, as for the landmine money, I'm quite interested in having this money designated for the removal of mines as opposed to seeing it go to some of the bureaucratic functions that it might be used for. So I have a series of about four questions related to the mines. You and I have talked about that. I think you know the concerns, but I've addressed those. I'm sure someone in your department can deal with those.

As for the Indonesia situation, the IMF and its relationship, and the potential falling of that chip in the Asian area, I would really be interested in your opinion as to how serious or threatening the security and stability of a place like Indonesia might be to the whole Asian domino sort of thing.

Third, in terms of the former Yugoslavia, again in relation to Kosovo and concerns about how we stabilize... I will be giving this in writing, but I do have questions about that.

I have a major concern regarding passports. We have now had kits picked up in Montreal for citizenship certificates. We have had stolen passports found in the Ottawa area that were related to the drug trade. We have had people call from our printing firm who suggested that these come in boxes of 250 and that whole boxes are missing. Canadian passports are a very valuable commodity. I guess I'm very concerned about our having the lid on their security. I wonder what else we can do to preserve that Canadian passport.

Finally, on the whole area of Cuba—this might be a little bit of a touchy subject right now—I guess I would have really enjoyed having your answer in terms of an effective long-term plan to get Mr. Castro to be part of the Organization of American States and how we might move that yardstick to get him as a player. I don't believe he has moved very far in that direction. Of course, he says the rest of us can play that game, but he doesn't have to. Obviously that's not helping the Cuban people.

Again, we could get into a lot of discussion there, but unfortunately I can't. You're glad for that, but next year I'll wait for your return. Hopefully I'll be sitting here. Anyway, I really apologize to my colleagues and to the minister for doing it this way. I know it's very unusual, but I will give you these questions and await your answers.

Thank you. I must leave.

The Chairman: You can file all your interventions for the rest of the meetings up until June if you want.

Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You won't always get rid of me this easily.

The Chairman: That's a comfort.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, did you want me to respond and put this on the record, or would you rather that I write back to Mr. Mills or buy him lunch someday or something?

The Chairman: What I would suggest is this, Mr. Minister. I know Mr. Mills has to go, but there are some issues that all the members would be interested in. I would ask you to maybe give a response that would be limited to five minutes. Mr. Turp has to leave at 4.15 p.m., so we can give him his ten minutes if we go to 4.05 p.m. Maybe if you could give five minutes for a reply, that would give Mr. Mills his time, then we could go to Mr. Turp.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: On the first question of landmines, we have set up as a target a combination of objectives. One is clearly to move on to landmine removal. Another target is the rehabilitation of victims. The third target is the destruction of stockpiles to help countries meet the terms of the treaty.

• 1600

A fourth objective is to establish the ratification of the treaty. I think we're now at about 12 countries, and I've received indications from a number of others. Some of the poorer countries in particular need help in meeting the ratification, because they may not think they can meet the conditions, such as destroying stockpiles or engaging in a program of removal. It's really tied in to sort of consolidating the treaty.

As well, we've just recently provided funds directly to the United Nations so that they would become the major coordinating agency for surveys, which is one of the real gaps in the landmine issue. This is to find out exactly where they are. They will coordinate that activity through the United Nations. It's not exclusively for landmine removal, although I think most of their funds will be directed on the ground.

As you know, we announced just recently a $10-million program in Bosnia to integrate the activities that are presently going on there. We're aiming at the reduction of 50% of all the mines in the strategic areas over the next five years. So that's what we're doing. I can be more elaborate on that.

On the question of Indonesia, we can elaborate. We sent a special mission to Indonesia in which the secretary of state for finance and the secretary of state for Asian affairs, along with the deputy minister, were there just four weeks ago. We established a number of direct programs of assistance and set up a sort of special line of credit so they could purchase necessities that are in short supply. There was a $250-million grain credit and direct humanitarian assistance on pharmaceuticals and food.

We also established a program to start dealing with environmental fire hazards—there's a disaster that's taking place—by providing training for individuals and potentially providing firefighting equipment. We're trying to do that on a regional basis.

So in a sense, with the other programs that other countries have done, as well as with the IMF, economically it's stabilized, but politically it's hard to say. There's clearly still a very strong level of student unrest that's taking place in the country that no one knows exactly how it will play out. So far, the demonstrations have been limited to the university environment, and the police sort of honour that. If it spreads further, I think it could result in some real difficulty.

In the meantime, with Indonesia, I can indicate to you that in terms of the human rights agreement we negotiated with them last week, they're now prepared to go ahead. They will sign it next week, I think. That includes some very specific initiatives that we'll take in the East Timor area.

So we think that in terms of a constructive engagement, the first steps have been reasonably positive from their point of view of getting into the dialogue, engaging in the serious exchange on human rights, and actually giving us the capacity to support the Indonesian Human Rights Commission in its work in East Timor. So those are the kind of first steps in that area.

On the passports issue, I agree with Mr. Mills. It's a very fundamental currency for Canadians to have. It's a very valued one. I think we had an incident with a most sad event last fall. We received, as you know, direct commitments from the Israeli government, including that of their prime minister, that this would not happen again. From all the signs we have, that's being honoured.

We also recognize that there is a much more sophisticated group of people who use passports, not just other governments. They're available to all kinds of other organizations.

Right now we're engaged in a pretty major review, and there's a process of innovation by applying some of that new technology, like holography and other things, to passports. I think we're going to the Treasury Board for a submission very soon. If we get the submission approved, I'll be in a position to announce that in June.

As it is, I think the security system is again a very intense one. The fact that the RCMP did apprehend somebody who had absconded with some citizenship cards shows that they're doing what they're supposed to do, which is that if someone tries to take them, we get them. It's about as simple as that.

On the question of Cuba, Mr. Mills says it's a subject for a lot of discussion, but we think that the agreement we signed a year and a half ago with the Cubans, which was a combination political, human rights, and economic agreement, is showing some signs of progress. There's nothing magical or with huge breakthroughs, but the dialogue is such that we now have a formalized dialogue with Cubans on human rights issues.

• 1605

I think some of the members of the committee were in the House when I pointed out that one small product of that was that the Cubans, who had opposed quite vehemently over the last several years a Canadian-Norwegian initiative to have a convention on the protection of human rights defenders—and were really the block at getting it approved by the Human Rights Commission in Geneva—this year gave up their opposition. It's now approved. It will go to the General Assembly for ratification this fall.

So in some of those areas we're making some progress. We've pursued the Cubans very actively on signing UN covenants, both the civil-political and the economic and social. The Prime Minister took it up during his trip this last week. We're hoping that's one of the areas in which the Cuban government will indicate its willingness to begin adhering to international standards.

To go back to the basic question, when I gave a speech a month ago saying it's time that Cuba is brought into the OAS family, I was simply saying that it means that it also has to meet its obligations under the OAS. It's not a one-way street; it's a two-way street. I made it very clear in the speech that steps should be taken to start involving them in some of the committees.

Let's use PAHO for an example, which is the health organization, where the Cubans have a very high competence in health delivery. They could start joining some of these inter-American organizations this way. But the ultimate membership and involvement depends upon their willingness to accept the standards. If they can't accept the standards, then they'll have to bear the responsibility for their great complaint that they're being left out.

The Chairman: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Was that five minutes?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): I unfortunately have to leave in a few minutes as well, Mr. Axworthy, though for perhaps somewhat happier reasons than Mr. Mills. It's my birthday today and my daughter is putting on a play this evening that I don't want to miss. It's a nice birthday present. Since you take such a great interest in the sporting activities of your son, an apparently talented hockey player, you will understand why I want to leave the meeting, even though I was one of the ones who wanted you to be here for several hours. I appreciate the fact that you have accepted the Chairman's invitation to spend sometime with the committee.

First, as you and certain people in your department know, I have already had the pleasure of working for and serving your department. I have always considered, and still feel, that your department is one of the most professional departments in this government and has excellent professionals in its service. On a recent trip to Washington and New York, I once again witnessed the professionalism that characterises your department's activities.

However, at times I can't help but notice certain problems of coordination between the remarks of the various ministers responsible for international issues. The recent imbroglio between your colleague Ms. Marleau and yourself didn't leave the best of impressions, either here in Canada, and in Quebec in particular, or elsewhere.

In addition, the difficulty you had in making Canada vote as it was supposed to vote on the issue of children who are used as soldiers meant that corrective action necessarily had to be taken. I hope these errors will not be made again because they are not good for a department that has a reputation for excellence such as the one you head up.

I would like to comply with our committee Chairman's wish that we stick more to expenditures during this meeting. All the questions you and Mr. Mills have raised are questions of general interest and are, in my view, good questions. We have other forums for doing so, including the House of Commons, but since we have to talk essentially about financial issues, I have three questions to ask you.

First, I note that the department's expenditures will increase over the next three fiscal years. Ultimately, they will increase in a modest way, but will increase nevertheless. It was my impression that the expenditures of the departments were not necessarily supposed to increase, and I see that, in some instances, they appear to increase as a result of the delivery of services to other departments.

• 1610

First I would like to know whether these expenditures will increase over the next few years and why, in particular, the expenditures for the provision of services to other departments are among those that will be increasing.

My second question concerns peacekeeping operations. UN peacekeeping operations is one of the areas where Canada will be investing more money than ever before. The amounts in question will increase from $38 million in 1997-1998 to $53 million 1998-1999. The same amount is budgeted for the following two fiscal years. I would like you to explain why this increase is being budgeted.

I would also like to point out something that troubles me somewhat, and in this I don't think I am alone. When we debated the extension of SFOR in the House yesterday or the day before, we parliamentarians were not given any information on the mandate, mission or, in particular, the financial impact of the extension. I must admit that it was very disappointing for people who want to take part in parliamentary debates and to assess the appropriateness of extending forces not to have all the information that should be provided to us so that we can participate fully in those debates. In future, I would like your department to inform parliamentarians appropriately before debates take place. This will definitely be true for peacekeeping operations since budgets will no doubt increase in the coming years.

My third and final question concerns CIDA's budget. There have been recent works, comments and criticisms, which you have read as I have, including the works of Messrs. Knox xxx and Pratt xxx, on the relationship between the department and the agency itself and the reduction of the aid envelope. Mr. Axworthy, I would like to know what you intend to do to increase the public development aid envelope. How are you going to assist Ms. Marleau, who is seeking a development aid budget increase which, as you are aware, exceeds the 0.3 percent limit? I would like to know from the Minister who is responsible for Foreign Affairs as a whole what his position on this subject is and what he intends to do.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, first I would like to congratulate the member on his birthday. I hope there will be a great show this evening.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: As to the three questions, your first question for a brief moment gave me a wild sense of hope that I thought maybe something had been misprinted and our expenditures were actually going up. I was brought back to reality very quickly by Ms. Edwards, who said that in fact if you look at the estimates our expenditures do drop this year, in the 1998-99 period, from $1.28 billion to $1.117 billion.

Mr. Daniel Turp: But then it increases.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: It begins to go up a little bit on those bases, and I think that is a reflection of having to pay inflation increases and so on.

You asked a question on peacekeeping. Much of the variation we face has to do with currency changes. In this case we pay our peacekeeping assessment to the UN in U.S. dollars. So one of the problems the deputy wrestles with is that as the rates of currency fluctuate, as they do rapidly, because much of our operation is overseas, we then have to pay those variations. There always has to be a capacity to respond to those.

Also, our services go up. I'll give you one example. The Government of Germany is moving its capital from Bonn to Berlin. We have to move with them if we want to retain good relations with Germany. It means we have to build a new embassy and a chancellery and a residency. It wasn't our choice. And I don't know if you've checked real estate prices in Berlin lately, but they're not exactly what you'd call Winnipeg-level prices. They're very expensive. That's part of the problem we're facing.

• 1615

On the point of salaries, I think deputy Campbell, who last year was our ambassador to Japan, said that in some cases to engage local staff was more than we paid deputy ministers. Wasn't that your...?

Mr. Don Campbell (Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Still is.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Still is—simply because it's a different kind of wage market that we're in if we're going to supply people. And that explains that there are those increments that go up with some.

Now, after my attempt to describe the new roles and functions we have to play, if members of Parliament on this committee wanted to strongly endorse in the next budget the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, along with CIDA and others, and the international envelope were to receive funding appropriate to our activities, then I would be most grateful for any intervention of that kind, believe me.

On the question of SFOR, there are two things, Mr. Turp. As you know, the committee did travel to Bosnia as a basis of doing the assessment on the grounds that we gave you some advance warning that this issue would be looked at and that the best way to get the information is to be right on the ground and acquaint yourself with it. I assume from the recommendations that came back from the committee, where they endorsed an extension and also had a number of other recommendations to make, that members were fully cognizant of what took place.

I do understand that information on NATO resolutions was sent to your office prior to the debate coming up. In this case, as things happen around here, it was an agreement by the House leaders to give us Tuesday night, perhaps not the most felicitous day for getting wide-scale attention paid to the extension of SFOR, but nevertheless that was the time slot given to us. We had discussed the matter in cabinet just a few days before. We asked for time in the House, and they gave it to us on the Tuesday night. So we were a little bit crunched for time.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: I'm trying to compare our situation to what's going on in the United States or in other parliaments, where parliamentarians are provided with much more appropriate information when they have to present their positions and views. To prepare for Tuesday evening's debate, I had not been informed of what the government wanted or of what it wanted to contribute to SFOR. I went to Bosnia with Mr. Graham and other committee members and I was completely aware of what the present force was. However, I must admit that we have been left hanging because we don't have the appropriate documentation on Canada's intentions and contributions. I imagine Cabinet has discussed this matter in some detail, but we have not been able to discuss it in the same detail in Parliament because we don't have appropriate information. It seems to me there are obvious improvements that need to be made if you want Parliament, through its committee or the House of Commons, to play a meaningful role in debates on the extension or even creation of peacekeeping operations.

[English]

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I would just make one further point.

In my own view, and the committee decides how to do it, I think on matters such as that it's much more effective to have committee meetings on such matters where we can share that information and actually get into an exchange about it. You know, a debate is a debate: you get up and you have your 10 or 15 minutes and then it's over.

I would certainly be glad to sit down with the steering committee, or have our officials do that, and see if in these kinds of cases it might be more appropriate, rather than having a debate in the House per se, to actually have a committee meeting on the matter.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Our position on that is that the two are not mutually exclusive. It is true that it's easier to work in committee. However, in view of the importance of this issue, it should also be debated in the House of Commons, particularly where missions are created, but undoubtedly as well when they are extended because these decisions have significant financial and international consequences.

My third question concerned CIDA, Mr. Axworthy.

• 1620

[English]

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: The way it works, we have a broad international envelope that all the departments—International Trade, Foreign Affairs, CIDA—work under, and we present our proposals for that envelope. In the particular case of CIDA, Madame Marleau will be here next week, I believe, and you can ask her specifics about it.

We certainly strongly endorse increased funding. There was a change in this budget, a $90-million increment was made, which is beginning to bring it back up. I would hope that in the future years, as our own fiscal position continues to improve, we would find a broader allocation for overseas development work.

I think you'll see when you look at the CIDA estimates that their functions are altering the same way ours are, and it does require more of an interface on issues. One good example of that is a year ago we established a peace-building fund, which is jointly administered by Foreign Affairs and CIDA, which is to help countries that are emerging out of conflict. We would offer to help them in developing judicial systems, support reconciliation processes we're doing in Guatemala, and provide that kind of quick response system for countries that need instant stability, as opposed to simply letting the thing ratchet down.

You'll find more and more there is a requirement for that kind of cross-linkage. You can't make policy any more in stovepipes or in silos. I think there is increasingly need for horizontal connections. It poses even a larger problem for us in the department, because there are about 18 departments of the federal government that have international overseas activities, and we're supposed to try to provide a broad coordinating role, yet we're still working on structures that were designed for a very different age.

I think what we're trying to do, through the peace-building fund and the landmines... We're setting up a secretariat to work on the landmines issue that will have National Defence, the Department of Industry, CIDA, and ourselves as members of it. We're trying to find the structural ways of providing better coordination among departments in those matters.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Axworthy, do you still believe in the standard of 0.7 percent of Gross Domestic Product for public development aid?

[English]

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, I think it is a standard to be met, when we're able to meet it.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: What an answer! Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Turp, happy birthday.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I gave you an additional five minutes as a birthday present.

Mr. Daniel Turp: You're very kind, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.

The Chairman: That's all we can give you in this committee.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I appreciate it.

The Chairman: Out of respect.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Our Chairman is kind-hearted. Thank you.

The Chairman: Have a happy birthday.

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Welcome, Mr. Axworthy. It is a pleasure to meet you. I am somewhat embarrassed because, like the last two speakers, I also have to leave shortly. My first colleague had to leave for a reason that concerned a child and it was negative, whereas my second colleague also left for a reason concerning a child, but it was positive. As you know, in my party, we are orphans and that's why I'll have to leave. I apologize for it. We'll be leaving you to yourselves.

Mr. Axworthy, listening to your presentation, one realizes that there is indeed a new approach to international affairs and even a domestic redistribution. There is a great deal of talk about the intra-border interventions Canada must make, which requires new energies. Unfortunately, you don't have sufficient budgets for this situation. We also see that salaries and employee benefits represent an increasing proportion of your budget and that the remaining amounts can be directly invested in the field. Unfortunately, they are decreasing rather than increasing. You're stuck with an increasingly difficult problem. You can obviously rely on our support in convincing your Cabinet colleagues to increase your budget.

You also said that, within a few years, 25,000 young Canadians will be working somewhere on the international scene and will therefore need support from your department. Are your colleagues aware of this? What additional financial burden will this represent for your department? I'm not necessarily talking about your Deputy Ministers' salaries, but rather about the support you will have to provide for Canadians. You will very quickly be faced with a problem. How will you be able to cope with it?

• 1625

I would also like to know whether purchases, particularly at CIDA, are remaining stable in percentage terms. Is the figure of 40 or 45 percent of aid granted in return for purchases being maintained? Is it falling or is it increasing?

Lastly, our committee has done a great deal of constructive work on the nuclear issue. As you undoubtedly know, sir, several members of this committee have met representatives of the US Embassy. The committee must of course continue writing its report. We see that there are major concerns over our UN partners, among other things. What is your current position on the nuclear issue? I've been surprised by the number of meetings and telephone calls I've had in which people have expressed these concerns or questioned me about this issue. I've been surprised by the need for information of these countries which turned to a fifth party. They will no doubt be asking others what Canada's position on the nuclear issue is.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: First I would like to welcome Mr. Bachand. This is the first time we've had the opportunity to exchange our views on foreign affairs.

[English]

In response to the three questions you asked, when the government did its overall review of foreign policy in 1993-94, the committee that reported put a very strong emphasis on what is called the third pillar, which we've translated as public diplomacy, which is really a way of using the tools we have in terms of information, culture, and so on to express Canadian values abroad and to provide the venue in which we can disseminate the issues Canadians are concerned about.

We thought that one of the primary ways of doing that is through educational exchanges between countries. There's probably nothing better for Canadians to learn about what's going on in the world than to have an opportunity to work directly in other countries, and at the same time to invite a number of students and young people from other countries here. That's why we allocate a budget towards that.

In 1995, when the government decided on the youth employment strategy, there was about $300 million set aside for youth internships. We made the claim that that should also include international experience. This may sound a little bit like boasting, but I think we've got the most successful part of the internship. We have a demand that far exceeds our supply. We asked the departments if they have any sort of leftover they can give us, because we have so many organizations. Much of it is delivered to third-party organizations. NGOs, trade organizations, cultural groups, think tanks or institutes, and research groups will sponsor the young person, provide the training and the skill and the oversight, and we provide the resources to send them. We use someone within our own orbit as well.

We really think that giving young Canadians that global perspective and experience is a great way of helping other countries. I think so many of them have such a high level of skills. As you probably all know, young people today are almost scary at how good they are. They're so well trained and they've got such a high level of skills that they can do wonderful things.

I used the example, and I'll just repeat it, of the NetCorps project that we just announced in the Caribbean, Central America. Here are countries who are just at the verge of coming into an information age and have very few people in those countries who have any training whatsoever. We've got our schools producing graduates with an incredible background, conditioned to using the technology from the time they're two years old. They are incredible ambassadors for us in going into their countries and hooking these things up. We believe that is one of the areas in which we can make a real contribution.

• 1630

One of the most serious gaps the third world countries face is with respect to human resource issues. They simply don't have skilled people to meet many of the demands that they face. That's why helping our young people to provide that is a major contribution that we can make.

CIDA does the same, the trade people do the same, industry does the same, but we think overall the international... I think this year it's 3,500, and we hope to have that growing as long as the youth internship program continues.

On the question you asked about the purchase issues, I simply don't know the information on that. I think Mrs. Marleau would be in a better position to answer that.

On the nuclear issue, Mr. Chairman, correct me, but I had sent a letter to the committee asking them to look at the nuclear issue. We had received the Canberra commission reports from Australia...the World Court decision, which in a sense said nuclear weapons should some day be illegal.

We also know that we have very clear commitments under certain alliance systems we have. That's why I thought it was important that the committee in a public way provide a forum in which that could be debated amongst Canadians. I'll wait with great interest to see the report.

I know it's been a source of some anxiety to other countries. But our point is that there have been quite clear questions, to say nothing of the fact that some of the agreements we've sort of signed into as an international community, non-proliferation treaties and others, the agreement between the United States and Russia on its reduction of nuclear stockpiles...

I think all these things need to be examined in light of where we're going, and where the nuclear weapon fits into this broader security issue. Particularly for Canadians, how does it fit and allow us to continue to meet our treaty commitments under NATO, in particular?

I really first want to see the results of your findings. Then we'll have to discuss it with our allies when we're ready.

Just to give you one small, very practical example of this, NATO itself is going through a security review beginning this spring. It will be looking at its strategic position and all these things. I think that having the work of the committee and whatever you've drawn from your discussions and consultations will be very important for us to use as part of that review.

The Chairman: Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): I have few a comments and observations.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Are you leaving?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I don't have to leave, but if it's a requirement that one leave after one asks a question—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, have I said something wrong?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: —then I'm quite prepared to leave.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Am I wearing the wrong you-know-what during this committee?

The Chairman: You've had quite an effect on the committee, Mr. Minister, I'll tell you that.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It occurred to me, Mr. Chairman, that ten years ago the minister and I were serving together on the special committee on the peace process in Central America. Ten years ago this month actually—

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: —we were touring the five Central American countries looking for a solution to problems in that area of the world. So it's with great sadness that I note two things.

First, one of the people who accompanied us on that journey, Greg Wirick, just passed away a couple of days ago. I just learned of that today. I wish I had known about it sooner.

And of course also the bishop in Guatemala, not someone we met on that occasion, was assassinated as a result of releasing this human rights report.

So obviously the problem continues in Central America, but you might want to say a word about how you see things in that area at this time from the Canadian perspective.

I have questions. I thought I'd just go down them, and then you can respond to them all.

Speaking of human rights, I'm very concerned, as are a lot of Canadians, about the apparent reluctance of Canada to support a resolution at the recent human rights meetings in Geneva. In fact, if I understand correctly, the resolution ultimately didn't even proceed. The matter of East Timor was simply mentioned in the closing remarks of the chairman, as is sometimes the great compromise at these events when you can't get a resolution. The chair says, well, we'll mention it in the closing remarks. So I was wondering if you could explain why it was that Canada wasn't willing to be more aggressive.

• 1635

I take the point about soft power seriously, but I think sometimes we can be too soft. There's certainly a widespread perception that when it comes to Indonesia and East Timor... I'm not unaware of the things that you have done, but still there's a feeling that Canada is being too soft on Indonesia when it comes to East Timor.

With respect to the nuclear weapons, of course, I think our position is clear. We do need to rethink our commitment to the use of nuclear weapons, which we acquire through our participation in NATO.

I think a role that Canada could play in NATO would be to be a catalyst within NATO for rethinking the commitment to the use of nuclear weapons, particularly with the enlargement of NATO. You may have this in mind after the report of the committee if in fact the report of the committee urges you to do that.

I mean, it's not a Cold War situation any more. I have some concerns about the enlargement of NATO, that it doesn't provoke a new cold war situation—not exactly—provoke the very kinds of concerns I remember both of us being concerned about when we visited the Soviet Union in 1990.

The west should not act in such a way as to provoke a sort of nationalistic or—I'm trying to think of the right word—in Russia. And that concern still exists, as far as I'm concerned. Boris Yeltsin notwithstanding...seems to be a fairly unstable reed on which to base one's confidence about the situation in the Soviet Union.

So perhaps you can just begin by touching on some of those concerns. We didn't have a chance to debate the expansion of NATO, because it was done by order in council, or there was never a parliamentary debate on the NATO expansion that I recall.

The Chairman: You may not recall a parliamentary debate, but in fact the minister came before the committee.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: He came before the committee, but—

The Chairman: And we did adopt—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: At the time I felt it should have been something that came before Parliament, but that's another matter.

The Chairman: We adopted a resolution here, though, approving the government's initiatives with respect to the enlargement.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I share Bill's reflection on the time we spent in Central America. The death of the archbishop, the cardinal, was really kind of a shock to us all, because we had met him. I remember the experience.

I didn't realize that Greg had died, but... I'm also glad that he showed great judiciousness in not talking about other things that went on during that extended trip to Central America.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: My lips are sealed.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: On Central America itself, I think that since we've been there clearly conditions have substantially improved. I mean, you basically have five democracies where we had dictatorships before.

I don't think anyone can claim that they are at the highest level, but they're really making efforts. I've now held two meetings directly with Central American foreign ministers to discuss how we can assist.

One thing we are engaged in pretty actively is in Guatemala. Through our peace-building fund, we're providing a major support for the reconciliation commission to do its work. We're providing support for NGOs in Guatemala, particularly aboriginal ones, so that they can participate in the commission itself.

We've talked to the Guatemalans about assisting in the demobilization of armies, the soldiers, on both sides, and helping them to make a transition to civilian life without... That's one of the toughest issues, including the child soldiers, because we recall one of the real issues there was the recruitment of children into the armies.

The other thing we're doing in Central America is that CIDA has a $15-million fund to help in regional integration, to help the five Central American countries begin to work on common economic and trade investment programs within that region.

One thing we've done, which is tangential, is taken a very active role now in the OAS on the committee on democracy, which is headed up by a Canadian. We put money into that fund, and from that fund it goes to help support media, legislatures, things of that kind.

So I think we're trying to frame up and support what's going on, but right now we're focusing primarily on Guatemala.

On the question of human rights resolutions, I think what we're trying to do, though, at the Geneva commission is to say how do you get the best results out of this? Clearly the resolution is the ultimate role.

• 1640

In the case of Indonesia—and we played a part in this, because we had direct discussions with the Indonesians—we felt if a chairman's statement would also include specific agreements for action as opposed to simply a catalogue of rights and wrongs, that would pursue it further. What came out of the chairman's statement is the agreement by the Indonesians to have a special rapporteur on these issues, which I think is a—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: To go to East Timor?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, to go there. I think that, as a committee, was a really effective trade-off, because it's never happened before. That's the reason the chairman's statement—which still expresses the concerns and outlines some of the problems, but did include within the idea of the special rapporteur—in our view, was the reason why... And we did help in that negotiation, to bring that about.

On the question of the future of NATO, both its expansion and also its strategic review, I think that some very interesting things have happened as a result of the expansion. What's intrigued me is the establishment just last fall of the Russia-NATO Council, which actually brings together for the first time Russian delegates with NATO ministers to talk about common problems. It's another way of bridging the old divide. The Russian foreign minister actually comes after there's a NATO Council meeting, and meets with the full council, and we discuss those common problems. In a way, that was perhaps unintended, but has actually provided a little bit more of a broad-based linkage that will take place.

The second thing is that the NATO exercise in Bosnia now brings together 34 countries, including the Russians, the Ukrainians and others. On-the-ground cooperation—operational cooperation—is now working its way up to the level of again both military coordination and political coordination, where there's a common experience. We both work on things together.

The third area is the so-called Partners for Peace, which is now called the Atlantic Council, and really brings together all the other countries into the discussion. Again, another full day is spent during the NATO Council period, where we're discussing a variety of ways of coordinating.

One of the things that we're doing in Canada is that the defence department offers a number of technical training programs in peacekeeping. A number of the officer corps and the non-com corps from Romania, Ukraine, Poland, and Hungary now come here to go to the Pearson Centre and learn a different style of military operation than what we were used to under the old Cold War days. Again, in those ways it's building some bridges that I think is a useful exercise, and one that so far I feel pretty positive about.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: At one time there was talk in the early post-Cold War days that some day Russia itself might become a part of NATO. Is that still a possibility?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I don't see it happening immediately, but the fact that they're now linked up to this Russia-NATO Council is a good step. Ukraine has expressed some interest in joining up, but there will be a new government there, so we're not really sure.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: To me, what that possibility symbolizes is that NATO might transform itself into a new European security architecture that would include everybody. If it doesn't include that possibility, either of including Russia or maturing into something larger, then you still have this sort of dichotomy. You have everybody else that either are in or want in, and then you have Russia. You still have this potential for the perception from the outside or from a Russian point of view that somehow this is a raid against them, potentially if not in the immediate sense.

That seems to me where the danger comes from and makes the other concern we're talking about, the elimination of nuclear weapons, more difficult. So the two are related. I don't know the immediate answer to these things and I don't expect you to, either, but it seems to me that we don't want to construct NATO and this new NATO in such a way as it impedes your ability to progress on this other front.

[Translation]

Ms. Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): I would like to welcome the Minister, though somewhat belatedly. I may have a few points to mention.

• 1645

The first is that, in an article published in the Ottawa Citizen on April 16, I read a speech that was made by Mr. Allan Gotlieb, Canada's former Ambassador to the United States. Mr. Gotlieb had said that the Canada government did not really have a foreign policy. I thank you for your introduction this afternoon because, in it, you very quickly showed—and I realize you did so in a fairly superficial way—just how far Mr. Gotlieb's remarks were not true. That's the first thing I wanted to say.

I have two questions to ask. The first concerns the table of expenditures for 1998-1999 by region and by business line. I see that, in international trade promotion, as in a number of other areas such as assistance to Canadians overseas, Africa and the Middle East receive the smallest amount of money, whereas the Asia- Pacific region receives the largest. I understand why this is the case, particularly as regards international trade promotion. However, I wonder whether you want to comment on this great discrepancy. Asia-Pacific is the first region and is followed by Europe. The United States receives $26 million dollars and, right at the bottom of the list, we see Africa and the Middle East.

Second, I don't know whether you want to add to the remarks you made to Mr. Bachand and to those you made in your introduction on the $6.4 million increase for youth employment initiatives. I thought that what you said at the start was very interesting. I don't know whether you want to add a few more details on this $6.4 million.

[English]

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I haven't read the article.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: It's just a quote, in fact.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Perhaps we can send Mr. Gotlieb a copy of the proceedings of this committee to help in his education.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: That's a good idea.

The Chairman: I was at that conference. I don't think the people there were coming up with ideas about foreign policy that were any more interesting than the ones you expressed here before the committee, so I wouldn't take him too seriously.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Bill, the problem is he probably reads the Toronto newspapers.

Anyway I won't comment further. I think Mr. Gotlieb is no longer with the department. He retired many years ago.

On the question of the allocations to the department, I really think that's something that Minister Marchi should talk about in terms of the reasons why.

It certainly doesn't indicate, from our point of view, any less interest in what we're doing. As you know we've just announced quite a substantial change in policy in the Middle East. We're opening a new special representative's office in the Palestinian territories and we are substantially upgrading the resources, the people and the time we're putting into the refugee issue.

Perhaps I can just be allowed a moment to explain the following to the members. In my trip to the Middle East in November...clearly the Middle East process is the most important factor going on. It's a factor where the United States plays a very substantial role, the European Union plays a complementary role.

We also have a role to play, not in terms of managing the grand design... We really believe that if we could provide a concrete series of accomplishments in the area of refugee resettlement, family reunification and other areas, it would be a demonstration that things can get better, that the peace process has a real dividend for the people in the territories. It would help support the work that's going on to try to maintain the authorities in that area.

It's a specialized niche, but it's a very crucial niche, and that's why we're dedicating more resources. CIDA will be putting more money in. We're putting more money in. We're helping UNRWA to move to Gaza. In particular, by opening our own office we'll be on the ground there working literally on a daily basis to come to grips with the refugee issue.

I think the same thing is true in Africa, if you look at the work we're doing. I believe we are playing a major role in some of the key conflicts in Africa.

We've just sent a group of peacekeepers to the Central African Republic. We've been very involved in the Great Lakes area in helping on the various attempts, the Nyerere attempts and so on, to provide a reconciliation. We're looking seriously at what kind of role we can play in the Congo at this point in time.

• 1650

I think we bring to Africa many of the same qualities... I said in my opening remarks that we don't carry any colonial baggage. We have a capacity to negotiate. We have a high level of confidence. The fact that we're a bilingual country, we can speak both languages with equal facility and we can send people there with that capacity, is highly regarded. We have a good basket of assets we can bring to our role in Africa.

I'll be going to Africa myself in about four weeks to the meetings of the Organization of African Unity to talk in particular about how we can work in conjunction with them on a major landmine program in Africa. We will talk to them again about some of the peace-building initiatives.

I don't have the figures in front of me, but I can get them, but I believe most of our peace-building initiatives in the last year have gone into Africa in the various disputes and conflicts. Is that about right, Lucie?

Ms. Lucie Edwards: Yes.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: We're treating it with real attention.

You were there yourself just recently and you know our Secretary of State David Kilgour has spent a lot of time there working actively.

The last issue we've taken the leadership on is Nigeria, to try to provide whatever international influence can be brought to bear to help the Nigerians move toward a more democratic regime. Again, we'll be following that through in the Commonwealth meetings coming up. Let me give you an assurance that we're spending a lot of time and a lot of our diplomatic resources on key issues like Nigeria, Central Africa, the Great Lakes and other areas.

It's perhaps time to have another look at what further support we can give in the developments in South Africa, which is very important for all of us. It's providing enormous leadership in the world, not only in Africa. They are facing some very severe transition problems, and it may be time for a new look at South Africa and how Canada can help more effectively.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you, Minister, for coming and also the officials who are here with you.

My first question is one I've always wanted to ask and couldn't find the right avenue to ask it. I will ask it this time under the issue of human resources strategy.

Looking at what you've set out as your strategy, on page 44, you listed the 128 missions and the 29 satellite offices overseas. In all my travels, which are not all that extensive—and I'm hoping you will take me with you to a few places—I've never come across an ambassador, a high commissioner, a trade officer, a passport officer, a senior official, or anyone from what is called the visible minority community. It could be that they have not been in the places I have been, but I have never come across anyone from that community.

Now that we're talking about sending our young people overseas, etc., I'm asking if there is anything within the department's human resources strategy to ensure that the face of Canada's urban areas, especially, is reflected in our foreign offices.

Sometimes our difficulties have to do with the fact that the definition of a Canadian is not someone who looks like myself. I'd ask you to make some comments on this...perhaps your staff more than yourself.

Secondly, I've heard a good deal fairly recently about the whole issue of transnational crime and international drug trafficking. Perhaps you can make some comments on how and where within the plan we are extending dollars and support and other issues in that area.

My third question is on just one of these little quirky things that hits your eye. I notice a decrease of $7.3 million in the net cash requirements of the passport office revolving fund. What is the passport office revolving fund and why is that fund decreasing when we're talking about difficulties with passports? I just want to understand this a little.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I think two of your questions are really administrative ones, Jean, so the deputy and Ms. Edwards can answer them.

On the drug issue, we're now working on a broader-based international drug strategy that will correspond with what we're doing domestically.

• 1655

One initiative that we took on at Santiago is to organize a new multilateral or region-wide series of meetings that would involve all the foreign ministers to review politically the drug strategies in this particular reference. You would understand this as well from your own experience, how the power, the money and the clout of the large drug cartels is undermining democratic governments, undermining social programs, undermining the capacity especially of small nations in the Caribbean and Latin and central America to survive as entities.

So we took the initiative at Santiago. We had the agreement of the other countries to look at the broad impact of the drug problem not simply from the point of view of police detections—those are all very important—but of the impact that drugs are having on human security issues, on the people themselves, on their governance and so on. So we will be leading on that particular issue.

Similarly, we took the same initiative last year at the ASEAN meetings—again, a multilateral forum we belong to—in order to raise the same issue about whether drugs are not becoming a major human security issue coming into Southeast Asia.

Again, 60% of our hard drugs come from Asia and the other 40% from our own hemisphere, so we have a real stake in doing something about it.

Those are the two major initiatives we've taken as Canadians. We are also making the normal contributions to the drug-fighting agencies at the OAS and at the UN.

Particularly in our own hemisphere, we think we can really provide a much stronger place where all the countries will come together. Up to now there's been a real dispute, because the United States has taken the lead and the other countries are simply...they have to respond to those things. We think we can now multilateralize that. We can also broaden the discussion into the effect on governance.

With that, Don or Lucie can decide how to answer the other two questions.

Ms. Lucie Edwards (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you. Not so long ago you could have added women to the list of people you might not have seen.

The department has made a very strong commitment to changing in terms of visible minorities. We have at the moment a consul general who is of Chinese origin. We have two senior officials, one an ambassador, who are of aboriginal origin.

I'm very pleased to say we're seeing in terms of recruitment increasing numbers of trade officers, immigration officers and political officers who come from all the communities in Canada. In fact, it's quite awesome when we see the young officers coming in, because of the strength they give us in terms of languages. One of our most outstanding incumbents in the past year was a Vietnamese Canadian who had come as a boat person to Canada as a small child.

We have made specific commitments to the Public Service Commission in terms of our national recruitment for the recruitment of visible minorities. We have special authorities from the Public Service Commission to go out and actively seek people as well as to accept who comes in through the intake.

We make a very large effort to go out to the communities and we make the point that, yes, you are what we are looking for as a foreign service officer. So we're very pleased with the accomplishments we've been able to make in that area. I'd be more than delighted to introduce you to some of the talent we have streaming through.

Your question about the revolving fund is a very apt one. A few years ago we were able to negotiate with the Treasury Board to put the passport office on very much a business-like footing. They have a number of authorities that allow them to operate as if they were a crown corporation. One of the things they have is a fund. Because they have a constant income coming in the money doesn't have to go to the Receiver General and then we have to ask every time, through supplementary estimates, to have the money back. They have the money as a continual revolving fund.

Why it's going down slightly reflects two things. One is the projection of the number of people who will be requesting passports. At the moment we have proportionately a rather high number of Canadians who have passports, and we forecast a slight change. I would like to see more Canadians carry passports, but we anticipate a relatively low level because it's so easy to travel to the United States with ordinary documentation.

Secondly, we negotiated with the Treasury Board a significant infusion of money over the previous two years for investment in new technology. This was the kind of thing that Mr. Axworthy was saying we were doing in terms of the security and the efficiency of our passports as they go into other countries. There was a bulge in terms of funding that we received then, and now it's going down because we don't need quite so much money in the future.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Perron.

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, BQ): Good afternoon, Mr. Axworthy.

Staff members of Canada's embassies are apparently underpaid or receive lesser benefits. Naturally, we lose them and, every five or six months, we are forced to restart the training process for new staff.

• 1700

What is your position on this subject and what are you doing to correct the situation?

[English]

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: This is a very pertinent question because, as you recall, during the last estimates I raised the problem we are facing with a certain hemorrhaging particularly at the FS-1, FS-2 levels. I want to pay compliments to the deputy and to Ms. Edwards that they were able to negotiate a new foreign service officers development agreement that allows us to have longer-term training but also a better pay scale.

Ms. Edwards can give you the details. It really will be a significant step forward in terms of arresting the problems. Their pay scales were falling totally out of line with the private sector and we were losing many to it, or they were simply not able to keep up with their families.

This new agreement helps a new officer coming in over a five-year period to go through the preparation. They can get their pay scales through incentives if they're at five years, up to an appropriate level. I think it will make a big difference.

Do you want to describe that further or does that cover it?

Ms. Lucie Edwards: I think you've covered it very well, Minister. Essentially, officers will come in, and whereas at the moment it has been taking something like 10 years to get to the next level of advancement in the department, we will give them a very intensive, rigorous training program and they will get to the equivalent of the period in five years. That means through this concentrated period they will be advancing to levels of greater responsibility and more money more quickly. We've also been able to secure, through collective bargaining and the agreement of Treasury Board, faster advancement within those initial years of recruitment.

This will not necessarily solve the problem of the private sector company that can come in and offer three times the salary, but there's an enormous love of the department on the part of the young officers. It's such an exciting experience, and I hope it will at least ensure they don't come to us and say that they can only do this for love for so long, that after a while they have to think about the interests of their family. It will also make it competitive with all the other posts in the public service, because we were falling a bit behind through slow promotion in other occupational groups in the public service.

Mr. Don Campbell: I was just going to add that we also have been in the process of revitalizing our foreign service training institute, which is providing training at all levels to all occupational groups in the department.

The Chairman: I'm personally very pleased by that answer. One of the most discouraging things about travelling around and talking to young people in our foreign service is the issue Mr. Perron raised.

There's no question we were losing people at a tremendous rate, not only to private industry but also to other departments. I understand the justice department pays the lawyers in the justice department significantly more than the lawyers in the international affairs department get paid. There's no sense to that.

If we in this committee can help you, Minister, with Treasury Board to say we think this is goofy, we would be more than happy to do so. This doesn't make sense.

I heard a story of a young man who was offered three times as much by the mounted police to stay in a given country he was in once he had learned the language at the expense of your department. This does not make sense. What's more, it's very bad for the morale in the department and it's very bad for the future of our foreign service if we're going to get as complicated as you're telling us.

If you think this parliamentary committee in any way can be helpful in terms of the morale and the conditions of employment in the service, we would be more than happy to do so. Most of the members here have come to respect a great deal what the department does and what our people do abroad. You've heard that from all the parties, everybody here. Nobody has been criticizing the efforts and the quality of our service officers; everyone wants to try to get the best we possibly can.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Perron: The brain drain isn't just happening on the international market. It's happening virtually everywhere.

Consider the example of xxxCanada Place in Trafalgar Square, London: closed, opened, closed, opened. In any case it's been reopened. What are your department's long-term plans for this capital asset?

[English]

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: The interpretation wasn't received. Could you repeat that?

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: It's going to be tough, but I'll try to put it in English. In Trafalgar Square in London, Canada House was closed down and now it has reopened. Did your guys get a long-term lease?

• 1705

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I thank Mr. Perron for that question, because I think it does give us an opportunity to again talk about something we're trying to do.

We have probably the best location virtually in Europe in terms of exposure, presence, and so on. For reasons that are history, the decision to close it... Royce Frith, our high commissioner a few years back, probably the second day I became a minister, phoned me and said “Have I got an idea for you!”

He made the proposal that we reopen it, partly to meet some of the changing cost structures in London. But as we discussed it further in the department, we felt that one of the areas of initiative in this new public diplomacy world I'm talking about is to make our embassies and our high commissions much more than just simply places where people work; they can also become showcases for Canada. We can use in them all the new technologies of multimedia, CD-ROMs and everything else, as well as provide a place for Canadians to exhibit their films or show their products or do whatever they want.

We've renovated the Canadian Cultural Centre in Paris and Canada House, and I hope at some point all members will get a chance to visit. It will be open in two weeks, and it is incredible. They've done a wonderful job of renovation. It's a brand-new building. It's got some of the best sight lines in all of London, but it will be a place for Canadians to show to the British and the rest of Europe the new face of Canada.

We will be moving some of our offices in Grosvenor Square, those that have a public exposure, into Canada House. We have the Queen's lease to honour. I think it's another 99 years to go. We're well placed.

Also, for example, in the new embassies we have to develop in Berlin, we'll be using the same concept, which is to incorporate a public place. You used the right word,

[Translation]

xxxCanada Place, to show Canada's new face to the entire world.

[English]

We're very pleased, and that's part of that new public outreach we're taking on as a department.

The Chairman: Mr. Assadourian.

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

Will mine be the last question before everybody leaves?

The Chairman: No, I have some questions, too.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Minister, my question has to do with a survey that I saw in the newspaper about two weeks ago. The survey question was about foreign aid, NATO, how the foreign aid money we give to foreign countries is used, how Canadians foresee that the money is being used.

I'm sure you have had discussions about this survey, which was probably done by your department. I'm not sure about that, but I'm sure you studied this survey in your office. Would you tell us your reaction? How do you feel about it? Do you think the job being done in the foreign affairs department is reflected in the survey, or are there some shortfalls or lack of communication? Can we communicate to Canadians the job being done in foreign affairs so they can appreciate it more accurately?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: We didn't commission the survey. It was done privately. I just read about it in the paper. I hope the Ottawa Citizen will give us a copy of it.

The one thing that struck me as being very positive is that 64% of those surveyed feel prouder about Canada's role abroad than they did a decade ago, and I think that is an indication that the activist initiative the Prime Minister is promoting is winning approval from Canadians. It's a real effort to show we have not just a role with the United States or with Europe, but also a role in a new variety of subjects.

The other parts of the poll I think show again that there is substantial support for improved aid if it is effectively done. That to me was the reading. It's not just a matter of throwing the money at the problem, it's doing it to get real results. I think that must be the criterion and test we apply: it's got to be one that really shows it's making a difference.

That's why again, if you don't mind my underlining and repeating, some of the new areas of human security issues we're getting into are the ones that Canadians feel are very vital to them—drugs, terrorism, human rights issues—and that's why I think there is indication of stronger support for it.

• 1710

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Is there a program in the department to communicate these programs to the Canadians at large or to those in schools or universities?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Yes. I think it's a job we can do better.

One thing we've done is open a new web site. We as a department have our own web site, which has all kinds of spinoffs. The number of so-called hits we get weekly shows a lot of Canadians are using it.

Regrettably, as a result of some of the restraint measures, we eliminated a lot of the publications and stuff we do in the department. I'd like to restore those if I can find some money for it. I know that when I was in college and studying in this area, I used to subscribe to a magazine that came out twice a month. It was a place where I found out what was going on.

Now with the new information systems and technology, I think we can do a much better job of communicating, getting things on line into schools. One of the areas we are looking at as part of the landmines program is how we recruit young people who are showing a real enthusiasm for it. We'd like to plug into the schools and get them in a two-way engagement to actually help support the landmines initiatives overseas.

There's a lot we can be doing to upgrade it. The deputy, as I said, put in a new organizational framework on public diplomacy, with an ADM at its head. I think that will be the focal point of a much stronger outreach program for Canadians.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I'll just make a short comment. People have the perception that when we give money, there's no end to tomorrow. But if you educate them about the fact that you give them so much money and there are so many conditions attached, finally there will be much wider support for the program than there is now.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, I think so.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Perron: Since I'm the only member of the opposition, may I have the privilege of asking a question of personal interest?

The Chairman: Yes, provided you leave me enough time to ask a few questions.

Mr. Gilles Perron: Two seconds. Thank you.

Mr. Axworthy, in the last federal budget, your government announced that it would spend $100 million over five years to remove antipersonnel mines. I don't believe it's up to me to object to that expenditure.

I would like to ask you how your department and the other departments intend to spend this money and I would like you to bring us up to date on this good plan to remove antipersonnel mines.

[English]

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Our first priority is to get the treaty ratified. We need 40 countries to do that. Then it becomes sort of international law and carries a real series of obligations under it.

We are working actively on a variety of fronts. Our ambassadors and high commissioners overseas are working on it. Ministers, the Prime Minister, and I take it up at every meeting.

I was in Hungary two or three weeks ago at a major de-mining conference. I'm pretty sure we'll have those 40 countries by sometime in the summer or fall. It takes a little longer because—some of our MPs, I think, were at the IPU meetings in Africa—it has to go through a legislative process. It's not just the government saying it wants to do it; it has to be ratified. So we're providing information kits and support to legislatures around the world.

By the way, our own MPs and senators can play a very strong role in helping their counterparts in other countries to engage in the ratification process. They can also help to set up an international monitoring system and survey system. One of the problems in getting the mines out of the ground is knowing where they are. It has been a pretty ad hoc arrangement until now, so we gave some money to the UN.

The third area is to help countries ratify the treaty and meet their obligations. Take a country like Moldova, which signed the treaty. It had a horrible experience. It has close to 500,000 mines stockpiled. We're working to help destroy that stockpile, just get rid of it, so the mines are not available for other uses.

Finally, the major thrust is to support international efforts, Canadian efforts, and efforts in individual countries to do de-mining and victim assistance. The residue of the landmine problem is hundreds of thousands of people with crushed limbs and bodies and spirits, in some cases, around the world. Part of our job is to help them, so we started with a major initiative in Bosnia a month ago.

• 1715

What was interesting, if I could just take a moment, Mr. Chairman, when I was in Bosnia to talk to all the people, was a whole series of individual projects taking place. Each one was doing good work, but by itself. The military was doing some, the UN was doing some, the Bosnia government was doing some, NGOs were doing some.

I think what we were able to do—and we're still working on it—because we brought in this $10 million, was...let's integrate it, let's do it together, let's not have these singular projects, let's get a better value for our dollar, so that the military can go in with their machines and do the first round of clean-up, which takes about 80% of the mines, and then you can send in the specialized de-miners to get it up to 99%, so it's actually available for human occupation. That wasn't happening before. They were each doing their own thing. We're hoping we can help provide a much higher level of coordination or integration in those areas, and the $100 million is the vehicle for doing that.

So far...the mechanics of it is that the Prime Minister has approved setting up a small managerial board—it has four ministers and I chair it—and a secretariat, which will integrate the activities of the various departments in Canada to make it happen.

Considering that we're only four months beyond the time the treaty was signed, I think we've made some good progress, but the real test will be next year in getting it ratified and actually getting projects off the ground.

The Chairman: Minister, I wonder if I could ask a few questions.

First is an observation about the landmines treaty, or an illustration of how it has captured the imagination of legislators, as well as governments, around the world. I met with my counterpart, Mr. Lang, president of the foreign affairs committee in the French assembly, and he told me that a group of French deputies had introduced legislation to ratify, beating the government. They didn't wait for the government to introduce this legislation; the individual members put together a bill and put it in the House. They're even beating the government to the punch.

It's probably happening in a lot of places. It's quite exciting to see it's captured that kind of enthusiasm around the world, so well done.

I have a couple of questions. Some are technical and some are somewhat broader.

First, do you see the ratification process and implementation process for the Law of the Sea treaty coming at us within this present parliament?

Second, Madame Folco mentioned the question of Palestine and Israel. We had the chairman of the Palestinian council and several of his colleagues before the committee recently. They said they knew nothing about the agreement we had arrived at by way of side letters when we entered into the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement, that the benefits of the agreement would be extended to the Palestinian territories. I wonder if any effort is being made by the Canadian government to follow it up? In fact, I believe I was asked by the committee to write you specifically to ask you or Mr. Marchi what steps have been made to ensure the benefits of the agreement are extended to the Palestinian areas as well.

My third question is a technical one as well. When we were recently in the United States, it was drawn to my attention by a member of the foreign affairs committee of the Congress that we are withdrawing from the Inter-American Institute for Agricultural Cooperation, which I understand is an important institution, our $3.4 million contribution. I just wondered if you had any comments on this. It was suggested this was regrettable, at least by our interlocutors there.

The fourth is a broader question. We've been told that here in Ottawa there are far more people working on issues of foreign affairs than there are in the whole of your department—that's to say, if you add up the people in the justice department, the agriculture department, the fisheries department. In fact the whole government is into foreign affairs one way or another, and in the integrated global world in which we live that's perfectly natural.

• 1720

I just wondered to what extent you, as the primary officer of the crown responsible for the area of foreign affairs, are able to make sure there's coordination of all this activity and a coherency to it. Again, we heard when we were doing our foreign policy review that it is not an uncommon feature for finance ministers to go to a meeting and say one thing and foreign ministers go to another meeting and say something different. Canada is no different from the United States or Great Britain or France or many other countries in this respect.

I just wondered to what extent you are able to coordinate the activities of our various government departments to make sure there's a coherent foreign policy face on what we're doing.

I'll stop there.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Thank God.

Let me begin with a question, Bill, on the Law of the Sea. Our position was that we wanted to see the straddling stocks treaty ratified first. The position strongly taken by our fishing provinces was that until there is a straddling stocks convention that allocates responsibilities according to...and the inspection system coming out of the turbot war we had. I believe this is now in the House. The Minister of Fisheries is guiding it through the House, so that one, we hope, will follow the other.

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): It was discussed today.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: On the trade agreement, yes, we've offered the Palestinians the same benefits that were available in the Israeli trade agreement. Nothing has been signed yet, but we made the offer.

On the Inter-American agricultural group, I think the Prime Minister had discussions at Santiago and we will likely be going back in.

On the last question, it remains an interesting challenge—let's put it this way. You properly described that there are 18 departments that have international affairs bureaus or officials. Much of it's natural. The Department of Agriculture is engaged in selling agricultural products abroad, and we provide the warehousing in our embassies for most of these offices. Clearly, the immigration department, the RCMP, and others have their own functions. A lot of time it's really an organizational, technical thing, which is coordinated by the ambassador or high commissioner at their level just to make things happen.

From a policy point of view, I think we still take the lead on most of these issues. Usually the mandate the Prime Minister gives to ministers is to acknowledge that the Minister of Foreign Affairs must be consulted when they are taking something that would be considered a policy issue.

We think generally it works out okay. It's not perfect, but I would not want to see us become a tzar of international affairs, because it's just too much, and we have enough to handle as it is. But we do have that coordinating role.

Often it means that you do it on an ad hoc basis. I'll give you an example. With the Asian crisis that took place, Mr. Martin, Mr. Marchi, and I started to meet just to discuss it, because that was one that brought us all together. When the crisis hopefully is over, we won't have to do it as often, but we make sure that our act is together on those kinds of things.

I prefer it that way, rather than having a formalized structure, because the issues change so rapidly and so directly. But we may miss a few.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Minister.

You can see we're very grateful to you for having given us extra time. We haven't abused it, because we're just coming to the end. We very much appreciate it.

We'll question Mr. Marchi about the fact that the agriculture department's budget is larger than his for the selling of goods abroad. It is considerably greater, as I recall.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I'm sure he'll give you a good answer.

The Chairman: I'm sure he will. We'll look forward to it.

Thank you very much for coming, Minister.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: We're adjourned until May 7.