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]

Wednesday, February 17, 1999

• 1544

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): I'd like to call this meeting to order. Minister, thank you very much for coming. We've come to discuss a specific issue, which is how you perceive our role before the Security Council in the next two years. Thank you for coming to share your thoughts with us. I understand that you have to leave at 5 p.m., so I would like to start right away.

Before I do, I'd like to clear up one organizational matter. We were to have a committee meeting tomorrow afternoon to hear from officials about both Kosovo and MINURCA. We're having a debate in the House about that. I have spoken to the offices of Mr. Robinson, Mr. Bachand, and Mr. Mills. They are all in agreement that given the timing of the debate it probably wouldn't be necessary. My own view is that the meeting should be cancelled. The officials will be extremely busy preparing for tonight. To ask them to prepare for tomorrow as well is putting a heavy burden on them. But apart from them, I'm not convinced that enough members will be here. However, Mr. Turp would like to have the meeting, so maybe he would like to speak to that issue and then we can quickly go on to the minister.

• 1545

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): More than a meeting, I'd like to make a point in front of the minister.

Again last week I mentioned to some of your officials that I thought these debates in Parliament were not well prepared, well orchestrated. We have another example of this happening, a briefing session, especially on the Central African issue, proposed after the debate is supposed to be held in the House. In this particular case there is no reason that should happen. We've known for a long time that this mandate will come up for renewal, and I was so surprised, once again, that this will happen. Kosovo may be a special case, and I understand, due to the emergency situation, how Parliament is convened at a very late time. But in the case of the Central African Republic, it makes no sense to have a briefing after the debate is held in the House of Commons.

So I wanted to point that out to you, Mr. Minister, because if you want to have Parliament involved in this, if you want to have meaningful debates in Parliament, as you've said you do, this is not the way to do things.

I don't insist on a meeting tomorrow, but we know when there will be another renewal of other mandates of other peacekeeping operations. I hope this never happens again.

The Chairman: The minister is obviously capable of speaking for himself, but my own view, and I think you'll agree with me, Mr. Turp, of the way things happen around here... The briefing was set for tomorrow, and I think it was the House leaders—and, Minister, you might be aware of this or not—who fixed tonight for the debate on Kosovo. So it wasn't in the minister's control to determine when that debate was. I was a little surprised that the Kosovo debate was coming up tonight, as well as you were. We only found out yesterday, but that's really the House leaders' role, not our role. We're all captured by their agenda, if I can put it that way.

Mr. Daniel Turp: We know the peacekeeping operations and their mandates and when they have to be renewed, so I think we can plan ahead. It has nothing to do with the House leaders. We know when these mandates will expire and we should debate them before they expire.

The Chairman: All I can say is everybody's doing their best.

Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, you're quite right. The timing of debates is not set by me; it's set by House leaders in agreement with all the parties. We don't dictate it.

As for the briefing on Central Africa, it was set up to brief the committee before the renewal was going to take place, but it was decided by House leaders to incorporate that as part of the debate because Parliament won't be sitting next week, as you know, and then it might be on the agenda afterwards. But to suggest that we weren't anticipating, in fact we were. We are having officials come here tomorrow to brief the committee on Central Africa.

By the way, I think it was appropriate because it's not a new commitment—it's a renewal—and we will be dealing with that probably in the last week of February at the Security Council.

But that was the reason for scheduling an appearance of officials before the committee. Again, I think the thinking was that the debate should take place before Parliament went away on recess in case there was an agreement this weekend, and then we would have to make temporary arrangements during the recess period. The House leaders asked me if I'd be prepared to be involved in the debate this week, and you know me, I'm easygoing, I said sure.

The Chairman: Members, I'm going to propose that if you want a briefing on the Central African Republic, I think we could do it when we return, rather than tomorrow when most of our members are not going to be available and we will have had the debate in the House tonight.

Let's move on to the minister's speech.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Let me thank the members of the committee for the opportunity to bring you up to date on the developments in the United Nations.

• 1550

Just before Christmas, you'll know I sent to every member of Parliament a deck outlining briefing materials that everybody should have received. This would be an opportunity simply to bring that into the present focus.

I'd also like to mention that beginning in December we have also sponsored, through our Centre for Foreign Policy Development, a series of consultations across the country. There have been quite an interesting array of Canadians involved in debating, discussing, and recommending various views about the United Nations, particularly our role on the Security Council. So running in parallel with what the committee is looking at there's also a pretty active public consultation going on at the same time.

Just to provide some reminders of what was in that original deck and just to make sure we all understand what we're doing, I'll remind you that our term on the council, which began January 1, will go until December 31. It's a two-year term. We're joined by China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Argentina, Bahrain, Brazil, Gabon, Malaysia, Namibia, the Netherlands, and Slovenia. As you know, each of these is elected by geographical groups. Some people don't seem to understand that, but each geographical group in the United Nations elects its own people. As you all recognize, we had a very tough election. It was a very hard-fought election between two of the very worthy candidates.

The importance of it to Canadians, putting it in an analogy, is that the Security Council is really the cabinet of the UN system. It is also the only international body that has universal membership under article 7, the authorization on articles 6 and 7 for interventions of varying kinds, and that therefore it really is the crucible in which a number of very crucial decisions are made. It puts particular onus on member countries of the Security Council because you are involved on a daily basis with having to be involved in worldwide issues and having to make decisions on those issues. It's not simply a matter of passing resolutions. There are a lot of serious consequences that flow out of the Security Council activity.

I can tell you that in the first six weeks that we've been there we've already dealt with eight resolutions, on Sierra Leone, Croatia, Western Sahara, Georgia, and Angola. There have been six presidential statements. There have been 15 formal meetings, 25 informal consultations, five troop contributors consultations, and four meetings of the Angola sanctions committee, which we chair. That's in a six-week period, and that doesn't in any way describe the activity that goes on, particularly early in the council, because there's a lot of behind-the-scenes discussions; there's a lot of work that's done here in Ottawa.

I want to use the opportunity to introduce to you two people who are intimately involved in that. Patricia Lortie is our director general of international organizations, and Suzanne Laporte is our director general of human and global issues. They are very actively involved, as are a number of people here, as I am directly, because it means there is a fairly high-level networking between foreign ministers whose countries are on the Security Council in order to clear positions and to make sure there are some common points of view. We try to arrive at a consensus on these decisions.

One of the important things about being an elected member of the council—and we're all elected members here—is that you're accountable. There may be some advantages of being a permanent member because you have a veto, but you're not accountable. Anybody who runs for election runs because you have a certain agenda that other members support. It's important to note that we received 75% of the votes of the General Assembly, which is the highest level of support ever received by a country in its candidacy for the Security Council. I think it was based on a couple of key areas we put forward as to what would guide our membership during the two-year period.

First is that we wanted to reassert the council's activity and leadership in areas that we felt, over the last three or four years, they had not paid attention to. Particularly, there had been a growing tendency, in our view, for the council to focus on a few exclusive issues and ignore others, particularly as they apply to certain areas of conflict in Africa and other areas. The council simply didn't give the same level of resources or attention to many of the conflicts that were occurring, and we felt this was a bias that was not fair to the membership of the General Assembly, who we represent really.

We also noticed that there was increasing pressure, a tendency if you like, over the years to contract out Security Council responsibilities to other regional organizations. That's partly driven by the fact of money. As you know, there's a major arrears problem with the United Nations. Certain senior members have not paid their bills. I think the present outstanding liability is $1.2 billion. So as a result, there is a restriction on exactly how far they can go.

• 1555

But there has also been, I think, a tendency to turn it over to other people. As a result, sometimes the basic principles underlying the charter of the United Nations have not been necessarily translated when other organizations are asked to take on these responsibilities. We felt there was a need to try to reverse that trend and give the Security Council a more direct responsibility.

Secondly, we ran on a platform of increasing the transparency. There are 187 members of the General Assembly, and oftentimes they were excluded totally. I thought it was important, on behalf of the general membership, to say in particular where decisions of the council were taken that affected member states, they should have the right to be known and have their views expressed because they were going to have to live up to some of those obligations. Again, it's not an easy thing to do, because there is a culture of a somewhat closed shop. Nevertheless we felt it was very important to try to broaden the openness of the council and to see how we could in particular ensure that practices are put in place that would give a higher level of involvement of the broader membership of the council.

The third area was to promote the human security agenda, which we have put forward as one of the important elements in our foreign policy. That was to deal with the increasing threat that the civilians, individuals, face around the world.

A couple of quick statistics will just illustrate that, Mr. Chairman. If you look at the First World War, 5% of the casualties were civilians. If you look at the wars in the last five years, 90% of the casualties are civilians. There has been a total reversal of form in those areas, and it means the nature of conflict has changed dramatically. So much of standards, rules, mechanics, and so on that are derived from the 1945 period or even during the Cold War no longer apply. You're dealing with different players.

For example, the emergence of the warlord factor in parts of the world, where it is a combination of economic and political power basically operated by vigilantes, is now becoming the source of so much conflict, fuelled by small weapons and other matters. Those are the kinds of conflicts that affect everybody.

Further, in terms of Canadian interest, basic vital Canadian interest, there are the problems of drug trafficking. Most of the drugs that come into Canada come from foreign shores. We need to find ways of dealing with them. Those are things that affect Canadians directly as individuals in their communities, in their families.

How do you stop it? Can we stop it by ourselves, putting fences around ourselves, or do we have to find some level of international cooperation, bringing countries together on a cooperative basis and a collaborative basis? The same thing is true whether you're dealing with the refugee problems, even public health.

One of the things that I think has been most dramatic in the world is how the spread of new viruses and diseases is born out of a lot of the conflicts we face. If you destroy rain forests or disrupt areas with settled patterns, all of a sudden you begin to find they've given rise to a series of influxes of public health problems. Again, these are not issues that lend themselves to the traditional power politics.

This is not something you can gain access to by the point of a gun. You have to do it on the basis of getting countries to work together, to share common objectives, to work on common solutions to these problems. That's the way you begin to deal with human security problems. And those are by and large the majority of the problems we face. We don't face that many wars across borders. There are a few going on. Eritrea in Ethiopia is a prime example today. If you look at the 25-odd conflicts that are taking place in the world, they are internal. They are caused by breakdowns of states. They are caused by ethnic-tribal-religious-geographical conflicts within states. In many cases, states are simply there in form, not in function, and those are the kinds of initiatives...

It was our view that these are issues the Security Council needed to begin to address, that its responsibility is security. That's what its mandate is under the charter. If the problem of security was changing, then the council also should begin to broaden its definition of security. We again recognize that you don't get changes easily; it doesn't happen overnight. But I think it was important to start putting forward that kind of set of propositions so the Security Council could live up to a contemporary mandate in a real way.

Now, since becoming the president of the council, on February 1, I think we had the opportunity to advance that particular issue. Last Friday, I should say, through the incredible work of our team of people in New York, they were able to gain a full agreement by all members of the council, including the more permanent ones, that we would have a day-long session on the human security agenda, particularly focusing on the problem of civilian casualties in conflict. It would look at the problem of child soldiers, of which there are now close to half a million around the world. One only has to recognize that in the rebel armies of Sierra Leone, half the army is now composed of children under the age of 15. As someone said, the most dangerous, most potent weapon today is a young, adolescent male with an AK-47. They kill far more people than any mass weapon of destruction or anything that we saw in the Cold War. That's the killing machine of today's world, and that is the kind of issue we want the Security Council to begin to face.

• 1600

We also looked at the increasing casualties amongst humanitarian aid workers. Far more aid and humanitarian workers are injured or killed in the line of duty than are peacekeepers or soldiers in today's world. That also has been a fundamental change in the way the world works.

Third, we wanted to look at an issue that has been a subject of some debate in Canada, and that is what the responsibility of peacekeepers is in the protection of civilians in areas of their mandate and jurisdiction. Again, we've put that on the table.

I would also like to report to you that in that council a couple interesting precedents were set. For the first time ever in the history of the United Nations, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross was given the opportunity to speak in order to bring to bear the incredible experience the international Red Cross has developed over the years in dealing with the problems of civilians in conflict. The Red Cross was allowed to give expression, along with Carol Bellamy, the president of UNICEF, and Olara Otunnu, the special representative to the secretary general on child soldiers. These people were given an opportunity to appear before the Security Council, the fundamental decision-making body, in order to bring their points to bear. I think this was also a very important step forward in advancing, in a sense, a new partnership between the council and some of the major new international organizations that are dealing with this problem of human security conflicts that we are now seeing.

It was also gratifying to receive the support of so many members around the Security Council. There was a consensus of all members of the council to support a presidential statement that outlines the risks being pursued and the basic protections that should be administered, and to ask the secretary general to come back within six months with a report on concrete and pragmatic recommendations on how to come to grips with the three issues I just mentioned. We will then be in a position to determine how we can advance that file in providing a high level of protection for civilians, children, and aid workers during that period of time. More importantly, I think it was an opportunity for the council to address it.

To give you one example of the dynamics that we've already received requests on as president of the council, we've been asked to have another session on the matter in a week's time in order to invite other members of the UN family to come together to give their points of view. We're now working to see if we can find a fuller briefing on this issue. This has generated a fair degree of activity in this matter.

In addition to these broad thematics, we're trying to apply those same lessons to a series of very specific issues that we must face in the council. As we talked about, under our presidency there will be four renewals of peacekeeping missions: in Western Sahara, the former Yugoslavian republic of Macedonia, the Central African Republic, and Angola. As a council member, we have also sponsored specific initiatives dealing with Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Burundi. These are areas in which we're now engaged in trying to get council attention paid to these matters.

In conclusion, Chairman, let me give you an example of some of the more interesting pressures being faced by the council in the weeks ahead. The first is Iraq, which has been a matter of debate in this committee and in Parliament. After the bombings that took place, the key question was what to do. The UNSCOM was no longer able to provide inspection services. In fact, it had been asked to leave. There was a question of the renewal of sanctions in Iraq, and things were at a stalemate. I think it's fair to say that the Canadian initiative to break that log-jam, to develop a series of proposals on three basic panels—the Kuwaiti prisoners, the humanitarian impact of sanctions, and the disarmament issues—has allowed us to move the dossier forward. We have been able to break the impasse that was there and have gained the agreement of all members of the council on a process that will lead to having a serious discussion on what goes on and what takes place in Iraq.

• 1605

On Friday afternoon when we were at the council, Ambassador Celso Amorim, who is the Brazilian permanent rep who will act as chair of the process, announced the names of the panels, and their recommendations will be coming to the council in the middle of April. By that time we hope to have been able to use that panel process as a way of trying to develop a series of agreements on where to go next with the problem of Iraq.

In Kosovo—and I think we'll have an opportunity to discuss that tonight—we did succeed in having the council issue a presidential statement on January 29 supporting the political process that is now underway and demanding the compliance of the FRY and the Kosovo Albanians with a number of the basic strictures that were put forward, particularly those relating to the International Criminal Court and the accommodations that would be required for the withdrawal of Serbians and others. I want to tell you that we strongly support the primacy of the council and will continue to press for the strongest possible Security Council engagement in Kosovo.

The dilemma we face—and I have had discussions with individual members of the committee—is that in the past there has been a stalemate through the use of the veto. Certain countries have either used the veto or threatened to use the veto in order to have the Security Council not take action. The difficulty is what to do if in fact the Security Council becomes immobilized in the face of humanitarian disaster, which is what we are seeing.

We are certainly hopeful that the diplomatic negotiations now underway will result in the implementation of a peace agreement. As members of Parliament, we'll have an opportunity to discuss that tonight in terms of Canada's specific role. But I also want to underline that we would want to see any agreement endorsed by the Security Council so that it has the full mandate of the charter in this case.

In the case of Angola, I think the downing of the UN aircraft over united territory and the global lack of cooperation has really led now to a spreading series of conflicts that are not resulting in full war but getting close to it. We are the chair of the Angola sanctions committee. We're right in the centre of this issue.

One of the things I want to bring to the committee's attention—and I'll talk about this in relation to Sierra Leone as well—is that one of the reasons the sanctions have not worked in Angola is because they didn't apply to some of the economic private sector players, people who were dealing in arms and in diamonds, people who I would call the merchants of conflict, those who were making a profit out of acquiring certain leases or franchises in return for which large amounts of money would be paid.

It has been estimated that the rebel group in Angola, for example, spent close to $300 million on the acquisition of small arms over the last couple of years, fueled mainly by the control over certain diamond fields that are under their territorial direction. One has to ask, who is paying that money, and should they not also be held accountable for the actions that are taking place in terms of the disruption of peace and stability and the massacres that go on?

So as the chair of the Angola sanctions committee, it's our intention, first, to have our ambassador visit Angola; and second, to begin a major investigation of the involvement of these other players to see how we can begin to hold them accountable under a sanctions regime so that they begin to be held responsible for the tragedy.

The same holds true in Sierra Leone. This is a tragedy beyond belief. I visited West Africa three weeks ago, and I spent time talking to not only the governments there but also many of the NGOs involved. For those who downplay human security, let me tell you what it means. It means that a month ago in Freetown, Sierra Leone, a human wall of women and children was put forward as a shield, and as a result, the Nigerian soldiers were reluctant to shoot at them, because they were faced with that kind of human security tragedy. That is the kind of conflict we now deal with.

As a result, in Sierra Leone for months they haven't been able to clear the bodies from the streets or restore any form of stability or rationality, and yet a large part of the international community has ignored that conflict. Now that to me is something that deserves and requires serious attention by the council and those of us who are on it in order to try to mobilize the rest of the international community to come to grips with the horrific atrocities that are taking place and also to hold people accountable again. Ultimately, as you know, through our work in the International Criminal Court, we hope to have a regime in this world where individuals are held accountable for their actions. That's the whole point of the court, and that's also part of the agenda, so that ultimately people can't evade their responsibilities.

I would suggest, if I could, Mr. Chairman—it's not my business to suggest committee business all the time—that if one looks at Sierra Leone, Angola, Ethiopia, Eritrea, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, and so on, in terms of the entropy that's going on in Africa, it might be a very important and worthwhile exercise for this committee to take a careful look at what's taking place and to examine the new factors and features in these areas. That way, you could help to give us some guidance and some judgment as to how we as Canadians should respond, what's in our interest in terms of response, and how we can also use our position on the Security Council.

• 1610

I was in Ghana, for example. I engaged in a pretty active dialogue with a number of NGOs and government people one morning. It was one of the most fascinating experiences I've had. There was one young man who had been head of an NGO but had also been a law professor at the university there. He gave one of the most vivid descriptions of the warlord phenomenon, really describing this as the new political fact of life in Africa, the emergence of these individuals. They cluster around them certain mercenaries, buy small arms, get control of certain territories, sell the mineral rights or the oil rights of that territory, and then use their power as a way of developing probably the worst kind of victimization of people you've ever seen in your life. That's what is going on in that continent.

Does something like that affect us? I certainly believe it does. I think it might be something this committee might very well approach. In my view, there's no doubt that in the next two years, that will be a major area of focus, a major area of concern. It will be one that will have a huge impact on all of us around the world.

If I could, then, I would leave it to your good judgment as to whether or not this committee eventually would like to consider how it could become actively engaged in such matters.

So, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, that gives you a little bit of an overview of what's going on in the council right now. We may want to come back in a couple of months, because I'm sure issues will have shifted by that time. There's no ability to predict exactly what will emerge along the way, but I think you can see that for us as Canadians it carries with it a very significant responsibility.

We are one of 15 members who now have a day-by-day responsibility for the next two years in terms of helping to make judgments on a number of the most crucial conflicts affecting this world. If we can bring to bear an approach that we put forward as part of our election campaign, I hope we can make it a little bit better than it was before.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Minister.

We won't impute any motives to your desire to see the committee disappear into Angola for a few months—or certain members thereof, perhaps? I can think of a few warlords who might want to have long conversations with various members.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Why was he looking at me?

The Chairman: Mr. Mills, you're on.

Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you very much for appearing before us, Mr. Minister. I have several questions that I'll put, so I'll ask you to be brief in answering them, if you could. That way, everyone will have a chance.

First of all, you talk a lot about our vital natural interests. I take those vital national interests to be the things that Canadians would live or die for. Obviously, as you travel around the world, you talk about these things. I'd like to know what your definition of those national interests is.

Secondly, in promoting human security and soft power the way we have, I wonder how that is going to help us to improve our position in the world. I believe we have lost some of our credibility over the years. We're not at the table discussing Kosovo. We're not even consulted about what happens with Iraq. We seem to be on the back burner on an awful lot of issues. I wonder if this will really help us to get there. We do 85% of our foreign trade with the Americans and 40% of our jobs come from that source. I wonder what they think of our soft power, of our human security issues.

Along with that, I would also like to know how the U.S., Britain, and France view our push on the nuclear issue and what your hope is in terms of having them come onside with that. It's easy to get the German Greens, but can we in fact get the other nuclear powers onside?

• 1615

Finally, I'd like to know how you're going to get some of these people to the International Court. How are you going to get the Milosevics and the Kosovars who are presently committing some pretty horrendous acts? How do you get the Cambodians and the other people who don't want to be part of an international court? It's fine for all the good guys to say, we'll sign up, but what about all the others who don't seem to be willing to participate?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Mills, you gave quite an interesting list of questions, and I would welcome the opportunity to have a more extensive chance to answer you. However, let me just give you quick, shorthand answers to those questions.

First, when I describe security interests, I basically mean the security of Canadians. That security is one that allows Canadians to exercise their freedoms, to make choices for themselves about how they want to live, and also to do so in a way that ensures that we can help develop a world system in which a rule of law applies. As I said in my opening statement, that has changed over the years. “Security interests” no longer simply means ensuring that we have a fireproof house with insulated borders. We don't live in a world like that anymore. I know some people think we do, but we don't.

The fact is that there are threats that we face as Canadians. We travel more than virtually any other group of people in the world. We are inveterate travellers—business, students, tourists. As much as we can record them, there are something like 15 million overseas visits a year by Canadians, and that means Canadians are vulnerable. If there's a terrorist attack, they're the ones who pay the price. I can recall that, within the first three months of my tenure as a foreign minister, we dealt with a Canadian being killed in Chechnya, a businessman being exploded over Mozambique, and a young woman murdered by a bomb in Paris. So to the extent that we can put some new rules in place to limit terrorism, to limit international crime, to limit drug trafficking, to provide high levels of security, we can protect Canadians not only in our own domestic situation, but as international players, because that's so much a part of how we make our living and how we establish our identity. We're no longer encompassed within just our own continent.

As you properly pointed out, a large part of our economic growth is generated by our trade. That means we have to be around the world actively pursuing those matters. If we're going to do that, if we're going to be asking Canadians to be visiting the Caucasus, Bolivia, or wherever the case may be, we want to make sure they're safe when they go there, as safe as we can possibly make them. That's at a very high level of priority.

It also means we want to protect Canadians at home. If 60% of the heroin that arrives on the streets of Vancouver comes from the golden triangle, you're not going to stop it by trying to put some kind of barrier up in the port of Vancouver. You're going to have to come to grips with the facts: first, that there is drug trafficking of a highly sophisticated, powerful, rich nature; and second, that you have to get at a cooperative way of dealing with drug problems.

We have engaged actively now in a new drug dialogue in the hemisphere, because the drug programs weren't working that well. One reason for that was the fact that they weren't multilateral. There was a series of unilateral or bilateral arrangements on trying to come to grips with drug trafficking in our own hemisphere. So we've now started this initiative. I launched it in early January—Madame Augustine was with me when I did that—and we now have a large-scale agreement. I think we'll be meeting with the Mexicans beginning tonight. A number of the countries of the hemisphere are signing on as a way of coming to grips with the drug problems so that we can begin to deal with them in our own area. That's how we protect our interests: by becoming international.

We have to be actively engaged in the world so that we can set rules, can put in place machinery, can develop practices to protect everybody. Ultimately, we can do that by stopping conflicts, by helping to restrain conflicts. It has been pointed out to me that one of the consequences of not paying a lot of attention to some of the major conflicts that erupted in Africa ten years ago was that the cost to Canada for refugee movements and humanitarian aid is over $1 billion. I would rather spend one-tenth of that on stopping the conflict, on having peacekeepers there, on doing peacebuilding activities, on engaging in a way of restraining the conflict, first, because you're saving lives, and second, because you're ultimately protecting the Canadian interest by doing that. I think those are the kinds of trade-offs we have to recognize.

As for this question of a human security agenda, I think it has created a lot of interest. I've had numerous calls from foreign ministers who want to talk to me about it. We've had engagements with Secretary of State Albright, with the Russian foreign minister, and with the British foreign minister. Mr. Védrine was going to be here on the weekend, but he's now going to stay in Paris to see if he can get a deal going. We have had major exchanges.

• 1620

What's interesting, Mr. Chairman, as I think I've pointed out to the committee, is there's now a group of countries around the world who have shared what we now call a human security agenda called the Lysoen Declaration. These are groups of very respectable countries—Norway, Sweden, Austria, South Africa, and others—who are all now buying in and saying, look, we're not great powers, we don't want to pretend we can muscle in, but there is something distinctive, useful, and effective that we can do to start pursuing the protection of children, limits on small-arms trafficking, and do something about drug problems. Those are the areas we're working on.

How are we going to get a listing? I suppose the example was that last Friday, the Security Council—the five permanent members—agreed with holding the debate, agreed with the presidential statement, and agreed that the secretary general should come back with a report on how we deal with human security issues.

If they had disagreed, then I suppose they could have said no. They could have used their veto. But they didn't; they agreed. And it is a learning process. I'm not saying everybody is going to buy in. Some people get upset, of course. You don't make changes, Mr. Mills, if you don't move the ball. If you simply stay in the corner and cover up, you're never going to get anywhere. I think that's what as Canadians we're trying to do. We're trying to move the agenda forward in what we consider to be our own enlightened self-interest—in areas in which we have what I believe are competence, experience, and the resources to do it.

I think living as Canadians we've learned how to work out our problems, how to accommodate, how to negotiate, how to deal with these issues. That to me is a distinctive quality we should be building on from the legacy of our previous generations. I think it's one that has a lot of competence.

In regard to what they think about it, I just read an interesting article in Time Magazine by Joseph Nye, who is the American Harvard scholar who described soft power, and he said Canada is now punching above its weight. I guess that's a pretty good description of what we're doing, Mr. Mills.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: First of all, I want to take this opportunity to publicly congratulate the Minister for managing to secure a seat for Canada on the Security Council. I have congratulated him on a previous occasion, and would like to do so again here today. Capturing 70 per cent of the votes is a noteworthy accomplishment indeed and lends credibility to your mandate for the next two years.

I would also like to congratulate you for surrounding yourself on the job with women, taking your cue from the Secretary General who I believe is also assisted by a Canadian, a Quebecker. This is much to your credit. Unlike the Reform Party, we do not hold to the belief that...

[English]

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: That's part of soft power, Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: ...good guys and bad guys. That's unfortunate, Mr. Mills, but I tend to agree with Mr. Axworthy's view of foreign policy and with the fact that, in the minister's own words, we must not downplay human security. On the contrary, I think this is an issue that should be debated. That's what you are proposing we do and clearly, there are people who agree with you. Following Canada's term as SC president, perhaps the Security Council will be seen as a humane council, where consideration for people will have greater significance than in years past.

On that note, I have a few questions for you, including some about the situation in Kosovo. Earlier, you stated that the United Nations and the Security Council

[English]

turned to other people, other organizations.

[Translation]

One possibility is that the UN will pull out this weekend and appeal, either directly or indirectly, to NATO. As a member of the Security Council, would you like this matter to be put to the UN General Assembly in the form of a resolution? I'm sure you're familiar with the Acheson resolution which gives the General Assembly the power to consider dispute settlement and international peacekeeping and security issues. My concern is that even though time is a factor, the Security Council and the UN will be weakened by NATO's intervention.

• 1625

As for Iraq, another hot spot, I have a very simple question for you. Eight years of sanctions have had little effect on Iraq. How long must these economic sanctions remain in place before more aggressive alternatives are considered in order to make Iraq see the light?

I will put my third question in my capacity as a student of international law. I often carry around the UN Charter with me. Article 35 in Chapter VI reads as follows:

Any Member of the United Nations may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly.

This provision deals with peacekeeping and national security.

Could this provision be invoked to draw the Security Council's attention to the situation in Burma? If there is one state that is threatening the security of its citizens, it's Burma. You mentioned several other countries in your presentation, but not Burma. In my view, Burma poses the most serious threat in terms of the security of its citizens and those of neighbouring countries. You mentioned the drug trafficking problem. Burma is central to the drug trafficking problem affecting Canada.

My final question concerns a recent editorial by Jocelyn Coulon, who could soon become your adviser. Mr. Coulon suggested that it might be a good idea to increase the size of the Security Council from 15 to 20 members. Is this something you would like to consider? Is it possible to democratize and expand the Security Council?

[English]

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: First, the question you raised about Kosovo has been a dilemma. It really has been a bit of a defining moment internationally, because the community was faced with the harsh reality that innocent people were being killed, massacred in cases, but because of the positioning of the permanent members of the council, direct action was not possible. Various resolutions have been passed, but nothing specifically authorizing direct action. The call that had to be made—and as you will recall, we debated this last October and there were unanimous conclusions of Parliament—is that taking into account that dilemma, Canada should still be prepared to act to preserve humanitarian objectives. I think we still work on the basis of that parliamentary declaration of that time.

Since becoming members of the council, we have attempted to get more actively engaged in Kosovo. So when the massacre took place in the early part of this year, I think we were very much a part of ensuring the matter came to the council, to ask for briefings by the secretary general, and under the Brazilian presidency we were able to get a presidential statement at the end of January endorsing the position put forward by the NATO council. We would also certainly want to pursue whatever results come out of this weekend. We'll all wait to see what happens.

But as I said in my statement, we think the Security Council must be engaged in that and must provide an involvement. Again, I don't want to say that as president we have full authority, because you can only set an agenda with the agreement of the other members. But we'll certainly take the initiative in doing so.

• 1630

On your question about the role of the General Assembly, we've talked about that once and I've asked...to do some thinking about it. I think it could be used in certain circumstances. The only difficulty is that the council itself, under articles 6 and 7, has the exclusive authority to authorize intervention. So the assembly can pass a resolution that could be transmitted to the council, but ultimately the decision gets back to the council in any event.

Mr. Daniel Turp: If there's a stalemate, it can be brought to the assembly.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I've asked for some legal interpretation; I haven't received it yet. But as soon as we get that, we'll have a further discussion on that matter, if we could.

On the question of Iraq and the sanctions, that was certainly one of the major objectives in the Canadian proposal for setting up the panels. There is a specific panel dealing with sanctions, and the terms of reference of that panel are to accumulate all the different evidence. There are those who say there is humanitarian suffering, but it's caused because the Iraqi government is simply stockpiling what comes in. There are others saying the problem is the reduced infrastructure. There are three or four different sets of reports and assessments that have been made.

What we hope to achieve through this procedure is to have a committee of the council, the panels of the council, report, and that would then determine exactly what the state and conditions are. That's the basis for them moving on a rethink of how the sanctions policy should be applied. As you know, I have said, on behalf of the government, that we think there needs to be a rethink of sanctions activities.

Personally, I would like to see a much more direct involvement of UN agencies in Iraq itself, so that part of the delivery of goods and services wouldn't be subject to third-party intermediaries, but could be directly delivered. That's simply one idea, and it's an idea we've put forward. But I do think the panel system will give us the opportunity to do that.

On the question of Burma, for your information, maybe you'd be interested in knowing that over the past two weeks we have had a team of people from our embassy in Burma doing not only just the normal rounds in Rangoon, but actively examining the conditions in the countryside. I can tell you the reports are pretty appalling.

The country is deteriorating dramatically in terms of its fundamental living conditions. The military regime has no interest in the welfare of its own citizens. The economy of the country is really coming apart. There's no question that drug trafficking is on the increase, and while no one has any proof of the situation, there's a connection between what's happening in terms of the regime of Burma and the drug trafficking itself.

Will it become an issue? There is a group of nations—there are eight of us—that came together at the last ASEAN meetings to deal with the question of Burma. We've stayed in touch.

One of the reasons I must leave by 5 o'clock is that I'll be having a discussion with Alex Downer, the Australian foreign minister. This is one of the topics on our agenda, to talk about what we do, because in part, the Australians in that region have taken a watching brief on that. The problem with the ASEAN is that because of the disruptions in their own membership they haven't been able to focus on it.

Will it become a matter before the Security Council? That's possible. I think the United Nations secretary general does have a special representative for Burma who has been attempting to gain access to get some reports. I think along the way we can determine whether there's some result, but first I want to digest the reports from our own officials, who have just finished that tour of duty in Burma—assess them and do some consultation on it. Then we'll see how we would take further action on that.

The Chairman: I'm going to stop you there, because it's well over the 10-minute time, and since you've now said you're leaving at 5 o'clock, we have some 25 minutes left and a long list. I'm going to go next to Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Robinson, if you could keep it to about eight minutes, then we'll...

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I'm sorry, it was a very long comment.

The Chairman: No, I appreciate that, and please don't take my interruption as a criticism in any way. I'm just trying to make sure more members get a chance to get in. Thank you.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome the minister before the committee, and I will follow up on the practice of my predecessors and put my questions directly to the minister.

• 1635

I agree with Mr. Turp that the human security agenda is a good one and that Canada is playing an important leadership role in putting human security front and centre on the international political and economic agenda. The questions I raise flow from that concern for human security and some concern that in some areas we could be more vigorous in our pursuit of that security.

I have questions in four areas. I'll put them briefly and then perhaps the minister could respond.

I just came from a demonstration by a group of people who are feeling a great deal of anger and anguish and pain as a result of the arrest of Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the PKK. The Kurdish people—and the minister is well aware of this—have suffered for a long time. The situation in Turkey in particular is devastating. Leyla Zana, a democratically elected member of Parliament, is in prison. The Turkish government is now in the process of shutting down Hadep, one of the legal parties. People have been tortured and murdered and villages destroyed.

I want to ask the minister for his assurance that Canada will speak out with respect to the importance of an open and fair trial for Ocalan, as well as ensuring he is not tortured. The minister is no doubt aware that the UN special rapporteur on torture has voiced his concern about this and has suggested an independent monitor. Mr. Ocalan has been denied access to his own lawyers.

I want to appeal to the minister to take a strong stand on this and suggest he send a Canadian delegation to perhaps monitor what is happening with respect to this very serious matter. It is not just the Kurdish community in Canada that is concerned; I think people around the world, given Turkey's appalling human rights record, have every reason to be concerned.

The second issue is with respect to East Timor and the human security agenda. The minister spoke eloquently on Friday at the UN Security Council about the impact of armed conflict, particularly on civilians, and what better place to illustrate that more tragically than East Timor. I have two questions for the minister with respect to East Timor. Is the Canadian government actively supporting the suggestion by Jose Ramo Horta and others of a UN presence in East Timor, particularly a transitional presence to assist in transition?

Secondly, is the Canadian government finally prepared to speak out in support of self-determination, explicitly for the people of East Timor? The United States Congress has taken that step, and a number of countries. Raymond Chan took it very briefly before this committee and then there was a clarification. But I'm asking the minister, and it's a serious question, if he will indicate whether we support self-determination.

Third, on human security, there can be no more fundamental threat to security than poverty, homelessness, and hunger. Canada's foreign aid levels are at a 30-year low and it's frankly shameful. The recent budget promised $50 million more. It's a drop in the bucket, and we're now down to about .2% of GDP. I want to ask the minister whether the government is prepared to set targets and timetables for moving up toward a more respectable level of foreign aid, as the CCIC and others have suggested.

Finally, what about no first use? The minister has said this is an issue that should be on the agenda of NATO at its April meeting, but to this point he hasn't indicated what his position is. What is Canada's position? Does the minister support the call by Joschka Fischer and others for NATO to adopt a no-first-use policy?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Once again, we have an easy set of questions.

First let me deal with the Kurdish situation Mr. Robinson raised. I thank him for his opening comments, by the way. We certainly agree fully with the position that there must be a fair, open trial. I've already expressed that. My own feeling is that I might speak directly to Foreign Minister Chan about our concerns being expressed in this area. As you know, we have done this in the past. I raised the issue of the imprisonment of the Kurdish member of Parliament and was told it was under the European courts at that time. We have followed up since then and have our ambassador there pursuing that matter on an active basis.

• 1640

The problem that occurs is not just in one country, by the way; it's in four countries, and that's the real difficulty. While there is the fundamental question of territorial integrity, the abuse of rights is clearly an issue that has been consistent and unacceptable over the years, and I hope we will be able to find some resolution of this matter. The capture may force the issue more directly, and it has opened it up for a serious international look. Sometimes you need a calamity or a serious event to sort of generate or mobilize points of view in these areas. So we will see what happens.

I do want to make the case, however, that we do not condone the use of terrorism. There are many groups that have rightful causes, but to use terrorist activities to achieve them is not the solution.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I asked about a Canadian presence.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Let me speak to the foreign minister first and see what we might do. We'll follow this day by day, and I'll be very happy to stay in touch with members of Parliament on this one.

On the question of East Timor, I ask the indulgence of the committee to give me a little more time, mainly because I've asked our ambassador for Indonesia to come back. He will be seeing me tomorrow, when we will be discussing a number of developments that have taken place in Indonesia and East Timor. I hope we'll be able to make some statement soon after that.

We have been looking very actively... Of course, we do support the need for a UN presence there—we've always said that—but with the developments that are taking place and the discussions between the Portuguese and the Indonesian foreign ministers, I've been consulting with some of my counterparts in this matter. That's one reason we've asked Mr. Sunquist to join us, and we're going to have a further discussion in the next day or two.

On the question of foreign aid, if you look at it in perspective, this is the second year in which there have been increases. We hit rock-bottom two years ago. We had an increase last year of $90 million. In this budget there is a one-time advance of $187 million because the finance department feels there is some extra money this year. They are going to prepay a number of our international financial institutional commitments this year, which in effect finds another $187 million for CIDA to use. On top of that, the A-base is increased by $50 million in this coming fiscal year and $75 million after that, and frankly we will continue to push for more. We now have two years of modest increases, but it's a beginning, it's going in the right direction, and we'll certainly pursue it.

I would make the case as well that in addition to simply measuring this in financial terms, we have to recognize again, going back to human security issues, that the range of tasks we're being asked to provide has now substantially broadened.

As you know, we now have a joint program between my department and CIDA on peacebuilding. In addition to the traditional development-style projects, we now engage in a variety of initiatives dealing with helping to train police, set up court systems, set up civic administration, set up truth commissions in Guatemala, and provide support for conflict resolution activities to start rebuilding the capacity of countries—in perhaps a more constructive or salutary way—that have gone through conflict and have had that capacity eroded.

Increasingly, beyond the traditional development objectives, we're now into a peacebuilding objective. So CIDA, in their initiatives, in company with ourselves, are broadening out their scope of activities to serve these matters, and I think becoming very good at it.

Finally, on the question of a no first use, I'm really in the midst, along with other colleagues of the government, of preparing a report in response to this committee's report. I think that has to be a government report, and we will make our views known at the appropriate time.

We have raised the issue already, at the NATO council meetings just before Christmas, of the need for NATO to look at its nuclear policy. We're pursuing that actively, along with certain other NATO countries. We had the opportunity to raise it with Secretary General Solana just last week. We're hoping, as we move toward the Washington Summit, there will be an acknowledgement that the nuclear policy in NATO has to be reviewed. What will be in it I can't tell you because that's up to 15 other countries, but I can tell you, Mr. Robinson, that it's one of the files in which I'm particularly interested.

The Chairman: Thank you, minister.

Monsieur Bachand.

• 1645

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): I realize the Minister has to leave soon, so I will confine myself to two brief questions. That will give my government colleagues a chance to get some questions in as well. Isn't that accommodating of me?

The Chairman: Very accommodating.

Mr. André Bachand: I'm very pleased to welcome you to our committee today.

No doubt it is hard for a minister to know everything that's going on in the world, but there is one area of the world that unfortunately we don't hear a great deal about, namely North Korea. It's a very isolated country. Any loss of human life is significant, including the massacre of 25 or 30 people in Kosovo. However, according to some reports, three million Koreans, out of a total population of 20 million, have died because of a famine sweeping the country. Even accounting for a certain margin of error, these figures are extremely alarming. The British Parliament debated this matter several weeks ago. What is Canada doing to help North Koreans who are dying by the thousands every day?

You touched on a human security strategy. What steps can the World Court take to safeguard human rights in cases like this? What can the Court do to help the people of North Korea? That's my first question.

My second question concerns Kosovo. You talked about the various veto rights at the UN and on the Security Council and about the possibility of UN intervention in Kosovo. What is Canada's position on the subject? I ask the question because mention has also been made of the UN's financial problems. Some countries, including the United States, are in arrears. Wouldn't UN-sponsored intervention in Kosovo merely lend further credence to the decision on the part of certain UN member countries not to pay their dues? If, increasingly, the tendency is not to deal with an organization, what power do these countries have to ensure that countries, for example the United States, pay their dues?

[English]

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Bachand, I'm not sure I can give you a comprehensive answer on North Korea because it is very much a closed society. We do not have diplomatic relations there. We have had a number of contacts through some of the Canadian NGOs working in North Korea, particularly groups like the Mennonite Central Committee. I've met with them directly and we have worked with them on increasing humanitarian food aid. That's something we have developed over the past year.

One area that last summer appeared to be promising was that President Kim, the new president of South Korea, did start some initiatives to start a dialogue, start an engagement, with his northern neighbour. I was in Korea at the time it was taking place and met with him and I was very impressed by his ambition to do this. He had organized a series of food and humanitarian missions.

But since that time, as you know, the wall has come down again, and what's been of particular concern is the recent testing of ballistic missiles in Korea. That creates a very significant security problem in that area.

I think the reports that appeared a week or so ago, particularly as they related to whether a North Korean missile could reach Montreal, were a little overblown—let me put it that way. The fact that they have missile testing is certainly much more of a real concern to Japan and some of its closest neighbours. The problem we have in that part of Asia is there is no security organization. There is no collective security organization. The ASEAN is a group that works by consensus, and up to now they've had very limited work on Korea.

Our involvement up until now has been that we're contributing members to KEDO, which is to help convince the North Koreans not to engage in the development of nuclear weapons, to provide peaceful uses of nuclear power, and that's been an ongoing commitment we've had. But I'd have to say, at this point in time, it's very difficult to get a handle on that. If you like, I will have a report prepared for you by the department to give you an assessment of that.

• 1650

On Kosovo, and this may help in the debate tonight, perhaps I can use the answer to provide two answers. One, the proposed plan is if there isn't agreement between the Kosovars and the Serbs under the conditions set out in the contact group in the NATO council meetings, there would have to be, I think, some form of peacekeeping entity group. It would be sponsored by NATO but not exclusively so.

As you know, for example, in Bosnia there are a number of non-NATO countries that participate in SFOR, including countries from eastern Europe and other areas. It would certainly be the hope that such would be the case if a force needs to be implemented as part of the peace agreement in Kosovo. So while NATO provides the basic infrastructure and the command structure and NATO members are expected to contribute simply because they're NATO members, it would not be exclusive to NATO members.

The role of the United Nations in this case, if there were such an agreement—and I'm just making the hypothesis—would be, as they did with the SFOR, to mandate that to the United Nations itself, without having direct UN command and control.

I think you're partly right. In many cases it's not capable of doing that right now.

As I think I have mentioned in the committee before, one of the real downsides of the arrears problem is this. Let me put it this way. It's not money that's owed to the United Nations. The United Nations has to borrow money from its peacekeeping fund, which means it doesn't pay for its own peacekeeping. So because of the arrears, countries like Fiji, Bangladesh, and Canada are not paid for the peacekeeping we do because certain other countries won't pay their bills. That's the problem right there.

As a result, there's a certain reluctance to get involved in peacekeeping, particularly if you're a poor country like Bangladesh, which provides highly professional peacekeeping forces but they never get paid for it because the money has to be taken from the peacekeeping fund to pay the operational bills. That's the real problem.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I recognize that the minister doesn't have much time. I don't even know if I'm going to ask you a question because most of the questions I was concerned about I think have been asked. Notwithstanding that, I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, it was with a great deal of pleasure that I heard Mr. Turp's and Mr. Robinson's and Mr. Bachand's observations about the work of the minister and of Canada.

In the 15 years I've been in this House and attending foreign affairs ministers' meetings, I have never been to one where a minister walks in, as our minister has done today, without being surrounded by one million staff people, mostly men, and 16 briefing statements in front of him.

We are such a privileged country to have Mr. Axworthy as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and I mean this from the depth of my heart.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: That's my first observation.

The second thing I want to observe is that members around this table and in the House of Commons can share a degree of pride because the minister truly believes in transparency and openness and consultation with the NGOs.

I don't know how may of you have been on parliamentary trips overseas with the Interparliamentary Union or the NATO group or OSCE or the Council of Europe. The minister has helped us put Canada forward with the values that we represent when we go as spokesmen and spokespeople for Canada. I think when we get a 70% to 75% vote at the United Nations, it's not just the country; it is the people who represent the country, and in particular our minister.

I thank you for allowing us to play the role of being a transparent and open and cooperative people, which we reflect when we go, and whether we are with our colleagues who believe in the separation of Canada or the colleagues who have a different political perspective on the political spectrum from the right or the left, everyone has cooperated, Mr. Chairman.

I want the minutes to show this, that when you travelled overseas with these groups they helped explain why Canada should win that Security Council seat. They helped on the land mines right across the world. Not only were the minister's staff and our embassies doing that, but we were doing it as members of Parliament. That speaks for Canada, and it speaks for the vision of this minister, who believes that each and every one of us should be involved, irrespective of political affiliations.

• 1655

Last, but not least, I'd like to say to you, Bob Mills, that I have the sense that you didn't write this. There are a few words in here that I don't think any parliamentarian would normally ever use, either in daily discourse or in writing an article, such as “antipodean presence”. I don't think our Australian friends would like that very much.

Mr. Bob Mills: Do you even know what it means?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Further to that, I suggest that after hearing the report that was just read and given to us on our position, on the whole question of humanitarian concerns, you might want to revisit what you had to say and perhaps listen to Professor Nye, who says we're punching above our weight. I think you have tried to punch below our weight, and I suggest that you raise your sights.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Well, Minister, do you—

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.): What was the question?

The Chairman: There are still seven minutes of the time left. I'll turn to Mr. Assadourian if he has a question.

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

Mr. Minister, I'll make it short. I have two questions.

First, can you tell us about the reaction you received at the UN about our proposal for panel discussions on or a panel study of the situation in Iraq?

Secondly, you mentioned the situation around human atrocities in Africa. Mr. Minister, maybe 95% of the people in Canada don't know the countries you mentioned. They can't even point to them on a map. The media don't do us a good service in this regard either when it comes to speaking about these issues, because those countries are very small and have no economic value for us or for the west. If CNN is not there, nobody will know about it. What can we as a nation, as a government, as parliamentarians, do to promote these issues, rather than waiting for what my colleague Robinson said about what happened to Kurdish populations in the last two or three days? We have to see people burning themselves up to bring the issue into focus.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: On the first question, Sarkis, I think the panel thing was welcomed simply because it provided a way out of a stalemate. I don't pretend that it's a final solution by any means, but the thing had really become immobilized. Nothing was happening. As a result, things were going on in the Middle East, in Iraq, and there was no capacity for the UN or anybody else to do anything. It was stuck. I think we were able to move it and unplug the jam, but that doesn't mean there is a resolution to it as of yet.

As I pointed out in answering the question related to sanctions, this does give us a serious opportunity to go through all the evidence in a broad way. We can then come out with a definitive assessment as to the impact of sanctions and what can be done to ensure that the humanitarian impact is preserved or enhanced, frankly. There are concerns there.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: What about the American reaction? Are they cooperating?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: They are cooperating very well. As I said, the panels were adjusted, and it has been quite interesting. I don't want to get into discussions that we've had with other ministers, but the reaction I received from a number of the ministers deeply involved in that issue was one saying it was important to them in order to show that some progress is being made. We now have to build upon that.

We'll get the panel reports in April, and I think it's going to be very vital that we move in the next several months. The next real marker is the renewal of sanctions against Iraq six months from now. That renewal is coming up automatically at the end of this month, but I don't think we can do much because the panel hasn't reported yet. Once the panel reports, the UN has to then put in place what we will do following up on that.

In terms of Africa itself, I think it would be fair to say that Canadians do have an interest in Africa. I agree that there are lots of countries whose names we're not familiar with. If you look at the longstanding Canadian involvement in Africa, though, it goes back well into missionary works that have been done and to the active role the previous government played in South Africa. I think a very constructive role was played by members of Parliament.

We've had a real stake in Africa. It's our largest area of foreign aid development. But more importantly, I go back to the debate about the importance of human security. There's a wonderful book on Africa written by a man named John Reader. It says that Africa was the birthplace of humankind. That's where we all got started. But so much else of what happens in Africa affects us as well in terms of environment, in terms of health questions, in terms of human stability. If we allow a continent to come apart, we are going to pay a huge price. There is an incredible price that we will pay as a country in terms of trying to restore something. If it's broken, the cost of fixing it will be an awful lot more than trying to prevent what's going on.

• 1700

That is looking at it from our own self-interest point of view. The broader issue, as I said, is that there are probably more people killed in conflicts in Africa in a week than have been killed in the Balkans in the last year.

As Sheila also points out, we have a direct involvement now in the land mines campaign. We're engaged in developing a major project in Mozambique, as you know. We'll be holding the land mines conference in Maputo in March in order to bring the treaty into international law, because we now have more than enough countries to ratify it and make it international law. So I think we have a real stake in Africa.

It's interesting that there is also some good news for Canadians. It's not inconsequential. We do $1 billion worth of trade with Africa annually, and the potential is very high. There are some incredible developments going on in that area in terms of its redeveloping societies and developing economic activities. I was incredibly encouraged in Nigeria just three weeks ago. There are members around this table who were here when we took a tough stand on Nigeria two and a half years ago. Everybody said it would never work, that we were crazy, that we were showing off. The fact of the matter is that it did work. Nigeria is now changing. There is going to be a presidential election there on February 27.

The welcome we got was tremendous. Some of the high Nigerian government officials said they respect Canada because we've always been consistent in our principles. When they had a military regime that was suppressing their rights, Canada stood up against it, and now that they're trying to make changes, they're happy that Canada is with them again.

Nigeria is a huge country that is a major oil exporter to North America. We now have a chance to make Nigeria a very high priority, and we're doing just that. I reopened our high commission.

So I think there's a really important investment for Canadians to make in those parts of Africa, but it will not happen if we don't show that we're also committed to helping stabilize the situations, solve the conflicts, and deal with the human tragedies that are taking place.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Turp, how are you?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: You haven't addressed my question about reforming the Security Council.

[English]

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Monsieur, I do want to answer, because I think there has been some confusion about that.

We have always supported an expansion of the Security Council to 20 elected members—not permanent members, but elected members. We don't think extending the veto power to new countries is a solution. Part of the problem with the Security Council is the veto. Why would you compound the problem by giving a veto to more countries?

We do think it should be expanded, but that's not a Security Council issue. It's not an issue that's ever debated at the Security Council. Security Council membership is a General Assembly issue. We have been a member of the committee of the General Assembly that deals with it, and we're promoting what you called a 20-member formula, but we're strongly concerned that there are certain formulas floating around that would, in a sense, broaden the privilege.

To give you an example of the favourite ones coming out, it has been proposed that we give new permanent seats to representatives of Japan and Germany, and that we then maybe give one to somebody in South America, Africa, and Asia. Who are you going to give it to in Latin America? Mexico? Brazil? Argentina? They all want it. They all think they should get it. But all of a sudden you're going to have a huge fight over who the new permanent member is, because it endows certain kinds of privileges. Our view is that there should be more representation at the Security Council, but that we should not continue to promote elitism at the Security Council. Let's make it an elected body.

The Chairman: Minister, you're over your time by five minutes, so thank you very much for taking the extra time. We hope we can get you back with us again very soon. We appreciate it very much.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: You're welcome, and thank you for listening to me.

The Chairman: I want to say that you're a wonderful minister, and I hope to be able to visit you soon about the OSCE budget as well.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Members, we still have to approve the budget for our travel for the WTO. We have to approve it or we're not going to get that travel done in March. Please do not leave your place. The meeting is not adjourned, since we have this budget in front of us, members. I hope you can approve it in two minutes.

• 1705

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, where was I on that question list?

The Chairman: You were the next.

Ms. Jean Augustine: I thought I had indicated early.

The Chairman: It was Finestone, Assadourian, Augustine, and Beaumier. That was the list I had.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: We'll take a raincheck.

The Chairman: Absolutely.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Can I ask a question on the budget then?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: When you're looking at the cost of air transportation, are we expected to use our travel points, which would reduce your costs?

The Chairman: No.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: All right.

The Chairman: In fact there's a committee rule.

Mr. Bob Mills: I don't know if Charlie agrees with that or not.

The Chairman: With what?

Mr. Bob Mills: With the budget. I haven't asked him.

The Chairman: Wait a minute. Everybody has agreed that we're going to do this trip as part of the WTO study. So this is the eastern leg of the trip. It has to take place before the end of the fiscal year, which takes place March 31, so we have to approve it today. Then I go to the liaison committee with it and then from there we go to the House. Since it's a travel budget, it will be the liaison committee where John Williams is sitting, and then the House as well.

What I'd like to do is get it through here, have this committee approve it, and then we can move on. I can take it to the liaison committee's budget subcommittee and then we can move up to the House leadership.

By the way, I want to tell members that they should know there is no money at the moment in the House budget at all. We are totally out of money, so I will also have to go to the Speaker to ask him for more funds. I'm going to have to go to the Speaker for other committees as well, because as chairman of the liaison committee I have to go and make a representation to him tomorrow to put some more money in the House account, because we are flat broke for committees. But that doesn't mean we can't approve this today. We've already approved the concept of travel, unless somebody has a problem with the number of people going, things like that, which you will appreciate involves...

Before I recognize Mr. Robinson, I want to point out that we have eleven members travelling rather than nine. We broke into the usual thing, two groups, the way we usually go, nine and nine. That's eighteen of us, half and half. We've put eleven, because the decision was made that the trade subcommittee, which is studying free trade of the Americas, should come on two of the trips, one to Montreal and one to Halifax. We'll save a lot of money by tacking on two additional things, but they're not going to come for the whole trip. They're just coming for part of it.

It will make it a little more complicated, but we'll save money and time by having special hearings on the free trade of the Americas aspect at the same time as we're doing this—but not everywhere, just in Montreal and Halifax.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: You've partly answered one of my questions. I was wondering why so many MPs, frankly. Eleven on each group. The purpose is to hold hearings, and that certainly seems like a fairly significant group. And nine staff? What is the reason for so many?

The Chairman: I'll ask the clerk. The breakdown for the number of staffers is shown on the last page. You can ask the clerk about that.

We obviously have to have a clerk. We obviously have the researchers.

Mr. Svend Robinson: An administrative support officer, an administrative assistant. What is that? Mr. Chairman, why do we need an administrative support officer and an administrative assistant?

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): We have a secretary and and an assistant secretary.

Ms. Jean Augustine: One is to the committee and one is to the chairman. No?

The Chairman: Can we get some clarification?

The Clerk of the Committee: If there are many groups, we need two people, but if there are not so many, I will need only one—one of the two. But it is too soon to say what is going to happen, so it is the maximum and we adjust accordingly.

The Chairman: But the question is, there's the clerk, yourself, and then you're going to end up having two assistants with you on both trips. So in fact that's six people rather than four people, as one would have thought. Your answer is that one of these people may come out if in fact all eleven people don't travel. Is that it?

The Clerk: Yes, and one of them may act as an advance person. So if we have many cities, we have to proceed that way.

• 1710

The Chairman: One of the problems is the fact that we're trying to cover as many cities as we are. If we were staying in one place, there wouldn't be the necessity to have two people.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I understand that. I just thought the clerk plus an assistant could arrange witnesses.

The Chairman: My own personal belief is that we're not going to have eleven members. By the time you shake it down with the whips, Mr. Robinson, with the way the system works, there aren't going to be eleven of us travelling. There will probably more than likely be about seven, and I think this extra person will disappear. That's my personal view. Whenever we do this, we administratively say we have to make the plan that all members of the committee are entitled to travel. Once you sit down to organize, though, some people can't come, some people won't come, etc.

Mr. Turp.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I'd just like to share something that was debated in our caucus this morning. The Standing Committee on Agriculture travelled and had some hearings, some public forums, on the same issues we will be looking at. There could be a serious issue of duplication when it comes to agriculture. I would just like you to take that into account, because some of the people we might want to consult have just been consulted on that same issue: the WTO negotiations and agriculture. I think we should not do something that would show that committees in the House of Commons don't work well and properly, that they don't know what others are doing. I think that should be of concern.

The Chairman: I'm going to ask Gerry to speak about that from the research point of view. From a political point of view, however, I'll first say that I am aware of that. I've spoken to the chairman of the agriculture committee. One of the problems, though, is that the agriculture committee may not be making a formal report on these issues. They held hearings, but there is no report from which we could then... If the agriculture committee was in fact making a report, I would say that we don't have to do that. We would just draw on their report and integrate it with our own.

At the moment, we're trying to work with the agricultural committee on that issue. We're perfectly aware of it, and I agree with you entirely. We certainly don't wish to be in the position, as it were, of just reinventing the wheel and redoing the same thing. It would look bad and it isn't necessary. It would be a waste of time and money.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz (Committee Researcher): Just to add to that, the agriculture committee did have a series of hearings. To my knowledge, they were only in Ottawa and only with a certain number of organizations. There were no individual experts called. I'm pretty sure they did not travel and did not hear from people in cities other than Ottawa.

The Chairman: Mr. Penson is certainly of the view that we have to do the work out west. Since we're also going to be in Quebec, I think the amount of agricultural overlap will minimize itself as much as possible. Of course, there will only be overlap in agriculture, since our mandate obviously is much vaster than that of agriculture. We're going to cover services, culture, and everything else as well, but we are conscious of the agricultural area as an overlap problem.

Mr. Daniel Turp: What's happening to the two other trips? Could you just give us an update on what's happening with them?

The Chairman: We're working on a budget for the second trip, which will be out west but will not take place until after the beginning of April. It will be in the new budget year, so there's not the same crisis in terms of preparing a budget and getting it authorized. At a March meeting, we'll have that budget ready and we'll put it to you. Then, of course, the members of the committee have expressed a wish to go to Geneva to talk to the authorities there, and we'll get a budget ready for that as well. Those were the two trips you were talking about, right?

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes, that's correct.

The Chairman: We do expect to be able to get both of those ready for you. Probably the western trip will be ready in March. We'll get it approved, and we can then move it into the next budget year. Once the researchers are aware of where we're going, we can probably also have the budget provisions for the Geneva trip in early April.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: Yes, I think the idea was perhaps given that one trip would be over to Europe as well. There would be very interesting issues in Brussels, and not only the issue of agricultural subsidies. Obviously, the European Union's position on a whole series of issues will be critical in the next round. There are also a number of committees at the OECD in Paris dealing with the trade negotiating agenda. So I think you could have a very interesting program in about four days. In Geneva, you also have the International Labour Organisation and UNCTAD, so I think there would be no difficulty having a very intense program.

The Chairman: Mr. Pickard.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): I move that we approve the tentative proposal for the eastern trip.

• 1715

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Pickard.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Daniel Turp: Have you prepared a briefing book on the WTO?

[Translation]

Have we already been given a copy?

The Chairman: Yes, it was in a blue folder.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I haven't seen it.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: I can get you another one.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Could I have a copy? I missed the last few meetings because I had to attend some Fishery Committee hearings where I discussed internal law issues. That proved to be quite interesting.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.