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, November 20, 1997

• 0905

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order. Pursuant to Standing Orders 110 and 111, this meeting will examine the order in council appointment of Ms. Mary Clancy as consul general of Canada to at Boston.

The clerk has thoughtfully put before us a copy of the standing orders pursuant to which we'll be having the hearing, a copy of the order in council appointment, and a copy of Ms. Clancy's biography.

Ms. Clancy, welcome to the committee. You don't look like you're suntanned, so we presume you've been spending your time in Boston and not further south in your new posting.

Ms. Mary Clancy (Consul General of Canada to New England): This is true.

The Chairman: Welcome to the committee. I understand that you have a short presentation about your present responsibilities.

Ms. Mary Clancy: I do.

The Chairman: Then we'll move to our usual questioning and five-minute rounds until the members are satisfied.

Ms. Mary Clancy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Good morning, everyone. I would like to thank all committee members for giving me this opportunity to speak about my experience as Consul General of Canada in New England. Although I've been in the position for only a short time, I have had an opportunity to take part in many activities since my arrival in Boston. I can tell you that I have been quite busy in the past few months.

[English]

I have a very brief presentation on the role of the consul general. Let me begin by talking about my role as chief liaison to the political community.

The head of mission posted to New England is responsible for promoting Canadian advocacy and trade interests to a largely political community. For this reason a clear understanding of the workings of the political process, a natural sense of certain political realities and a sensitivity to the pressures exerted by divergent constituencies upon elected officials is key to the successful resolution of Canadian advocacy, trade policy and trade promotion goals.

In my capacity as consul general I've already begun to establish personal relationships through extensive outreach to key-post political contacts, including the governors of Maine, Vermont, New Hamshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, state legislative leaders in those states, several members of the New England congressional delegation, the chief administrators of the New England Governors' Conference, and key secretaries—what we would call ministers—in state administrations throughout New England.

I'm heavily involved in the co-ordination and execution of advocacy campaigns to promote Canadian interests in the region. My personal contacts with members of the New England political community has already reaped positive results on a number of key issues, including support for an amendment to section 110 of the IIRIRA from the members of the New England congressional delegation and from the New England Governors' Conference, and raised awareness of the Ottawa process on landmines and an unprecedented push from within the New England political community for full U.S. participation in the upcoming treaty signing.

On liaison to the business community, two-way trade last year between Canada and New England topped $25 billion U.S. As chief liaison to the business community in New England, I'm responsible for facilitating the contacts that often translate into contracts for Canadians doing business in New England.

During my first two months I was able to network with a wide array of influential business people in the region, and I have participated thus far in the following: the New Hampshire World Trade Fair, where I spoke along with Governor Jean Shaheen of New Hampshire, and Cathy Minehan, the CEO of the Boston Federal Reserve Bank.

I was named to the board of the New England-Canada Business Council where this group subsequently—just after my appointment, no doubt—hosted Gordon Thiessen, the Governor of the Bank of Canada. This event was extremely well attended by business people in the New England area, and it received media coverage throughout Canada that had a positive influence on the Canadian market.

• 0910

More recently the New England-Canada Business Council hosted Governor Paul Cellucci of Massachusetts, an event that was very well covered, and gave good press to Canada in the Boston media.

On November 7 the business council sponsored the energy conference, which attracted a record 315 people from all over North America. The keynote speaker was Premier Brian Tobin, who made an outstanding presentation on energy prospects from his province.

On November 10 I chaired a videoconference featuring Minister John Manley and Nova Scotia Premier Russell MacLellan with a group of business leaders from Nova Scotia and 10 major investment counsellors from Boston.

I've attended numerous CEO breakfasts and luncheons, and at those events found myself early in a position to discuss Canadian issues of interest, and to defend and promote Canada's policies.

As chief spokesperson on Canadian issues, my media background and knowledge of Canadian issues are useful as official spokesperson for the Canadian federal government in New England.

I've established good relations with the Boston Globe, the premier daily newspaper in the region with a circulation of nearly 800,000. I meet both formally and informally with media representatives across the region to discuss our ongoing advocacy campaign, particularly the amendment to IIRIRA, and for U.S. support on a world ban on landmines. This contact has resulted in several articles and one editorial in the Globe in support of the amendment to section 110.

In the near future I expect to liaise with regional media on the issue of the Canadian seal hunt, which is gaining profile in New England as we speak.

Some examples of my recent speaking engagements are: a speech at the Maine International Trade Center on the importance of NAFTA and the Maine-Canada trading relationship; a briefing to the Massachusetts trade mission to Canada, including Governor Cellucci, on the Canadian economy and opportunities for Massachusetts-Canada partnerships; a speech to the Canadian Club on cultural ties between New England and Canada; and a speech to the Great Barrington historical society when they decided that Laura Secord could now be known as a heroine in the United States as well as in Canada.

As chief administrator and financial officer I'm directly—

The Chairman: Is this a good thing for us, or not?

Ms. Mary Clancy: Of course, it was great, and the Laura Secord company brought down lots of chocolates. The Americans were quite taken with that, and I understand they are now going to be selling Laura Secord chocolates in Great Barrington, Massachusetts.

The Chairman: You assured them there was no Cuban sugar in these chocolates, did you?

Ms. Mary Clancy: I find that it is not my business to check on the contents of—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Mary Clancy: Laura Secord recipes are sacrosanct, I'm sure.

As chief administrator and financial officer, I'm responsible for the administration of our annual post budget, which totalled $2.3 million last year. I am ultimately accountable for all our post financial transactions, contracts with service providers, and for the responsible management of our mission, five residential properties and the main chancery.

A significant portion of my time is devoted to the resolution of personnel issues. I must respond fairly to the myriad needs of our foreign service officers posted to Boston, as well as to those of our locally engaged staff.

As head of mission, I host Canadian dignitaries who regularly visit New England for a variety of purposes. I value my personal relationships with members of Parliament on both sides of the aisle. These relationships, as well as my range of contacts in the provincial governments across Canada, have already served to facilitate successful VIP visits to New England.

Since September I've hosted several high-profile dignitaries, including the Honourable Don Boudria, on a fact-finding mission regarding electronic voting in state legislatures; the Honourable Allan Rock, who delivered a speech on health care at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University; the Honourable Brian Tobin, who, as I mentioned, was the keynote speaker at the energy conference; the Honourable Gilles Baril, MNA from Quebec accompanying a mission of Quebec exporters in the high-tech sector; former MP John English, Minister Axworthy's special representative on the landmines issue, who spoke at a New England town meeting on landmines organized by the UN Association of Greater Boston; and most recently, the Honourable Barbara McDougall, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was in Boston on business.

In the coming week we will also be hosting several officials from my home province of Nova Scotia, including Premier MacLellan, in conjunction with the annual lighting of the Nova Scotia Christmas tree in Boston, in thanks for Boston's great support to Halifax after our terrible explosion of 1917.

Let me turn to my role as chief liaison to the diplomatic community in New England. There is a vibrant and active diplomatic community in Boston, and one aspect of my work is the maintenance of good relations and mutual co-operation between our Canadian mission and other diplomatic posts.

Along these lines I have already made contact with several of our most important allies abroad, including Great Britain, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Pakistan and Venezuela. I have had a number of experiences abroad, either acting for ministers or as a member of a parliamentary delegation.

• 0915

I would like to stop here and make a very special plea, which I know Ambassador Chrétien and other ambassadors and high commissioners around the world share with me, and that is to say to all members of Parliament how very important parliamentary delegations to other countries are. It makes our lives in the posts much easier when Canadian members of Parliament from all sides come to meet with their opposite numbers in a variety of countries. I can only say to you that I would hope that this will continue and I would hope that the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Association in particular will continue to come to the United States and meet with both local and national legislators, because that makes our work with IIRIRA and landmines even easier. I really want to tell you how important these are.

That, Mr. Chair, is effectively my presentation and I'd be delighted to take questions.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Clancy. That was very helpful, and I'm sure the encouragement of the members to travel will not fall on deaf ears. Maybe we can get some support for keeping in contact with our American colleagues. Thank you.

We pass now to questions. Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): I'd like to welcome you to our committee. Certainly I've visited in excess of 40 of our embassies and commissions abroad at this point. Sarkis is nodding. We've been to some of those. We certainly found it very rewarding and agree with you that the mix.... Hopefully someday you'll welcome me there as well.

Ms. Mary Clancy: I would be delighted to welcome you there. I've already welcomed, not in Boston but in Washington, one of your colleagues.

Mr. Bob Mills: I'd like to get to about three questions, but I'd like to make a few comments and indicate one thing we discussed here, which is the difference between a consul and an ambassador. I want to tell you about my most recent contacts with a consul that didn't work out very well, and I'd like to get your comments about it.

This is in Tijuana, Mexico, and is about a consul who dealt with a mother who had just lost her son. The consul had been called, and he sent his sister to meet with the grieving mother. He was golfing and openly told her that. She wanted a copy of the death certificate. She was told that there was a drug store across the way where she could get copies made. She was sent three blocks down the street to get a cab because the consul's sister wouldn't call the cab. She finally met with the consul but received absolutely no help at all. To this day—and this is now a year later—she lives in Los Angeles, pursuing the killer of her son.

Ms. Mary Clancy: I'd like to comment on that. First of all, I obviously can't comment on the individual situation you described—

Mr. Bob Mills: No, I don't expect that.

Ms. Mary Clancy: —because I don't know it. I've been in our consular offices only for two months, but certainly in my travels abroad I have been impressed by the level of our foreign service in trade, foreign affairs, and immigration. I can only tell you that my experience has been, when in my former capacity on behalf of ministers I went to missions to inspect our services and certainly in my two months in Boston, that one of the areas in which our consular and foreign service excels is in assisting Canadians abroad. If something went wrong...I suppose I can only say there is always a chance for a glitch or human error or something. We have in our consular offices one officer whose sole work is to deal with issues like that.

Mr. Bob Mills: I think the point I'm trying to make is that—

Ms. Mary Clancy: Well, I think it's an exception, Bob. That's what I'm saying.

• 0920

Mr. Bob Mills: Well, I hope it is. I can also commend a lot of our officers, but we just must have someone who cares about people, because this is Canada away representing us.

Ms. Mary Clancy: Absolutely.

Mr. Bob Mills: So I suppose we would agree and everybody around this table would agree.

Ms. Mary Clancy: With the exception that probably—

Mr. Bob Mills: Let's hope it's the only one that happens. Obviously, that's being dealt with. I'm sure that, depending on the region, these things become city-specific, region-specific, and so on.

Just look at those qualifications I listed. What do I think a consul should have? I made a list here that I'll just run through.

I think they need to be sophisticated to be in Boston. I think they need to business-oriented. You mentioned the importance of the $25 billion worth of trade.

Ms. Mary Clancy: Billion.

Mr. Bob Mills: Billion, yes.

I know of your involvement in social issues certainly when you were here.

I'm glad to hear you represent business interests as well, particularly the interests of Atlantic Canada. I think that's on the old trading routes, and that's extremely important.

There are energy supplies.

There's the Quebec issue. Certainly one thing I found in visiting many parts of the U.S. or other parts of the world is that they want to know what's happening. They ask how we could possibly be splitting this country up. They wonder how we could be so foolish.

They want someone who is a business facilitator, hospitable, and very credible. They want someone who has a wide variety of contacts and a great many diplomatic skills. We could define these at great length.

Some of the quotes I have from the Halifax paper concern me.

Ms. Mary Clancy: Never believe what you read in the papers.

Mr. Bob Mills: These tend to make me look at some of the things I just listed. There could be many more. There were words like “a quick wit and wicked tongue” and “diplomacy was not her strong suit”. These are quotes—I can give them to you—from the Ottawa Citizen, the Hill Times, and the Daily News in Halifax. She “has a habit of accusing people of “hissy fits” when they simply disagree with her”.

I have a number of these quotes. You've seen them. You know what I'm talking about.

So when I ask the questions, I guess I'm keeping that in mind when I wonder whether Mary Clancy would be the best representative for me as a Canadian and for Canadians in that area.

Ms. Mary Clancy: May I comment on that?

Mr. Bob Mills: Just let me ask my question.

Ms. Mary Clancy: Sure.

Mr. Bob Mills: The chairman's going to cut me off if I don't.

Knowing how I think of the consul, Boston, and the job, I want to know the major qualifications that you feel will allow you.... You partly dealt with that, but I think there's more.

How are you going to increase trade with the New England states, particularly for Atlantic Canada?

Third—this is the most difficult one—is your reputation for being somewhat undiplomatic in language and manners going to affect your ability to carry out the job as a diplomat in Boston?

Ms. Mary Clancy: Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Mills.

First of all, with regard to the quotes, I've heard many of the quotes. Of course, I was a partisan, active member of Parliament for nine years. I'm proud of that. I was a member of a team. I had an agenda to put forward. I had certain skills in debate that I used, as members of Parliament are supposed to use them. There were many times when people may well have been stung by what I said in support of those issues about which I feel very passionate.

I can only say that one of the things I'm very proud of in nine years as a member of Parliament is that never once, in spite of my alleged reputation in debate, was I ever asked to withdraw or apologize. I managed to keep my debating skills within the realm of what is parliamentary.

Second, a number of those quotes are from newspapers that may or may not have an individual axe to grind. I think all of us who have been and who are currently in the political sphere know that newspapers also have a certain agenda and that there are certain columnists and reporters who might like you better than me, or me better than you. That's the way the chips fall.

• 0925

The Chairman: If Mr. Mills was appointed ambassador abroad, the newspapers in his riding would be thrilled. They'd be delighted to hear the news.

Ms. Mary Clancy: I'm sure they probably would, as would we all.

It's interesting, and I don't particularly want to get into it, but the particular quotes related to one of the most difficult debates that all of us who served in the last House dealt with, and that was the gun control debate. I will say for the record that I was subject to obscene and anonymous phone calls. I was very concerned, because I have several elderly aunts who are in and out of my house in Halifax. I was very worried that they might pick up the telephone and get these calls. I did refer to a group of people who had been harassing me by telephone and in person.

As some of my former colleagues on this can tell you, we were under police protection for some of this time, and these were stressful times. I did refer to people who use the methods of harassing phone calls, obscene phone calls and obscene attacks on the Internet as thugs, and I stand by that statement. The difficulty is that some of the quotes in the newspaper were taken out of context. If you want to read it, I explain it more fully in August issues of the Daily News in articles written by Rob Martin. That gives the story much more fully than do some of the columnists' extracts that you may have had access to.

The Chairman: We've gone pretty close to ten minutes. I'm sure we'll get back on the second round.

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Thank you. It is a pleasure to see you again in your new capacity, Mr. Clancy. I have a few questions to ask because I, like a number of other colleagues, was surprised to hear of your appointment.

When you say you were never called upon to apologize in the House, I would like to know whether the Reform Party did not ask you to apologize. I'm thinking particularly of Mr. Hanger and the situation in which you suggested he wanted to kill some immigrants to the country. You did not apologize and you said you were making a joke. I would like some explanations on that matter.

And in reference to your lack of diplomacy, I think Mr. Mills was alluding to the fact that you called the Chinese "twits" during you trip to that country for the women's convention. This was in reference to a telephone call or something like that. I saw that in the newspaper and... would you please let me finish?

[English]

Ms. Mary Clancy: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, but Mr. Sauvageau has just given a quote that I never made.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I have several questions I would like to ask.

[English]

The Chairman: We can't have two people talking at once.

Ms. Mary Clancy: Mr. Sauvageau has just suggested that I called Chinese people twits.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That was in the Halifax newspaper.

[English]

Ms. Mary Clancy: No, I've never seen—I would like that right now. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but Madam Augustine, who was with me in China, would know that this is not the case. I would like to know where that comes from. I am very proud of my human rights record and I have never, ever used that kind of pejorative language about any group.

Mr. Chair, I would ask that Mr. Sauvageau give us a chapter-and-verse citation, because I can tell you that if any Halifax newspaper ever quoted me on that, legal action would ensue.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Given that we...

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Sauvageau.

[English]

Mr. McWhinney, on a point of order.

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): In questioning it is not permissible to quote hearsay as if it is a statement. I think any member of the committee wishing to raise this is entitled to ask are you aware that so and so—and identify him—said this? Is this correct or not as a statement of your views? I think this is the proper procedure.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Sauvageau would like the floor.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, I would like to ask Ms. Clancy some questions.

The Chairman: All right. But do you have any proof of these allegations you are making?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, we will be tabling it in five minutes.

The Chairman: Fine.

[English]

Ms. Mary Clancy: I hope it can be tabled before I leave today, because—

The Chairman: Mr. Sauvageau said he will get the reference.

Ms. Mary Clancy: All right.

The Chairman: Anyway,

[Translation]

do you have a more general question?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Of course. In any case, I would have never based my questions solely on rumours or newspaper articles. I have two questions for Ms. Clancy.

• 0930

I have here The Telegraph Journal of Saint-John, New Brunswick of July 19, 1997. It says and I quote:

[English]

“Of course there is patronage”, she says. “It is not wrong to do this [make an appointment] if the person has all her qualifications.”

[Translation]

So you said: "Of course there's patronage". Do you still maintain that your appointment was patronage?

[English]

Ms. Mary Clancy: Yes. Patronage is a word that can be defined a number of ways. Would I deny that I was a Liberal member of Parliament for nine years, that I was an active member of the Liberal Party from birth? No—no more than I would deny a number of other things that inform my abilities today.

I have said this frequently: political activity is an honourable thing. I don't think any of us would be sitting around this table today if we did not believe so. I think it's most unfortunate that people have an incorrect view of politicians. However much I may disagree with another member of Parliament's philosophy or methods, I have a firm and deep respect for every member of Parliament, and I believe the vast majority of us over our country's history have been dedicated, hard-working people according to their lights. I have used a quote very often where I say that political activity does not necessarily render you fit for a particular position, but it does not render you unfit either.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Even though your prime minister was elected saying that the Conservatives used patronage too much and that he was opposed to that, you still maintain that yours was a patronage appointment. You seem to think that there is nothing wrong with that.

[English]

Ms. Mary Clancy: Absolutely, and I don't think the Prime Minister ever said that he was not going to appoint people that he knew to a number of posts, just as he appoints people that he doesn't know to a number of posts. There are a lot of appointments, Mr. Sauvageau, and not all of them go to political people.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Particularly among the Liberals.

Perhaps I did not ask my first two questions properly, but I would like to hear what you have to say in response to my last question. You said that some visitors asked you questions about the Quebec situation, for example. What do you say to them about the political situation in Quebec?

[English]

Ms. Mary Clancy: Most people are quite aware of the situation. They want to ask about the referendum. Most of the questions tend to be in an historical context. I can tell you that when I went to Quebec City I spent a full day in Quebec City, where I had excellent briefings from the Quebec government, most particularly from their foreign affairs office and also from their various trade people.

I enjoy a close relationship with a number of people in those offices. I said to the director general of foreign affairs that while my position on the Constitution is well known and well documented, I do not believe the battle for the hearts and minds of Quebeckers will be won by stifling their trade opportunities in New England.

I have consequently been delighted to promote the interests of a variety of regions in Quebec to people who ask me questions. I talk about Quebec as a good place to do business. I talk about the fact that the political situation is obviously a matter of concern, but that Canada will resolve its internal political questions on its own and in a fair and democratic way. In general that appears to satisfy the people who ask questions.

As I said, we have had visitors from Quebec. As you are aware, there is a Quebec delegate in New England, with whom I have met. I am quite happy about our relationships with Quebec, and I think I would say in turn that I think Quebec is quite happy about the service it gets from the Boston consulate.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you for your answer. I come now to my final question. At the moment, Canada is going through some fairly difficult negotiations on the MAI, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, particularly regarding the cultural exemption clause. The Americans do not have very strong allies in Canada on this matter with respect to the MAI. I would like to know whether you are making any representations to the Americans to defend energetically and systematically Canada's position on the MAI negotiations.

• 0935

[English]

Ms. Mary Clancy: I missed part of that question. In actual fact, currently that is not part of our discussions with local governments.

Again, Mr. Mills mentioned the difference between embassies and consulates. At the consular level we tend to deal much more with state governments and state representatives. We do deal with the federal level as well, but currently the MAI is not part of our bailiwick; that's being handled out of Washington.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Clancy.

Mr. Brison.

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Thank you for being here with us today, Ms. Clancy. I'm not going to spend any time on conjecture, reputation, hearsay, or anything like that.

My background is as a businessperson. As a businessperson I've spent a lot of time in the U.S.A. In fact, I developed two Canadian businesses in the U.S.A., one of which just signed a national distribution relationship with the Sherwin-Williams company, the largest paint manufacturer in the U.S.A. So we've had some success in, and knowledge of, that market.

Since entering politics I've found that background has helped me a lot in dealing with business people both in my constituency and in my role as trade critic and foreign affairs critic for the PC Party.

I have a concern when I look at your background. You do have a tremendous background in a number of areas, but I don't see any corporate or business activity. Where the rubber meets the road is typically what business people refer to as the ability to have a grassroots knowledge of business issues. Much of your role in Boston will be focused on trade issues and dealing with business people.

I mean, politicians can talk to politicians, business people can talk to business people. But I see that in your role it's critical that you're able to liaise with both areas, not just on a perfunctory or peripheral level, but to have a real knowledge of grassroots business issues.

Let me share a bit of background in terms of my relationship with Canadian consular offices in the U.S.A. Typically as a businessperson I've found that if I wanted to get something done, or if I wanted to make arrangements to meet with various business people in the U.S.A., it was much easier for me to do that directly than it was to deal with the consular offices. I think a lot of that was based on the fact, or my perception and the perception of a lot of business people at the time, that while some people in those office were very familiar with grassroots business issues, a lot of them were more focused on the political side.

So I guess I have a real concern relative to your lack of business background, because that's critical, as far as I'm concerned.

Ms. Mary Clancy: Well, you were elected in the most recent election. One of the things I think you'll find—I suspect my former colleagues around the table will agree—is that part of the job of being a member of Parliament, particularly in your constituency work, is dealing most particularly with small and medium-sized business.

In my nine years in Parliament, on my two or three days a week back in the riding, during summers and other breaks, upwards of 80% of the people I saw and worked with were from small and medium-sized business.

I actually have a very nice letter—I could give you a copy—from Hector Jacques, president of Jacques Whitford, which I'm sure you're familiar with, one of the largest-growing engineering firms in Canada. The letter is about the work I had done with them in their contacts both locally and internationally in developing their business and some others.

So part of that comes from my nine years as a member of Parliament.

Second, I'm sorry to hear you say that you think you can make the contacts better on your own, and that may have been your experience. I can tell you that we deal with literally hundreds, not to say thousands, of people every year in the Boston office.

• 0940

Every year in the Boston office we have the new exporters business seminars, the investment counselling, and as I mentioned in my presentation, the New England-Canada Business Council and all of these things, where we take eastern Canadian business, whether—as I said at the women's trade mission in Washington last week—it's an exporter who is fairly experienced but is looking to a new market or for some added assistance, or someone standing on the brink of exporting and saying I can't do this, I do not have the expertise. I am very proud of the Boston office, and I can say that with impunity because I've only been there two months, so the great success they have had is certainly not due to me.

The trade side is very important—that's why I highlighted the $25 billion yearly between eastern Canada and New England—but it's not all. But while there is a learning curve for me, it's a learning curve that I'm taking to with great alacrity. I've had exceptional briefings from all of the provincial governments and the federal government, and from various departments. I also have an excellent staff and I think I'm a pretty good study on those things.

So while being a generalist may cause some concern among people who are experts in business, there is a certain edge that having a generalist background can give you. When someone needs specific advice, I'm not going to talk to XYZ Ltd. from Annapolis Royal about the specifics of exporting. I have three trade officers who know far more about that than I ever will, and it's not the best use of my time for me to do that. But my trade officer will come to me, as one of them did last week, to say, we have this great company out of northern New Brunswick, and there's a great company here in Massachusetts. If I call the president and CEO, he might call me back in a month or he might never call me back, so would you call him and see if we can set up a meeting?

So I called the CEO. He got a phone call from the Consul General of Canada to New England. He took my call, we set up the meeting and a partnership has been created. Those are the kinds of things that I can do.

It would be silly for me to walk in and attempt to tell a seasoned business person how to export to the United States. I don't know the answer to that. But I have the people who do, and I know where to put the resources.

Mr. Scott Brison: You refer to your background as generalist. In fact, you're not a generalist. Your focus has been very strong as an academic and in cultural areas. As a businessperson you have not had a generalist background, because you've done very little in business.

Ms. Mary Clancy: That's right.

Mr. Scott Brison: Your ability to separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of the information provided to you by the experts in your office, and to be able to talk intelligently with CEOs about the grassroots issues of their companies would be severely compromised by that lack of background. I have no doubt that you're a quick study, but I think the learning curve for somebody with a background in business and in trade would have been a heck of a lot shorter than for somebody who lacks that background.

Ms. Mary Clancy: Again—and I'm not going to argue with you—I didn't spend the last nine years.... The high-profile issues that I dealt with in Parliament were issues that related to things like human rights, status of women and immigration, and that had a great deal to do with small business development. I was parliamentary secretary in immigration for three years and dealt with new immigrants and setting up businesses and that sort of thing. I also found that my nine years in Parliament—as you will find, I'm sure—gave me a great deal of insight into the problems and difficulties of small business.

It doesn't take a BBA to know that one of the.... If you grow up in Nova Scotia, as you and I did, you know that one of the major problems facing small and medium-sized businesses in eastern Canada is transportation. You know that getting goods to market in Canada is difficult enough, let alone the difficulties we face with red tape at the border. You know that there are questions relating to Maine potatoes versus New Brunswick and P.E.I. potatoes. I know all of this as well. It is not necessary for me to have been a farmer to know what are the issues facing someone from P.E.I. exporting to the United States. I think while it might be more advantageous in certain situations, this is a very broad-based job, I have other skills, and I think I can do pretty well on this.

• 0945

Mr. Scott Brison: I think having been a member of Parliament gives a person the opportunity to explore areas of interest and areas that tie into their own level of expertise in a particular discipline. During that period, those nine years, if you had had an interest or expertise in areas of trade or foreign policy, maybe you would have been on the.... I don't think you were on the foreign affairs and international trade committee.

Ms. Mary Clancy: No, but I was on the immigration committee, and immigration is a foreign service.

Mr. Scott Brison: Immigration is extremely different from trade policy. Given that you have taken a very trade-related position, I feel that if you had an intrinsic interest in trade and in foreign policy in those areas, you would have demonstrated that interest and expertise as a member of Parliament.

Ms. Mary Clancy: With the greatest of respect, Mr. Brison, some of the things that happen in a caucus, you know.... I have no idea how things would work in your caucus, but you tend to take the job you're offered or you might not get another chance.

Mr. Scott Brison: Unless you've demonstrated—

Ms. Mary Clancy: May I finish?

Mr. Scott Brison: Unless you've demonstrated an expertise.

Ms. Mary Clancy: May I finish? But we already know, Mr. Brison, I am not attempting to fly under false colours here. My background was in areas where the leader of the day, and later the Prime Minister, felt I could make a contribution. In running a country, whether you're the official opposition or the government, you try to put people in those slots that best fit them at the time. Many of those abilities and the background I have are utterly and totally related to the work I do every day; some are not.

It is my belief, and I'm not going to argue with anybody about it, that in those areas where I don't have a depth of experience, I have people there who can help me, as you as a member of Parliament will have people to help you in areas you don't know anything about. Does this mean that you will be a less effective member of Parliament in advocating for your constituents? Neither do I believe that I will be a less effective consul general in advocating for Canada.

Mr. Scott Brison: I can assure you that you can draw on the experience of trade critics in the House of Commons for any information or background you require on these issues.

Ms. Mary Clancy: I intended to do so.

Mr. Scott Brison: Thank you.

Ms. Mary Clancy: Thank you.

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

Mr. Speller.

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Clancy, for taking probably a couple of days out of your busy schedule to come down here before this committee. Frankly, I'm not sure why you're here, but now that you are here I do have a few questions.

Before I ask my question, I do want to say, Mr. Chair, I really find it irresponsible for colleagues across the way to be quoting from newspaper editors, or headline writers, or columnists, about their feelings on Ms. Clancy and quoting them as fact. I'm not sure if it's their feeling that the Prime Minister, before he makes an appointment, should call Conrad Black and ask him first whether or not he should make that appointment or—

The Chairman: Or Hugh Winsor, for example.

Mr. Bob Speller: Or Hugh Winsor, for that matter.

Ms. Mary Clancy: He has misquoted me on a number of occasions.

Mr. Bob Speller: On Mr. Sauvageau's point on Ms. Clancy's abilities to conduct her job, because she's a Liberal, I would agree with him in one part of his statement. Frankly, I don't think we want a foreign service that's totally stacked with political appointments.

• 0950

But on the other hand, Mr. Chair, I think it would be good for the mix of things if we had more people who had been in Parliament and had the ability, as I'm sure you have, to get across the country, know what Canadians are thinking in the mix of members of the diplomatic corps.

So I would disagree with you, Mr. Sauvageau, that the Prime Minister of the day shouldn't be appointing at least a few people with political experience.

I'm sure, Ms. Clancy, you can comment on it later, but certainly your political background is very important in the job. I'm sure three-quarters of the questions you get in your day-to-day work have to do with what's happening with the—

Mr. Bob Mills: You sound like you want to get an appointment there.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Bob Speller: —political situation back in Canada.

But before I go on, I want to go through your resumé. I say to my friend Mr. Brison, who talks about the need to have more of a businessperson, more of a person knowledgeable about trade issues in that position....

Ms. Clancy, as I look at your resumé—I know we sat in the House together for a number of years, and we didn't really get to know each other that well—I'm quite impressed. When I look at culture and your role in cultural organizations and universities, I would assume that in Boston trade and business issues are probably two of the most talked-about issues. I think it would be very good if we had a person in Boston who had some culture. I'm from the country, and I'm not sure if I'm as cultured as I should be, although today in committee we're going to learn about culture with respect to the MAI.

But you have been a lawyer, a broadcaster, a journalist, a university lecturer and an actor, which I'm sure would be very useful in a position like that. You've been a critic for the status of women, privatization, communications, and citizenship and immigration, and you were parliament secretary, which I'm sure helped. You were also chair of the defence and veterans affairs committee, which I'm sure the Americans might be a little interested in. Then there are ecology, the Atlantic Ballet Company, and the boards of governors of universities.

I would think, Mr. Chair, that as we go through these more and more, as we evaluate people in conjunction with our new abilities under the standing orders, these are the sorts of people we want the Prime Minister of this country to appoint.

I do want to make one other comment before I ask my question. As I said, although we have been together in a large caucus, I have led delegations you've been on. And I say this in all sincerity, Ms. Clancy. I'm not trying to butter you up for any tickets to the Boston Red Sox or anything.

An hon. member: The Boston Symphony—heavens, heavens!

Mr. Bob Speller: But I do say that as I've led delegations with you on them, I've found you to be very graceful and very charming, very hard working on these meetings, and very up to date. I want to tell you that on one occasion I did say to myself—and maybe I should have told you this; you would have come back to me—she'd make a good diplomat.

But I do want to ask you a specific question, because I know a lot of my constituents are concerned about this, and it has to do with section 110. In your consular role, could you have some sort of say on that issue? There is a lot of concern in the border provinces on that issue. I'm wondering if you could comment on that.

Ms. Mary Clancy: I think that to some degree there's a certain amount of concern among senior officials at Foreign Affairs that we might think the job is already done. Those of you who represent border constituencies are very aware that your counterparts in the United States, either state or federal, are very supportive.

We have been extremely edified by the response of the New England governors, the members of Congress. Senator Kennedy is co-sponsoring the bill with Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan in the Senate. There's a bill going forward in the House of Representatives as well.

However—and I used this example at a CEO luncheon I attended in Boston yesterday—I'm very concerned that people might think the work is done. If we are not successful on this, I want you to know that at a small border crossing—and Mr. Turp and Mr. Sauvageau will know this—from Vermont to Quebec, even the little ones up there will have gridlock within four hours. The big border crossings between Ontario and New York and Michigan and Vancouver and Washington state and so on will be a nightmare.

• 0955

So it is absolutely key that we keep up the pressure. I've written letters to all the governors. I've had very good reaction, as I said. I just signed another spate of letters before I left Boston yesterday so they don't forget. They have a lot on their plates, just as all of us have a lot on our plates.

There is a tendency, because we are such good friends, to think everything's okay. I have talked to business people in the New England area who say, oh, that bill doesn't affect you. And I say, yes, it affects all Canadians, all people coming into the United States, and we come more than anybody else.

The awareness in the north is better. It's not as good as it should be, and it is therefore incumbent upon all of us, with every contact we have with Americans, to remind, to cajole, and to say this is something that could absolutely hamstring the best trading relationship in the world.

I want to thank you for your very kind comments.

Mr. Bob Speller: I meant then sincerely. I didn't mean them with the intent to—

The Chairman: The members might be interested in knowing, since this is an extremely important issue for all of us, that in fact the committee will be considering this issue of section 110 on Tuesday the 25th, so we'll have an opportunity to discuss it.

Ms. Mary Clancy: Mr. Chair, I wonder if I might deal with the—

The Chairman: Well, that's the end of the time for Mr. Speller, and also that's the end of our traditional period of ten-minute interventions, so we'll now keep questions to five minutes.

Ms. Mary Clancy: But if I might deal with—

The Chairman: But since this has come up, Ms. Clancy, perhaps as chair I might first exercise my prerogative to say that I'm sure Mr. Sauvageau did not intend to suggest, which I'm afraid is how it sounded to me, in his question to you that—whether or not this is true, leaving that aside—you alleged that all Chinese people were twits. It's very clear from the article that what had happened, if it's true, was that there was an altercation between you and one person. You got frustrated by being turned back by a security guard on regular occasions, sort of blew your stack a bit, and said, “Listen, you...”, which any one of us might do in a foreign hotel under circumstances.

But it seems to me that the committee is not capable, from this statement, to in any way take this as a generalized observation of your observation about Chinese people in general. It's clear that—

Ms. Mary Clancy: But I would—

The Chairman: —it was just a situation, and it might have been a security guard of any origin who incurred your wrath or mine or anybody else's in similar circumstances.

Ms. Mary Clancy: I would just like to say that as a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, you've explained it very well, and indeed, anyone who knows my speech patterns would know I don't use the word “twit”. The actual words I used were “Listen, pal”, which again anyone who knows my speech patterns knows is more likely. The word “twit” was obviously Mr.—

Mr. Ted McWhinney: “Twit” is English. “Pal” is Irish.

Ms. Mary Clancy: There you are. There you are, absolutely.

The Chairman: Oh, my God—

Ms. Mary Clancy: I would certainly never use—

The Chairman: —coming from a Scot, this may or may not be helpful.

Ms. Mary Clancy: Indeed. It's at least Celtic, as I'm sure Professor McWhinney would agree.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: I'm Celtic, too.

Ms. Mary Clancy: Indeed. Actually, the full quote was: “Listen, pal”—and again, I would rely on Mrs. Augustine, who was there—“how many oversized blondes in red suits do you see in one day?”

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You have a good memory now.

Ms. Mary Clancy: But I did not say the word “twit”. That's why when you used the word “twit” I did not know.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Earlier you could not remember.

Ms. Mary Clancy: Because you said “twit” and I did not use that word. Thank you.

An hon. member: What relevance does that have to the question?

Ms. Mary Clancy: I wanted to—

The Chairman: I think I would really prefer to consider the incident closed, because it's—

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: My friend asked a question, and I would like to answer it.

The Chairman: Very briefly.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: My friend is not a twit, and I would like to answer his question, because he is my friend.

The Chairman: Your chum, your pal, as it were.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Exactly. He wanted to know how this question was relevant. Ms. Clancy is a diplomat, therefore she should show diplomacy.

The Chairman: I see.

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): At all times.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Ms. Clancy has no experience in business or commerce, and she does not seem to have any experience in diplomacy. I think this was a very relevant question, because we are reviewing the qualifications of this person for the position.

• 1000

The Chairman: You know as well as I do that there are all sorts of things in the press. I consider this argument closed. We will continue with Mr. McWhinney.

[English]

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Could you make a formal ruling, then, which I think you personally did before, that when somebody's quoting something that somebody said, the source must be identified fully, and the witness may be asked “It is stated that you said this. Is this correct or not?”

The Chairman: In fairness to Mr. Sauvageau, he immediately got the article.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: I know he did, but I think it would get us away from American congressional committee style.

The Chairman: This would be very helpful. You're quite right.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: If you would make that ruling, it would be very helpful in the future.

The Chairman: Certainly I think all the people at this table—I see Mr. Sauvageau; Mr. Turp is nodding—would agree that we would not make allegations that were unfounded, and certainly not ones that can't be substantiated.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: And we identify the source.

The Chairman: And we identified, in this case—that's correct. In further proceedings we'll make sure that is done. Very good.

Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Chair, if I could comment, I find it really bizarre that this would be the most that Mr. Sauvageau could come up with—that somebody said to a security guard “how many oversized blondes in red suits do you see around here?” I find that rather funny.

Mr. Bob Mills: I find these kinds of tactics unacceptable.

The Chairman: Order. We've closed this particular incident. We're going to move on to Ms. Clancy's qualifications.

Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

I'm a new member, Ms. Clancy, so I welcome you to this committee. I've found discussion around the table...and I wondered why you have been so protected and defensive in the answers.

Ms. Mary Clancy: I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: You have been very protected and defensive in some of the answers to the questions of my colleagues from both sides. What was the reason?

Ms. Mary Clancy: What do you mean by “protected”?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I find that there is a different sort of atmosphere in the committee—some protection and some defensive attitude. Do you know—

Ms. Mary Clancy: On my part?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Yes.

Ms. Mary Clancy: Could you tell me where I was defensive? I was defensive about the misquote because I wanted to correct the record. I did not use the word “twit”. But I—

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Let's move on. Let's go to the next one. My time is limited.

I believe you had been a politician for a number of years—

Ms. Mary Clancy: Yes.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: —and a politician is a partisan of sorts.

Ms. Mary Clancy: Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Now you are a diplomat and representing Canada—not yourself but the country as a whole.

Ms. Mary Clancy: Absolutely.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: There are certain qualities and characteristics needed in the job where you are now.

Ms. Mary Clancy: Yes.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: What would you say are those qualities needed for that job, and how do you meet those requirements?

Ms. Mary Clancy: Well, I think that particularly in the Boston area.... I don't know if you heard my beginning presentation, but I delineated a number of the qualities. I talked about the fact that New England is a very political community. As Mr. Brison rightly brought up, a great part of my job is trade, but a great part of my job is reporting back to Foreign Affairs on the political situation as it affects Canada and the political situation in general, because, as someone once said, living next to the United States is like sleeping next to an elephant. You might not be afraid of it, but you're aware of its every twitch. So every twitch is important—and the word was “twitch”.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Mary Clancy: May I finish? Consequently, on the political side, my experience as a member of Parliament makes me very aware. I might also add that Massachusetts politics, as I think Mr. Brison would recognize, has a great deal of similarity to the politics in my home province of Nova Scotia, so that helps.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Okay, let me—

Ms. Mary Clancy: On the other hand, I have also, as nine years—

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: My time is limited.

The Chairman: I know your time is limited, but you asked a very open-ended question. You asked her what her perception is of her qualifications to her job. Now you have to let her tell you what they are.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: She can be brief.

Ms. Mary Clancy: I'm attempting to be brief.

The Chairman: Let her. She'd be a lot briefer if you'd just let her finish.

• 1005

Ms. Mary Clancy: With regard to other sides of the issue, on the diplomatic side, as Mr. Speller has so kindly pointed out, I have travelled the world as part of parliamentary delegations or as parliamentary secretary to Minister Marchi. I did what was referred to as a parish tour of the immigration posts in Southeast Asia and the subcontinent. I represented Minister Collenette when he was Minister of National Defence at the defence ministerial in Argentina. I have represented ministers in numerous countries to numerous organizations.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Okay, Ms. Clancy, that is clear. I think that's enough.

The Chairman: If you want to address the witness, please have the courtesy of doing it through the chair.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Okay, Mr. Chair, I think—

The Chairman: I'm not going to get formalistic, but we—

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I got the answer to my question, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: That's fine. If you're happy, you can address it me and I'll deal with the witness directly. We try to run our committee as reasonably as possible. I don't normally interrupt members, but we all get testy if we get interrupted.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Chair, I was not on the ten-minute time.

The Chairman: I appreciate that.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I am brief and I want the answers to be brief.

The Chairman: We'll give you a little latitude.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I'm satisfied with the answer, so let's move on.

The Chairman: Okay, fine.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Chair, I think that if we had advertised this position there would be certain characteristics, job qualifications and job requirements. If we asked you to rate yourself on a scale of one to ten on how you meet the criteria of the position, how would you rate yourself?

Ms. Mary Clancy: Thank you.

As someone who has worked within the government system both as a politician and now as a member of the public service, it is not up to me to do the rating. It is up to my superiors and the people I serve to do the rating. I will let the record speak for itself. I'm very proud of my nine years as a politician and I expect to be very proud of my time as a consul general. I am very proud of the trust that has been placed in me by the Prime Minister, and I'm very cognizant of what I must do to be worthy of that trust.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: But if you had the opportunity to self-evaluate, where would you rank yourself?

Ms. Mary Clancy: I self-evaluate all the time, but those are private evaluations and not necessarily to be shared with a parliamentary committee.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Okay. I think my colleagues have provided some quotations from various newspapers—not one or two but various newspapers—at various times. This position is a very sensitive position. We had recent experience in Mexico when one of the diplomats made a statement and Canada's reputation was at stake. How would you assure this committee that those kinds of statements will not be appearing in American newspapers in the future?

Ms. Mary Clancy: I can only tell you that the Prime Minister has confidence in me, and you will have to watch the future unfold. I am aware of what is required and I intend to carry it out to the best of my ability.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: The Prime Minister is one individual. We are representing constituents, and Canadians are concerned, as we see through the various newspaper readings we have done, about the appointment. How would you assure yourself—

The Chairman: Your time is up on that, Mr. Grewal. I've let you run about a minute over. Normally I don't mind, but we have quite a few on the list.

Mr. McWhinney and then Mr. Turp.

Mr. McWhinney, five minutes.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to draw on the witness's expertise.

You have some very distinguished legal qualifications that may not be generally known. I think you studied with Horace Read—

Ms. Mary Clancy: I did, yes.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: —and with Georg Schwarzenberger, who is one of the great English law professors.

Ms. Mary Clancy: That's right.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: An issue that I've raised...the chairman says it'll be on the agenda several weeks from now, but we have you here at present. I think it's an indication of your own expertise—we can see how you develop the point—but in various invited testimony to various Senate and Senate-House committees over the last 20 years, I have recommended that Parliament should have the power to examine all appointments, including judicial appointments and nominations, and report back on the expertise. If it be the Senate, I've always said an elected Senate.

Let me get you to this issue. Standing Orders 110 and 111 are standing orders. My own view has been that this would require a constitutional amendment, although I am aware that constitutional amendments can be achieved through custom. You received a request to attend these hearings. Did you consider the issue of whether constitutionally the committee could compel you to appear, or did you accept on the basis that you thought this was an interesting exercise and you would be delighted to share your views with the committee? Could I ask you for an expert opinion there?

• 1010

Ms. Mary Clancy: Well, I don't know how expert, Professor McWhinney.

The Chairman: Do you intend to pay for it, Mr. McWhinney?

Ms. Mary Clancy: No, I'm not allowed to do that as a diplomat.

May I say that as a former committee chair, I of course was aware of the House orders with regard to the examination of order-in-council appointments. I was also aware of the variety of opinions as to constitutional amendment, a word that tends to strike horror into the hearts of some of us.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Not to you, I hope.

Ms. Mary Clancy: Not into your heart, Professor McWhinney, I'm aware of that.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: But not yours.

Ms. Mary Clancy: Well, not mine either, no.

I have to say that my first thought, the very first thing that occurred to me when I received the letter, was whether or not I was actually compellable, given that although I was under the House orders as an order-in-council appointment, the fact was that I was resident in the United States, and I wondered whether a parliamentary subpoena could indeed be activated in Massachusetts. Mind you, I quickly went from that to the fact that the issue was not whether I was compellable but whether I should come. I conferred with senior officials in Foreign Affairs, and it was agreed that I would indeed come.

I can also say there's another interesting question with regard to Canadians residing abroad in diplomatic posts. I don't quite know the answer. I recall filling out a form at the beginning that talked about your being deemed a Canadian resident even though you're living in the United States or whatever other country. I of course pay Canadian taxes, not American taxes, and so on. If a process server were to arrive at the chancery, which is deemed to some degree at least Canadian territory, I don't know whether the subpoena would be enforceable.

I realize that's only one part of your question. Then you go to the next point, as to whether it is indeed constitutional. I guess I would say, as my constitutional law professor, now a Federal Court judge, Andrew MacKay, would say, there can be an argument made for both sides, and the question may be best left to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: In other words, can the House, through its standing orders, compel what normally would be done by a constitutional amendment, but a constitutional amendment within the competence of the federal Parliament?

Ms. Mary Clancy: Then I also recall, from both my political science courses and my law courses, that Parliament at one point, possibly pre-Charter of Rights, was the highest court in the land. Is it still? That's another question to be answered.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: I'll discuss the 17th century theory later.

Ms. Mary Clancy: Perhaps.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Let me ask you, would you agree—and am I correct in interpreting your voluntary appearance here—that your appearance itself creates a form of gloss on constitutional practice?

Ms. Mary Clancy: What on constitutional—

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Gloss.

Ms. Mary Clancy: Gloss. I believe our Constitution should be as glossy as possible.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Okay. I think these are very valuable comments.

I have one last point, perhaps, to clarify a point raised on a very thoughtful question by Mr. Brison. Could you tell us your knowledge of appointments to parliamentary committees? You presumably applied when you were a parliamentarian and you set up your preferences. Is that correct?

Ms. Mary Clancy: What?

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Appointments to parliamentary committees. There was reference by Mr. Brison to your not being on the foreign affairs committee. Is it giving away a secret? When you were asked to list your preferences, did you list the foreign affairs committee?

Ms. Mary Clancy: Mr. Speller is the only one from the class of 1988 here. As I recall, applications weren't called for. We had only 80 people, and at one point—and I think Mr. Brison might want to check—I served on just about every committee of the House of Commons, including industry and finance. It wasn't official, but when you have only 80 members...I'm sorry, I realize. You'll find out, trust me.

• 1015

Let me tell you something else you may not know. There were 12 women in our caucus, and every parliamentary committee wanted female representation. I at one point was carrying seven committees, and there's not a committee of the House of Commons that I have not sat upon for a significant amount of time.

The Chairman: That's fine, Mr. McWhinney. I'm sorry, but we've run well over our time.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: The point is, the reason you didn't sit on the foreign affairs committee is not because of lack of interest.

Ms. Mary Clancy: No, I've sat many times on the foreign affairs committee, particularly in opposition. It was not called foreign affairs.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Personally, I was not a member of the last Parliament, and I did not have the pleasure of knowing Ms. Clancy. I think your successor, Ms. McDonough, is representing your riding well and that you should be proud of that.

I have three questions and a comment. As Professor McWhinney said, you have a good knowledge of international law. However, since we are here to assess your abilities, I would like to know whether you have read the UN convention on consular relations, whether you think Canada can provide consular protection to an individual who comes to your office for help and is an American citizen as well? That is my first question.

[English]

Ms. Mary Clancy: May I ask for clarification on that, Mr. Turp.

The Chairman: Double nationality.

Ms. Mary Clancy: Are you talking about someone who has dual nationality?

Mr. Daniel Turp: Could you offer consular protection for someone who had double nationality? That's my first question.

Ms. Mary Clancy: I have read those articles. I have not had the opportunity to study them. I have read them. I would say that any Canadian citizen, whether of dual citizenship or not, has the right to call upon consular services and the protection of the Canadian government.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Second, I would like you to talk about your relationship with the Quebec General Delegation in New York, because there is no longer one in Boston.

[English]

Ms. Mary Clancy: There is a woman who represents the Quebec government in New Hampshire. We have met on several occasions. She is a member of the New England-Canada Business Council. She paid me a courtesy call shortly after my taking up the position. As I understand it, she is Quebec's representative in New England. They don't have the full office they used to have, but this woman—and I'm sorry, I should have her name; her first name is Joan—resides in New Hampshire and represents Quebec's interests in the New England states. Certainly that's what both she and the Quebec government have led us at the Boston consulate to understand.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Does the Quebec General Delegation in New York maintain relations with you and your consulate? What type of a relationship should there be between a consulate and a Quebec General Delegation?

I would like to ask this as well: I would like to know what your attitude would be to someone who asked you for help preparing a trip to universities in the New England region that you cover— Harvard, MIT and others, to promote his or her political ideas, such as sovereignty, for example?

The reason I ask is that this is something that I have done in the past, and that I intend to do again in the near future. I would therefore like to know whether I could count on the co-operation of the Consul General if I were planning such a trip.

• 1020

[English]

Ms. Mary Clancy: I can assure you, Mr. Turp—

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: This will be my last question, Mr. Chairman. As a diplomat, would you use an expression like the one used by my colleague, Mr. Mills, who said that we are foolish, that it is foolish to support and promote sovereignty? As a diplomat, would you use the same term used by Mr. Mills to comment on my vision of the future of Quebec and Canada? He used the term "foolish" to describe what I and many others think about the future of Quebec.

[English]

Ms. Mary Clancy: I'm sorry, are you saying I used that term?

Mr. Daniel Turp: No, I'm asking if you would use a word like “foolish”.

Ms. Mary Clancy: Let me deal first with the question about New York and Quebec office. I don't know the answer. I don't know what the relationship is between New York and the Quebec-New York office.

I do know that we have very cordial relations in our office with the Quebec delegate, who resides in New Hampshire, as I said, just as we have cordial and co-operative relations with the Nova Scotia delegate in Boston.

When Mr. Baril came to Boston, his first stop was to my office to pay a courtesy call. We discussed some of his contacts and we offered him help that we possibly could.

With regard to your question on doing a speaking tour, perhaps I should first say to you, Mr. Turp, that if you get into any trouble and need the protection of the Canadian government, we will be there to help you. I would say that thus far, although your delegate has informed us there are several speaking engagements set up—I believe they're both at universities in New Hampshire and Vermont; I did not see your name, but there were other names and I'm sure I will see yours at some point—we have not been asked for assistance. It would depend on what assistance we were asked for. If it was appropriate for us to give that assistance, we certainly would do so.

You asked if I would use the word “foolish”. I don't look at the issue of separatism as foolish. I look at it, to a degree, as very frightening. It is certainly disturbing both to the province of Quebec and our country as a whole. I look at it as being very serious. I am a passionate, committed federalist and I always will be so. But I reiterate to you what I said to the deputy minister in Quebec City: I do not believe we will win the battle for the hearts and minds of Quebeckers by stifling your opportunities in New England or anywhere else in the world. You cannot keep people by force. You have to keep them by choice.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Thank you.

The Chairman: Ms. Augustine. I have Mr. Mills as well, and that will just about finish it.

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

Ms. Clancy, welcome again to this committee. In the American melting pot situation, how do you or your consular services exemplify the nature of Canadian society—the equality of opportunity, multiculturalism and race relations? How does your staff exemplify that? By that I mean what's the diversity of your staff at the household level, at the office and with the tradespeople, etc.? What is the mix of individuals that you have within the consular services?

Ms. Mary Clancy: Currently we are slightly below staff level. We should have 31, but we have 28 because there are two sick leaves and a maternity leave. With program review, with which we are all too painfully aware, we weren't able to fill those positions until those people come back.

Five of the staff are what is known as Canada-based. That would be me; the deputy consul general, who is the chief trade commissioner; the junior trade commissioner; the investment officer; and the chief political officer. We then have other trade, consular, cultural, and tourism officers, who are all American citizens but are a generation removed from Canada.

• 1025

There are francophones and anglophones in both of those groups. A number of our locally engaged staff are bilingual. We then have about 16 or 17 support staff. We run the gamut of cultural and racial backgrounds in the office. There are people of just about every background you can imagine, as is typical in the United States. Currently of the Canada-based, two are francophone and three are anglophone.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: I would like to explore the position a little bit. I started out earlier with the very fact that we have a consul and the importance of those consular offices to Canadians travelling, but I would like to look at the position itself. It has widely been said that this position is one based on politics and patronage.

Ms. Mary Clancy: The Boston position?

Mr. Bob Mills: Yes. Mr. Cameron, who was there before, was the former Premier of Nova Scotia, and his was a patronage appointment. You have admitted that your appointment is a patronage appointment. The Prime Minister said off the record at a NATO conference that the Americans buy votes and their ridings and use patronage. He was opposed to that. Certainly in opposition many of your members were very opposed to patronage.

Now we have a position that everyone seems to agree is a patronage position. I don't necessarily agree that it should be a patronage position. I see the New England states as being a very important source of business for both Quebec and Atlantic Canada. I see it having great potential. Certainly we have put forward a plan we call Atlantica, which would encourage that trade.

Do you not believe it would be better to have an ambassador there who has the business knowledge, which I think is more important, and those business skills necessary to promote business and trade, and that a professional or at least a business-oriented person could do the job better than someone with a political patronage appointment?

Ms. Mary Clancy: It is very interesting that you make that comment, Mr. Mills, and it is certainly a valid point to make. I can only tell you that when your colleague asked me about self-evaluation...I do not, as you know, suffer from a lack of self-confidence, but whenever you are taking on a new challenge you obviously do examine and wonder about your abilities to carry out what you have been asked to do.

In discussing with senior bureaucrats in the departments most concerned—Foreign Affairs and International Trade—I asked a number of senior people how they felt about the political appointment. The first thing they said was that Boston has traditionally been a political appointment. It goes back beyond Mr. Cameron, to Mr. MacMillan, Madam Lucas, Mr. Danson, and so on. They said the political skills are very important in the New England milieu because, as I said in my opening remarks, it is a very political place.

I was very relieved in discussing with very senior officials in the department that they themselves found the political mix, particularly at heads of mission meetings or when there are issues of common cause among the heads of mission across the United States, and the political response—and there are two political appointments, as you know, in the United States right now—from those of us who had served in Parliament and in the political process extremely helpful, particularly with respect to the IIRIRA advocacy we are on right now. I was told by a number of very senior officials that the political take is helpful.

• 1030

I'm sure that if you examined my colleagues in other posts, there would be areas in which they have expertise. Some heads of missions come out of the political side of the Department of Foreign Affairs, not out of the trade side. Some come out of the trade side and therefore don't have the same political—in the bureaucratic sense—experience. All of us bring our strengths and weaknesses to any position.

Again, when you say that I admitted it was a patronage position, I think you'll find you didn't have to extract that from me. Here I will use the word “foolish”—it would be foolish to deny that. I do not deny it. I am proud of my political history and my political background. But while political experience doesn't render you fit, neither by a long shot does it render any of the people around this table, any member of Parliament, unfit for further public service.

Mr. Bob Mills: Don't you think the Canadian public are tired of patronage and want people to function on the basis of ability to do the job? Don't they want that? Because you are female or black, white or green, because you are Catholic or Jewish or whatever—they don't want that sort of thing, do they? They want it based on ability to do the job, not on patronage.

Ms. Mary Clancy: I can't make a comment on those particular groups that you mentioned. I can only say, as I have said before, that operatio sequitur esse, you have to see how people do in the job. If I do a bad job, I should be fired. If I do a good job, then I have fulfilled the trust the Prime Minister has placed in me. I can only tell you, as I told the Prime Minister when he offered me this job, that I will do my very best. I have given my heart's blood to every job I've ever been in, and I will do the same in this. If I do not do a good job, I should be recalled. I can but do the best I can.

The Chairman: I think that's a good point for you to end on, because we're running about three minutes over time.

We've run over time. Members, there is about 25 minutes left in a 30-minute bell. There's a 30-minute bell running for votes.

[Translation]

The time is up. We have even gone over our allotted time. I believe you have another appointment at the Department.

[English]

Do you have another meeting at the ministry, Madam Clancy?

Ms. Mary Clancy: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you for coming. I'm sure....

Just a moment, we haven't finished yet.

Ms. Clancy, on behalf of the members, I think everyone would like to wish you success in your new post. Thank you for coming.

Ms. Mary Clancy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank all the members.

The Chairman: We're adjourned until nine o'clock on Tuesday morning, when we will be considering section 110 of the U.S. Immigration Act.