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, May 17, 2000

• 1538

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): Colleagues, I'd like to call the meeting to order. We have the minister until only five o'clock, so the longer we engage in gossip, the shorter the time we'll have to deal with the minister.

Minister, thank you for coming to speak on the estimates. We appreciate your being here. I'd assume you've brought some form of prepared text you might want to speak to. Then we'll immediately turn it over to questions, if that's all right.

The Honourable Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With me is Paul Heinbecker, our ADM for global affairs; Kathryn McCallion—she'll be here momentarily—who looks after matters of human resources administration of the department; and other officials who....

Is there a problem?

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Do you have a text, Minister?

[English]

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: No, I don't have a text.

I welcome the opportunity to meet with members and to talk about how we're trying to adapt the resources of the department to our policy priority.

• 1540

[Translation]

For the second time this year, I am appearing before the Standing committee on foreign affairs and international trade. The officials raised recently a series of questions on Columbia, Kosovo, Irak, the national missile defence and the International Criminal Court. The members of the committee are just back from a visit to Caucasus, I am anxious to be appraised of their recommendations. I envy you for that visit and it will interest me to know its outcomes after you have had an opportunity to review them carefully.

This is a good indication of our activism in the field of foreign policy, as well as of the significance and usefulness of the role of the committee and the commitments of members with regard to those processes.

[English]

Members will remember that last year at estimates, we set out what we thought were the changes in the global system and how as a result we needed to refocus our foreign policy resources on promotion of human security. This year's throne speech clearly recognized that approach, tabling it as a central theme of government's policy. This year's budget then attached resources to it of $50 million over five years, a special earmark for human security efforts. We received an additional $35 million to deal with questions of program integrity and the recognition of the increasing workload we experience in dealing with Canadian interests abroad.

I thought I'd use a few minutes just to cover for members of the committee some of the accomplishments and initiatives of the past year since we've met on estimates. During that period, our tenure on the Security Council has been a major focus. Our goal, as you will recall from when we spoke last year, was to begin to shift the definition of security to be more compatible and to corral more to the interests we saw in terms of risks that human beings faced and at the same time to make the membership more transparent, more open, and to allow us to have a more open council, one that wasn't so controlled and elitist.

I think we have succeeded in many cases in sensitizing the issues in front of the council to the human dimension. We've succeeded for the first time in having the heads of the Commission on Human Rights and the International Red Cross, the representative for displaced persons, and others appear before the committee. The council for the first time took up a variety of human security issues: small arms, war-affected children, protection of civilians.

During our presidency in April, we attempted to bring together a number of initiatives that had been started in February, precedent to that. One of the most important was to begin a major examination of the role of sanctions. We had commissioned a study by the university of the UN Peace Academy. We brought that forward by way of a resolution and then had a resolution passed to establish a working group to look at the way in which you could effectively use sanctions as a tool but at the same time ensure that you could limit humanitarian impact. I think that was a very important step forward for the council.

We also have devoted some of the human security funds we've received to actually implementing some of those findings. For example, in the case of the Angola sanctions resolution, which was also part of our presidency, we've agreed to provide funding for the establishment of border control systems in southern Africa to allow them to monitor more carefully the transborder crossings of diamond traders, arms merchants, and other kinds of initiatives. That is something we have taken on.

One of the things I thought would be a very important area of discussion today is the circumstances in Sierra Leone. As you know, Canada has been heavily committed in that from the beginning of the conflict, first through our role in the Commonwealth and latterly in the efforts to shore up the capacity in that country to deal with the Lomé peace agreement and just latterly in the breakdowns of some of the peacekeeping activities.

As you know, I had asked one of our colleagues, David Pratt, to be our special envoy for Sierra Leone. He has visited several times and he and I also visited Sierra Leone ourselves just two weeks ago. We were there as part of a delegation arising out of a major conference we had held on war-affected children. It was at a time in which I think we were right at the edge of the conflict that broke out between the rebel forces, the RUF, and UN peacekeepers.

• 1545

Consequent to that and to those discussions we had—and I suppose we had a premonition that some of those things were happening because of our discussions with the UN personnel—we've undertaken a number of support measures. I think you all know about them. There has been the transfer of various pieces of equipment, the providing of transportation logistics, the announcement made yesterday by the Minister of Defence for an air management system at the airport, and the substantial additional funds that the Minister for International Cooperation put for humanitarian purposes.

What was pointed out was something that we discussed actively this weekend during the Human Security Network meetings in Switzerland, which one of our colleagues attended. I want to thank Ms. Debien for her participation. She played a very important role at those meetings. We discussed very actively how we could take initiatives to try to reinforce and enhance the capacity of the United Nations to deal with rapid response crisis management situations. Ourselves and the Norwegians agreed that we would provide personnel directly to the secretary to handle the immediate situation.

Laterally to that, during this past week we've been active in New York. There will be a meeting convened tomorrow, under the co-chairmanship of Canada, of the special committee on peacekeeping, where we'll deal with the panel to begin a major look at how we can go through a number of measures to substantially promote, develop, and augment the capacity-building within New York itself. We will be tabling a paper on this in New York, which we've been working on for some time. It's been an area of concern for us during our tenure on the Security Council.

In the meantime, we will be meeting the secretary tomorrow as well to talk about how the Canadian and Norwegian contributions can be implemented.

We're also helping on a number of other initiatives specifically in Sierra Leone. During my trip there, we announced the development of a new youth commission that will help us specifically in the area of trying to mobilize resources and support for a number of the demobilized soldiers, the young people who had been captured and violated and are now attempting to be rehabilitated. We're in support of the reconciliation commission in Sierra Leone. We're also in support of an initiative to start media developments and new radio stations in Sierra Leone to help to provide young people with access to information that isn't biased, full of hate, and all the other propaganda that goes with it.

The backdrop to this, which I want to spend a moment on, is that just prior to the visit to Sierra Leone, Canada co-hosted with Ghana a major conference for the 15 west African states on the issue of war-affected children. I'm glad to see that some Canadian media are now discovering that there's a problem there. I wish they had been at the conference in Ghana because they would have seen how west Africans themselves were working very hard to solve the problem.

There's been a lot of pessimism, a lot of articles in The Economist about the hopeless continent. I don't agree with that. There are problems there, but I think it's wrong to be so negative.

I witnessed a very sincere effort in Accra by foreign ministers, social ministers, and resource ministers of the west African states to come together with a plan of action and a declaration. They put forward not only a clear statement of principles and objectives, such as developing a truce for children who have been captive and developing a clear call for release of all children under armies, but also a blueprint that outlined very specific actions that could be taken in the west African region. In fact, west Africa is now further ahead of the curve than any other region in the world in terms of coming to grips with the question of war children.

Unfortunately, if there isn't a crash, they don't get covered. A conference like this didn't get the kind of attention it deserved. It would have demonstrated the ability and capacity of a region that's beset by these kinds of conflicts to come to grips with one of the worst aspects of that conflict.

As a co-host, as a co-sponsor of that, I think we also have added resources. For example, we committed to establishing a child protection unit in ECOWAS, the regional organization, that will work with the west African states in the development of their programs to deal with the question of war-affected children. We not only provide the coordination of those efforts, but also act as a central point for the mobilization of resources from donor countries in that area. That's to give members of the committee just an example of how we would be using our Human Security Network fund in this area.

• 1550

I also want to indicate to you that as a follow-up to the meetings in west Africa and the sponsorship of other similar initiatives around the world, we will be hosting a major international conference in Winnipeg on September 13 to 17 of this year that will bring together like-minded countries from around the world, NGOs, and international organizations to develop a platform for the question of war-affected children that will then be brought into the UN special session on children in 2001.

It's similar to the kind of process we used in the development of the landmine treaty. We used the west Africa meeting as the launching pad for that kind of initiative. We hope to also make a conference that will be virtual in its exercise of connecting young people around the world so that they become empowered to help find some of the solutions to these issues.

The national forum we set up, which is a policy discussion forum that consults with the public, is also dealing with the subject of war-affected children.

So this is a very highly concerted, comprehensive effort by Canada to really focus on this aspect of what's happening and how we can provide support, resources, initiative, and some political will to try to find some real answers to it and not only bring it into the development of an international agreement, but also to provide the wherewithal and the backup to make it something that can actually be implemented.

Let me turn for a moment to another area we've enacted, and that is the question of the ongoing meetings that are taking place in New York right now on non-proliferation.

I think we all recognize that the most serious threat and risk to all our security is still the threat and risk of nuclear annihilation. I go back to the report prepared by this committee two years ago, which I think was a seminal report in helping to draw together Canadian opinions on this matter and bring to bear a number of recommendations that we're now attempting to implement.

It has certainly helped shape our issues. For example, we now have underway at NATO a review of arms control, disarmament, and nuclear policy. That was a key recommendation of this committee, and I'm pleased to report to committee members that your recommendation is now in effect. We'll be getting the first report on that at the NATO foreign ministers meetings next week. So in a sense I think it once again demonstrates that the work of this committee has an instrumental value in helping to define the nature of our foreign policy in those areas.

We have also, at the NPT conference, taken on, I think, a fairly high-risk role, but one that's very important. We've been asked to chair the special committee on nuclear proliferation issues as they relate to the Middle East and South Asia. I don't have to go into detail to tell members exactly what that means, because those are probably the most volatile and risky areas we have to face. Our charge of that meeting is to try to come up with a series of proposals for the NPT that would be agreeable and acceptable at that point in time.

We've also been working very actively on the small-arms front. At the Human Security Network, the meetings that were concluded this weekend in Lucerne, that was a major focus of our effort. Again, there is to be a special session of the United Nations on the development of a small-arms convention.

The preparatory committees I think have not made a lot of progress, so it was a decision of the 13 countries that attended the meeting plus a number of the international organizations we met with that we have to pull together the strands of the variety of activities going on and again make a highly concerted push to come up with a small-arms approach that can be brought in. I think that was one of the major outcomes of the Human Security Network meetings that took place. I think Canada is again playing a very central role in developing that approach of like-minded countries.

A third area I'd like to draw your attention to is one that has been part of our hemispheric approach. As you know, we've been through a series of events—the trade ministers meetings, the Pan-Am meetings. We will in the first week of June be hosting the OAS general assembly. It's the first time it's being held here.

Regarding the areas of concern, again, we'll be focusing on some of the same issues: the major question of drug trafficking in the hemisphere; fundamental questions of human rights, particularly as they relate to women and aboriginals; and the questions of governance and democracy. We're seeing certain glitches taking place in places like Peru and Venezuela, and certainly in Haiti. That will be a major focus of the OAS meetings that we will be chairing.

• 1555

There is a series of resolutions we're proposing, for example, to look very fundamentally at the question of corporate social responsibility. What is the responsibility of private companies that invest in a variety of resource extraction industries, and how do we begin developing codes of conduct and agreements in the hemisphere to start governing those actions? That will be a major area of discussion that we will bring forward for the OAS.

We will also be introducing an initiative called the “connectivity issue”, where we are demonstrating how we can use Canada's capacity in information technology to begin working on the sharing of information in drug trafficking, developing environmental networks, and developing networks that deal with the problem of street children. So again, we're trying to use our value added as a country to share with a number of other countries in the hemisphere, and at the OAS we will be using that as a way of demonstrating and getting a buy-in from the other countries.

Let me also point out that while we're dealing with the southern end of our hemisphere, we're also completing our work on the northern end. I go back to the very important report of this committee on the need for a northern dimension to our foreign policy. I can indicate to committee members that probably in the first or maybe the second week of June—it depends, because we're just completing consultations—we'll be releasing our northern foreign policy for Canada. It's been through a very extensive consultation, not only with our circumpolar partners, but also extensively with people up north, as well as at an interdepartmental meeting. So we will be in a position to announce that policy. I think the target date is around June 8.

Again, I want to express my gratitude to members of the committee, because it's your work that really acted as the foundation for enabling us to move forward on this policy initiative.

Finally, let me just talk a little bit about the organization of the department. As I mentioned earlier, as part of its integrity review procedure the government looked before the last budget at ways in which certain functions needed to be reinforced. There has been a substantial increase in government for foreign affairs in areas like protocol and consular services.

Just to give you an example, there's been almost a 50% increase over the last five years for services to Canadians overseas. It's a demonstration first that we're becoming very global as a country. More Canadians travel, do business, and get educated abroad, and it puts a heavy demand on our overseas resources to provide protection against kidnapping, illness, death, and abductions, or in adoptions. There's a whole series of activities our department is involved in, and that's why the increased funding was necessary in this case.

I think I also wanted to point to the concern that has been expressed publicly and directly to me through a series of meetings about the question of the foreign service, both in terms of its pay scale as well as its morale problems. I think it is a serious issue. I am pleased to report that it has now gone into conciliation. I think there have been a number of discussions at senior level of management with the Treasury Board, with PAFSO representing the foreign service officers.

I think the conciliation process, when it's been agreed to in all, should provide the basis for a solution. I think there were certain elements that went into that that will give us, I hope, the formula we can resolve this with, because there's no question that it needs to be resolved, and I'm certainly sympathetic to the concerns expressed by foreign service officers. They do an incredible job abroad. They really are under a lot of stress and strain, and things are not getting easier overseas. There are an awful lot more threats, risks, and problems they face. I think they deserve to be properly remunerated, and I trust the conciliation process will result in that.

We are also engaged, in Ms. McCallion's division, on a major human renewal examination. There are a number of programs related to—

Ms. Kathryn McCallion (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Passport and Consular Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): And Madame Laporte—we're together.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I know that. You're together on it.

We're really trying to deal with some of the issues, gender issues in particular, and employment equity issues and issues related to the role of foreign service spouses abroad, which is a matter that is brought to my attention frequently as I travel.

That's my report, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Minister.

I'll pass to questions. Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Minister, for coming and giving an overview of what's been going on since you last came. I do not wish during my questioning at all to not recognize the importance of what is happening in Sierra Leone and what's happening in other countries. I leave it to my colleagues to discuss those questions.

I have two questions for you, and then we'll go.

The first question.... As I'm the international trade critic, naturally the ITAR question comes into place. There seems to be confusion coming in here as to what the state of agreement is with the Americans in reference to ITAR. Companies have approached me and have told me that nothing has been resolved, that they are losing business and that relationships have collapsed for this industry. They are facing a quite difficult situation. Where they were having a very smooth relationship, now it has become quite difficult for the Americans to talk to them, and it's a big concern for them. Perhaps you want to comment on that issue before I go on to the next question.

• 1600

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I'm happy to do that.

I agree with the member that it's a matter of some real concern. I can report that we've made very substantial progress on the issues, and if I were to give you a percentage, I'd say maybe 85% or 90% toward a solution.

As you know, what took place is that the United States Congress set out a new set of directions for the transfer of technology, especially related to defence matters, where they would require a much higher level of security requirements. The one that gave us the most problem was that they wanted to provide—in fact they did provide—a prohibition of any transfer to a Canadian contractor based upon the fact that they might be a landed immigrant. We said that we would not accept any security questions related to that, that it's against our charter. We simply couldn't find a resolution until last fall, when the President visited Canada, and he and the Prime Minister worked out a basic formula that we would not use the question of one's landed status or immigrant status but would in fact work on the question of security.

We've been working on a very detailed set of proposals to see how our export permit laws and the security precautions that are within the industries themselves would be compatible with the American requirements to ensure that transfer could take place, and I think we've pretty much resolved all of those problems.

The only thing that's outstanding is a question dealing with missile technology, which is something the Congress has to decide, not the State Department, and they haven't got to Congress yet. So that's about the only remaining area that has to be resolved before we come to a final agreement.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: What's your estimate? How quickly do you think this thing is going to be resolved?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: This missile technology control regime is a matter of Congress, and they tend to work at their own speed. We had hoped it would have been done by now, but we certainly hope that by this spring it will be resolved.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: While this is still outstanding to go through the Congress, why can't we just have a smoother relationship with the U.S.A. to assist Canadian business?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: The reason is that there are going to be some “quids” for the “quos”. That's something we are demandeur on. If we're going to be implementing a more comprehensive security regime, then we want to make sure we get the full access we had previously. That's why the MTCR is a very crucial part of that agreement.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: So am I to understand that we are asking for a full comprehensive agreement in total, that it's not coming from the U.S.?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I think it would be fair to say that we both want a comprehensive agreement, but we also want to make sure it's an equitable agreement.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: So to a degree we are waiting for this proposal that we put forward to go through the Congress and then come back.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: No. Most of it is by regulation, and that has been basically agreed upon.

There is one element in the overall package, which is called the missile technology control regime, category two items, and to get an exemption on that would have to be agreed to by Congress. That's the only element left.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: So you don't know the time it's going to take, I presume.

These are the estimates here, so I'm going to ask you some questions on the estimates.

As you know, one thing that is important these days is the internal audit. How much internal audit does your department go through every year?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: We do about 15 or so. We have an arm's-length arrangement where the Inspector General's Office, which is not connected to the department, does a series of audits in a variety of missions abroad as well as within divisions. They prepare those audits. They are then looked at, and if changes have to be made, it goes to the administration to do so. We are also, as you know, subject to the Auditor General, who has just completed a number of audits of missions abroad and has generally given pretty good marks. I can ask Ms. McCallion if she wishes to amplify on that.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Are these internal audits made public?

• 1605

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, they are. They are being made public. They're going on the website for the Treasury Board. In some cases it's just a matter of finishing translation to get them completed.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: So right now they're not on a website, but you're looking at putting them on a website.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Some of them are. As soon as they're completed and translated, they go on a website.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: So there will be a transparency issue on that.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Yes.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: If I still have some time left, I'll let my colleague ask some questions.

The Chairman: You have four minutes.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance): Through you, Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for coming to the committee.

Mr. Minister, you mentioned in your preamble that the membership of Canada in various international organizations should be open and transparent. Can you kindly provide a list to the committee as to how many international organizations Canada belongs to, where the numbers are in the estimates that account for these taxpayer-funded membership fees—I didn't see anything—and what has been accomplished as a result of Canada's membership in these international organizations?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, they appear under grants and contributions. We can get you the full list. I think they are listed in the book. But it's under grants and contributions.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: The committee can be provided with a full list.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Sure.

The Chairman: Maybe you can help draw attention to the place in grants and contributions where they appear.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I'll ask the officials to get the exact location.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I'm looking at your minister's message in the estimate book on the first two pages, where you state:

...we are pursuing activities to...protect civilians in situations of armed conflict.... This involves a focus on international efforts to protect children and youth....

Also, you mentioned it in your preamble.

I would like to point out, Mr. Minister, that a few short years ago you were among the Commonwealth ministers who were outraged that the Nigerian military regime had executed human rights activist Ken Saro-Wiwa. You joined in suspending Nigeria from the Commonwealth. In recent weeks we have seen on television Nigerian troops shooting children in the streets of Sierra Leone. Mr. Minister, you may have information on it, or you may have seen it. Even Amnesty International has drawn attention to the Nigerian military atrocities against civilians. I would like to know, Mr. Minister, if you can explain why you now regard Nigeria as the saviour of Sierra Leone. A short time ago you condemned Nigeria, and now you are the biggest supporter of increased Nigerian involvement in the region. Can you please explain that?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I think it's a little exaggerated saying that I'm the biggest supporter of Nigerian involvement in the region.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: You met with the president two days ago.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: First let me say that Nigeria has become a democracy. It's not perfect by any means, but neither are we. But it has certainly made a huge transition from where we were two years ago when we took a stand in the Commonwealth. I think it shows that when one takes a stand, it pays off. President Obasanjo, who was just a recent visitor here, was in prison and in exile and came to Canada during that period to plead for our help. He made it very clear in his public statements that he owes his life to Canada and that he owes the transition to democracy in large part to the leadership we showed in the Commonwealth.

I think we are engaged with Nigeria in helping to begin supporting some of their efforts. They are facing a lot of problems with regard to corruption, governance, regional divisions, federalism, and economic development. They had a very long list of issues they raised with us during that visit. My colleague Madam Minna signed a framework agreement with CIDA and the Nigerians to come to grips with those matters.

I can say to the member that one of the most interesting turnabouts is that I now sit on the CMAGN with Nigeria. Two years ago we were sitting across the table from each other holding them to account, and now the foreign minister of Nigeria sits on the committee to provide us....

As to the events you talked about, I'm sorry, I haven't seen those events. Perhaps you can give me a reference for those. I don't get to watch television as much—

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: There was also an international report—

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Perhaps you can give me the reference.

As you know, Nigeria has been pulling out. They were there as part of the ECOWAS intervention.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I know.

• 1610

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: When the United Nations Security Council gave a mandate to set up a UN force, it was a hybrid arrangement. It was part ECOWAS and part UN. Slowly, there has been a transfer. There are two Nigerian battalions, which are now under UN command. ECOWAS is a regional organization. Defence ministers are meeting this week to discuss if there will be a further contribution from ECOWAS. I can't comment as to what they will decide.

In the meantime, the UN has now taken over full responsibility. I can say that under the Lomé agreement, while a certain degree of impunity was given for those up to that point in time, we've made it very clear in the Security Council that any substantiated evidence on war crimes or crimes against humanity would have to be looked into, and that's what we would continue to insist on.

The Chairman: Thank you, Minister.

[Translation]

Mrs. Lalonde.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Minister, thank you for being here with us.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: You are welcome.

[English]

I'm sorry, but to go back to the previous question, just to give the member the right answer, as you can see in table 5.5, our grants and contributions currently account for about $223 million to 35 organizations, World Trade, United Nations, World Health, and so on.

Sorry about that, Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: You said in your opening statement regarding Foreign Affairs employees abroad that the conciliation process had been accepted. We received a letter dated May 15 to that effect, even if was not effective yet.

Despite what you say, I would like you to elaborate on that because, when we go to our embassies abroad and to the UN, we understand to what extent it would be impossible for the positions taken by Parliament or by the government to be advanced without the extraordinary work these qualified and dedicated people are doing.

However, they have grave concerns. One of their concerns is that recruitment is somewhat difficult and that the department may have a tendency to try to replace permanent staff by casual employees, which would lead to loss of skills and to a lack of continuity in the handling of files. It would seem to me that those people have a right to a treatment at least equal to the treatment received by the technical and professional employees who are here, and that we should not try to save money by substituting casual employees for permanent employees.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: First, Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mrs. Lalonde on the extraordinary work done by our officials abroad. It is remarkable. I have received some representations just as you did and I have had several meetings with members of the group. As I said already, I hope that the conciliation process will lead to an agreement between the civil servants and Treasury Board.

[English]

Let me say that the problem really isn't in the recruitment. I think we still receive applications from an incredible number of very able young—not just young—men and women across this country. We usually have a ratio of 5:1 or 7:1. It's a very substantial sort of recruitment, and we get really wonderful people. The problem is the retention, and that goes back to decisions that were made quite a while ago, back in the late 1980s, I would guess, where the decision was made to have basically two categories, FS-1s and FS-2s, which didn't allow for proper gradations. And this is my opinion, in part. So when an experienced officer hits the top rung of FS-2 and doesn't get into to EX branch, they're sort of held there. I think that's where the disparity has begun to occur.

• 1615

As you know, the government has been working now for a couple of years on a new classification system, which would be part of the application to our own department as well as others. In the meantime, there is that disparity, and I think that has been the area of negotiation.

I can't get into details. That's between management and the union representing them. As ministers, we don't get ourselves involved in that kind of administration. But I am very sympathetic. I have raised the issue in cabinet. I have raised the issue with my colleagues, and I think there is a genuine will to find a solution, because we all recognize, as you do, that this is a very valuable service that we provide and we need awfully good people. I think we have to respond to it.

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: We shall see whether you can exert some influence on Cabinet.

[English]

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I guess. I suppose.

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Minister, in Part III, Report on Plans and Priorities, I feel there is some contradiction between the objectives, the commitments regarding results and the efforts undertaken. For instance, on page 21, you list several planned results, such as:

Develop Canadian capacity to deal more rapidly with humanitarian crises, movements of refugees and the internally displaced...

- Manage Canadian peace support deployments.

- Exercise effective leadership in the UN Security Council on peace support operations.

It seems to me that Canada did not particularly stand out as being rapid and effective. Why? I would like to know that. You may wish it were not so, but I would like to know what measures you are going to implement so that Canadian interventions can be quicker and more effective.

On one hand, I am pleased because there has been an acknowledgment, but on the other hand, I would like to know how you are going to improve their quickness and effectiveness without using additional resources.

[English]

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: In strict terms, the administration and management of military peacekeeping is the responsibility of the Minister of Defence. We advise and recommend. I don't make decisions on troop allocations and matters of that kind. We work very closely with the Department of Defence, as we do with the Solicitor General.

For example, one area in which we have substantially increased our commitment is the supply of police overseas. We have close to 200 Canadian police officers, compared to say 30 or 40 previous to that. That is peacekeeping, Madame Lalonde.

Probably the greatest demand we have now in a variety of conflict situations is to provide law enforcement officers. That's part of the whole peacekeeping exercise that we need to provide, and I think it's very important that we be in a position to do so. We have a high reputation with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for that kind of function and activity. We have put additional resources into supplying peace officers in East Timor, Kosovo, and several other areas. So that's one area on which we're working.

We've had a lot of discussions, and I think the Minister of Defence, as he has received new resources in the budget—I think he receives an allocation of $700 million—is looking at how that can be devoted to more effective lift capacity and all of those things. I think your colleague who deals with him on defence estimates can go into those details.

Where we've been most active has been at the United Nations, for the Security Council. First, we did bring in quite an active program to deal with changing the mandate of peacekeeping operations so that we could provide a more specific mandate for protection of civilians. We did a major review of the Rwanda report that had been tabled, to examine what lessons were learned from Rwanda. We brought that in to the Security Council. We had an open debate that went on for a day, which I chaired, and drew from that a series of prescriptions about what we had to do as a way of ensuring that when the mandate is sent there....

A very specific result of that is that the Secretary General now establishes a very specific function of child advocate in peacekeeping missions so that there's somebody in those peacekeeping missions who represents the interests of war-affected children.

The mandate itself in East Timor includes, as it did in Sierra Leone, provision for that mandate to protect civilians. It was the first time it had ever happened under a UN mandate. The drawback, of course, was to get the resources for it.

• 1620

Our biggest problem at the United Nations has been to try to break the trend toward the so-called voluntary like-minded peacekeeping missions, as opposed to assessed contributions. Assessed contribution means everybody has to pay up, and the mission can be properly resourced. We have received opposition from certain members of the Security Council about that position, and as a result peacekeeping is not given the kinds of resources it often needs; it's done really in a pretty sparse fashion.

We've also, as I just described, made a very concerted effort to see how we could beef up the capacity of the UN Secretariat itself to provide for rapid response. We have now sent people down there. We co-chair a special committee on peacekeeping, and we're now developing a plan of action to see how we can respond to that.

But you know, Madam Lalonde, we run into some very funny problems, in terms of the way the system works. For example, the UN has what it calls a non-gratis policy. They won't accept voluntary contributions from countries like Canada of highly placed senior officers to go into the peacekeeping secretariat because they say that would discriminate against people from other countries. So we can't say “Here is a senior highly technical military officer to plan peacekeeping”. It has to go through a competition of some kind or we have to pay for somebody else to come in. So that's what we're doing now. We've offered some new DND personnel, but through our human security program we're offering to actually help them hire people from some of the southern countries to beef up the secretariat capacity for management of crisis.

Those are the kinds of initiatives we're taking.

The Chairman: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to join in welcoming the minister before the committee and thank him for rescheduling the meeting that had originally been scheduled earlier.

I have questions in four areas, but before I get to them I want to just make a couple of comments. One is with respect to the national missile defence system. There is obviously a vigorous debate going on within the government, and I know the minister will probably keel over in shock, but I want to commend him for the position he has taken.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Stop the presses.

The Chairman: Don't worry, there's a sting from every tail.

Mr. Svend Robinson: No, Mr. Chairman, on this one there's no sting. I know the minister's position has been clearly annunciated in a number of fora—the article he did with Anna Lindh from Sweden and a number of other areas. Certainly the views of his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, about Canada being part of the continental United States are views I suspect the minister doesn't fully share. I can only hope his views will soon prevail, on this particular issue of the national missile defence system.

I was interested to hear Mr. Grewal asking about Sierra Leone and some of the butchery and appalling violence that's taking place. I think we have to recognize that the vast majority of that is in fact taking place by the RUF and Foday Sankoh, who interestingly enough is being aided and abetted in that by Liberia. I know Mr. Grewal has an interesting history in Liberia. He may want to call on his contacts there to prevail to stop this butchery.

I have just one factual question before I put my four questions to the minister. The minister said that the matter of the PAFSO negotiations had gone to a conciliation board. I certainly agree with the minister that it's important that there be respect and dignity for the employees. The levels of morale are terrible, and attrition is very high—probably the highest ever. These are dedicated people who have not been treated with the kind of respect and dignity they deserve, both overseas and here. Could the minister clarify whether it has actually gone to a conciliation board?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: It's on its way. I think they've agreed to go—

Mr. Svend Robinson: The president of PAFSO is here, and as of an hour ago he wasn't aware of that, so I'm pleased that the minister—

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I'll let Ms. McCallion answer. She has the details on that.

Mr. Svend Robinson: You've agreed that it will go to conciliation, have you?

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: That was my understanding, but the man in the room is waiting for the invitation from Treasury Board.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's correct. I'm pleased the minister is going to be doing that.

The Chairman: Once again this committee is on the leading edge of what's going on around town. Without giving Robinson the credit for negotiating this deal, can we get the whole committee involved in it?

Mr. Svend Robinson: That leads me to my first point. I'll put my four questions. The committee is on the leading edge in a number of respects, and the minister has listened to the committee on a number of important issues.

I want to ask about Iraq. This committee has made a strong and unanimous recommendation to the government and the minister to de-link military sanctions from economic sanctions and lift economic sanctions. The minister knows the arguments about the devastating human toll these sanctions have taken, particularly on innocent children and others.

• 1625

I want to ask the minister if he is prepared to accept that important recommendation by this committee and follow the enlightened leadership he's referred to of the committee on this significant issue.

The second issue is with respect to Sudan. If there's a sting, I must say I think many Canadians were frankly saddened and deeply appalled at the profound lack of leadership of this government on Sudan. We had some hope back in October when the minister said—and I'm quoting from the minister's own statement here:

...if it becomes evident that oil extraction is exacerbating the conflict in Sudan, or resulting in violations of human rights or humanitarian law, the Government of Canada may consider applying economic and trade restrictions.

Mr. Chairman, John Harker said in his report to the government, and I quote, “oil is exacerbating conflict in Sudan” and creates a disincentive for the government of Sudan to negotiate a just peace.

Those are the minister's own words. Yet what does the minister do? He says we'll bring it up at the Security Council. Well, forget that. It didn't even get on the agenda. And we can probably imagine that China had something to do with that. But forget that; it didn't get on the agenda of the Security Council.

The minister said “We're going to have the NGOs join in monitoring and we're going to make sure they monitor with Talisman human rights abuses”. That didn't happen. The NGOs were not able to arrive at an agreement with Talisman to monitor.

What on earth is this minister waiting for to finally show some leadership on the issue of Sudan? When the Security Council isn't acting and the NGO human rights monitoring mechanism has broken down—and I want to be very specific here—if he says he can't act under the Special Economic Measures Act, will the minister consider amending that act, as Criag Forcese, others, and the minister himself have suggested? I remember, because we both participated in the debate in 1993, that the minister himself proposed an amendment to allow SEMA to deal with a broader range of human rights concerns. So will the minister look seriously at the possibility of amending that, and will he show some leadership on Sudan?

I also want to ask the minister if he can clarify for the committee the current nature of the relationship between Canada and Cuba. The Prime Minister said there was a northern frost on the relationship, particularly after the imprisonment of four political prisoners. I certainly share the concern of the government with respect to that. Two of them have just been released. Will the minister consider opening a long-overdue consulate in Vancouver? What is the nature of that relationship?

Finally, why didn't Canada co-sponsor the resolution on China, given the serious deterioration in the human rights situation there, the Falun Gong situation and the Tibet situation? Why isn't the minister co-sponsoring?

The Chairman: You have three minutes left to answer those rather long questions.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I'll make my best effort, Mr. Chairman.

I would just point out to Mr. Robinson that when I was in Sierra Leone I had the interesting experience of actually spending an hour and a half with Mr. Sankoh. I'm still debating whether appearing before the committee or being before Mr. Sankoh is more of a monumental task, in terms of being able to deal with it. But I find the committee far more agreeable, certainly today—and safe. Nobody is standing around the room with machetes, as they did during that interview.

Let me first deal with the question on Iraq. I think we have made an effort to respond to the humanitarian crisis. First, as you know, I sent a mission into Iraq just before Christmas to make an assessment. We got reports back as to exactly what was taking place. We incorporated many of those findings into a presentation we made at the Security Council this April, on the need to have a very fundamental revision of sanctions policy. We made it very clear at the time that we would like to see Resolution 1284 looked at from that point of view.

We proposed in front of the council that we set up a commissioner's group on humanitarian efforts, similar to what they have on the disarmament side, to begin to look at how 1284 could be amended. I don't hold out much prospect for that. There are very set positions on that matter. Nevertheless, the agreement we got from the Security Council to do a major reassessment of the sanctions policy is a step forward.

• 1630

Mr. Svend Robinson: I asked about de-linking.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: What we did provide as well is we will continue to maintain our support of 1284 on the grounds that we believe the same regime is still actively engaged in trying to develop weapons of mass destruction, and that there has to be an ongoing effort. And it hasn't played itself out yet, Mr. Robinson. There still are efforts at the UN to get agreement from the Iraqis to allow a monitoring agency to go into Iraq to provide for that kind of monitoring.

In the meantime, as you know, we offered direct humanitarian aid through UNICEF for the rebuilding of the hospitals and schools. The Iraqi officials didn't greet this with great hallelujahs, but we're nevertheless going ahead and providing direct humanitarian assistance in Iraq. I think we're one of the few western countries that are doing that.

On the question of Sudan, you mentioned Mr. Harker's report. You didn't read the whole report, because what Mr. Harker said in the report was do not bring in those measures at this time. Similarly, the report that Senator Wilson, who is the former Moderator of the United Church, did as a parallel examination for me on the peace process, recommended the same thing.

I received two reports from two highly respected individuals who know the area very well saying that things are bad there and things need to be changed. But they said it was much more important to continue a form of engagement, and they advised against using economic measures in both reports. So it was based upon that advice, as well as the fact that we wanted to test out various measures, which we are still doing, that we made the decision we did.

I don't think you're being very fair in saying that nothing has happened, because in fact we are opening up an office in Khartoun, which will have a very significant human rights monitoring component to it. I agree with you that the failure to arrive at agreement between Talisman and NGOs is very unfortunate. So we are in fact doing the functional replacement for it. We will set that office up. We're looking at some people now, and I know that those who are prepared to go there will be some of the best people on the human rights file we have at our department.

We led the initiative at the Human Rights Commission meetings in Geneva on a resolution against Sudan, which, by the way, was unanimously approved. There were a few abstentions, but we were able to get that very severe condemnation at the Human Rights Commission. We are also supporting the work of Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner, to establish another office in Sudan.

By the way, when I spoke with Commissioner Robinson her advice was to stay the course: You have to stay in there. You have to use your capacity to engage with these guys. Keep the pressure on and push on it.

I like what's going on there, and I think there are serious transgressions taking place. As you know, before we got on, this was back two years ago, the Security Council refused to apply sanctions to Sudan on these grounds, Mr. Robinson, that this is the parallel to Iraq. When the question of sanctions came up before the Security Council on Sudan, the reason they didn't go that far is because they didn't want to have a severe humanitarian impact. Therefore the Security Council would not vote sanctions against Sudan on those grounds, which are the very same grounds you're arguing for Iraq. As a result, our SEMA legislation can be triggered.

I agree with you that it should be reviewed, and I stated this in front of the Security Council when we brought in our sanctions resolution. I said that if we're going to make sanctions work, not only do we have to tighten up the enforcement capacity at the international level, but we have to look at our domestic jurisdictions to find more finely tuned instrumentation and targeted measures that we can apply in this case, which we don't have right now. And I think it's something I would perhaps suggest might be a worthwhile exercise for this committee at some point to begin doing.

I should say that tomorrow in fact we are meeting specifically with the representatives of the oil industry in Canada to talk about how we can better apply standards and codes of conduct on these kinds of issues.

So I think we are attempting to take.... And I also have a special task force working on Sudan to look at a variety of other measures, particularly as it relates to development in the south.

On Cuba—

The Chairman: Mr. Minister, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we're way over time.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I can give a quick fix on Cuba.

The Chairman: Be very quick.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: On Cuba, Mr. Robinson, our relationship hasn't changed. We haven't gone to the second stage of the agreement. That was pending the release of dissidents. Now that some of the dissidents are being released, I think we'll certainly start talking to the Cubans again. It's as simple as that.

On the China issue, the reason we—-

Mr. Svend Robinson: I asked about the consulate issue.

• 1635

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: And the consulate, I think that would be part of those discussions.

On the question of China, the resolution that was introduced by the United States just went too far. It wasn't balanced enough, because we think there are serious human rights problems in China, but there are also some efforts being made, particularly on the constitutional side and on the legal side, and it didn't take that into account.

By the way, nobody else co-sponsored it, either. But what we did do, very clearly, is we voted against the no-action resolution, which China brings in, which is a statement of where we're coming from.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I was pleased to hear your answers to the questions Mr. Robinson addressed, because those were on some of the notes I had made to ask about Sierra Leone, Iraq, Sudan, etc.

I also wanted to speak quite strongly about the resolution of the foreign service officers question, because having just come back from Central Asia, the officers who we met there were so dedicated, were so highly trained, experienced and skilled, that we were very proud to have them organize for us and to make our stay there, and to have the ground set for us. So we recognize the work they are doing, and I'm very pleased to hear you say that we are heading toward conciliation and that the problem will be resolved.

I want to ask also my three questions, which I'll put on the floor. One is my annual question on the whole issue of diversity, recruitment and training. I've been looking at page 28, your human resources, and I was hoping the answer would be in there, but I didn't see it, so I'll ask you to speak to that again.

Secondly, the issues are complex, and what we're doing in terms of foreign affairs is really complex for our constituents to understand in terms of exactly where we are and what our role is in this world where so many things are happening.

I was looking on page 26, and you have there “Greater public understanding in Canada and abroad of Canada's policies and positions”. I wonder if you can talk about the kinds of things the department does in order to explain all of these complex issues to our public.

Lastly, there is the issue of ODA, the declining trend in overseas development assistance. When we look at the GNP ratio, we are at 0.25 % in 2000, heading to 0.24% in 2002. I just want to ask if we're still committed to 0.7% of GNP and how do you see your human security agenda standing the test, given the present circumstance of Canadian ODA?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: First of, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I am pleased that members of this committee are expressing themselves on the circumstance of foreign service officers. I think that's very helpful and conducive to have those expressions from the committee, and I certainly welcome them.

On the question of diversity, Ms. Augustine, I'm going to let Ms. McCallion deal with it. I think our record is improving, but she can give more detailed figures.

On the question of outreach, we do have a program on public diplomacy that is designed.... First, one thing I think is working out very well is we've started a program in a variety of schools across the country developing UN clubs, model UN assemblies, areas where they can become engaged through the website and other matters in the exchange of views on current issues.

When I was sitting in the chair at the Security Council in April, it was very rewarding to see a group of 200 young Canadians from our schools there in the audience as participants. They were down there as part of a model UN exercise. So there are a number of schools being recruited into that.

As well, as you know, we've started the publication of a thing we call Canada World View, which comes out quarterly. I don't have a copy here, but it now has a circulation of about 50,000. It goes into schools, libraries, NGOs, and other organizations. It's been very well received. I wish I had a copy. It's too bad we didn't bring one; we should of thought of that. I think you all receive copies as members of Parliament, so you know what it looks like. It's been highly regarded, and we get a very good response on it.

• 1640

We've also started a program where we invite journalists from other countries to come to Canada to meet with a variety of people and learn about what we're doing internationally. We also have our ongoing programs overseas.

One thing you know about is that in our network of embassies, we're trying to increasingly broaden the public affairs side of it. In the case of Canada House, it's really become a major information centre for Great Britain. It's a multimedia centre, a source of lectures and art exhibitions, a meeting place for students and young people. We're doing a similar thing with the cultural centre in Paris and the new embassy in Berlin. We're trying to say let's not just have this as a working office for our diplomats, but also a place where there's a lot more public involvement. We're tying that in and we're using a lot more of the new information technology to do that.

We have a program called Youth Link, where we've established connections between Canadian high schools and high schools in Great Britain, France, and Germany. We have a program in Mexico on environmental things. Junior high school students in those two countries are exchanging information on the plight of the Monarch butterfly. At the OAS, we'll be bringing in a new program using the Internet as a way of developing connections between street children projects in the hemisphere so they can share best practices, share lessons, talk to one another, learn how to use it.

If I may be allowed one moment, I'll tell you that one of the most rewarding experiences I've had in this job was when we were in Ghana at the war-affected child conference. We had about 30 young people from west Africa, from Liberia and Sierra Leone especially, who had been affected by war. Some of them were former combatants, others had been violated and abused. They were at the conference to help develop positions and policies.

Through the help of War Child, which is a Canadian NGO, we set up a video Internet link between 16 high schools in Canada and these young African men and women. For an hour, to watch the exchange that went on and the bonding that began to take place and the sharing of information.... These are young people talking to each other. The impulse and sense of encouragement that these young Africans got from talking to their counterparts in Canada.... It was so exciting to watch the kind of electricity that was in the air.

By the time it was over, they were talking about everything. They weren't just talking about what it was like to be a war child. They were talking about what it's like to be a young person and what kind of music they like and what they talk about. It was tremendous.

I'm hoping that when we go to the conference in Winnipeg on war children, for example, we're going to try to find sponsors and others to make it much more virtual so we can tie in kids from a number of continents so that becomes their experience. We're trying to use that technology as a way of reaching out to meet that public diplomacy side.

On the ODA question, Ms. Minna is in a much better position to answer that. As you know, in the last two budgets we have started to bring our ODA levels back up. In fact, I think we're the only western country now where the trend line is actually going upwards. I think Ms. Marleau can answer that. It could go up at a higher acceleration, but it's beginning to go back up.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Are we still committed to point seven?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Down the road. Absolutely. We'll get there, but the question is whether it will be in your lifetime or mine. I guess that's the real issue.

Let me just say this. There is one thing I want to put a footnote on. I think Diane can speak to this, because she went through it. So much of our ODA moneys are now being committed simply to respond to disasters. The fundamental objective of CIDA in terms of its development.... So many of the resources now go to hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, wars, humanitarian refugees, famines, etc.

Increasingly, we've had a lot of discussions in our cabinet about how to respond to this problem. The frequency and number and dimension and magnitude of disasters to which we're being asked to provide basic maintenance is overwhelming. As a result, the capacity of CIDA, the defence department, the Solicitor General, and our department to respond to this is a very taxing event. It's one that I think really deserves a much better public airing and public examination.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I can leave you my telephone number.

The Chairman: Please.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Recruitment was at what level last year?

• 1645

Ms. Kathryn McCallion: The recruitment for this year isn't finalized. It comes to executive committee in the department this year. But the commitment to interview a higher proportion in all categories was met. So at the interview phase, more women, more people with disabilities, and more aboriginals in particular has been met.

The numbers are about the same as they have been. We are improving, but the basic numbers are, for the rates of participation in the department: women 45.9%; persons with disabilities—and the difficulty in some of these categories, not women, is that you have to self-identify—3.7%; aboriginals, 2%; and visible minorities, 5.2%. The difficulty is that we have not yet met their share of the population at large. We are improving, and approximately 20% of our heads of posts are women.

The Chairman: Mr. Grewal, you have five minutes.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first round was just a bonus.

Mr. Minister, I will not ask you questions on Sudan and Iraq, since Mr. Robinson has asked, but I would like to follow up on the case of China.

You mentioned in your preamble that Canada is very concerned about nuclear proliferation, and China has shown itself to completely ignore the world's concern on this issue. They have supplied nuclear technology to rogue states, like Pakistan. On the other hand, the perception is that what you preach, you don't practice with respect to China. Would you elaborate on that?

My second question would be about the recent comments by retired Canadian General Roméo Dallaire in today's Toronto Star. He said the world's failure to help Sierra Leone is a disgusting example of racism and ignorance of the lessons of Rwanda. He further says that he is seeing all the same mistakes being made in Sierra Leone, where western powers have largely refused to intervene. It's a long article. He further mentions that world powers, willing to spend billions to intervene in places like Bosnia and Kosovo, have turned their backs on Africa.

Could you explain why Canada hasn't shown any leadership in the last six years that this civil war has been going on in Sierra Leone, and prior to that, since 1991, in Liberia?

The other question I have is a very short one on ODA. I will not elaborate, but since the Liberal government came into power, the commitment of ODA-to-GNP ratio has been 0.7%. However, Canada has never shown any inclination that it is about to achieve those objectives. In fact, the ODA-to-GNP ratio will fall from 0.25% in 2000-01 to 0.24% by the years 2002 and 2003.

Finally, the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers' contract with the Treasury Board remains unresolved, even though you gave the latest information: 84% of foreign service union members rejected the government's latest offer; their pay is lousy, and their morale is low. When we go abroad and talk to the foreign service employees, we always hear those complaints.

Where in the estimates is the concern for our foreign service officers recognized and a solution proposed?

Since time is limited, I will stop there.

The Chairman: I'm glad you stopped there, because you have a minute and a half. Look, you have to understand the rules here. The rule is ten minutes each time around, and five and five back. If you take three and a half minutes to ask four questions, you're going to get a minute and a half answer, so that's all I'm going to give the minister.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Chairman, I have questions; that's what we do.

The Chairman: I'll stop him after one minute and a half.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: First, I think it is worth putting on the record that the previous spokesperson on foreign affairs for the official opposition said Canada should only intervene where its strategic interests were involved and should not be involved in humanitarian intervention in places like Sierra Leone. So I'm glad to see the honourable member is perhaps providing a change in the policy of his predecessor, and I will certainly welcome further explanations of that shift or transformation that's going on.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: But Canada has never since involved—

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: I'm just saying that was the position taken before, and in saying that, I want to point out that we have been involved in Sierra Leone right from the beginning. We were involved in the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, where we established the basic principle of suspending Sierra Leone until the military government was taken out and democracy was restored.

• 1650

We have provided a number of interventions, not just on the military side but on the civilian peace-building side, to help the capacity of the Government of Sierra Leone to start building up its ability to govern the country itself, because we feel that it is an area that is too often neglected by countries. It's often easy to send troops in; it's a lot more difficult to send in skilled administrators, people who know how to help set up systems of education.

Particularly what we've been emphasizing is the question of children. Mr. Grewal, I hope you'll understand: we now have close to $15 million going into the demobilization and rehabilitation of children in the camps. We probably make more contributions than anybody does. That is a fundamental priority choice that we made.

On the military side, when we say there has been somehow a division, I think in some cases there hasn't been enough attention paid, but I can tell you that we've tried to use our position on the Security Council to refocus that.

For example, Canada was the only western country that was involved in a peacekeeping mission in west Africa up until just a few months ago in the Central Africa Republic. We were the only ones there. We were providing highly skilled bilingual communications contingents to make sure that very important peacekeeping mission.... Which worked, by the way. It was a UN system that worked and kept the peace. We were very much there, and we are attempting to support....

I just want to say something that bothers me. Since I've come back from overseas, I've been reading a lot of the press commentary and comments that sort of learned sages make. I think they are doing a real disrespect to a lot of the countries that do have peacekeepers in Sierra Leone. Simply because they come from a southern country doesn't mean they're not professional or they're not committed. They are. I was there. I met with them and I saw them.

It's true that they sometimes weren't given the right equipment, but I put a lot of that onus on what happened in New York, not Sierra Leone. I think it's about time we paid due recognition that a number of those troops who are coming from the countries in Africa and the Middle East and other places are first-class troops, but they do need the backup and support that we have to give them.

If there is anything that is providing a certain bias, I think it's this notion that only we in the west can provide professional peacekeepers. I don't buy that at all.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Do I have any time left?

The Chairman: Sorry, we're going to go over.

Madam Marleau.

Ms. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): First of all, I want to talk about the human security agenda and the real issue of corruption. And I want to congratulate you and Ambassador Fowler for bringing forward the motion on the traffic of diamonds.

As you know, corruption fuels most of these conflicts. I will always remember being in an African country discussing corruption with Transparency International when one of the newly elected presidents said to me, “Yes, corruption is something that happens to leaders, but there's the corruptee and then there's the corruptor. The corruptor inevitably comes from the north, and the facilitator also comes from the north.” He said to me, “You know, shortly after I was elected I had a call from someone in the north who said `Welcome to the club'.” So the issue of corruption is very serious, and I know you're very concerned with it.

I also want to say that what I get from some of these countries I've visited is that they want more Canadian corporations to do business in those countries, because Canadian corporations, by and large, are not corrupt. They're honest, and it makes a tremendous difference.

Perhaps you can elaborate on the efforts that are ongoing, I hope, internationally to stem that. I know it's very difficult, but that's one point.

The other point is the issue of underemployed and unemployed young men across the nations of Africa who are hungry, and in many other parts of the world, where the option is either to move towards fundamentalism because it gives them some pride, or to join an army, which also gives them some pride and maybe a bit of food. How do we deal with that very serious issue everywhere, basically in the former Soviet Union as well as many other countries?

• 1655

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: We commissioned a study several months ago, again from the United Nations Peace Academy, on the new war economy, which details very explicitly this new nexus among commerce, conflict, and corruption, if you put those three together, which Ms. Marleau talked about. It's very true that if you begin to look at a number of the internal conflicts that have been generated, oftentimes it's driven not by political ideology but by profit. The warlords are as much interested in looking after the franchises for oil, minerals, diamonds, whatever the case may be, and controlling those. And, as Ms. Marleau said, they have their purveyors outside who will trade them for weapons.

Clearly, what the Angola study shows—by the way, the same thing is true in Sierra Leone and the Congo—is that there are a lot of suppliers who make a lot of money by taking those resources and translating them or by providing havens for laundering the money.

Let me just give you one interesting figure: 90% of the surplus small arms that are delivered into Africa come from the OECD countries—that is, North America and Europe.

One of the things, Madam Debien, in the Human Security Network we're involved in is that we agreed that we would initiate with the OSCE a major meeting with African states so that we can go to the OSCE and start looking at the small-arms-control requirements of OSCE members. They don't have export permits. If sometimes you think our export permit system is lacking, you should see countries where there is none at all. For a lot of the countries one of the major earners of foreign currency is that kind of quasi-licit transfer of weapons for diamonds and other resources.

The Chairman: Surely, Minister, Charlton Heston would be there to tell them that they have a right to have them and that they should have them, the way he came and told us in our country.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: With tablets in hand, I'm sure.

This is something that goes back to the resolution we brought into the Security Council on this broad issue of sanctions, which I'd be quite happy to supply to members. It wasn't just sanctions as we talk about them, where you put an embargo on a country. It's how you also include non-state actors in this issue. What are the responsibilities and obligations, not just of the governments but also of those who are on the private sector side and who are as equally culpable in these kinds of actions?

To go back to Mr. Robinson's point, I think if the committee is going to look at an issue like this, this is one to really look at. I think we have to look at the nature of our laws, both domestically and internationally, to make sure that the screen isn't so wide that a lot of big fish get through. It is also not just a matter of corruption as it relates to crime. It demonstrates these new connections now between drug trafficking, organized crime, and conflict and the sale of small weapons.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: And poverty.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: And poverty.

At the Ghana conference my colleague Mr. Gbeho, the foreign affairs minister of Ghana, said “We will never deal with the problem of poverty in Africa until we eliminate the fear”. The real problem is that they simply say “We can't develop any more”.

Ms. Lalonde, look at this. If you have a country like Sierra Leone, where you have maybe 4,000 or 5,000 12- or 13-year-olds who have been set loose with AK-47s, who's going to go out and develop a new project or a new business if they're going to be held up, or, in the case of places like Angola or Mozambique, if you go out to start a new farm and you step on a landmine?

That's why the human security agenda is important. It's a way to try to reduce that insecurity, that real fear the people have. As long as the fear is there, you're not going to get the capacity to develop. I think that's why we've made that one of the major tenets in our policy.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mrs. Debien, you have a few minutes.

Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Minister, I would like to get back to the Talisman issue since, as you are well aware, it is only the tip of the iceberg in relation to Canadian companies exploiting natural resources in developing countries. You also know that those companies have an active presence, a huge presence in the areas of mining exploration and oil exploration.

My question on Talisman is as follows. The main recommendation of the Harker Report was to ensure that the money from the oil be kept in a trust fund so that it could not be used to reactivate the war in Sudan. When Mr. Harker made that recommendation, he was certainly aware of its implications. Why did you not follow it?

My second question is on the exploitation of child labour. You know that the Sub-committee on human rights and international development has worked for a long time on that, in cooperation with Mrs. Augustine and Mrs. Beaumier, last year or two years ago.

• 1700

In 1998-1999, the department's transfer payments included the Child Labour Challenge Fund, but it is no longer listed in the estimates for 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. I would like to know why, since this issue is still very much alive throughout the world.

[English]

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Just on your first question, one thing I think we should also point out is that while Canadian companies are very active, many of them also are being models and setting examples. Canadian Occidental, one of our major oil firms, is looked upon as one of the real model overseas citizens. In fact, when I was in Colombia earlier this year dealing with the major problems that country is facing, Canadian Occidental was being called upon by the Colombian government and the NGOs to help establish model systems. That's one reason we're holding the meeting tomorrow with a number of our Canadian companies, to see how we begin developing a broader, comprehensive set of guidelines and standards.

But governments can only go so far in regulating individual companies. If a company isn't taking any money from the government or is not engaged in any criminal practices, our laws simply say that the only economic measure we can take is under our Special Economic Measures Act, and that has to be triggered by an international agreement on sanctions.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Change the act.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: As I said, I think it's time that we began to review what our instruments are and to do it, and in part I throw a challenge out to the committee to begin looking at that kind of issue.

On the trust fund issue, that was mainly an issue that related back to the IMF. Our delegate at the IMF has raised this matter, so it's on the agenda. With regard to how far they'll be able to get together, what I do believe is that once we are able to set up our own office in Khartoum, with a satellite arrangement in Nairobi to look at the southern end of Sudan, we'll be in a much better place to begin actually detailing and getting a further examination of the fungibility of the oil revenues and where they're going.

Let me also make a point here. Let's be clear about this. You're never going to deal effectively with all the problems in the Sudan, the human rights abuses and transgressions against civilians, until you get some peace agreement. There are some signs that there is a willingness to engage in a peace agreement. That is the balance we're trying to keep, to try to move particularly through Senator Wilson's work, as our special envoy at IGAD, and to work with other countries. We talked yesterday with the Algerians and the Nigerians, and the Algerians are particularly interested in this.

How do we get that peace process to the point where we actually get agreement to stop the conflict? You'll never solve those other problems until you do that. So it's the balance between responding to the transgressions and at the same time keeping an approach on the peace process.

One final point on the challenge fund: it was in existence for two years. We had a couple of requests for it, particularly by Rugmark to look at labelling issues for overseas products. But frankly there wasn't a take-up for the rest of it, so there was no point in keeping it. That doesn't mean to say we've stopped our interest.

Under Ms. Bradshaw, as you know, we now have a new protocol that has been agreed to in Geneva through the ILO on the issue of a children's protocol dealing with children working in hazardous industries. Again, we've taken a very strong line. We've provided about $500,000 a year, I think, to actually help the ILO in the implementation and development of that protocol.

The Chairman: I don't know what your time schedule is, Minister. It's after five o'clock now, and normally we would adjourn.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Do I have time for just a brief question?

The Chairman: There are three other people ahead of you.

Are you prepared to stay for a few more minutes?

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Sure.

The Chairman: Okay, we'll go on for a few more minutes.

You can always table your question. Keep it down to a minute or two each, please. Mr. Cotler.

Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): I have two quick questions. The first is on the OAS.

You outlined the importance of the subject matter of the forthcoming meeting, being human rights, women's rights, aboriginal rights, and the like. It appears that we could enhance our role in the OAS generally and with regard to the forthcoming meeting in particular if we indicated our willingness to ratify the American Convention on Human Rights. The question is, where do we stand on that?

The second question has to do with Sierra Leone, and again I'll be brief. You properly characterized the situation in Sierra Leone last week as an outrage and said that this was a place for the international community to take a stand. My sense is that regrettably the international community has yet to take that stand.

• 1705

Admittedly, Canada has undertaken important support measures, and you've outlined them—transport of equipment, etc. We've undertaken important initiatives within Sierra Leone, the youth commission, the reconciliation commission, the radio commission, important travel-related intiatives. But there's one important initiative that I think needs to be undertaken immediately, and it's an imperative. I think this is where Canada can play a lead role of the Security Council, and that is to help secure a peacekeeping force with the necessary mandate, resources, and equipment to do the job. That's the lesson of Rwanda that you were speaking about. And as you said, we played an important role regarding the peacekeeping mission in west Africa, and we've withdrawn from there. Can we also express our willingness to participate in such a peacekeeping force and use maybe some of the people from the peacekeeping in west Africa, recycled for that purpose? I know DND is involved in that, and that's why I mentioned about the recycle.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Two quick answers.

On the OAS convention, the basic problem we have faced is that the OAS convention, which is an old convention and dates back to 1948, has in effect been superseded by our own Charter of Rights. As a result, there are a number of reservations that have to be raised. The question is, how many reservations do you raise, to the point where your signature on the convention doesn't make much sense?

However—always a however—we are now beginning another consultation with the provinces to see how we can begin doing that, because you don't sign these conventions without provincial approval. We are beginning a consultation with the provinces, and I think they're open to this consultation, to see if we can refine that down into an acceptable package and I will indicate at the convention, the OAS assembly, that we are prepared to be engaged in this matter. But I'm also going to be looking for some response from the OAS countries to see if they can engage us on the other side to see if we can perhaps clear up the convention a little bit in some of these matters.

On the question of Sierra Leone, Irwin, I want to deal with something. I think it's important that we get our perceptions right. The UN has not failed in Sierra Leone. They're still there. They're being strengthened every day. New troops are coming in, and they're expanding the horizon. I know there's a calamity climate that the media like to create—the sky is falling. There was a big setback. There is no question there was a setback, but we're not retreating to the beaches. In fact, it's being reinforced: 800 British paratroopers went in, very tough guys. They're there. We're providing more troops as a backup.

That goes back to my previous point. Jordanians are moving in, Bangladeshi are moving in, the Indians are moving in. We're helping them move there. These are very good troops. They don't need us. In terms of infrastructure, they do need backup support, they need logistical support, they need transportation support, they need lift capacity.

What is not yet being supplied—and I met with the UN commander when I was there two weeks ago—is they have very limited communications capacity and intelligence capacity, and they weren't going in properly equipped. What are we doing about it? We announced last week, when we were at the Human Security Network meetings, that we were undertaking an initiative to substantially strengthen the capacity of the UN Secretariat to get its act together, frankly. That's what we're engaged in doing right now. We're holding the meetings starting tomorrow to begin to refurbish and re-enhance that capacity so that we can begin to manage these crises. Because a lot of these troops are out there without knowing what it is they're going to be required to do; and that's not proper preparation or management, and that's where we're focusing a lot of our effort right now.

But let's not get to the point of saying that because there aren't a lot of troops from western Europe or North America, it's not working. I think it is working. There was a big setback, no one denies it. But I think in fact, in a way, there is a lesson learned, and I believe we're going to come out with a much stronger UN presence in Sierra Leone as a result of that setback. I think right now the discussions at the Security Council are much more focused. People are realizing that the force was sent there without the proper resources. I think there's been a real chastening effect, and I think we'll come out a little bit stronger than we were before.

The Chairman: You had a very quick question, Mr. Robinson?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes. I do want to just agree with Mr. Cotler.

I think it's also a question that the rules of engagement have to be far more robust. It's not just a question of personnel; it's a question of what those people can do. I think Mr. Cotler made that point. Kofi Annan and the President of Nigeria have both said as well that they believe there should be the participation of other countries.

Quickly, I want to say I was pleased by what I understood to be the minister's response with respect to Cuba and the consulate in Vancouver. There is significantly growing tourism from western Canada, from British Columbia, growing trade and business relations in those countries, and a consulate in Vancouver would make a very significant difference.

I wonder if the minister could clarify his answer. Is he prepared to respond positively to the request by Cuba to open a consulate in Vancouver? And secondly, I wonder if the minister will clarify whether Canada is finally prepared to call the premeditated massacres of 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman Turkey in 1915 what it is, and that is genocide.

• 1710

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: On the first question, Mr. Robinson, let me make it clear that we had a basic freeze, if you like, because of the dissident situation. There have been some signs recently that this is changing. To be honest with you, I've been on the road for about 12 or 14 days, and I haven't had time to really sit down and look at the implications.

I think if there is a change in positioning, then that's certainly cause for us to start holding further conversations that would include the Vancouver consulate. But I haven't agreed to that yet. Perhaps what I can do is when I catch my breath and look at it we'll get back to you on that specific issue.

As far as the Armenian situation is concerned, let me simply say I stand full-square behind the decision taken by the Canadian House of Commons on this matter.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And you're not prepared to call it genocide.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: No. And I think you know the reasons why, which is that it is a very specific legal term that carries with it very specific sets of actions and recourse.

But let me make this case, and I don't want to put words.... On my own visit to Armenia, which took place a few months ago, they're not nearly as fussed about it as people in Canada are. What they're concerned about is how do we help Armenia begin to develop itself, how does it begin to develop with the mass migrations coming out of Armenia, and the immigration problems and the problems related to the Nagorno-Karabakh issues? When I met with the Armenian foreign minister I asked him about these, and he said “Folks, frankly, for us it's not that important. What really is important is what Canada can do to help us. Can it get us on our feet?”

Frankly, my point is that there was an injustice done, and Parliament has spoken on that injustice. I would like to get on with the job of helping Armenia.

The Chairman: We left Armenia yesterday morning ourselves, and were told by one of the people we talked to that more people have had to leave Armenia in the last three years because of the economic problems there than ever were killed in any of the tragic events of the earlier part of the century, of last century.

We hope to be able to bring some concrete recommendations, Minister, to the department as to how we might be able to help in that area.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, point of order.

This isn't for the minister. I appreciate the minister's time has gone. But we did receive a request from the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers to appear before this committee with respect to a number of issues they want to raise with the committee. I wonder if perhaps, given the fact that there is a consensus around the table that this is a serious issue, we could just agree, subject to scheduling, that we hear them before the House rises at the end of the June.

The Chairman: Let's bring that up at the steering committee tomorrow, because we have a very crowded agenda before the end of the House, and hopefully if it goes to conciliation that will resolve it, because we're not going to interfere if it's in conciliation. So it certainly will come before the steering committee tomorrow.

I want to say, Minister, on that, we too received representations when we were travelling, and I would say that those of us who were in the Caucasus and in Turkey would certainly subscribe to Ms. Augustine's comments, and your own and Svend Robinson's comments, about the quality of our foreign service officers.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, as I think Ms. McCallion said, we will, as soon as we get back, clarify exactly where the implication for the conciliation is going, because if it's going to conciliation I think that is the proper route to take.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Minister. Thank you for coming.

Colleagues, before you get up to leave, you'll recall you received an invitation to go for a reception—and you can come to our reception too. We're giving a reception for Janice Hilchie, our former clerk who served this committee extremely well for about five years. The reception is in Room 601. There will be a vote at 5:45, so I suggest we could go there now and probably have something and commence it before the vote. And if some members would like to come afterwards, that would be great as well.

We're adjourned until the steering committee at 8:30 tomorrow morning, and then at 9:30 with Minister Martin.