FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 1, 2001

• 0914

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we're honoured today to have a visit from the foreign minister for the Republic of Albania, the Honourable Paskal Milo.

We're thrilled to have you here. It's quite an honour that you've come to testify before our committee. Would you like to introduce your other members?

Mr. Paskal Milo (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Albania): Yes, thank you.

• 0915

With me today is Mr. Sulo, secretary general of the foreign ministry; our ambassador to Canada, Mr. Bushati; and Mr. Talka, the foreign ministry desk officer for Canada.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): It's very nice to meet you all. This is the first visit we've had from a foreign minister for Albania, and we're very pleased to have you.

The way we operate here is that you will present a speech to the committee. If anyone else would like to do a presentation, you just have to let me know. Then we will have an opportunity to question you.

I turn it over to you.

Mr. Paskal Milo: Thank you.

As you mentioned, this is the first visit by a foreign minister of Albania to your country. Historically, it's the first visit. Never has a foreign minister from Albania been to Canada. Knowing this, when my colleagues and I started to work on this visit, we tried to make it happen as soon as possible.

Of course, my visit here has some purpose. First of all, we want to show the Canadian people that we have great respect for this big country, this country that is playing a very important role on an international scale, this country that is a member of both NATO and the G8.

Albania is trying to build very good relations and cooperation with many other countries, not only around it, in Europe, but also on the other continents, especially with big countries that play very important roles. In this respect, over the years we have tried to have close relations with your country, but because Albania has been in a period of transition, a period that has been not so easy for Albanians, visits at a high level have not been possible.

We exchanged visits in previous years. Other ministers have been in Canada, and your deputy speaker was in Albania in 1996. Our parliamentary speaker was to have been in Canada in 1997, but it was not possible due to the crisis in Albania in the spring of 1997.

We now are here. Yesterday we inaugurated the Albanian embassy. A small country like Albania has opened an embassy in order to show, as I mentioned at the beginning, our intentions in relation to your country, to show that we would like to strengthen cooperation in all the fields. Yesterday, with my colleagues and many other ministers, we discussed cooperation between Albania and Canada, cooperation that needs to be concentrated not only on the political and economic levels but also in the fields of culture, education, academic exchanges, and so on.

We also discussed with the Minister of Defence cooperation in the field of defence. We are members of the Partnership for Peace, and are working closely with all other partners in NATO. Canada, being a member of NATO, is supporting us in terms of our integration into NATO structures.

I would like to say a few words about the actual situation in Albania. Albania is now passing through its period of transition. These last four years in Albania have been years of hard work to overcome the difficulties that were created in all eastern European countries, and especially in Albania, after the crisis of 1997.

• 0920

The stability in Albania is now quite good. Our security and economic development are also quite good. Over the last two years we have had economic growth of around 8%. We foresee the same for this year. The rate of inflation is 2% to 4%. These indicate good prospects for microeconomic development.

In Albania the IMF and the World Bank are both present. They are working closely with the Albanian government to keep economic development just within the parameters that allow us to practice our politics to support the stable development of a market economy in Albania.

What about the political situation? Albania now has much more political stability than it did four years ago, when the political parties in Albania fought each other in an aggressive way. The political parties have learned and are much more moderate in their relations with each other.

The Democratic Party, which is the main opposition party, together with some other small parties are following political practices that are quite good. We don't have as many tensions as we did some years ago. Of course, being here in front of your committee, and being a parliamentarian myself, I don't like to accuse the opposition. Nevertheless, we are doing this frequently in our Parliament, because this is the role of the opposition, to see if the government is making mistakes or not, and to criticize.

In this respect, I'd like to say that our opposition and our coalition government are learning together, every day, how to do politics, how to Europeanize our politics, our relations, and how to move away from the Balkan standard of politics. As Mr. Winston Churchill mentioned so many years ago, in the Balkans we produce much more history than we consume.

So we need to learn. We need to behave as modern politicians, and we need to work together to face the challenges faced by both this small country and southeast Europe generally. I'm very glad to tell you that we really have make very good progress in the areas I've mentioned. New prospects are opening up in Albania as it passes from a period of transition into a period of stable economic development.

The market economy system is improving every day. Human rights are being respected much better every day, as are the rights of minorities. Of course we have difficulties—difficulties related to security issues, difficulties related to fighting illegal trafficking and organized crime, and difficulties related to unemployment and so on. There are other difficulties, of course, reflecting the general situation in the Balkans caused by the tensions and conflicts created in other neighbouring countries.

• 0925

What about our cooperation with neighbouring countries? I would like to say to you that Albania is playing a very important role in the relations with other countries for the stability and the security of our region. Albania is leading the process of cooperation in southeast Europe, which is a very important regional initiative.

In two weeks we will have in Tirana a meeting of all foreign ministers of southeast Europe, in which we will discuss European regional integration—how regional integration is helping our countries to be integrated in the Euro-Atlantic structures. We will also briefly discuss trafficking and organized crime. What we need to do now and in the future is to fight in a successful way this phenomenon, which is not only a Balkan phenomenon but an international one.

In the relations with other countries in the region, we are trying to make our contribution to solve tensions and conflicts. In this respect, we are making a good contribution, for instance, to keep a stable Macedonia. The last developments in Macedonia have shown that this country is too fragile. It's very important that there be cooperation between ethnic communities there—between Macedonians, Albanians, and other small communities.

As you know, two months ago some extremist groups started to do some actions in Macedonia along the border with Kosovo, having in mind to impose some changes in the constitution and to obtain some rights for Albanians through violence. This policy has not been accepted by the majority of Albanians. Albania has not supported, but rather has strongly condemned, the extremist groups. We have supported the dialogue—the peaceful solution—and we are doing this now.

Albania is a country of the region and has influence among Albanians in Kosovo, Macedonia, or Montenegro. It is going to play a very important role for the stability of the area—Macedonia in this case. We are trying to convince the extremists not to act in this way, but rather to respect those institutions and solutions coming only from legitimate political parties or institutions.

We will continue to do this, because this is very important, not only for Macedonia, but also for Albania. Because if we do not have stability and security in one of the Balkan countries—in this case Macedonia—we'll not have stability in Albania or vice versa. Everything there is related to the stability of all the other countries.

We are doing the same thing in Montenegro. The last elections have shown there that the difference between the people who are supporting independence and the people who are supporting the federation is too narrow. It is very important to treat this issue carefully, because it is very easy there for tensions, conflicts, or civil war to be created. This is why Albania is maintaining the position of supporting peaceful solutions, which will bring much more internal equilibrium, much less tension, and which will serve not only the internal stability of Montenegro, for some reconciliation in Montenegro, but also will bring stability and security to the whole of the region.

• 0930

A split of the Yugoslav federation, which is too weak now, will have repercussions around the region that will not allow us to continue our efforts at European integration, for integration in Euro-Atlantic structures, which means we will not have the possibility to work for our future.

Another hot spot in the Balkans is Kosovo. That's well known. I'd like to thank you and the Canadian government on this occasion for the support you gave during the conflict in Kosovo, for the assistance you gave during the humanitarian crisis and after that, not only to Albanians in Kosovo but to Albania as a state. That is why Canada is well known among Albanians, not only as a big country but for the strong support you gave during the conflict.

The situation in Kosovo is much better than two years ago. It has been so difficult to bring Kosovo to the situation in which it is now. There are fewer crimes, less tension. The situation is getting more normalized every day. The institutions have started to function. The cohabitation between Albanians and Serbs has started to have its first small steps.

Kosovo is a country that needs to have much clearer perspectives. Building a perspective for the future of this country is a big responsibility, not only for ethnic communities living there, but also for the international community and for us as neighbouring countries.

Kosovo is under the international authority of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, which is a temporary constitution for Kosovo today. There is enough space still for the implementation of resolution 1244, first of all to build democratic and multi-ethnic institutions.

In Kosovo now, there are no legitimate institutions to take responsibility to govern this country with the assistance of the international community. UNMIK is there, and there is a council that has some representatives from Albanian political parties and from the Serbian minority. The question is to build the future of this country, not the long-term future or perspective, but a medium-term perspective for the next years.

That is why the international community is insisting on having general elections at the end of October or the beginning of November. You are a member of the G-8, and you decided together in the end—including Russia, which had been against—to hold elections at the end of this year, which is very important, because for the first time the institutions I mentioned will be created and will be responsible interlocutors with the international community, institutions that will realize the self-governance of this country, which is necessary.

• 0935

We are not speaking now about the final status of Kosovo. Both Albanians and Yugoslavs don't like to speak about this issue, of course, and have different points of view, but on this we have agreed: It is not possible now to speak about this final status; it is necessary to spend time calming down the tensions regarding the Serbs who come back home to Kosovo, and to try, step by step, to build this multi-ethnic society, which is not so easy in the Balkans. It's too difficult.

There are historical happenings, pathological sometimes, especially between Serbs and Albanians. We can speak about cohabitation, about coexistence, about multi-ethnic societies in theory, and we can give lectures, but it is not so easy on the ground to build this society and this environment. But it's necessary to start working step by step.

There are good signs. They are now discussing in Kosovo the legal framework, or as Albanians like to say, a temporary constitution for Kosovo, which will bring them to the general elections. UNMIK is working well now. Haekkerup is trying to bring Albanians and Serbs to approve in the end this legal framework. It's a question of days. I don't believe that in the future we'll have conflicts and tensions that will destroy what UNMIK and KFOR are trying to do.

I know Canada has some people there in KFOR, and you and the Canadian people are paying to keep those forces there. But to be sure, this is a big contribution you are making to the stability and security of the whole of the region. You are far from Europe; nevertheless, you know that the tensions and conflicts there are important for Canada, because tensions can spread everywhere very easily, and the interests of big countries like Canada are not only in the North American continent, but also in Europe.

So I hope Canada will continue to play this very important role in Europe, and especially in southeast Europe, to bring together lasting peace and stability there. We'd like to have stability and security, because this is a precondition for our integration into European Union and Euro-Atlantic structures. Nobody likes to include in such very important structures countries that will not bring peace and stability but, on the contrary, tensions and conflicts. So our countries are trying to do their best.

Romania and Bulgaria are now associate members of the European Union. Macedonia has signed, at the beginning of April, stabilization association agreements. Albania is at the end of talks with the European Union to start negotiations for a stabilization and association agreement.

• 0940

On May 16 and 17, the third high-level steering group meeting between the European Union and Albania will be held in Tirana. At this meeting there will be discussions on some other matters to do with the situation in Albania, about the criteria that will be applied for Albania. We hope that at the Göteborg summit in the middle of June the European Union will open the green light for Albania to start negotiations for a stabilization and association agreement.

Croatia is almost ready to sign this agreement. Yugoslavia and Bosnia-Herzegovina will start procedures for feasibility studies for this agreement very soon. This is the picture of the level of integration of Albania and other countries of the region in the European Union.

Also, we are trying to be integrated into NATO. We are members of the Partnership for Peace. We are participating in all activities. Just two weeks ago in Albania, the members of NATO and the Albanian army did some exercises, and other ones will be held in Albania in July. On May 7 we will be in Brussels to discuss in the framework of EAPC the mop-up document on Albania and the general situation there. Albania will be there with a high-level delegation led by the prime minister.

What about the relations with other countries? I'd like to say to you that we have very good relations with the United States of America. We have very good relations with our neighbouring countries, like Italy and Greece. The Italian investments are the first in Albania, and Greek investments are in second place. Both countries are the closest partners of Albania.

We also have good relations with other European countries, and we have intensive political exchanges and a lot of economic relations with them.

I'd like to continue, but I don't like to spend your precious time.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): That's good, because we do have some questions for you as well.

Mr. Paskal Milo: Good. I can explain things much more through questions.

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

Dr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madame Chairwoman.

Mr. Milo, thank you very much for coming to visit us in Canada. We know it's the first time, as you said, a foreign minister from your country has visited Canada, and I hope it's not your last. Welcome.

We hear much about an objective to form a greater Albania. Can you perhaps let us know whether there is any interest on the part of your government in Tirana to do that with other Albanian populations of countries in the surrounding area? Perhaps you could tell us if there's any relationship whatsoever between the KLA and your government. What, if any, relationship exists?

Thank you.

Mr. Paskal Milo: Are there other questions, or I can answer—

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): We'll do one at a time. We have to divide this up so everyone gets their equal share. He's opposition.

Mr. Paskal Milo: I'd like to say to you what I said yesterday somewhere about this greater Albania, because we are putting on brackets as Albanians.... I'd like to explain that we have prepared, as a foreign ministry, a small book in English, which will be distributed in two weeks. We'll send some copies to our embassy here, and you will have the chance to see in detail the Albanian position on this issue. We have explained there the historical background of the so-called greater Albania, what is the reality, and why today some people are using this slogan of greater Albania, and for what purposes.

• 0945

First, being an historian, I'd like to say a few words to you. There has never existed a so-called greater Albania as a state, as for instance there have been or now are pretensions from other Balkan countries of creating a greater Greece, greater Serbia, greater Bulgaria, or a greater Romania. All those countries in medieval times had some medieval states or empires, and they are pretending now to include all those countries in greater Greece, for instance. Don't forget the Byzantine Empire. Some nationalistic circles in Greece are now pretending to have the same territories as existed during the Byzantine Empire.

For greater Serbia it is well known what had been planned, and the former Yugoslavia was more or less greater Serbia. This is why this federation was destroyed, because the philosophy of this state was based only upon the ideology of greater Serbia. There are other federations that are strong and will continue to be, because the concept of the federation is a modern one and is not an old concept of state formation.

Let's look at greater Romania. There is a party now in Romania called the Party of Greater Romania of Vadim Tudor. It is the second political party in Romania, with 87 parliamentarians and 27 senators. It is the second party after the party of Mr. Iliescu, which is in power. The leader of this party, Vadim Tudor, was a candidate for the presidency of Romania. He went to ballot with President Iliescu. This is a big danger for this country, and in reality it's a strong party with a lot of influence.

I don't like to mention the others, but there are parties in Bulgaria, in Greece, and so on.

What about greater Albania? There are, of course, among Albanians some people and small political parties who are thinking of creating a so-called greater Albania but are not using this name, greater Albania. This name was used for the first time during the Second World War, when Italians and Germans divided Yugoslavia after the occupation. Albania during this time was occupied by Italians. When the Italians occupied Yugoslavia, together with the Germans they divided Kosovo and all the parts of Yugoslavia. The Italians then joined a part of Kosovo—not all of Kosovo, but a part of Kosovo—with Albania. Kosovo and Albania had been occupied by the Italians, so the Italians, to give some satisfaction to Albanian nationalism at this time, said they were helping Albanians to create the greater Albania. This is the origin of the name.

Albanians themselves today, within nationalistic circles, are saying that they don't want to create greater Albania but the natural Albania, the real Albania, which means to join all Albanian territories in the Balkans, this being Macedonia, Kosovo, and the Albanians in Montenegro. And some of them are of course pretending it should include territories now populated by Albanians in the northwest part of Greece.

• 0950

The people who are supporting this idea are not many; they are a limited number. The main political parties in Albania, in Kosovo, and in Macedonia do not support the idea of greater Albania. The Albanian government has another idea of how we'll join Albanians in the future. The idea is to be joined in the big family of a united Europe through European integration. It's much better to wait ten years or fifteen years more than to fight and to kill each other.

About the KLA, the Albanian government doesn't have any relations with the extremists, with the leadership of KLA. We don't know them and we don't accept them. We are keeping the same position as you.

Are you speaking about the KLA in Kosovo—because the KLA in Kosovo no longer exists—or are you speaking of the liberation army of Macedonia, the national liberation army?

Mr. Keith Martin: Both.

Mr. Paskal Milo: In Kosovo there is no more KLA. As you know, based on the agreements that were signed with the Albanian leaders in Kosovo after the conflict, the KLA does not exist any more. They have been transferred to the transitory corps, the inter-Kosovo corps, or—I don't know the name—the protection corps. So it does not exist any more in Kosovo.

What about the extremists in Macedonia, who have created another national liberation army there? We don't have any kinds of relations with them and we are against them, against their actions. We are supporting only the peaceful way of resolving the problems.

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): We have two more questions.

I'm wondering, Mr. Dubé, could we have your question and Doctor Patry's question and he could perhaps deal with one and then the other? Would that be all right with you?

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): I'm not a regular member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and I would like to ask you some questions about some internal aspects.

According to the sheet we have been given, 8% of the people in your country are of Greek origin, and the languages spoken are Albanian and Greek. Does your Parliament function in both languages or in one language? Just in Albanian?

[English]

Mr. Paskal Milo: I'd like to say to you that just now we are talking a lot about the rise of minorities in the Balkans, and about the minorities in Albania.

Based on the last official census, which was organized in 1989, the number of the Greek minority people in Albania was around 60,000 people. It is the main minority group in Albania. The second one is the Macedonian minority, and we have some other small groups, such as a Serbo-Croatian minority of around 1,000 persons in a village in the north part of Albania. We have Roma, Gypsies, as everywhere in the Balkans, but we do not have fixed numbers for them, because during the last census in 1989, they were not included.

• 0955

The rights of minorities in Albania are respected, based on some documents and laws that are enforced in Albania. The first of these is the constitution. The constitution has been drafted with the assistance of the Council of Europe, including one well-known Greek professor, a member of the European Parliament, Tsatsos. Tsatsos was in the group of the people on the Council of Europe working to draft the Albanian constitution, approved two years ago.

So we have a European constitution, a modern constitution, based on handling the question about minorities. And we have a law about the pre-university education in which has been foreseen the rights of minorities regarding education in their own language and many other rights.

I don't have the details now, but I would like to say to you that there are hundreds and hundreds of schools for minorities in Albania. Sometimes we pay teachers to have the schools open and we do not have students. This is because, for instance, the people in the south belong to the Greek minority. From 40% to 60% of all the families are working in Greece. They are living in Greece. The villages now are empty.

We are paying the teachers to stay in the schools, to keep them open, without any students, because they are going to Greece together with their children and they are putting their children in Greek schools. That is happening there.

Of course, there are issues that need to be improved. We don't like to say that Albania is a perfect country in treating minorities. We are continuing to work with them. We have signed the convention of the Council of Europe about the minorities.

We have ratified in the parliament and are sending in the next few days the first official report about the rights of minorities in Albania to the Council of Europe, because we have signed the convention.

What about using other languages in our parliament? In our parliament, we use only the Albanian language, based on the constitution. This is because in this parliament the Greek minority does not represent a percentage that gives reason for using that language. There are four Greek minority MPs now.

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

Dr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Thank you very much.

Thank you for appearing, your excellency.

I had the pleasure a few years ago to meet and have lunch with a Greek minority Albanian parliamentarian here in Canada, in this House of Commons. It was a pleasure.

You just answered one of my questions. My question was what is the role of the minority in the parliamentarians and in the government, but you just answered this. You say you have four.

It seems that many Albanians want to leave their country. We've seen this on television quite often. They try to reach Europe, mainly through Italy, seemingly because of poverty, unemployment, and many other reasons. Is there in the past few months a decreasing tendency for people to want to leave? How do you see this?

• 1000

Please answer quickly, because we need to leave for the House, which opens in a few minutes.

Mr. Paskal Milo: Of course.

With regard to the first question you raised, I'd like to say to you that the Human Rights Party participates in the coalition government. It represents the interests of the Greek minority, and there are two ministers in the government from the Greek minority.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Good.

Mr. Paskal Milo: On the second question, about Albanians leaving the country, yes, there is a tendency now for Albanians to think in terms of staying at home. This is of course a process, but there is a positive tendency nowadays.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you, Minister. We know that you are an historian, so we're particularly pleased that you appeared before this committee for this very historic event of opening your embassy in Canada. We certainly look forward to seeing more of you. I know that you've met with the government officials, but we're thankful that you've appeared before the committee to meet with Canadian parliamentarians. Thank you very much.

Mr. Paskal Milo: Thank you to all of you for giving me this opportunity. I hope to see you one day in Tirana and to continue our discussion there in the Balkans.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you. Many of us hope to see you there as well.

We're going to take a five-minute break.

• 1002

• 1009

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

Before we begin with our next witnesses, Mr. Casey has an announcement to make.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): I'd like to bring to the attention of the committee a process that has been started and that has made a lot of progress. It's really interesting. It almost started by accident. It's a proposal to bring Palestinian and Israeli parliamentarians to Canada to meet with Canadian parliamentarians to talk about what is an affordable, practical role Canada might play in its conflict.

It started when we invited a representative from Palestine and the Israeli ambassador to our caucus, and they said that Canada is in a unique position to help build some bridges and establish communications between the two parties, like no other country. They suggested that anything we could do to build those bridges would be helpful.

So we started a process to invite Israeli and Palestinian legislators to come to Halifax in October. It has been through the total cooperation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Manley, and his staff, and it's virtually in place.

• 1010

When I took the proposal to John, he said “It's a good idea, but I have no money”. Air Canada agreed to provide a lot of the travel needs. Jewish and Arab groups in Canada have agreed to provide all the accommodations and meals for their representatives. The Province of Nova Scotia has offered to pay for the meeting facilities in the World Trade and Convention Centre or even Province House. I hope it's Province House. The City of Halifax has agreed to help in any way they can.

The Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia has agreed to participate. Our Speaker of the House, Peter Milliken, is going to extend invitations to the speakers of both parliaments to select six members each and to send them to Halifax in October to meet with Canadians. The overall conference will be co-chaired by Bill Graham and myself, but we'd like the committee to participate and be the representatives from Canada to hear these ideas.

The goal is not to talk about who's right, who's wrong, or how we got here. The goal is to talk about what role Canada might play in building bridges in the outstanding issues.

It has been a tremendously positive experience, and I can't get over the cooperation that's being offered by everybody.

The Lester B. Pearson Peacekeeping Centre in Cornwallis, Nova Scotia, will play a key role in helping us address the sensitive issues, stay on track, and come up with the best possible answers.

The student organizations in the universities in Halifax have agreed to supply whatever number of volunteers is needed to help with the process.

So it's well along the way. Next week we're going to extend the invitations to the speakers from our speaker.

Parallel to these meetings we're going to have trade meetings for the three countries. The chambers of commerce of Atlantic Canada, Palestine, and Israel are going to coordinate trade meetings to see what opportunities are there to increase trade.

Overall, for us it's really exciting. It has happened quite fast because of the cooperation from everybody.

I'd like to extend an invitation to all parties to be a part of this, because it is totally non-partisan. There has been a wonderful relationship. Peter Milliken is involved, I'm involved, and the minister is involved. It's a great concept. I think it's a great project for the country. I really hope that all parties will participate and bring their ideas to the table as this thing unfolds, because there are going to be lots of changes, permutations, and combinations as it goes along. As soon as we have the final word on the Palestinians, which might be here now, we'll send a copy of the information to each member's office so that you'll know what we're talking about and the idea of the background and the set-up. Again, I sincerely invite your participation and your ideas, because everybody has great ideas on this.

Anyway, that's my presentation.

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

Mr. Bill Casey: Thank you in advance for your help and cooperation.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I think we all can share in your excitement over this, and thank you as well for giving us the heads-up before the official announcement.

Mr. Bill Casey: You're welcome, and I hope we can all be partners in the exercise.

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

Mr. Bill Casey: I'm afraid I have to go now.

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

Following our recent and I think highly successful summit in Quebec, we're here to get what I think is called a debriefing in military terms.

Welcome to our trade people. We have with us Marc Lortie, senior coordinator for federal-provincial relations and personal representative of the Prime Minister for the Summit of the Americas, and Claude Carrière, director general, trade policy bureau, and chief negotiator, free trade area of the Americas.

Mr. Lortie.

Mr. Marc Lortie (Senior Coordinator for Federal-Provincial Relations, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It's a pleasure to be back here to give you a full debriefing on the substantive part of the Quebec City summit. It was a major success.

• 1015

I had an opportunity to brief your committee a few days before the event to tell you about the overall objective we were pursuing and also the overall framework. Therefore I would like to focus this morning on the major achievement, the political declaration; explain if necessary a little about the political declaration, the highlights of the political declaration and part of the plan of action; and tell the committee about the follow-up that is going to take place.

[Translation]

I would like to thank you very much for your invitation to follow up on the results of the Quebec City Summit. Before getting into the main themes, I would like to salute and thank the people of Quebec City for their patience and understanding throughout this major international event. There was a great deal of concern among our fellow citizens. I think we have to understand them, and at this stage, I think we owe them our thanks for their understanding. I would also like to extend my thanks to the municipal and provincial authorities of Quebec for the smooth functioning of the Summit, which was a major undertaking for Canada.

I would like to refer to a few points made in the Political Declaration issued and made public on Sunday afternoon, April 22.

First of all, in paragraph 5, we find the democracy clause that your committee had discussed before the Summit, Madam Chair. This democracy clause in paragraph 5 is very clear and gives the entire hemisphere, not a directive, but a political focus based on the respect of democratic values and the maintenance and strengthening of democratic institutions. This political will on the part of the heads of State was reflected clearly in a democracy clause.

There was general approval of the democracy clause, and I should add that the support was enthusiastic as well, on the part of all the participants around the table, all the leaders, who saw this as a political signal that should be sent out at this stage to ensure that some young democracies in the hemisphere can strengthen their democratic values.

What does the democracy clause state? Essentially, it says two things. The first is that in order to continue to participate in the Summit process, countries must belong to the great democratic family, and that if ever there was a return to the old demons of militarism in the hemisphere, that could be done, but there would be consequences. That is the heart of the Political Declaration and the discussions among the leaders in Quebec City over those two and a half days.

The heads of State and heads of government concluded that they would consult each other in the case of any alteration to or suspension of a democratic regime. They also said, of course, that they would then turn to the political organization we have in the Americas, that is, the Organization of American States.

[English]

I think this democratic clause is of great importance. It is a major signal for the entire region that if we want to build a closer hemisphere, it has to be done on the basis of a great foundation, on the basis of democratic values. That is the intention of the democratic clause. It is also the political message that leaders wanted to send out—a strong political clause.

In addition, the prime minister, to make things clear, raised during his retreat the two major aspects of the democratic clause. The first is the FTAA process, since we are in negotiations, and we've been in negotiations for the last three years, to create a free trade agreement of the Americas. The second is the activities of the Inter-American Development Bank. The Inter-American Development Bank is really the financial arm of the Americas. They have a budget of $8 billion per year. This time around it is over five years. They have financial clout.

• 1020

The Prime Minister ensured that indeed the democratic clause was going to include both the Summit of the Americas process, including the FTAA that we are negotiating at this moment, and the activities of the Inter-American Development Bank, which are not per se inside the summit process. It has been in existence for a long period of time.

Some of you familiar with Latin American history would remember that the activities of the bank were highly controversial over the years. For instance, at the time of the election of Salvador Allende in 1970 in Chile, the bank seized all kinds of financial loans to the new regime. When the Pinochet regime took over in September 1973, suddenly loans and financial capabilities from the bank were reinstated.

Therefore, we wanted to ensure that indeed when we were talking about the democratic clause it included the activities of the bank as well.

[Translation]

Of course, the heads of State and the heads of government represented only 84% of the shareholders of the Inter-American Development Bank. So the Prime Minister chose to invite the governors of the bank to respect this democracy clause in their activities. As we know, 16% of the shareholders of the bank were not present in Quebec City. Of course, other countries are involved in the bank. I am thinking of Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Great Britain, who are involved in the bank, but who were not in Quebec City. Consequently, the Prime Minister invited the governors of the bank to comply with this clause.

The second point to which I would like to draw the attention of the distinguished members of this committee is the democratic charter. At the invitation of the Prime Minister of Peru, Perez de Cuellar, the leaders who experienced this threat to democracy in the past year agreed to the idea put forward by Peru to develop a charter of democracy in the context of the Organization of American States. The leaders assigned this task to their ministers of Foreign Affairs. The latter will be meeting very soon, on June 3 and 4, in San José, Costa Rica to assess the situation and to begin work to develop a democratic charter in the context of the OAS.

[English]

A third important aspect I would like to mention is the strong political commitment leaders gave on the FTAA process. Claude Carrière will expand on my general remarks a little later on.

Leaders listened to the President of Argentina giving a report of the trade ministerial meeting of April 7 in Buenos Aires and reiterated in the political declaration their commitment to carry on with the negotiations, to complete the negotiations by January 2005 and to complete the implementation process by the end of 2005, ensuring that the FTAA will be implemented in 2005.

Maybe it is the time to mention the reserve put forward by Venezuela. The President of Venezuela decided to keep a reserve there, and the reason he did it, and he explained it to the leaders, is he felt that according to the constitution in Venezuela he could not impose a timeframe on the Venezuelan parliament. Therefore, he wanted to say, if possible, by the end of 2005 rather than no later than 2005. Leaders explained that indeed everybody would face the same situation. But the President of Venezuela felt it was important to put a reservation at that point, just to ensure that they would not bypass his constitutional obligation to respect the independence of his parliament.

• 1025

Since I'm on Venezuela,

[Translation]

Venezuela also put forward two reservations to paragraphs one and six of the Political Declaration. It wanted the words “and participatory” added after the word “representative” and before the word “democracy”. The leaders agreed that “representative democracy” was the concept that should be mentioned, that is the strengthening of representative democracy. However, President Chavez, referring to the Venezuelan Constitution, which talks about participatory democracy, wanted to have this word added, and this was not done. On Sunday morning, he therefore added two reservations after the words “representative democracy”, and said that Venezuela would reserve its position. He wanted to comply with his country's Constitution, which talks about participatory democracy.

Finally, I would like to conclude my remarks by commenting on some other activities that were important as well. There was a discussion about strengthening drug control procedures. The leaders talked about and agreed to strengthen cooperative mechanisms to fight illegal drugs throughout the hemisphere.

Particularly on the part of leaders from the West Indies, there was also a very pressing call to deal with the growing AIDS tragedy in that part of the world. In this regard, the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, and particularly the World Bank, announced that immediately after the Summit they would be developing a program and contributing $150 million to the campaign to fight AIDS in the Caribbean region.

At the last meeting, we referred to the importance of certain declarations by the civil society representatives, and I would like to highlight particularly the one made by the Aboriginal leaders, who held their congress here on March 30. The Aboriginal leaders of the Americas met and made a declaration that was distributed to all leaders as were many other declarations. However this one was of paramount importance. It was adopted by the leaders to highlight the importance of the Ottawa Declaration by Aboriginal leaders, and it was included in the action plan as well to promote a greater process of inclusion in the governance of Aboriginal peoples.

This was quite an innovative step. It was something the Aboriginal peoples wanted, and which, in the context of the Summit of the Americas and the OAS, had not been done in a very concrete way. I think that this time, we have taken a definite step in this direction.

• 1030

Finally, you will see in the Political Declaration and the action plan the importance we attach to civil society, the importance of including civil society in the implementation of the action plan and in governance development, the importance of civil society for strengthening democratic values. This theme was present throughout the Summit of the Americas.

It was also very much in evidence for all the other groups holding parallel meetings in Quebec City, particularly in the various forums that met in the context of the Peoples' Summit of the Americas, which was held at the same time as the Summit of the Americas or a few days beforehand.

Finally, Madam Chair, we made a very great effort to ensure follow-up to the Summit. We established a new mechanism for strengthening Summit follow-up, and particularly for involving the financial institutions taking part in the Summit in direct, concrete, real financing of the action plan that was put forward by the heads of State and government.

In this regard, the World Bank and its President, James Wolfensohn, announced to the leaders that the Bank would make available to the Summit of the Americas some significant funding for the implementation of the action plan. The total varies between 12 and $16 billion US for the next three years. President Wolfensohn immediately agreed to provide one billion dollars to promote connectivity, to connect the Americas. This was in response to the Canadian government's agenda, and the President of the Inter-American Development Bank, Mr. Iglesias, essentially told the heads of State and government that his bank was the bank of the Americas and that it would provide a budget of $40 billion over five years to enable these governments to meet their objectives regarding the implementation of the action plan.

These were very important declarations, because in recent summits, one of the strongest criticisms from groups following the Summit activities was about the lack of commitment on the part of financial institutions to support the action plan.

[English]

In addition, the IADB announced the financing of 21 specific projects connected to the action plan of the Summit of the Americas. First of all, they were extremely involved with us in developing a plan of action. They have not valued those 21 actions, but the IADB has decided to launch a series of actions. I will highlight one.

In the case of connectivity, one of the major challenges we are facing is how to train teachers at the secondary level. If you are going to introduce new technologies, you have to ensure that teachers are indeed prepared to engage and to initiate students to the new technologies. In order to do that you have to train them. It's costly. The bank is in the process of developing a plan of action to indeed develop teachers at the secondary level. And we're talking about ten million teachers across the Americas.

The summit follow-up is

[Translation]

the real test. We will be judged, Madam Chair, on our ability to implement the action plan. The steps taken in Quebec City by our financial institutions were extremely encouraging in this regard. The Canadian government intends to follow up on this very closely. The first follow-up will be in San José, Costa Rica during the first week of June, where I will meet with the other sherpas from the 34 countries to launch the implementation process.

I would also like to point out that the Inter-American Development Bank and the World Bank signed an official agreement between themselves to establish a follow-up mechanism on actions that were agreed to at the Quebec City Summit.

• 1035

In closing, I would like to mention the other documents that were issued and agreed to by the heads of State and government. The first concerns Colombia. At the invitation of the President of Mexico, the leaders agreed to a resolution expressing support for President Pastrana's peace process in Columbia. There was also a statement on connectivity, Connecting the Americas, which is included in the documents we distributed. Finally, on behalf of the group, the Prime Minister made a statement about Haiti in his final declaration. Essentially, he asked President Aristide to comply with the commitments he had made in December of last year, to implement them, and he asked the Secretary General of the Organization of American States to go to Haiti to engage in a dialogue with the various components of political life in Haiti.

Peru was the example that inspired the discussions in Quebec City on this matter. Peru established a round table for dialogue that was chaired by the Organization of American States and by Canada. It began meeting last July and has brought about a restoration of democracy and democratic institutions in Peru. That was the model on which the Prime Minister was basing himself when he said that he wanted to send a mission to Haiti headed by the Secretary General of the OAS.

Those are the major thrusts of the Quebec City Summit, Madam Chair. It was a very strong summit, one that involved Canadians. There was a great deal of press coverage, and Canadians throughout the country felt involved in the process, expressed their views, and are continuing to do so. It was a very powerful moment for Canadian diplomacy.

I would be very pleased to answer your questions, Madam Chair. However, first, I should turn the floor over the Claude Carrière, who will talk about the free trade agreement, if I may.

Mr. Claude Carrière (Director General, Trade Policy Bureau I, Chief Negotiator, Free Trade Area of the Americas, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Ms. Marleau, members of the committee, as you may know, the Ministers of Trade met in Buenos Aires, two weeks before the Quebec City Summit, to receive a report from the negotiators on the state of the negotiations and to give instructions to the negotiators for the next round, to be chaired by Ecuador.

Mr. Pettigrew appeared before the committee on March 15, the ides of March, if I remember correctly. I believe he also mentioned that he would be pursuing three objectives in Buenos Aires. The first was to continue to try to convince his colleagues to release the text of the negotiations, second, to work with his colleagues to give the negotiators instructions regarding the approach for the next 18 months, and third, to re-enforce the civil society committee.

The ministers achieved the three objectives they set for themselves. As you know, the ministers decided that the texts would be made public after the Summit, as soon as they were available in the four official languages. Consequently, the texts will be made available as soon as possible. Work is continuing on the translation of the texts into the remaining language.

[English]

With respect to the second objective, ministers gave instructions to the committees and gave firm deadlines and milestones for negotiators to come to agreement on methods and modalities for market access negotiations by April 2002 so negotiations can begin by May 2002.

• 1040

They also confirmed the decision to create a new negotiating group to look at general and institutional issues. The group will begin the elaboration of new chapters and elements of an agreement, for example the preamble, the general definitions, the relationship of the agreement to other agreements, and provisions on transparency and institutional matters.

The third objective we were seeking was to reinforce the civil society committee. The ministers agreed to instruct the civil society committee to develop a new process for two-way communication with civil society at the hemispheric level and to publish more information through the secretariat's website. The civil society committee was also instructed to work with the IDB and other members of the tripartite committee to finance information programs in smaller economies so the committee can actually contribute to greater transparency in the negotiating process over the next 18-month period.

Madam Chairman, those are the three objectives that Canada had set for itself at the trade ministers meeting. These objectives were accomplished.

Finally, the ministers agreed to a firm and clear timetable for the negotiations, which met the objective of both Brazil and the United States concerning the conclusion of negotiations and the entry into force of an agreement. Negotiations are to conclude no later than January 2005, and implementation no later than December 2005.

With that, Madam Chairman, I would be pleased to answer questions.

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

Mr. Solberg.

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I guess the first question I have is—and I could address this to both of you, really—at this time what are the biggest impediments facing the future of the negotiations on the democracy and trade issues? What are the things we simply have to tackle head-on before we can move forward? I know the first big part, but clearly there are all kinds of other issues. What are the ones we should be aware of and should expect to be in the news in the next little while?

Mr. Marc Lortie: On democracy, we have to look at it not in the short term, but we have to consider the medium- and long-term dimensions. We should never forget that 25 years ago we had 19 military dictatorships in the hemisphere. We have a tendency to forget that, but it is a major fact of life.

From a geopolitical point of view, I would say that this is quite important for Canada because at the same time you see Europe developing around the European Union and Asia—especially east Asia—developing its economies, we have to look where Canada has to expand and deepen its relationships. The Americas constitute a fantastic region for us. It is our region, and it has 800 million people, 500 million of whom live south of the Rio Grande, south of the United States. It is still terra incognita for us. It's new, but there exists tremendous potential as long as we are able to share values.

• 1045

The democratic clause originated with Brazil and Argentina. When Paraguay again wanted to resort to the military route four years ago—that's not very long ago—the military decided that democracy was not the way to go and that Paraguay would be better off under a military regime. They wanted to get back in power with a coup d'état, and it was the foreign ministers of Argentina and Brazil who went to Asuncion and told them, if you do that, we're not going to keep you in MERCOSUR.

Therefore, what we basically did at the Quebec City summit was to take that political will expressed in April 1997 in Asuncion and apply it all across the Americas. It was a major signal to people all over the Americas, saying that we have to keep at it.

However, in certain countries democracy is very young, and democratic institutions are still very fragile. We have to enforce the action plan and the political declaration to ensure that democratic institutions remain vibrant and that they produce the results we all wish. On that score I will urge you to always keep your eye on how democracy is doing in the Americas because it is the foundation and an ongoing process.

The action plan also calls upon parliamentarians to play their role. This year you're hosting a meeting of FIPA, where parliamentarians can exchange their views. Moreover, the bank is prepared to finance better connections between parliaments and parliamentarians of the Americas through the use of new technologies. This provides a new dimension that was never in existence before.

Those are my general remarks on the question of the free trade agreement of the Americas. With respect to impediments, difficulties, and obstacles, I will leave it to Claude to answer.

Mr. Claude Carrière: Madam Chair, with respect to the FTAA, I would say that there are two main challenges that will face us. The first continues to involve the leadership of the United States in the process and whether or not the United States will continue in that regard, in particular with respect to the trade promotion authority President Bush has indicated he wishes to seek from Congress. The minister will be watching what happens on this file over the next several months to see whether the United States does have the capacity and the political will to engage in the negotiations as they move into a new stage.

The other challenge continues to be how we, individually and collectively, are going to respond to the smaller economies and to the concerns those countries have about the negotiations. We have indicated that we understand their concerns and that we'll try to work with them. We tried to show that in the negotiations for the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement, where we have signalled our willingness to adapt the agreement to meet the needs of a smaller economy. We can use that as an example of how we can introduce asymmetry and other similar notions into the free trade area of the Americas.

I would say those are two of the main challenges we face.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Monte Solberg: I'm not certain if I have much time.

I'm just curious about the problems we have very recently had with Brazil and whether or not they're going to continue. Or perhaps people are generally looking at the bigger picture and saying.... I'd like to know whether according to your judgment the Brazilians are completely committed to this. There has been some concern that they wouldn't see eye to eye with North America—the U.S.A. and Canada in particular—on the FTAA.

• 1050

Mr. Marc Lortie: Concerning Brazil, you know that there was a lot of talk and speculation a few months before the summit as to whether the Brazilians would even come to the summit. Well, one of the most active participants was President Cardoso. He is an exceptional leader, he has a vision for his country in the Americas, and he has changed his country dramatically since 1993. First he was finance minister and transformed the economic model of Brazil. Then he became president, and what he has been doing during his two mandates as president in the last eight or ten years has been to integrate Brazil more into the Americas.

At the same time, Brazil does only 19% of its trade with North America. Brazil is a big power in South America: it has half the population, half the GDP, and half the territory of South America. This is Brazil, and they are negotiating with Europe and doing business with Asia as well.

Therefore, they don't want to be rushed, and that's what they say. They don't want to be rushed in the context of the negotiations. The fundamental reason is that they have opened up their economy in the last eight years. Foreign investors and foreign products are coming in, which was not the case before. They opened up and said, well, we are going to negotiate the FTAA, but don't rush us. We have to have time to absorb this. We have already opened up our economy, and the FTAA means even more opening up of our economy. We have to take the time. We had agreed in 1998 to complete that over a seven-year period, until 2005, and let's respect that date. The leaders at the Quebec meeting agreed with that point of view, and the role played by Brazil—not only in Quebec City but during the preparation of the summit—was extremely constructive.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Thank you very much for your presentations. I would like to start with a comment as a prelude to my questions.

In my view, the main challenge facing the heads of State at the Quebec City Summit was to break down the wall of distrust regarding the negotiations as a whole. From this standpoint, I think the Quebec City Summit was not a success, that is, contrary to what we might have expected, I do not have the impression that there was any substantial increase in public support throughout the Americas for negotiating a Free Trade Area of the Americas.

Moreover, there was no discussion whatsoever about the positive effects that a Free Trade Area of the Americas might have. Like most of the people of the Americas, we do not know anymore now than before the Summit what advantage would lie in this economic integration, even though I do share the view that there would be some advantages. However, the fact is that this point was not highlighted at all during the meeting in Quebec City.

I think that one of the problems remains the lack of transparency. I am not saying that some efforts have not been made in this regard, but they remain inadequate. For example, after the meeting in Buenos Aires, we were told that the text would be made public. That was almost one month ago now, and we still do not have the text. You say that they are being translated into the two remaining languages. I imagine that the French version is available now, given the army of translators we have in Ottawa. So there is probably a problem with the Portuguese translation.

If these texts were translated into French and English, why would the committee members not have access to them now, even if they are not made public, so that we can prepare for—and we know that the content of these documents is not obvious—the public debate on these texts which, with time, become increasingly obsolete, because of course the negotiations are continuing. That is my first question. Are these texts available now in French and English, and could they not be provided to committee members, and when do you think they will be made public?

I have another question about the Canadian positions. When I talk about a lack of transparency, I am also referring to the fact that the Canadian government has made known its position on five of the nine negotiation tables. That leaves four, two of which are particularly strategic these days. I am referring to investments and the dispute settlement mechanism. Intellectual property also remains an important issue, as do services. So when will the Canadian position on these four negotiation tables be known?

• 1055

I am taking the liberty to ask all my questions at once. In my view, the democracy clause also has a tie to the issue of transparency. There is no mention anywhere of the role of parliamentarians in the negotiations. There is a reference to civil society, and I am quite pleased to see that there is a very legitimate concern about the role of civil society in negotiations. However, there is no reference whatsoever to parliamentarians. However, as you said yourself, the main objective of the democracy clause is to strengthen representative democracy, which is not all of democracy. So I was rather surprised at this.

In the action plan, the only role for parliamentarians is to have exchanges on democratic practices, which is quite praiseworthy, but there's nothing at all about the negotiation process already underway.

In passing, I would mention that I find it a bit funny that the IPFA is mentioned as an organization when it's been around for hardly a month or maybe two while the Conference of Parliamentarians has now been around for three or four years. I'm not saying they should be mutually exclusive, but I find it a bit funny that only the IPFA is being mentioned to the detriment of other parliamentary associations.

At the People's Summit, there was a forum of parliamentarians. I had actually invited all members of the House of Commons to be there. I even sent a written invitation to our committee chairman to chair one of the meetings. Unfortunately, not a single representative of the Liberal Party of Canada showed up at that meeting. But there were about 100 parliamentarians from the Americas and we saw that parliamentarians were playing an active role in the negotiations in very few countries. That could be an excellent way for governments to fill in a bit of the democratic deficit.

Still talking about the democracy clause, I understand full well that the choice was to re-enforce representative democracy and so I'm all the more astonished to see that no role has been given to parliamentarians in the bargaining process. Nevertheless, that doesn't cover all that democracy can be.

Amongst other things, concerning human rights—and I'll conclude on that—last week a group from a school in my riding came to demonstrate here in the context of an Amnesty International activity having to do with the matter of street children in Guatemala and Honduras that are actually physically eliminated. That's also true for Brazil and many other countries. In Honduras, 600 children were murdered last year. What's going to be done to go beyond the first stage which is re-enforcing representative democracy to actively promote human rights to ensure, finally, that all countries that are to be part of the FTAA will make a commitment to respecting human rights?

I've spelled this all out a bit willy-nilly, but all these elements actually do tie together. In my opinion, they serve as a clue to this transparency that must increase. Once again, I can see that despite the major efforts made, it's still not enough.

Mr. Marc Lortie: Madam Chair, thank you very much.

I'll try to answer some of your questions. You've opened very broad avenues. You've mentioned the mistrust of the population for the free trade agreement. In diplomatic terms, if you don't mind me saying it that way, the purpose of negotiating the free trade agreement isn't to increase mistrust but to create more trust between nations.

We ourselves don't know the Americas. When there was tension in Central America, when there was tension between Argentina and Chile, for the first time in the 20th century, the Vatican had to intervene to end the conflict between those two neighbouring countries. What are we doing, now, when we set up economic integration agreements? What are we doing? Are we creating mistrust or are we creating trust between the men and women of the Americas?

The main plan, the political objective in creating a free trade area is to increase trust between the men and women of the region. That was the number one objective of the European Union. We have to remember that. Thank goodness, America didn't go through the fratricidal wars that they had in Europe. The free trade agreement isn't an instrument of mistrust. It must be seen as an instrument of trust between men and women.

• 1100

Secondly, in the Policy Declaration, there is mention of creating prosperity. How are we going to decrease poverty in the Americas? The Summit of the Americas has to be put into its proper context: 32 developing countries, two developed countries, two developed economies. We are in a North-South forum. How are we going to create prosperity?

Maybe the message did not get through, but the first objective, the theme of creating greater prosperity, a more just prosperity for the Americas, goes through a free trade agreement. We are going to give certain economies the opportunity to develop in this respect.

You mentioned the perspective of a greater transparency, more openness, I think. The negotiators, and especially the minister, met their objective in that respect at Buenos Aires.

When will the texts be available? They will be available very soon, because the Portuguese, I was told, is almost all ready. So, it is a matter of weeks or days. Claude tells me it is a matter of weeks.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: We find that hard to understand. We were told there were over 900 pages available in English and in Spanish and it takes over a month to translate 900 pages in Portuguese. You can understand that the longer it takes, the less relevant those texts are. I am quite anxious to see the second series.

Mr. Marc Lortie: I would simply like to emphasize that they will be most relevant because the negotiations are going to go on until December 2005.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Exactly; for example, there was a text leak on November 29 and we were told not to bother about that text because the negotiations had progressed since then. So it is going to be the same thing all over again. The texts that are now being translated are texts that go back at least two months already. I simply want to mention that the longer it takes, the less those texts are relevant, even though they do have some relevancy. I hope we will get them as soon as possible.

Mr. Marc Lortie: Maybe I could answer the question on the Canadian position on transparency. Anyway, that is what I wanted to say as a general approach on the free trade agreement. It is both an instrument to create more wealth and an instrument to create more trust and not mistrust.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: And can you give me an answer on the role of parliamentarians?

Mr. Marc Lortie: On the role of parliamentarians, you know there was a resolution at the General Assembly of the Organization of American States in Guatemala, asking the participating countries to get their parliamentarians more involved. This OAS resolution led to setting up the Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas. Why is the IPFA mentioned and not the other associations? IPFA stems from a resolution of the OAS, that was present in Quebec City, and that explains why it put it in the action plan.

Of course, the other parliamentarians who get involved in hemispheric development are doing so dynamically and on a regional basis, on a hemispheric basis, on a national basis. They get involved in the whole question. The involvement of parliamentarians is extremely important, but the OAS resolution was meant to create the forum that was set up here in Ottawa, on March 6 and 7. But the role of parliamentarians is very important. Actually, this committee has been examining the issue of hemispheric construction for many years now. That is the work parliamentarians have to do.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Except that there will not be any vote for...

[English]

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

Excuse me, Mr. Paquette. I'm going to really try to stick to the timeframe so everyone gets an opportunity to ask a question. We can get back to you in the next round if you wish to continue on with it.

Mr. Robinson.

• 1105

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

I apologize for not being here during the presentations, but the FTA is actually being debated in the House now. It's an opposition day and we're focusing on chapter 11. So again, I apologize for coming in late. If the issues that I wanted to pose questions on have already been raised, obviously the witnesses will indicate that, and I'll review the transcript.

I believe Mr. Paquette was asking—I came in just at the tail end of his question—about the timetable for the availability of the text. I'm sorry, I didn't catch the answer. When can we expect this difficult translation job to be concluded?

Mr. Claude Carrière: As soon as possible.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So we have no sense, in terms of days or weeks?

Mr. Claude Carrière: Oh yes, in a matter of weeks.

Mr. Svend Robinson: A matter of weeks to translate it.

Mr. Claude Carrière: Yes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Okay.

This would be a question for Mr. Lortie. On the security elements of the summit, I have a couple of questions. The minister responsible for security at the provincial level for the Sûreté du Québec announced that he had concerns about the treatment of prisoners at the Orsainville Prison, and with good reason. The treatment was absolutely appalling, and in many respects in breach of the law. I want to ask Mr. Lortie, from the federal perspective, about the role the federal police, the RCMP, played in this particular summit, particularly their conduct in the use of tear gas and plastic bullets on peaceful, non-violent demonstrators.

I've made it very clear on a number of occasions that I'm not in any way condoning the use of violence by a very small number of protesters. It was unacceptable, and certainly I, my colleagues, and the leader have condemned it. What I'm asking Mr. Lortie about is what guidelines were in place for the RCMP with respect to the use of tear gas and plastic bullets on peaceful, non-violent demonstrators.

I personally witnessed one of these demonstrations—there were many—outside the wall, of a group of approximately 200 people who were seated singing. They were no threat to anybody, and they were advanced on by the police. Following a brief warning, tear gas was fired into the crowd, and subsequent to that, as people were retreating, plastic bullets were fired.

This is an outrage. It is illegal. It is assault by the RCMP. I want to ask Mr. Lortie what guidelines were in place with respect to the use of plastic bullets at the summit.

Mr. Marc Lortie: Mrs. Chair, no doubt the RCMP would be in a better position than I to answer those questions related to security. I would say, however, that the role of the four police forces—la Sûreté du Québec, la police municipale de Québec, la police municipale de Sainte Foy, and la Gendarmerie royale du Canada—did, in my estimation, exemplary work to ensure that the meeting was taking place and to ensure that peaceful demonstrations were also taking place. And they took place in Quebec City. But they had to control the overly aggressive acts that unfortunately are part of those international events.

Mr. Robinson would like to know more about guidelines, and I urge the member of Parliament to invite the senior authorities of the RCMP to answer those questions, if necessary, or to invite the minister responsible for public security to answer those questions.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Fair enough. So Mr. Lortie is indicating that he's not in a position to answer questions with respect, for example, to the quantity of tear gas that was used by the RCMP or the plastic bullets that were used by them.

Mr. Marc Lortie: That's correct.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Certainly, Madam Chair, I will be suggesting that we call the witnesses who are in a position to answer those questions.

• 1110

I assume Mr. Lortie could make available—I would ask him to make available—to the committee a list of all of those organizations that participated in the consultation with four federal ministers, I believe, and representatives of some twenty summit countries. Could he make that full list available to the committee, as well as the list of those who were invited but chose not to attend?

Mr. Marc Lortie: Absolutely.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I would appreciate getting that information, Madam Chair.

I have one final question. On chapter 11—and this would be to Mr. Carrière—we've seen, to say the least, a substantial shift in the position the government has taken from April 5 of last year, when in response to questions from my colleague Mr. Blaikie, Minister Pettigrew stated categorically that Canada was not in any way supportive of an investor-state provision in the FTAA, to the point that now the Prime Minister and the minister are saying chapter 11 has actually worked reasonably well. In fact, at one point the minister said that it's worked just fine.

Could Mr. Carrière indicate when we can finally expect Canada's position on the investor-state provision to be made public? The minister's spokesperson, Mr. Sébastien Théberge, said last week, and I quote, “We have not made our position known yet, because we don't have one”. Frankly, it's absolutely appalling that after the lengthy consultation the government says they went through, they still don't have a position. So I want to ask Mr. Carrière, when can we expect the Government of Canada might finally develop a position on investor-state in chapter 11 in the context of the FTAA?

Mr. Claude Carrière: We have been working very hard to try to convince our colleagues in the NAFTA to engage in a dialogue on clarification of some elements of chapter 11. Recently we received indications that they are willing to enter into those discussions. We are at the same time consulting widely on those specific elements to discuss with our trading partners on the clarifications we seek. Once we have achieved those objectives, we will reflect that in the FTAA.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So we still don't know what our position is, but we're consulting about what it might be?

Mr. Claude Carrière: We are developing specific ideas to engage in a discussion with our partners to clarify certain elements of chapter 11.

Mr. Svend Robinson: What indication do we have from Mexico, for example, that they're prepared to engage in any kind of, to use the minister's words, clarification of chapter 11? Specifically, what is the timetable for these discussions? I understand there will be some meetings early this month, in Washington, is it? Could you clarify what reason we have to believe that Mexico has any interest at all in opening up chapter 11 for clarification?

Mr. Claude Carrière: They have indicated to us that they are willing to enter into a discussion to clarify that. There already has been one discussion and there will be further discussions—in fact, next week in Washington, and subsequent to that. So, yes, we are engaged in a process of discussion with Mexico and the United States.

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

Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, Mr. Lortie, congratulations on a relatively successful summit. I think most Canadians are relieved that it went off as well as it did. Certainly there were concerns about security matters, but I think that's come off quite well.

I want to ask you to make some comments with respect to the plan of action as it relates to the adoption of the democracy clause. You have mentioned, as has Mr. Carrière, that there are target dates set for the FTAA—signing in January 2005, completion by the end of 2005. Now, you don't make mention of any dates with respect to the plan of action having to do with the development of democracies and so on, and I think I can understand that it's a sort of different kind of animal. However, I would like to know, if there is a recognition that some of the democracies in the Americas are young and fragile, to use a couple of words that you have used, how you are going to, as the countries in the Americas, measure the work done and the success around the democracy clause? How do you enforce that?

• 1115

If a country or a number of countries make commitments to strengthen their democracies but they don't do anything, what choices are you left with?

I know you and others have mentioned the example of Paraguay, four years ago or whenever it was, when they showed intentions of returning to a military dictatorship. They were told in no uncertain terms by Argentina and Brazil that there might be some very serious consequences if they did that, and I guess they deferred. Fine.

It's one thing for a country to announce that it would like to do something dramatic like that. People can see that and measure that, and they can act accordingly. I don't think those things are as difficult to measure as some of the other kinds of slower, more subtle developments, which may be agonizingly slow or may be described as just plain old-fashioned foot-dragging.

That's what I'd like you to talk about, Mr. Lortie. How do you measure that success? If the success is not moving along, if we all agree that it's simply unacceptably slow, how do you nudge? How do you give them a kick in the rear end so that we strengthen democracy not just in one country, but in all of the Americas? Can you give us a bit of a painting in that regard?

Mr. Marc Lortie: Thank you very much, Mr. Harvard, for your initial comments about the success of the summit. I think it was a great experience for all Canadians. On that score, I'm very pleased that especially young people suddenly were very engaged in the debate. I think we are going to make progress vis-à-vis the Americas if we have a full engagement of our population.

How do you measure success? The test is there. Is there a way to measure success of democratic rule, of ensuring that your fundamental liberties are protected and promoted or not? The answer is that through the OAS, through the multilateral meetings that we have all the time, you have to engage countries and governments in strengthening their democracies. You see if they are interested or not. You ensure that their civil society is also involved in the progress. We're going to do it at the level of diplomats in our respective circles.

But leaders want to ensure that rather than talking about measurement of democracies, that this one is more democratic, or the other one, we send a political message to tell people that if democratic rule is going to be abandoned or set aside—and as I mentioned earlier, there were 19 military dictatorships in that hemisphere not a long time ago, 20 or 25 years ago—there will be consequences to their political gesture. If they don't want to respect it, so be it, but the hemisphere has given very firm direction about it.

At the same time, we have said, as we did to President Aristide on Sunday morning, how are you going to strengthen democracy in your region? How do you strengthen democracy in Haiti at this very moment?

But what did we do? We said we're going to sit down together, we're going to send the OAS secretary general, and we're going to go collectively to try to help you out.

Is it going to be successful or not? I don't know. The decision is not ours. But on a bi-monthly basis, we're going to measure the level of interest, the level of engagement that is taking place, because the secretary general is going to come back to the OAS headquarters and report about his mission. He's going to be seated there. That's one example.

• 1120

Mr. John Harvard: I won't name a country, but let's say in a country the media is a puppet of the government or is an organ of the government. There isn't any great diversity of opinion expressed in the media, and we all know that. The government drags its feet. What can you do other than expressing in words? Is there anything you can do?

Mr. Marc Lortie: There is very little you can do on that score. But at the same time, we are trying to engage everyone around the table in strengthening democracy.

What does that mean for strengthening human rights foundations, for instance, in countries? You're talking about the press. Very few journalists in the hemisphere are in prison these days for attacking the regime. Not very long ago, that was not the case. Therefore if there is some case of that, there is a way to denounce that situation. There is a way to approach that situation.

Democracy is also the best regime to promote individual rights. Earlier in the questions we referred to human rights. How do you defend and protect human rights where the democratic system is ensuring that? There is a right not only to assemble, but a right to denounce, a right to oppose. That is the fundamental principle of democracy.

How do you measure it? Well, when you have people in a society complaining about the way they are treated in their country by their political regime, you're always in a position to measure the quality of democracy or the democratic regime. If it does not match your values, you have the instrument to intervene. You have the executive council of the OAS. You have the bilateral relationship. But at the end of the day, since the Quebec City declaration, you could always say to people, the way you're going there is not the right way for your population, and there will be some consequences if you carry on along your route of lacking transparency, openness, and respect for the democratic institution.

Consequences are there. Everybody will have to take their own responsibility. Some of them will say it doesn't matter; let's carry on. They liked what they had twenty years ago.

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

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you very much, Madame la présidente, and thank you, Mr. Lortie and Mr. Carrière, for attending today.

Mr. Lortie, of course democracy has to begin at home, and the Prime Minister is going to have one terrible battle if we don't make some changes in how we're going to communicate the FTAA to the Canadian public. I would take issue with you when you said that the people felt involved. If the people felt involved, we wouldn't see the thousands of people who attended the summit in Quebec in protest, nor would we see the people in our ridings who have a general uneasiness over the FTAA, much of which I think is rooted in fallacies and myths.

So what are you going to suggest to the Prime Minister? What mechanisms are you going to suggest for him to be able to bridge this gap of the uneasiness in society? How can you provide meaningful input—the operative word being meaningful—to the Canadian public so that they can feel involved? If he does that, then a lot of those protests would go away, for most of them are actually complaining about what they would normally support.

My second question deals with the drug trade, and you mentioned a sidebar about Colombia. As we know, dealing with the drug trade is fundamental to peace in Colombia. Do you know what the elements of this plan are going to be? I think there's an alignment of the stars right now, after being in Colombia in February and speaking to President Pastrana. There's a commitment on him, and about 17 Latin countries that I've met with, to put a plan together.

Much of it, of course, is devoted to trying to deal with consumption here in North America. As you know, the Americans right now are singing a different tune. They're talking about getting their house in order with respect to consumption.

• 1125

Do any elements in this drug plan deal with the illicit drug trade, and can you tell us what those would be?

Mr. Marc Lortie: On the question regarding the FTAA and democracy, I think the debate in Canadian society is a very healthy one. Young people and other people who feel that the FTAA is not the way to go about it have been expressing their views, and are being engaged.

Why is the Canadian government involved in the FTAA? Because we have experience with free trade agreements, and we base our policies on experience. We started, way back in 1987-88, with the negotiation of an FTA with the Americans. We expanded it in 1992-93 to Mexico, and then in 1996 we made an agreement with Chile. Last Monday we signed an agreement with Costa Rica.

All of those are related to the same subject—namely, creating more prosperity for Canadians who are involved in trade. I mean, 45% of our GDP depends on trade, so it's not irrelevant to—

Mr. Keith Martin: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but perhaps I didn't make my question clear.

We have two solitudes here. We have the understanding of free trade that you and Mr. Carrière and most of us at this table have, and then we have this incredible misunderstanding—legitimate fears—on the part of other people. How are we going to bridge this gap between the government out here, engaging in these free trade agreements, and society out here, expressing their concerns but not feeling that they have this meaningful input? How are we going to make that connection?

Mr. Marc Lortie: We're going to make that connection by talking more about it, not less. Canadians who are concerned are expressing their legitimate preoccupations. The FTAA is sometimes considered to be synonymous with globalization. Young Canadians in particular sometimes wonder if they are properly equipped to enter the world of globalization, to enter international affairs. They're preoccupied by whether or not they are properly equipped, by whether or not they're able to face these things.

There's a change, and we have to explain it. We have to go on the road and try to explain it.

You say there is a major gap, but if I read properly the latest poll on free trade, a large majority of Canadians do support free trade. But preoccupations exist, and we have to address those preoccupations. We have to engage in the dialogue constantly. I think that's what our political figures are doing, talking about the benefits of trade, talking about the benefits of open trade.

It's ironic that, as you see in your ridings and we saw in Quebec, the anti-globalization forces are attacking the FTAA, because the FTAA is basically establishing rules to harness wild globalization. That's what the instrument is doing. It's to ensure that we respect the same rules, all of us, the big guys and the small. That is how to control globalization.

That is a message that is not understood, because a lot of people feel that the FTAA is only for multilateral and multinational corporations. We have a responsibility to explain what it is, and what it is going to be, and what is our experience with free trade agreements. What is the Canadian experience with free trade agreements? Is it poor, bad, okay, or positive? The judgment of Canadians at this moment is that it is positive. That was reflected very strongly in the last poll.

But let's carry on, because the problem is there, and we have to address it. We have to debate ideas and be engaged in the debate.

• 1130

On the question of the drug trafficking in Colombia, leaders wanted to give their full support to President Pastrana. President Pastrana has engaged in a peace process that is directly connected to the drug trafficking, because guerrilleros in Colombia are financed entirely from the drug trafficking, from the money emerging from the drug trafficking. Therefore the two are connected; the peace process and the drug trafficking in Colombia are very much connected.

The declaration from President Bush opening the first session on Saturday morning was a new departure. It was the first time the American president expressed the importance of looking at the drug trafficking through consumption, at, as you just said, the demand aspect, not only the offer but the demand aspect. Throughout the years the Latin American countries especially complained about the fact that the American administration was not prepared to face this. They were always talking about how to attack the offer and not to address the problem of the consumption and demand. The declaration of President Bush Saturday morning about this was quite interesting in terms of the evolution of the mentality.

What would it mean for Colombia and the new mechanism on that? We're talking about a long-term process. For Colombia to reconquer the control over its territory, to ensure the peace process is going to be successful, there are not easy solutions. President Pastrana has demonstrated a lot of courage to engage in that process. Collectively, the leaders in Quebec City wanted to give him their support. We're going to follow that situation closely and hope for the best. But we're going to follow it very closely, and in a very cooperative or friendly spirit, with the authorities of Colombia.

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

Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Lortie and Mr. Carrière.

I would like to say right away that what pleased me with this summit is the very clear will of Quebec's men and women to get to know and understand South Americans, and especially Mexicans a lot better. I must say—I do not often say this—that our main newspapers in Quebec really made a concerted effort to give us documented information broad enough so that anyone who wanted information on the partners and the stakes of the negotiations were able to do so.

The Peoples' Summit was also a great success. It was very frustrating for Quebeckers to have this summit held on their territory while the Premier of Quebec could not in any way welcome visitors on their behalf. I even read that Lysiane Gagnon had quite a dream about this. I had not seen her dream like that for a long time.

I have a few very specific and direct questions. Citizens living in the vicinity of the fortified and besieged area had to put up with some inconvenience. The member from Quebec City was here a while ago and she asked me to ask whether you were going to pick up the direct and indirect costs incurred for all business persons and citizens due to Summit-related problems. Some people had to move because they were really disturbed by tear gas, they had to place their children in child care, etc.

• 1135

One question is of interest to me. I read several times in the newspapers about a number of bullets fired by the Sûreté du Québec. I hope that they will be prohibited in the future. I heard that the RCMP had fired many more, but we never found out the number. I would like to have it.

Secondly, let us talk about the negotiation. Chapter 11 is, of course, an extremely important problem, and concerned citizens are beginning to find out, although they do not yet fully understand, that governments and states could lose some power when Chapter 11 is implemented. You said that there might be a negotiated declaration—in any case, that is what I understood—among other governments. Please be more specific about that.

But above all, I would like to ask you the following question. If Canada, as Mr. Pettigrew suggested, does not agree with the spirit of Chapter 11 or, at least, with the interpretation that was made of it, how come this very same article 11 appears in the agreement with Costa Rica? This is the first thing I wanted to verify, and I am very surprised. While Canada really had, as it were, the upper hand, how come we did not try to get a clause different from the one in NAFTA? Although the wording is not identical, the spirit is really the same.

Regarding further negotiations, I would also like to hear from you, because the will of parliamentarians—which did not decrease despite what went on—is to participate as much as possible in those issues. These issues will basically have an impact on people both here and in South America. The issue of economic development is not foreign to the ability of governments to keep some latitude for action and of course some right to monitor the benefits, because free trade agreements do not, of themselves, engender any development; they can even have the opposite effect. Even if Quebec and Canada were, on the whole, winners, there were, in Quebec and in Canada, losers on account of these free trade agreements. The sooner we know about this, the better we can prepare to ensure that they can be prepared for that so as to avoid any disadvantages.

Finally, regarding the role of parliamentarians, I would also like to emphasize that the Parliamentarians' Forum in which we participated, and which was not organized by the Inter- Parliamentary Forum of the Americas and where we would have appreciated having Mr. Graham, helped us to understand how important it is for these debates to include all the stakeholders. Now, one of the great problems of the Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas is that the currently adopted regulations are unacceptable, and without any guarantee of change, we have no choice but to stay clear of the Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas.

Mr. Lortie, I invite you to answer the concrete questions and the rest.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): You have about three or four minutes to answer. Three minutes.

Mr. Marc Lortie: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: You are not that strict with my other colleagues, Madam Chair.

Mr. Marc Lortie: I entirely agree with your opinion regarding the interest of Quebeckers and other Canadians in the big issues of the Quebec Summit. There was very extensive media coverage. Ideas and commitments were debated. I personally visited university campuses and CEGEPS, and people are interested. People want to know more. This is fantastic, because generally, international affairs are considered to be so esoteric that people do not want to talk about them. But they did talk about them. People talked and we realized that Canadians want to know more about this because they are interested and committed. Thus, I find that this is very encouraging for the future, because our future and our prosperity are directly related to international matters.

• 1140

You said that there were some cause for frustration. You also mentioned the inconvenience suffered by the citizens of Quebec City. You know that business persons, especially those within the perimeter, received correspondence before the Summit saying that if they incurred any loss of revenue because of the Summit, the Summit of the Americas 2001 Office was ready to compensate them. This was meant for businesses within the security perimeter because there was no normal traffic on Saturday and Sunday for restaurants, pharmacies and other businesses.

With that in mind, there are some very specific rules—

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Outside the perimeter, there were also people who had—

Mr. Marc Lortie: Regarding people outside the perimeter, consultations are going on right now with Quebec city hall. The mayor of Quebec announced last week that he would accompany the citizens. Since the end of the Quebec Summit, we have received various bills, for various costs incurred by citizens and we are looking into the way that we will deal with these questions. I think that over the next few days, in co-operation with Quebec City... Quebec City is very closely involved with these issues.

And thus, a great deal was said about inconvenience caused by gas, but there was very little property damage as such. I personally visited the Saint-Roch district—I do not know whether you had a chance to see it—on Sunday, immediately after the end of the Summit, to take note of property damage which was nonetheless rather small and not very visible in this building that stands on the corner of Charest Boulevard and rue de la Couronne. Really, besides that, there was very little property damage in the city as a whole and within the entire perimeter, and we should be proud of that.

And thus, the Office of the Summit of the Americas will assume its responsibilities. It will look into this matter and advise us very soon, I hope.

Regarding Chapter 11 and Costa Rica, I'll let my friend Claude Carrière answer that question.

Finally, you mentioned the role of parliamentarians. Regarding this, governments are not all that... As for me, I was not all that involved in founding the Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas. Regarding the role of parliamentarians, the question should really be put to parliamentarians.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Because you mentioned it, I wanted...

Mr. Marc Lortie: Very well.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): We can come back to that, Madame Lalonde. I'll give Mr. Carrière just a little bit of time to respond and then we'll go to Mr. Paradis. You can continue with this later.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Carrière: As for Costa Rica, there actually is an article regarding investment in the agreement, it is a portable article, if you wish, but it refers to an agreement between Canada and Costa Rica regarding the promotion and protection of investment. This agreement came into force in 1999. The free trade agreement with Costa Rica does not include any obligations regarding investment, but it refers to another, previous agreement.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: And it includes the article which is equivalent to Chapter 11?

Mr. Claude Carrière: Yes, it includes an article about states and investors involving Costa Rica within the framework of a bilateral agreement.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I'm going to have to interrupt here.

Mr. Paradis.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, let me congratulate Mr. Lortie for the splendid work that was done, both in preparing and holding the Summit. I congratulate you for all that you did, and for negotiating the texts with all the parties.

I would like to come back to an issue raised by Mr. Paquette and Ms. Lalonde regarding the participation of parliamentarians. Just now, Mr. Lortie, you explained very well how the Inter- Parliamentary Forum of the Americas was created by a resolution of the OAS. I think that we must recognize the difference between the Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas and Copa. Creating the Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas was an important event that took place in Ottawa.

• 1145

Parliamentarians had a role to play in preparing this summit. We had a debate in the House and here in the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, we met several groups of representatives. Pierre Marc Johnson spoke to us about the environment and all kinds of groups came to tell us about their opinion of this summit. I think that parliamentarians play a role by listening to representations from these people.

Of course, with a summit of heads of State like this one, the 400 or so Canadian parliamentarians, parliamentarians from the United States and other American countries cannot all sit at the negotiation table. I do not see how we could conclude a text or an agreement if all parliamentarians were at the table to negotiate personally. That is why there are mechanisms.

My question is about the Free Trade Area of the Americas and I address it more specifically to Mr. Carrière or Mr. Lortie. Because of its geographical situation, because it is right next to the United States, Canada developed its skill at trading with the U.S.A. Now we want to include South American countries in the Free Trade Area of the Americas. We have a dual legal system in Canada, civil law and common law, as well as a dual culture, latin culture and Anglo-Saxon culture. Eight hundred million people live in the Americas, 300 million in the United States, and 500 million in all the other countries put together.

What more can be done? How could Canada play an even bigger role, both in trade, because of all those factors, and in other issues that were debated at the Quebec Summit of the Americas, such as human rights, democracy and environment? How could we improve our position as a country?

Mr. Marc Lortie: Thank you very much, Mr. Paradis.

Canada took up a very strong position in the hemisphere during the Summit of the Americas, first by better communicating the agenda of the Americas and what was going on in the Americas. Getting the people involved and interested in getting to know the Americas better, is already an achievement that will yield results. You will see young people beginning to learn Spanish or Portuguese because they know that the common home in which we dwell is the hemisphere of the Americas. So we must go out and discover this world.

Where can we improve our position? Well, Canada took up a very strong position regarding Canadian values. We want to communicate Canadian values in our action plan, in our Policy Declaration, and Canadians will recognize their influence on the action plan. We must remain watchful and ensure that the action plan is executed. Our summit's credibility depends on this. We must ensure the successful implementation of the action plan. If it succeeds, I guarantee that we will all benefit from it. We have a very detailed action plan and we currently have solid financial commitments from our financial institutions, but we must ensure that the work gets done. We must go out in the field.

There is also a new dimension. We raised the North-South issue, the challenge facing the haves and the have-nots, and the theme of connectivity. The Prime Minister created a Connectivity Institute affiliated to the International Development Research Centre, the IDRC, to help those countries get connected and modernized. Canada had never made such a commitment before. This is new. We're also talking about getting involved in hemispheric affairs. As you know these things very intimately, you know that we have only been members of the OAS for 10 years. Not long ago, our foreign policy also came to include involvement with the Americas. This was only 10 years ago, but it had a great deal of impact. Canadian diplomacy has really had a strong influence in the Americas.

• 1150

As you might have noticed in Quebec, several leaders and their delegations were enthusiastic, they said that we are a political counterweight to the influence of the United States. We must not underestimate this. Most of the participating countries consider that Canada is a political counterweight to the Americans which, since 1823—the specific date when the Monroe doctrine was proclaimed—wields control over the lives of the citizens living in the Americas. Canada is a political counterweight, which is a tremendous asset for us, not only for our governments, but also for our universities, for Canadians, for businesspersons, non- governmental organizations and Canadian tourists. If you travel across the Americas, you will hear people say that they want to do business with you because Canadians represent for them a tremendous political counterweight, very useful for fostering their own development.

Thus, we must put our shoulder to the wheel. There is a vast amount of work to be done over the coming years. We have the resources we need. Now, we must deliver the goods.

Mr. Claude Carrière: Regarding trade, there are two elements we must consider.

First, we will continue participating in the negotiations for the Free-trade Area of the Americas. We will work on implementing the agreement with Costa Rica. We should soon launch negotiations with other countries in Central America. The West Indies are also interested in extending their trade relations with Canada. We will also continue promoting the development of trade with these areas and with South America and promoting Canadian investment in various sectors in these countries so as to continue participating in their development and in the development of deeper ties, and not only in a commercial way. Thus, we will continue doing that work.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Madame Lalonde, were you satisfied that your question had been answered the time before? If not, could we put it on the record?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: My intervention will be very brief.

The agreement with Costa Rica, which was delayed, involves the essential problem with Chapter 11. Canada had an opportunity to show that it saw and recognized that there were problems and that something had to be changed. But it did not do so.

How do you explain that?

Mr. Claude Carrière: Madam, the agreement with Costa Rica includes an article that does not include any obligations and that simply refers to a previous agreement. The previous agreement is meant for promoting and protecting investments; it was negotiated in 1998 and implemented n 1999.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]... and which corresponds to the exact contents of Chapter 11. By extending this agreement, by quoting it as an example, Canada is sending out a message that is quite opposite to what Mr. Pettigrew claims, namely that there are big problems with Chapter 11. He said it during interviews. I do not understand why Canada did this.

Does this mean that its true position is the one contained in the agreement with Costa Rica? Personally, I hope that it is not.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you, Madame Lalonde. In view of the fact that we have to vacate this room before noon, you might want to save that question for Minister Pettigrew tomorrow.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes. I will certainly question him again. Thank you.

• 1155

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. Lortie and Mr. Carrière, thank you so much for your presentations and your presence here today. I think trade is becoming the issue on the international scene, and we feel that we can share in some of the excitement around it. Again, thank you so much.

The meeting is adjourned.