FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 3, 2001

• 0903

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.)): I call to order the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

This morning we have the minister here with us to discuss estimates. I believe he has said he would be prepared to discuss Bill C-6 if anyone is interested, although it has not yet been referred to committee. With him are James Wright and Kathryn McCallion.

Minister, we're running a little late, so perhaps we'll begin with you.

Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Thank you. I'll make a few statements.

As you have said, Madam Chair, I think since we're anticipating getting Bill C-6 out of the House fairly quickly, and since I'm going to be travelling for the next while, if anybody wants to try to ask some questions on Bill C-6, I'll be happy to deal with those as well. Of course everything is on the table.

I want to thank the committee for its continuing work, and to acknowledge the useful and very non-partisan advice we've been receiving.

I'm pleased to have an opportunity today to set out some of what I believe are the priorities for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, in the context of the main estimates for 2001-2002.

• 0905

I came to the portfolio believing very strongly that Canada is one of the too-small number of countries that can and do really make a difference in the world. In part this is because of our diversity, our inclusiveness, our record on humanitarianism, social justice, and human rights, and our reputation as a country that seeks to make the world a better place.

[Translation]

To this proud reputation, we also add our record as a dynamic, connected and innovative, open economy, and commitment to share prosperity throughout the global community.

To do these things, to maintain the high qualify of life that Canadians enjoy, and to make real progress in extending it elsewhere in the world, we need a foreign policy that is focussed and well-grounded in the realities of our political relationships and interests, one that recognizes real limits to availability of new resources across the full range of government programs and interests.

I have indicated my priorities as Foreign Minister from the outset, pursuing interests most closely tied to Canada's security and prosperity.

[English]

That is, my priority is to build relations with the new U.S. administration, with North America, the hemisphere, and the G-8. I've also spoken a lot about connectivity—extending what we're building in Canada to the rest of the world, and working to address problems of the digital divide. I'm pleased to see how that idea has spread as a priority in a lot of major international organizations, from the UN to the Commonwealth. Most notable, I think, was our recent success in raising this agenda at the Summit of the Americas.

The crux of the international connectivity agenda is how new technologies, often Canadian technologies...

[Translation]

The dialogue wasn't exactly the same at Industry, Ms. Lalonde, but almost.

[English]

New technologies are extending enormously the opportunities for Canada to exert positive influence in the world, and to use that influence to build transparent, connected, knowledge-based societies; to strengthen democracy; to increase social and economic empowerment; and to create opportunity.

This issue of connectivity also links to another priority that crosses many portfolios, such as Industry Canada. That's branding Canada—getting the word out about the new Canada and its tremendous technological and economic capacity.

These are just a few of the priorities I've tried to highlight in my first few months as Minister of Foreign Affairs. But the department has a broad and complex agenda across the full gamut of Canada's international interests.

Within our estimates and reports, you'll see these described as international security and cooperation, both trade and economic; international business development, which Mr. Pettigrew has discussed with you; assistance to Canadians; public diplomacy; corporate services, and services to other government departments; and passport services.

I'll just take a few moments to elaborate on where these priorities took us in the last year, touching on a couple of highlights. I'll also talk about where our resources are being focused in the coming term.

Over the last year, the Security Council and our membership in 1999-2000 was an important priority. We focused our work on conflict prevention and the protection of civilians in armed conflicts, and we also raised issues of gender equality.

The Summit of the Americas is part of the current estimates—you may have more discussion about these. Positive focus is in three areas: democracy, prosperity, and human potential. Canada's role in the Americas continues to deepen, and our leadership is increasingly being recognized. The PM has a role as senior statesman within the inter-American family, and we exerted significant influence in Peru last year, for example. We have really become an important part of the hemisphere.

Coming up: clearly the G-8 will absorb more and more of our attention when we chair it in 2002. There will be logistical and security challenges there. We'll also be advancing goals in the Portofino-Genoa meetings and building deliverables for the G-8 meeting in 2002.

• 0910

[Translation]

US relations will be a focal point as we continue to build relations with the new Bush administration. We will further our dialogue on security to address such issues as border and bilateral matters and global issues, for example, NATO, missile defence, the international arms control agenda, etc.

Regarding human security, I will continue the outstanding work of my predecessor in advancing a people-centred approach. As Minister, I will be taking part in the Human Security Network in Petra next week. I will continue to press for further implementation of an anti-personnel mines treaty and for the ratification of the Rome Statute to create an International Criminal Court.

[English]

I will continue to address the economic dimension of human security, both as a source of conflict—for example, the diamond trade—and in terms of restoring stability to post-conflict regions; human rights, democracy building, good governance agenda, focus on children, indigenous and gender issues, racism and AIDS, making the UN more effective, and focusing on the implementation of the Brahimi report on peace support operations; the Canadian leadership of the international commission on intervention and state sovereignty; strengthening our regional cooperation, NATO, including working with the European Union on the European security and defence policy; OAS, the summit follow-up, and of course the general assembly in Costa Rica at the beginning of June.

This year there will be a meeting of Commonwealth heads of government in Australia at the end of October, the Francophonie—in short, a lot of continuing action in a lot of multilateral fora.

Some specific areas of intensive focus will include the Balkans and the Middle East—I'll visit both those regions this month; also Sudan, as we continue to review the policy approach and seek to determine the most appropriate way for Canada to affect that troubled area; the Congo; and Sierra Leone.

Other troubled spots that will attract our attention are Colombia, Indonesia, and human rights in China. We'll be very involved, of course, with North American issues—notably energy and the environment—with both the United States and Mexico. Climate change is going to require a great deal of focus, in view of the Bush administration's position on Kyoto.

In terms of EU relations, we'll be working closely with the Swedish presidency—the prime minister will attend the EU-Canada Summit in Stockholm in June—and we'll follow that by working with the Belgian presidency.

We're continuing to work very hard on the promotion of the Toronto 2008 bid, which we hope will come to a successful conclusion in July. We'll pursue greater public diplomacy—a program that has involved engaging and informing Canadians, and promoting values and cultures abroad. I might add that we continue to cope with increasing consular and passport demands. Consular requests are up 45% from 1996, which of course imposes some pressure on us.

On the corporate side, we're continuing to move forward on public service restructuring within the department. We're discussing how best to implement the uniform classification system, or whether alternatives such as FS restructuring should be pursued. I know that in your travels many of you have had discussions with members of the FS category, employees of DFAIT, and I think you share my concern for many of their worries. I think that ought to be a concern for us all, as we seek to attract and retain really good people for the foreign service.

Finally, I might mention that we're moving forward to meet the targets for getting government online. Those targets are set out in the estimates: 50% implementation by 2002, and the rest by 2004. I might say that if you've gone to the www.canada.gc site and tried to elicit information from Foreign Affairs, I think you'll find it's very efficient. For example, if you want to know what our travel advice is for a particular place, you can find it with a relatively small number of clicks. If you want to compare it, I suggest go to UK Online and see how many clicks it takes to get around there.

• 0915

On that commercial announcement, Madam Chair, I'll conclude. Thank you.

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

Mr. Solberg.

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Minister, for joining us this morning.

You have a rather broad department, because there are so many issues, but I'd like to talk for a moment about one I don't believe you touched on, which is missile defence.

If the United States wants to put missile defence under NORAD—for which of course the Americans pay 90%, although we enjoy joint command with them—isn't it almost inevitable that we should support that? Doesn't it make sense? Wouldn't that really be in Canada's best interests, so we would be jointly in command of protecting the North American continent through missile defence?

Mr. John Manley: I don't think we'll contemplate taking a position on what we'd do with respect to missile defence being implanted in NORAD until we've had the advantage of the promised consultations with the United States. At this point, we have a lot of questions to get answered before we're in a position to take a clear stance on missile defence. Really, dealing with what might hypothetically happen if it's done through NORAD is the second stage, after a lot of clarification.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Okay. Let's just broaden out a bit here and get back to something we're pretty familiar with: the ABM Treaty. The Americans are talking about going beyond that treaty. They're arguing, and I think it's a good argument, that nuclear deterrence alone is not a good way to try to ensure safety and stability in the world. I wonder if you could reflect on that for us. You know, missile defence does seem to be a pretty positive way to get away from this idea of mutually assured destruction.

Mr. John Manley: Well, I think we would all agree that mutually assured destruction is what its acronym says: MAD. It's madness. Underlying Canada's policy for many years has been the encouragement not just of non-proliferation, but of reduction in armaments. We've tried to play a constructive role in encouraging that.

The difficulty we run into with ABM is that before you eliminate the existing structure of arms control, you want to be very clear on what you're going to replace it with. You know, the ABM is a treaty between the United States and the former Soviet Union. Frankly, the Russians have made some encouraging comments about their openness to the discussion the President proposes. He did stop short of saying they would unilaterally walk away from the ABM. He said he thought they and the Russians could construct a better approach, so let's see how that construction goes. To be exact, he said “We should work together”, referring to the Russians, “to replace the treaty with a new framework”.

I think, Mr. Solberg, our concern is whether missile defence might in fact prove to be a stimulus to other countries—increasing their armaments, and therefore increasing proliferation and global instability. That's the nub of the issue, and that's why there's uncertainty around where this will lead.

Mr. Monte Solberg: I'm going to completely switch gears now, and ask you about American views on border security. Rather obviously, we had the high-profile Ressam case—I'm sure they were concerned about that. Have they raised it with you? If so, what was your response? Are you prepared to make this an issue? Obviously it could have a pretty profound effect on our relations with the Americans if they felt that our border is porous.

• 0920

Mr. John Manley: First of all, certainly they didn't suggest at any time that our border was porous. I did raise with Secretary Powell the work of the Canada-U.S. partnership, which deals with the border. I think the Ressam case highlighted concerns that all of us ought to have about security. I think it was clear in our discussions that both the United States and Canada benefit from a rather open border between us. There are 200 million crossings a year. There's lots of trade. It has to work.

That means we will both have concerns about perimeter security. My belief is that at the present time there is a high level of satisfaction with how we are managing those controls. I think Ressam is seen not as a characteristic case but as an exceptional case, and frankly there are plenty of security issues that arise internally within the United States without necessarily coming in from anywhere. You don't need to look further than Oklahoma City for an example of that.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Are you going to share your ten minutes?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Minister, for coming.

You talk about Bill C-6, the water bill, and I thought I would ask you a question about it. I don't know whether you can answer this or not. This is a little more detailed here. It deals with trade as well.

Bill C-6, which is the one that's been introduced, and which we support because we believe Canadians should have the right to sole ownership of water, only deals with 15% of the total water resources in Canada. It leaves about 85% of the water resources subject, under chapter 11 of NAFTA, to challenges anytime we export water or Canadians try to do that.

You know that water is a provincial resource, not a federal resource as a natural resource, yet no agreement has been signed with any province to protect that. Your election promise in 1993 said that water would be taken away from the NAFTA agreement, and it's still there, so we are subject to this sword hanging over our neck here.

What is your position and your government's position in reference to this? What progress has been made to take water out of NAFTA, to see that at the end of the day Canadians have total control over all water, not just the 15% you're talking about around the international boundary?

Mr. John Manley: First of all, understand that subsequent to the election in 1993 a clarification was agreed upon that water in its natural state, essentially bulk water, was not included in NAFTA. Now, if people start to bottle it or put it into containers and commoditize it, then you're potentially into an area of argument.

What Bill C-6 does is recognize that water in its natural state is an integral part of the ecosystem and should not be removed from the drainage system in which it's found. Obviously water tends to be recycled. Toronto takes its water out of Lake Ontario, and generally speaking it goes back into Lake Ontario. In its natural state, however, it is a natural resource, and therefore, to the extent it lies within a province, it is provincial jurisdiction to deal with it.

The Minister of the Environment has worked very closely with his provincial counterparts in order to have provincial legislation that essentially handles the resource in the same way the federal legislation handles boundary waters, which is to ensure that they are not removed in bulk from the drainage system in which they're found. With federal-provincial cooperation in that way, you do cover all of the water. You cover it in its natural state, which is in our view not covered under any of the trade agreements. In other words, it's not subject to challenge dealing with it in its natural state.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: But I understand that six of the provinces have rejected that argument and haven't signed on to the agreement. At the meeting that took place in Kananaskis, six, including Alberta, refused to go down that road. Yet you are telling me that water is not going to be challenged under NAFTA. Is that what you're saying right now?

Mr. John Manley: NAFTA deals with commodities.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: That's right, yes.

• 0925

Mr. John Manley: You're telling me six provinces are prepared to commoditize water. I don't think so.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes. Check your notes.

Mr. John Manley: My notes say that all provinces have put into place or are developing legislation or regulations that accomplish the goal. So I think fundamentally that's where it lies, and I think provinces.... I'm sure you'll agree, Canadians don't want their water sold away. What provincial government is proposing to go to its electorate saying we're going to sell our water? I don't think they will.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: There were three licences issued, as you know. In Ontario it was supposed to have been issued—in Ontario, in Newfoundland, and even British Columbia. Then the federal government had to go and tell them that under NAFTA this would be challenged, so put pressure on them to withdraw. It opens up a door under this thing. What I'm hearing from you is quite contrary to that.

Mr. John Manley: It is, but I think you need to understand that natural water, water in its natural state, as a natural resource, is federal responsibility to the extent it's boundary waters, international waters. It's a provincial resource otherwise, and provincial governments have the jurisdiction to deal with it.

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

Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Minister, for just a moment, I could have sworn that this was the Industry Committee. I realize that your passion for connectivity did not die when you assumed responsibility for a new portfolio. Let me steer you back to the subject of foreign affairs, which can sometimes be a minefield.

Continuing on the subject of the missile defence shield, I'm sure you read, as many of us did, what Mr. Axworthy said to the Globe and Mail. I'd like to know how you feel about the positions he espoused. He is no longer the minister and it's much easier of course for him to speak out. He would like to see Canada do more than merely toe the US line and actually be a party to decisions. He views the participation of parliamentarians and the consultation process as an important step in Canada's ability to intervene. He advocates a broad public debate, something we have often called for, given that this radical about-face on the missile defence shield basically signals a resurgence of the struggle for military supremacy.

What worries me greatly is that the Americans... I heard what you said, namely that Mr. Bush was ready and was trying to convince Russia, but that the response of the foreign press was quite negative. People are worried that this might signal the start of a new arms race and we cannot take these fears lightly.

What's that ringing, Madam Chair?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): It's a cell phone, and the member has been trying to turn it off.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I think you're better off not buying one if you don't know how to turn it off.

Mr. John Manley: That's connectivity. No, it's not a

[English]

BlackBerry. Mine is off.

• 0930

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: In any event, I'd like to hear your views on this matter, because some concerns have been voiced and it's important for parliamentarians to be among those who will say no to this and help the minister.

I have more questions, Mr. Minister, if you have no objections. I prefer to put them to you right away and I'm confident that you will answer all of them.

Like my party and like many Quebeckers and Canadians, I am very concerned about the situation in the Sudan, not only about the never-ending civil war, but also about the actions of a western oil company. According to a UN Report, to the Harker Report and to more recent accounts, this company is aiding the war effort in that a portion of the profits that flow to the Sudanese government are helping to support the war effort. All of these accounts are terrible.

When pressed about the subject, Minister Axworthy replied that the Canadian government could not resolve the situation all on its own. I mentioned the Special Economic Measures Act. The last time we met with the Minister in committee, we asked him if he was willing to consider amendments to the Special Economic Measures Act.

I have tabled a private member's bill, one which I hope will be selected for debate. This issue should be one of your concerns. Today, given that Canadian foreign investment has increased from $50 billion ten years ago to $250 billion, we need to look at the whole question of corporate ethics and the means available to government. Since the Special Economic Measures Act can only be used multilaterally, Canada must find a way to invoke its provisions unilaterally when it feels the need to do so. I said that Mr. Axworthy was willing to consider amendments and I know that this is something Mr. Kilgour is recommending we do.

I'd like to hear you views on this subject. Sudan is one example that has been brought to our attention, but there may be others as well.

I'd also like you to comment on an entirely different subject, one that has piqued our curiosity regarding the use of the department's budget.

As you know, the Forum of Federations which was established in 1999 was initially funded out of the Foreign Affairs budget. The initial announcement was an allocation of $10 million over four years. However, if we dig a little further, we find that CIDA also allocates $1 million a year to the Forum, that the Privy Council - it doesn't come under your department, but I thought I'd mention it anyway - allocated $2.5 million and that an additional $10 million in funding has just been announced.

I've searched on the web which you appreciate so highly, Mr. Minister, and I've been unable to find a budget or annual report of any kind. We're told that these are not available. Yet, we're talking about fairly substantial sums of money. Given that there is a need for money in various fields, I think it would be useful to know where these funds are being spent.

Do I have time to wrap up, Madam Chair?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Two minutes.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I'd also like to hear your views on Israel, because I've found that Canada appears to be sitting firmly on the fence, particularly after Israel invaded the occupied territories, in contravention of the 1994 accord.

• 0935

Could you comment on this? A number of people, both on the Israeli and Palestinian sides, have told me that Canada could play a role, provided...

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Minister, before you begin, there's less than two minutes left in the time, and if members are going to spend the entire ten minutes asking questions, I think perhaps you should choose what you would like to answer publicly at the meeting, what you think you can answer in two minutes or less, and perhaps you could submit the other answers to the committee in writing.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I'd like to see that in writing. That's perfect.

Mr. John Manley: Is that all?

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes, that's all.

Mr. John Manley: You've asked many questions, enough to fill a book.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: It's just that I enjoy hearing you speak.

Mr. John Manley: I believe I already answered Mr. Solberg's question about the missile defence shield. I would have to say, however, that it is important for us to participate along with our allies, who are also discussing this initiative with the United States.

Discussions are ongoing in the context of NATO. Our goal is to bring about a more stable and less dangerous situation. I believe this is also a goal of some who favour this system because they believe the danger comes not from the Russians or Chinese, but from states which do not have a secure missile control system. If a mechanism exists to warn the United States of an impending missile attack, then they have broader response options. I believe that's the best argument in favour of such a system. However, this matter will be discussed further in the context of bilateral and multilateral talks. We have many questions still to ask. There was nothing surprising in what President Bush had to say and many questions continue to arise. I think we can take all the time we need to understand the issues.

On the subject of Israel, Canada made its position known on April 18. It was critical of Israel and of the actions it took. The situation is all rather complicated. I will be going to the Middle East next week for talks with Israel as well as with Egypt and Jordan. I will also be visiting Gaza to view the situation firsthand and to gather all the necessary information to further our understanding of the situation and to formulate our Middle East policy.

[English]

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

Mr. Robinson.

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

I want to welcome the minister to the committee.

I want to follow up on a couple of issues that have been raised previously and then raise a couple of other ones, and I'll try to make sure that I do it within the ten minutes that's allotted to me, Madam Chair.

On the issue of national missile defence, I guess I'm the only member of this committee who was actually here back in the early and mid-eighties, when I recall the Liberal Party and Liberal MPs at that time actually taking a tough stand in opposition to Star Wars.

• 0940

Frankly, I think many Canadians are appalled at the silence and the failure of leadership on the part of the Liberal government today in not taking a strong stand on the issue of national missile defence.

The minister says, well, you know, we've got some questions we want to raise, and so on, but as Lloyd Axworthy, the minister's predecessor, said just a couple of days ago, the United States is moving ahead. In his words, “no one can sit on the fence, because if you sit on the fence you're going to be bypassed”. Those were the former minister's words. Those aren't my words.

The minister says he has questions. Many Canadians have deep concerns about national missile defence, about the extent to which this may very well fuel a new arms race, about the fact that Bush's statement was virtually silent on China. He talked about the bilateral relationship with Russia, but very little on China. Many Canadians see the Canadian government response as being rather gutless, saying, well, we've got questions, but no leadership. I want to ask the minister, when the United States comes to Canada in the next few days or weeks, is he just going to be asking questions about the impact of this, for example, on the ABM Treaty, or is he actually going to stand up to the United States and say, no, Canada does not support national missile defence?

Mr. John Manley: First, Mr. Robinson, I understand that you're against it. That makes it very simple for you. Canada does, however, benefit significantly from participation in NATO, which your party would have withdrawn from many years ago, not to mention NORAD, which you would also withdraw from. So we come at these issues from fundamentally different points of view.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Absolutely.

Mr. John Manley: What I believe is that when we consider the global implications of a missile defence system, we need to look at it not only from the perspective of what we would like the world to be, which is a world in which there are no nuclear weapons, but also from the perspective of the world in which we live, which unfortunately is still a dangerous place. There are risks. There are threats. When you look at the question of ABM, for example, we all agree ABM is one of the fundamental building blocks of the existing security system—but what a flawed system, thousands of nuclear warheads.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Is NMD going to make it any safer?

Mr. John Manley: Let me finish, because I think that one of the positive indications we have is a sharp reduction in the number of those warheads, a sharper reduction than most people were anticipating in START III, for example. I think Canadians should have an informed and thorough debate about this, but it should be in the context of global realities.

I've said I think there are some real concerns here, and one of the key concerns is what the Chinese reaction will be. There hasn't been an official Chinese reaction yet. There's been Chinese press reaction. From the earliest encounters we had with the new U.S. administration, our government has been urging great care in dealing with the Chinese response to a system that could be perceived by the Chinese as directed towards them, with all the implications that could have for Chinese increase in nuclear arsenal, which could lead to other countries in that region. As I said to Mr. Solberg, that's the nub of the issue.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Let me just ask the minister on this and then move onto a couple of other issues. At one point, the minister seemed to indicate that Canada was not prepared to support NMD without the support of Russia and China. Is that the position of the Canadian government?

Mr. John Manley: No.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Or is it not? Does Canada actually have a voice of its own, independent of what these countries might say, even though, obviously, they express serious concerns?

Mr. John Manley: Well, no. It was never my intention to suggest that somehow or other China or Russia were going to determine Canadian policy. What I said was that Secretary of State Powell, in his own testimony at his confirmation hearing in the Senate, said he would be consulting with Russia and China. What I said was if Russia and China agree, the likelihood is he'll be able to persuade Canada.

• 0945

Mr. Svend Robinson: Again, we're still looking for leadership on that one. But let's look to another area that, again, I believe many Canadians are deeply concerned about.

My colleague Madame Lalonde raised the issue of Sudan. A couple of days ago in the House I asked the minister a question about the very compelling evidence that Talisman Energy's airstrips in southern Sudan are in fact continuing to be used for offensive military purposes by the government of Sudan. The minister knows that, in effect, the government of Sudan has embarked on a scorched earth policy in southern Sudan. They're clearing out major fields for use by foreign oil companies, including Talisman. This kind of complicity is absolutely appalling.

The minister's had an opportunity to review this matter, to review the documents that Nick Coghlan, our representative in Khartoum, has tabled. There appears to be some kind of significant omission in the documents that have been made public. What's the minister prepared to do with respect to Talisman Energy's apparent complicity—continued complicity, because John Harker over a year ago said this was happening at the Heglig oil field? Now it's happening again. What more evidence does the minister need before he finally will take tough action against Talisman and voice our concern to the Government of Sudan?

After one other area, Madam Chair, I'll ask the minister to respond.

What is the response of the Government of Canada to the request by Taiwan for observer status at the World Health Assembly, which is coming up in Geneva, Switzerland later this month? Taiwan has sought observer status. In fact, the United States House of Representatives just last week accepted a resolution urging support of observer status for Taiwan at this summit. What's the position of the Government of Canada? Will Canada support observer status for Taiwan at the World Health Assembly?

Mr. John Manley: Let me give one other comment, which you can put on my account, if you wouldn't mind, Madam Chair, instead of Mr. Robinson's. To clarify one point left over from the previous exchange on missile defence, nothing proposed so far parallels Star Wars. This is important, because the Canadian position is very clear about the non-weaponization of outer space. Nothing proposed at the moment includes the putting of weaponry into orbit or into space. The Star Wars proposal, you remember, included that. That policy doesn't change.

As to Sudan, I'm very troubled by reports that airstrips in the south may be used for offensive purposes. As I said in the House, it's not clear that we have evidence of that being the case. There may be arguments over what's offensive and what's defensive. Generally speaking, if you're on the receiving end, it looks offensive, regardless of what the motivation of the person firing a weapon may have been. The role that a Canadian company plays in this, therefore, becomes a matter that I think is going to increasingly preoccupy Canadians. It certainly does me.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So what's the minister doing to find out what's happening?

Mr. John Manley: We're taking information from wherever it can be had. We're taking information from NGOs, we're taking information from our representatives in the region.

Mr. Svend Robinson: What's Nick Coghlan telling the minister?

Mr. John Manley: I can say that the information I've been given so far is inconclusive as to whether airstrips are being used for offensive, as opposed to defensive, purposes. The approach we have been taking and continue to take is to strongly emphasize the use and application of principles of corporate social responsibility dealing with the behaviour of companies, wherever in the world they take part in business activities. I think there is indication, to their credit, that some of Talisman's activities in Sudan have been supportive of the local population, have created an improved situation.

• 0950

I think we as a government share the concern you're expressing that revenues that are flowing to the Government of Sudan from activities that are being carried out are fueling the aggression and exacerbating the hostilities in what is a dreadful situation.

We'd like to see Talisman certainly step up its involvement in improving conditions for the people of southern Sudan. We'll continue to watch very closely in determining whether there are other actions that we can meaningfully take, as opposed to simply rhetorically take, setting rules that have no practical effect in the end. But it is certainly a major preoccupation that we have.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And on Taiwan?

Mr. John Manley: I'll get back to you.

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

Mr. Svend Robinson: If you put me down for a second round, I'll come back to that.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Thank you very much.

I'd like to come back to the national missile defence system for a moment. What is the U.S. timeframe for implementation of this process?

Mr. John Manley: We expect the process in terms of consultation to be underway quite soon—in a matter of weeks, Mr. Wright says. We don't have a date set for meetings, but we understand they're about to launch their consultative process quickly.

Mr. Bill Casey: Do you think they have a firm plan now? They've launched or proposed several different—

Mr. John Manley: No. This is one of the issues. We still don't know what their plan is in terms of how it would be operationalized. We don't know whether they intend to base it on land or sea, or how many interceptors there will be, where they will be located, where the radar systems would be located, or whether the plan is that they'll be intercepting at the boost phase, or midcourse, or terminal phase. All those questions remain unanswered.

Mr. Bill Casey: Will this committee be privy to any of those discussions when they start? Will we be involved? Will we have an opportunity to have input?

It is a really top priority for a lot of Canadians. They're very concerned about it.

Mr. John Manley: I will be looking forward to receiving advice from the committee on the issue as we acquire more information and begin to be better informed of what timeframe is relevant for us to express our views.

Mr. Bill Casey: Okay. I want to go to another subject that bothers me. I'm sure it bothers everybody. That is the AIDS epidemic in South Africa. It seems that the world is not paying any attention to this. According to the numbers I have, a population the size of Nova Scotia's will die this year from AIDS.

Do we have a committee? Do we have a strategy? Do we have a focus? Do we have anything to deal with this and provide whatever help we can and preventive measures?

Mr. John Manley: It's one of the four social development priorities that CIDA has been following, an action plan on HIV-AIDS. That annual investment from CIDA will go from $20 million a year to $80 million over the next five years. So there's increasing focus being put on it by CIDA. I think you can take it that it's a priority of Canadian ODA. You may want to pursue it more thoroughly with Maria Minna when she's here.

Canada is also fully supporting work in UN organizations—the WHO, UNICEF, and so on.

Mr. Bill Casey: Are you yourself satisfied that's enough focus? We don't hear anything about it. Is there more Canada could do?

Mr. John Manley: As you describe it, it's quite right. I think the other telling statistic is a Zambian one, I understand, where the number of teachers who are educated each year is equivalent to the number of teachers who are dying of HIV-AIDS. In other words, they can't produce teachers at the same rate as they're losing them to the disease, not to mention all the other reasons you might lose teachers.

• 0955

It's a terrible tragedy. Whether we hear enough about it, I'm not sure. I suppose we don't. Canadians need to be better informed, and if they were, I suspect we would find that we need to dedicate more of our resources to trying to deal with it.

Mr. Bill Casey: If you agree that it should get a higher priority and more public awareness, how do we do that?

Mr. John Manley: By continuing to raise it, and continuing to raise it in the context of international fora.

There's a UN special session on HIV-AIDS in June. These fora are continually available to raise the profile of the issue, and I think that's really where it needs to occur. I expect it will be part of the discussions at the Human Security Network in Jordan at the end of next week as well in preparation for the UN conference.

Mr. Bill Casey: Thank you.

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

Mr. Harvard.

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

Thank you for coming to today's meeting, Mr. Manley. I want to ask you a couple of questions.

By the way, Madam Chair, do I have five or ten minutes?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): You have ten minutes.

Mr. John Harvard: I want to ask you about morale in the foreign service or the lack thereof. I think you would agree that we have a pretty outstanding foreign service, owing in the main to some very outstanding people. You know and I know there has been a morale problem, I suppose stemming largely from working conditions of one kind or another, especially what is perceived as low pay.

I know the government did reach out to the people, and there were some raises in what, 2000? According to the information I have, the increases amounted to a little over $9 million, which, spread over that number of people, doesn't seem like a lot. I think that agreement expires next year.

I know you're concerned about this, because the way the employees go is the way our foreign service goes. The better the foreign service, the better it is for you and for me and all of us in government.

Do you see this as a continuing problem? Has there been some stop of the hemorrhaging, some of the departures? Have we turned the corner, to use another cliché? Give me your take on this.

Mr. John Manley: I mentioned it in my comments at the outset because I'm quite concerned about it. I meet with union representatives in the department, which is something I used to do in my former department as well.

There are a lot of challenges to attracting good people to the foreign service. We don't have any trouble attracting a lot of people to apply, but when they actually confront the realities of the life they face, the difficulty of having partners employed in many of the posts they might live in around the world, the fact that increasingly foreign postings are dangerous as well as bringing some of the other challenges with them, and then when they discover that their pay is not significant....

In fact, I think if you compare the FS category, with the skills they often have, we have remarkable people—multilingual, well educated, and talented—plus, they have to do something that I didn't have to do to get my job, which is pass the foreign service exam, you recognize the calibre that's there. Yet I think we sometimes give them wonderful training for five or six years and then lose them to Nortel, or Bombardier, or worse yet, a non-Canadian company where their skills are needed and where they're paid three times more.

• 1000

Mr. John Harvard: Is that inevitable?

Mr. John Manley: I don't think we're going to compete with the private sector. Public service is a different calling and requires people to see it as such.

With the upcoming negotiations, we hope to get a good contract settlement. I hope in the process, whether it leads to a uniform classification system or simply some of the lessons are applied that have been learned through working on it, we can improve the situation. We've also asked Treasury Board to look closely at this situation.

I would argue that some of my FS employees ought to be paid on a scale similar to COs, for example, in other departments. The lawyers who are FS are not paid at the scale lawyers are paid in the Department of Justice.

I think some of these issues could be tackled. I hope it will improve the morale. I certainly feel it.

Mr. John Harvard: Do we have a shortage right now in some of the areas of the foreign service?

Mr. John Manley: Let's put it this way. We don't have a shortage at the intake end. The number of people who are taking the foreign service exam and seeking to become foreign service officers is still high. It's really tough to get in.

Like much of the public service, which expanded rapidly in the sixties and early seventies, we have looming challenges as you go into the middle management. In the FS category, it's particularly acute. People have to confront the question of how long they want to stay with that rather challenging lifestyle.

Mr. John Harvard: Well, let's hope the situation improves.

I want to take you, Mr. Minister, into the area of overseas development assistance, ODA. According to distributed information, as a country we have fallen from 12th to 17th among the 22 donor countries. In my opinion, it is going in the wrong direction. I understand there have been some increases. The fact of the matter is, within this group of 22 donor countries, we've really lost some stature, if I can put it that way.

Are we addressing that? Can we address it more vigorously? Of course, it also includes the area of our donation or our contribution relative to our GDP. I understand our target is 0.7% of GDP. Where are we at? Can we expect to ever reach that level again? I know we talk about it, as a government, and we have for a number of years. Can you see that happening, Mr. Minister?

Mr. John Manley: I think absolutely the commitment is there to increase. In fact in the Speech from the Throne, as you'll recall, back in January, there was a clear commitment for a return to growth in future ODA resources. The commitment is there to increase it. We're nowhere near 0.7%. We've fallen back. I think that occurred when everything was being cut in the deficit fight.

Now the economy has had a number of years of growth. Government spending has not grown as rapidly as the economy, which is one of the reasons we're beginning to generate surpluses, and the rate has fallen. The commitment is there. I think the need is greater than ever. I expect as we move into the budget cycle increased resources will become available.

Mr. John Harvard: You don't think that's too rosy? We do have surpluses. The sense I get, Mr. Minister, is perhaps a couple of years down the road our surpluses aren't going to be of the kind we're enjoying right now. It may be, at least in the immediate future, a bit difficult to hit that target.

Mr. John Manley: Hitting the target is going to take time. It is going to be difficult. It's going to require shifting priorities. It's going to require people who believe in those priorities to go out and help persuade Canadians they're important.

• 1005

There is no question that increased overseas development assistance is generally not seen as something that is a big—

Mr. John Harvard: It's not of big stature.

Mr. John Manley: —political winner. The people who most directly benefit are people who do not vote in any one of our constituencies.

We need to remind our constituents that in a shrinking globe, the needs of countries around the world, whether they're in our hemisphere, Africa, or Asia, eventually become our needs. They eventually are at our doorstep. They are our neighbours.

We need to take the necessary steps to ensure we address the critical needs. Frankly, it's not just overseas development assistance, ODA. It also involves real steps toward making markets available so they can build their own economies. That is why trade can't be looked at apart from overseas development assistance. If we don't give them markets, and just send them a cheque from CIDA and wish them well, they'll never build to prosperity and better living standards.

It is, and it ought to be, an issue for all of us. It's something we need to go out and actively encourage our constituents to support.

Mr. John Harvard: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Good morning, Mr. Manley, Mr. Wright, and Ms. McCallion. Thank you for joining us this morning.

I have a couple of comments along the lines of what Mr. Casey said.

On the issue of AIDS, if we're not involved in AIDS prevention in sub-Saharan Africa, we're not relevant. It's that devastating. I hope the department will look at the model used by Mr. Museveni in Uganda, which has been extremely effective in prevention and decreasing the incidence of HIV infection there.

On the issue of the missile defence system, personally, I hope you support it. This is more to do, I think, with protection against China, displaying the old sun tzu technique of displaying a relatively weaker exterior while increasing their military capabilities behind the scenes. I hope that's built into our foreign policy.

I would put in a request, Minister Manley, on the amount of money we're spending in ODA. On line 25, under CIDA, we're spending $1.48 billion in grants and contributions.

I would put in a request, if your department would like, to table into this committee the objectives, method of selection, and measurement used in those grants and contributions; the overarching philosophy CIDA is using; the objectives for those grants and contributions; the method of selection as to who gets them; and how we measure the outcomes of those activities. The number has actually gone up $60 million since the last estimates.

On the issue of Sudan, I think we're dealing with a relatively peripheral issue when it comes to Talisman Energy Inc. I would ask, Mr. Minister, if you have made strong statements to the Government of Sudan as well as the SPLA on implementing the declaration of principles they signed. I believe it is critically important to ending the terrible conflict. As we know, about a million people are poised to die in the next month or month and a half from a famine raging in the south at this point in time.

On the Export Development Corporation, a number of the companies EDC supports are wilfully violating our own environmental standards. There don't appear to be any checks and balances. I would ask, sir, if you would tell this committee what checks and balances your department is doing, through the EDC, to make sure these companies aren't engaged in dumping mine tailings into rivers, polluting, or clear-cutting, particularly in Southeast Asia.

My last question is really a statement. We know the cost of post-conflict reconstruction has increased dramatically over the last twelve years. In fact it's bankrupting many IFIs. With the World Bank, I believe it has gone up 800% in the last twelve years alone.

• 1010

I would ask, with the $151 million we are actually giving to the IFIs, in your view, is the department going to engage in a greater emphasis on dealing with the precursors to conflict? In other words, will you use economic levers through the IFIs to address the precursors to conflict? Will that be brought up at the G-8 and G-20 meetings? There's a very cogent—if nothing else—economic argument that says we have to address the precursors. I personally believe that the IFIs hold some extraordinary economic levers that can be applied as a practical means to address the precursors to conflict.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): We should be keeping to five-minute rounds.

Mr. Keith Martin: Oh.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Did you realize that?

Mr. Keith Martin: No. I'm sorry.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I'm sorry. I should have reminded you at the beginning.

Mr. John Manley: There are a lot of issues Mr. Martin has raised. First, very quickly, with respect again to HIV and AIDS, Maria Minna will lead our delegation to the UN conference. I think that this will be a clear opportunity for us to rearticulate our position and to set out support for an international strategy.

We'll pass the question with respect to CIDA priorities on to her so she can coordinate the preparation of a response, which will be presented either when she's attending the committee or otherwise. I think she's the appropriate one to deal with those questions, and she's coming next week.

With respect to GOS, we have made repeated interventions with the government of Sudan to encourage their adherence to commitments that have been made and to seek assurances that they're not using offensive measures in the south. I think it's fair to say that we are doing all the things we can through diplomatical channels. We don't have forces there, we have nothing more than our name and our influence to use with respect to the GOS, and that's what we're engaged in doing.

The point with respect to the work that can be done through IFIs is a good one. It will arise certainly in the context of the G-8 discussions. Conflict avoidance and conflict prevention will be part of the mandate to look at, and that's also an area in which we've been engaged. There are a number of federal government departments and agencies, including Finance as well as ourselves, that have responsibilities in those contexts and that are concerned with using those mechanisms to the extent they can be used to try to create situations which are amenable to settlement.

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

Minister, I'm going to have to stick to the five minutes to give everyone an opportunity. You will get back there if we stick to the five minutes.

Madam Marleau.

Ms. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Canadians were justifiably proud of the land mine convention, which we spearheaded. As you know, I was involved in that at the time. There was a land mine fund that had been set up at the time, and that was divided among different departments. I notice that in your speaking notes you talk about continuing to press for further implementation of an anti-personnel mines treaty. I'm wondering, where are we at with that fund? Is it finished? Do we have any hope of having additional moneys put in? I believe that this is an area where we should continue to press.

I myself am going to get involved in fundraising, and I will ask my colleagues to do the same because I think that there's still an awful lot we can do as Canadians.

Perhaps you could give me an update and tell us where you're going on that particular aspect.

Mr. John Manley: Thank you.

First of all, the funding continues to 2003, so we're really only midway in the continuing funding stream we have to work on with that. That will continue. As you mentioned, there are some pretty significant private sector fundraising efforts that are going to supplement what the government is doing. We'll be trying to help. On a personal basis, I'm involved in trying to help with that as well. I think it's providing a great avenue for a lot of those involved in the non-profit sector to do something that's meaningful, and the results of their efforts are partnered with government money.

• 1015

There's a good list, and I'll quickly run through some of them. We have a five-year commitment for $10 million for mine action in Mozambique. Also, we've supported programs in Angola, Chad, Uganda, and Sudan for mine removal. We've spent about $4 million in Cambodia and about $7 million for efforts in Afghanistan, Laos, and Cambodia as well. Throughout Asia we have been increasing.... There are a lot of mine action programs going on in southeastern Europe. I won't take you through all of them, but I think it's an impressive—

Ms. Diane Marleau: I would like to make a specific request. I'm told there's a possibility that in the U.S.A. there will be matching public funds for money from private sector fundraising. I'm wondering whether here in Canada we'll be able to get the same kind of thing going if we're successful in organizing a number of fundraising events across the country. I know that you're not the one who would make the final decision on that, but I would like to have your support for that because it would help.

Mr. John Manley: You have it unconditionally.

Ms. Diane Marleau: Thank you.

Mr. John Manley: I might add, by the way, that Turkey and Greece have recently signed on to the convention, which now brings us to 139 signatories.

The Vice-Chair (Colleen Beaumier): Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Minister, on the subject of the Sudan, you say that you have exhausted all diplomatic avenues. Therefore, let me put the question directly to you. Are you prepared to move quickly to amend the Special Measures Act to acquire the means to deal with the Talisman company? As you know, Stephen Lewis has said that this company could be charged with war crimes if it stayed on in the country and continued doing what it was doing.

Mr. John Manley: I'm prepared to consider some amendments, but I'm not convinced that it would make a difference.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: You could force the company to leave the country.

Mr. John Manley: And where would it go?

Ms. Francine Lalonde: It might serve as a lesson. I think we need to start taking action against the many companies which are not necessarily interested in political stability. Some companies seem to thrive in a wartime environment.

Mr. John Manley: Let me explain something to you. If we come down hard and force the Talisman company to leave Canada and relocate, who wins?

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Then you pursue your action on the international level.

Mr. John Manley: Is it the people in southern Sudan, the Sudanese or Canadians. Who wins?

Ms. Francine Lalonde: That's terrible, Mr. Minister, because it means companies can continue operating in this manner and that is unacceptable. At the very least, you should be able to threaten them with some action. I'm confident all parties would agree to move quickly to amend this act, so that you have a means through which to act. Otherwise, you...

Mr. John Manley: I don't think so. You can put the question to your colleagues, but I believe the best course of action at the present time is to emphasize standards that companies operating in other countries must abide by to ensure that they behave like Canadian agents and follow acceptable standards of behaviour. At present, there is no multilateral basis for action, and the Special Economic Measures Act is a multilateral instrument.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: That's precisely my point. We need to dispense with this multilateral obligation. A year ago, Mr. Axworthy said he was considering amending the legislation so that its provisions could be invoked unilaterally. That's why I'm asking if you are prepared to amend the act. I think it's time to show some leadership in this area. Countries have to take action against their own companies.

• 1020

I have another question. I realize my time is limited and that I had my say earlier. However, what other countries fund the Forum of Federations and how much do they contribute?

Mr. John Manley: I will have to answer that question in writing.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Fine.

I have a brief question concerning the spouses of diplomatic personnel. Earlier mention was made of diplomatic staff. I have noticed on several occasions that the spouses of ambassadors and diplomatic personnel experience difficult living conditions and that the low salaries paid to people employed by the Government of Canada compound the problem of staff turnover. Are you prepared to examine this situation more closely to see what corrective action could be taken by the government?

Mr. John Manley: We've asked Treasury Board and other departments such as Immigration to take part in a study with a view to resolving this situation. The union has formulated some recommendations which need to be considered, particularly those regarding pensions and so forth. This is not my area of responsibility, but I feel that all of the suggestions should be considered.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you.

[English]

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

Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister, thank you very much for being here this morning. I just have two brief questions.

First, as we become more and more involved in our own hemisphere—as a Canadian I think rather belatedly, but I'm happy to see we are—what will that mean on the ground as far as our presence there is concerned? Will we inevitably have to have more of a presence?

I represented Minister Pettigrew in the Dominican Republic for a business signing in January, and our people there were saying that they really needed more help in visas, for example. There were a lot more resources in Haiti, but they needed more there. I just wonder what we are going to do to vamp up our presence in Latin America.

My second question concerns the topic of the day, NMD. I think there's been some misrepresentation. I chaired the defence committee for the last two years, and we were the only committee that held hearings on that topic, a number of hearings. We had witnesses from Project Ploughshares to General Macdonald, Deputy CINC of NORAD, and we had tremendous expert evidence on both sides of the argument.

However, I think it's wrong to suggest that Canada ever took a position against NMD. The former minister, Mr. Axworthy, expressed some personal reservations, which he still has according to my recollection—and you can correct me if I'm wrong—but the Canadian government took no position for or against. It was very early on. We hadn't even been asked. I don't think that officially we've even been asked yet, have we, minister?

I wonder what your view is on whether a committee or committees should pick up the hearings again at some point. I do agree with those who feel we need a national debate on this important issue, and I just wonder what your views are.

Mr. John Manley: First of all, I think one of the corollaries of the Summit of the Americas is that we will need to increase our presence in the hemisphere. There was a very clear statement of the important role Canada ought to play as one of the leaders in the western hemispheric neighbourhood. It follows naturally from our engagement in the OAS since 1990, where we've played an increasingly important role. It's natural for us to increase our presence and involvement, and that will involve our representational capacity as well. Resources allowing, that would be the case.

I agree with you on NMD. Nobody's ever taken a firm position. I think, by the way, that Mr. Axworthy's pronouncements in the newspaper yesterday were rather more nuanced than some people have characterized them. In fact, many of the recommendations he made are ones we make and have made, as he would know. I don't think there's any great news there; there's no great change.

• 1025

I think there needs to be parliamentary involvement. It's clear that this committee and, I suspect, the previous committee would want to be involved in it. Perhaps it would be worth a discussion on whether there should be some joint effort to do so, so parliamentarians would be involved in the process leading up to any request that may be made for Canadian involvement.

That could mean NORAD. I don't think it necessarily means NORAD, but it could. It could also conceivably mean the use of Canadian territory, although at this point there is no indication in any of the plans that Canadian territory would be required for the implementation of a missile defence system such as the one the U.S.A. has been discussing.

I want to emphasize that the plans are not clear. The request has not been made, and our knowledge is therefore incomplete as to what, if anything, we'd be requested to do.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you, minister.

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

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I did ask the minister a question, which unfortunately he didn't have time to reply to, urging the Canadian government to support Taiwan's observer status at the World Health Assembly in Geneva coming up later this month. I'm not sure whether the minister's in a position to respond to that now or whether he wants to get back to the committee.

Mr. John Manley: I'll get back to you on that.

I take it you're in favour.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Absolutely, and I would hope the minister would be as well.

I have just a couple of other questions in the five minutes I have in the second round.

I'd like to follow up on the issue of Sudan. The minister—and I made a note of his comments—stated that revenues flowing to the Government of Sudan from the Talisman operations are fuelling aggression, presumably in southern Sudan. If the Minister acknowledges that, why is he not prepared to show some leadership and take strong action to stop the flow of those revenues?

The minister has said that if Talisman pulls out, then somebody else will go in there, and who will benefit from that? I suppose there were some who argued the same thing in the thirties with respect to Nazi Germany: if we don't invest there, somebody else will go in.

We're talking about genocide, the murder of tens of thousands of people. I want to ask the minister if, as by his own admission, the oil revenues are flowing to the Government of Sudan to fuel their aggression—and that's what the minister said—is he saying that he's powerless to do anything to stop that?

My next area of questioning is with respect to the issue of Armenia. The minister on Tuesday referred to the genocide in Armenia of 1915 as a calamity. Why is this government not prepared to recognize that event, those horrific events, for what they are, which is genocide?

Mr. John Manley: Why would anybody want to see horrendous acts of violence occurring anywhere in the world? Yet it's not necessarily within the power of the Government of Canada to prevent all those things from happening. As I've said, it ought to be of concern to us if revenues flowing from mining operations are fuelling the conflict. It would be difficult to conceive of them not fuelling the conflict since we know that revenue does flow to the Government of Sudan from these activities. It's not clear—

Mr. Svend Robinson: It's a Canadian company that's involved.

Mr. John Manley: But it's not the Government of Canada that's involved.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Don't we have some control over the operations of Canadian companies that are fuelling genocide?

Mr. John Manley: You leap to some conclusions from that, and I don't think they are fully warranted. We also have good evidence that if it were not for the engagement of Talisman, it would be a much worse situation. They are doing some things to improve the situation in the south, and we ought to recognize that. If anything, we ought to be seeking that they do more.

• 1030

Even though it seems that simple solutions sometimes have their attraction, it's not clear that if we took extraordinary measures, which would include legislation in Parliament to somehow or other intervene in Talisman's activities, we would first create a precedent that would be increasingly challenging for us to deal with in a host of situations around the world. But secondly, it's not clear that it would benefit at all anybody who's suffering as a result of the conflict that's there.

Now with respect to Armenia, terrible things happened in 1915 to 1921. A lot of people died. We ought to really regret that. We ought not to forget it. It ought never to happen again.

Mr. Svend Robinson: It was genocide, Minister. Why can't you call it what it was?

Mr. John Manley: And you want us to enter into a debate that rages on an historical event to characterize it using a word, which has legal implications. Now, I think we've gone around this to try to give it as strong a characterization as possible for the purposes, which are the right ones, that humanity ought not to forget terrible things that have happened. But at the same time, to try to suggest, as you and others are doing, that to use a particular label really has no cost to anybody, even though it may have legal implications for compensation or indemnification, then begins to raise questions of what other historic events ought to give rise to those rights, and in what sorts of situations should we make those determinations.

Now, you may find it facile to come to that conclusion—

Mr. Svend Robinson: It's a question of truth, Mr. Minister. It's a question of telling historical truth.

Mr. John Manley: Well, except that I'm not sure that parliaments are elected to make historical determinations, Mr. Robinson. There are historians debating those events and debating the characterization of it. As an intellectual pursuit, that's really very interesting, and to characterize it in a way that has no legal implication is fine, because as I say, it does require that we remember these things and that we avoid them ever happening again. But I really question whether there is anything to be gained by Parliament, elected in 2000 to give sound government to Canada, trying to settle an historical debate about something that happened 85 years ago. We're not capable of doing it. We're not in a position to do it.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, the French Parliament did it.

Mr. John Manley: And it's not without legal implication.

Mr. Svend Robinson: The French National Assembly did it. Why can't we?

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

Mr. John Manley: That's why I think we should make every effort to build, in the context of the region, the conditions for improvement for the lives of the people who are there today. We're involved through CIDA with NGOs in Turkey, with Armenia, with other countries in the region. We ought to encourage looking ahead.

I'm not one who thinks we are in a position to make some kind of historical judgment on what happened in the past. And I won't do it.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you. Time's up.

Mr. Grose.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Minister, at the risk of flogging an already well-flogged horse, regarding the missile defence system, a couple of things bother me. Number one, we keep talking about rogue states and the possibility of them launching a missile strike against the United States. Why are we talking about that? If a rogue state had one or possibly half a dozen nuclear missiles and fired them at the United States, they might destroy half of New York, maybe half of Washington—not all Americans would agree that was bad—but twenty minutes later, that state would cease to exist with a United States retaliatory strike. In war or aggression, I always look for the profit. Where's the profit in destroying yourself?

• 1035

The other item that I think gives us the right to aggressively address the United States, before they even ask us about this, is that even in their tests so far, they've tried to destroy the missile over the ocean. So obviously they're not going to destroy any incoming missiles over their own territory. Anything that comes over the North Pole would be destroyed over our territory, and the nuclear debris would rain down on us. I think it's time for us to say to them, look, if this is part of your plan, we're not going to support it, rather than wait until they tell us what the plan is, and then object to it. Let's get in there first.

Maybe that's not the way to do diplomacy. That's why I'm not a diplomat.

Mr. John Manley: Well, as I mentioned, I didn't take the foreign service exam either, so I don't think I qualify as a diplomat.

On the first part of your question, I'm not an apologist for it, but I want you to understand the arguments that are put forward.

You're right. If North Korea launched a missile and it hit Seattle, what do you think the President of the United States would do about North Korea in the short time after that? That suggests, then, why would they ever do it? I guess the answer is if they're rational or logical, they won't ever do it.

But it isn't impossible to have somebody in charge, somebody who loses control or for whatever reason decides to precipitate an incident and maybe launch a missile. Therefore, as the argument goes, better that the President of the United States is confronted with the option of dealing with a rogue state after having destroyed the missile, while it was en route, rather than after it has destroyed Seattle. In other words, it gives him or her more options than would be the case once destruction has occurred in the United States. That's the rationale.

As I say, I'm not the apologist for it, but that's the rationale. It's probably the best argument I've heard for having a system to move it in the direction of decreasing the instability.

I think what we don't know, which relates to your second question, is how the system would work. As I mentioned, does it destroy these missiles in the boost phase, in what phase? If the destruction occurs outside the atmosphere, then as you know, the likelihood of pieces making it through the atmosphere without being burned up is rather slim. I understand the question of what happens to nuclear materials also has to be answered.

Suffice it to say that if we're actually faced with a situation where a nuclear missile is fired toward North America, we're not in a very good situation, whether it hits the United States or whether it's blown up over Canada. Either way, it's not a good thing.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

We're going to have a time split here again, are we? Mr. Solberg.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

First of all, I have a couple of observations. Sudan is complicated, there's no question. But one thing is pretty clear, and that is it is the Government of Sudan that is waging war. These aren't Talisman soldiers. These are soldiers of the Government of Sudan. I really do think that's where the emphasis has to be.

Secondly, I'm glad to hear that the NDP is supporting the Alliance on Taiwan. We agree completely that Taiwan should be represented at the World Health Assembly as an observer, which is all they're seeking.

My question, though, has to do with one of the first issues you had to deal with, Minister, which was the Knyazev affair. I wonder if you could bring us up to speed on that. We want to know—the Canadian people, I'm sure, want to know—that this is being pursued vigorously in Russia, and that Knyazev will not escape justice.

• 1040

Mr. John Manley: Thank you for the question.

My understanding is that shortly Russian investigative officers will be in Canada—I think in the next couple of weeks—to do their on-site investigation to interview witnesses. I can also assure you that in his meetings in Moscow this week with Russian foreign ministry officials, my deputy minister is raising the issue again, as a bilateral matter between Canada and Russia. So this will be a bilateral issue until it's finally resolved between Canada and Russia. So far I have every indication that they are living up to the commitments they gave me that they will prosecute. The imminent visit of their investigative team is a further indication of that.

Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Minister, the issue of the Export Development Corporation was a question we didn't get to. There have been a number of reports for quite a long time of companies we are supporting that are engaging in massive environmental destruction, violating EDC's own environmental rules. Perhaps you could tell us what is being done to monitor these groups and to penalize them for these actions.

Also, on the issue of Zimbabwe—we spoke about that in the House—I hope she makes a very public statement with other nations that are trying to muster up an international group now to ask Mr. Mugabe to respect the rule of law, which he is violating in numerous cases.

Also, on the issue of Talisman, I hope that public statements will be made on the issue of the Government of Sudan and the SPLA, that they implement the declaration of principles. Perhaps, working with our IGAD partners, a very strong statement along those lines could be made. A very public statement would go a long way to assuaging the concerns that the Canadian public has over this issue.

Mr. John Manley: Thank you. I'm certainly looking at what options there are, and I've made this clear with respect to Sudan and whether there are other steps we could take.

You know that we did release a strong statement on Zimbabwe back in mid-April, I think it was, expressing our concern over a number of issues that had arisen, not just the protection of farmers, but also the concerns about interference with the judiciary and with the media. There were unexplained problems at a certain media centre. With those concerns we've made statements on those things, and as I said in the House, raised them.

They were raised in the context of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. Although Zimbabwe was not on the agenda, that group did decide for rather technical reasons that ministers would visit Zimbabwe. Three ministers from Australia, Barbados, and Nigeria agreed to visit Zimbabwe to see first-hand on behalf of Commonwealth ministers what the situation was and what was happening.

I have to advise you that the Zimbabwean government refused to receive those ministers in that context. They said that any Commonwealth minister of course can visit the country at any time, but they did not receive the three who are members of the ministerial action group.

Did you want to say something?

Mr. Keith Martin: Will you, Mr. Manley, withhold all aid and development to Zimbabwe? There's a $3 million to $5 million project dealing with the judiciary that is coming up for ratification here in June 2001, if I'm not mistaken. Will we hold that in abeyance until Mr. Mugabe respects the rule of the law and allows these fact-finding missions to go ahead?

Mr. John Manley: I have to say, we've already significantly reduced our development assistance program. We certainly will not sign any more development assistance projects with the Government of Zimbabwe at the present time. Before we cut everything off, generally speaking, we would do that as a coordinated step with other governments.

• 1045

I understand, though, that CIDA does have some direct assistance projects that they put into AIDS projects, not through the government of Zimbabwe, but through NGOs. I don't think that we would want to cut back on those.

It's really government-to-government assistance, and there will be no new ones that we're working on. There isn't a lot that's there, but we're looking for respect for the rule of law and for a restoration of public security.

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

Mr. John Manley: You really should put the EDC questions to Mr. Pettigrew. I don't mean to evade them, but that's not—

Mr. Keith Martin: It's really important. It's a big mess right now.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. Paradis.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Minister, on the subject of Bill C-6 and large-scale water containment, could you comment on the strategy or approach taken, which is to prohibit containment on a large-scale rather than ban exports altogether. I'd appreciate hearing your views on the subject.

Mr. John Manley: First of all, I think this is a better approach, since it involves protecting water at the source.

Secondly, I think this is a better option from an environmental standpoint.

Thirdly, if we ban exports, we face a potential problem under our trade agreements. Our real concern is not water exports per se, but rather the state of the environment. This strategy does not conflict with the terms of international agreements to which we are a party.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Thank you.

[English]

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

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Madam Chair.

On the issue of Canada's ODA policy, I just want to say that I certainly share the concern that's been voiced by colleagues around the table. I hope the minister has heard a strong message from all sides of the table about the importance of significantly increasing Canada's ODA.

I want to say as well how important it is that we also move aggressively on debt forgiveness. The poorest countries are struggling to deal with massive debts, and I think that we certainly have a great obligation to do that. Last year was Jubilee 2000, and there's a lot of work that can be done and should be done on that.

Mr. John Manley: Mark that.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Certainly there are a number of other challenges.

Next month the UN General Assembly is holding a special session on AIDS, as the minister is aware. Certainly we hope that Canada will be prepared to make a very significant contribution there, of hopefully several hundred million dollars, to deal with this crisis. I'll follow up with the minister's colleague, Minister Minna, next week on that subject.

I have just two or three very brief points. I want to ask the minister why Canada did not cosponsor the resolution on China this year once again at the UN Commission on Human Rights. The situation has deteriorated there, and I think many Canadians were disappointed, given the deterioration in the situation there—the persecution of Falun Dafa practitioners, other religious persecution, persecution of trade unionists, and so on. Amnesty International has documented a significant erosion in human rights. Why did Canada not cosponsor that resolution? Even though we voted against the no-action motion, why did we not cosponsor that resolution?

Secondly, is the minister prepared to take a stand on behalf of the Canadian government on the military component of Plan Colombia? This is an issue that did come up, particularly at the People's Summit in Quebec City, but many, including the European Parliament, have strongly condemned the military component of Plan Colombia. I'd like to hear the minister on this issue as well.

• 1050

Finally, could the minister explain to the House why it was that Canada failed to follow through on an agreement that was made in 1998 by Prime Minister Chrétien with Cuba to finance an emergency medical team that was going to be sent by Cuba to Haiti? This was a humanitarian mission. The minister is familiar with the circumstances—the desperate circumstances—in Haiti. Subsequent to that agreement, Cuba received a letter from the minister's predecessor, Minister Axworthy, basically saying, “Forget it”. The minister said, “Well, we've got concerns about human rights”, but why on earth should a project that responds to a humanitarian crisis and a medical crisis in Haiti be cancelled by our government as a means of sending a message on human rights to Cuba?

Mr. John Manley: First, it's very tempting, Mr. Robinson, when you're encouraging us to agree with the United States on something, to take you up on it. But no other country cosponsored with the United States the resolution on China—no other country. We continue to believe that it's our bilateral relationship with China that gives us the greatest leverage in trying to encourage movement on human rights. As we have done in the past, we voted against the no-action motion that China introduced, on the grounds that we believe that no country should be exempt from international scrutiny when it comes to human rights. But it's our involvement with China—the Canada-China human rights dialogue, the involvement that we've had with judicial education in China—that we think is more important and should be preserved, rather than simply joining with the United States.

On Plan Colombia, of course, we haven't had an engagement on the military side. I think that we are well positioned as a government, and we're involved, as you know from your visit there, in trying to support activities that encourage alternative economic development in Colombia. We're supporting efforts to encourage peaceful resolution in Colombia. We're not engaged directly in any of the military aspects of Plan Colombia. At the same time, we recognize that the Government of Colombia has a difficult challenge to face in the face of the narcotics trade and the guerrilla groups that are well financed and heavily armed.

With respect to Haiti, I think the important thing to note there is that Canada did not pull out of Haiti. I think the figure of CIDA's contributions in Haiti is roughly $40 million. It's our largest recipient country in the hemisphere.

Mr. Svend Robinson: This was a project to assist Cuba in supporting Haiti with medical aid.

Mr. John Manley: Well, I think, as you know, there are few enough tools that we have to indicate our concern about the conduct of various regimes, and one of them was to move our support in Haiti from that particular project to other projects. And I think that is part of the message that we were forced to give, notwithstanding very strong interventions by the Prime Minister with President Castro on the issue of human rights. Shortly after his visit, with complete impunity, for the offence of expressing opinions a number of people were put into jail. So certainly it was displeasure with Cuba, but it was not at the cost of the people of Haiti, who have continued to benefit from CIDA projects.

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

Mr. O'Brien, just very quickly.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I'll be very brief. Thanks, Madam Chair.

I'd like to remind colleagues that the SCONDVA committee last June did table in the House an interim report that was summative in nature. There was no recommendation, but it was a pretty good summary of the evidence we heard pro and con missile defence, if anybody's interested.

My only other comment is that I think the minister spoke very well on the Armenian situation. You could find other situations in history that many, many historians say you could possibly apply the word “genocide” to. I would cite Ireland of the 1840s as one of the possible things. I don't know that anything positive could be gained by revisiting such historic events and labelling them, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much.

• 1055

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

Thank you, Minister, for coming today.

I see our next committee has moved in, and I would suggest that you congratulate your staff on the estimates, because between yesterday and today we've had no criticism or comments by the opposition, so obviously they've done an exemplary job.

The meeting is adjourned.