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, October 4, 2001

• 0902

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): Colleagues, I'm going to call this meeting of the committee to order. The minister is here.

The minister has only half an hour. He's joined by Mr. Lavertu, who is the deputy minister, as you know, and Mr. Wright, who has spent more time before this committee than he spends in his office, as I recall from certain other times.

I want to thank you very much for coming, Minister. We know that you have increased responsibilities. We know you're extremely busy and we appreciate very much your taking the time to join the committee this morning. I understand you have half an hour and you'll be leaving Mr. Lavertu and Mr. Wright for the remainder of the time.

Colleagues, I understand the minister will be ten minutes or something like that. Therefore, I'm going to be very careful about dividing the time up. I'll do the usual thing of going back and forth, but I'm going to try to keep you to about three minutes for question and answer, so that way more people can get in.

I'm sorry, we've gavelled, so the press and the cameras now have to leave. Thank you very much.

Minister.

Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm very pleased that you have invited me to be with you today. I'm sorry that on short notice it has to be a short appearance, but I will of course be pleased to return. And as you've said, Mr. Wright and Mr. Lavertu can stay on if there are additional questions beyond what I can take.

As you know, I've been asked to take on some additional responsibilities as chair of the new ad hoc committee of ministers on public security and anti-terrorism, and I look forward to continuing working with the committee in that capacity as well as Minister of Foreign Affairs.

It's just over three weeks now since the tragic events that occurred in the United States. Today my remarks will be focused on three themes: first, the government's response to the terrorist attack on the United States; second, Canada-U.S. relations; and thirdly, the international situation.

I want to preface my remarks by stating that as parliamentarians we are called upon by the people of Canada to respond to a complex but very immediate crisis. The Canadian public is demanding and indeed deserves a timely, intelligent, and thoughtful response. The stakes could not be higher. There's no greater priority for any government than the safety of its citizens. September 11 has shown that the security of the average citizen cannot be taken for granted and we must mobilize to enhance that security.

The Government of Canada must take forceful actions, actions that cut across bureaucratic divisions of government and vary from minor regulatory adjustments to a rethinking of how we approach such key issues as public security in this country.

• 0905

The events of September 11 hit very close to home. We now believe that 23 Canadians lost their lives to terrorism on that day. Beyond these tragic losses, the other casualty has been the sense of security that Canadians have and confidence in the economy.

So what are we doing at home to respond to these challenges? The government is intent upon taking decisive action. On Monday the Prime Minister established an ad hoc committee of ministers on public security and anti-terrorism. This committee, which I will chair, has already begun work on a strategy to address immediate challenges facing the government in the area of public security.

In addition to myself as chair, the committee will consist of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Solicitor General, as well as the Ministers of Transport, Finance, National Defence, Justice, National Revenue, Intergovernmental Affairs, and Citizenship and Immigration. We will review policies, legislation, regulations, and programs across government to adjust all aspects of our public security approach. We hope to introduce relevant legislation to address issues related to the security of Canadians in a way that respects Canadian values.

Simultaneously, departments continue to work in close cooperation. For example, Transport Canada, CSIS, Citizenship and Immigration, the RCMP, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, and local airport authorities work together to ensure the security and safety of all Canadians.

The government has also enchanced its monitoring and assessment of key sectors of Canada's critical infrastructure. For example, communications centres, nuclear plants, and so on. This work has been coordinated by the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness, OCIPEP, which was created in early 2001. That acronym hasn't quite caught on yet, but it's coming.

The Chair: You're getting your tongue around it very nicely.

Mr. John Manley: Our approach to fighting terrorism has been, and will continue to be, grounded in our commitment to ensure a balanced approach to individual rights and public safety. This being said, I want to make it clear that this government will fight terrorists on the home front as well as internationally. We will bolster domestic legislation to make it much harder for terrorists and criminals to enter or seek refuge in Canada. The government's proposed Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Bill C-11, imposes more stringent screening requirements designed to prevent terrorists from entering Canada as refugee claimants.

We'll also make it much more difficult for anyone to participate in terrorist-related activities from within Canada, including the financing of terrorist organizations under the facade of charitable contributions—Bill C-16—or using the proceeds of crime to fund terrorism, Bill C-24. We'll continue to improve our law enforcement tools so they remain capable of fighting terrorist networks that operate in the shadows of society.

I want to send a clear message to this committee: The safety and security of Canadians is the top priority for the government at this time. We cannot and we will not be complacent about this task.

[Translation]

At this time, I'd like to give you an overview of our commitment to the United States since the September 11 attacks.

First of all, I must emphasize how critical it is for us to work closely with Washington to combat terrorism. Canadians have expressed their solidarity with the American public. Close, effective cooperation is warranted, but let me issue some qualifications. Working closely with the United States does not mean that we relinquish to them the keys to Canadian sovereignty over immigration matters, border controls and foreign policy. The real question is how Canada and the United States manage their inter-dependent relationship here on the North American continent.

One of the government's immediate priorities is the free movement of goods at the Canadian-US border. As President Bush indicated to the Prime Minister, new border control measures must not impede the Canadian and US economies. Twenty-seven per cent of our exports are destined for the US while 30 per cent of all US exports are shipped to Canada. This represents the equivalent of $2 billion in goods traded each day. Therefore, for the sake of Canada's economy, it is critically important that we maintain this free flow of trade at the border.

• 0910

[English]

You might be aware that I spoke with Tom Ridge, the newly appointed U.S. Secretary for Homeland Security, this past weekend. He will be based in the White House. He will, I believe, be a powerful friend and ally as we work through our common problems, including keeping border trade flowing.

Once we have our domestic package, we will need to get out and talk about it. The reality is that we are part of the solution.

Internationally, there is today a remarkable level of unanimity. The multilateral system has condemned the attack at the UN, at NATO, the EU, the G-8, the OAS, the Arab League, and ASEAN. Ask yourselves if you can think of a time when the entire world has been so united in issuing a proclamation of condemnation.

What this says is that we have collectively an unprecedented level of legitimacy to act vigorously against global terrorism. Global terrorism is a threat to all, and does include us in Canada. It is a threat to global security and stability, to international development, to democratic values. It is diametrically opposed to what we stand for in the world.

The United States is using NATO and the UN as focal points for much of its political effort. We welcome this approach. It's what many of us have counselled. A broad-based coalition is the only way we will succeed in a fight against terrorism.

The UN Security Council resolution passed last Friday is remarkably comprehensive and practical in its focus. It establishes specific benchmarks for all countries, including Canada, in our domestic approach to the fight against terrorism. It requests a status report in 90 days.

In NATO, the invocation of article 5 means this attack on the U.S. is an attack on all NATO members. The U.S. has provided information to show that the attack was from abroad. It does not mean that NATO or Canada is at war. The U.S. is building an international coalition around these two fora.

I've told Colin Powell that Canada will stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States and will use our particular diplomatic skills to support this effort.

As for the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, with the exception of a number of recently arrived journalists, there are no Canadians known to be in Afghanistan at the present time. There are 900 Canadians registered with our high commission in Pakistan, and there are probably 2,000 to 2,500 Canadians actually in the country.

Canada has announced that it will be easing sanctions placed on Pakistan after the 1998 nuclear tests. This is solely in response to the humanitarian crisis. Both the Prime Minister and I have stressed to President Musharraf and Foreign Minister Sattar that we want to support Pakistan at this difficult moment, but that our concerns about their nuclear weapons and missile proliferation activities remain high. We're making the same point in India.

Of more immediate concern is that Afghanistan is on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe, with two million people displaced and thousands flowing across the so-called closed border into Pakistan. Canada is contributing humanitarian assistance for Afghanis. The Prime Minister announced on Saturday a further $5 million in aid, which brings Canada's contribution to the current crisis to $6 million.

Canada is also providing extra assistance to Pakistan. On Monday, Maria Minna, Minister for International Cooperation, and I announced new measures to assist Pakistan in recognition of President Musharraf's decision to join the international consensus against terrorism. Along with easing sanctions, Canada will convert up to $447 million in outstanding loans owed by Pakistan to CIDA to be used for development programming in the social sector.

I'll conclude here and take questions, but let me just say that in the so-called war against terrorism—and that is a metaphor—we're not dealing with a conventional enemy. It will not be a conventional campaign. It will have many different components—military, financial, legal, diplomatic, and intelligence. It will take time and patient effort. I look forward to working with the committee as this develops.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister.

• 0915

As you may know, the committee actually began its work on this subject last week. You are the first witness to come and speak to us. But it's fair to say that everyone in this room is determined to make sure this committee performs its task as the parliamentary committee directly engaged with you and your departmental officials, to ensure that we in Parliament are actively a part of trying to find a solution to the enormously complex problem we are all now facing.

As you may know, we did a study on the Caucasus last year. Some of the members travelled there, so we have some direct personal interest and experience both in the region and the type of work we're going to do.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief point of order.

To follow up on the chair's comments, I appreciate the minister appearing before the committee, but certainly given the seriousness of these issues, might we agree to ask the minister to return immediately following the break? Obviously a three-minute round on such important issues falls far short of what's appropriate.

Could we agree that the minister be invited to return at the earliest possible opportunity? He has agreed to do this.

Mr. John Manley: I would be happy to return.

The Chair: Certainly. The minister has indicated he's more than happy to make as much time as he can for the committee, but this morning we only have the half hour. We have only 15 minutes for questions, which will give us about five if we are responsible in the way in which we ask them.

The chair acknowledges Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Minister. I appreciate your comments very much. I believe you are deserving of all our support and that your approach to this issue from the very beginning has shown intelligence and foresight. I thank you for this approach, and I offer the support of our colleagues in Her Majesty's loyal opposition to you.

There are, however, mixed messages coming from other of your colleagues, especially the Prime Minister, that are confusing and somewhat dangerous to Canadians in terms of the degree of sincerity with which this project—this massive undertaking, if I can call it that—should be pursued. The idea that there exists an anaesthetic balm that can be applied to the Canadian people to make this very important series of issues go away is also dangerous.

I am most encouraged by your words, sir. I want to again encourage you in your efforts.

Do you agree that it is embarrassing to this country that we are unable to offer any genuine contribution in terms of military participation in the battle against terrorism?

Mr. John Manley: First of all, let's understand that there may be a military component to what happens. I can't say too much more than this about it. Everyone has anticipated that this is going to be a long-term effort, of which the military component is, if perhaps not the least important part, certainly not the most important part.

If there is a military component to it, we have made it clear to the United States that we would entertain requests to use Canadian military assets. We've indicated that our practice has been to consult Parliament when that occurs, and we would expect to do that. But there is no embarrassment. We have been engaged militarily in previous campaigns in Kosovo and the Gulf War. We're very active in the Balkans. We have equipment and expertise that could be useful.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I'd appreciate the chance to finish my questions.

The Chair: No, three minutes we have agreed to, so we're going to go around.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Are you suggesting that was three minutes?

The Chair: Yes. Is that correct? Sir, you've got 30 seconds.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you very much.

Are you satisfied of bin Laden's complicity in the initial terrorist action, Minister?

Mr. John Manley: Yes.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Do you have incontrovertible evidence that would satisfy you? Is that why you reached this conclusion?

Mr. John Manley: I'm not sitting in a court of law.

Mr. Brian Pallister: No, I understand that.

Mr. John Manley: But I have reviewed evidence, and our security and intelligence agencies have reviewed evidence. Certainly I am personally satisfied, and our government is satisfied, that the evidence points to bin Laden, to Al Qaida, and to no one else.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Given that the chair will cut me off, minister, I apologize, but I would like to know if you would share this evidence with other members of the House, as previous prime ministers have done, by swearing in the leaders of the opposition parties to Privy Council privacy. Could that be done? Other prime ministers have done it. Would you encourage this happening, sir, so we could have a united front domestically?

Mr. John Manley: That's a decision the Prime Minister would need to make.

This might be useful, Mr. Chairman. I spoke with Secretary Powell the night before last, who continues to indicate his hope that their agencies will be able to release a public document setting out much of the evidence that has been accumulated that points in that direction.

• 0920

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Thank you for coming, Minister.

We congratulate the government on striking this committee because as you noted, ordinary citizens want first and foremost to be reassured.

What steps do you intend to take to keep the public informed on a regular basis of the government's current and future activities so that people feel that it is in command of the situation? That's my first question.

My second question concerns the free movement of goods between the United States and Canada. Mention has been made of a common area. Considerable time elapsed before the European Union was able to set up such an area. Agreement must be reached on criteria respecting refugees, visas and so forth. This cannot be accomplished overnight. In the meantime, are you aware that yesterday, the Bloc requested that the proposed option be fast-tracked?

Mr. Manley: Of course every possible means of communications must be employed to demonstrate to the public that the government is truly in control and that no major risk exists. That's the message we want to convey. Naturally we will respond to the situation, which is far more serious that we thought it was prior to September 11.

Members of the public must now resume their normal day-to-day activities. The danger they face is no greater than it was in the past. I would certainly encourage even family members to travel by plane. The risk in doing so is not unusually high. Life can return to normal.

With respect to trade, border controls and changes, it took a total of 40 years to established the Schengen region in Europe, but that was far more complex because a number of states were involved. Discussions are in fact ongoing between Canada and the United States, but one has to understand that this is a matter involving two governments. The United States are not prepared to discuss changes at this time. As I already mentioned, I've had discussions with Mr. Ridge, but he won't take over until October 5. As soon as he's ready, we'll get together to talk about the border issue.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: However, in the meantime...

The Chair: I'm sorry, Ms. Lalonde, but your time is up.

Mr. O'Brien.

[English]

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

Minister, thank you for coming with just two days notice. We appreciate the time you have taken from what has got to be a very busy schedule. You're going to need that early morning run more than ever now, I'm sure.

Mr. John Manley: I may need you for security.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Yes, that's right.

I want to pick up on your theme of confidence in the economy. I come from southwestern Ontario, an area where the border is as evident as any place in this country. The two-way flow of traffic that goes between the two countries amounts to approximately $1.4 billion a day and some 200 million border crossings. Could you give us a snapshot of the flow of traffic now? How far are we from a return to normal times? I understand there are some significant problems remaining at the border crossing at Windsor.

Secondly, while being aware of the need to increase security at the border by both Americans and Canadians cooperatively, what steps would be taken to balance this with the need not to impede this incredibly important flow of two-way traffic?

Mr. John Manley: The information I've received, Mr. O'Brien, is that the wait periods are approaching normal, but volumes are down considerably. Of course, Windsor-Detroit is one of the four major crossing points, particularly for the auto sector. So the fact that volumes are down reflects the considerable softening of the economy, both in Canada and the United States, since September 11.

• 0925

In the interim, we've taken extraordinary measures to try to facilitate the flow of goods. Canadian customs officials have assisted American officials in processing the crossing of goods into the United States, for example. Cooperation at border points has been extraordinarily good. But there's no doubt that we're going to have to find ways to accelerate that, in the longer term.

I've certainly discussed this with Mr. Cellucci and I've spoken to Tom Ridge as well: we need to make more progress on technological ways to identify frequent border-crossers. That way we can facilitate the passage of business people, for example. The tradeoff is that they would be asked to provide more advance information than the average crosser, so that we can really... Trying to catch some risky person trying to cross the border is a bit like trying to find a needle in a haystack at the best of times. So the resources we do have should be devoted to those who are most likely to be risks for us. But two-way cooperation is a good thing.

If I might take just one more second, I think that what we saw yesterday in the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee isn't such a bad thing. If the U.S. allocates more resources to the Canadian border, I believe that can help the flow, because it will provide better service. So we're certainly not discouraging them from allocating more resources. I have had nothing but signals of full cooperation from all U.S. officials—the Secretary of State, Mr. Ridge, and Mr. Cellucci—and their desire is to ensure that the border remains fluid.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Robinson, sir.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Sir Richard Goldstone, the Chief Prosecutor of the UN War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, has said that if the western powers wish to bring the perpetrators of the September 11 outrage to justice under international law, then they must respect that law in their own actions.

The minister has rightly characterized the terrorist attacks as a crime—a crime against humanity, I believe many of us would argue—and not as a war. I want to ask the minister specifically what action our government is taking to ensure that the perpetrators of these crimes—and he's pointed to bin Laden, and suggested the evidence is compelling—are brought to justice before an international tribunal, preferably under the auspices of the Security Council. What action is Canada taking to ensure that this happens? And what is Canada's specific position on the legality of assassinating suspected war criminals?

Mr. John Manley: First of all, in order to deal with this in the context of a tribunal, it's a matter of looking to international law. I've spent some time thinking about this. As you know, there is no international tribunal extant at the moment that could—

Mr. Svend Robinson: The Security Council could create one, just as it did in Rwanda.

Mr. John Manley: Certainly under the Treaty of Rome, if the International Criminal Court had come into existence already... As you know, it wouldn't be able to act retroactively, but if it did exist at the present time, it would still assert jurisdiction only where there is no domestic court with jurisdiction.

In this case, quite apart from the events of September 11, bin Laden is already under indictment in the United States for his previous acts. Given the degree of violence demonstrated on September 11, I don't think anyone is going to argue—and nobody in the international community has argued—that the United States should not be given the opportunity to bring him to justice in domestic courts.

• 0930

Mr. Svend Robinson: You say “bring him to justice”. I asked specifically: what is Canada's position with respect to the legality of assassinating suspected war criminals, including bin Laden?

Mr. John Manley: We're not advocating assassinating anybody. But I think we recognize that in this case we're dealing with a suspect—and the evidence points to him—who has used extraordinary violence on many occasions in order to effect his objectives. If he's apprehended, one might anticipate a violent exchange. I don't know. But we're not talking here about random assassination, or about targeted assassination or extrajudicial punishment. We're talking about a need the international community has recognized.

Mr. Svend Robinson: One other brief question.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, the time is up. I'm going to go to Mr. Casey. The minister only has a couple more minutes, so I'm giving Mr. Casey a chance. Then I'll go to Mr. Keyes, if we have time.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC/DR): Mr. Keyes will give me his time, I'm sure.

First of all, I want to thank the minister for helping us with our peace forum. At the moment, we understand that it's still on. The Palestinians have applied for the visas to come to Canada, and at this moment everything is on schedule. You and your department have been very helpful.

Moving on to the subject at hand, a major part of the business community in Canada certainly supports a continental perimeter, in line with your approach to safety for Canadians. Have we started the process of examining that? Is it on the table? Is it a likely prospect that we can participate with the U.S. in a safety perimeter for all North America?

Mr. John Manley: Let me say that something troubles me about this perimeter talk. I believe it's a short form for something, but I don't quite know what.

We only have one international border in Canada, and it's with the United States. So my sense is that we have a bilateral issue with the United States. We are not Europe, where 15 or more countries are involved. We're two countries. The United States has two extraordinarily porous borders, and we've taken pride in having the longest undefended border.

You know, presidents have come into the chamber down the hall here and talked about our undefended border—and we've taken pride in it. Now suddenly people are talking about it as though it's some kind of problem. It's not a problem; it's an asset. It's a testimony to the openness of our two societies that we live side by side with an open border. But the notion that we can somehow solve a perceived problem by some “perimeter” just seems rather simplistic to me.

I think we need to look at the specific areas of concern. Where can we identify greater risks to our society? Let's see what we can do to improve our security on those points, step by step. If we do that, we will undoubtedly increase the Americans' sense of security.

So far, they're not yet in a position to talk to us about perimeters or any other kind of border. Mr. Ridge doesn't take office until October 5, as I said. Before we all rush to a solution, let's identify the problem.

Mr. Bill Casey: I think the problem comes from the inconsistencies of the U.S. remarks. Some officials say some things, some politicians say others. They make lots of accusations about the porous border, and the fact that a lot of their problems come through Canada. I think that's part of the problem.

Just to move on to one other little item, there was a bus attack in Tennessee yesterday.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Casey, you've used up the last of your time with your observations.

Mr. Bill Casey: Thank you very much.

The Chair: If the minister has another minute—

Mr. John Manley: Could I observe in return that I agree with what Mr. Casey has said. I think we should be greatly concerned that in the United States, conventional wisdom has somehow become that we are the source of problems. Through our embassy and consulates in the U.S., we're responding actively to news reports and comments that suggest the problem is coming from here. We're asking people to look at the facts.

There's no denying that there have been cases of undesirable people entering the United States from Canada. There is also no doubt that people have come the other way. But what's clear at this point is that we have seen no evidence to indicate that any of the perpetrators of September 11 entered the United States from Canada, as they have claimed.

• 0935

So I think we need to recognize that terrorism is a disease against which none of us is immune—certainly not the United States, not Canada, not Germany, nor France. That's why we've tried to build an international coalition to try to deal with this.

But there's one thing the United States and Canada should remember when looking at our border: if we allow the terrorists to shut down important elements of our continental economy, they win.

The Chair: Thank you.

Have you got time to take one more question from Mr. Keyes?

Mr. John Manley: Yes.

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): I want to thank the minister for appearing before the committee, and for his presentation.

Mr. Minister, I'm going to take this debate one step back and pose a procedural question to you. Given the government's cautious approach to legislation and regulation, and its somewhat snail pace, are the changes your committee is working on now going to be legislative or regulatory in nature?

And given that, in your own words, the safety and security of Canadians is paramount, under what authority can the government act to implement these changes to either regulation or legislation, and to make them effective quickly?

Mr. John Manley: The first thing we did was to adopt regulations under the United Nations Act, which came into effect on Tuesday and gave effect to the UN Security Council resolution adopted last Friday. That was a first step. There will be a package of legislation from the Minister of Justice, which I hope will be ready as early as October 15, the day we return from Thanksgiving break. That package will contain some legislative change.

In the meantime, I expect we will be in a position to announce a series of measures designed to improve security in various agencies, through the immediate procurement of appropriate equipment or technology. That way we can accelerate the security of identification documents, for example—including passports, which pertain to my own department. We can also improve the ability of agencies to exchange information about people who could constitute a risk. That kind of step can be done quickly.

The best policies in the world will not make a difference if the implementation and procedures to back them up aren't done well. So the first thing we need to focus on is making sure we're implementing the policies we have. A longer-term approach is to look at some of those policies, and see whether there are things that need to be changed.

There will certainly be a package of early-stage amendments, to the Criminal Code and others, coming forward to Parliament in the current month.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister.

Mr. John Manley: I apologize, Mr. Chairman and the committee, for making this such a short visit. But I do undertake to come back after the break, and I hope Mr. Wright and Mr. Lavertu will be able to respond to some questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister. We appreciate your having come this morning, even in your strained circumstances.

Colleagues, for Mr. Lavertu and Mr. Wright I think we'll go back to the normal procedure of five-minute questions. We'll just start the procedure again. Perhaps we can pursue these questions in greater depth than we've had the opportunity to do with the minister.

The next questioner I have on my list is Dr. Martin.

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

Good morning, Monsieur Lavertu, Mr. Wright. Thank you very much for appearing here with the minister this morning.

As the minister suggested, this is really a guerrilla war without borders. In my view, dealing with it will require a multi-faceted approach involving military, diplomatic, and economic levers.

• 0940

Personally, I think we are at a bit of a propitious moment here. We have a real opportunity to address some of the great geopolitical divides that, up until this point, have been widening, be it Arab and the west or CIS-Russia and the west. With our partners internationally I hope we will take that multi-faceted approach to try to build those bridges, using both economic and diplomatic levers. I think there's a great opportunity, as this coalition is built to deal with terrorism and these other groups are brought in, to involve them in other ways and build those bridges, seeing a cohesiveness that perhaps we haven't seen before.

So my questions are threefold. First, with respect to our border security, are you going to advocate or push for, with the immigration minister, photo identification cards for not only landed immigrants and refugees but also Canadian citizens?

Second, at the defence ministers meeting a little over a year ago, I believe Canada had its knuckles rapped for being unable to meet our commitments. We've been unable to so for quite a while. Given that our military will be one of the very important levers that will be used by the Department of Foreign Affairs in exercising to deal with this problem, do you feel confident that we can make our NATO commitments and those commitments that were outlined in the government's 1994 white paper?

Finally, in drumming up support for the suicide bombers in some areas of the world where Mr. bin Laden and his groups have been able to do so, part of the issue is the introduction of really violent, obnoxious communication and propaganda into these desperate communities of displaced poor, usually young men, who have no hope. One of the ways to counteract that propaganda tool is with the truth. These groups are getting one message and one message only. A precursor to conflict and a precursor to drumming up support amongst these people is the use of propaganda and communication as a lever of hate. The only way to counteract that, I believe, is with positive communication on the other side. Are you going to work with our multinational partners to go into those areas where these young people are stimulated to take up arms in a really dangerous way against the west?

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu (Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is my first appearance before this committee. I'm very glad to have this opportunity. I'd immediately like to say that officials with the Department of Foreign Affairs remain fully available throughout this crisis to brief members of the committee, as may be required.

It is indeed a crisis that has many geopolitical implications. Yesterday, October 3, we celebrated the eleventh anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. What happened on September 11 is at the level of significance of that event. We have yet to fully assess the geopolitical implications of what took place, but the world will not be the same again. There will be a shift—a shift in focuses of attention, a shift in power relationships, a shift in coalitions.

Certainly Canada is prepared to play its part in terms of bridge-building, as you were suggesting, and we are doing this at the moment. We have been in extensive consultations with a number of countries in the last few weeks. The Prime Minister has been on the phone to many leaders, in addition to visiting President Bush. Over the last four or five days Mr. Manley has spoken to about 30 foreign ministers, and we are keeping in touch with our American friends on some of the moves that might be useful, from a Canadian foreign policy perspective, in the context of coalition-building to help in this fight against terrorism.

• 0945

On the question of border security, you have referred to technology that could be introduced. We agree fully that this is an avenue that has to be fully exploited. The same applies to passports, for example, where we've had to upgrade our passport security, not only the booklet but also the documents that go into the application. We have to use available technology to ensure improved security of these documents and to facilitate the exchange of information between various agencies within Canada and between Canada and the United States and other organizations.

On defence, Canada is in a position to make a significant contribution to this effort. Article 5 of NATO has been invoked, and NATO has determined that a number of assets would be used or made available in the context of this crisis to our American friends. Canada is a major participant in these assets. To give you an example, Canadian military personnel constitute about 10% of the AWACS capability available to NATO at the moment. If NATO were to make that available, then that would be a very significant contribution.

So we can be helpful in this crisis in a number of ways. I'm not going to go into the details of the military planning that may be going on, but we're confident that we can be of significant help in this crisis and meet our commitments overall.

You're absolutely right that we have to address the longer-term dimensions of this situation. In addition to finding who are the people responsible for these acts on September 11, we have to address the causes of terrorism. And there are many. Poverty is one of them. Hate propaganda is another, as is religious fanaticism. We have to reflect on what are the conditions that led to this problem and work with our partners to address them.

The Chair: Thank you. The five minutes are up.

Mr. Lavertu, perhaps I should just explain how it works in this committee. Part of the problem is that often members ask questions and then time is also taken during answers.

If you don't mind, then, I'll stop you there and welcome you, on behalf of the committee, in your first appearance. We appreciate your coming. I'm sure we'll have a long, close working relationship with you, although not as close as with Mr. Wright. As the minister has said, when he can't find Mr. Wright, he knows where he is. If it turns out that both of you are missing in action, I'm sure there'll be a serious problem over there in the Pearson building. We promise not to keep you here too much.

At any rate, we do appreciate your coming.

Monsieur Paquette.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Thank you both for appearing before the committee. This may be your first appearance, Mr. Lavertu, but I can assure you that it probably won't be your last, under the circumstances.

I'd like to focus on the question of the security perimeter because I think the Minister is seriously under-estimating the pressures being brought to bear here in Canada, Quebec and the United States in so far as this matter is concerned. Yesterday, for example, the President of the Manufacturiers et Exportateurs du Québec informed us that Quebec exports had dropped off by 15 per cent since September 11, a shift representing an $8 billion annual shortfall. He called for the establishment of a security perimeter to satisfy the Americans. That's the expression he used.

The US Attorney General has also tossed this idea around. Americans currently control goods both when they enter and when they leave their nation's borders. That tells you how much they trust Canada's customs service. I agree with the Minister that facts have been distorted by preconceived notions. How will we manage to convince the Canadian and Quebec business communities as well as the Americans to see the facts as they truly are? How will we accomplish that? One thing we can do, in my view, is initiate an open discussion on the question of a North American security perimeter, with Canadians obviously demanding certain conditions in terms of their values and in particular their responsibilities toward refugees.

• 0950

What measures are you thinking about implementing to reflect the real situation that exists? For example, it's a fact that most refugees arrive in Canada via the United States, because it is much easier for them to obtain a US tourist visa. What steps do you intend to take then? In the final analysis, would an open debate on both the advantages and disadvantages of a security perimeter not be preferable to dismissing the proposal out of hand, somewhat like the Minister did this morning?

Secondly, the Canadian Bar Association has advised us that we have the necessary legislation in place to control terrorism, particularly with respect to immigration and refugee determination, but what's lacking are the resources to enforce these laws.

Bill S-23 which amends the Customs Act is currently being considered and one of the problems identified by the Bloc Québécois is the failure to commit additional resources so that new technologies and proposed new regulations can be applied. Therefore, instead of reviewing our entire system in response to internal and external pressure, wouldn't it be better simply to increase resources so that existing laws can be enforced?

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: Thank you, Mr. Paquette.

On the question of the security perimeter, as the Minister noted, this concept has yet to be defined. Further to discussions at various levels, I think the two governments would like, not to eliminate the border - an unthinkable, undesirable option - but to have the highest possible level of security in place on both sides of the border in both countries, especially at border crossing points.

The security perimeter concept will become a reality when the two countries have worked together to define appropriate measures. We need to realize that the United States still has a lot of work to do, because the majority of the problems are happening on their side of the border. A real security perimeter will be in place once we have adopted measures that are mutually satisfactory, if not necessarily similar or harmonized, that is when each side is confident that the measures taken by the other side will produce the expected results.

As for legislation, Minister Manley has already explained that a legislative program will be brought in this fall. The Ad Hoc Committee which he chairs has begun to work on a legislative program. Various issues are already being discussed and additional measures will be introduced in the coming weeks. When the House reconvenes on October 15, new proposals will be on the table.

We need broader legislation and regulations to address the situation. However, at the same time, we must enforce existing legislation. That's very important and I fully agree with your view that additional resources are needed. The government intends to see to it that additional resources are invested to enhance public security in Canada.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

We'll go to Dr. Patry.

[Translation]

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

We are currently involved in waging a war on terrorism, a war that further to the events of September 11, seems to targeting one clearly identified group, namely the bin Laden organization. However, a number of terrorist cells are currently dormant in many countries and some terrorist groups are resuming their activities elsewhere - I'm thinking about Algeria and Kashmir - often with the help of countries that support action in Afghanistan aimed at countering or striking a blow at terrorism around the world.

• 0955

Perhaps my question is somewhat hypothetical, but if we manage to capture bin Laden within the next few months and if the current Afghan government is overthrown and replaced with a new coalition government, for example, what happens then? The US is intent on capturing bin Laden, but what about the assault on terrorism? Does the genuine will exist throughout the world's nations to eradicate terrorism once and for all, or when bin Laden is captured, will we claim victory over terrorism?

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: You're quite right to underscore the enormity of the phenomenon of terrorism. The events of September 11 and their aftermath have made us realize that we have a very serious problem on our hands, one that has long existed and of which people had grown increasingly aware. Terrorism is prevalent in many countries, not only in the form of protests by Muslim extremists, but also in the actions of followers of other religions. No country is spared. Even Canada has had to contend with its own problems.

I will spare you the names of all of the countries that are currently experiencing terrorist activities. This list is, of course, quite lengthy. The phenomenon is not about to disappear any time soon. There is no end in sight for this enduring struggle. I don't think we can say that the battle will have been won if bin Laden is arrested. Certainly it won't spell the end of his organization because it has infiltrated 60 or 70 different countries. And it's only one of many different organizations which are also very active.

We need to work ever more closely with our partners, with the United States in particular, but with other nations as well, for instance, within the framework of the G-8 or the United Nations. We need to act at the international level to step up the fight against terrorism. It is a challenge likely to dog us for many more years to come.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Robinson is next, but before I go to him, I wonder if I could take the time of the committee for one minute to deal with the procedural matters we have before us, because we sometimes lose quorum towards the end.

Colleagues, you have before you the report of the steering committee, which met yesterday to authorize the committee and instruct it to commit to the study of Bill C-31, which would amend the Export Development Act, and to set the timeframe for that. Can I have your approval, please?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Secondly, Mr. Harb has pointed out that our rules in respect of subcommittees—this would apply to both the human rights and international development subcommittee and the trade subcommittee—provide that those subcommittees may only sit once a week unless otherwise authorized by this committee, which would mean that if they want to have special hearings, they're going to have to come back to us every time and ask.

I would like to recommend to colleagues that we strike out of our rule the phrase “to sit no more than once a week unless otherwise authorized by the committee”. It will still provide that those subcommittees cannot meet while we are meeting, but it will give them more flexibility in planning. Is that agreeable?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you very much, colleagues.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, on one other procedural matter, just to follow up on our earlier discussions, I wonder if I might move that the committee invite Minister Manley to appear before us at the earliest possible time in the week after the House returns. He did undertake to do that; I think it's important that we have an opportunity to follow up.

• 1000

The Chair: The clerk has already noted in the minutes that the committee requests him to return. He did say he would return here at his earliest opportunity, and the parliamentary secretary has indicated that she's working with him to get him to come back as soon as possible.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): I think the minister made it clear that he would do his utmost to return as early as possible. I don't think we can ask more than that.

The Chair: No.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I think we can be assured that he will comply as quickly as he can.

The Chair: Great. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Robinson and Ms. Carroll.

Mr. Robinson, please.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I want to welcome Mr. Wright back before the committee. He's an old hand before this committee.

[Translation]

Welcome to Mr. Lavertu as well.

[English]

I want to come back to the issue of the nature of the international response at this time and to underscore how very important it is that this be within the framework of international law. Many of us are deeply concerned that this may not happen, particularly in light of history, and I think it's important that we do put this in an historical context.

When we look at the United States' response, for example, to the bombing of the embassies in Africa, we recall that part of their response was to bomb a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum. They refused to accept responsibility for that, and they've blocked United Nations efforts to investigate that.

I must say as well that in putting together this international coalition, some of us find it rather disturbing, to say the least, to hear the calls of those such as Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, and Ariel Sharon to bring the terrorists to justice, given their own history in areas such as Chile, Sabra and Shatila, and Iraq.

But I want to ask specifically about the military response here. If in fact these terrorist attacks are a criminal action, and indeed a crime against humanity—and I certainly believe that is the case and the perpetrators must be brought to justice—I assume that Canada is saying we would support military action to apprehend the alleged perpetrators of these crimes. What is the legal basis for action beyond that—for example, bombing of Taliban facilities—whether military or otherwise?

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: Essentially, the legal basis is the right recognized by the United Nations, given to all member states, to take measures to defend itself when it is attacked. Article 51 of the charter of the United Nations clearly recognizes that right, and I think it has been mentioned in the context of the various multilateral pronouncements in the last few weeks.

Immediately after the attack, the UN adopted a resolution denouncing this tragedy, this act, and the Security Council resolution of last Friday, which has real teeth, also gives legitimacy to what the international community might do to respond to the attack. NATO has invoked article 5, to the effect that one member that is attacked calls for support from the others, military support. NATO has also specifically referred to article 51 and brought its statement to the attention of the Security Council.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I appreciate that, but I want to ask you specifically about the precedent in the Security Council itself from 1985, when Israel argued that Tunisia was harbouring terrorists. In fact, I have a copy of Israel's statement here:

Tunisia... provided a base for murderous activity against another State and, in fact, the nationals of many States who are the objects and victims of this terrorist organization.

Israel bombed the headquarters of the PLO in Tunis, Tunisia, in 1985. At that time, the Security Council rejected the claim that article 51 provided the right of Israel to bomb in Tunisia, and in fact they condemned that action by a margin of 14 to nothing. The United States abstained at that time.

• 1005

Israel was making at that time precisely the same arguments the United States is making today; that is, we have a right to go in and bomb the Taliban in light of the fact that they are harbouring these terrorists. The Security Council just said no, that's not the case.

How does Canada respond to that precedent?

The Chair: Mr. Wright.

Mr. James Wright (Assistant Deputy Minister, Global and Security Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): I could read into the record, because it may interest some of the committee members here, what article 51 of the UN charter says.

Mr. Svend Robinson: We have it here. I assume that members are familiar with it.

Mr. James Wright: And I could also read the reference to article 5 of the Washington Treaty, the NATO charter, just to remind people exactly what it is we're talking about here.

Article 51 of the UN charter says:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter...

Article 5 of the Washington Treaty states that the parties agree that if an armed attack occurs,

...each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

With respect to your specific question, Mr. Robinson, I think what is significant here is that subsequent to the events of September 11 the United States has been working in concert with the UN Security Council specifically. Two resolutions have been passed by the UN Security Council unanimously, both of which have invoked the provisions of article 51 of the UN charter.

I understand the precedent you're referring to here, but I think the United States in its efforts to build a coalition is working very closely with the UN Security Council. They are very mindful of their obligations under international law, international humanitarian law. They have not acted precipitously. They have taken time to go ahead. They've tried to encourage the Taliban to cooperate. That hasn't happened up until now. But I think every effort is being made to respect the rules of the road as prescribed in the UN charter and as is included in the NATO Washington Treaty of 1949.

The Chair: Thank you. That's a very helpful answer—

Mr. Svend Robinson: May I ask another question?

The Chair: Maybe you'll get another chance when we come back to it, but I now have Mr. Casey and then Madam Augustine on my list.

Mr. Bill Casey: Thank you.

You mentioned earlier that there were plans to change the passport. What's wrong with it, and how are you going to change it?

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: We're working on a plan that would improve passport security from the point of view of the technology that goes into the making of the passport itself, so that it cannot be forged. We're also looking at the process beforehand with respect to the documentation that is required for applying for a passport to improve the integrity of that documentation.

We're also looking at a greater exchange of information using modern technologies between agencies who can bring relevant information to bear on the process.

Mr. Bill Casey: Where is the weakness in it? What's the actual weakness in the passport or passport application system right now? Where is the problem you're going to correct?

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: We have a passport that is as good as any other in terms of technology at the moment. But I understand there's new technology being developed that is going to become a new standard, and we want to be at the forefront. We'll be therefore introducing that new technology. I'm not aware of the specifics of it.

• 1010

With respect to the prior process, in some cases the documentation would benefit from being stronger. We have to look at the integrity of the documents that are supplied for passport applications. We will be doing this in cooperation with the organizations that are responsible for issuing these documents. It's also a question of verifying the information that is provided more extensively. You can do more extensive checks. It's a question of resources. We're going to be applying increased resources to the verification of data that are submitted.

Mr. Bill Casey: I have two questions. Does this mean that in the future it will take longer to get a passport? And where are they forged now? Where are the forgeries coming from? Are they coming from Canada or are they forged somewhere else?

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: It may be that it's going to take a little longer as a result of that. I'm not in a position today to talk about the details because we are still in the process of reviewing the whole system.

With respect to forgeries, Canada is no worse than any other place with respect to the frequency of fraudulent passports. In fact we have a pretty good system. But forgeries can happen as much abroad as they can happen in Canada or the United States.

Mr. Bill Casey: So we have had some Canadian passports forged in other countries?

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: There have been attempts, yes, in other countries to forge Canadian passports. Yes.

Mr. Bill Casey: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Just so the committee record is clear on that particular issue, Mr. Lavertu, certainly my understanding from reading is that the greater problem is Canadian passports that are legitimate passports and have been stolen and then have somebody else's name put in them or otherwise.

There was the case of the Israeli agents going to Jordan a few years ago; they were carrying Canadian passports. My understanding at that time was those were Canadian passports; it's just that they had put somebody else's name in. I presume that's the greater problem. So to follow up on that question, how would you be ensuring the greater security of the blank passport system or access to blank passports, which would appear to be the bigger problem than forged passports?

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: Mr. Chairman, I could return to you with a documented answer after we have fully reviewed our procedures with respect to passports. I'd be quite prepared to do that.

The Chair: Absolutely. The committee is now starting its study and it wants to be able to report on these issues, so we're quite happy to have the fullest information we can. Thank you very much for offering to do that. And if there is any other question on which you feel you have subsequent details you can fill in, we would like you to do that. Thank you, sir.

Madam Augustine.

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

Mr. Lavertu, it's good to know that you're a real person and not just a name on paper. It's good to see you and Mr. Wright again.

Mr. Wright, I think my question is more or less addressed to you because of your role as policy adviser on global and security policy. My concern is about the scale of the problem, the tentacles the problem has. The international response and the coalition that's building seems to be building around the G-8 and around continental Europe and continental America. What about the small nation-states and other places, which seem to be far away at this point in time, and yet we know that if this thing has tentacles we could almost push it from one direction into the next? So putting on your global security hat, what do you see in the response and the collaboration at this point in time to protect small nation-states from having the problem shifted onto their shores?

• 1015

Mr. James Wright: I think that's an important question, and I would answer it in a number of respects.

First of all, the UN General Assembly is very much seized with this issue of terrorism, how to combat terrorism internationally. I think we are seeing this week the most in-depth debate the UN General Assembly has ever had in its history—the debate taking place on terrorism. It started on Monday, and I think it may conclude today. All countries of the world are participating in this process. So I would say first and foremost, the total family of nations, including small states, are participating fully and actively in the United Nations.

Secondly, we are trying to reach well beyond simply NATO, the G-8, and the European theatre, to reach out to a much wider audience. A lot of the calls Minister Manley was referring to earlier were not simply to leaders from that community. I know the minister has been speaking to a number of countries from the Middle East and Asia. The Prime Minister has been doing exactly the same.

We were disappointed when the Commonwealth summit that had been forecast to take place in Brisbane was postponed, because that would have been a unique opportunity for Canada and others to engage many of the small countries in the world—African, Caribbean, Asian—who are seized with this issue as well, and we look forward to the time that meeting is rescheduled.

I can tell you that Commonwealth law officers are meeting in early November in London to address the issue of terrorism, and I think the minister is hoping that when he goes to New York the week of November 10, when the rescheduled UN General Assembly debate is going to take place, there will be an opportunity for him to talk to not just the G-8 community but other community leaders as well. The Francophonie offers a unique opportunity to engage other countries, and here again the Prime Minister is strongly committed to using the Francophonie to address this process.

So the coalition building is happening on a lot of different fronts. It's not simply with the medium and large states; it's the world community. Because clearly, the answer to global terrorism is global cooperation—big and small states.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Augustine.

Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Gentlemen, thank you for being here. I'm going to, in the interest of time, try to ask questions that have very short answers. I hope they do.

Monday is the vote for the UN Security Council. Is Canada going to vote for Syria?

Mr. James Wright: The deputy is referring the question to me.

That is a decision the minister will take at the appropriate time. I think traditionally most countries keep their votes secret in this respect. We will be giving advice to the minister in the days to come. There is a range of slates that are up for vote; Syria is but one. We will give advice to the minister. The minister will decide. The minister will also decide how he wants to deal with the question of whether we discuss this issue afterward. Traditionally, as I said—

Mr. Brian Pallister: Mr. Wright, I'm sorry to cut you off, but I know I'm going to get cut off, and this is my one opportunity to ask you some questions. I'd like a real straight answer from you. What will your advice to the minister be, yes or no?

Mr. James Wright: My advice to the minister will be confidential, and the minister will decide what his answer is.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Okay.

On my second question, public accounts show $800,000 plus missing from three embassies—one embassy over $700,000. Which embassy is missing $700,000 of Canadian taxpayers' money? I just want to know which embassy.

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: I will verify which embassy and get you the answer.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you, sir.

• 1020

Twenty-five percent of your foreign service officers have said they're going to retire within a year. What specific plans do you have to deal with that? It's obviously a very urgent problem. I'm sure you have plans. What plans do you have to deal with that?

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: It's a real problem. A quick answer is that we're putting a priority on human resources in terms of resource reallocations. We're very much hoping for the collaboration of Treasury Board in the context of the negotiations that will be taking place with respect to foreign service officers.

The Chair: If I could just interrupt very briefly, Mr. Lavertu, the members of this committee have travelled widely, and certainly all of us have heard representations from the foreign service officers. Any help we can give you with Treasury Board... We believe there is a serious problem in the department, and we would like to try to help.

Mr. James Wright: I think we would welcome any and all help the committee could give in terms of your own discussions with Treasury Board.

The Chair: I think that's true of our colleagues in the Alliance—everyone feels the same way.

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: I just want to add that the management at the Department of Foreign Affairs is very seized of the problem. We suffer from it. We want to have a workforce who are competent, sufficient, happy, and compensated in a proper way, and at the moment we're not there.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Further to this concern, there has been, statistically at least, over the last several years an increase in the number of problems in terms of criminal acts associated with embassies—money missing and related problems. This seems to be directly correlated to the percentage of people who are non-Canadians employed at embassies. Is that a fair assumption to make, that as the percentage of Canadian people employed by the foreign service reduces, and the percentage of non-Canadians employed there increases, these actions are directly correlated to each other, that the two things are associated?

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: No. I don't think there is any correlation. That's the short answer. We have some excellent, very competent, very loyal locally engaged staff abroad.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Very good. So that being said, what's the problem? There are several hundred cases. Of course we're all concerned about it. I'm asking you what you attribute it to. If we don't need Canadians employed in these embassies, and we can employ anyone, that's not the problem. What is the problem?

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: The problem is that we have an increasing number of transactions and increased money flowing into our embassies as a result of our operations. It requires proper accounting. It requires proper supervision, proper auditing. We have to put more resources into auditing and making sure our financial systems are efficient and foolproof.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Very good.

The Chair: Thank you very much, sir.

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Wright, speaking of international justice and the international coalition I talked about at length in the House of Commons, there is an important piece of information that I hadn't received, since I had only just returned from Europe.

Recently, on September 27, the European Union's Justice and Internal Affairs Council asked Washington for clarification on its approach to administering justice. The Council wanted assurances that the death penalty was not one of the options being considered by the Americans. Speaking on behalf of the European Union, Belgian Minister Verwilghen stated that Europe was waiting for Washington to make the next concession in the common struggle to bring suspected terrorists to justice. He added that future extradition orders could not be issued until the matter of the death penalty had been resolved. Everything hinged on the will of the US to cooperate.

• 1025

This is one question that I raised without having a text in front of me. Now I have one. The striking of a special international ad hoc committee by the Security Council may be the only way for these new allies to ensure an acceptable kind of justice. I've repeatedly asked the minister for his thoughts on the matter. I now have some additional information that I consider important and I hope that, without giving us a definitive answer today, you will weigh this option and put it forward as a possible solution when these meetings unfold.

Bin Laden is one individual. Certainly there are others who should be extradited from Europe. Europe has just made it known that if the death penalty is not taken off the table, the extradition process will not work. We don't see how the US justice system is going to go along with that request.

That's my first question. I'm hoping for a commitment on your part.

My second question concerns an entirely different, but no less important matter. Will Canada call for the Francophone Summit to proceed on schedule, for one very particular reason? If, as rumoured, the WTO meetings proceed as planned in Qatar, la Francophonie needs to agree on the cultural exemption clause. Otherwise, all those who supported this idea will find themselves at a disadvantage in Qatar.

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: I've taken note of your suggestion concerning international infrastructure and terrorism. The situation is less than ideal. The international community is by no means equipped to deal with this phenomenon. And while agreements and international conventions have been signed, we need to take matters further. Does the International Criminal Court have a role to play in combating terrorism? Should we perhaps convene a special tribunal? These are all considerations...

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Excuse me for interrupting, Mr. Lavertu, but I believe this matter should be brought before the International Criminal Court. I think everyone would agree on that. The idea of establishing this court has been widely accepted, but the court has yet to be set up. A total of 12 countries still need to come on board, unless there's been some kind of last minute rush to sign on. When the court finally does sit, it will not have the jurisdiction to try acts committed prior to its coming into existence, hence the need to find some other forum. The Security Council could establish a tribunal under the auspices of the UN. Many are starting to think that this is the only option and I urge you to consider and endorse this proposal.

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: Your suggestion is duly noted.

Regarding the Francophone Summit, the question was whether the summit will go ahead shortly as scheduled in Beirut. Talks are currently taking place with Secretary General Boutros-Ghali under the direction of the Lebanese government, and a decision is expected to be made in the next few hours.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: What is Canada's position on the matter?

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: We've always maintained that we would like the Francophone Summit to proceed as scheduled. Moreover, the Prime Minister has stated publicly that he wants to attend the summit.

Of course, our policy is to be guided by our hosts' wishes. They have to make a judgement call, that is decide if the conditions are right for a summit meeting. The summit of Commonwealth nations has been postponed and it is not outside the realm of possibility that the Francophone Summit could be postponed for security reasons, in light of the evolving situation.

As for the scheduled WTO meetings in Qatar, I also hope that they proceed on schedule. Certainly I think prospects are good for the start of a new round of negotiations.

• 1030

The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Jennings.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Wright wanted to say something.

The Chair: Very quickly, please, because time...

[English]

Mr. James Wright: I just had one comment on Mr. Lavertu's answer to Madame Lalonde's first question. It is just to remind the committee that when the statute for the International Criminal Court was adopted in 1988, it was agreed not to include the crime of terrorism. They did, however, agree to consider including terrorism when the statute is reviewed seven years from the date it enters into force. Now, I realize this doesn't answer your specific question, but there is a commitment there on behalf of the international community to review this issue, and it's something Canada is very committed to as well.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Jennings.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your presentation and for answering our questions candidly. I'd like to focus on a matter that was discussed with the Minister at the beginning of the meeting. I'm referring to the idea of establishing a security perimeter around the United States and Canada.

I have a question to which I would like an answer. Is this information accurate or not? For years now, I've been reading studies and reports compiled by US experts claiming that the vast majority of persons illegally in the US crossed over at the US-Mexican border, not through Canada. Is that in fact correct?

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: You're referring to persons arriving...

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I'm talking about persons who are in the United States illegally, whether persons who have no identification papers or those who arrived with a proper visa in hand, but who remained illegally once their student, tourist or work visa expired.

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: Yes, that is in fact the case.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Here's my second question. Much is being said about the refugee issue in Canada.

According to documents and reports from the Minister of Immigration, the rate of acceptance by Canada's IRB is approximately 60 per cent. Also according to these reports, 50 per cent or more of refugee claimants arrive in Canada via the United States. Is that in fact also true?

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: I cannot corroborate those figures, because my department is not responsible for immigration or refugee matters. Therefore, I'm not in possession of that information. However, I'm confident the Department of Immigration could answer your question.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Am I correct in assuming that if ever Canada entered into talks with the United States with a view to establishing some kind of security perimeter, the whole issue of where the vast majority of persons illegally in the US came from will be broached, and by association, the question of the Mexican border?

According to the reports I've read, most of the persons who are in Canada illegally entered the country from the United States, while most persons in the US illegally came from countries other than Canada, including Mexico. Therefore, it's ridiculous to even consider a security perimeter that would not include Mexico. Mexico would then be forced to include its neighbours to the south, since the vast majority of illegal aliens in Mexico are from... Isn't it true that we're really talking about establishing a security perimeter around the Americas?

• 1035

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: There are different types of perimeters. This particular one could be extended to Mexico, which itself has seen the number of illegal aliens within its borders coming from Central America increase. A number of illegal aliens also arrive directly from China and other countries. The only way to deal with the problem head on is to work closely with other countries and the first step, in my opinion, is to ensure Canadian-US cooperation. That must be our priority, but of course we cannot ignore the scope of the problem.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

I'd like to comment on Syria's membership on the United Nations Security Council. Judging from my knowledge of Syria, its actions toward other countries and its denial of basic rights, I would like our government to think long and hard before backing Syria's membership on the Council. That's my personal opinion. I've been closely following developments in Syria and I would be disappointed to see Syria join the Council with the endorsement of the Government of Canada.

That's all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Jennings.

[English]

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes. I have a couple of specific questions.

I'm wondering whether Canada is urging the United States to bring evidence with respect to the complicity of bin Laden and others in al-Qaeda before the UN Security Council.

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: As to evidence before the Security Council, I don't believe that there are plans to that effect. Evidence has been brought to the attention of many members of the Security Council and of all the members of NATO—certainly of Canada. Perhaps Jim would have information about that.

Mr. James Wright: I think the United States has been very active in the course of the last few days in terms of talking to individual members of the UN Security Council family. I'm not sure how many have been spoken to, but it's happened on an individual basis, as opposed to formally before the UN Security Council. I believe there remains an intent on the part of the U.S. administration to try to release some information the Americans have in their possession with respect to the direct association between the attacks of September 11, bin Laden, and al-Qaeda. However, I don't think there is any formal plan, at least one I have heard of, to present evidence before the UN Security Council.

Mr. Svend Robinson: May I just ask, does Canada take the position that the evidence that was brought before NATO should also be placed before the Security Council?

Mr. James Wright: No. Our sense is that there is already clear authority in the UN charter for the right of self-defence, and that has been accepted by the UN Security Council in two resolutions. It's been accepted in a UN General Assembly resolution.

I think that at this particular juncture the United States has not moved precipitously at all. They are working carefully with the international community, and they are sharing their information as they can and as is appropriate, and we'll see what information they bring forward to the public in the days to come.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, with respect, on the one hand we're told that the UN Security Council and the UN are fully engaged; on the other hand, the United States hasn't even presented the evidence they presented to NATO to the Security Council.

In light of the adoption of the two resolutions to which both Mr. Wright and Mr. Lavertu have referred, in particular the resolution that was just adopted, 1373, I assume that they would agree that the Security Council has in fact taken certain measures necessary to maintain international peace and security at this time. Would that be the position of Canada?

• 1040

Mr. James Wright: The Security Council has stated very clearly in resolution 1373 that they remain seized with this particular issue, which means that they will keep the issue under very active review. As I mentioned earlier, the debate that's going on in the UN General Assembly is the most significant debate the UN has ever engaged in during its history, and it's focused on this specific issue.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I appreciate that, but is it Canada's position that in light of the action they've taken under these resolutions, they have in fact taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security?

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: They're taking measures to defend themselves.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm sorry. It's the Security Council I'm talking about. Under article 51, when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security, the inherent right of self-defence in the case of an armed attack no longer applies.

Mr. James Wright: I gather your question relates to the role of the UN Security Council in terms of trying to see a way ahead to bringing peace and security.

Mr. Svend Robinson: No. The question relates to the application of article 51.

Mr. James Wright: Right.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Under article 51, the right to individual or collective self-defence only applies until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. In fact, neither resolution in question refers in any of its operative provisions to article 51. That's in the preamble; that's not in the operative provision of either resolution. And I'm sure Mr. Wright will appreciate the significance of that.

Mr. James Wright: Correct.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Once the Security Council has taken the measures, that no longer applies. I just want to ask him to reflect on that. Because of the time constraints, I'll just put my other question and then ask him to deal with both.

The other question is with respect to Pakistan. Canada has just lifted sanctions against Pakistan, sanctions that were imposed because Pakistan tested nuclear weapons. I want to ask a very specific question. Before lifting these sanctions, what assurances did Canada receive from Pakistan that Pakistan would not in any way reinstate nuclear testing?

The Chair: Can you answer that very quickly, Mr. Lavertu, because the time is now starting to get quite tight.

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: We lifted the sanctions against Pakistan not because we have changed our position with respect to—

Mr. Svend Robinson: No, no. You've explained why they were lifted. I asked—

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: They were lifted in order to take into consideration the new situation prevailing in Pakistan, starting with the humanitarian situation. We have to help Pakistan deal with this situation.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Did we get assurances that they won't test?

The Chair: Thank you, I'm going to—

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chair, I did ask a specific question as to whether there was an assurance—

The Chair: Yes, but everybody else is being held to their time, and I'm very sorry, Mr. Robinson, but you're well over yours. I'm just going to have—

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, he didn't answer the question at all. I just asked a very specific question, namely did we get assurances or not?

The Chair: You got the answer you got. It may not be the answer you'd like, but it's the answer you got.

I'm going to go to Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey: I'm just going to ask a quick question. What was the form of the evidence that was shown to the minister as to the contention that bin Laden was involved? What was the form of the evidence? Was it documents, pictures, videos, or tapes? And who saw it?

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: The minister and the government have been shown a regular stream of information with respect to the links between the events of September 11 and al-Qaeda and bin Laden. This was augmented by a presentation of the United States at NATO two days ago and in Canada to the Department of Foreign Affairs and other government departments.

Mr. Bill Casey: Again, was it the Prime Minister and the ministers and officials in several departments who saw the information?

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: Officials first saw that evidence, which has subsequently been forwarded to the political level.

Mr. Bill Casey: I'd like to go in another direction here. You mentioned a minute ago that the administration was focused on human resources in your department, and you mentioned you wanted your staff... you listed three things. I got two of them. I didn't get the first one, but the last two were happy and well compensated. I didn't get the first one, but then you said they were not there yet. Are they not happy? Are they not well compensated, or what is the problem?

• 1045

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: They're happy with the job they're doing. They're highly motivated and dedicated, but they need better compensation, no doubt about it. We're losing some excellent people because they have the prospect of better compensation elsewhere.

There are other problems, of course. In some cases people have the opportunity of promotions elsewhere. There are also spousal issues arising, in the sense that when an officer has a spouse who works in Canada, it is difficult sometimes to continue in the foreign service.

Mr. Bill Casey: Do you have a budget to replace the people who are leaving, at the former levels of compensation?

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: At the moment we do not have that.

Mr. Bill Casey: You can't replace the people you're losing.

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: We can replace some, but not all.

The Chair: It's a resource issue of great importance to the country, and I hope we can all work toward resolving this.

Mr. O'Brien, sir.

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

I have just two questions. First of all, I am pleased to welcome Mr. Lavertu. I had the pleasure of meeting him when he was our ambassador in Bonn, so I knew he was a real person, and a very qualified person at that. It's nice to see you here, sir.

My first question relates to NORAD. I understand you're not the defence people, but I think there's been some understatement about the fact that 365 days a year, the one country in the world that is in a bilateral defence relationship with the United States is Canada.

Various individuals and parties are decrying what we haven't done with the United States. I think we need to emphasize that we're standing on guard every day of the year with the Americans in NORAD. Many of us have had the chance to visit Cheyenne Mountain and meet General Macdonald, who is the Deputy Commander of NORAD, as is the agreement.

Can you update us on what our current increased level of activity is in NORAD, as per American requests, and how long they might continue?

Then I'll go to a different question relating to the UN Security Council, and the fact that Ireland has assumed presidency of the Security Council for the month of October. Given the concerns expressed by Ireland's prime minister about our proportionate response and the need to follow international legal procedures, along the lines Mr. Robinson raised, and not just simply seek revenge in some attack, I wonder if Canada has discussed or will be discussing our concerns with Ireland's Foreign Minister Cowen.

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: Thank you.

NORAD played a very significant role already on September 11, because this is a fully integrated North American defence organization. Canada is a full partner, and went into immediate operational alert and interceptions on that very day. The level of alert remains quite high, and will have to be adjusted, in light of the threat. We don't know how the threat might evolve.

On the Security Council and the Irish presidency, we always make it a point to maintain a very close consultation and liaison with the chair of the Security Council, and we will certainly do so. It has been our approach through all this to forge a coalition that will be effective but will also forge a response that will take into consideration the need to be targeted, and to give a response that is appropriate in the circumstances. This is not all-out war against a country.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning to you both.

• 1050

I've been here for a lot of the questioning, and my concern is very basic and kind of philosophical. I have a philosophical question for the department, from the standpoint that we're next door to the United States and 87% of our exports go to the U.S. We need to quickly reassure Canadians and our U.S. neighbours that we are responding rapidly to the changes that are necessary, from a security standpoint. It is my perception and many people's perception that our allies, including the U.S., are moving much more quickly than we are.

It looks like we're reactive, rather than proactive. If that is the case—and perception can be reality—once we get behind the curve we'll have no choice but to be reactive, rather than proactive. At that point, equivalency in security won't be good enough. We will need to have far more security considerations than our neighbour, to reassure our neighbour.

Is this sense of urgency contained within the department's response, at this point?

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: We certainly have a sense of urgency. Canadian territory was affected, and Canadian citizens were affected from day one. Canadians died in New York, for example, or on aircraft. We've been seized in the most urgent manner from day one, and have been working intensively at managing this crisis.

As to the response, a lot of work has gone on in the last few weeks that will result in the government tabling a number of measures in the House and announcing a number of initiatives. Much of the work that has been done in the last few weeks is being reviewed by the committee chaired by Mr. Manley. The package is a real one and provides for short-term, medium-term, and longer-term responses.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you for that.

The U.S. government basically had a blueprint for action, based on a February 2001 paper that had been put out—a pretty comprehensive paper. That allowed them to move very quickly on anti-terrorism measures, after the events of September 11.

What are we using as our blueprint, for lack of better terminology? There's existing anti-terrorism legislation in other countries in the world, and so on, but what are we using so we don't have to reinvent the wheel on all of this anti-terrorism legislation, and other measures that have to be taken?

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: We already have available to us a number of legal legislative instruments in the fight against terrorism. We also have, of course, assets. All of this is being reviewed now. I have to go to a meeting that will precisely address how our posture with respect to counter-terrorism can be reinforced in the future.

The determination is there. We have a strategy, but it has to be revisited in light of the events of September 11 and enhanced to increase the level of public security.

Mr. John Duncan: Do I have any more time?

The Chair: I think you have about a minute left.

Mr. Lavertu, if you have to be somewhere at 11 o'clock, perhaps Mr. Wright can answer any other questions on your behalf.

• 1055

Mr. John Duncan: I have a final question, one we asked in the House yesterday. It deals with the PLO terrorist who has been in our country for 15 years and we haven't been able to rid ourselves of him. If we can't rid ourselves of a known terrorist, then how can we assure Canadians that their security is being looked after? Can we get some sense that given this new security arrangement, this situation will be dealt with post-haste?

Mr. James Wright: I think it's fair to say that the committee Mr. Manley will be chairing is going to be looking at all aspects of this problem, including immigration and refugee issues that flow from this. We need to look also at the implications of the UN Security Council resolution 1373, which also calls upon countries to go ahead and take steps to address asylum abuse in countries around the world.

I think the short answer to your question is that the Canadian government remains very much seized with this. I am aware of the case you are referring to.

Mr. John Duncan: Will you be recommending use of the notwithstanding clause, barring any other immediacy, to get rid of these people?

The Chair: I'm going to rule that question out of order. I suggest to you that it's a political question that really only the minister could answer. I don't think an official is going to tell us whether the government is going to exercise a notwithstanding clause, to be fair to the witness. But there might be another opportunity to ask the minister that.

We will have to vacate the room at 11 o'clock, colleagues, because we have another committee needing it.

Perhaps, Mr. Wright, I may leave you with a thought, arising somewhat out of the questions asked by Mr. Robinson. There are enormously complex issues of international law that arise out of the actions that are at present being taken, actions that will also have domestic implications for us. Mr. Duncan just mentioned someone he referred to as a terrorist in Canada. I wouldn't like to think someone a terrorist unless a court has pronounced upon that. Therefore, we are now in a position where judgments are being called upon acts that are not being determined by courts. The same is true of the international situation we're presently in.

We are going to be creating precedents. When you think of what France did in Algeria, when you think of what is happening in Sri Lanka, when you think of what is happening in Palestine, when you think of what is happening in Chechnya, all these zones of conflict around the world... We're going to be creating, by these actions, international precedents, which may well be used in circumstances that are unforeseen. Perhaps some of the states now crying for them to be used will find that they don't like to see them being used in other circumstances, where they themselves are on the receiving end of some of these actions.

I'd like, as the committee chair, to just suggest that we hope that our government officials, while recognizing the need to act immediately in order to guarantee the security of Canadians and to pursue the criminals responsible for this, are aware also of the broad international legal framework in which we operate. We'll hope that this legal framework will be strengthened by what we are doing in the present circumstances, not weakened.

Mr. James Wright: Can I just comment very briefly on that? I think that is an extremely important statement. I think the Canadian government shares that view, absolutely.

I would say that in some of the questioning from Mr. Robinson the inference seemed to be that the UN Security Council was not really seized with the wider implications of the current crisis. I don't think that's a fair assessment of what the UN Security Council is trying to do. The resolution they passed on Friday night was probably one of the most far-reaching resolutions the UN Security Council has ever passed. Rather than simply being a resolution that contained declaratory language, there were a lot of very practical dimensions to this resolution that require states to go ahead and take specific actions. We recognize that these have far-reaching implications for the international community and for governments like Canada, and while we very much have to deal with this, the immediate crisis, there are much longer-term implications as well.

• 1100

I would like to say, even though Mr. Robinson isn't here right now, that I think the Security Council is very much engaged in the issue, understands the implications of the current crisis, and is not sitting back and allowing the States to go ahead and decide unilaterally what they want to do. And the United States is at the forefront in encouraging that participation by the UN, the UN Security Council specifically.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wright. That's a very helpful response, one the committee will be pursuing as we continue our study into this issue. Obviously the committee will be seized of these problems for the foreseeable future, and we'll be pursuing that.

Colleagues, I'd just like to remind all of you, and through you the Canadian public watching this, that in fact 400 parliamentarians from NATO countries will be meeting as guests of Canada in Ottawa this weekend. The subject matter we've been discussing here this morning will very much be at the forefront of their discussions. I know I'll be participating in that, and I know some of my colleagues will be participating in that meeting. This will be another opportunity to exchange with our NATO colleagues where we are going on these very complex issues.

Thank you very much. We're adjourned until Tuesday morning, October 16.