FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 16, 2001

• 0914

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): Colleagues, we now have a quorum. The first hour this morning is a working session, and the next hour we're meeting with our colleagues from the European Parliament. We have only 40 minutes to get the business done, so let's get going.

• 0915

The first thing on your agenda is a budget that the clerk has prepared. You'll notice that the budget includes the usual amount that we get allocated at the beginning of the session, which is $10,000, but because we'll have witness expenses, we really should get a budget in to the liaison committee as quickly as possible. So if somebody would recommend the approval of the budget....

You'll see that it not only includes our budget but also money for the two subcommittees to call witnesses as well.

Aileen, it's headed “Operational Budget Request”. It's in your package.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Thanks.

The Chair: Are there any comments, questions, or objections?

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde, have you any questions, comments or objections?

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Do you mean on the overall issue, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: No, I mean concerning the budget that is being put forward. We have to authorize it right away in order to send it on to the liaison committee.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Is that the budget for the trip to Colombia?

The Chair: No, just the operational budget for—

Ms. Francine Lalonde: All right.

The Chair: —our committee and the subcommittees. It concerns the costs regarding witnesses.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: If I understand correctly, Mr. Chairman, that includes the trip to Colombia, as you can see from item 3.

[English]

The Chair: No, Colombia is separate.

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): You're asking for $85,700, and as part of that, item 3 is $70,000 for witness expenses and studies on Sudan and Colombia, 20 witnesses at $1,000 each, for $20,000.

The Chair: Yes, that's right. That's for what we would call the Ottawa aspect of the business, which is the witnesses who have to come here to appear before the committee in Ottawa. The other budget will be for travel to Colombia, which is a separate item.

It's true, I agree, that they're kind of mixed up. They're kind of overlapped. This one will go through the liaison committee without any problems because it's the normal operations budget for witnesses. The travel budget is always subject to revision.

Ms. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Can I move that the budget be accepted?

The Chair: Absolutely. Okay, that's on the table.

Yes, sir.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): I want to ask a question on witness expenses, just for my information. We show zero on video conferencing. Is that the norm for this committee?

The Chair: We don't have any specific video conferencing proposed for the immediate future, so we didn't put anything in. But we do use video conferencing sometimes. Particularly if we have people in Europe we can deal with, we can put them on video conference, and things like that.

This is mainly for witnesses to come here. We do use video conferencing; we just don't have any specific projects in the immediate future.

Mr. John Duncan: That's fine.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I have a quick question on item 3. Under “Witness Expenses”, it says “Studies on Sudan and Colombia,” 20 witnesses at $1,000 each, $20,000. That's small potatoes in the overall scheme of things, but if there's a request for the subcommittee to go to Colombia and study there for eight days, why are we paying for witnesses to come here?

The Chair: Obviously I didn't prepare this budget. I don't sit on that committee; I'm just passing on the request. To some extent this is an estimate. There's no guarantee that this money will be spent.

Is there anybody sitting on that committee who can help us?

The Clerk of the Committee: Mr. Chairman, obviously the committee cannot exist on the $10,000 that we've had, because we're launching into a program immediately. So we do have to put something in, budget-wise, to give us a start. We can't know the exact details, nor can any committee know the exact details of what it's going to do. So we put in a notional budget based on the best that we can do.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Okay.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Lalonde, it is your turn.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: We also find in there 35 times $1,000 for our committee's proceedings on North American integration. What accounts for this 35 times?

The Chair: I beg your pardon?

Ms. Francine Lalonde: The last part of item 3 mentions 35 times $1,000. Is that $1,000 per witness?

• 0920

The Chair: The $1,000 figure is for each of the witnesses. That was the only way we had of making a projection. We had no way of determining the exact expenses for each person. In any case, the committee has always anticipated $1,000 per witness. Some witnesses must travel a greater distance and their costs are higher. Some have a shorter distance to travel and our expenses are therefore lower. It is only an average figure.

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: The bottom line is that we may never spend any of it, and we might spend just a piece of it, but it's there in case we need it.

The Chair: Particularly, as you say, the human rights subcommittee. They've already done a great deal of their work on Colombia, but they've done nothing on Sudan yet. I know there are a lot of religious groups and churches that want to come for the Sudan study, so I think there will be a substantial number of witnesses there. Of course, when it says “North American Integration,” for our own study, that's really about terrorism. It's not just North American integration.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Put the question, Mr. Chair.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.

Next is the travel budget of the subcommittee on human rights, requests for travel. As you know, they've been doing a study on Colombia, and we are anxious that they complete this study so they can move on to Sudan.

Mr. Casey, you're on that committee. Do you have any comments, particularly about the budget?

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC/DR): No, that's fine with me. We're anxious to do it.

The Chair: It was discussed in the committee.... Oh, we have the parliamentary secretary.

[Translation]

Excuse me, Ms. Jennings.

[English]

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): I move we adopt the motion for the report and the budget.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you.

The third item is that sometimes the chair of the subcommittee cannot be available. So that's another problem. That's item 3.

Madame Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I move that we adopt the routine motion that would allow the chair of the subcommittee, when unavailable for a scheduled meeting, to designate a subcommittee member to act as chair.

Mr. Stan Keyes: As long as it's not Bill Casey, I agree.

I'm kidding, Bill.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The witness list for Bill C-31, which is the EDC study, is the document ahead of Plan d'étude par le Comité du projet de loi C-31, which you have before you.

Mr. John Duncan: Which one?

The Chair: It's called “Planning for Committee Study of Bill C-31”. It's a short document. We have some short ones and some long ones, just to try to fool you as to which format we're using on any given day or at any given moment.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Use the title of the document on the agenda. You want to see if we're awake.

The Chair: Absolutely.

When I say “organizations”, the NGO working group, Probe International, the North-South Institute, the Manufacturers Association, the Bar Association, and the Chamber of Commerce are the witnesses we have. That's kind of the working program for the bill.

With all the other work we have before us, we're anxious to get this bill done this month. We can't put it off and off or we won't get to our other work group. But if anybody has other witnesses that they need to add to the list, you'd have to authorize me to see if we could fit them in some other day, or we could just adjust the schedule a bit.

[Translation]

Mr. Paquette, you now have the floor.

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): I forwarded to the clerk of the committee a number of names which might be added to the list. I must insist on some of them being invited. Obviously, they may not all be available. I have suggested, in particular, that Pierre-Marc Johnson be asked to appear before the committee since we shall be dealing with environmental matters. I believe he made a high-level presentation to the committee. He might therefore be in a position to share some useful thoughts in that area.

• 0925

I also thought we should invite representatives from the Canadian Labour Congress. Mr. Allmand—

The Chair: Pardon me, whom did you mention?

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I spoke of a representative from the Canadian Labour Congress. I also mentioned Mr. Allmand, of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, as well as someone from a Halifax organization that has put forward a number of amendments to the present act. I had identified several other people as well but I think that if we invite at least these four, we will hear a variety of opinions which should be very useful to the committee before it undertakes a more detailed consideration of the bill.

The Chair: All right. We've gone through the list you drew up and most of the people on it are part of the NGO working group on the Export Development Corporation. They are part of that same group. We could nonetheless invite them individually. Have we already sent an individual invitation to Mr. Pierre-Marc Johnson?

The Clerk: Not yet, Mr. Chairman, but I could, if the committee agrees, phone him today.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: My experience with the CSN has taught me that, often, the large groups coalesce around a relatively small number of common demands. It is possible, however, that these groups might, taken individually, contribute in a more specific way. It will be up to them to decide if is enough that they be represented within a larger group. I know, however, that the larger groups have a relatively small common denominator and I believe we should be broadening the scope of our concerns.

The Chair: I believe we should invite Mr. Pierre-Marc Johnson along with the NGO Working Group, don't you?

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I did not quite understand your...

The Chair: Should Mr. Johnson appear on the same day as the NGO Working Group or should we invite him to appear individually at some other time even though he is indeed part of that organization?

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Yes, by all means.

The Chair: We shall then try to invite Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Warren Allmand as well.

[English]

Just bear in mind we have to fit everybody in and we have a very crowded calendar. The more we're fitting in, the more we're expanding our work hours, because we've got to get this bill finished this month.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Chairman, I assume that if these new witnesses are not available, you will ask them to send us, if they will, their comments in writing. This way, the committee can still have the benefit of their comments and of ideas which might be somewhat different from the views expressed by the enlarged working group.

The Chair: Thank you. An excellent idea. That is the way we shall go about it and we shall also ask the witnesses who appear in person to set down their testimony in writing.

This concludes our consideration of item 4 on our agenda. We now go to item 5.

[English]

Number five is really just for information. That's what we always do. The bill will come back here, and we will do that.

Number six: I think instead of saying we can begin hearings on the study in the week of October 29, because of other things that might bump us around we'd better say “as soon as possible.” If that's all right, we'll just change the last couple of words in that paragraph to “as soon as possible”. That way it will let us.... Yes, sir?

Mr. John Duncan: What is number six talking about?

• 0930

The Chair: We can let our experts, who have prepared much documentation for you, explain what it is for Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz (Committee Researcher): Yes. There is a preliminary proposed study plan that's been circulated.

I would direct your attention.... There's initial introductory stuff talking about the legislation and so on, but in terms of the proposed study that we would begin, it really starts on page 4.

[Translation]

That is on page 4 of the French version as well.

[English]

The idea is to look at the North American relationship in the light of the current security environment, particularly focusing on those dimensions in the first phase of what could be a much larger, long-term study. There's a rationale and argument laid out in that first page.

Then in the subsequent several pages there's a preliminary list of suggested witnesses and also an indication of how one might begin such a study, with one or more extensive briefings, with relevant people from the Department of Foreign Affairs and other departments involved in the security dimension of the Canada-U.S. border, in particular.

Then there are, in order, other suggested witnesses, including the U.S. ambassador and our ambassador to Washington, and various experts on the subject matters that would be addressed, as well as U.S. experts.

This is a preliminary list for a first phase of that study, which would go through to the end of this year and possibly result in an interim report. That would obviously be a decision of the committee.

Of course this is a preliminary working document and subject to input from members with regard to the shape of the study, witnesses, and so on. It's a working document to get us started on the study.

The Chair: Is that all right, Mr. Duncan?

Mr. John Duncan: Yes. The difficulty I was having was my French is not very good, and that's the document I had in front of me. That's not all right.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Actually, the French version talks about other things than are in the English version. You never know what's in the French version, so be very careful with it.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: That just adds that there's a further study going into next year, looking at the G-8 agenda and so on. But for this morning, I would maybe concentrate on the first phase.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I thank you for that.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: I took into account Ms. Lalonde's suggestion.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes.

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): For the G-8? What page is that on?

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: On page 8.

The Chair: While we are at it, Ms. Lalonde suggested this morning that, if possible, we should try this fall to devote an afternoon to preparing the G-8. Is that not so?

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: If we have enough time to do all that needs to be done.

The Chair: Yes. All right then, Africa will be included in the G-8. We are agreed, then, to try to organize a meeting so as to make sure we have this well in mind before the Christmas break.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: We will obviously be counting on the preparatory work of our great team of researchers.

The Chair: To be sure. Our research teams are always way ahead of us. Ahead, I stress, not behind.

[English]

Okay. Colleagues, does anybody have any particular comments? If you have any comments about the working plan, or ideas, contact Gerry or Jim directly and we'll get them in. We try to accommodate everybody we can.

[Translation]

Ms. Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: First of all, I must say that I find the preliminary plan excellent. I have just one question. When I look at the list of potential or possible witnesses and participants, I see that provision has been made for briefing sessions with experts and that all this will be coordinated by Foreign Affairs along with various other Canadian departments and agencies.

• 0935

Do we also intend to hear from government officials on these topics or will we only be hearing from the experts whose name appears on the list as well as from experts outside government?

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: Both. Do you see item 1?

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Yes.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: Those are the government representatives: the departments, the agencies. Those are the briefing sessions.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: That's what I thought, but I was not sure because it is not quite clearly stated.

The Chair: Is this about a trip?

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: Yes.

The Chair: We must, I think, undertake a reasonable study of this issue. We absolutely have to go to Washington and it would perhaps be a good idea to try to go there as early as possible in the new year.

As someone mentioned, there is also Mexico. I was in Mexico last week with the President and the mood there is very different from what it is here or from what it is in the United States. We absolutely must get a better grasp of that situation. It is another culture altogether. It's a completely different point of view. They have a good understanding of NAFTA and even of security matters... They appeared quite impassive concerning what took place in the United States a few weeks ago. As though it had nothing to do with their own world. We must take that into account. I think this is a very important point.

I believe, then, that we should perhaps consider a trip to Washington and Mexico.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: There is another point I'd like to bring up concerning the plan to have nation-wide hearings on those two topics.

The Chair: On that point too, we will need consultation.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: It is important, I feel, that we hear from Canadians and from the people of Quebec. But that will come later.

The Chair: If we do take a trip, will we be able to prepare both reports at the same time, that is to say the G-8 report and the report on North American security? If we have to go there, it would be best if we didn't have to go there twice. I think that at this time, with respect to the G-8, there are many people, in other cities, who would like to be heard.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: That's what I suggest on page—

[English]

The Chair: If we travel across the country to do the G-8 study, we could also do this. We could use it as a double whammy. We might do what we have done in the past and split the committee up. Some parts can go to some parts of the country and some parts to others. I think for the G-7 and G-8 that seems to be a good way to do it.

Okay. This is a work plan. Every line in it isn't written exactly the way it will work out, but it's a start.

For information, you will know that we will also be getting the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, which is on second reading, before the committee.

Madam Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Just in reference to that, Mr. Chair, I'm not getting a sense of where this committee intends to fit that bill on the agenda. It seems to be very full. That's a bill that has some priority and not one that I think should take a very long time, being primarily a housekeeping bill, but still I'd like to see it dealt with earlier rather than later.

The Chair: Maybe I could get the comments of other members. I think it's a good point.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: Bill C-35 has been described as a housekeeping bill, and I just heard those words again. Bill C-35 is anything but a housekeeping bill, and we are in no mood to see it rushed through this process.

I just wanted to get that on the record.

The Chair: Have you been coached by Mr. Robinson?

Mr. John Duncan: No, I haven't.

The Chair: It sounded like Mr. Robinson's approach to Bill C-35.

• 0940

Mr. John Duncan: There may be some duplication, but probably his are mostly different concerns.

The Chair: The term “unholy alliance” comes to mind. We could have a lot of alliances. We have the Alliance, the Northern Alliance, the Unholy Alliance—

Mr. John Duncan: They're usually the good guys, though, right?

The Chair: Okay, we're with you.

So you're giving us notice that you think Bill C-35 will take some time.

Mr. John Duncan: Bill C-35 is a 125-page bill—

The Chair: Right.

Mr. John Duncan: —and there are some very substantive things in there. It has been described as housekeeping, and it's simply not only housekeeping.

The Chair: I appreciate that. I think what I've heard, particularly from Mr. Robinson, was there was concern about the police powers in respect to international organizations.

Mr. John Duncan: Exactly.

The Chair: But apart from that, most of the other stuff is housekeeping, don't you think, in terms of embassies and security and the other things I saw? But is that the area where we'll need to have some witnesses?

Mr. John Duncan: Yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Madam Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I think, Mr. Chair, that there may be a couple of small parts that members of this committee want to direct considerable attention to, from either side of that alliance that was mentioned. But I think as the chair has said, there's a great deal of this that will not require a great deal of the committee's time. So, considering it in that light and in the absence of Mr. Robinson and the light he might shed, we will need to carve out what we, in our planning discussions, think will take more time than the rest, and let's get it into the program.

The Chair: Madam Carroll, is it the desire to get the bill back into the House before Christmas?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I think so.

The Chair: Madam Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I'm going to let Mr. Keyes raise the issue that I raised my hand about.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Stan Keyes: We were just having a discussion, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, Canadians want to know and hear and get as much information as they can in considering anything tied with September 11. For example, you have the subcommittee on Thursday, October 18, dealing with border issues, in Room 308, West Block. There's a classic example where the subcommittee should be inviting members of the whole committee to attend. We can do so anyway, but beyond that, maybe it's the kind of committee that should be televised so that people can see what it is we're talking about.

We're getting answers about trucking, vehicles, manufacturing, exports, etc. The difficulties they're having at the borders are a crucial issue with anybody who makes any kind of a widget in Canada and is trying to export it to the U.S.

So I would ask, through you, Mr. Chair, that officials maybe try to change that room to a televised room and make sure the whole committee is aware of the fact that if they want to attend, they can. Maybe that should even have been a whole-committee agenda rather than a subcommittee agenda.

Again, on Tuesday, October 23, you have the joint meeting of the political affairs committee of the Council of Europe on threats to democracy posed by terrorists and extremist groups. I'm hoping that meeting in 253-D is also a televised meeting.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: It is.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Is that one televised for sure?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Yes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Our constituents are all asking, “What the hell are you doing?” We'd like to show them what we are doing. There's an opportunity there on Thursday the 18th to maybe change the room and get some television cameras in, so that people can see we're dealing with issues of customs and revenue.

The Clerk: I can change that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Can you?

The Clerk: If it's available.

The Chair: The clerk will see if it's available. If it's not available, we will speak to the whip, because there's now a discussion about the allocation of the television room. It used to be “first come, first served”, but it is clear it is now becoming more and more the question, is it directly relevant? I totally agree with you that this is, so we'll draw this to the attention of the whips and make sure they know the nature of it. Hopefully, we should get the TV room for that meeting.

Does everybody here get notices of the subcommittee meetings, as well as the main committee meetings?

The Clerk: They're supposed to, Mr. Chairman, but we'll check that, too.

The Chair: You were supposed to, and I always have trouble in my office—

Mr. John Duncan: We get this, but not the subcommittee notice.

• 0945

The Chair: We'll tell the clerks of the two subcommittees that they should send the notice of every meeting to everyone. Then if you know there's something coming up that's relevant on any one of the subcommittees, you can go in and sit in on it.

Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I believe that the border issue should not be settled by a subcommittee but by the whole committee since it is a trade issue, but a foreign affairs issue as well.

[English]

The Chair: No, I agree. I agree, but they've got their work program and we've got our work program.

This was the subcommittee. It decided to do this. We already have a hundred other things to do, and this subcommittee decided it would go ahead and do a study into border issues. They're the trade subcommittee, and that's what they decided to do.

[Translation]

No harm done.

[English]

Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): I guess this is one of those rookie questions, Mr. Chairman, but if Bill C-35 is just housekeeping and we have so many urgent items to deal with, what's the urgency in dealing with something that's just housekeeping? I'm having a little trouble understanding that. Is this the practice of the committee normally, that you try to push through things quickly?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Legislation takes priority.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Does it? Is that how it works?

The Chair: Well, yes, that's—

Mr. Brian Pallister: Because if there is some urgency, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

The Chair: No, no, no. The trouble is that the rule of the committees is that legislation trumps all other things. If we get legislation, we have to deal with it, and until we've dealt with it, we can't get on to some of these other studies.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Oh, I see. I appreciate that. I just didn't understand the reasoning.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I understand how the subcommittee might have decided to consider this topic, but we can debate the overall issue and determine here that the study should be undertaken by the whole committee. There is a trade aspect, but there is also foreign affairs aspect and I believe that is something that should be considered by the whole committee. The subcommittee should have no problem accepting that.

The Chair: Ms. Lalonde, can we use the study undertaken by the subcommittee in our own study? What you suggest, rather, is that we take over the meeting already organized by the subcommittee on trade, which I find a little—

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I would not go that far. We can ask them to share the work.

The Chair: We all have the right to go there, so I think that members who are interested in that study, such as Mr. Keyes and the others, will go. I myself will go if I can but I do not wish to say to Mr. Harb, who organized it, that I insist on chairing the meeting, that the chair belongs to the committee and not to them. I would find that a little bit... That is what made me use the word take-over.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: In the future, could we discuss this sort of thing together, I mean between the subcommittees and the whole committee, because there is a difference between having a subcommittee do a study and having that study done by the whole committee.

The Chair: All right, but until now, we have always let the subcommittees draw up their own agendas, independently of our own. Perhaps it was because there was no overlapping of the work. You will recall that last year it concerned a study in Europe while the committee was addressing an issue that, you might say, was related.

[English]

Colleagues, we'll speak to them. We'll try to have it in the TV room and those of us who want to go will try to go as well. I've taken a note of Madam Lalonde's point.

But before we move on, colleagues, since we are under pressure, as you can see, could you give me authority to either add witnesses or meetings to those already on the counter? Otherwise I'll have to come back to you and we will have to sit around the table for hours. If you give me, as the chair, the possibility of adding time, then I can deal with these—

Mr. Stan Keyes: So moved, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Does this authorize the chair to do that?

Monsieur Paquette.

• 0950

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I wanted to finish with this item because—

The Chair: May I vote on that? Grant me a bit of leeway.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I had raised precisely that issue before the subcommittee, asking them whether the question might not be more properly addressed by the committee and I was told that they would study only the trade aspects of these border issues. This does not prevent the committee from itself considering the issue, but of course we would then run the risk of unnecessary duplication.

The Chair: Yes, but there comes a time when trade matters overlap with other issues.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Yes, and that is why I would have preferred—

The Chair: A truck might undergo inspection as a commercial vehicle, but that inspection is also based on security considerations.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: But when the American authorities themselves inspect trucks leaving the United States, as they are entering Canada, there is also a foreign relations issue. They do not trust the Canadian system to carry out those inspections. That is presently the case. They inspect trucks not only as they enter the United States, but also as they leave. This raises an issue that has more to do with foreign affairs than with trade.

The Chair: Fascinating. I did not know that.

[English]

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: If you recall, at the organizational meeting—and this relates to Stan's comments about television—I made a motion in respect to opening up the meetings. You suggested at that time that there'd be a look at what the procedure and House affairs committee had.... When can we expect clarification?

The Clerk: Mr. Chairman, the decision of the committee was to refer it to the steering committee. We have prepared something for the steering committee, but basically it is a simple process. One, go to 253-D and it's automatic. Two, request the portable kit. One portable kit is available that could come to this room on request. Three, accept a request from the commercial media. The commercial media has the right to request or inform the clerk of the committee that they would like to come and film, but we cannot request that they come.

Mr. John Duncan: We can invite them, though.

The Clerk: No, we cannot invite them. They can make the request to us by whatever means to come and they can....

The Chair: In other words, you could phone them and tell them to invite themselves if you thought it was important.

The Clerk: They would come and set up their cameras and leave them during the entire duration of the proceedings, unless there was a break sometime when they could leave. That's it, in brief. The steering committee will bring this back to the committee.

The Chair: And long-term, we're supposed to have a second, more effectively set up television room as well.

The Clerk: The process I've described, Mr. Chairman, is a trial one until the end of December. Then the procedure and House affairs committee will have another look at it.

The Chair: They've not made a firm decision about having a second room where it would be....

The Clerk: At this stage I believe they have not made a firm decision.

The Chair: Okay. To save time, could the committee authorize the chair some flexibility in adding meetings and witnesses?

Mr. Keyes has moved it. It is seconded by Mr. Casey. No objections?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you very much, colleagues. I appreciate that. We now have the authority to do this. Excellent.

I don't want to open a hornet's nest, but let's go back to Bill C-35. Mr. Duncan, you raised the point.... Do you think two hearings, two sitting days, would be enough to accommodate witnesses? Do you have any idea?

Mr. John Duncan: I'm going to let Brian....

Mr. Brian Pallister: It's a little difficult to say right now.

The Chair: Yes, okay.

Am I naive in assuming that the police powers such as they are described in Bill C-35 will tend to be the area where we're likely to see discussion, rather than on the rest of the bill, the vast majority of which talks about diplomatic immunity for people who are under the Vienna Convention and all those technical things? I'm not trying to paint you into a corner; I'm simply trying to get a handle on what people's preoccupations are.

• 0955

Mr. John Duncan: It's one of them.

The Chair: So there are more than that. Okay, well, this will unfold as it unfolds then.

Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I would like to add that in addition to the RCMP issue, there is also the issue of the effect that this bill might have on the international competency of what the bill calls political subdivisions.

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: As you know, as a matter of policy countries grant each other what they are themselves granted. This could have an impact on Quebec's standing internationally. We should be looking at that as well.

[English]

The Chair: Did you check with Ms. Carroll?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Well, perhaps—

The Chair: All right. Thank you. At the present time, the act does not address the issue of institutions such as the OSCE and other institutions that were not established by treaty, and that are not nonetheless legal entities under international law but which are, however, recognized as having a certain diplomatic standing. The idea, then, is to ensure the protection of their employees.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes, but in amending the act, we have made changes in that regard.

The Chair: All right then. Thank you very much.

[English]

So we'd better be ready to spend some time. Reflecting on that, colleagues, would it be crazy to set up a subcommittee dealing with Bill C-35 so we wouldn't—

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, the problem with that is if the subcommittee meets then it means that the whole committee can't meet, and that means that the subcommittees can't meet, because the subcommittee's subcommittee will be meeting. Right now our agenda is limited to Tuesday and Thursday morning. Wednesday afternoon a subcommittee is meeting, and that means we can't meet. Throw another subcommittee at us and it's only going to strip you from your time anyway.

The Chair: You've proven a thesis I have about this place, Mr. Keyes: for every good idea around here, there are a hundred impossibilities to making it work. But I totally agree with what you said. Well, it was an idea, but—

Mr. Stan Keyes: And it still could be an idea if you thought that the subcommittee on this issue, Bill C-35, could meet on say Monday afternoon.

The Chair: I was thinking of Sunday afternoon.

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, Monday afternoon and Monday night are not unreasonable.

The Chair: Mr. Duncan likes that idea, I can tell.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Monday afternoon and Monday night are not unreasonable times, because there are sometimes votes on Monday, as there were yesterday. People are going to be here.

The Chair: We'll have a look at it and make sure that everyone's concerns are accommodated. We're not going to try to do anything to rush it through. I'm just trying to get a handle on where the problems might come from.

Okay, thank you very much, colleagues. I appreciate your help.

Unless there's any other business, we will adjourn and receive our European colleagues who are now going to come in.

• 0958

• 1020

The Chair: We're running a bit late. We always say around here that trying to organize anything around here is like herding cats, but trying to herd cats from two separate jurisdictions is geometrically more difficult.

I want to welcome, on behalf of the members of the committee, our colleagues from the Parliament of the European Union. I'd also like to welcome Her Excellency Madam Smadja, who is the ambassador from the European Union. We like to get ambassadors occasionally because then they remember to invite us to dinner.

Ms. Danièle Smadja (European Union Ambassador to Canada): You have a standing invitation.

The Chair: This is a good thing. Members of the committee will note that, please. A standing invitation has been offered by the European ambassador.

Colleagues, obviously we have a long relationship with Europe. We have watched the formation of the European Union with a great deal of interest. I actually taught European Community law for 20 years, so one watched the tremendous evolution of how Europe has come.... I'd like to say to our European colleagues that they're finally becoming a federal state, but that upsets some folks. I won't let Mr. Sturdy react too much to that. Madam Lalonde likes that analogy too, so there are all sorts of reasons why that's a popular one around here.

We are all celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Canada-Europe framework agreement and we've had a 25th anniversary of Canada-European parliamentary exchanges; this is the 25th year we've had parliamentary exchanges. We know that this group visited British Columbia, and you've discussed immigration, border, and refugee issues, sustainable forestry, and multicultural integration. And in Saskatchewan you were talking about biotechnology. We hope you'll share your impressions of your visit with us.

Clearly, we are together going through an extraordinary period of adjusting to the new security challenges that face our countries. This committee will be studying, in the near future, the issue of North American integration and how it is affected by the new security challenges. I'm sure that in the context of that study we will also be looking at the broader context of Canada's challenges in foreign affairs as they arise in the new situation in which we all find ourselves, and about which we're struggling for answers. I'm sure that your perspectives and your experience in Europe will be very valuable to us in coming to a better understanding of how we can deal with it. Some of you may have been here recently for the NATO conference. I know there was a European Union delegation at the NATO conference; I spoke to some of the members in that group. So we have many things in common and many opportunities to work together.

• 1025

I'm going to stop there and introduce my colleague, Robert Sturdy, who is from the U.K. and is the deputy chair of the Conservatives and is part of the Christian Democrats group within the European Parliament.

Robert, I'd ask you if you could maybe introduce your members or ask your members to just briefly introduce themselves to our committee members. Maybe they could give us an idea of what committees they sit on and then we could move on to getting your reflections on your trip to Canada and we could get a discussion going.

As a way of proceeding, maybe I could suggest that I will recognize and make a note of our members when they want to speak, and maybe you could make a note of your members when they want to speak and we can see if we can work them in together. Would that be all right?

Mr. Robert Sturdy ((U.K.) Chairman, Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats): That's good.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Robert, and welcome.

Mr. Robert Sturdy: Thank you, Minister.

The Chair: I like that. Yes, you're very welcome. We have dinner from the ambassador and I'm already a minister.

Mr. Robert Sturdy: Chairman, then. Thank you very much, Bill, for the welcome, and we look forward obviously to continue working with you.

I won't say too much until my colleagues have had a chance. I see Marianne Thyssen. Actually, I can't see her. I thought she had changed names to Bill Casey.

I'd ask each member to introduce themselves and say which committees they sit on.

Marianne, we'll start with you.

Ms. Marianne Thyssen ((Belgium) Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats): Marianne Thyssen. I'm a member of Parliament from Belgium and I'm sitting on the committee of economic affairs and I'm a suppléante on the environment committee, which also covers dossiers about public health and consumer protection.

Ms. Elspeth Attwooll ((U.K.) Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party): My name is Elspeth Attwooll. I'm from the U.K. My constituency is Scotland. I'm on the fisheries committee, and also employment and social affairs.

Mr. Willi Görlach ((Germany) Group of the Party of European Socialists): My name is Willi Görlach, German member of the European Parliament. I'm a member of the committee of agricultural affairs and a member of the foreign affairs committee. At the moment we are dealing with the enlargement, you will understand that, of nearly all committees.

Ms. Elissa Damiao ((Portugal) Group of the Party of European Socialists): My name is Elissa Damiao. I come from Portugal. My commission is employment and social affairs. I am also on an industrial committee concerned with maritime issues.

Ms. Eva Klamt ((Germany) Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats): My name is Eva Klamt. I'm a German member of the European Parliament. I sit on the committee for justice and home affairs, and since 1999 we have dealt with, as a major issue, immigration, asylum, and refugees. I'm a suppléante on the committee for culture, media, education, sports, and youth.

Ms. Danièle Smadja: I'm Danièle Smadja. I'm not a parliamentarian; I'm just a bureaucrat. But I say bureaucrat with all the glamour that could be attached to it sometimes. I represent the European Commission here in Canada.

The Chair: For members of the committee, they might like to know that Madam Smadja went with me and John Ralston Saul to Niagara last year when it was announced that the Europeans had finally allowed Canadian wine to be imported into Europe, particularly in the form of ice wine, and I would say that the European ambassador was the toast of the town of Niagara. She's now a very popular personality in Canada.

Excellency, if you could do some more about the rest of the wine, you'll even be more popular in the country.

Ms. Agnes Schierhuber ((Austria) Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats): I'm Agnes Schierhuber from Austria. I'm a member of the European Parliament on the agricultural committee and rural development, and I'm very interested in biodiversity and in the other issues relating to the environment and so on. Thank you.

• 1030

Mr. Robert Sturdy: I'll introduce myself now. I'm Robert Sturdy, deputy leader of the British Conservatives in the European Parliament, part of the EPP group. I'm a farmer and I sit on the agriculture committee and the environment committee. And I'm a member of the wine inter-group, so perhaps we can look at that. And I rather like your ice wine.

Chair, would you like me to say a few words briefly about our visit and then perhaps open up the conversation among my members?

The Chair: I'd appreciate that.

Mr. Robert Sturdy: First of all, thank you for the hospitality shown to us. As we've crossed Canada—and we started in Vancouver and moved right across—the hospitality has been tremendous and we've come away with a wonderful feeling. I think we shall leave Canada better for the knowledge of the way in which you behave here and your approach to a number of issues.

We discussed this morning one or two issues, but I'll come to that a little bit later on.

We started looking at your University of B.C. I think there is an opportunity for us to move forward on that with some sort of cross-nationality opening for students, and I want to specifically take that forward.

We then looked at forestry. That was particularly interesting, of course, bearing in mind the problems of export to the European Union. And we have a better understanding of that and hopefully these are the things we can take forward.

Then we moved on to immigration. I think this is where we really started to realize your multicultural society. You are probably, I would guess, the only western country left where you are open to immigration and you have a wonderful multicultural society. That actually reflects your approach to life and the way in which I believe Canadians live, and I think that impressed us tremendously.

I think there are opportunities to take this forward, and at breakfast this morning with the ambassador and other ambassadors we discussed the way in which this group can actually move forward. We intend first of all to have a debriefing with Pascal Lamy when we get back into the European Parliament so that we can discuss the future trade agreements that may be there and perhaps look at the bilateral agreement, which I know Pascal Lamy discussed with you a year and a half ago. We're now looking at the papers you're putting forward, bearing in mind of course that you have America on the doorstep and in any bilateral agreement with the European Union obviously you would have to look at the effects on your relations with the United States.

I also intend to improve the relations now with Canada and what we call the Transatlantic Alliance, or the Transatlantic Policy Network, as it's actually called, which is an organization in the Parliament and is concentrated solely on the U.S. I think we need to perhaps bring Canada into that now. I think that would be good, because we discuss trade relations with Europe and the rest of them.

I also want to look at one item with which we may be able to help. One of my members very succinctly put forward the situation this morning that our generation here in this Parliament are almost European by our background. The next generation will be purely Canadian. Perhaps we ought to look at a closer cultural relationship with the EU to make sure that we keep our relations good between the European Union and Canada. I thought that was perhaps something we could encompass when we look back to the first item, which was the university.

I think the most important thing is that we've learned and that we actually take this forward. As I said, we'll be meeting with Pascal Lamy and also one or two of the other commissioners, Chris Patten, for example, who we hope to get in touch with, because having come here and listened and learned from it.... And I haven't touched on the subject of GMOs because that may be a topic you wish to talk about. It's something I have a particularly personal interest in, and so do a couple of my members, so if you wish to discuss that later that would be fine.

I think it's important that we have learned from this and that we actually build on it. It has been a few years since we've had a cross-border meeting. You came out just last year, but it's some years since the European Union came out to Canada, so we've learned and we have to build on that. I thank you for giving us an opportunity today to discuss it.

I throw the meeting open now, Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

• 1035

I'm not going to go around the room and suggest that our members introduce themselves, because we're rather more numerous than you and perhaps that would take time. Maybe I could signal, however, to our European colleagues that many of us in the room have a direct interest in Europe. I'm not sure whether Mr. Pallister or Mr. Duncan belong to any of the European groups. But Madame Lalonde, for example, is a regular attendee at the European Union, at the Conseil de l'Europe, and Madame Carroll, who is the parliamentary secretary to the minister, has been the vice-chair of our Canada-Europe group for many years and is very familiar with the Council of Europe.

I know Ms. Augustine and Ms. Marleau.... I'm going to give you a copy of a report that we did. A group of us travelled across to the Caucasus in Central Asia. I know you have a common interest in this area. It's obviously not a European country, but the links there are quite interesting. We did an extensive report last year on the Caucasus in Central Asia. I think you might be interested in it. In particular, anyone from your Parliament who is also following the work of the OSCE would be interested in that.

We also have with us our colleague Mac Harb, who is the chair of our trade subcommittee. Mac's committee did a report, Crossing the Atlantic—Expanding the Economic Relationship between Canada and Europe. This is a recent report of that subcommittee that deals with trade relations between Europe and Canada.

There are extra copies of those reports here. If any of the other members of the visiting committee would like to have them, they're up here at the front of the room. Please come and get one after.

We've been doing some recent intensive work in areas where we have interlinks. Following the chairman's remarks, I'd just ask if anybody from our committee would like to make any comments or ask any questions. Then we'll start things going.

We have Madame Marleau and then Madame Augustine and Mr. Pallister.

Ms. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): First of all, let me welcome you. I haven't had the chance to meet with you prior to this morning.

I've been busy listening to Mr. Sturdy speaking on the Transatlantic Policy Network. Following September 11, I know that we're strengthening our legislation on the question of security and terrorists' funds. Perhaps we can use this as an opportunity for all of us to look at the effect of international banking and what we can do with these new laws that are being put into place to control a major corruption.

As you know, next June we will be hosting the G-8 in Alberta. Our prime minister has spoken of putting a focus on Africa. We know, and I'm sure you do as well, of the problem of large amounts of money—the profits of corruption—being cleared through many of our banking systems and going on to safe havens. I think that until we take a hand in stopping some of this, it will continue. Even though we may not want to, we become facilitators if we don't act and act very strictly to prevent this.

I want to know your thoughts on any legislation that will be tightening up on fundraising for terrorists and the transfer of funds, and how we can also work on the corruption file.

The Chair: Mr. Pallister and then Ms. Augustine.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Welcome, as well.

I want to share with you an observation. Perhaps it's a common concern. I come, as does Mr. Harvard, from Manitoba, which is in the centre of the universe and in the centre of this country as well.

Imagine, if you will, in any of your countries a population decrease in your rural areas in the realm of 40% or 50% over a generation or so. Imagine what the impact on your way of life in your rural regions would be as a consequence of that. What you have in Canada today is an example of exactly that. Not solely, but largely, this is a result of subsidization of agriculture in competing jurisdictions, such as in Europe and in the United States.

• 1040

Our average farm size is much larger than it once was. My own brother farms land now that used to be farmed in my father's lifetime by over 20 different families. This is not a unique thing in rural Canada today.

I know, Agnes, that your concerns are with rural development. So are many of us concerned about the direction in which our rural economy is going, and our rural population shift is a very major concern to us. I'd be interested in some observations on how you see us ending this spiral. We see this as a very negative thing in this country, particularly in light of the upcoming U.S. farm bill, which we believe would have an exacerbating effect on what is already a serious problem in our region of this country and in this country as a whole.

The Chair: Madam Augustine.

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

I want to add my words of welcome to the delegation. I had the pleasure of meeting them yesterday at a brief session and was really impressed. I think the European Parliament sent us their best at this point.

I was at a meeting this morning. Since it's on my mind, I will ask the question, because I was impressed not only by the calibre of the speaker, but also by the points that were raised in terms of September 11 and what was happening to small economies.

I know that you do address a whole series of issues. You have your own niches and your own markets and your own community concerns. But where is the European Parliament in terms of your dealings with small economies, such as the Caribbean region and other regions? What funds or what programs of assistance are there? I know in the Canadian setting we have the Canadian International Development Agency that does some work in that area. What is there in the European Parliament?

Mr. Robert Sturdy: We'll answer in a good broad sector.

I'm going to ask Eva Klamt if she can answer Diane Marleau's first question. Then I'll cover the agriculture one. I'll perhaps say a little bit about ACP.

The Chair: Eva.

Ms. Eva Klamt: May I first of all say thank you so much for the hospitality we have had throughout our trip. Also, here in Ottawa we have thoroughly enjoyed our stay and we have learned a lot. I think it very helpful that we have a meeting like this today where we can exchange thoughts and you hear what we are doing.

You talked about what can we do about corruption and about money that goes through the wrong channels. We have passed in the European Parliament a report on money laundering. I think it goes very far for Europe. We had some problems with our lawyers and solicitors, because now everybody has to report on whatever ways money could be used for things such as terrorism, for all kinds of things—whatever wrong way money could be used.

We have really gone a long way and have done a very good report for Europe. We also had an urgency report—a joint action in the European Union—against terrorism. As you know, for us it is always a little bit more difficult to pass these, especially an urgent report on this, because we are 15 member states, so we always say we have to get everybody at the table. But we were a little proud that we managed to pass this urgency report, in which we said that we will stand beside the United States, beside Canada, beside everybody who is standing up against terrorism. So that has gone through in the European Parliament too.

Mr. Robert Sturdy: Thank you.

• 1045

I'll try to answer Brian's question. It's almost impossible to answer. To start with, you talk about decline in the rural areas of Canada. It's exactly the same in the United Kingdom and right across the European Union. Our farming population has almost dwindled to nothing. Whole rural areas are being affected, whether it be the police, the primary schools, the parish priest, or the pub in the village. They're all disappearing and it's having a dramatic effect.

It's almost impossible to say how we combat that. I would just say to you that I run a business—a farming company—which doesn't rely on subsidies, and actually we're doing quite well. Unfortunately, Willi Görlach and I are more free marketeers. We sit on the agriculture committee, but we are a bit of a lone voice.

The major problem—and it's going to be a problem within the discussions on the WTO—is going to be the Americans. Forgive me for saying this. It's probably almost dangerous to attack America today, but I have to say that their proposals to increase the farm bill are actually not really in the spirit of the whole principles that we're looking at within an agricultural policy across the European Union. One wonders exactly where they're trying to head off.

We cannot live in a Dickensian society. Farms are going to get bigger. There is no way you can continue to keep the small farmer. It is a tragedy, I agree, but if you start pouring money into the small farm, then you subsidize the small farmers. You create a position where you lose competition. I think it's bad for the industry.

I agree that we have to look at the whole situation. We are at the moment in the European Parliament looking at such things as multi-functionality—the other way, diversification. Now, there's a limit, particularly for your farmers, as to how much they can diversify.

Our trip to Saskatoon opened up to me one or two new ideas, which I.... I was president of my farmers union before I went into politics. I was pushing very hard for the alternative crops. I think there is an opportunity for agriculture there, but it has to have the political will. Perhaps that means allowing ethanol to be produced without any tax to compete against the oil fuels and also biodiversity in some of the other crops that I understand they're looking at in Saskatoon at the University of Saskatchewan. There are a number of issues.

It's not going to be an easy situation. We're going to go through an extremely difficult time, and one wonders exactly how we're ever going to get out of it. But I believe that with the will and a move on the agriculture committee in the European Parliament to be a freer, more powerful committee—because at the moment we really have very little say in the final legislation.... I won't go through all the long names we use.

I would like very briefly to turn to Madam Augustine. We do have a group in the Parliament called the ACP—African, Caribbean, and Pacific. It looks after funding to help these developing countries right across the world. It is an extremely powerful committee and spends its money, I think, wisely to help these countries.

Also, Pascal Lamy has just put forward a proposal called “Everything but Arms”. I have to say, Brian, that our farmers are up in arms about it, to say the least, because “Everything but Arms” meant that we were rethinking a lot of the agricultural treaties, including for example the sugar agreement. I was involved in the setting up of that agreement in 1976-77. This is what they call the sugar protocol. There we gave a lot of support to some of these countries. For example, Mauritius was bailed out of almost bankruptcy by the sugar protocol. Kenya was one country that took up the sugar protocol and used it wisely.

Yes, we are aware of the problems right across the world. It's something that we will continue to monitor, and through our ACP committee I think we do a good job.

Willi, I was going to bring you in on agriculture, because I know you're quite keen on reforming the common agricultural policies. Do you wish to add something?

• 1050

Mr. Willi Görlach: Yes, I have some remarks.

Robert mentioned at least the relationship to small economies and developing countries. I think we have to do a lot as the European Union to open the market.

If the support leads to a further increase of monocultural plantings, especially on the sugar market, it won't help those countries and it won't help the world market. Therefore, if we try to combine, it will help to open the market. We have to help the small economies to a diversification in their own markets.

It wouldn't make sense if Cuba only produced sugar and was not at the stage to serve their own people fundamental food. This is an example to make clear what we are talking about. I think these discussions must be deepened.

We have a problem, to be honest. It seems we want to protect our market. Don't forget that we have strong rules in agriculture at the European level on food safety, social questions, and ecological questions. Our farmers are getting on barricades if we open the market and ask anyone somewhere in the world to try to develop similar, not the same, standards that we have in the European Union. It is one of the main problems.

It's not useless to discuss this with small economies. I think we have to help them. It means be open, but also help them to move along with their own problems.

The Chair: We'll start our round again.

Maybe I could just jump in. You might be interested in this. I had a meeting recently with some agricultural people. Mr. Lamy's program, “Anything but Arms”, in this country is called “Anything but Farms”. We feel very strongly. I can't speak for the agricultural community, although I always like to say in the Rosedale riding there is a farm: we have Riverdale farm.

Having sat at many of these meetings year after year, we feel squeezed between the giants of Europe and the United States. It's very interesting to hear a comment from you saying the next war on subsidies is being started by the Americans this time. Normally, we perceive it as a European issue. You're quite right. If we're going to urge Europe to reduce its subsidies, we have to make sure we're doing our thing.

Try to export sugar products into the United States from this country. You'll find out something about agricultural protectionism. There are a few other little sacred cows that everyone has in their system. Maybe we could work together on some of them.

You're giving up fox-hunting, Robert, in the country? There was an activity in agricultural England.

Mr. Robert Sturdy: That's a very sore spot with me.

The Chair: He was going to wear his pink coat today, but he didn't put it on.

Madam Lalonde, then Mr. Duncan.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you. We welcome you here. We are pleased to meet you here after having been made to feel so welcome in your own countries.

You can help us. I have two questions. The first concerns our borders.

As you know, because of the current crisis, the United States does not feel it can rely on Canadian policies and on our Canadian system to protect its borders. That is why we saw such line-ups at the border, causing delays that are not only unpleasant but also detrimental to trade.

You are presently facing two situations. Within the European Union, you have the nations that signed the Schengen Agreement. But Great Britain is not alone in not being part of the Schengen Agreement. Would you speak to the issue of security and trade in the countries that have signed the agreement, as well as in the countries that have not? It would be very useful to us, for our own proceedings, to hear from people who have worked on the issue over there.

• 1055

Just out of curiosity, I wonder if you would also speak of the enlargement of the European Union, of the challenges that this creates for the present members of the Union, such as Portugal, and of the need to go quickly, which is to say of the political decision that has recently been taken in that regard.

[English]

The Chair: We'll go to Mr. Duncan. Then we'll go back and get the European response.

I have Ms. Carroll and Mr. Harvard on my list. We'll take them as a group.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you, Bill.

First of all, I'll just explain that I'm from British Columbia. I'm from rural coastal British Columbia, which means forests, not farms.

I did want to make a comment, briefly, about agricultural subsidies from the standpoint that Bill and I are members of the Canada-U.S. group. I deal on the trade section. They very much view their new farm bill as a reaction to European subsidy. It is not a new war, but a way to level the playing ground. It's an observation from our experience with the group.

In my second comment, I would like to pick up on something you said, Robert, in your introduction. You were viewing Canada as the only western country left that's open to immigration. I don't believe Canadians perceive it in that way. Could you round that out for us a little bit? Certainly we perceive ourselves to be open, but I think we perceive other countries to be open as well. Maybe I just misunderstood you.

The third thing I'd like to make reference to is your comment about your time in British Columbia. You talked about the forestry issue. I think you were probably making reference to the pinewood nematode issue in terms of export constraints.

Certainly lumber is obviously our major trade issue right now with the United States. We have a dispute there.

We certainly perceive the pinewood nematode to be a longstanding non-tariff barrier from Europe. Canada is the largest forest exporter in the world. We've lost half our market in Japan in the last five or six years. In our dispute with the U.S. since 1996, the constrained supply from Canada has been substituted from Europe. If you could make some comments, that would be of interest as well.

Thank you.

Mr. Robert Sturdy: Yes.

The Chair: Do you want to take those questions? Then we'll go back to Mr. Harvard and Ms. Carroll.

Mr. Robert Sturdy: Okay, John. Yes, I'll do my best.

We have Eva Klamt here, whose particular interest is immigration. I think we saw, when I said you're the only western one, you are very free with your immigration. You are open to people who have a call for political asylum.

You may well have heard of a place called Sangatte, which is on the French coast on the other side of the channel from the United Kingdom. We're getting something like 300 or 400 people trying to get under the tunnel or over the channel, even in rubber dinghies. Our immigration policy is in a mess, I have to say, not just in the United Kingdom, but I think in Europe. It's causing us problems.

We saw a totally different approach here. But in fairness, you do have the space. I suppose to keep the population even stable you have to have a certain amount of immigration. We looked at it. It was not just the immigration. I think it was the integration that is all part of the process that seems to be very well planned and very carefully thought through. I think it was what impressed us. I'll ask Eva to say a little bit more on that.

• 1100

On the forestry and the pinewood nematode, I came to Canada in 1995 with a delegation to look at your forestry. I was very impressed then, but I've seen huge steps forward in the way in which you've moved on the.... I always say Quelcot Sound; I can never pronounce it.

Mr. John Duncan: Clayoquot. I used to work there.

The Chair: You worked there clear-cutting?

Mr. John Duncan: Yes.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: I just wanted to get that clear to the committee. We're getting this on the record so we know where we're coming from.

Mr. John Duncan: And I make no apologies.

The Chair: I can tell that.

Mr. Robert Sturdy: But isn't it good you've learned from the mistakes?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: One can only hope.

A voice: We learn from our experiences.

Mr. John Duncan: Well, so did I.

Mr. Robert Sturdy: You learned from your experience, that's very common.

I visited sawmills on Vancouver Island and spent a little time looking at forestry, and I've seen huge improvements. The problem with the pinewood nematode is—and I'm going to speak slightly out of turn, as we do have a member of the commission here—I think it's a trade barrier. You imported into the United Kingdom well before, for many years, with the pinewood nematode. It's not something new. But you will remember that Finland joined the European Union, and their concern over the pinewood nematode seemed to bring imports almost to a standstill. I know you're trying very hard to look at what we call kiln drying or heating the timber to make sure it is free, but that's adding expense to a product that is already going up in value.

I think the one thing I saw perhaps more than anything else, leaving the pinewood nematode aside, is the way you're now utilizing an asset. I think it was Marianne who commented on the fact that you're putting out huge expense just to keep, for example, the streams clear. You have barriers around them, depending on the grade of the stream, all adding expense to your production, yet you seem to be almost ostracized in your exports. It is something we shall be taking forward, hopefully, and perhaps putting a point of view forward.

Eva, do you want to mention a bit about immigration?

Ms. Eva Klamt: Yes. It is important for you to know that up until now, all member states within the European Union had, and still have, their own rules and laws for all forms of migration, asylum. And we have a difference: we say “asylum seekers and refugees”, because, for example, we had the war in Bosnia and Kosovo, and those were the refugees who were coming. So the European Union decided we should have harmonization and we should decide on what we call minimum standards for all 15 member states that we all agree on. That's what we have been working on since 1999.

The problem is that Europe has taken very many people coming from what we call third countries, but they are not coming for economic migration. They would like to come for that, but we haven't really opened that door yet.

Austria is the only country that takes officially 6,000 people in for economic migration, but in all other member states you will not find a regulation for economic migration. That means a country like Germany has within the last ten years had two million people who stayed—an average of 200,000 a year, more or less. Many people come in, but they all come in claiming they are either refugees or asylum-seekers. So we said that since we haven't opened the door for economic migration, of course they try to use the other door, because there is no other way to get in. A lot of people who come from poor countries try to seek asylum, but when we check, we find out they're very poor, they have problems.

• 1105

So we said we have to find a way to cut down those numbers but at the same time open the door for economic migration. This is mainly what we are working on. We have already passed quite a few reports, but after the European Parliament passes them, they go to the council—this is how it works in the European Union—and then it's up to the council to decide. They have their discussions on it.

The first thing they have decided on is what will happen if we again have a situation like Kosovo or Bosnia, what we call a mass group coming. All member states have decided on that. It's always very, very difficult. When you look back at what happened after Kosovo and Bosnia, you'll see that Germany—I come from there, so I know this quite well—took more than 50% of all the refugees. But we have 14 more member states. So of course Germany is the country that says, in the Parliament and also in the council, “Hey, we want to share that”.

We also put up a fund, so we have some money for a situation like this. We realize if it really becomes tough again, it won't be enough, but still.... So a poorer country that says they can't do it because they don't have the money would get money out of that fund, but they would also take people into their countries. That's the first step.

We're supposed to finish all this by 2004, but to be honest, it is quite difficult. We sometimes disagree within the different political parties about whether we are really getting down to minimum standards. I come from the EPP group, the European People's Party, and we say if we are too generous in some of these things, we will have the problem of not having enough room left for economic migration.

You know, if you have very open rules for humanitarian help, the member states will say “This is enough”. Now they say “200,000 already?”, in a country like Germany, which is one-third the size of British Columbia, but 80 million people live there. So it gives you a feeling of how people feel in member states where there are a lot of people living close together.

It's just so different from Canada. It's a completely different situation. I envy you for having this space, for being so welcoming—and this is what Robert said. It's great to see this. I wish it could be like this back home in all our member states. But on the other hand, I see there are many people living very close together, and they put their hands up and say, “No more; it's enough already.” I think that gives you a feeling of where we have a problem.

The Chair: Thank you.

So do we want to go back to enlargement?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: And of the borders as well.

[English]

Mr. Robert Sturdy: The frontiers.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: The Schengen countries and the non- Schengen countries.

[English]

The Chair: We have some other questioners, too, other people who want to get in.

Mr. Robert Sturdy: You wanted to cover the Schengen?

[Translation]

Ms. Elissa Damiao: Thank you. I would like to tell Ms. Lalonde that we are currently considering the second report on cohesiveness. As you know, it is a review of the social policies of the European Union. We are now getting ready for the gradual enlargement of the Union, a great challenge for the European Union. The statistics concerning poverty show a marked geographic shift. The poorest countries are no longer the southern countries of the Union but those which border on Germany and Austria to the east.

We should of course add that there are also, in those countries, problems related to matters of professional training and such. As a Portuguese person, I believe we should pursue this policy since it has already brought about many positive changes, but we also foresee further challenges linked, for example, to nations whose gross domestic product is only 44% of that of the richest European regions.

As a result of this policy, the richest regions of Europe are still the richest but the poorest are less poor. Thank you.

• 1110

[English]

Mr. Robert Sturdy: Thank you.

I know Madam Schierhuber would like to speak, and then perhaps we'll go back to our colleagues from Canada.

Ms. Agnes Schierhuber: Thank you very much.

I have a few words about enlargement. You heard the views of my colleague from Portugal. She has another view on enlargement. But I come from Austria, near the Czech border, so I think we must have enlargement in the near future. It's time, and it would be good for both sides—for the new member states and for the old member states. But it must be done quickly.

You must know that Vienna is only 600 kilometres from Sarajevo and 250 kilometres from Budapest. You can see how close this part of Europe is. So we will have it. We will never have the problems we had on the Russian border and on the Czech border where I live. It cannot be better. So it's my thing for the future.

I come back to the forest politics. Forest politics is very important in some countries of the European Union—Finland, Austria, and so on. I think forest politics will be very important in the future for enlargement. We have many forests, so we are very interested in a good market for forests. We have our exports to Japan and other big countries all over the world. So we are in trade together, but I think we can make it together. We must be very fair, open, and transparent with one another. I hope we have a good look at Canada and the European Union.

The Chair: Thank you very much. It's a very interesting dialogue between the two.

I'm going to give it Ms. Carroll and Mr. Harvard next. Then we have three more and that will probably take up our time. Mr. O'Brien will be the last person on the list.

Ms. Carroll and then Mr. Harvard.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to direct a question to Ms. Klamt, as a result of a remark she made. She said the European Parliament did a report, to use her word, on money laundering, and in so doing she had some “trouble with the lawyers”.

When we put the money-laundering legislation into the Canadian Parliament, the lawyers—and the Canadian Bar Association is our national professional association of lawyers, and frequently and very usefully inputs the legislative process—raised considerable concern, as they felt the legislation impacted negatively upon confidentiality and the long tradition of solicitor-client privilege. So I wonder how she addressed that in the European venue.

My second question—since I'm asking quick, short questions, Mr. Chair—is what is the status of a report in the European Parliament?

Thank you.

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

I want to welcome the delegation to this committee meeting.

Ms. Klamt mentioned the population imbalances between countries. It's certainly true that Germany has relatively densely populated areas, and the areas are small. Parts of Canada are just the opposite, with little population and lots of space. I think we could do with some strong economic migrants, especially to the central part of Canada where I live.

By the way, I'm currently chairman of the Canada-United Kingdom Interparliamentary Association, and I look forward, Elspeth, to receiving the minister responsible for Scotland next Monday.

• 1115

I want to address or respond to something Mr. Sturdy said. I represent an urban riding, although I've had some agricultural interests for a number of years. I'm a former chairman of agriculture in the House here, and I currently serve on a task force on future opportunities in farming. I'd like to make a couple of observations.

One, I think all of us are concerned about subsidies. It's something that preys on all of us. Although I have this, perhaps, pessimistic feeling that even if all the subsidies were ended in the United States and Europe, it wouldn't be the great panacea some of us think it would be. There are other more systemic deep problems than subsidies, but I do think Canadian farmers would be better off if they weren't constantly having to deal with subsidies, and perhaps the European farmers would be, too.

My questions are around the following. I think it's very easy to be pessimistic about the vacancies, you might say, you find in rural areas of our countries. In Canada, less than 3% of the population now lives on farms, and, who knows, it could be soon down to 2%. We really wonder what's happening.

I'm wondering if there have been any efforts in the European Union—and if so what kinds of efforts—to decentralize the economies and perhaps have fewer people living in places like Paris and London, and more people just living in rural areas, not engaged in farming or agriculture.

I happen to be an urban person, and I wouldn't care to live in a small community or on a farm, despite the fact that I grew up on a farm. I've been urbanized or citified over the last 40 years, and that's where I want to be. But I'm sure that if governments, the private sector, whomever, did a better job of decentralizing economies, we might find some answers to this emptying of rural communities and rural areas.

On farming, have you made any efforts to simply increase the marketing power of farmers? We look at ways of lowering taxes, lowering input costs, perhaps changing regulations to reduce overheads and so on. But the fact of the matter is—in my opinion anyway—farmers find themselves less than competitive within the food chain.

We always say Canadian farmers are competitive or can be competitive with European farmers and American farmers. But the trouble is that within the food chain, they're not that competitive, or they're weak compared to processors, wholesalers, retailers, and so on. Part of the answer is to somehow give farmers more marketing power, so they can have more muscle to flex when it comes to exacting or drawing better prices for their services and products.

The Chair: Do you want to take those two, or direct them somewhere?

Mr. Robert Sturdy: Let's carry on asking the questions, and then we'll come to answer them later on, unless you want to answer individual questions now.

The Chair: No, that's fine. If you want, I can go through my list, and then everybody can react to everything.

Mr. Robert Sturdy: Yes.

The Chair: I'd like to just draw your attention to one of our colleagues, Gary Pillitteri, who's a member of Parliament and has just came in with some of his constituents. Gary is a wine producer, so he probably heard that Madam Smadja was here and is coming to lobby her already. That's the way this place works. This is a good thing.

If I just go down our list, we have Monsieur Paquette, Madam Jennings, and Mr. O'Brien. Then we can do a kind of wrap-up. Don't forget, colleagues, we're going to have a chance to have lunch together, so those of you who are coming to lunch can pursue the conservation.

Monsieur Paquette, Madam Jennings, Mr. O'Brien, and then we'll cut off the list and go to answers.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to welcome the European delegation.

I would like, first of all, to address the issue of culture and of the negotiations to the ITO. As you probably know, Quebec and the rest of Canada have had their differences, but on the issue of culture and cultural diversity, we are on the same wave length. We are extremely concerned to see that the United States considers culture essentially as entertainment, that is to say as a product much like any other.

• 1120

Canada, along with Quebec and France, on the other hand, consider that they must be free, as states, to implement policies that support and promote their own cultures to ensure that globalization and economic integration do not bring about a homogenization of cultures under the influence of one extremely powerful aspect of American culture.

I would like to know if the European Parliament is concerned with developing a vision of what the proper place culture should be, particularly within the framework of negotiations to the ITO.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs. Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would add my voice to those of my colleagues who bid you welcome here.

I would like to get back to the immigration and refugee issues. You are probably familiar with the system we have here in Canada. We have an Immigration Act to draw immigrants to Canada and we have various categories and in particular one that applies to economic immigrants, what we call independent immigrants, people of the business class. We also have immigrants of the family class; here we provide for sponsorship and for family reunification. Then there is another class which encompasses refugees.

Ms. Klamt, you were saying that Austria is the only country to have regulations or legislation providing for economic immigration. Does this apply to people who are not citizens of a country which belong to the European Union, and who wish to settle in your country? If, for example, as a Canadian, I wanted to emigrate to one of the countries of the European Union, Austria would be the only country with a legislation that allows me to do that while allowing me to obtain citizenship sometime down the road. Is this so? Will the report on the issue of economic migration, currently under consideration by the European Parliament, allow that? I am trying to understand the point you are at as well as your final objective. Are we simply speaking of the right to live and work in a country, or also of the right to become a citizen at some later date, such as we have here in Canada?

As a nation of immigrants, Canada wants not only to attract new people but also to give them the possibility of becoming an integral part of the society. One of the ways of doing that is to grant them citizenship. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for joining the discussion late. I was trying to be at two or three places at once, which we all know about.

If these questions have been asked, just ignore them.

On the anything-but-arms initiative that the EU has taken, and I guess with the potential phase-out of the common agricultural policy, I'm going to disagree with my colleague Mr. Harvard a bit.

I agree with him it's not a panacea if these subsidies end, but any Canadian farmers I talk to sure feel they have a pretty unlevel playing field to compete against—and we don't have to look any farther than the U.S. We simply can't, as a government, compete with those massive subsidies, yet there's a constant call for more from our farmers because of problems they're having with the weather. I think the day that agricultural subsidies end will be a really good day, and I wonder what your view is on the prospect of that in Europe.

Secondly, I guess a lot of us Canadians are concerned to see our trade with Europe declining. You know, 86% or 87% of our trade is with the U.S., and that's not going to change. But I think many of us want to try to do as much as we can to diversify, in terms of culture, and certainly in terms of the economy. We don't like to see our trade with any other part of the world declining, and particularly with Europe. We hold some hope that we may be able to come up with a sort of free trade agreement with Europe. Is this pie in the sky, or is there any case to be made for that from your perspective?

• 1125

Those are my two questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Robert Sturdy: Thank you. I don't know whether we have colleagues who are prepared to answer all the questions, but some of us may have some of the answers.

Pat, we did talk about it before you came in, particularly “Everything but Arms” and Lamy's proposals. You're talking to somebody who's a free marketeer. I will just very briefly say a few words and then hand it over to my colleagues.

Let me go back to what John said about the rural living. I can only speak on this from the U.K. perspective, but it's very similar in other member states. We have a real problem with this, because what is actually happening in the U.K. is that everybody out of the city wants to live in the rural communities. They're buying up the houses. They're paying far more than the people in those villages can possibly afford. It's driving prices higher.

We had a case the other day. One of my employees on my farm was stopped by the police because there had been a complaint about him driving out in the road and there was mud on his wheels. This is the sort of situation we get. Now, it's quite difficult to drive out of a field when it's wet, or when you've been lifting potatoes, and he had actually transferred the mud onto the road. It's one of those things. They were there with a brush and shovel as soon as they could be.

We've just recently been prosecuted because somebody skidded at trying to avoid a tractor. They were driving too fast down the road. We won the case, but these are the sorts of issues we're now getting because of this move from urban to rural.

I totally agree with you. You hit on my hobby horse when you talked about farmers getting more from the marketplace. There I totally agree with you. I moved out of direct agriculture into processing specifically to add value to my products. I think farmers have an opportunity here.

The commission will look at changing the way the support mechanism is paid, perhaps looking at helping cooperatives. Farmers are not very cooperative with each other. They almost see each other as competitors, which has been a problem in the past. I look at some of my colleagues and hope that their fields are wetter than mine so I can get my products onto the market when they can't. It's all because a scarcity increases the value of the crop. Probably the Dutch—and we haven't anybody from the Netherlands here—have led the field in cooperative marketing. It is a very valid point.

Aileen, you asked about a report. Very briefly, the commission first of all puts forward a proposal. The Parliament reads through the proposal and appoints someone, who can be from any party. I'm not going to go into the details. A decision is taken as to who takes that particular report. The reporter then looks at that report, puts forward amendments to the report, and brings it to the relevant committee.

The committee looks at it and brings forward amendments to it. We vote on it in committee, take it forward to what we call our plenary when we meet in Strasbourg, which is 12 times a year. We then vote either for or against the amendments. Groups will decide in blocs which way they're going to vote. So whoever is doing the report will have some idea as to which way it's going to go.

It then in theory goes to council. Here we have a slight problem, because Willi and I on agriculture would like to see, for example, the committee of agriculture having a greater say in what we call a “co-decision procedure”. A lot of the legislation is co-decision, but in agriculture it isn't. The council can overrule the Parliament, and that's where we get the problem with the support mechanism for agriculture.

That's a very brief rundown. I don't wish to hold the fort, but I know Eva Klamt would like to come back. I know Agnes Schierhuber had her hand up first, so I'm going to let Agnes come first.

Ms. Agnes Schierhuber: Thank you very much.

I believe policies for rural development must include elements from sociology, economics, environment, and sustainability. But such policies have big costs, as you must know, and the agri-budget must meet them.

• 1130

I can say for my country—and this is the other view that Robert has given—that in Austria, 65% of the agri-budget goes into rural development policies. It costs my country 66% a month in these areas. You cannot have farmers in these areas if you have no rural development policies. I hope we get in future the chance to have new products by energy and all these things. You'll see in some of the 15 countries how different politics is in Europe, because we have such a tradition, such products, and so on. This is the problem in Europe, and we must go together and make one mind to go to a new conference.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: It is your problem, but perhaps also your strength.

The Chair: It is a strength.

Were you at the meeting when we had Countess Machiavelli, who was an EU member? She was very strong on agricultural protection matters. She described how all the cheeses in Italy would not survive if they were not supported, and things like that. Speller and I had a good lesson on why European civilization and farm subsidies were inextricably linked. So we recognize that there is a dimension to this discussion that is fairly complicated.

Mr. Willi Görlach: May I be allowed a small addition, very brief?

Generally what Agnes told us now is developed to change from the old common agricultural cultural policy to the two-pillar policy. In the past we had more or less only subsidized the products, and if we didn't subsidize the product, we gave compensation pay. In the future, the second pillar means supporting rural areas with and around agricultural policy. This will be the future after a reformed European politics. It means we're shifting more and more from subsidizing to helping all of the area. It's not easy to do, but this more or less is the direction we have agreed on. It has to be worked out for the reform.

It's important for you and for us that in discussing it with the Americans we make clear to them that our direction is based on the belief in a multi-functional agricultural policy. Because we don't only produce food and drink; we produce landscape. We have to take care of the environment and ecological questions. Agriculture is a pillar in the rural areas with a social and a structural function, and that all bunched together forms a second pillar, taking us away from discussing the issue only in terms of subsidized products. That's the future of our development.

The Chair: It sounds very complicated.

Eva.

Ms. Eva Klamt: Now I have a few questions. I'll try to be as brief as possible, but they are quite complex, so it's always a bit difficult to make them really short.

First I'll start with the reports, because this is important to your understanding of how we work. I'll give an example of how we work. The council decides that we have to find a harmonization on immigration, asylum, and so on. This is put down in a treaty. The last one was the Treaty of Amsterdam, because the Treaty of Nice hasn't been signed yet. So it's put down in the treaty.

Then it goes to the commission. They make a draft proposal of one part—like family reunion—one part within the sector. Then at the same time it goes to the European Parliament and to the council so they can see what kind of proposal they have. The European Parliament can now respond to the commission on this by writing a report. It goes to the right committee. One person is selected as the rapporteur, as we call it, who then writes a report that we vote on finally in plenary.

• 1135

This is very important, especially in subjects where we have no co-decision, such as migration. We have no co-decision here, but the commission cannot ignore what we say. It can ignore it once, but not more than once. So I think our reports are really very important and have quite a lot of strength.

We have another possibility, and it's our right of initiative to submit to the executive. But mainly it's a reaction of a draft proposal that comes from the European Parliament.

On the second question, money laundering, Aileen, if I tell you that it was a lawyer who did the report, you can imagine that he was very careful of exactly what you said, because all the bar associations said there has to be the confidentiality.

It was quite difficult to know how to handle that. If you would be interested in how we finally put it, I could e-mail it to you so you get the final result, so that will be easier.

Schengen means for us we have an open market now. That means no more border crossing like you do now from Canada to the United States. It's just open travelling and free travelling for all the citizens within Schengen countries. But to give you an example, when we had the BSE crisis, all trucks were stopped right away from France to Germany. That is possible. Even though you have Schengen and you normally have open markets and free travelling, when a problem arises like terrorism, like BSE, you can close up again and say it's for the national security of all of us. Everybody accepts this, that you can say show your ID card in cases of terrorism, crime, things like this, or BSE, when all the trucks had to go through something. We had BSE in France but not in Germany yet, so we said okay, we'll have to make sure they are not taking something from one member state into the other. So that is possible.

On the last point, can a Canadian come, the answer is yes. What we didn't have is immigration the way you see it. You apply for immigration, you come on in, you're a country that is still looking for new citizens. But you were always able to work in our member states; we called it a working permit. And after some years—it differs, depending on the member states, some have three years, some have five years, some have ten years—you can apply for citizenship and you have a right already now for family reunion. But in each member state we have different rules. Everything is different. But don't worry, I can say that it's never a problem for a Canadian to come. They will never have any problems. Of course, it's more a problem if you have thousands and thousands coming from a country. You will have a lot of problems.

We are also now finding a way for economic migration, because we think it's very important. For us it will be much better, because they're all coming through the back door at the moment, so it will be even better to have economic migration. We say how they come in through Schengen borders, but each member state can of course say we will take 6,000 because we are a small country, we will take 100,000—

Ms. Agnes Schierhuber: It's 8,000.

Ms. Eva Klamt: Yes, it's 8,000, sorry. I got the wrong number from someone in your group.

Member states can then say how many they will take. We will only do things like say how to come into the European Union; this will be something such as what ID card and other things you need. I think that answers most of it.

Mr. Robert Sturdy: Thank you, Eva.

At this stage I'd like to bring Marianne Thyssen in. She is chairman of the food intergroup, is it Marianne? There have been a number of questions concerning agriculture, and perhaps for you to understand part of the way in which the European agricultural policy works I think you need to understand the feeling on the food industry, because we've had a number of pretty nasty food scares within the European Union, the United Kingdom certainly with BSE, and because of that there is to be a new food safety agency set up. I'd like Marianne just to explain this, because it's extremely important and it will help you understand a little bit more about our feelings on imports and everything else.

• 1140

Ms. Marianne Thyssen: Thank you, Robert.

Let me start with telling you that food in Europe is safe, so if you come to us, feel safe there, and if you want to import European foods, there is no problem. But you all know that we have had some food scares in the last couple of years. We have had big problems and they aren't yet solved totally as far as concerns BSE or TSE. We have had problems with dioxins in food; that was a specialty of my country, of Belgium. We have had foot-and-mouth disease, which also causes concerns with consumers, even if it's no problem for food. But it is not a very positive thing when consumers are confronted with all this.

The result is that we see in Europe that consumers don't trust—I'm exaggerating a little bit—food any more. Especially when they hear about new procedures like genetically modifying, then they don't trust it and they don't want it. We see in Europe, in almost all countries, that there is no general social acceptance of GMO food and GMO products. For medical use, people accept it because they don't know what's going on and they see that it can help them, but as far as concerns food, they don't see what is the added value for them to have GMO.

So we have big problems, and no acceptance, and the result is that six out of the fifteen member states apply the safeguard clause of the treaty, which means they don't accept free circulation of goods, of GMO food, for instance. They say it's not good for public health, so we don't want free circulation. The result of all this, even if we already have legislation about authorization of GMO in food, is that there is a general moratorium in the European Union about all this. And now we want to stop this moratorium. To organize that, the European Commission, which always is the initiator of legislative work in Europe, tabled a couple of proposals to make the legislation stronger but to make everything very transparent to the public. And the commission, and also I think the majority of the Parliament, hope that this will make things more acceptable for consumers because they will see that we don't have to hide anything.

How do we try to solve the problem? In a double way, by institutional changes and by legislation. As far as concerns the institutional side, we are building a European food safety agency. You have been told how our legislation procedure works, and we have the second reading now on the European food safety agency. This food safety agency will be responsible for the risk assessments in the GMO authorization procedure.

In terms of legislation, there are two proposals. We have one new directive that has already been voted and that will go into force in October of next year, and there are two new proposals. One proposal is about the authorization procedure for GMO in food and feed, and another one is about labelling and traceability. Authorization will become stronger and it will be necessary to have an authorization licence for food and for feed. And if the feed is intended to become a part of the food chain of human beings, you need two authorizations: you'll have to do the one for the feed and one for the food.

So that's one novelty, I could say. A second thing is that substantial equivalence will no longer be a procedural specificity in the sense that even if you can show that the product is substantially equivalent, and has the same features as a conventional product, you still need an authorization procedure. To inform people what this comes from, is made with, or whatever, even if you don't see it in the final product any more, you need the full authorization procedure.

• 1145

The third novelty is that the authorizations will not be granted any more by member states but only by the European level, a risk assessment by the European food agency, and granting of the licence is also on a European level.

As far as labelling is concerned, there will be a mandatory labelling. We have it already for food, but we don't have authorizations for food. So it's not practised yet, but in the future there will be a mandatory labelling for food and for feed. That's very important. So the principle is that the European consumer has the right to know; we don't have to hide something.

Then there is the fourth important thing, which is traceability. To make it possible to enforce the legislation, you have to know where everything comes from. So traceability is necessary, and it's also necessary to be able to retire products from the market whenever necessary.

What does that mean for you? Well, if there are imports from Canada, from modified canola, for instance, you need an authorization. But once authorized, I think you can find a new market in Europe. Now, nobody wants genetically modified organisms or food produced from them. In the future, it might be possible for you to find a new market, but you have to pass the authorization procedure, because import concerns putting it on the European market.

Traceability will cause more problems, because it means that if you want to export to Europe, you cannot mix up GMO and GMO-free any more, unless you do not want to say it's GMO-free. But traceability is necessary; otherwise, it will be impossible to use these kinds of products in the European food industry.

I think those are the most important things about the proposals in the European Commission.

The Chair: Can I ask a technical question? This seems to me an extraordinarily important transfer of jurisdiction to Brussels. Without putting Robert on the spot, I would have thought a lot of national farmers' organizations and countries might have some trouble with that.

My God, the last time I went to England, they were mad about being told from Brussels what could be in a sausage. What the hell are they going to do when you tell them everything they can produce? Is this meeting a lot of local political resistance?

As a technical question, on top of that, can it be accomplished by regulation, or does it have to be accomplished by directive—in which case, will you require local legislation to implement it, and how long is that going to take you to do?

Ms. Marianne Thyssen: As concerns the European responsibility now, as far as I know, that causes no problems, because we already have all this kind of legislation on a European level.

The directives we have now from the 1990s were made at the European level. The new directive, in which Robert takes a big responsibility in the conciliation committee, is also on the European level. We have novel food regulation from 1997 on the European level. The only thing is, member states do not accept everything—at least their consumers don't. So politicians in member states say we need the safeguard closed because we cannot work and cannot live with this.

What we're trying to do now is to improve legislation by making it stronger, strengthen the legislation, the procedures, and so on, and gain public confidence so that in the member states politicians can again say this is safe, and what we are doing there in Europe is no problem.

You had also a technical question?

The Chair: If you have to achieve it by directive rather than regulation, you're going to have to go through the local parliaments—

Ms. Marianne Thyssen: It's directives.

The Chair: So then there will be some complications in application in different jurisdictions.

Ms. Marianne Thyssen: Yes, but on the other side, if it's a European procedure, you don't have to implement that much, just the way of starting a procedure.

You can start it in a national way, in your own country. You go to your own food agency and table a dossier there. They send it to the European Commission, and then the commission goes to the agency and then it starts the European procedure.

• 1150

The Chair: Yes, but if there's an offence.

Ms. Marianne Thyssen: I'm sorry...?

The Chair: Suppose Robert violates it on his farm and you're going to charge him with not labelling properly. Presumably that has to be applied under an English law. Brussels doesn't have the power to apply criminal law.

Ms. Marianne Thyssen: Then you first go to your own courts and then at the end you come to Luxembourg.

The Chair: Yes, I see.

Mr. Robert Sturdy: I'd add to that, because actually we're trying through the agricultural committee to get a standard of labelling right across the European Union because we need to have traceability. I was just going to say, we have at the moment in the United Kingdom traceability not just to the region, not just to the farm, but to the actual animal. So you can go into a butcher shop and buy a cut of meat and it can be traced to that one animal. That's all a result of our problems with BSE, and all this legislation has arisen basically because of the problems of BSE.

As for it being a directorate, the reason it's a directorate is because a lot of member states already have in place legislation that is more powerful than the legislation that is being proposed by the European Union.

The Chair: We have five minutes left, and if I may, Robert, Mr. Casey was waiting patiently to get in on this. He is mixed in among all those Europeans down there. He's from Nova Scotia, so he's from the closest part to Europe anyway.

Mr. Bill Casey: Right. Really, I'm the closest one.

I have a question I don't know if anybody can answer or not. The European Union has supported the Afghanistan military effort. What's the role of the European Union after the military effort and action ends? Will they play a role in re-establishing Afghanistan?

Mr. Robert Sturdy: Is there anybody from foreign policy? Is there anybody here who deals with foreign policy? Willi.

Mr. Willi Görlach: First, the Parliament supported the activities of the union, of the member states, and the allies. It was the first time I have seen that a Parliament worked out such a common resolution inside I think of about three days. It was less than a week. It was done very fast. But on the other side, not all member states of the European Union are members, or full members, of NATO. Inside NATO you have the Euro crew.

Defence policy, a part of foreign policy, is not a real common policy of the European Union. It's only intergovernmental. It's very different from the agricultural policy. And that makes it a little bit difficult to tell you what is the position of the European Union. We had it this time. But if I remember our problems we had on the Balkans, I don't want to have those times back.

In my answer it shows you what the European Union has to do in developing really a common foreign and defence policy. In the moment we are coming closer together, but we are a little bit far away from a policy that you can call common on defence policy.

Mr. Bill Casey: Do you think you'll have a role in the re-establishment after the military action is over?

Mr. Willi Görlach: I think after the 11th of September even politicians in Europe who have been hesitating in the past to go a little bit faster forward for a common foreign and defence policy will make up their minds to come along in a shorter time. It will nevertheless take a couple of years, but I think we are closer now to having that.

Robert knows the special problems and difficulties in the United Kingdom, but we have signs that even the U.K. is moving on that question. That means something.

Mr. Bill Casey: Thanks.

The Chair: Bob Speller, did you have something you wanted to add and then we'll wind up?

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): I just had a quick question for Marianne in terms of GMOs. And I want to assure you that through our Canadian Food Inspection Agency we have what we believe to be some of the safest food in the world and some of the toughest inspections.

• 1155

In terms of GMOs, how are you defining that? I got a glimpse of you talking of transgenics and then you were talking about plan breeding. GMOs is a very broad range. Do you define it as just transgenic, or do you include all plant breeding?

Ms. Marianne Thyssen: No, not all plant breeding. I would like to have the text here in English just to read it out to you, but if I can tell you by heart, it's when something is genetically modified in a way that normally cannot happen by a natural process. This proposal does not concern the old procedures of breeding.

Mr. Bob Speller: But when you say GMO, it includes all that, so it gives an impression of a food that you're not actually including in it. One of the problems we have in terms of trying to inform people as to what GMOs are is that people use that term. Maybe there should be a new term. It should be transgenic or it should be something else, but GMO relates to all the plant breeding that's been going on forever and ever, and people have been eating this food forever.

Ms. Marianne Thyssen: Yes, of course.

I think what we learned from you also, especially in Saskatoon, is that we have to do a lot more public information, because people don't know anything about it, and if we don't inform them from the political side, it's just NGOs who inform them and they do it their way—in a right way or in a wrong way; they have no responsibility.

Mr. Bob Speller: That's right.

Ms. Marianne Thyssen: So this is something we learned there in Saskatoon, that you can do it yourself in a very good way, because what we saw there was a good example for us.

Mr. Robert Sturdy: If I may briefly add to that, one of my farms was a National Institute of Agricultural Botany station, and I was very much involved in plant breeding and what Marianne is talking about. And what we're concerned about is actually man's manipulation. We used to manipulate by taking a paint brush around and moving pollen from plant to plant, but it's moved on from that. They're putting in genes.

I think what scared the public, as I said, were the problems of feeding animal waste to a bovine animal that was a vegetarian in theory. So there was a problem there that created the BSE crisis.

The major feeling is that normal plant breeding is not a problem. And when we talked to them in Saskatoon, going on from what Marianne said, they said they are looking at new varieties now that are non-GMOs, which will actually replace some of the GMO plants. But you had one multinational company that did great harm in a very short period, particularly in Europe, where it was seen as a multinational company dominating it, and it caused a lot of problems by using it to manipulate their products onto the market. That's off the record, but it's very much the feeling that people felt in Europe.

The Chair: Colleagues, it's 12 o'clock.

On behalf of the committee members, I'd like to thank very much our European colleagues for taking the time to see us and for a very lively, interesting exchange. We really appreciate it. I think this is a wonderful way for us to learn about your issues. I hope you've found it as rewarding as we have.

I found Eva's comments about immigration interesting. I come from an area around downtown Toronto where I have 12,000 people living in a part of my riding where there are 57 different languages spoken. To have somebody come before the committee and say this is good is encouraging, because sometimes we ask ourselves if this is working.

In the city hall of Toronto you can get information now in 101 languages, and there are those who say that it shouldn't be this way, that everybody should function in English or French. And there are those of us who believe that this is in fact creating a new form of a rich society in an ever-interdependent world where in fact these languages and understanding of cultures are going to be more and more important. This is an interesting debate and one we all try to struggle with from our own cultural dimension, our own backgrounds. Your coming here and sharing your experiences today with us in agriculture and every other thing has been very helpful, and we appreciate it. We look forward to other meetings with you.

I hope as many of our members as possible will come to lunch. We have a centre table in the dining room now so we can get a quick lunch with our colleagues and then go on to other business.

Thank you very much.

Last word to our guest. Robert.

Mr. Robert Sturdy: I would like to thank the members of your Parliament who have turned up today. I know, and all of us know, what a busy schedule you all lead and how difficult it often is to get to these meetings because time is very consuming.

• 1200

I would just add one thing, which is I'm a little concerned that a number of your members have slightly confused the European Parliament with the Council of Europe. If I can perhaps in 30 seconds explain, the Council of Europe was set up after the war and has 35 member states, is non-legislative—

A voice: It's forty now.

Mr. Robert Sturdy: Forty.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: It's 43.

Mr. Robert Sturdy: All right, I'm a little bit out of touch. There you are.

The Chair: And some observers.

Mr. Robert Sturdy: Yes. And of course it has no legislative powers, whereas we're democratically elected. We are the legislative body of the European Union.

Thank you very much for sharing the questions and time with us. I think dialogue is always better. We have a saying: It's better to have jaw-jaw than war-war. Let's hope the future continues this way. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Robert.

The meeting is adjourned.