FAIT Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, January 29, 2002

0905

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke--Lakeshore, Lib.))

Mr. Robert Fowler (Personal Representative of the Prime Minister for the G-8 Summit and Personal Representative of the Prime Minister for Africa, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade)

0910

0915

0920

0925

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. Pallister

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. Pallister

0930

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. Pallister

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ)

0935

Mr. Robert Fowler

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Mr. Robert Fowler

0940

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby--Douglas, NDP)

0945

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Robert Fowler

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia, Lib.)

0950

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Robert Fowler

0955

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. John Harvard

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine, Lib.)

1000

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. Robert Fowler

1005

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. Dubé

Mr. Robert Fowler

1010

Mr. Dubé

Mr. Robert Fowler

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

1015

Ms. Carroll

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Ms. Carroll

Mr. Robert Fowler

Ms. Aileen Carroll

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. Svend Robinson

1020

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Robert Fowler

1025

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Robert Fowler

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. Harb

Mr. Robert Fowler

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Ms. Francine Lalonde

1030

Mr. Robert Fowler

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Ms. Aileen Carroll

1035

Mr. Robert Fowler

Ms. Aileen Carroll

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland--Colchester, PC/DR)

Mr. Robert Fowler

1040

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. Casey

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. Bill Casey

1045

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. Bill Casey

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Robert Fowler

1050

Mr. John Harvard

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. Pallister

1055

Mr. Pallister

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. John Harvard

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. Dubé

1100

Mr. Robert Fowler

Mr. Dubé

Mr. Robert Fowler

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

1105

Mr. Robert Fowler

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.)

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. Keyes

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. Dubé

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. Dubé

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

The Clerk of the Committee

1110

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. Gerald Schmitz (Committee Researcher)

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Ms. Aileen Carroll

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Ms. Francine Lalonde

1115

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Clerk

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Clerk

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Mr. Gerald Schmitz

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

1120

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Clerk

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Clerk

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Clerk

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Clerk

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Clerk

Mr. Robinson

The Clerk

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Clerk

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. Bill Casey

1125

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. Dubé

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

NUMBER 053

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Tuesday, January 29, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke--Lakeshore, Lib.)): Good morning and welcome to our first committee meeting of the new year. We hope everyone had a most enjoyable holiday season with family and friends.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are beginning our study of the agenda of the 2002 G-8 Summit. Remember, that was a decision taken on October 16.

As you know, our chairman is now our minister, and as the chairman could not be currently in the chair, as vice-chair I am acting today as the chair of the committee.

I'm glad you approve, Mr. Keyes.

We have our agenda before us. You know that it's in two parts.

We'll begin with our witness from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Mr. Robert Fowler. I think Mr. Fowler is well known to all of us from his past work as our ambassador, as well as from other places where he's represented us. At present he is a personal representative of the Prime Minister for the G-8 Summit, and he's also a personal representative of the Prime Minister for Africa.

So, Mr. Fowler, welcome to our first committee meeting of the year. Please address us, and hopefully the committee will have questions for you after your presentation.

Thank you.

Mr. Robert Fowler (Personal Representative of the Prime Minister for the G-8 Summit and Personal Representative of the Prime Minister for Africa, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It's a pleasure to be here today and it's a pleasure to see you in the chair. You and I have worked together on African issues over a couple of my incarnations, and it's always been a pleasure to work with you.

[Translation]

Madam Chair, members of the committee, on January 1, 2002, Canada assumed the Chair of the G8. I have been asked to act as the Prime Minister's personal representative for the G8 Summit and for Africa. I am therefore responsible for preparing the 28th Summit of leading developed democracies in Kananaskis, Alberta, in June 2002, and for developing the G8 Action Plan for Africa, which will be approved at the Summit.

I am pleased to brief you today on the agenda for the Summit as you begin your essential work, which will be instrumental in contributing substance to the preparatory process which I chair and therefore in preparing the Prime Minister for the Summit.

One cannot underestimate the importance of meetings like the G8. Elected leaders around the world are grappling with difficult challenges which require ever closer cooperation. The challenges we face today can only be addressed by building broad partnerships on both priorities and solutions. Kananaskis presents Canada with a significant opportunity, therefore, to contribute to that goal.

Public discussion and debate of these challenges are essential elements of building these partnerships. The G8 is not about quick fixes - although it can be extremely agile. It provides elected leaders an opportunity to reflect on pressing global challenges, and discuss how best to address them.

It is true that the word “Summit” tends to evoke either images of great pomp and ceremony, or of violent clashes in the streets between demonstrators and police. This has tended to overshadow, I fear, the fact that summits are really about ideas. And it is the opportunity to discuss new ideas and to explore new solutions to current challenges that brings leaders together year after year.

It is also for this reason that the Prime Minister has, with the agreement of his colleagues, asked me to prepare a different Summit, not just a Summit done differently. A Summit which is small, focused and substantive. A Summit of substance not form. These are my marching orders for Kananaskis. Delegations will be small. The setting will be informal. The agenda will be focused.

¿ (0910)

[English]

Madam Chair, I am delighted to be here. As you begin your work, it will offer essential input into the preparatory process, and it will ensure that the summit will be fully informed by the views of Canadians.

The Kananaskis Summit will focus on three global challenges: first, strengthening global economic growth; second, building a new partnership with Africa; third, fighting terrorism.

The G-8 accounts for 48% of the global economy. Summit discussions have focused on the global economy since the beginning of 1975. A dynamic, growing, sustainable global economy is essential to raising living standards and to reducing global poverty.

The Prime Minister has always placed a high priority on making full use of the summit process as a tool to promote prosperity for all Canadians. Leaders will discuss what G-8 governments can do to encourage economic growth and to strengthen confidence in the economic outlook. An important part of that discussion will be how to ensure that growth is truly global and truly sustainable and that no part of the world is excluded utterly from its benefits.

Of course, one summit will not radically alter the conditions in which the poorest of this world live. But we can focus attention and take some initial steps to address the marginalization of the poorest region of the world from the global economy in order to ensure that countries in that region, and their peoples, can see their stake in it growing, and their place in it becoming more secure. This can only be good for global economic prosperity, global security and, therefore, good for Canadians.

This year the Prime Minister and his colleagues have decided to look at the challenge of marginalization of the world's poor through the eyes of the people of Africa. The Prime Minister will be speaking on this issue on Friday of this week at the World Economic Forum in New York, so I will limit myself today to providing you some background on how this issue became so central to the G-8 agenda for this year.

In their summit last year in Genoa, G-8 leaders made a commitment to respond to a remarkable African initiative, then called the New African lnitiative and now called the New Partnership for Africa's Development. It was presented by African leaders to G-8 leaders at Genoa last July. The G-8 commitment is to help build and expand upon this new partnership. G-8 leaders designated personal representatives, a group that I chair, who are now working with committed African leaders on the development of a concrete G-8 Africa action plan to be adopted at Kananaskis next June.

Africa, today, is the only continent where poverty is on the rise. One African in five is in some manner engaged in conflict. In sub-Saharan Africa, almost half the population of nearly 700 million people live on less than $1 a day. Life expectancy in Africa is 47 years, compared to 79 in Africa. It is 16 years lower than the next lowest region in the world and it has declined three years in the last ten. Of the 40 million people worldwide infected with HIV AIDS, more than two-thirds live in sub-Saharan Africa.

I could go on with the litany of truly alarming statistics, but suffice it to say the G-8 leaders agreed with their African counterparts that this widening gap between Africa and the rest of the world cannot be allowed to widen still further.

The new partnership for Africa's development provides a vision to address this gap, one founded on the essential principle that Africa's present circumstances and Africa's destiny are indeed the responsibility of Africans. Thus, the key to progress in Africa lies first and foremost in the hands of Africans, and Africans must take the lead in shaping their own futures. But of course, friends of Africa must help.

¿ (0915)

Let me tell you, then, how we plan to respond. Canada is committed to creating a G-8 Africa action plan, which will be founded in a new partnership and focused on forging an enhanced partnership with those African governments that are demonstrably capable of and committed to helping themselves.

Three follow-up areas of work from Genoa will be particularly relevant in this regard: the G-8 education task force, chaired by the president of CIDA, Len Good; the ongoing work of bridging the digital divide, under the leadership of Industry Canada's deputy, Peter Harder; and our continuing cooperation on the now-established UN global fund for HIV-AIDS, TB, and malaria, called the Global Health Fund.

While the new partnership is not, at its heart, a request for financial assistance, Canada is ready to contribute additional resources, which remain essential, as you're well aware. In the December 10 budget the government created the special $500 million Africa Fund to support the objectives of the new partnership for Africans' development through the implementation of the G-8 Africa action plan. This is, of course, in addition to our regular CIDA funding for Africa. However, no amount of ODA can replace the essential requirement of strong and sustainable economic growth, underpinned by good governance. African leaders understand that to grow, Africa needs far more than official development assistance. Africa needs private sector investment, it needs trade and jobs and entrepreneurship. The new partnership is aimed at putting in place the policies that will alter the perception that investing money in Africa simply doesn't pay.

The G-8 African initiative became even more important and relevant after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the new partnership for Africa's development, at the very outset African leaders stated unequivocally that the continued marginalization of Africa from the globalization process is, in their eyes, a threat to global stability. We must indeed be concerned when states cannot guarantee their own security and the safety of their citizens from terrorist threat, because of poor or inadequate governance.

From as long ago as the late seventies the G-7 and G-8 have been an important forum for discussions on the fight against terrorism, serving as the main catalyst for the negotiation of the 12 UN counter-terrorism conventions. On September 19, G-8 leaders adopted the statement condemning the acts of terrorism in the United States and asking relevant ministers to draw up a list of specific measures to enhance counter-terrorism cooperation. The list includes measures to stop the flow of funds to terrorists, aviation security, stricter controls of arms exports, and security cooperation, among many other things. It is, of course, a bit early to tell what kind of international environment will immediately shape the discussion about terrorism at Kananaskis. Of course, leaders will likely review progress in the fight against terrorism, including implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1373. Broader questions about the best way to fight and prevent terrorism, balancing security and personal freedoms, will remain relevant, though, for many years to come.

A lot of work remains to be done in the months remaining until the summit. Several ministerial meetings will likely also be held, including a foreign ministers' meeting, finance ministers' meetings, meetings of employment ministers and environment ministers and energy ministers and justice and interior ministers. In addition to the official meetings, we believe the G-8 process should support a public debate on the policy issues on the agenda. Therefore, the preparatory process for Kananaskis will include not only formal preparatory meetings among G-8 countries, but also discussions with Canadian citizens, as well as citizens of other G-8 countries, and of course, with our African partners. The results from these discussions will help my colleagues and me prepare for Kananaskis.

¿ (0920)

The most significant of these consultations, Madam Chair, is the study that you and your colleagues will be undertaking. It will be critical to preparing the Prime Minister for the summit, to engaging Canadians in a real discussion of the global challenges the G-8 is designed to address, and to facilitating the peaceful expression of views. I too will be spending a significant amount of time between now and the summit talking to Canadians about my work. I had a session with civil society in Calgary in November, and will be holding several others in different parts of the country in the coming months, as well as similar sessions in some other G-8 capitals and in Africa with my sherpa and African personal representative colleagues.

If you'll allow me, Madam Chair, I have a little bit of advertising. Canada's G-8 website is www.g8.gc.ca, and I think you and the members of the committee will find it an up-to-date source of information on the summit. I encourage you to consider it as a resource and to encourage your constituents to consult it, along with our toll-free number, 1-888-316-2002.

Madam Chair, I thank you for taking the time to hear from me today. I would, of course, be happy to return to this committee at a later date to update you on preparations for the summit, which in some regards, of course, have only begun. In others, we're a little further advanced, including with developments of the G-8 Africa action plan as it progresses. In addition, my staff and I are available for consultation at any time at all.

Thank you for your attention.

¿ (0925)

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Thank you, Ambassador. I must say that your presentation to us, your credibility, and your commitment to the issue give us some assurance as we continue to do our work and make input into your process.

We'll start our questioning with our opposition. Mr. Pallister or Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage--Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Fowler, for your presentation. You alluded to September 11. Forgive me for skipping the more important aspects of this meeting and going to the sort of peripheral aspects, but the cost-benefit ratio, I guess, is something we always have to bear in mind with these meetings. There is certainly a benefit, and you have alluded to that. There are costs as well.

One of the things of concern to me, as a former insurance man, is the recent news that the general insurance companies are changing their contracts to exclude situations that may occur--we hope they don't, of course, but they may occur--around the time of the G-8 meeting, which obviously puts a great burden, a great risk onto the private sector. Damages may not be specifically covered that have been covered in the past. I'm just wondering if this has been a consideration of your group and if there are some provisions that have been made in your planning in regard to the potential for, we hope, not great losses, but considerable losses, if past meetings repeat themselves here again in Calgary and in the area.

Mr. Robert Fowler: Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Pallister.

Mr. Robert Fowler: Sorry, Mr. Pallister, forgive me. I was reading the wrong sign.

Mr. Brian Pallister: That's all right. I can only wish to be Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Robert Fowler: Your question, I think, is timely, but the worst is never certain. I think you're aware that government policy with respect to compensation for these events is constantly evolving. With respect to expenses that the policy force in Calgary, for instance, will have to incur to acquire additional equipment to make themselves able to respond, we have, for the first time, provided advance payments to the Calgary police force, to enable them to acquire the equipment that they might need on the basis of an ongoing negotiation with the relevant departments in Ottawa, principally the Solicitor General, and similarly with the RCMP, etc.

On the specific issue of compensation, you are also aware that government policy is evolving. We have in place a system that would assess claims that were clearly not within the purview of or would not be covered by existing insurance arrangements. We are aware that post-September 11 the insurance industry is revising some of its coverage policy. Obviously that's of concern to us, as well as to people potentially affected, and the government has made clear that we would be prepared to consider claims that are clearly relevant to these particular circumstances and are outside the purview of the normal, commercially available insurance process.

Mr. Brian Pallister: It's pretty clear from the way things are progressing on this front that the government's going to become the insurer and replace the insurance industry on a number of these risks.

I don't want to put you on the spot on numbers...just ballpark.... I know that in Quebec City we covered certain businesses, not just within the perimeter but outside, for loss of business as a consequence of the events that occurred there. Do you have a rough idea of what the costs were in Quebec City, and do you expect the costs in Calgary to be in excess of that?

¿ (0930)

Mr. Robert Fowler: First of all, my understanding is that claims are still being settled in Quebec, so I don't have an idea of what those costs are.

With respect to Calgary, and of course not only Calgary but the Kananaskis region, it's obviously impossible to say. We've made very clear that business directly affected by the security arrangements around Kananaskis.... For instance, a number of businesses on Highway 40 are not going to be able to operate during the time of the summit, and they will be compensated in the already-proven manner. Any other business that can make the case that their activities have been directly impaired by preparations for, or indeed whatever happens at, the summit itself can make use of that claims procedure.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Mr. Fowler, you alluded to other meetings--not the leaders' meetings themselves, but many other meetings--that normally are associated with these types of events. Aren't a number of those meetings going to be held in the surrounding areas such as Calgary, and wouldn't there be the great likelihood that there would be--we hope, of course lawful--protest and that type of thing? But it seems all too often that a few people get in the mix who carry it way too far, and we end up with damages occurring. Don't you anticipate a lot of meetings will be happening in Calgary as well?

Mr. Robert Fowler: Actually, I'm splitting hairs here, and I don't mean to be doing that. The meeting itself will be in Kananaskis.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Of course.

Mr. Robert Fowler: There will be a huge number of people--journalists, overflow delegates, etc.--who will reside in Calgary, and therefore Calgary will indeed be a focus of Kananaskis attention. Should the worst happen, should there be violence and damage despite our considerable efforts and the efforts in particular of the Calgary police and the Mounties to avoid that and to emphasize to Canadians that you can express your views freely and forcefully and effectively without resorting to violence.... Should there still be violence and damage, then of course that same process of assessed claims would be available to the people of Calgary.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

First off, I'd like to welcome Mr. Fowler whom I had the pleasure of meeting during his tenure as Ambassador to the United Nations. I recall the warm welcome he extended to a group of parliamentarians visiting the UN in New York.

On September 12, I immediately requested on behalf of the Bloc Québécois members on the committee that the question of Africa be placed on this committee's agenda as part of the preparatory process for the G8 meeting, to ensure that MPs were actively involved in the process and that they were consulted on the issue.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that the situation in Africa has reached crisis proportions. Mere words cannot begin to describe what is happening on the continent. You rightly state that a single meeting will not suffice to turn the situation around.

I want to be certain that we have an accurate overview of the situation. International aid to Africa has declined. I have here some figures taken from an article that I circulated to all MPS along with my request to have this issue placed on the committee's agenda. According to this article, between 1994 and 1997, international aid levels fell from $23.5 billion to 18.7 billion.

Nor must we forget that Africa is grappling with a number of crises. Several UN missions to Africa have failed. I can recall some rather unpleasant incidents. Several attempts to bring hope and relief to this region have ended in failure.

What do you think this Summit can accomplish for Africa, be it from an economic, social, security or organizational standpoint?

¿ (0935)

Mr. Robert Fowler: Thank you for your question, Ms. Lalonde.

As you know, when I was 20 years old, I went to Rwanda with Father Lévesque. Since then, I have been committed to the African cause. You are quite right in saying that aid levels to Africa have declined. Worse still, the level of interest in, or hope for, this continent has declined as well, particularly over the past several centuries.

Some people have even been heard to say that we should forget about Africa, at least for the time being. Nothing is going right there and we should step back for a few generations, because other ODA investments are more worthwhile. I do not subscribe to this point of view. It's true that the situation throughout most of Africa, particularly Sub-Saharan Africa, is often desperate.

One of the reasons for the decline in ODA levels is that taxpayers have lost hope of seeing the situation turn around one day. They no longer believe that this kind of investment will make a difference.

The Africa Action Plan that I have been asked to draw up for the Kananaskis Summit is aimed at changing paradigms, that is the way people view their actions in Africa. We have planned six meetings with personal representatives of the G8 leaders, two of which have already taken place. The next is slated for Cape Town in two weeks' time. Therefore, it's a little early for me to say exactly how we're going to accomplish this task, but the idea here isn't simply to do more of what we've already been doing. It will come down to making some radical, somewhat controversial choices in an effort to change not just the way aid is dispensed in Africa, but also Africans' perception of their relationship with creditor nations, and in the process, forge a more mature and efficient partnership with Africa. Thank you.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I have two other points to make. Some companies have invested in Africa, but unfortunately, they have only helped to drag out the conflicts. This is true of certain mining companies. The role of the diamond industry in maintaining the state of war, not only in Angola, but also in the Congo, is well known. Furthermore, aid did not flood into Congo following the recent volcanic eruption.

Moreover, can the will of G8 leaders translate into the kind of action that some Quebec newspapers have been calling for, namely a real Marshall Plan? In order for any hope to exist, the means must exist as well. We need to transform this vicious circle into a virtuous plan of action. Hope is possible if we take the necessary steps and demonstrate the will to work together.

Mr. Robert Fowler: One of my goals is to convince our African partners and our fellow citizens that, number one, we will be putting in place a realistic plan, one that will have positive repercussions, but will not raise expectations to the point where the subsequent letdown will be enormous. Admittedly, we have seen this happen in the past.

In my opinion, instituting a Marshall Plan is absolutely not an option. The conditions are not conducive to the success of a plan of this nature. As I recall --and I may be mistaken -- following World War II, the US invested 2 per cent or 3 per cent of its GDP in Europe. Of course, Europe lay in ruins. However, although factories had been destroyed, Europe was a storehouse of knowledge. There was considerable entrepreneurial spirit and industrial know-how and the climate was ripe for investment.

Such is not the case in Africa today. The climate is vastly different from that in post-war Europe. The first thing we need to do is lay the groundwork. The African people also talked about an African renaissance, but their hopes and wishes may have been somewhat premature.

Therefore, we must keep our expectations in check since the resources available for this purpose will be limited, as will be the capability of Africans to absorb these resources. These are two areas in which change is needed.

¿ (0940)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby--Douglas, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair. I too want to join in welcoming Ambassador Fowler. He's been no stranger to this committee over the years.

When we look at previous G-8 declarations, there have been noble declarations, grand pronouncements, about the commitments of the G-8 to eradicate poverty and protect the environment. But I think many of us want to look at actions as opposed to words.

When we look at actions on the issue of foreign aid, for example—if we put Russia aside, given their circumstance—the reality is that the G-7 had an appalling record with respect to ODA. I'm sure Mr. Fowler is well aware of that. Their ratio was most recently 0.19%, while the ratio for non-G-7 countries was about 0.46%, with the United States dead last.

On the environment, we have the United States basically refusing to ratify Kyoto. There was the pretty sad spectacle of the U.S. ambassador to Canada just last week urging that Canada not ratify the Kyoto accord. It was an extraordinary intervention, Madam Chair, by the American ambassador. He said Canada shouldn't ratify Kyoto because United States and Canada should be working together.

This a rich white man's summit. That's what it is, when we look at it. That's the reality of it. There are going to be an awful lot of people outside that summit, including me and many others, who are going to be peacefully saying we have another vision.

I want to take my very few minutes to ask some questions about that. Certainly the crisis in Africa is very real, and Madam Lalonde has spoken of that. I think it's tremendously important that forums for peaceful, non-violent, alternative visions be presented.

First of all, I want to ask Mr. Fowler a very specific question. Many of us were very critical of the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City because it was steeped in corporate sponsorship. There were little receptions. You could wine and dine, and meet the various leaders if you promised to pony up $10,000, $20,000, or $50,000.

Will there be any corporate sponsorship at all at the G-8 summit?

¿ (0945)

Mr. Robert Fowler: No.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Good.

One of the positive elements--and there were not many--of the federal government's role at Quebec City was that the federal government did support, logistically and financially, the people's summit. It was an excellent forum. There were people who came from throughout the hemisphere; there was a series of workshops--some solid work was done in trying to build an alternative.

Will there be any financial support from the federal government for alternative, peaceful fora for discussion at the G-8?

Mr. Robert Fowler: We haven't decided anything yet in that regard, Mr. Robinson. We have received a number of proposals for a variety of what are often called “outreach” activities--supporting alternate summits, tent camps, and various student proposals in and around the University of Calgary or elsewhere. We're looking at all of those with an open mind, but haven't yet taken a decision.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Do you have a budget that would enable you to support those activities?

Mr. Robert Fowler: We're also looking at that. In other words, there is a summit budget being built at the moment, but there is no specific amount of money set aside for this. I think some money could be found if what we're talking about is relatively modest. What our problem, our challenge, is then is weighing the different demands that are coming forward to see which ones--within what will not necessarily be excessive amounts of money available for the purpose--best meet the interests of everybody concerned.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, presumably if you could find tens of millions of dollars for security, one would hope you could also find some money to ensure there is a forum for alternatives.

I want to deal just briefly with the issue of so-called security. There's legislation now before Parliament--Bill C-42--that would enable the federal government to declare an area basically a military security zone. Assuming this legislation is adopted, is it the intention of the government, to the best of your knowledge, to declare the Kananaskis area a military security zone under the provisions of this legislation?

Mr. Robert Fowler: Mr. Robinson, I don't know of such an intention. I wouldn't necessarily know that myself. The RCMP, rather than the defence department, has the principal responsibility for ensuring security. The RCMP, under international law, has an obligation to protect internationally protected persons. Therefore, the RCMP will be designing the security plan. The armed forces will be working in support of the RCMP, but the RCMP will have the lead.

Mr. Svend Robinson: What about the application of Bill C-42 in those circumstances?

Mr. Robert Fowler: As you mentioned, Bill C-42 isn't law; therefore, speculating on whether it would be applied or not is moot.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): That's speculation, and we'll leave this now. Mr. Robinson does know that.

Mr. Robinson, you've used up your time.

Mr. Svend Robinson: If I could just ask one very brief, final question...oh well, put me down for the second round.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): All right, you'll come back in the second round.

We'll now go to Mr. Harvard.

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

I too had the pleasure of meeting you first at the United Nations, Mr. Fowler, and it's nice to see you again.

I wanted to start off by asking you the following. Some of the goals of the conference were set down before September 11, and the world has been preoccupied, of course, with so many of the events subsequent to September 11.

I happen to believe that this G-8 conference is extremely important, especially for the continent of Africa. Do you think there's a great danger that the conference might be hijacked, if that's the word, by the preoccupation the world has with all the events around the tragedies of September 11? It would be nice to believe the world would be listening very closely to everything said and debated about Africa, yet I'm wondering if there may be that diversion.

¿ (0950)

Mr. Robert Fowler: Mr. Harvard, I started my job here in Canada on September 10, after having been told I would be undertaking it about three weeks earlier and after thinking a little bit about it as I prepared to come back from Rome for this period. Certainly, my own thinking changed the next day, on September 11, and I very much shared the preoccupation of your question. In other words, as your ambassador in Italy, I went to Genoa—because the summit was in Italy—to ask and answer all kinds of questions about Italy that never came.

I watched the leaders of Genoa adopt the Africa action plan, and I was truly heartened by that. I was quite excited by the fact that the G-8 was deciding to concentrate on Africa and whether or not that plan would survive September 11. Prime Minister Chrétien was very fast to assure Canadians, in public statements he made immediately following September 11, that items 1 and 3, the economy and terrorism, would not squeeze out item 2, Africa. Prime Minister Blair had a number of African leaders to Chequers for the weekend on September 19.

President Chirac of France has been adamant in a number of public statements he has made that he will maintain the focus on Africa and believes, along with Prime Minister Chrétien and Mr. Blair, that, now more than ever, Africa is important. Next week I'm going to a meeting that Mr. Chirac is chairing with African leaders to make that same point. As I said, Mr. Blair has already done it, and a number of other summit leaders have said the same thing.

So any of those fears that I had shared with you have certainly have been put to rest in my mind. I can assure you that this innovative instrument of personal representatives for Africa—a process in parallel with the regular sherpa process—is taking this mission very seriously, is looking innovatively at the challenges, and is absolutely committed to producing what is our mandate, which is a new, concrete action plan for Africa.

Mr. John Harvard: I hope you're right, but the media around the world is not very easy, and it's not easy to control the media. I think you'll have to come up with an extremely good communications strategy to succeed, and I hope you do.

But there is another possible diversion, and that is, in a word, demonstrators, either at Kananaskis or Calgary, or at points in between those two places. I suppose one way of taking some of the steam out of the demonstrators would be to engage them in some way prior to, before the conference. I would like to know what sorts of plans you have to engage civil society—that's the common term now—so that perhaps those who are given to grievance even before things happen might feel they have been listened to.

Mr. Robert Fowler: Mr. Harvard, just allow me to go back a little bit to the end of your last question.

I can't help but observe that if the media spent more time in Africa it would be much less difficult to convince them of the African imperative. I certainly hope they will do that, and that the attention Africa is getting through the summit initiative and the preparatory process we're all engaged in will cause the media to focus more, and therefore inform Canadians and other populations of summit countries what the African reality is today.

On outreach to Canadians who feel worried about globalization, as I said in my opening remarks, the very first pitch by African leaders, in their new partnership for Africa's development, is not worries about the dark side of globalization, but the deep and abiding concern that globalization will pass them by. Indeed, as my friends in New York would say about globalization, we should be so lucky. They don't have any globalization in Africa, and they desperately need some. They will be selective about the good and the bad of it, exactly as we are.

On outreach to Canadians, the RCMP has an extremely innovative outreach program they have developed over recent events. I met some of their guys who are meeting full-time with communities, interest groups, kids, students, environmentalists, and the full range of what is termed the anti-global movement. I made the precise point you made, that the Canadian government takes very seriously its commitment to its obligation to engage in a transparent process that will allow the free speech and free expression of any citizen.

There's no right to violence. The RCMP is making it clear to these groups--and of course in my own travels and meetings...and I'm sure in your committee hearings you will make the same point--that if they want to put up signs and shout slogans, we don't care what's on the signs. We do care, though, if they feel they have to walk over people's faces to put signs up.

Forgive me for sounding a little Pollyannaish, but wouldn't it be nice if the Canadian summit could be the place where we changed this paradigm too?

¿ (0955)

Mr. John Harvard: Does the fact that Kananaskis is a relatively remote place and you have smaller delegations help you in your preparations?

Mr. Robert Fowler: Above all, I think it will help the meeting. It will allow leaders to do what they go to summits to do, which is talk collectively, in pairs and in smaller groups, and exchange views on these huge overarching issues for more than a couple of minutes at a time. If they're getting in and out of big black cars and walking on red carpets and having gala events, they can't do that. So the choice of Kananaskis is first and foremost a choice of a site that will allow a retreat, in the best sense of the word.

We talked about potential violence and potential damage to property. It will be perhaps easier to manage in Kananaskis, but that's not the principal purpose.

Mr. John Harvard: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Thank you, Mr. Harvard.

Ambassador, both Mr. Casey and Mr. Pallister have more questions, but they also have appointments outside. Hopefully they'll be able to talk to you at some future time. I just wanted to say that on their behalf.

We'll now go to Madam Jennings.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Fowler.

First of all, let me just say how very delighted I am that the Prime Minister and his colleagues decided to focus their attention, as you mentioned, on the marginalization of poor countries, from the standpoint of the people of Africa.

Mr. Robinson claims that we're hearing from wealthy white men. He purports to speak for the people of the world's under-developed nations. From where I stand, he is a white, probably middle-class, male and he doesn't necessarily speak for Africa's civil society.

I'm pleased with the work you and your group are doing as a lead-up to consultations with Canada's so-called civil society. What efforts have been made to consult with the African people, not just the leaders, but members of Africa's civil society?

The reason for my asking this question is that, as you undoubtedly know, I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation. CIDA's reputation is very solid and the agency has sufficient knowledge of, and networks in, Africa to know which agencies could speak for Africa's civil society. That's my first question.

My second question focuses on three areas. You mentioned that the G8 Education Task Force would be chaired by CIDA President Leonard Good. I would imagine some consultations will also be taking place. Do you think it would be a good idea for our committee to ask Mr. Good and the Deputy Industry Minister, if a decision to this effect hasn't already been made, to come and speak to us about the work each one is doing in his respective area?

My third question concerns meetings of foreign ministers with various Canadian ministers, notably the Industry Minister, and so forth. I realize that other G8 countries may not necessarily have ministers responsible for international cooperation, but I'm wondering if similar meetings have taken place with foreign ministers of international development or international cooperation? In your opinion, would it be a good idea to involve the Canadian Minister of International Cooperation very closely in this work?

À (1000)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Madam Jennings, don't use up all your time in questions, because we need some time for the answers.

Mr. Robert Fowler: Thanks, Madam Jennings, for your questions. I'll try to go through them quickly, and then we can fill in later.

Consulting civil society in Africa is vitally important.

The reason I'm speaking in English is that I can be faster in English than in French, so I'm sorry.

We've engaged a guy who's worked with us a lot before--he's a Zimbabwean who lives in Harare--to advise us on consulting civil society in Africa. He is meeting with opinion leaders, civil society groups, think-tanks, etc. throughout Africa to try to make exactly the point you were making.

This is a top-down exercise in Africa, which is complex for us to deal with. I'm spending a lot of time talking about NEPAD, about what it is, and explaining its virtues, and Canadians know it better than Africans. We've continually made that point to our African interlocutors. They only produced a French version of NEPAD about two weeks ago, and that's unfortunate. We're doing everything we can to change that. It is their process; we cannot own it, but we're trying to work with it.

On education, I think it's an excellent idea for your committee if your choose to invite Len Good and Peter Harder to come and talk to you about the Education Task Force and the DOT Force. Len's group is going to produce its report on education, and in this case it's education throughout the least-developed world, the 48 least-developed countries, not just the 36 in Africa. They will report on the cycle that will enable us to wrap their recommendations into our recommendations in the Africa action plan. It's a great idea to have them come by.

As for development ministers, should they join the list of other ministers? As you've said, only half the G-8 countries have development ministers. In fact, in my group of African personal representatives, the development community is very well represented, including some who pass for development ministers in some of the G-8 countries. For instance, my German colleague is the state secretary for development in the German government. Therefore, I think that's being pretty well taken care of.

I cannot stress to you enough how intimately we are working with CIDA. I have two people working with me on Africa, and CIDA is doing most of the work. I was very pleased to meet the new minister the other day and to talk to her about what we're doing. I think we're very much on the same wavelength, and so too is Len Good, an old friend and, I think, an inspired leader of CIDA. Therefore, it's really the same thing in terms of our approach.

Thank you.

À (1005)

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Go ahead, Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ) Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Lalonde spoke of how the need for a study arose. I listened to my Alliance colleague talk about the cost and consequences of demonstrations. For once, I was rather disappointed to hear Mr. Robinson talk in advance about the money he would like for the demonstrators. Mr. Harvard wondered about the media coverage of the G8 Summit. Ms. Jennings spoke of civil society and what role Africans would play.

The focus of the G8 Summit may be Africa, but the Summit is being held in Canada, a country in the northern hemisphere. To my knowledge, no African leader is a member of the G8. I know many people who have worked in Africa, including one fairly close acquaintance for whom this was a lifelong mission. When he retired, he confided in me that the main problem in Africa is not the African people, but outsiders who have attempted to resolve Africa's problems. Recent history bears this out, but we can also harken back to colonial times and slavery.

I'm pleased to hear you say that this will be a different summit , a small, focused and substantive summit. I have two questions for you. In your opinion, what are the substantive issues? And how can this be a summit of substance if Africans are not involved?

Mr. Robert Fowler: As I said, there are three important themes to consider. First of all, we need to consider the economy and how to ensure its growth and guarantee jobs for Canadians and to bring about more prosperity for the Third World, and in this particular instance, for Africa, which is so very different from the rest of the Third World. It's important to remember that we are part of a global world and we cannot accept the gap between developed and developing nations, or allow this gap to widen. It's critical that we guarantee the security of Canadians and other G8 members by looking at ways to fight terrorism. As I see, these are the three critical themes.

You're wondering if Africans will be involved or not in the process. You quoted a colleague who talked about the actions that have failed in Africa. I'm prepared to admit that in the past, we have caused a great deal of harm to Africa, but the different thing about NEPAD, the African initiative, is that it is not full of recriminations about the past, or critical of capitalism, communism, colonialism, imperialism and the like. Rather, this initiative reflects an awareness that Africa's current problems must be resolved here and now by the peoples of Africa. The past is the past and the time has come to look to the future.

Africans have produced their own action plan, or initiative, as a lead-up to the Kananaskis Summit. It's now up to us to respond to the New Partnership for Africa's Development. We are not in negotiations with Africans, although the discussion process with African is ongoing and I meet with officials in various regions of Africa.

The ball is now in our court. It's up to us to respond to their initiative, the NEPAD, a 47-page document containing 200 paragraphs which set out very specific solutions. As I said, now it's our turn to respond. If we truly want to forge a new partnership with Africa, we need African partners. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see some kind of African presence in Kananaskis. However, this possibility still needs to be discussed with our G8 partners.

À (1010)

Mr. Antoine Dubé: As a sub-question, what are the principal demands set out in the African New Partnership initiative?

Mr. Robert Fowler: They have 200 paragraphs worth of demands. Allow me to summarize them for you.

First of all, they acknowledge that the challenge is theirs to face. They recognize that no realistic amount of aid can resolve Africa's problems. That would be impossible. They argue that what Africans need is sustained growth of between 7 per cent and 9 per cent and that only foreign investment will bring about this kind of economic growth. They recognize that current conditions in Africa are not conducive to investment. They admit that even Africans to not invest in Africa. Officially, over 40 per cent of African investments find their way abroad. Unofficially, this figure is much higher.

By their own admission, what matters most is to create a climate conducive to investment in Africa. Achieving this objective calls for a radical change in the way in which African nations are governed. Circumstances and conditions must be such that a CEO of a Canadian company can convince his board of directors that investing several hundred million dollars in Africa is a wise move which could generate substantial returns and that the funds invested would be protected by local laws and regulations.

Generally speaking, these are the kinds of demands that are being made. They acknowledge that real problems like corruption exist. They readily concede as much. They also admit that a peer review process is needed to identify nations that have put such conditions in place, and those that have not.

Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): I'm very aware of the time. So I will ask....

Are you prepared to ask your question briefly? Yes?

À (1015)

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie--Simcoe--Bradford, Lib.): I have several questions. I'm just going to have to pick my favourites.

This has been incredibly interesting, and I'm very grateful for the opportunity. There are many things I would like to ask you, but if I can, I'll just do two quickly. One is a question and one is a comment.

Mr. Fowler, you mention here in your presentation that Africa needs private sector investment, trade, jobs, and entrepreneurship, but what struck me most is that Africa needs peace.

I had the wonderful opportunity to accompany Roméo LeBlanc on a state visit and, in a conversation again, just a wonderful privilege of listening to President Oumar of Mali. He made reference to...I think he was working very much to be a third-party assister there. It was in either Sierra Leone or Angola--I don't think it matters which--but the statistic he gave was this. He said, picture walking down the street--and I'll say in Ottawa--and note that 50% of the people who are coming toward you are amputees. I found that statistic mind-boggling, and I think it reflects what I'm trying to get at. This is what dismays people. This is what creates Madame Lalonde's vicious circle rather than creating the dynamics of a virtuous circle.

I think what you're doing and what we're trying to do at Doha is address that through just treatment. The old saying is, if you want peace, work for justice. All of what we're doing with that initiative through the G-8, all of what we've heard out of Doha with the new emphasis on development, addresses that long-term.

But does this not seem a real barricade? I'd just like to hear you speak on how we develop a system of development for Africa, given that we're in a war-time situation.

For all the others I'm going to have to get....

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Mr. Fowler.

An hon. member: We have to see the ambassador.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: We do.

Mr. Robert Fowler: Needless to say, Madam Chair, with pleasure any time.

Most of my background is in the peace and security area, and I agree with you absolutely. On the other hand, I'm also aware that if you concentrate only on peace and security you'll do nothing else. The dynamics of peace and security are hugely resource intensive and they have the capacity to suck away every resource you could ever make available, and you will still not necessarily solve the problem given a realistic appreciation of what resources may be available. It's a real dilemma. You can't ignore it.

Certainly among the African personal representatives it was the first thing we agreed would be an area of concentration. We couldn't ignore it. But we're not going to build armies in Africa to fight for peace, I don't think, in this context, and the Africans themselves would tell you very forcefully the best road to peace is development. It's a cycle you know well.

One of the interesting things is that when you talk to President Konare about what his views are--and he is a very eloquent gentleman, indeed as many African spokespeople are--on the dilemmas of Africa, one of the dilemmas is that they've been very successful in drawing attention to the plight of Africa. And Africa, certainly at the United Nations, is a very effective political force qua Africa, the 54 African votes in the General Assembly--bang, great discipline.

The trouble with that is that when something goes wrong somewhere in Africa, it's African. In other words, there's very little differentiation made among countries that are caught up and engaged in conflict or, indeed, bad governance and those that are quite different, that have good governance and are working extremely hard to improve their circumstances. So when a wheel falls off somewhere in Africa, we tend to see Africa crash as opposed to differentiation by country.

So to go back to Mr. Dubé's question with respect to the main points of the new partnership for African development proposed by these five innovative African leaders, one of the things they are demanding is differentiation. We are not all the same. We don't all have the same problems. We don't all have the same kinds of governance. We don't all have the same justice systems and regulations, and public servants and norms and practices, and realistically, certainly when you're looking at development, the lowest common denominator approach to Africa doesn't work, and therefore it's an invitation, and it's very controversial, to differentiation.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Just for the record, I need to apologize for using President Konare's first name.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): All right. We'll now go to Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you very much.

Ambassador Fowler has reminded us that Africa has to look to the future. One of the tragedies of course is that there is still this massive debt burden from the past that is just a huge drag on the people of Africa.

I was looking at a document from Oxfam that was calling on the G-8 to launch a global initiative in the area of primary education, and they point out that even after debt relief Zambia is spending a quarter of its national budget on debt alone this year, and that's a country in which one out of every five children isn't going to live until their fifth birthday because of the scourge of AIDS. And more teachers died of AIDS last year than passed through teacher training.

So I do hope the G-8 will also be looking at debt, and obviously one of the key demands of African leaders is to deal very seriously with the issue of debt.

But I wanted to ask a couple of specific questions, again coming back to the summit itself. One is just a factual one. We're going to be embarking on a series of hearings across the country and it would certainly be helpful for the committee if you could table with the committee at the earliest possible time the comprehensive budget for the summit. Ambassador, you indicated there was a budget that was in place, and again I want to reiterate the importance of including in that budget, with the millions of dollars you have, funding that will enable alternative voices and views to be heard as well.

But I assume that you will be able to forward to the committee a copy of that budget, will you?

À (1020)

Mr. Robert Fowler: Indeed, on the budget side, the one problem we have, of course, is that we don't know what the security costs are yet. In other words, we don't exactly know what we're going to put in place; we don't know, in classic security terms, what the threat is that we will be battling against. That will determine, in a significant part, exactly what the security response will be. I simply have no idea yet how many policemen, how many soldiers, will need to be present in Kananaskis.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Subject to that, you do have a budget, you indicated, that you can forward to the committee.

Mr. Robert Fowler: I have a working budget, so absent security, we can let you know what we're working on.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Okay. Since Africa is going to be one of the key priorities at this summit, to what extent will the G-8 leaders be ensuring that African voices are actually heard by them at the summit itself?

Mr. Robert Fowler: Well, I mentioned, Mr. Robinson, in response to Mr. Dubé, that we have a process. First of all, the African proposal is a proposal: they didn't negotiate it with us; they presented it to us. It's a very well considered, carefully constructed document. We are charged with responding to it. That's what the G-8 did at Genoa. This document had been adopted at Lusaka a month previously at the OAU meeting. At Genoa they recognized the innovative nature of it and said they would respond on that basis. They set up this process. At every one of these meetings of our personal representatives, we meet with Africans. We meet with the formal NEPAD--it's an unfortunate acronym, but there it is--steering group. It consists of personal representatives of the African leaders and is--

Mr. Svend Robinson: But I asked about the G-8 meeting itself.

Mr. Robert Fowler: Yes, I know, but I'm in charge of preparing the G-8 meeting. The personal representatives of the G-8 meet with the personal representatives of the African leaders to produce this plan. We're not negotiating with it, we're producing it.

The G-8 is the G-8. Other countries are not members of it. Obviously, in conjunction with our G-8 colleagues--my G-8 colleagues on the sherpa side--we are discussing what would be an appropriate participation of Africans at the summit meeting with respect to the aspect of the summit dealing with Africa. You'll be well aware this is not an issue Canada owns. We are the chair of it, but it is a summit of the eight, and all eight participate in deciding how it works and how it happens.

Mr. Svend Robinson: But what's Canada's position? We're hosting this thing. Are we prepared to invite representatives of African leaders, or African leaders, to be there?

Mr. Robert Fowler: I'm honestly not avoiding your question; I am simply saying that decision isn't ripe yet. Obviously you've heard me stress the importance Mr. Chrétien attaches to the African dimension of this summit. He is very sensitive to the need to forge a new partnership with Africa, with Africans. He has to discuss it with his colleagues. He's doing that.

À (1025)

Mr. Svend Robinson: This will be my last question.

I appreciate that it might not be ripe, but the summit is coming up, and I'm asking what position the Prime Minister is taking with respect to the involvement of African leaders at the summit. I appreciate that the decision has to be made by the whole G-8, but what are we doing? Are we prepared to show leadership and to invite and to suggest to the G-8 that leaders from Africa be invited to participate in the discussions around Africa?

Mr. Robert Fowler: I think I've told you that Mr. Chrétien is very well disposed to the idea of including Africans in some part of the summit.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Harb.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.

Mr. Fowler, I think you are an excellent choice for this file because of your background and your knowledge of it. You said something that struck me as being very true in the sense that what you are doing between now and the summit is working on a concrete action plan. All of your consultations with African nations in practice focus on the development of that concrete plan. To a large extent that corresponds to Mr. Robinson.... In essence, this is exactly what you are doing at this time. It is pretty well your full-time job to do these consultations.

What comes to mind are the two issues that we've been talking about this morning: the economic security of Africans and the personal security of the individuals who live in Africa. And those two-track approaches, as you have nicely outlined, go hand in hand.

My question to you is whether or not you think it's possible for us between now and the summit or the meeting of the G-8 to have the carrot-and-stick type of approach, whereby we could deliver on resolving one or two of the disputes that are now in Africa. One that comes to mind specifically is the whole issue of Sudan, for example. I'm told that through an Egyptian and Libyan initiative all the leaders of Sudan collectively signed an agreement to have peace, and suddenly, after they went back to their bases, they decided not to pursue it any further.

I would like to have your thoughts on this--whether or not you think it's right for the G-8 to establish some sort of conference for the Sudanese leaders once again to say, look, you guys, you already agreed on something here; what is the likelihood of agreeing permanently on it to see whether or not we can deliver some tangible agreement on the security front along with the economic security concrete plan?

Mr. Robert Fowler: Thank you for your question, and needless to say, I share your interest in solving a couple of these deeply wrenching issues. If we could fix the largest country in Africa, it would be a good start.

Do I think this is a role for the G-8? I do not. There are at least three peace plans ongoing at the moment for Sudan. Every one of them has had its ups and downs--more downs than ups. It is an appalling conflict in terms of its damage to people. The numbers are off the scale. It has proven more resistant to outside efforts to help than any that I can think of. But I don't think that's what the G-8 is for. There are other instances, other organs that are better suited to deal with this kind of thing, and they have been notoriously unsuccessful. I think if we can focus on turning our attention to innovative ways of engaging the developed world in Africa, that will be a good start.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Go ahead, Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Fowler, earlier in response to my colleague's question, you stated that fundamentally, it is important to guarantee Canadian jobs and the security of Canadians. Let me put a question to you directly. In order for developed nations to lend any kind of direct, substantial aid to Africa, the public will have to be brought on side. This will require a political effort on the part of parliamentarians. However, I believe some frank dialogue is needed as well.

The following is noted in the paper The New Partnership for Africa's Development in the section entitled “Africa and the Global Revolution”. While it may not yet be too late for genuine integration,

this requires the recognition of global interdependence with regard to production and demand, the environmental base that sustains the planet, cross-border migration, a global financial architecture that rewards good socio-economic management, and global governance that recognizes partnership among all peoples. We hold that it is within the capacity of the international community to create fair and just conditions in which Africa can participate effectively in the global economy and body politic.

This too is a revolution. In fact, this is a call to a number of fundamental changes.

Earlier, you stated that the G8 and the community have a responsibility to heed this call. Is the G8 prepared to do this, rather than put the emphasis first on Canada's security and jobs in Canada?

À (1030)

Mr. Robert Fowler: I would say it is. In fact, it's my job to draft an action plan which responds broadly to the concerns you've raised. This is a critical, even vital, task. The African continent is home to 10 per cent of the world's population and accounts for 1.5 per cent of all global trade generated. If foreigners invest in Africa, it's because they are interested in doing business there. Goods must be sold and markets opened up.

There are other important aspects to this agenda. Canadian jobs are an important consideration. The security of Canadians is important as well, but this is in part a function of global security. I agree with you on this score.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Ms. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I just had a little difficulty with another response, again to Madame Lalonde. I guess she's getting to me today, as usual, in that we frequently come from the same point of departure.

Earlier, when she said this is a reduction in aid that we've witnessed, I think your view was that we're at a time when generally people don't support aid. They don't feel aid is productive, so they're not giving governments the signal to provide it. I have some difficulty with that. I think, instead, that when governments were battling deficits and debts, they tended to carve back in aid as well as in other parts of their budgets.

The reason I have some difficulty with that, again just to perhaps wax intellectual for a moment, is that when Mr. Pettigrew spoke in Montreal in early December, I think to give an update on Doha, he mentioned at that time—I was using his speech recently while talking at the Council of Europe on Doha and WTO matters, so I made reference to it—that a very large percentage of the statements that came out of Doha reflected this need to make development a major focus and priority in order to bring those countries within the circle of trade.

The minister brought up that fact, and in speaking to the audience there, he said the reason he was telling them about this and was reflecting it as a success was that it reflects the Canadian population's support for development. He said it's a very real fact that Canadians do support and promote governments' increasing budgets and doing just exactly what we've described. So, he said, if we're going to gain political support from the Canadian population for the WTO and for international trade, we're going to gain it by making developing nations' needs the focus.

So he's talking about another circle, but indeed he's saying that's how we will promote trade objectives in Canada and gain political support, because we will be reflecting what the Canadian population is saying to us; we're supporting that. We want governments of developed nations to do more.

So I have a difficulty with the response you gave that governments carved back because they were reflecting the electorates' choices. I don't think that's the case. If it is the case, how has it changed so radically in such a short time?

À (1035)

Mr. Robert Fowler: I think it was Mr. Robinson who talked about the aid performance of G-8 countries, which is quite different from, say, the Nordic countries, which have a much higher aid performance.

I have been meeting extensively with the Nordics; I was in Stockholm just before Christmas to talk to them, because they are big players in Africa. They invited me to a meeting of what they liked to call the G.7, rather than the G-7, and I was privileged to be invited to such a meeting. They talked about the fact that, within their populations, there is increasing scrutiny of aid. It's not that the people are less generous, they just want more results. I think the same thing applies in our country. People want to see that it works.

We've been in the aid business for forty years in this country, and, certainly in Africa, there's not a lot to show for it. I would argue—but where does this argument get you?—that if we hadn't been engaged, it would be much worse. That's not an enormously compelling argument, but I think the onus is on us to show better results, to show harder accomplishments.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: You're quite right, Mr. Fowler, but I think we've also learned a lot about how to do aid, and we're doing aid smarter now. I also agree with you that had we not been in the game, however much we made mistakes, things would have been worse.

When I graduated in the sixties--God help me for admitting that--I went to work for what was then the Bureau de l'aide extérieure, and we were doing in-country training. We were creating, as France learned, a brain drain, rather than sending home the educated graduates we had hoped for. We were doing massive capital developments. We've learned a lot since then.

I guess we had to learn how to do aid, just like we've all had to learn in other areas. So I think you make a good point. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): By the way, the foreign affairs committee of the Norwegian Parliament will be visiting here next week, so that will be another opportunity to reflect some of this discussion with the group, as we discuss. We're looking forward to their visit.

Mr. Casey, I think you are on next.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland--Colchester, PC/DR): Mr. Fowler, you must be finding that June is coming very fast. It's amazing, isn't it, how soon it will be here.

In your remarks you said you were responsible for preparing the 28th summit. Are you at the head of the organization chart, in the preparations for the G-8? Could you just give us a thumbnail sketch of the organization for this?

Mr. Robert Fowler: Certainly. I think that's a perfectly fair question.

I have this title of personal representative of the Prime Minister, which in the jargon of the G-8 bureaucracies is called sherpa. My principal assistant is John Klassen, who runs the summit management office. In addition to John, Michael Martin, who I think is here, is the chief policy adviser on the summit, and the other senior individuals are David Angell, who is my chief policy adviser on Africa, and Frances McRae, who is my communications adviser.

À (1040)

Mr. Bill Casey: What about security?

Mr. Robert Fowler: We have a liaison officer with the RCMP, but the RCMP is charged with managing the security of the event. As I mentioned earlier--I'm not sure if you were here--they have that responsibility under international law, and they will decide how best to acquit it.

Mr. Bill Casey: You also said, “the most significant of these consultations is a study you yourselves will be leading”, referring to the committee. What do you see as our role? Will we be allowed to participate, or will we even be invited to be observers at the conference?

Mr. Robert Fowler: Obviously the Prime Minister will make that decision, but I think it is extremely unlikely. There are no observers at the conference.

We talked a little about African participation, and they wouldn't be there as observers. If there were Africans present, they would be there in the context of the Africa action plan and the new partnership with Africa. Ministers do not participate in the summit. There are only leaders and sherpas in the room.

Mr. Bill Casey: You said our consultation will be the most important. What do you want from us?

Mr. Robert Fowler: Of course, Mr. Casey, it's not what I want; it's what the Prime Minister wants. The Prime Minister has asked the committee to collect the views of Canadians on these three principal topics that are on the summit agenda: economic growth, Africa, and counter-terrorism.

It would be extremely useful if, by the end of April--in time to be incorporated into the final planning for the meeting--you were able to offer the Prime Minister advice on what Canadians think and feel about these very large issues. That would be very valuable to him, in putting to his G-8 colleagues the views of Canada.

Mr. Bill Casey: I would think the encouragement of democracy in Africa would be a high priority on your agenda.

Mr. Robert Fowler: Definitely.

Mr. Bill Casey: What steps will you take to do that?

Mr. Robert Fowler: Again, this document we've been quoting back and forth, this new partnership for African development, which was endorsed by the 53 members of the OAU--that's 53 or 54 countries in Africa--spends a lot of time talking about governance and the importance of good governance to economic prosperity. Again, it's early days, having had only two of the six meetings we're going to have in preparing the African action plan, but already governance is emerging as a main theme--indeed, democratic government that is reflective of the will of the people. It can take a lot of forms, but that is the essential element: government that is reflective of and responsive to the will of the people; government that is therefore, above all, accountable for good behaviour, and “throw-outable” if the behaviour isn't like that; and government that will create the conditions that will cause people like us to invest in Africa, to create jobs in Africa, to create wealth, to create trade, and to create exports to allow them to become part of the international system.

So I would be very surprised if a key element of our action plan, of our response, wasn't an effort to assist in the process of encouraging good governance in Africa.

Mr. Bill Casey: The European Union is really coming down on Zimbabwe, with a very aggressive line. Do you think the G-8 might result in some rules for democracy in Africa, or some strong recommendations, with penalties, if the democracy is not honoured?

À (1045)

Mr. Robert Fowler: Again, very much in terms of my answer to the previous question, the G-8 isn't the Security Council, it isn't the OECD, and it isn't the Commonwealth or the General Assembly. A whole lot of things, it isn't. It isn't--and this issue has informed the whole 28-year history of the G-8--a directoire politique. It isn't an executive committee of the UN Security Council.

Mr. Bill Casey: Neither is the European Union.

Mr. Robert Fowler: No, that's right, but what the European Union did is.... I mean, it decides what it will do among that group of countries. I would think it's quite likely that the Commonwealth, at its forthcoming meeting in six weeks or so in Brisbane, will indeed take, or at least contemplate, action that is quite similar to what you propose. The Commonwealth will, virtually certainly, spend a lot of time thinking and worrying about Zimbabwe and what to do about it.

Mr. Bill Casey: Why couldn't the G-8 have the same kind of reaction as the Commonwealth or the European Union? It's still a group of countries, but they could agree on steps and measures they could take, just as the European Union has done.

Mr. Robert Fowler: They could indeed, but half the members of the G-8 are in the European Union, with the president and the.... Actually, five of the people at the table are in the European Union, and they will be taking that kind of action in other circumstances. But the G-8 doesn't feel it's necessary to voice itself on every issue out there. And that's notwithstanding what Canada may decide to do or what Canada at the United Nations may decide to do or what Canada in the Commonwealth may decide to do.

Look, the G-8 may decide to say something about Zimbabwe, but in general it's not that kind of forum.

Mr. Bill Casey: Actually, I didn't mean to focus in on Zimbabwe, but just democracy overall. Without democracy none of the other things would work anyway.

Thanks very much.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Thank you, Mr. Casey.

We will now go to Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I just have one question, Mr. Fowler. Perhaps it's in some way a follow-up of what Ms. Carroll was talking about.

Governments around the world have come up with a way of documenting the costs of taking action. It's not perfect, but we have a way of documenting that. But we're not so good--in fact, I think we're terrible--at documenting the failure to take action, until something terrible happens. Then we take action, but of course it's too late. Perhaps we can attach some costs to the failure of taking action.

Of course, I think of Afghanistan. You may disagree with me, but I think to a great extent, after the Soviets were kicked out, the world pretty well ignored what happened in that country. It descended into civil war and then the Taliban took over. So what do we have today? Now what are we spending as the world?

Of course, almost within hours, the Americans came up with a $40 billion fund or budget for New York. They must be spending billions in Afghanistan itself, and the experts are telling us Afghanistan is going to need $16 billion to somehow go through some rehabilitation program.

You could take that experience and apply it to Africa. You could use all kinds of examples of what's going on in Africa. If we, the world, don't take some action, what sort of a bill are we going to face? Look at what Mugabe is doing in Zimbabwe. I know we're all concerned and we're sort of fumbling about. He's turned into a bit of a monster. If the world somehow doesn't deal with this man, what's going to happen to that country? If it happens in Zimbabwe, where else might it happen?

Don't you think we have to somehow come to a better way of documenting the costs of the failure to take action?

Mr. Robert Fowler: Mr. Harvard, you will appreciate that I agree with everything you're saying. Having spent ten years at the United Nations, we Canadians have spent a long time talking about preventive diplomacy and rapid reaction and the cost of prevention as opposed to the cost of cure. I agree with you completely.

I certainly agree with you about investing in Africa now, and that's why I think the $500 million for Africa in the December budget was terrific. Investing in Africa now makes solid good sense, aside from anything else. Aside from its ethical imperative or anything else, it just is a wise investment. I am unashamed in my belief that intelligently delivered assistance is a step toward something, as long as we are clear, as the Africans are now clear, that the assistance is not in itself going to fix it.

I should have made very clear at the outset that whenever I am speaking of assistance, there are many kinds, but there are basically three: humanitarian assistance, multilateral assistance, and development assistance. Whatever I am talking about, in terms of selectivity, doesn't apply to humanitarian assistance. In the face of volcanoes and floods and famines, humanitarian assistance simply helps people, wherever they need it, whenever they need it.

Development assistance is the investment. It's on development assistance that I think we have to get tougher.

In terms of Mr. Casey's interest and your own interest in Zimbabwe, when the Africans talk about peer review in the NEPAD, this is predicting.... In the context I was discussing earlier of this enormous African solidarity, Africans have recognized in the past that they're not militarily powerful and they're not economically powerful. By exercising severe political discipline within the 54 countries in Africa, they can be politically important. That has tended to argue against peer review. That has tended to diminish the ability of Africans to look across borders and say, “J'accuse”. They are doing that. Africans are now looking at what South Africans and Mr. Mugabe's neighbours are saying within SADCC. They are beginning to do that. That's very important.

If nothing else, Mr. Mugabe's actions in Zimbabwe are having an extremely deleterious effect on investment and tourism throughout the region, and indeed, as we were discussing earlier, throughout the continent. Therefore, that kind of peer review is essential to allow us to disaggregate Africa, in terms of not allowing the situations in some parts of the continent to drag down the rest.

À (1050)

Mr. John Harvard: It reminds me of the old Fram filter commercial, ``You can pay me now or you can pay me later'' and I think very often we choose to pay later, and it's more.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Thank you.

Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you, Mr. Fowler.

I apologize in advance if I'm tilling ground that was tilled previously by a questioner while I was out of the room. I'm sorry if that happens.

We just learned this morning that KPMG did a survey of business costs among 86 cities and determined that Edmonton was the lowest-cost place to do business, so Alberta must be doing something right. I'm sure my colleagues would like to think the federal government is, too, but the last thing we would want would be a black eye for Alberta, for Canada, as a consequence of this event.

The major concern we all have, of course, is for the safety of the participants and the residents in the surrounding area, and that is where my question is going.

I know that the government was open to some attack for using its influence around the time of the APEC meetings, and there was much publicized deliberations by Justice Hughes in that respect. I understand a good balance has to be kept in mind in terms of respecting the responsibilities of the RCMP. In response to Mr. Casey's comments, you mentioned that the RCMP was in charge of security, but there's also good meddling, I think.

We would like to know, and I'm sure all of us would want to be sure, given that this is clearly an event that would, at the very least, conjure up some interest in the sick minds of some terrorist element, that preparations are more than adequate, that they are well under way and that we can be reasonably confident that no such event will take place in and around the G-8 meeting. Can you fill us in a little bit on the preparations? I'm sure you must be aware of much of what is going on.

À (1055)

Mr. Brian Pallister: Mr. Robinson referred to the participants, and I believe the phrase was “rich white guys“. But the fact of the matter is these are the commanders and chiefs of the various western nations that comprise, perhaps, our strongest association, and protection is uppermost in our minds and in the best interests of all of the people of the world.

You can give us no details today and, in part, I understand that. Certainly I think this committee would be wise to learn as much as is possible and as much as can be made available to assure ourselves of the protection of the participants of this meeting and of the protection of the civilians in the surrounding area, given not just recent events vis-à-vis September 11, but previous meetings of this type.

Clearly, there's a tendency or a likelihood, unfortunately, of events occurring at these meetings that we wouldn't like to see occur. Some of those, perhaps, we have to accept as freedom-loving people, some of them we can never accept, so I appreciate your response.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Thank you, Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Svend Robinson: On a point of order, I just wanted to note that I'd be delighted if the commander-in-chief in Canada were to participate. She happens to be an outstanding and eloquent woman of colour.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Thank you.

Mr. John Harvard: I agree.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Ms. Jennings, you had one last question? No? That's it?

Mr. Dubé, one final, brief question.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Earlier, in response to my question about critical considerations, you referred to a document that I didn't have. However, my colleague has passed along a copy of it to me. The document pages aren't numbered, but before paragraph 53.2, mention is made of strengthening democracy and making respect for human rights a number one priority. Africans are admitting that they may have some difficulty controlling companies that may wish to invest in human rights. However, they are appealing to G8 countries which may have greater means at their disposal to control the giants of this world.

Mention is made of a concept that has become increasingly widespread in civil society, namely responsible and fair investments. Could this not be one area on which your study might focus?

Finally, do you have any suggestions for our committee? I realize that you're a diplomat and would not wish to instruct us in any particular course of action, but some suggestions might prove useful as you carry out your work.

Á (1100)

Mr. Robert Fowler: Again, Mr. Dubé, that's a very broad question. As far as responsible investment is concerned, there is no question that this action plan demands certain things of us. I've mainly spoken of our expectations within the African context. We are being asked to invest in a responsible manner and even to provide financial assistance in a responsible manner. The term used is ODA Reform. This is another area that we need to take a closer look at.

I can give you some classic examples. Seven separate missions arrive in Tanzania every day from developed nations with the goal of looking at how our development assistance programs can be implemented. Tanzanian government officials are kept busy filling out forms and meeting the demands of our planners and auditors. The audit function is necessarily vital, but maybe there is room to improve our requirements.

The same is true with respect to investments. It's important that we accept what they are saying in this paper. Of course, we have a responsibility to help them assess, monitor or regulate these investments. However, it is not up to us to resolve the issue of investment exports. Our focus should primarily be on imports.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: How can we help?

Mr. Robert Fowler: First of all, you can let the Prime Minister know in your report which issues are really on the minds of Canadians and those which are likely to arise as you study these broad themes. Since you're asking the question in the context of Africa, I'd really like to know what Canadians think about Africa. What has our collective experience been with Africa? What actions have proven successful? Which initiatives have failed? How knowledgeable are Canadians of the current situation in Africa and how can people's knowledge be enhanced?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Thank you very much, ambassador. You've started us out with information. As we carry through with the rest of the work and as we deliberate and exchange and consult with Canadians, I am sure we will be getting back to you, not only with our inputs, but also with the suggestions we pick up along the way.

Hopefully, this is not the last session we'll have with you; we'll see you again as we carry on this discussion. Bonne chance in the work ahead of you. It's a full agenda. All the very best, and know that this committee is determined to add to the work you're doing.

Thank you for being with us.

Á (1105)

Mr. Robert Fowler: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Okay, we'll begin the second part of our agenda. It says it's an in camera session, but looking at the agenda, I think I will ask whether you want to be in camera, or if the agenda item is such that we could be in open session. How does the committee want to proceed on this?

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Madam Chair, if there's nothing on the agenda that has us speaking about any confidential matters--

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): No, there's nothing.

Mr. Stan Keyes: --I have no objection to staying in open session.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Okay. So we'll have an open session.

A voice: Not open season.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): No, not open season, open session.

The first item I think we need to deal with is a visit of the foreign affairs committee of the Norwegian Parliament, and holding a joint meeting on Tuesday, February 5, followed by a lunch with the committee. We need a motion.

Mr. Stan Keyes: So moved, Madam Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Is there agreement?

Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I would imagine that the delegation will be stopping in others cities besides Ottawa. Would you care to share its itinerary with us?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): The full agenda of the--

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I don't need it this morning, but I would appreciate receiving this information as some point.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Maybe I'll ask Mr. Knowles to speak to the full agenda. All I know is they're meeting with us.

[Translation]

The Clerk of the Committee: Madam Chair, the delegation will arrive on Monday the 4th in the afternoon. In the evening, delegates will dine with a number of parliamentarians. The invitations have already been sent out by the Norwegian ambassador. The following day, Tuesday the 5th, talks have been scheduled for 8:30 a.m. at the Department of Foreign Affairs. At 11 a.m., delegates will sit in on a session of Parliament. A luncheon will follow at 12:30 p.m. During Question Period, they will sit in the Speaker's Gallery. I believe discussions are currently under way to arrange some meetings with certain ministers following Question Period, but nothing has been finalized yet. The delegation will then head off to Washington.

Á (1110)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Thank you.

So that's approved. We'll do the logistics to get that meeting operational and tell you about that.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Secondly, regarding the foreign affairs committee of the Parliament of Croatia, some correspondence has taken place with our chair in terms of their visit. They've given us time lines for when their parliamentarians are free to travel, and we're trying to mesh that with our time lines in terms of our parliamentary breaks. So could we proceed with this?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Thank you.

The third item is the possible afternoon sitting on the North America study. We're looking at Thursday afternoon, February 7. We're putting this on the agenda because we will go into the afternoon. There is a reason for wanting to do both a morning and an afternoon sitting on February 7.

Can I ask you, Gerry, to speak to that reason?

Mr. Gerald Schmitz (Committee Researcher): An important conference is going to be taking place on February 8 and 9, sponsored by the Centre on North American Politics and Society, at Carleton University, which is bringing in international experts as well from the U.S. and Europe.

There are several witnesses in particular whose presence in Ottawa we would like to take advantage of, including Robert Pastor, author of the recent book Toward a North American Community, published by the Institute for International Economics in Washington. He is available on Thursday afternoon. Several of these individuals who are coming for this conference would be available on Thursday afternoon, so the idea was that we could take advantage of them being here.

I think, though, we would probably need a motion to allow the full committee to meet at the same time as the trade subcommittee, because the trade subcommittee--I know Mr. Harb is not here--has hearings planned for next Thursday afternoon. We might need a motion to allow that to take place.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I move that the main committee, the principal committee on foreign affairs and international trade, sit on November 7 in the afternoon--

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: February.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: --February 7, notwithstanding the fact that the subcommittee is scheduled to sit, if the witnesses are available.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Okay. Do we have consensus on this?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Thank you.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Madam Chair, I'd like to ask about one thing that has been raised in quiet conversation here.

The people you are inviting to attend are people of considerable profile, as Gerry has pointed out. I think it's easy to put our hands up and say we're agreed that we're going to hold that Thursday afternoon meeting, but I think there should be an onus on us to replace ourselves with substitutes. I think it will look very poor indeed if we do invite people of that calibre and we have more witnesses than we have members, as has been mentioned.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Thank you for bringing that up, because I remember one session at which the witnesses themselves felt slighted because the committee's attendance was limited.

Fourthly, we have matters relating to the hearing program for North America and the G-8 studies in Ottawa. There was a motion by....

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I would like us to defer consideration of this motion until Mr. Paquette returns from Pôrto Alegre. The Bloc members are eager to speak to the committee. Along with Gilles Duceppe and Yves Rocheleau, I visited Mexico where we focussed on three themes: the social fund, a monetary institute for the Americas and a security perimeter. I think the committee will be interested in hearing what politicians and members of civil society had to say about these themes. We could then table a motion for consideration by the committee.

It was an extremely interesting trip and I think the committee should exchange views more often with the Mexicans and the Americans. Mr. Barruga, who was in Canada two weeks ago, is the Under Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the equivalent to our Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. However, he plays a more political role in Mexico. At the conclusion of the meetings, he proposed that a meeting be arranged between the three foreign affairs committees, that is the Canadian, US and Mexican committees, and that an agenda for the meeting be set in advance.

I think it's an interesting proposal and I intend to discuss it further with Ms. Aileen Carroll, among others.

Á (1115)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Madame Lalonde, that would be a good suggestion to bring before the steering committee, both for approval and for the arrangements.

We'll move on to item 5 on our agenda, which is the invitation of the Mexican ambassador to lunch on February 19, after our briefing on Mexico.

What do we need on this? Do we need approval, or is this just information?

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Approval.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Approval? All right.

Next we look at the matters relating to hearings in Atlantic Canada and Quebec. We did send out a proposed—

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I have a question, Madam Chair. According to the calendar that you have circulated and that I'm seeing for the first time, it appears that two groups will be holding hearings at the same time in Atlantic Canada on two separate questions: continental integration and the G8. Is that what we agreed to?

I realized I missed a steering committee meeting, but did we discuss the possibility of conducting two separate studies at the same time?

The Clerk: Yes, Madam Chair, we discussed that. A motion was sent to the House and on December 2, the House authorized the committee to split into two groups in order to hold hearings in two regions at the same time.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: To split into two groups?

The Clerk: That's correct, Madam Chair.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Could I possibly get more information about the number of hearings scheduled, the number of hearing days and so forth? Could I get a more detailed agenda as soon as possible?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Yes, we will definitely have a detailed program. This is really to get the information, to get some input, to look at dates, to see the itinerary, and to have you, in some way, have this on your agenda.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I have another, equally brief question.

If we know of any witnesses who might be interested... Certain dates have been set aside for the G8, have they not?

[English]

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: Madam Chair, the dates are all set up. What we really need is the input from members. The purpose of putting this out is to get input from members and the reaction from members, as we're really pressed for time now and we have to get these things organized. We certainly do need suggestions for witnesses.

We will be sending out a questionnaire, of course, to invite members to decide which group they'd like to participate in. Obviously, certain decisions will have to be made fairly soon on that. We'll be needing a commitment from the members and decisions from the chair on who goes where. We are very anxious to get input as to who will be the witnesses in each place the committee will be going to.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Okay.

Further material is going to be coming to you. If you can think of witnesses, get that quickly to Stephen. A decision has to be made or else we'll make the decision in terms of who goes where. If you would notice, language facility would be important as we look at the Quebec-Montreal booking.

Á (1120)

Mr. Svend Robinson: Sorry, I have a question, if I may.

Another item that is on our tentative agenda was the week of March 11 to 15, just a little over a month away, the travel to Washington and Mexico City as part of our North American security study. I wonder if we could have some indication from the clerk or staff as to where that's at and what the tentative dates are respectively in Washington and Mexico City.

The Clerk: Madam Chair, of course I've been in touch with the two embassies concerned, and they're anxious to organize a program for us. The intention would be for the committee to arrive in Washington the evening of Sunday, March 10.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So arrive in Washington on Sunday--

The Clerk: Yes, Sunday, March 10. The embassy will be involved in preparing a program, obviously visiting the administration and Congress. The input from the members at this stage would always be appreciated, of course. We would be flying out of Washington on an afternoon flight leaving about 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 12, and we'd be in Mexico City on Wednesday and Thursday, presumably flying back on Friday. At this stage, I have no real program details to propose, but we've been in touch with the two embassies concerned.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Of course, one of the reasons for these dates being proposed by our former chair, Bill Graham, was the meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas, which is taking place in Mexico City around the same time, as I understand it.

What are the dates for that forum?

The Clerk: They'll begin Thursday and Friday of that week--I guess that's March 13 and 14--and then go on. I believe Madame Lalonde would be attending that. You're quite right; the proposal was made to jibe with that. By the way, just for the information of the members, the Houseauthorizes travel on the twelfth. So these dates are fixed by order of the House.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Right. So the FIPA meeting then is....

The Clerk: Thursday and Friday, and into the weekend.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thursday, Friday, and the weekend, or...?

The Clerk: I think it goes into the weekend a bit.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And who is organizing the FIPA meetings?

The Clerk: The secretary of the FIPA group works in the international and interparliamentary affairs secretariat. Her name is Jill Anne Joseph, and she's the one who's doing the organizing work on behalf of the Canadian delegation.

Mr. Svend Robinson: For FIPA.

The Clerk: Yes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): We'll move on to other business. We have before us Mr. Casey.

There is an examination of an Order in Council appointment that's under your name. Is this premature, or can this...?

Mr. Bill Casey: I don't know; is it premature?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Madam Chair, for many reasons we probably want to follow the rules in this case, and the clerk can probably confirm. Since this Order in Council has not been presented in the House and has therefore not been referred to the committee, which is specified at the time of the tabling, then I would think the request is out of order. But once it has been presented to the House, this committee would surely consider a new request from Mr. Casey.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Thank you, Mr. Keyes, because that is where I was heading.

Mr. Bill Casey: My apologies.

Á (1125)

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Have we dealt with point 7 on the agenda?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): No. We have to go back to.... Okay. The motion is to allow sittings when the main committee travels. I thought somehow we had dealt with that when you had that previous motion, but this is more general.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: The motion is, while the main committee is on the road, to allow the subcommittees to continue to hold hearings in Ottawa. I so move.

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Are we on item 8, other questions? I have a question at this time.

I'm not a regular member of this committee. I'm substituting this morning for Mr. Paquette. I have an idea of where my colleague stands on this issue, but I would like to put the following question to the committee.

The question of Palestine and Israel is very timely indeed. Far be it for me to suggest an agenda to the committee, as I'm unfamiliar with its practices and it already has a very full calendar. Without wanting to minimize other priorities, I think this question warrants the committee's consideration at this time, in light of recent developments.

I don't know if Francine wishes to add anything further. I'm not suggesting anything, but I do think that this is an important matter which should be examined by this committee. I don't see who else would do it.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): I think it's an important topic, Mr. Dubé, but we also have a steering committee, and I think maybe this could be an item that could be brought to the steering committee for discussion and to see where and how we can fit it on the agenda.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Just in that light, is there a meeting scheduled for the steering committee next week?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): It's kind of premature. My responsibility today is to get this meeting off the.... So we'll come back to you in terms of the steering committee.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I just want to suggest that we should have one early next week. I think it's quite important. I want to suggest as well that since we do have a new Minister of Foreign Affairs and a new Minister of International Cooperation, it would be valuable for the committee to invite them to appear, obviously separately, on an early occasion.

I haven't spoken with Susan yet, but certainly Bill Graham has indicated his desire to appear before the committee at an early date.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Madam Chair, do we have any idea as to when the chair of this committee will be appointed? I think it's important--

An hon. member: Elected, elected.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Excuse me, you're right; elected by this committee. I think it's important before the steering committee begins looking at very serious new subjects that a new, duly elected chair be in position to provide guidance and leadership.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Okay. What other items do we have on the agenda?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Do we know when the new committee chair is scheduled to be elected?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Well, it's outside of the control of the present vice-chair. I guess the committee will know in good time.

Are there any other items on the agenda? No?

We are adjourned. Thank you very much for your cooperation.