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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, April 18, 2002

0905

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

Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)

0910

0915

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan--Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance)

0920

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day

0925

Mr. Bill Graham

Mr. Stockwell Day

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ)

0930

Mr. Bill Graham

Ms. Francine Lalonde

0935

Mr. Bill Graham

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Mr. Bill Graham

0940

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Bill Graham

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Bill Graham

0945

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Chair

Mr. Bill Graham

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP)

0950

The Chair

0955

Mr. Bill Graham

The Chair

Mr. Bill Graham

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Mr. Bill Graham

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

1045

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

An hon. member

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Schmitz (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

1050

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

1055

The Chair

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

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Schmitz

1100

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

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

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

NUMBER 070

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, April 18, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke--Lakeshore, Lib.)): I see a quorum; therefore, we can begin.

Before we proceed with today's meeting and welcome the minister, I would like to express the condolences of the committee to the families of our soldiers who have made the supreme sacrifice in Afghanistan, and I offer our prayers for the wounded. Let us observe a moment of silence as a mark of recognition and respect for our Canadian Forces serving the cause of peace throughout the world and for the victims of the conflict in the Middle East.

[Editor's Note: A moment of silence observed]

The Chair: Thank you.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), this is consideration of the situation in the Middle East. We want to welcome the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Bill Graham, who is no stranger to this committee.

We want to make sure the members understand that we have ten minutes of questioning per party in the first round. Since the Prime Minister will be making a statement today—and I would imagine other House leaders will be—we have to suspend the round at 9:55, in order to give us an opportunity to get to the House. Therefore, members, I hope you understand we will have to be crisp.

The situation at hand is the Middle East, so the questions to the minister today should focus on the Middle East.

We want to begin, Minister, by asking you to make an opening statement, and then there will be questions from around the table. Thank you.

Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee today, Madam Chair, and particularly for your comments in support of our soldiers who are serving so valiantly in Afghanistan. We join you in offering condolences and sympathy to their families and respect for our troops for the incredible work they are doing in this war against terrorism that we are engaged in Afghanistan. Our support and sympathy goes out to our troops and their families at this time.

Madam Chair, it gives me great pleasure, of course, to return to this committee. As you know, I occupied the chair you're sitting in for a long time. I don't know whether I'm more uncomfortable being at this end than I was at your end, but it's certainly a change. I notice, however, that the committee contains many colleagues with whom I've had the opportunity to work over the years. I look forward to working with Mr. Day in his new capacity, and I appreciate very much being back before the committee.

[Translation]

Day by day, the situation in the Middle East continues on its grim trajectory. Since the current violence began 18 months ago, over 1,500 lives have been lost. But that is only part of the story. It speaks nothing of the many thousands of lives which have been otherwise shattered, or of the trust, so painstakingly accrued through years of negotiations, which has been wiped cleanly from the slate.

[English]

We are all especially saddened by developments when we remember that a negotiated settlement seemed so close at hand only sixteen months ago. Palestinians and Israelis have been offered a choice to continue the current spiral of violence leading to imponderable new scenarios that will institutionalize hostilities and preserve them for generations to come, or to step back from the abyss, and with courage, dedication, and hard work, reclaim the road to peace. The world is asking them to choose the latter.

Everyone recognizes that there is no military solution to this conflict. We recognize that the solution lies first and foremost with the parties. The world also is engaged in their conflict. It has the capacity to widen well beyond the participants themselves, and the world has spoken about its concerns and offered a way out.

[Translation]

It has done so through the adoption, with unparalleled agreement, of three Security Council resolutions in the last month. Canada has endorsed resolutions 1397, 1402 and 1403, which urge the parties to implement a meaningful ceasefire, and which call on Israel to withdraw from Palestinian towns and cities. At the same time, these resolutions demand the cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction.

We have consistently condemned the violence and most particularly the suicide attacks which recently shook the region and we offer our condolences to the victims and the families on both sides of this tragic conflict.

[English]

As a humanitarian situation continues its excruciating decline, it is becoming clearer still—if indeed it was ever in doubt—that there can be no military solution to this conflict. In the words of Albert Einstein, “Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.” It is time for understanding to regain the upper hand in the Middle East.

In this dark hour, Canada continues to be guided by the fundamental principles that have always directed our Middle East policy. Israel has a right to live within secure, recognized boundaries. That remains a fundamental tenet of our policy, as does the support for the creation of an independent and viable Palestinian state. The land-for-peace formula articulated in Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and endorsed by the parties themselves, has long set the stage for a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace.

More recent instruments, including the Tenet plan and the Mitchell report recommendations, point the way back from the brink. While their implementation remains elusive, these plans also enjoy the endorsement of the parties and help to guide Canada's interventions through the current crisis.

[Translation]

Canada strongly supports U.S. efforts aimed at quelling the violence and implementing a ceasefire, and we have closely followed Secretary Powell's visit to the region. The U.S. has a special role to play in ensuring an ongoing dialogue and we have encouraged both parties to work with Secretary Powell and the President's Special Envoy General Zini towards a meaningful ceasefire and the prompt resumption of negotiations towards a political settlement. This is an opportunity that should not be missed.

We believe that the political process can no longer be subordinated to achieving a ceasefire on the ground and that proposals for a regional peace conference deserve consideration.

¿ (0910)

[English]

Another area of increasing international scrutiny is the question of a third-party presence to bring and keep peace in the region. Citing the serious humanitarian and human rights situations, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan suggested last week that a force should be sent to the Middle East to “create a secure environment as well as provide space for diplomatic and political negotiations”.

As the Prime Minister has indicated, if Canada is asked to join such a mission in the region, we will want to go. I have also indicated that we would consider participating in a peacekeeping presence that is agreed to by the parties, and have urged them to take the steps necessary to create an environment in which such a third-party presence could play a constructive role.

In the past, Canada has participated in every peacekeeping mission in this region, and we would be proud to continue this historic role. I believe, Madam Chair—and I hope the members of the committee would agree with me—that this country has the confidence of both parties, and that this would make us acceptable in such a role.

It is important to distinguish our firm support for a third-party role in the appropriate circumstances from other attempts to establish an external presence without the agreement of the parties to the conflict. We continue to believe it is more effective to work at bringing the parties back together than it is to try to impose a solution from the outside.

[Translation]

So far, Canada's own response to the crisis has been direct and multifaceted. I have been in regular contact with the leaders of the region. We have increased our humanitarian assistance, and made diplomatic “démarches” to the appropriate authorities. Many parliamentarians participated in an emergency debate on the Middle East. Canada has put its views directly to the parties and before the world at the United Nations Security Council.

[English]

We have taken concrete steps to prevent terrorist financing in Canada and to address the humanitarian situation in the West Bank and Gaza by increasing the delivery of aid, and we have listened and responded to the passionate concerns of Canadians.

As I said earlier, I have been in contact with Foreign Minister Shimon Peres of Israel and Palestinian Minister Nabil Shaath, to deliver our message directly to the parties. I have also spoken with my Egyptian, Jordanian, and Saudi counterparts to encourage positive messages from moderate Arab voices. And I have been in touch with Secretary of State Colin Powell, EU High Representative Javier Solana, and my G-8 counterparts, to exchange views.

Despite the focus of much of our attention on events in the West Bank and Gaza, we are also very concerned by exchanges across Israel's northern border. We have appealed to all sides to exercise maximum restraint in order to keep the conflict from spilling dangerously into this region of extreme sensitivity.

When I spoke to Minister Shaath last Friday, I told him a definitive end must be put to the suicide bombings. The credibility of the Palestinian cause in searching for an end to the conflict depends on this. I've also called on the Palestinians to bring to justice those responsible for these horrific acts.

Canada has consistently condemned all forms of terrorism. No cause or requirement can ever justify the death of innocent civilians. The use of suicide bombers against innocents is an intolerable offence against humanity, and a tactic that's not acceptable under any circumstances. Chairman Arafat and those in positions of authority must do their utmost to prevent such practices. Indeed, we will continue to call upon the Palestinian Authority to call unequivocally for the end to all violence. Post factum condemnations are just not good enough. Those who use individual acts of terror to prevent progress toward a peaceful settlement must not be allowed to prevail.

Madam Chair, I've also been in touch with a cross-section of Canadians who have a direct interest, in one form or another, in the Middle East conflict. They include Canadians who hail from the region, who have a cultural or religious tie to the Middle East, or who have a humanitarian or organizational interest in what is taking place there. In all cases, I have indicated that no conflict, cause, or principle could justify the disrespect of widely held Canadian values such as tolerance for diversity and respect for others.

As emotions are naturally stirred by the pace of events in the Middle East, blame must not be apportioned, and hate must find no place within this great country of ours. In particular, none of us, in my view, can ignore the totally unacceptable acts of desecration visited on Jewish sites in places such as Saskatoon, Toronto, and Ottawa. I believe all members of this committee join me in deploring and condemning these acts, which threaten our Canadian values.

The grave humanitarian situation in the West Bank and Gaza continues to be a cause of immense concern to Canadians and the government. We are actively monitoring the situation and are voicing our concerns to appropriate authorities. The head of the Canadian Representative Office in Ramallah was part of a recent humanitarian convoy to the town of Jenin, which has seen the worst violence of the current escalation.

In addition, the Canadian Ambassador to Israel has presented a démarche to the Israeli foreign ministry to express Canada's grave concern at the humanitarian situation in the territories. We have indicated to Israel the urgent need to respect emergency medical supplies and to ensure their quick access to victims. We have also expressed our deep concern over obstacles being experienced by humanitarian organizations seeking to assist civilians in need, and have called on Israel to ensure full and unhindered access to food, water, and other essential services, in accordance with its obligation under international and humanitarian law.

¿ (0915)

[Translation]

The onus is on all parties to ensure the protection of civilians and Canada is holding them to their responsibilities. Above all, they have the capacity to fulfill their duties by taking immediate steps to end the violence. Indeed, respect for Security Council resolution 1402 would ensure just that. As we continue to work on the political front, Canada is increasing its humanitarian assistance to meet the basic needs of those who have been most affected by the conflict.

[English]

Since the Oslo Accord was signed in 1993, colleagues, Canada has provided over $215 million in assistance to the Palestinian people. Today, in response to the deteriorating situation, the Canadian International Development Agency is channelling $8 million in further humanitarian assistance through the International Committee of the Red Cross, the United Nations Development Programme, and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East.

In the coming weeks and months, Canada will continue to play a role, pursuing all avenues open to us in order to do so. This summer, Canada will coordinate a G-8 foreign ministers' meeting in response to the crisis and to ensure support for all efforts toward a negotiated solution.

[Translation]

In preparation for that role, I plan to travel to the region to lend Canada's voice to international efforts and to directly urge the parties to take the steps needed to resolve the conflict. Canada stands ready to assist the cause of peace in any way we can.

As always, we will give full consideration to any new requests for assistance and will continue to seek opportunities to make our own distinctive contributions.

[English]

Madam Chair, in conclusion, while the situation in the Middle East has long evaded easy answers, the conflict has rarely been as serious or as far-reaching as it is today. Former Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, who so many of us respected through the years of the 1960s and 1970s, spoke of the optimism so necessary in the face of such dispiriting circumstances. With respect to politics in his troubled region, Prime Minister Ben-Gurion declared, “In Israel, in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles.” At this grave hour, none of us can do less in our determination to search for solutions in this area.

I look forward to your questions, colleagues, but I also look forward to your suggestions as to how I may best represent Canada as we try to influence in all possible ways the search for peace in the Middle East.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister.

With the Minister today is the Assistant Deputy Minister for Africa and the Middle East, Mr. John McNee, as well as the director general of the Middle East and North Africa Bureau, Mr. Donald Sinclair.

Welcome, Mr. Sinclair and Mr. McNee.

Before we go to the opposition, our colleague Mr. Deepak Obhrai has been away for a while. We're very pleased to have him back in good health et en bonne forme.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: We'll now go to Mr. Day.

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan--Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the moment of silence for our troops in acknowledgement of the tragedy in Afghanistan. We appreciate that.

Minister, this is the first time I've had the opportunity to meet with you in committee, but I can inform our colleagues that you have been open and accessible to me in the early stages of my responsibilities. I thank you for that, and also for making available your staff in the department for statistical material and analyses. They have also been very helpful, and I appreciate that.

In the past, I've said there has been a lack in terms of Canadians' understanding of what the foreign policy of the government is. That policy has been less than coherent, but I think the first steps that we have seen from the minister show that he wants it to be more transparent. We appreciate that, and if there is going to be a review upcoming, we think that would also be a good thing. So I congratulate the minister on his first steps here.

In terms of the Middle East conflict, of course, and the Canadian Alliance position, wanting to see a viable and a safe homeland for Palestinians and Israel's right to be recognized as a state and to live without threat from its neighbours are things on which we agree. The Canadian Alliance is in agreement with much of what the minister has said in his statements, wanting to see peace achieved.

I have some thoughts for the second round of questions in terms of some of the long-term approaches there. On something very immediate, though, it's obvious that we don't have a huge influence, but the little things that we do are symbolic as far as Canada's presence and effectiveness are concerned. I therefore must pursue the question related to the terrorist organization Hezbollah and the Canadian Government continuing to allow Hezbollah to raise funds in Canada.

Just to confirm it for the record, I believe the minister is aware that, in 1983, Hezbollah attacked the U.S. and French military barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. During that attack, 200 United States service people and troops, and also some from France, were killed in those suicide bombings, and I believe the minister is also aware of that. Since that time, Hezbollah has attacked the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, Hezbollah has attacked the Israeli Embassy in Argentina, and they continue to attack Israeli civilians in northern Israel in spite of the fact that the UN Secretary General has confirmed that Israel has complied with Resolution 425 and has withdrawn from the Lebanese areas.

I know the minister has said he believes there are both a terrorist arm and a social arm to Hezbollah, and that's why Hezbollah is allowed to continue to raise funds in Canada. We also know that, in Germany in the 1930s, the Nazi Party had a social wing and the Nazi Party also had members elected to the German parliament. But knowing what I know of the minister, had he been the minister in that day, I don't think he would have allowed a so-called social arm of the Nazi Party to raise funds in Canada and send those dollars back to its Nazi counterparts. I don't think for a minute the minister would have countenanced that.

In addressing this question, the minister has indicated that he is aware of these past situations. I think the minister is also aware of the case of Hani El-Sayegh. That one relates to this member of Hezbollah being arrested in Canada in March 1997 for his role in the 1996 terrorist attack on the U.S. military barracks in Khobar, Saudi Arabia. He was given assistance by Hezbollah members in Canada.

In documents filed in the Federal Court, CSIS indicated that dozens of Hezbollah members were active in Canada. To quote just briefly from those documents,

Hezbollah has established an infrastructure in Canada that can assist and support terrorists seeking a safe haven in North America.

Hezbollah members in Canada receive and comply with direction from the Hezbollah leadership hierarchy in Lebanon.

And once again, these statements are in our court documents here in Canada.

¿ (0920)

Further to that, related to the so-called division between the so-called social arm and the military wing of Hezbollah, an adviser to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Dr. Eyal Zisser, a professor at Tel Aviv University has said—and I quote directly:

They are asking for money for food, to build schools and hospitals ... But of course, when the money is sent there

—meaning to the Middle East—

it can be used for one purpose or another.

And the RCMP and CSIS have warned that fundraising for so-called social purposes can find their way into the terrorist organization.

Now, I present all of these things along with the fact that Hezbollah has been indicted in the United States for its cigarette smuggling and in terms of raising funds for the organization that are sent back for the terrorist activities. I think we also have to take into account the quote from the secretary general—we might call him the chairman—of Hezbollah himself—

The Chair: Mr. Day, I hate to interrupt, but do you want an answer? Otherwise, you'll use up all your ten minutes on the question.

Mr. Stockwell Day: No, I've designed it very carefully, Chair. There will be an opportunity for the minister to answer.

The chairman of Hezbollah has said that “the liberation of Palestine and Jerusalem form the Hizballah's principal belief, and as such they are more sacred than a set goal”, and that Hezbollah “will invest efforts in formulating our opposition to normalization”—in other words, they don't want to see peace—“in order to perpetuate the isolation and siege of Israel”.

So, Madam Chair, with all of this evidence—and this is just one area of evidence—I'm asking if the minister would please discuss this with his officials and with the RCMP and CSIS, and if they would please reconsider their decision to allow Hezbollah to continue to fund raise in Canada. I appreciate that Hamas, for instance, has been totally banned from fundraising, but will he please extend that to this other terrorist group, Hezbollah? Would he at least reconsider this and discuss it with the RCMP and CSIS?

¿ (0925)

Mr. Bill Graham: Well, thank you very much for the questions, because I think it's opportune for us to have an opportunity to have this discussion and to review our policies.

I certainly agree with the opening comments you made about the acts of Hezbollah. Of course, that's why we have listed Hezbollah as a terrorist organization in this country and why we ban any raising of funds in this country for Hezbollah that are going to be used for their military activities. That's exactly the reason; it's the same reason we put Hamas on the list.

My conclusion will be that we have actively listed all terrorist organizations in Canada. We will continue to do so, and we will of course be open to reviewing our policy if, in fact, evidence is brought to us about military activities. So I just want to leave it with you, Mr. Day, that what we have done...as you know, we have listed Hezbollah, but we have allowed fundraising for social and humanitarian purposes for, if I may suggest them to you, two reasons.

We live in a free and democratic society, and there are citizens in this country who want to give humanitarian aid to families, to people back where they came from. Will we interfere with those people and with Canadian citizens and their rights in the absence of clear evidence that what they are doing is contrary to international law and our law? That is where the government is coming from. That is why we have made this distinction. That is why we have not followed exactly what the United States has done, and why we have done what the British have done. As you know, the Europeans are examining this too. My view is that they may or may not list Hezbollah or some part of it. But this is the balance that we are seeking to achieve.

But I go back to what I said to you earlier. I don't think the Nazi analogy is good. I prefer my analogy to Sinn Fein and the IRA. We want to support the political process, and we want allow Canadians who wish to support the political process for peace to do so. However, that said, I want to assure the member and my colleagues that we are open to examining this, of course.

I have instructed our ambassador in Lebanon to make contacts and to look at where the funds are being used. Is there any evidence that funds raised in Canada are going towards terrorist activities or military activities? If, in fact, we have evidence of that, we will review it. We have constantly been reviewing our policies. We've reviewed them several times since the terrible events of September 11, and of course we'll continue to do that. And we certainly will examine any evidence that you have personally, that your party has, or that any other Canadians who come forth have. We're ready to do so, and would act firmly if we obtain evidence that this should be done.

Mr. Stockwell Day: I appreciate the minister's willingness to review, but I will say again that I believe the evidence is clear. In fact, it's somewhat overwhelming, especially as it is related from the RCMP and CSIS in terms of the danger. Other terrorist organizations in Canada have been banned from even social fundraising, no matter how badly they want to send money to their relatives. I would ask that the same thing be extended in this case.

I appreciate that you're willing to review this. Of course, we will continue to be in pursuit of further evidence. I think the evidence is quite compelling now, but we will continue to pursue it. I thank the minister for at least acknowledging that he's open to reviewing this.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Day.

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde, please.

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

First, I would like to take this opportunity to offer my condolences to the families of the Canadian soldiers who were bombed by a friendly country in extremely disturbing circumstances.

Mr. Minister, I would also like to congratulate you officially on your appointment before this committee, of which you were an esteemed chairman. I wish you courage, imagination and strength in these difficult times.

With colleagues, we went to the United States to take part in a study on continental integration, and two eminent research groups, CSIS and Woodrow Wilson, told us that Canada had to speak out and that it had to speak with a strong voice, that it had an influence which it perhaps thought it might not have. So I expect this minister will have that strong voice.

My first question is this. Don't you think there is some urgency as a result of the failure--and that's how it must be called--of Colin Powell? This is what is apparent from the foreign press review. I say there is some urgency because there is a danger the conflict will spread. The United States' greatest allies in the region, Mr. Mubarak and the representative of Jordan, said they could not guarantee the conflict would not spread. Observers have reported infrastructures destroyed in the occupied territories, and, even if Mr. Arafat is released, it would be hard for him to resume his duties as a result of that destruction.

Third, I quote from memory Mr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, whom CNN asked why he was once again involved in the search for a settlement. He said at the end that it was for moral reasons, that the Israeli people had suffered too much for us not to help them undo the international reputation they have.

Madam Chair, I would like to recall briefly that the Bloc québécois has taken the position that there will be no lasting peace in that region if there is no withdrawal from the occupied territories, if an end is not put to the settlements, if there is no satisfactory negotiation on Jerusalem, on refugees and on recognition of a viable Palestinian state and if, at the same time, there is no recognition by Palestinians of Israel's right to exist within safe borders. This is what we are seeking.

My first question is this. Do you agree with Kofi Annan, who is supposed to present to the Security Council this morning--perhaps he has already done so--an initiative on the deployment of an international force in the Near East which would be a military coalition of volunteer countries? Assuming that the logic of war has been established in the Near East and that lines have been crossed, Mr. Annan was to emphasize that “the time has come for the international community to take a direct and effective role in the field.” In his view, the situation has deteriorated to the point where the “safety [of ordinary observers] cannot be assured”.

Do you agree with that? Are you going to promote that?

¿ (0930)

Mr. Bill Graham: In my introduction, I tried to assure you that Canada will consider every proposal for the purpose of taking part in actions such as that of Mr. Kofi Annan to restore peace to the Middle East, for the reasons I stated in my remarks, but also for the reasons that you have very clearly stated as well. I believe that virtually everyone around this table agrees with your analysis.

I would not characterize Mr. Powell's trip as a complete failure. One can see in it a glimmer of hope for a possible solution in the conference that was proposed, but there must absolutely be compliance with Security Council Resolution 1402 so that talks at least can be started. It is also necessary for us, Canadians and others, to focus now on humanitarian aid.

However, the shape that an intervention force would take must be examined. I am certain, Ms. Lalonde, that you will not propose that we send a kind of invasion force to the region, even under the UN's authority. The parties must accept that there will be a force for us to be able to take a productive part in this debate. That's where we are putting the emphasis.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Well, Mr. Minister, allow me to say that, if that had been possible, it would already have been done. Instead of improving, the situation has deteriorated. When Mr. Powell left the Middle East while Mr. Arafat was still in his hovel, with no running water, do you think there were good conditions in which to prepare for negotiations that must take place between equals? Isn't the international community's responsibility, as Mr. Annan said, to “seriously reflect on the deployment of an... impartial... international force acting under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, authorizing it to use force and with a solid mandate, credible military capability and significant size”? It was Kofi Annan who said that, and I don't believe Kofi Annan would propose an invasion force.

Don't you agree, Mr. Minister, that what is necessary is that negotiations be conducted as soon as possible on political issues? And for that to happen, there has to be a ceasefire. If anyone supports the UN, it is us, but you know how many UN resolutions have been passed in how many years. It seems to me the situation in the region has deteriorated to the point where no one can be attentive this time. Couldn't the two parties begin to negotiation if the Israelis, who are apprehensive, were reassured by this international force? Couldn't the Palestinians agree to negotiate if there was a withdrawal from the territories? There has to be something to reassure the Israelis, who are apprehensive.

Unfortunately, I belive this is the only solution we can come up with to permit negotiations on the political issues. And it's urgently needed.

¿ (0935)

M. Bill Graham: I've said on a number of occasions that negotiations were necessary because that was the only way to resolve this. A political solution is necessary. A military solution would not help solve this type of problem. That has never been a solution in the past, and there is no reason to believe this could resolve the situation today.

The Canadian government has always respected the UN and has enormous respect for Mr. Kofi Annan. We will naturally examine his proposal. I don't yet know exactly what his plan is, but I ask my colleagues here who are aware of the problems in the Middle East whether it is possible to envisage a UN force without American support, for example, in the region. Will there be any volunteers, as Mr. Kofi Annan has proposed, without the Americans, who are the most powerful and in the best position to resolve this, being involved? So we have to examine not only this proposal, but also the proposal's details and chances for success. So at least give me the chance to examine the details and to see whether the proposal has some chance of succeeding. We will definitely do it. We will examine any proposal that might lead to peace in the Middle East.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Note that the German plan, adopted by the European Union, also entailed a force such as this, which could take the necessary form and could, of course, include the Americans. The idea is to promote the conditions for negotiations as soon as possible. At the moment, any terrorist group among the Palestinians can prevent negotiations from starting by committing another, even more horrible attack because the Israelis will not accept it. This must be stopped and the violent people, the extremists on both sides, must not be allowed to prevent the negotiations from taking place and peace from returning.

M. Bill Graham: I entirely agree with you that the deployment of troops in the region could prevent excessive violence on all sides. What we are discussing this morning is whether that can be done under the aegis of Article 7 of the UN Charter, that is to say without the consent of the parties. I ask you to give me the chance to examine that.

From what I have understood, the German plan, to which you regularly refer, is a series of thoughts and discussions in Europe. It is a plan put forward with the support of the Europeans. It's a form of discussion. We are all discussing the matter and seeking ways to solve this problem. So, we're discussing, but ultimately we, as Canadians, have to accept proposals that can succeed and lead to peace in the Middle East. In my view, it would be very, very difficult to do that without the parties' consent and support.

¿ (0940)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

We now move to Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I, too, would like to express my sympathy and condolences to the families of the victims of the bombing in Afghanistan yesterday. It's really very tragic, and we share the grief of their families and of Canadians.

Mr. Minister, I really congratulate the government for announcing $8 million in additional funds for humanitarian aid for the Palestinian refugee camps. I think it's about time we take a look at the devastation in Palestine because of the invasion. I hope other G-7 countries will follow our lead and will send some money to help the refugees, who are in a desperate situation.

I agree with you, Mr. Minister, when you say there is no military solution to the conflict, but I also agree with what Ben-Gurion said when he stated that to be optimistic that we will find a solution, we have to believe in miracles.

It's too bad both sides, the Israeli and the Palestinian sides, have recently tried to outdo each other in terms of who would insult the U.S. peace mission more. At the beginning it was Ariel Sharon, and yesterday it was Ehud Barak who refused to meet with Secretary Powell. I guess they're trying to get even. That's normal in the Middle East: You do this, I come up with another step, and then others on both sides will try to outdo each other.

Mr. Bill Graham:

That never happens in politics here, of course.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: No, of course not. With the Alliance, it never happens in the way they present the issues.

Anyway, my first concern is what we can do to end the siege at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. I think that's one of the main things that's holding things back, with 200 or so Palestinians living in there with the clergy. If we can come up with some positive solution or some suggestions for Israel and the Palestinian side, we might be able to take some steps toward bringing about peace or a ceasefire in the region. So that's one thing.

And I have another point, Mr. Minister. Last month, in March, an Arab summit took place in Beirut, Lebanon, and they came up with a land-for-peace proposal. They were prepared to accept the existence of Israel and to have normal relations with Israel. This was not only from the countries surrounding Israel. The entire Arab world, 22 countries, all agreed that they are prepared to, first, recognize Israel's right to existence; and second, have regular relations with Israel. For some reason, the Israeli government refused this.

My understanding, from the history of the area, is that this is exactly what Israeli governments have been seeking for the last fifty years. Now that they could have it, why do they refuse to accept it? What was their main concern for why it was rejected?

As a comment about the German plan, there was one question I wanted to ask, but I'll pass on that one for now.

Since the Oslo agreement, Mr. Minister, Israel has installed 167 settlements on the West Bank, with over 200,000 new settlers now living in the West Bank. What are we doing to remove these settlers, because they are an obstacle to peace?

Why is it that if settlers from across the world have the right to live in the West Bank, Palestinians who were forced to leave there fifty years ago cannot go back to their own country, to their homes? Some of those homes still exist, but the Palestinians can't go there and live in peace, leading normal lives with their fellow Israelis in the same place.

So those are a few questions that I have for you. Thanks.

Mr. Bill Graham: Very briefly, you cover three issues. On the first one, our belief is that the terrible problem at the Church of the Nativity would be resolved if we could get the parties to agree to respect Resolution 1402. That would mean a withdrawal of the incursions on the one hand—which Secretary Powell was urging—but it would also require that the Israelis be assured that these people who are there and are armed are not going to return to a form of violence, because that's where it starts every time. It starts with the escalation of violence.

I quite agree with you. One of the terrible things that happens in the situation in the Middle East is that just as we seem to be getting to a point at which some people believe there's some chance of negotiations, a suicide bomber does something that, in my view, is not only designed to kill innocent people, but is really designed to make a political settlement impossible. It's designed to put the peace process off the rails. Some actions on the other side sometimes seem to be designed to do the same. So this is where we have to bring the parties together, have them negotiate, and have them recognize that.

We believe Crown Prince Abdullah's proposal was extremely positive in that regard. We believed the Arab summit's acceptance of the proposal was extremely positive, and I personally wrote to my counterpart in Saudi Arabia and congratulated the Saudi government for proposing it. I urged them to continue to argue it with other Arab governments. However, I think you come back to a factor in the proposal that must be looked at. But I don't believe Israel has refused that proposal. Israel has said it will look at the proposal in a way that will ensure its future security if that proposal is accepted. That is Israel's right. So in this context, you've put your finger on the extraordinarily complex issue of the return of refugees. That issue goes to the heart of Israel's concern for security, and where the possible future peace can in fact be.

As you will recall, Canada has played a very positive role in that area. We have chaired the committee involving discussions on refugees. It has been one of those areas in which, because of our balanced approach, we're trusted by both sides. Quite often, when one side or the other comes to me, they say they want Canada to do this or that, and they ask why we aren't more forceful, why we don't have a policy that's strong. Well, at the same time they want us to be an honest broker so we can help peace, they want us to take a policy that strengthens their hand at a given point. Our objective is to be able to do things like those that we've already done in this extraordinarily important area, because both parties have recognized our contribution there.

But this will be a complicated issue, and I agree with you that the other issue will be complicated. But we must let the parties work on this. We must let the parties negotiate this. Don't start with a parti pris, and don't start with a commencement point that makes it impossible for the negotiations to go forward. We can't do that. That is not the way to begin negotiations, in my view.

Secondly, I think it is very clear that Canada has been formally urging the Israeli government—and has done so on every occasion—that the expansion of settlements is a form a provocation that is in fact making the ultimate attainment of peace difficult or impossible. The Palestinian people see that taking place and they think they're never going to have peace because they'll never have their own territory within which they can be free.

We have clearly indicated that the construction of settlements is contrary to United Nations resolutions and contrary to international law. We have urged the Israeli government to cease construction of those settlements and to start withdrawing from them. We can then start applying the Mitchell plan, which has a clear indication of the support not only of the world community, but also of the American government itself on this very delicate issue.

So I think those are two complicated issues—refugees and settlements—but we must get the parties negotiating or we're not going to go anywhere toward solving them.

¿ (0945)

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I agree with you that the Palestinian settlement issue is difficult, Mr. Minister, but put yourself in the Palestinians' shoes. A person has been living in a tent for the last fifty years. In the meantime, a person comes from Russia, from the States, or wherever, and they build this settlement right in the Palestinian's backyard while the Palestinian cannot live in his own house. That's a very degrading situation for Palestinians to be in.

The other point you made was that the Israelis never refused the summit resolution but said they're going to study it. Well, they've been studying it for a month now, and people are paying with their lives. Are we going to push this and tell the Israelis there has been enough study? We've been studying this case for the last fifty years. Let's get on with it.

The Chair: Minister, very briefly.

Mr. Bill Graham: Very briefly, as you say, this conflict has been going on for fifty years, so I don't think it's fair to say the Israeli government should accept this resolution in one month. To be fair, this is something we need to bring to the parties and something we need to reflect on. Maybe the peace conference can advance this.

I don't disagree with your analysis of the settlement issue and the type of angst and anxiety that it creates. It makes peace more difficult to achieve. But we must work on these issues—and work together on them—to try to get the parties to negotiate. It's the only way we can get out of this impasse.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. McDonough.

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I, too, want to express my heartfelt condolences to the families of the four armed forces personnel who were killed in Kandahar in the last 24 hours, and to the soldiers who have been injured and to their families. I would reiterate the call for a full enquiry, a call I have already publicly expressed. If we cannot ensure that we're not seeing our own armed forces personnel victimized possibly at the hands of our neighbours, then it's pretty clear why we shouldn't be there.

Just at the outset, Madam Chair, I want to say I recognize that the issues this committee deals with are immensely complex. Having taken on the role as my party's critic for the Middle East as of today, I welcome having the opportunity to attend this meeting.

I wish to congratulate the minister for his very clear and unequivocal statement to the effect that there is not, there cannot, and there never will be a military solution to the situation in the Middle East. I don't think we can say often enough, in every possible venue and in every possible way, that the violence on both sides absolutely has to end. We have to bring pressure to bear through every conceivable means internationally, both as an international citizen in the world and as a nation, to bring a halt to the death and destruction.

My question to the minister arises from the fact that I think there is a growing perception, a real sense not just of frustration, but almost of betrayal and abandonment that a lot of Canadians feel. Many feel there is a gap between the words and deeds of our own Canadian government in this regard. This morning, the minister made a very clear statement on this point, yet that welcome statement seems to be a fundamental contradiction to what Canada did in Geneva last week, for example. Canada actually voted against a fact-finding mission being dispatched to the Occupied Territories by the United Nations Human Rights Commission. I think this is very worrisome for three reasons.

First, I think it underscores the notion that Canada is a nice guy when it comes to words, but that when it comes to actually doing something, to putting our money where our mouth is, we end up being bystanders or, worse, being apologists to the U.S. in terms of their view of these things. In fact, it has been said many times in the last week that Canada is now viewed at the UN Human Rights Commission as just having become the proxy for the U.S.

Secondly, I think the fact that Canada voted alone with Guatemala against sending a fact-finding mission is an appalling dereliction of duty. In a sense, it implies that Canada thinks it's quite acceptable for a blindfold to have been placed over the eyes of the world in regard to what is happening in the Occupied Territories. The world needs to know. If we are to succeed in bringing international pressure to bear in order to end the violence in all of its forms on both sides, then the eyes of the world need to be upon what is happening. I simply do not understand—and I think others don't understand, either—why Canada would do this.

I think the sense of there being an obscene gap between Canada's words and deeds really leads to the feeling that Canada no longer sees itself as a player. In fact, an excuse is often offered when we and others are pressing the Prime Minister and are pressing you to be more proactive, Mr. Minister. The excuse often used is that we're really only a small power and that we have to remain totally even-handed. In turn, we're told that means we can't take the stand the world needs us to take and that people suffering on both sides in Israel and Palestine need us to take, in terms of being forceful, in terms of being proactive in a push for the respect of and implementation of those UN Security Council resolutions.

You have said again this morning that we have supported those resolutions. The question is, what is Canada actually doing to go beyond the words of supporting? In fact, it seems the opposite when Canada won't even support a fact- finding mission to go into this very horrifying situation.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: Minister, we'll have to suspend right after your answer to Ms. McDonough, simply because we have to get back to the House.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Bill Graham: I'll try to keep the answer as brief as I can, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much, sir.

Members, we will resume afterwards, but the minister cannot be back with us after the resumption.

Mr. Bill Graham: No; however, I will be back on the estimates next week. If there are perhaps some specific items arising out of today's meeting, I'd be happy to answer anything next week.

Very quickly, Madam McDonough, I would disagree with your analysis that our vote on that particular case was a derogation of the general policy I've announced this morning. In fact, I think it's consistent with that policy, and incredibly consistent. If you look at our voting pattern in the votes we have taken part in at Geneva—and I ask you to look at that pattern, not just at one vote in isolation, because this is what happens: one party says this, one party says that—we have consistently been condemning acts that don't lead toward peace. In that context, the problem with that particular resolution was twofold.

I'm sure that if you were to read the resolution, you would agree with me that it was entirely biased in a way that was singling out Israel in the delicate situation that we're in now, a situation in which we're trying to bring the parties to peace. It was therefore very unhelpful.

Ms. Alexa McDonough: Do you support a fact-finding mission being dispatched by the UN Human Rights Commission? If not, why not?

Mr. Bill Graham: The second point that we made—and we made this when we voted—was that we were supporting very actively—and we still support—the Security Council in its actions, and Secretary of State Powell in his mission. To have clouded the waters with that mission at that time, particularly with the mandate that was suggested for the high commissioner...and I must say that I have tremendous respect for her as a person. She has been doing a fantastic job as high commissioner, so we have great respect for her.

Of course we would support the appropriate mission at the appropriate time and with the appropriate mandate, but if you look at that resolution, I think you'll see that, in the context, it was not appropriate at that time. Even if we're going to be criticized by people like you for doing it, we voted against it because we genuinely believe we have to take actions if they're going to advance peace. That's why we did what we did in that circumstance. On the other hand, we clearly voted against settlement continuation, and other people have criticized us for doing that. We clearly voted in other ways for which we've been criticized at the United Nations commission.

So all I ask you to do is look at our voting pattern and look at what we're trying to achieve. We're trying to achieve a way in which we can constructively aid in the peaceful resolution of the dispute. That's the way in which I saw that vote, and the way in which it was cast.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister. We appreciate your being here with us.

Thank you, Mr. McNee and Mr. Sinclair.

We will now suspend. After the speeches in the House, we will come back to committee to deal with some more business.

I apologize, Mr. Casey, but we'll make sure we get you on the list in the next round.

¿ (0958)

À (1041)

The Chair: We'll resume our committee meeting now that we have returned from the break that we took for the tributes made in the House earlier.

You have the agenda before you, and I think we have two items that we want to consider at this point in time. One is the committee's consideration of Bill C-50 as reported by the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment. Mr. Mac Harb, the chair of that subcommittee, is here, so I'll ask Mr. Harb to address this.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Colleagues, it gives me great pleasure to report to the committee the 10th Report of the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I have the honour to introduce this in accordance with its Order of Reference of Thursday, April 11, 2002.

Your subcommittee, Madam Chair, has considered Bill C-50, An Act to amend certain Acts as a result of the accession of the People's Republic of China to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, and agreed on Wednesday, April 17, 2002, to report it without amendment.

Just as a background to this, Madam Chair, as you and my colleagues will recall, at the last meeting in Doha, the WTO accepted China as a full-fledged member of the WTO. Under normal circumstances, we wouldn't have had to even have this bill before the committee, but because of certain measures and certain obligations that were put in place at the time, we felt that the House of Commons, as well as the Government of Canada, had to introduce certain measures to protect Canadian industries. This bill, in fact, will give the government the flexibility to take action, when appropriate, in order to ensure that there is a level playing field. It also responds if the need arises, from time to time, for action to be taken place.

The bill was adopted unanimously by my colleagues, and it is my hope that the committee will adopt it today so that we can report it to the House tomorrow.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Harb, and thank you to the subcommittee for the work it has done on this.

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the report of the subcommittee as a report of this committee?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the chair report Bill C-50, An Act to amend certain Acts as a result of the accession of the People's Republic of China to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, to the House, without amendments?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you very much for the unanimous consent.

Our second item is future business. We have one item on the agenda: that the committee review at an opportune time past and future business in relation to its studies on the North American relationship and on the G-8 Summit. We have two items, one being our committee travel, and the second item being extending an invitation to certain African ambassadors to appear.

I'm sure it is common knowledge to all of you that we are in committee travel for the week of May 6. The planning sessions have occurred and information is forthcoming on the areas, the cities, and the locations.

À (1045)

The Clerk of the Committee: Yes, Madam Chair. The website is being amended to reflect the travel program in the two areas. In western Canada, it's Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, and Saskatoon; and it's Winnipeg, Toronto, and Windsor for the central portion, during the week of May 6 to May 10. The website will be amended today to reflect that.

The information note to all members of the committee has also been sent out, inviting them to indicate which group they would like to participate in.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any questions for the clerk on this?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I have a question, Madam Chair, but not on this.

The Chair: Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: According to the notice of meeting we received, the Minister was to be here for two hours from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. I checked with the clerk, and he told me that if I went on the Internet, I would see that it was from 9:00 to 10:00 a.m. I checked, and, this morning on the Internet, it was still stated that it could be from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. I would really like to be able to rely on the notice of meeting. I received this when I arrived today, but it's not on the Internet. That's just a comment, but it seems to me care should be taken.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, we'll make sure that whatever we send out is all synchronized and that the information on the Internet is also the information that we communicate to you.

Secondly, I'll ask if you have any preferences as to which African countries you would like to appear before us, so that we can start sending the invitations. I think the suggestion was made that they be the countries that have been real participants in NEPAD—the New Partnership for Africa's Development—and in the writing of the NEPAD documents: South Africa, Nigeria, Senegal, and Morocco. Whether you want to add any others in terms of ambassadors from other countries, or whether you want to take the ones that have been part of the NEPAD writing or were the NEPAD initiators, I'm open to any suggestions. If not, the clerk will go with those ambassadors and high commissioners.

An hon. member: Maybe Singapore.

The Chair: Yes.

We'll do it as a panel—

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: There are five of them, I believe, who worked on NEPAD. In any case, we should check and see that those who worked on it first are invited.

[English]

The Chair: That's right, and we'll get them in as a panel so that we hear from them all at once and have a discussion. It will be like a round-table idea.

As for the date, we will find some place on our agenda to fit that in, during an appropriate week in Ottawa.

Are there no further items on our agenda?

Mr. Gerald Schmitz (Committee Researcher): I'd just make the point that there is already a long list of staff suggestions for witnesses, and people were contacted for the western and Ontario hearings. However, we're obviously open to suggestions from any of the members of the committee in terms of priority witnesses for the hearings in the west and Ontario. They may already be on some list, but the sooner, the better, in terms of getting any suggestions.

And that goes for all members on all sides of the committee. We would appreciate any additional input that you have with respect to organizing the hearings.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: It seems to me that if none of our witnesses gives us any more information on Schengen, in Europe, or on the effective dollarization which is taking place in Canada, we should consider bringing in people who are working on this monetary union issue so we can hear the pros and cons. It's a question that was raised in your initial analysis, and we need to have information. I would note that we need to know the current state of dollarization in Canada. Mr. Pastor told us that most of the cash held in banks is in U.S. dollars, but no one else has told us that. Ms. Minushkin suggested that there was a lot, and when I went to talk to her, she told me she had heard the same figures as Mr. Pastor gave. It would be good to know how things are going and to get an idea of the number of businesses that conducted transactions in U.S. dollars.

We can refuse to consider the dollar issue and would prefer that it not be raised in political terms, but we can't close our eyes to the extent to which the U.S. dollar is being used in the Canadian economy. Ultimately, this weakens the Canadian dollar, since, when it is used less, it is more likely to be subject to speculation by speculators. It seems to me that we will have to take a good look at that in order for our report to be complete.

We will also have to take a good look at the advantages and disadvantages of negotiations with regard to borders, that is to say a kind of comfort zone or perimeter with Mexico. Remember that the Mexicans who came to testify before us told us that Canada had proposed its 30 points, that the United States had negotiated with us and that, two weeks later, the Americans gave them our 30 points. They suggested why not have the three discuss together, agree on a certain number of points and each negotiate the various points individually. I think we need to examine that and make a recommendation on it as well.

À (1050)

[English]

The Chair: That's good information for our researchers.

Ms. McDonough.

Ms. Alexa McDonough: Since this is my first meeting in the role of critic for the Middle East, I'm not fully up to speed on what discussions might have already been held about other witnesses for future dates, but I understand this discussion is about planning for future meetings.

I'm wondering whether there would be support on the committee for the idea of inviting the Israeli Ambassador to Canada to appear before the committee, and perhaps the Dean of Arab Ambassadors. I know the minister himself has regular access and opportunities to talk, but I think the point of the committee is for members on all sides, from all parties, to have an opportunity to pursue issues of real concern.

Given how very crucial and major the Middle East crisis is, I'm a bit surprised—and I don't mean this by way of criticism at all—to see that there is not more time allocated to addressing the Middle East crisis. I would therefore like to propose and seek the support of members for the idea that we extend an invitation to the Israeli ambassador and to representatives of the Arab ambassadors, perhaps with an invitation going to the Chair or the Dean of Arab Ambassadors, although it would be their decision as to who would perhaps be the most appropriate person to delegate to appear before the committee.

À (1055)

The Chair: Thank you for that suggestion. We have a steering committee that tries to set up the agenda items, so we will take your idea to the steering committee.

Mrs. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine, Lib.): In the area of our North American study, when we travelled to Mexico, our Mexican interlocutors stated very clearly that they felt integration had already happened sufficiently in one certain area, or that it was sufficiently advanced that all three governments and this sector should be looking at beginning discussions about developing common rules of competition. That was in the steel industry.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall that we've had any specific hearing on that sector with our Canadian counterparts here, either from the international trade department or from the industry itself. I would therefore seek the agreement of the committee, through the steering committee, to look at the possibility of sectioning one piece out just to look at that, because it was very clear that there appears to be agreement that it is one area that is so sufficiently integrated that we should be looking at the next level. I'd like to hear from our Canadians as to whether or not they share the same view as their Mexican counterparts on that.

Unfortunately, we weren't able to have an adequate discussion with our American parliamentary counterparts, because they appeared not to be aware that we were in fact the foreign affairs committee and that we were conducting a study on North American relationships. That was quite unfortunate. But in terms of the experts we met with, that session was exceedingly good. My sense was that there appeared to be somewhat the same view amongst the experts. So that's one suggestion.

Secondly, in terms of Madame Lalonde's suggestion, yes, I think it's good. I think we also need to hear the other side of the story.

In terms of Madame McDonough's suggestion, I think that is excellent.

Finally, the statement from our Minister of Foreign Affairs made it clear that two things we value highly as Canadians are human life and tolerance for diversity. Given the clear denunciation of the anti-Semitic acts that have taken place in some of our cities, we may wish to consider bringing in representatives of the Arab Muslim communities, of the Jewish communities, and of our Christian communities, to see whether or not they have any wisdom on how this committee, through its report, can contribute to spreading the message that, here in Canada, we dialogue in an atmosphere of mutual respect and don't want to see conflict that exists elsewhere transported here.

The Chair: We will have a very active steering committee meeting.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I want to add to the list that Ms. Jennings provided a group called PAJU, which is very active in Quebec and which is a united group of Palestinians and Jews.

[English]

The Chair: Gerry.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: To respond to Madam Jennings, perhaps of one way of approaching that whole sectoral question would be to invite the Canadian Steel Producers Association to appear, probably in Toronto, I would assume. I think we're hoping to hear from other groups there, like the C.D. Howe Institute or others that are looking at the possibility of a customs union or something like that in certain sectoral areas. In Vancouver, I think there will also be groups debating that issue, but perhaps the Canadian Steel Producers Association could be a group to invite as witnesses in Toronto.

Á (1100)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: That would be excellent.

The Chair: Thank you, and we'll work on the other list.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Could we invite someone from Statistics Canada to come and talk to us about the relationship between corporate productivity and the dollar's weakness? When I was on the industry committee, we had witnesses. I don't know whether you noticed this as I did, but I have recently seen the extent to which, when you compare Canada's international aid on an international level, there is a relationship between the value of the dollar and the position one occupies. The dollar's weakness has an effect on all international comparisons, among other things.

[English]

The Chair: We're having the Deputy Minister of Industry back, so hopefully we can finesse it in such a way that we can have Statistics Canada with him at that time. We'll see how that can be arranged.

Ms. McDonough had something she wanted to...sorry about that.

Ms. Alexa McDonough: Thank you, Madam Chair. I feel as though we're jumping around, but I guess that's what you do when you address this question.

I'd like to very much support Marlene Jennings' suggestion. I think it's absolutely critical that we again reinforce, in deeds and not just words, the unanimous resolution that we did pass in the House on September 21, I think, to call upon all political leaders, all community leaders, and all faith leaders to work together to stand against any kind of discrimination, stereotyping, and scapegoating in all of its ugly forms, that is directed at any element of the Canadian family. And I'd also just like to add to the suggestion.

We know a great deal of very good interfaith work has been done. I'm sure it would have been initiated in any case, but I think it was reinforced by the unanimous resolution of all parliamentarians calling upon them for leadership in this regard. I'd therefore like to suggest adding to the list the World Conference on Religion and Peace, which is an interfaith group. Its Canadian representatives might be invited to attend.

I would just say that I think it's very important that we do this at the parliamentary level, because it's very much happening on the ground in our own communities. I know a number of members here have taken similar initiatives, but I was very pleased when I had an opportunity to invite representatives of the fourteen different faith groups in my riding to come together to have a discussion about their concerns over what had been happening in the aftermath of September 11. Literally thirteen of the fourteen attended; all identifiable major faith groups accepted the invitation, while the fourteenth person was a second representative of one of the others that attended.

It was clear that there was not only an enthusiasm, but also a hunger for this kind of coming together to take place. So I think it would be a sign of leadership on our part to take the kinds of actions at the national level that we are encouraging and supporting communities to take locally.

The Chair: Thank you.

John Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia, Lib.): I think some of these suggestions should be dealt with at the steering committee, not here. This committee has an extremely heavy schedule. While I think there are some aspects of the troubles in the Middle East that we can perhaps take up, I don't want to see this committee getting into—and these may not be the proper words—some kind of full-blown inquiry. I wouldn't be in favour of that. There may be a couple of aspects on which we can make some contribution, but I want to deal with this more at the steering committee level.

The Chair: That's exactly the intent. These are items on the table that will be taken to the steering committee. There, in looking at the agenda and at what we have committed to so far, we'll see, and then the steering committee's decision will prevail.

I want to thank you for a long morning together. Seeing no further business on the table, I now call the meeting to a close.