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, May 30, 2002

0850

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds--Dollard, Lib.))

Mr. Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale)

0855

0900

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

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

0905

Mr. Bill Graham

0910

Mr. Stockwell Day

Mr. Bill Graham

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ)

Mr. Bill Graham

Ms. Francine Lalonde

0915

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Francine Lalonde

0920

Mr. Bill Graham

0925

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Bill Graham

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Bill Graham

0930

0935

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP)

0940

Mr. Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale)

0945

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Bill Graham

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Bill Graham

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.)

Mr. Bill Graham

0950

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Kathryn McCallion (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Passport and Consular Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade)

0955

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Bill Graham

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Keith Martin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Bill Graham

1000

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Bill Graham

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Svend Robinson

1005

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Aileen Carroll

1010

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Aileen Carroll

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Aileen Carroll

CANADA

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

NUMBER 086

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 30, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0850)

[Translation]

(The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds--Dollard, Lib.)): Pursuant to Standing Order 81(6), and the Order of the House of February 28, 2002, Main Estimates for 2002-2003: Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, L35, 40, 45, 50 and 55 under Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

I call Vote 1.

[English]

This morning we have the privilege of having with us our Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Bill Graham.

Mr. Graham, welcome this morning. We're ready for your statement please, Mr. Graham.

Honourable Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm happy to be here today. I think it's a timely moment to come before the committee, because the committee has engaged in its cross-country travel. I myself have just come back from my trip to the Middle East.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, I come before you today to discuss our priorities and our main estimates. I would also like to take this opportunity to speak to you about a number of current foreign policy issues, the results of the Canada-European Union Summit and my recent trip to the Middle East.

I will begin by discussing our priorities for this coming year. As mentioned in our estimates, we have set the following priorities for 2002-03.

[English]

Our first priority is to promote global security and actively participate in international efforts to combat terrorism. The next is to build on Canada's successes in international trade. I believe Mr. Pettigrew has recently briefed you on this subject.

[Translation]

Then, to offer Canadian leadership in the G-8 to achieve further progress on international security and stability and contribute to launching a new era in Africa's development.

[English]

The Department of Foreign Affairs is a substantial organization of more than 9,000 employees worldwide. We maintain more than 160 missions in 95 countries. Our primary value remains first and foremost in the work we do abroad on behalf of Cnada and Canadians.

Last year the department conducted a departmental assessment and produced a series of recommendations aimed at strengthening the department's effectiveness. We have made progress in implementing the recommendations, in part through some internal resource allocation, and in part through the resources we will be receiving through Budget 2001--and we remain committed to their full implementation.

We have focused our activities on those elements of our mandate for which we have sole responsibility: foreign policy and diplomatic relations; trade policy and promotion; consular services; international law and treaty negotiation; and federal-provincial relations as they relate to international issues.

We also strive to share expertise and work more intensively with other departments and agencies, provinces and territories, municipalities, and the private sector.

[Translation]

Finally, we would like to modernize the management of the department, and we plan to implement certain measures as early as this year. As announced by Treasury Board a few weeks ago, the Foreign Service Officers will be one of the first professional groups to be reorganized as part of the job classification reform led by Ms. Lucienne Robillard.

We want to make sure that we have an appropriate level of Canadian representation overseas in order to administer the government's programs and fulfil our mandate.

[English]

Please allow me to take a minute to review our financial situation.

Our main estimates for 2002-2003 are up $97 million from last year, to $1.64 billion. While this increase appears significant--and it is, it's slightly over 6%--I just want to emphasize with the committee that practically all of the increase is attributable to the higher costs of existing programs.

For example, the cost of Canada's membership in international organizations such as the UN, the FAO, the WTO, NATO, etc., accounts for $22 million of the increase in our main estimates. Our assessed share of the cost of UN peacekeeping operations is expected to rise by $15 million. High rates of foreign inflation will cost us a further $20 million to operate our missions abroad, and we have been provided with $13 million to compensate for currency loses on missions operations.

As you can see, the increase in our main estimates does not allow the department much flexibility to undertake new programing expenditures. As we respond to new challenges, we will continue to focus on priorities and reallocate our resources accordingly. Our room to manoeuver, however, is very tight. Over 90% of our budget is already tied to assessed contributions, operations at missions overseas, treaty obligations, and other non-discretionary spending, while the remaining 10% of our budget is tightly focused on government priorities.

I'd like to finish my presentation to you today by giving you a quick update on where we are in a number of key files.

¾ (0855)

[Translation]

Preparations for the G-8 Summit in Kananaskis are well underway. As indicated by the Prime Minister, Africa will remain front and centre at Kananaskis.

Immediately after my last Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade briefing on the G-8, the G-8 counter-terrorism experts group met to work on a variety of counter-terrorism issues, which will form the basis of the Foreign Ministers' response in June to the G-8 leaders.

[English]

Under our chairmanship, the G-8 is also examining other issues that will likely be discussed at the foreign ministers meeting in Whistler, including the situation in the Middle East and the development of public security institutions in Afghanistan. In addition, we will certainly focus on the extremely worrying tensions between India and Pakistan and our various efforts to urge Pakistan to stem terrorism and incursions across the line of control in Kashmir, and encourage India to resume a dialogue with Pakistan.

With the signing of a new strategic reduction agreement between the United States and Russia on May 24, we will also probably discuss international disarmament at Whistler. I must say I had the opportunity to participate in Rome at that historic meeting on Monday, and there is a new atmosphere out there around the issue of disarmament. I think we have to build on that now, too. I spoke to the ministers at NATO gathered there, to make sure we expand our multilateral attitudes and our focus in the multilateral institutions on the important issue of disarmament.

Canada's most important links, as everybody around this table knows, are with the United States. Since September 11, security has joined trade as our two main priorities in that bilateral relationship. Under the overall direction of Deputy Prime Minister Manley, we continue to coordinate with Canadian border agencies and liaise with U.S. counterparts to ensure smooth implementation of the bilateral smart border plan signed last December. We continue to cooperate bilaterally on prevention of terrorism in North America as well.

[Translation]

A number of important bilateral trade issues have arisen including, of course, softwood lumber. As Minister Pierre Pettigrew explained to you, the Government of Canada is fully committed to a rules-based trading system, and this is how we intend to pursue our trade grievances with the U.S.

[English]

I'd like to express my disappointment concerning the U.S. decision to unsign the treaty establishing the international court. In the short term, the effect of this will be minimal, and the court and its statute will come into force on July 1, 2002. In the long term, however, I believe it is important for us to continue to convince our U.S. colleagues that in the long run it's in their interest to participate in a court that will be fair, impartial, and responsible, and it deserves U.S. support.

In Afghanistan, we're committed to working with our partners toward fostering a secure, stable, and democratic state through both the stabilization process of our military and our development assistance. The government has allocated $100 million to meet the humanitarian, reconstruction, and recovery needs in that country, and $30 million has already been disbursed, most of it to meet urgent humanitarian needs of the Afghan people. The department is in discussions with CIDA as they closely examine how best to allocate the remaining $70 million.

Given the complexities of the situation in Afghanistan, we need to ensure that our assistance responds to the real needs of the Afghan people--from their security concerns, to humanitarian needs, to longer development needs--as they make the difficult transition from a history of conflict to a future of peace.

In Latin America, despite implementing some reforms, instability in the region remains a major factor, as we have seen in Venezuela, Argentina, and Colombia. Canada has two priorities in presenting ourselves as a globalized and socially responsible model for the region.

First, we must implement the commitments of the Quebec City summit--the summit action plan, the democracy clause, and the FTAA. Second, we must continue to deepen our relationships in the region, particularly with key countries such as Mexico and Brazil. I will be raising these issues when I attend the OAS summit beginning this weekend in Barbados.

¿ (0900)

[Translation]

I would now like to turn to the recent Canada-European Union Summit. The Prime Minister, Minister Pettigrew and I held talks in Toledo with President Aznar and our European colleagues. We agreed to work more closely in the fight against terrorism and to strengthen cooperation between our law enforcement agencies and our various judicial organizations.

[English]

We also agreed to explore ways to expand bilateral trade and examine trade options at the next summit in Ottawa in December. We discussed the Kyoto protocol and Canada's proposal for clean energy export credits, as well as developments in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and Latin America. We think this was a very successful summit, which moved forward our relations with the European Union and paved the way for new areas of cooperation.

Beyond EU issues, Canada needs to strengthen its relations with the individual member states. We will continue to increase our policy and program attention to Russia and key neighbouring states, particularly where Canadian interests are growing and our representation is rather minor.

I have been in regular contact with Middle East leaders. As you know, I have just returned from the region to deliver our message, strongly and clearly, that violence must end and negotiations must resume, in the context of a renewed political process. There is, as I have so often said--and most of you, I think, around the table will agree--no military solution to this conflict. There must be a negotiated political one. As I indicated to the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, they must adopt this approach. I encouraged the leaders of Jordan and Egypt to continue their efforts to move the peace process forward.

Following that visit, it's clear to me that while the situation remains as complex and urgent as ever, there may now be an opportunity to move forward, with redoubled effort and attention--based, among other elements, on the Saudi plan and the American proposals for a conference--to return the focus to a peaceful resolution.

For our part, Canada has also taken concrete steps to prevent terrorist financing here and to address the humanitarian situation in the West Bank and Gaza by increasing the delivery of aid. We stand ready to assist the parties in any way we can, and I insist on that. I'm sure the government, in doing that, will have the support of the members of the committee and Parliament in general.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening remarks. Thank you for your attention. Of course I am here to respond to questions from the committee that I know you may not have, in which case I can go on to the rest of my business for the day.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

I would like to acknowledge the presence of Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, or Ms. Kathryn McCallion, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Passport and Consular Affairs, and Mr. Lorenz Friedlaender, Head of Policy Planning, Policy Planning Secretariat.

[English]

Now we will start the questions. There will be ten minutes for the first round.

Mr. Day, please.

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you for the work you're doing on behalf of our country and also for the opportunity for us to speak with you as we have positive input from the point of view of the official opposition in terms of suggesting areas where we think improvements could be made.

Certainly with the increase in the budget, now up to $1.64 billion, the official opposition is very concerned that we don't have a clearly available display for the public, for the taxpayers who supply the $1.6 billion. The actual accounting and auditing in the area, for instance, of CIDA grants.... It's very clear. The minister who works with you in this particular area indicated in her own report that in fact management results in terms of measuring these projects and programs are kept internal.

We would like to see a commitment from you that there will be an opening up of the process. We do want to see that people in need in fact receive the dollars they are so badly in need of. We know that often these dollars are siphoned off by corrupt regimes. We know that the actions of administrations and bureaucracies beyond your control many times result in the actual dollars not going to the people most in need.

I presented here in the committee the other day a motion asking that there be clear guidelines for each project and then an annual independent audit of whether the results were achieved on each project and an assessment of the progress being made. The committee in their wisdom chose to vote that down. I'd like a commitment from you that we will see an opening up of the auditing process, especially in light of the pressure the government is under now in terms of contracts in the area of advertising. These are contracts for which you are not responsible, and I recognize that.

Some of these contracts are casting a less than positive light on the government. In light of that, there needs to be an opening up of this process so hard-working Canadians can see where their hard-earned dollars are going, this to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars to projects around the world. As I said the other day, we don't question the staff; we don't question the hard-working, dedicated people. But any program that goes unmeasured is inviting inefficiency and possible abuse, especially when it hits foreign shores somewhere and goes to regimes that are less than open and accountable. Can we get a commitment from you there?

My colleague will be addressing some of the issues related to the softwood lumber situation.

We have a fascinating contradiction, I believe, in terms of our policy for Taiwan and mainland China. It is that Taiwan's particular relationship with mainland China is an internal matter, one we quite rightly need to let them work out. I do find it curious that Taiwan, which is the democracy of the two, mainland China of course still being a communist dictatorship...and though we hope they are moving to improve their human rights situation, there are still many concerns related to human rights violations.

We have a situation where, ironically, the President of Taiwan and your counterpart there, sir, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, are in fact not permitted to come to Canada. They are banned from entering Canada. This is a country that has paid a real price to pursue democracy. They have established democracy. They have established free markets. The standard of living is higher for their citizens than for the citizens of mainland China. They have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Everywhere you go, freedom of religion is evident. Yet we say to their President and to their Minister of Foreign Affairs, you're not welcome here.

First of all, could we get an explanation for that, and are you prepared to suggest you would be open to reconsidering that particular policy? In the 21st century I believe it's an archaic approach. We don't have to enmesh ourselves in the internal difficulties between Taiwan and mainland China, but certainly it would be a positive signal to send out.

Those are two questions I'd like to start with, two particular areas, and I'll await your response.

¿ (0905)

Mr. Bill Graham: Thank you, Mr. Day. I appreciate your comment about positive input, and would like to take your questions in that light.

I take it you're not asking me to respond to the softwood lumber issue. That will come later. So I'll restrict myself to your comments on CIDA and Taiwan.

In respect of CIDA, of course, it's Ms. Whelan's primary responsibility, so I want to be very careful not to tread on her toes. We have a former minister responsible for CIDA here. She could tell you that between our two departments, we are very careful to respect the integrity of CIDA vis-à-vis foreign policy. But we'd like to work very closely together.

So I take your comments in the light in which you offered them. Judging from the answer she must have given you the last time, I'm not sure it's possible to give an analysis of every project. When I was here at the committee, one of the problems I always had was deciding who was going to say what the effects were of doing a project. I looked at this with the Auditor General when I was chairman. If you invest in the health of young people, or health generally, to deal with AIDS in Africa, or build a school and invest in the education of young girls--which is really needed--who is going to say what the effect of that is, except these young women when they reach the age of 30 or 40 and are participating members of society? So there are some real problems there.

All I can recommend to you, sir, and the members of the committee, is doing what I did when I was chair of the committee and speak to the Auditor General. The committe can work with the Auditor General, who clearly follows what's going on in CIDA. When I was the chair, the Auditor General expressed an interest or willingness to sit down with the committee and go through some programs, and work on it. So I would recommend that maybe this would be a positive approach. I'm sure Minister Whelan would accept this as something that is both helpful to Canadians and the committee in understanding this.

On Taiwan, I understand what you're saying. You will appreciate, and were good enough to say you recognize, as we do, that the Taiwan-China situation must ultimately be resolved through negotiations between these two parties. Taiwan is obviously an externally dynamic economy. We have good relations with Taiwan. We have good exports to them; they export here. We have very excellent financial and commercial relations with Taiwan. But as you pointed out, we recognize that in international law Taiwan remains a part of China. It is a question of the Republic of China negotiating with Taiwan exactly what its status is. For that purpose, I think we should keep our relations with Taiwan correct. They should be on an economic level.

For that reason, it would not make sense at this particular time for the political chief of Taiwan to come to Canada, because it would be sending a signal that might be interfering in that relation, which we want to encourage them to resolve between themselves.

¿ (0910)

Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask, what signal do we send when we say the communist leaders are welcome here but the democratic leaders are not?

Mr. Bill Graham: You can put it that way. But putting it another way, the signal we send is we recognize, as the rest of the world does in international law, that the leaders of the Republic of China are the international legally accepted institution representing China. You don't have to say the communist leaders. We don't send any signal when the party that appears at the Security Council representing China is the People's Republic of China. That's who they are. That's no signal one way or another; that's just a recognition of a reality. So this is the signal we send.

Would we appreciate it if, for example, a premier of a province turned up in another country, which then said to the premier, “We recognize you as the head of a country”? What signal would that send to you, Mr. Day? It might be pleasing to some, but it might be quite distressing to others.

So this is the attitude we approach this matter with. We have great respect for Taiwan. We wish them well. We want to work with them. But we want to work with them to enable them to resolve their differences within the Chinese context, so China itself will be stronger and a more democratic country.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Ms. Lalonde, please.

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Thank you. Welcome, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Bill Graham: Thank you, Madam.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: You are just back from the Middle East, Mr. Minister. It's the last thing you spoke of, but I'm going to start with it because I also have just returned. I was there for 10 days in two stages, including six in the formerly occupied territories, that were reoccupied and will be reoccupied again, because this morning i read a quote from the Israeli Prime Minister in Libération, which said “There are no more limits on Tsahal's operations in the Palestinian territories”—and everyone knows that means the Israeli army.

You didn't spend as much time there as we did, and it would have been interesting for you, but you are no doubt aware that in the occupied and reoccupied territories, the social and economic situation...

¿ (0915)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Ms. Lalonde, I must interrupt because the interpreters have asked me to tell the people with cell phones in the room to turn them off because this causes interference. Please continue.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Peoples' inability to leave their towns and villages, the economic situation, the destruction, all of this is dramatic and creates a desperate situation that is obvious to anyone who takes a look. It is very serious, and this at a time when the colonies and settlements continue to increase in number. There again, we condemn the fact that authorizations have been given recently.

There has also, of course, been an increase in suicide bombing attempts. We met with the Latin Patriarch, as he is called. I don't know if you had the opportunity to meet with him. He is the Catholic bishop of Jerusalem who told us that we could condemn the violence, that terrorism is hateful, but so long as the territories remain occupied, the violence would begin anew. The bishop told us that. We believe the situation is highly explosive, as do many others. We spoke of international negotiations with the mayor of Bethlehem, and he told us that they need international forces to separate the two sides urgently.

I listened to your comments with great interest, and I would like to know in greater detail what proposal you are formulating and sending to the United States. Will it indeed be one whereby there will be no peace without a clear and firm political process that will bring about two Palestinian states, put an end to the colonies, a retreat from the occupied territories and mutual recognition of the two states? That has to be part of it.

However, Mr. Sharon is continually putting off negotiations. He only wants an interim agreement. Mr. Arafat saw all of his buildings... It has to be seen. All of the Palestinian Authority buildings, all of the security buildings have been flattened. There's nothing left as a result of the bombings. Therefore, there has to be a clear political process and clear objectives that are supported by the international community. And we must not be afraid to say—Even Bill Clinton said it two weeks ago—that international force is required to separate them, as the mayor of Bethlehem said. That is my first question.

Mr. Minister, here is the second. As regards your priorities, I find that Africa is a very long term one, including your third point, where Kananaskis is mentioned. I have before me the Department of Foreign Affairs document. The Prime Minister had expressed the idea that the main goal for him would be Africa. I think we will be a long time reaching this goal.

Thirdly, concerning international assistance, you have seen the OECD's figures, as have we all. You can see that Canada is at 0.23%, which means that Canada is now at the tail end, after Austria. Canada is now ranked 18^th. Given the European Union's firm commitments to reach 0.36% by 2005-2006, where Canada has made none, except to increase its assistance by 8%, Canada is happily moving to the back of the queue.

¿ (0920)

Finally, I would like to ask an important question on another level. The former Minister of Defence—I imagine the new one will have the same goal—wanted to review military policy. I don't see anywhere that the department wants to review foreign policy, whereas it is important that defence policy follow foreign policy and not the reverse.

I conclude in saying that Amnesty International is concerned about the fact that this time, the established democracies were the first ones to take drastic measures.

Mr. Bill Graham: I spent an hour and a half discussing this situation with Mr. Sharon. I will sum up in three minutes the discussions I was able to have with King Abdullah of Jordan, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs from Jordan and Egypt, President Moubarak, Mr. Sharon, Mr. Perez and Rabbi Melchior.

Ms. Lalonde, I think you've put your finger on the great problem in the Middle East. It's always a chicken and egg situation in the Middle East. Who will go first? Some say that if the violence comes to an end, it will start up again. Others say that if we start to lessen restrictions, the violence will start to diminish. That is the problem, and it is impossible for them to avoid this enormous problem. It comes back somewhat to your idea of an international force. Therefore all of this has to be reviewed.

When I was there, I told Mr. Arafat that in the end, the Intifada did not serve the interests of the Palestinian peoples; it is counterproductive. Violence, including all the suicide bombings, as well as being an unacceptable weapon in a society of civilized people, produces a counter-effect, because Israel is stronger and can do what it wants on the military front.

I was telling Mr. Sharon that he had all the military power, but that everyone, including the bishop and others, believed that the solution to this conflict was political and not military, and that it was absolutely essential that the Palestinians have the opportunity of having a truly viable state—and I emphasize the word “viable”—in which they can live and communicate. Currently, as you have stated, it is not possible for them to travel from village to village, to move their provisions, their goods, their services, etc. I told Mr. Sharon that in my opinion, all of this was counterproductive because it produced conditions under which they would never have peace.

Therefore, we have to find a way of getting out of this terrible mess, if I can put it that way. Some parties are thinking of an intervention force. Obviously, any such force would be unthinkable without the United States. I discussed this with Mr. Powell when we met recently in Rome. We are to meet again in Whistler in a few weeks. We discuss it on the telephone. I spoke to Mr. Solana. Everyone is thinking along the same lines.

This is a policy that risks causing fatalities. This cannot be done without a great deal of forethought. At the moment, I don't believe the international community is ready for this. Therefore, I believe that for now, we must continue with our policy, which is to say what I told both parties.

There is a great diversity of opinion in Israel. You would be truly astonished by the diversity of opinions in Israel. Obviously, Mr. Perez and Mr. Sharon are not of the same opinion. This morning, in the Globe and Mail, there was an article on Mr. Bronfman, saying that there would be no solution without a Palestinian state including part of Jerusalem. Therefore, there is no one voice. There are even some people who say that Israel chose unilaterally to leave some parts of their territory. But the parties have to come back to the negotiating table. If this meeting were to happen under favourable conditions, we could bring this about.

¿ (0925)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): You may answer the second question during the second round, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Bill Graham: Very well, as I believe that Ms. Lalonde's contributions on the other issues are, as always, very important. Therefore, I would like to come back to them.

I'm sorry to have spent such a long time on the Middle East, but obviously, it is complex. We must think about this carefully and insure that Canadian interventions are on the right path.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Assadourian, please.

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. Welcome back from the cradle of civilization to central civilization.

A voice: The cradle of civilization is in Africa.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Oh, okay.

I haven't prepared a speech, but I have four short questions, Mr. Minister.

First on the list, would you tell us in a couple of sentences or paragraphs what divides the Arab and Israeli sides? What are the main obstacles to achieving peace within those two communities? That's my first question.

Second, if you could, please comment on the Arab summit meeting that took place in Lebanon in March, where they proposed land for peace. Israel has been asking for this for the last fifty years, and it was offered to them in that summit. The reaction from Israel was very negative, and I wonder why. What's your reading on it?

The third question, Mr. Minister, relates to embassies. You mentioned that we have 160 missions in 90 countries. I was in the Middle East with Secretary of State Gar Knutson recently, and we were in Qatar. They made the point that we have no embassy in Qatar. Our people in Kuwait look after Qatar. They feel strongly that we should have an embassy so in return they can open an embassy here in Ottawa.

On the same subject, I also note that the Canadian Armenian community has been asking the Department of Foreign Affairs to open an embassy in Yerevan. There's a vibrant Armenian community here in Canada. They have an embassy here in Ottawa, but we have no embassy in Yerevan. Our mission is handled from Russia. That's still my third question.

Here is my fourth and final question, Mr. Minister. Before the meeting in Rome the American president went to Russia and met with Putin. They signed an agreement for the reduction of nuclear weapons, I don't know how many thousands, but they still have nuclear weapons on both sides. Do you see any justification for those governments to maintain so many nuclear weapons? After all, the Cold War's been over for about 12 years; there's no more Cold War. What's the justification for having so many nuclear weapons in their arsenals?

So I have four questions. If you answer in short order, I have three more questions to make up my ten minutes.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): If you can answer as quickly as he asked his questions, we'll share our time with another colleague.

Mr. Bill Graham: Well, on the Middle East, obviously I tried with Madame Lalonde to explore the complexities, the issues. So let me go very quickly to your precise preoccupations.

As you said, on the Arab side, on the Israeli side.... I think that's a very good way to look at it. What is the problem? Ultimately it's a total mistrust. There's a total breakdown, in spite of the fact of there being people of goodwill on both sides. There's a total breakdown in communications between the two sides.

Mr. Peres said to me, “We have no communications left. There's no trust on either side.” That's why this idea of an international intervention of some kind is a must, whether it's by way of a conference or whatever, to enable the parties to come together. Mr. Peres said that clearly to me. He said “We need the international community.” Mr. Fischer, the German foreign minister, said that the issue has been internationalized. So how do we, as the international community, bring the parties together for that political dialogue? That seems to me our biggest challenge, given the tremendous mistrust.

On the Arab side the mistrust goes back to the Oslo Accords. They said they entered into the Oslo Accords and had an eight-year period of negotiations. In the end, it didn't take them to where they believed they should have gotten. Meanwhile, Israel, by increasing its settlements, was in fact occupying more and more of their land on the ground, making them believe that in fact it had no real intention ever to enter into a meaningful peace treaty. It would just be a treaty where they would be a colony, totally under Israel's thumb. There are no serious negotiations on the part of Israel.

I don't think this is a fair analysis of the Israeli position, but that's the Arab position. It's what they all told me. So that's their position.

As for the Israeli position, their problem is, whether it was Mr. Sharon or Mr. Peres or anyone else, they honestly don't believe Mr. Arafat has any genuine interest in making peace. They don't believe he's making any genuine attempt to stop the terrorism. They honestly believe this. As Mr. Peres said to me, “Honestly, we do not expect 100% results with Mr. Arafat, but we ask for 100% cooperation, 100% effort”. They don't believe they're getting that.

So there's a complete lack of communication. It's a dialogue de sourds, pour le dire en français. It's just tragic.

It's particularly tragic because they came so close after Taba. You have no idea. When I spoke to Mr. Shaath, my counterpart in the Palestinian territories, who was one of the negotiators, he told me how they came so close after Taba--what they would exchange, what settlements would remain, what form of.... It was so close. I think they recognize that with more time it could have happened. There is a possibility, colleagues; I really believe there is a possibility. They believe it's a possibility.

Israeli public opinion is very interesting. The polls tell us that 70% of the Israeli public opinion supports Mr. Sharon and what he is doing, which Madame Lalonde will say is counterproductive. But another 65% of the Palestinian public opinion also recognizes that ultimately they feel their security will be satisfied by a state in the Palestinian area that is open, democratic, etc.

What we have to do in the world community, it seems to me, is to come up with a solution that allows the Israelis to believe they have security in their daily lives. Like everybody else, they have to have a right to react to violence and attacks. We have to, on the other hand, help the Palestinians come to a more open, more democratic state.

I said that to Mr. Arafat. I said, “You know, Mr. Arafat, your problem is that you have to have a more open and democratic state.” I was very clear with him. I appreciate the fact that they've signed a law on the new courts. I think that's important. But I think they have to go further in having a more democratic state, because then there will be other voices in the Palestinian Authority. There's only one voice there now. They need other voices who can stand up and say, “Hey, I was elected from Ramallah. I can tell you what my people want”--just as we do in our society and as they do in Israel, where they have vigorous debates on these issues.

So what separates them? Total mistrust, because neither believes the other. The Israelis still believe that Mr. Arafat and certain people want to crush Israel, drive it out, that they haven't accepted it. Israelis don't believe that the Saudi proposal is sincere. There's no belief on the Palestinian side that there's a sincere desire for the establishment of a state. We, the international community, have to somehow help resolve those terrible contradictions and work on them.

¿ (0930)

Let me go back to our missions. We have missions in 90 countries, but there are many other countries--you mentioned Qatar and Armenia. We in the department recognize the need for more missions. Canada lives in an interdependent world. It's a matter of resources. We're all members of Parliament. We're all members of various caucuses. If you believe that, tell Mr. Martin, the finance committee, and everybody that in an interdependent world, where we have complex relations, perhaps we need more embassies. But we can't do it.

I told you what our budget was. We have no discretionary income in this department. It looks like the amount of money we have has increased, but it's all taken up by existing programs. We do not have the money to open new facilities, without getting additional funds. It's our decision, as politicians, whether we wish to dedicate those funds to what you want, to certain domestic programs, or to other international programs. It's our debate. I'm happy, believe you me, to consider opening other embassies, but I need the resources to enable me to do it. We are stretched as thin as we can go at this time. I see the deputy nodding his head.

On Rome, I agree with you about the arms reductions. I wish I could describe to you the atmosphere around that table in Rome. To have Russia actually sitting at the table--I see Mr. Robinson looking at me rather cynically--it was a great moment.

But I don't disagree with you. The point I made at the lunch with the foreign ministers was this is great, but there are substantial arms reductions remaining, and we believe, as Canadians, that must be done through the multilateral process. I believe the multilateral process is stalled at the moment. We need to try to breathe life back into it. It can't just be the big powers saying “We'll decide what we're going to do together, and the heck with the rest of the world”. We must bring them together and engage them in further arms reductions through a multilateral process that brings the rest of the world into an issue that is our concern, as much as it is theirs. Our lives will be destroyed if they decide they want to use some of those nuclear weapons.

So that's what Canadian policy is. That's what I will work on. When I congratulated them, I jokingly said to the members around the table at lunch, “I'm glad to see the Russian bear and the American eagle aren't fighting any more, because now the Canadian beaver can go about the business of trying to build its house with the rest of the world community and make it a safer place for all of us”. Everybody laughed and thought that was a nice little thing to say. But that's what we'll have to work on.

¿ (0935)

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Robinson now has the floor.

[English]

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

An hon. member: Can I take two minutes?

Mr. Svend Robinson: No, you can't. Take it out of your colleague's time.

I want to welcome the minister before the committee.

[Translation]

Following Ms. Lalonde's example, I would like to ask four questions.

[English]

My first brief question the minister doesn't have to answer in any depth at this point, but I would like him to come back to the committee with a comprehensive reply, and that is to respond to some of the very serious concerns that have been raised by the Foreign Service Community Association about the working conditions of foreign service officers, and particularly the treatment of their families. These are dedicated professionals who are serving our country well, and frankly, it is appalling that they have to continue pleading with a succession of ministers to be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.

Among other things, I point out, for example, that when spouses and partners return to Canada with the intention of picking up their professional lives, they're not eligible for employment insurance. They point out that prisoners can collect it, but spouses can't. This is disgraceful.

They give other examples as well. The minister knows there has been a 1990 report of the spousal task force. I don't want the minister at this point to respond in depth to the concerns, but I would ask for the minister's undertaking that he take this very seriously, that we recognize that these people and their families are being treated in a manner that is archaic and insulting, and that he come back to this committee with concrete responses to the concerns they've raised. That's the first point.

Secondly, following up on the concerns around the Middle East, and in particular the occupied Palestinian territories--Jenin--the minister knows, however one describes the horrors of Jenin, that far too many innocent Palestinian civilians were killed, were murdered in Jenin. The rubble of Jenin speaks for itself. The international community unanimously called for an independent inquiry. That inquiry was established by the Secretary General, and Israel treated that inquiry with complete contempt, told them forget it, you can't come here.

Brigadier-General William Nash did a piece that I don't know if the minister saw, for the International Herald Tribune, in which he said--

Mr. Bill Graham: I've read that.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes. He said the Israeli arguments were hostile to the very concept of finding out what happened in Jenin.

What's Canada's response to this contempt by Israel for the international community? And specifically, have we raised concerns with the United States and urged them to put pressure on Israel to accept this inquiry?

Third, what about Canada's relationship with Cuba? I'm asking the minister specifically whether that relationship continues to be in what the Prime Minister described at one point as kind of a deep freeze. The Prime Minister said we have human rights concerns with Cuba. We have human rights concerns with a number of countries, including China.

I wonder if the minister would indicate whether he would be open to supporting a serious dialogue between Cuban parliamentarians, members of the national assembly, and Canadian parliamentarians on a broad range of issues to try to open up that space.

Then finally, on Iraq, what's Canada's position with respect to the possibility of a United States-led attack on Iraq as part of the so-called “axis of evil”? Would a new United Nations resolution be required to authorize any military strike on Iraq at this point?

¿ (0940)

Mr. Bill Graham: Thank you very much.

I'm glad to see you haven't lost your old ability to ask a lot of questions and then extort a promise of long answers to follow.

There's not enough time to answer everything here before the committee, but I can comment very briefly on the working conditions in the department. One of the things I said when I spoke to the department people when I first got this post was that I believe Canada is in an interdependent world today. We require for our domestic policy purposes as well as generally for Canada's foreign policy purposes a strong foreign service that is able to represent our interests abroad. It's more important than it ever was, and for that we need a foreign service department that has good morale.

The deputy has spent a lot of management time on this issue. I want to promise you that. I believe that it's particularly the young people, our foreign service officers 2 and 1, who are.... At the moment, as you know, we have the conciliation process. What I would like to do is allow that conciliation process to take place. I'm confident that it will give us results that will enable us to deal with one of the most difficult outstanding issues, which is pay rates, proper compensation for these people.

I have assured everyone in the department that I want to see them properly compensated. Then we have to address these much more complicated issues around people when they come back. We can deal with that, but there are also problems when we send people abroad and they have professional spouses. They can't work there; there are a lot of--

Mr. Svend Robinson: You'll respond to these?

Mr. Bill Graham: I absolutely will respond, but I won't respond until after the conciliation report has come down and after we've had a chance to discuss this with the head of our association. It's important that we deal with that in a respectful manner with them, because they're the guys we work with; they're the ones we want. They know that my heart's with them on making sure they're properly compensated. We need them. We don't want to lose those good young people, because we'll be losing the future of Canada if we do.

On the Middle East and Jenin, I'm firmly on the record as saying that I believe there should have been an inquiry and that in fact it was in Israel's interest ultimately to allow an inquiry to take place. It would have put an end to what allegations there have been in the press saying something really horrible happened there. Israel says no, a few people were hurt, a collateral issue, and they were very careful in what they did. Well, I made that point when I was in Israel with my colleagues; I said your problem is that world opinion isn't going to accept that, and the inquiry would have allowed you to do it.

As usual in Israel, there is an open debate about this. Some people believe there should have been an inquiry. The government, however, was persuaded that the inquiry would be struck in a way that the deck would be stacked against them, and that's why they rejected it.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Did you make this point with Powell?

Mr. Bill Graham: Yes, I made this point with Mr. Powell, and I'll continue to make it, because he's a key player in that. But as you know, ultimately in the United States system, Mr. Powell...even there a debate exists within the U.S. administration as to what is the best approach to take on these. Obviously, Mr. Powell is our interlocutor, and I do work closely with him on that.

I will pass on to you one interesting thing. When I was in Israel I had the opportunity of visiting Chief Justice Barak, an extraordinary individual, and he told me something interesting. He said “You know, one of the great things that Canada has, but nobody realizes it, is the Charter of Rights. We use it in Israel.” He said that lots of other countries use the charter and that it's one of the great exports of Canada in terms of the values we have. He said he took actions about Jenin.... It's interesting; it's a complicated international law issue, one you would appreciate as to what the jurisdiction of the Israeli courts are in that area, because it goes back to all sorts of complicated issues as to the Geneva Conventions. But they do exercise some jurisdiction, and he personally intervened to ensure, for example, that ambulances could get access in Jenin. Then there's some U.S. court thing.

On Cuba, I totally agree with you. We have to continue expanding our relations with Cuba. That depends a lot on Mr. Castro himself. I'm a proponent. I think that when the Prime Minister said we are in a deep freeze, it was because we really reached out to Cuba; we made a real effort to engage Cuba, but we got rebuffed. People were put in jail. We don't see much democratization. Mr. Castro is not behaving in a friendly manner.

If you followed what happened with Mr. Fox and Mr. Castaneda in Mexico, this was a seriously crazy incident, where Mr. Castro just took a totally private conversation, broadcast it, and embarrassed Mr. Fox, etc.

¿ (0945)

I'm willing. I was hopeful that the visit of Mr. Carter would have produced an opening from the U.S. side, but I didn't get that impression from Mr. Bush's speech about Cuba--quite the contrary. So we'll continue working.

I agree with you. We want to have good relations with Cuba, correct relations with Cuba, and I will certainly keep working on that. I have respect for the Cuban people, and we can continue dialogues with our colleagues in their parliament.

On Iraq, our position is very clear. We believe that the way to deal with Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction is through the United Nations and to operate with the inspection system of a UN-led issue. We continue with that as our policy. I think I'm consistent there with our European colleagues and others.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Can the minister assure us that no attack could take place without UN authorization?

Mr. Bill Graham: Canada always acts within a UN mandate and a UN framework. I'm not in a position to answer a complicated legal analysis on whether the present UN resolution would enable, in certain circumstances, an attack to take place. Too much would depend on what the circumstances at the time were. So I can't answer that question at this time. It's too hypothetical and it's too complicated in terms of the future situation. It could be different. If there's a clear and present danger by Iraq to use a nuclear or a chemical weapon, the world community might decide it has to do something about it. So let's not tie our hands from saying we can't move if we have to.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Merci, monsieur le ministre.

I would like to inform you that next Tuesday we're going to meet with Mr. Ritter, the former chief inspector for UN disarmament from Iraq, and also with Mr. Dennis Halliday.

Mr. Bill Graham: Was Dennis Halliday the man we had before the committee about the sanctions regime?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Yes.

Mr. Bill Graham: Oh, that'll be good.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Ms. Marleau, you have five minutes.

[English]

Ms. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): I don't want to take up too much more of your time with the Palestinian-Israeli question, but I would like you to touch on the conditions of life for the Palestinian people. You haven't mentioned whether there's any hope for them. Are they starving? Are there any jobs left? What's happening on that front?

Then I have another question for you that is much more Canadian. You have in your estimates an increased amount in financing for your passport offices. It goes from approximately $54 million to $122 million, $123 million this year. You have a whole system of passport offices, and I want to tell you that in my area of the country there is no passport office. I believe there is no passport office in northern Ontario, although I might be wrong. There might be one in Thunder Bay. The closest passport office is in Toronto or in Ottawa.

I understand that after September 11 the service was very difficult, but it remains an incredibly difficult thing for people in northeastern Ontario--and I'll speak for them--to access any kind of an emergency passport at any time. It is increasingly frustrating. Yes, there's an over-the-counter service in Ottawa and in Toronto, but it's a five-day to ten-day service if you're lucky and if you pay more and if you go there in person. It's a very frustrating part of what we do in our constituency offices for the people of our areas. Basically, we operate almost as a passport office. We do large numbers of them.

First of all, I think it's all done under cost recovery, so the people are actually paying for these services. This doesn't show it that I can see here, but I know the costs have gone up and the prices have gone up. I'm wondering if there is any hope that you can handle these regions of our country that have absolutely no service, or next to no service, to address some of the serious difficulties they have.

We have a very large ethnic population, and there are often emergencies where they must travel. Frankly, I'd like to see either more passport offices or more of these programs with Canada Post Corporation. We had a program with Canada Post Corporation, which, by the way, was extremely helpful. That has been cancelled. Is there some way you can provide outreach services to those regions of the country? My city has a population of 160,000 people, and there's nothing.

Perhaps you could address that, because it's a serious concern for all of the population of northeastern Ontario.

Mr. Bill Graham: On the conditions of life in the Palestinian territories--and this goes back to a lot of the questions that have been asked--the point I tried to make with Mr. Sharon was that ultimately the conditions of life there, if they create a sense of desperation, are not in the long-term interests of Israel, because they create such enmity in the local population that getting long-term prospects for peace becomes more difficult.

I also said to him that the problem is the rest of the world is perceiving Israel as persecuting, or using methods of controlling the violence--which they have to take, and I recognize they have to take measures to protect themselves, but we're trying to urge them always to take measures that in the long term will lead towards getting the negotiations going again.

At the moment, people can't move goods. If you have a truck--in the whole area Ramallah is separated from this village and that village--you can't move your goods from one place or another. You have to unload them from a truck, then move them. It's becoming economically impossible to have any communications throughout the area.

They have now installed new pass laws, so that you have to have a pass in order to leave your town, and you only get that for a month. Then, if you want to go from another town, you have to get another pass.

I'm just telling you what I heard from a meeting I had. This wasn't from Mr. Arafat. This was from reasonable people, some of whom had in fact Canadian-Palestinian dual nationality, who have businesses there or are working there. They're telling us there's no employment and no prospect for an economy under these conditions.

So there are Israeli security needs; we recognize that. Do the security needs go so far as to render any possibility of a decent life for the Palestinians impossible, so that in the end it harms the possibility of getting back to peace? It's part of the difficulty in the process of getting the negotiators going. Somebody has to say they've got to do something that gives the other party a chance. I think the Israelis have to see that, from the Palestinian side, yes, they're making their maximum effort, as I said, to stop the violence. Even if they don't make it 100%, you've got to believe they're really doing it. On the Israeli side, they've got to say now they have to let the Palestinian people live or they'll never create that. I think you have to add to this that they must stop building settlements, because ultimely they create conditions on the ground that perpetuate this problem.

On passport offices, you raise an extremely important issue. Many of your colleagues in caucus and many opposition members have raised this matter with me. We've gone to a lot of effort. I think most members of Parliament appreciate that September 11 created new problems of security for us. Also, there's the fact that, as you know, in order for our offices to produce a passport you have to have documentation as to citizenship, or where you were born. These come from provincial authorities. For example, in Quebec they changed their process a while ago, so there's been some problem with that. Ontario was on strike. People couldn't get their citizenship documents from Ontario because the government was on strike. So we're hostage, sometimes, to what other people do in terms of preparing their work.

Ms. McCallion, who is with me, has made an enormous effort, and I want to congratulate her and the department, because there were problems some time ago. But I want to assure members we've made a terrific, really substantial effort in the department to respond to these issues. I'm going to ask her if she could deal with your specific comments about the lack of a passport office in your area, and what we can do about easing the problem for you.

Kathryn, could you speak to that?

¿ (0950)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Please, Ms. McCallion, quickly.

Ms. Kathryn McCallion (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Passport and Consular Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Minister.

To address the issue of offices or subsidiary offices outside of the core 26 offices we had pre-September 11, it had been our intent to have--and we have invested in having--passports online. We're part of an effort across government to offer services to Canadians on the Internet. Post-September 11, we took a very close look at the fact that personal appearances, either at the beginning or at the end of the process, were a crucial part. At that point we did cancel the office in Sudbury. We spoke to the post office. By the way, the post office charges us for this service, but more importantly, we need to train their staff. It's not simply good enough to hand in the passport blank. Post-September 11, we withdrew that service and were questioning the capacity to continue the pilot through Government On-Line.

In the last couple of weeks I've just come back from visiting the passport offices in the west, and we are considering whether or not to recommend finding another relationship with the post office across the country. We're starting again in P.E.I., first with two outlets. We've trained the staff, and it should come online in June. We recognize we either have to go to a system where you can apply through electronic means or otherwise, or go back to across-the-counter service.

So your question is quite relevant. I don't have precision about when we'll open in the north, but we're back with the pilot groups with the post office.

¿ (0955)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you, Ms. McCallion.

Mr. Bill Graham: A new passport has been introduced. Hopefully, that will also give us more security.

Believe you me, it's a priority for the department to get this done.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Minister Graham and colleagues, for being here today.

I have a number of questions. You won't be able to answer them in the short period of time we have, but if you could get back to the committee with the responses, I would be grateful.

On page 64 of the estimates it shows a capital cost expenditure of $287.2 million on eight chanceries. I would like to know what that money is going to be used for, given the fact that it is more than half of the proposed Africa fund.

The second question is on the issue of increasing U.S. unilateralism, which I think is going to have a negative effect in the long term in addressing the real threats from terrorism. In my view, it is not going to address the long-term challenges to terrorism and deal with some of the antecedent events to produce some terrorism. As well, economically it is hurting Canada quite dramatically, particularly my province. I would like to know if you are in favour of a customs union and a revamped dispute resolution mechanism with regard to trade.

We're asking for accountability on NEPAD for African nations. We addressed this when you were the chairman of this committee. Are you going to propose new legislation, Minister, to revamp SEMA, the Special Economic Measures Act, so that we can address Canadian companies abroad that are violating basic norms of human rights and economics?

I draw to your attention the issue of Fortis, a Newfoundland company that is going to build a dam in Central America, which will destroy the last pristine, contiguous jungle rain forest in Central America as well as unexplored Mayan ruins. This will have a devastating effect on the economy of Belize.

This question refers to a man by the name of Ari Ben-Menashe. I've asked this question in the House. This is a person your own department said we should be very aware of and concerned about, a person alleged to be involved in fraud as well as in the trafficking of blood diamonds in Zimbabwe for Robert Mugabe. This person lives in Montreal. He was involved in the accusations against Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the MDC in Zimbabwe. Mr. Minister, why was the government deliberately seeking out Mr. Ben-Menashe for intelligence information when the department had been warned by our own trade representatives that we should be very concerned about this person?

The department is very understaffed with regard to people working on the softwood lumber issue. Most of the people are working on permits with regard to lumber. Would you please tell us some time in the future how many people are actually working on the softwood lumber dispute on behalf of your department?

Lastly, would you expand and reinforce the reciprocal--

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): You need to leave time for answers. You have two minutes. Go ahead.

Mr. Keith Martin: Would you expand and reinforce the reciprocal employment agreements for the spouses of members of the department who are posted abroad? Many of them are professionals and would love to be able to work. This would be a great thing for them and their families.

An hon. member: Point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Keith Martin: As I said, Mr. Minister, if you could submit the answers to the committee some time in the future, that would be appreciated.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Quickly, Mr. Minister. I know you have to leave to attend a cabinet meeting.

Mr. Bill Graham: Yes, I have to go to cabinet.

I'm very sorry, Mr. Chair, to share with you my concern that what I call the “Robinson technique” is escalating.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Bill Graham: Now everyone is going to ask more questions that will require 15 years of research to answer. But I'm quite happy.

I'll certainly try to do my best, Dr. Martin, to give you answers immediately to the questions I can answer.

On the estimates, $287 million is a lot of money for eight chanceries. I think the chancery in Germany probably will be a substantial part of that. You know the expenses of building a chancery in such a country. They are necessary. We have to have representation in Berlin. This is a key player in the world. Certainly we do our best.

Mr. Assadourian asked why we aren't in Yerevan, or somebody else asked why we aren't here or there. This is a factor in the problem. One of the reasons we're not there is that one doesn't build a chancery for nothing. In particularly complicated places, they can be very, very expensive. You'd think that in small places they might not be, but in fact sometimes they have more security concerns than others, which make them more expensive than you think.

So this is expensive, but we have to have representation abroad. Believe me, the department is very careful in analysing these figures. I was just in our new embassy in Cairo. It's a great place, but it's not fancy in any way. It's very solid, Canadian, and functional, and represents Canada well. But it's not in any way elaborate or excessive. I think that's true of most of our places. So we'll keep an eye on that cost. I agree with you.

U.S. unilateralism is a big concern for all of us. For two reasons partly, I'm not sure a customs union is the answer. I could go on for a long time on this, because I used to teach a course in European Community law. You'll recall that it commenced with a customs union. The thing about a customs union is that you have to have bilateral institutions to make it work. You have to have a common tariff and get rid of anti-dumping. So you have to have common institutions. Just look at the European Union and how it works.

To enter into a customs union, I don't think our American friends are about to enter into an agreement with us in which we get a commission and a bilateral arrangement whereby they will have to give up sovereignty. It's not just us; they will have to agree that we will have meaningful input as to what their tariffs are and what their policies are in respect of....They won't be able to levy anti-dumping levies on European steel without us and the Mexicans agreeing to it. If you just think about it, I don't think you're going to see the U.S. Congress willing to go down that road.

So we do have to face this. We do have to work on these issues. But it may well be that we have to just keep working with them to reduce their unilateralism. It's something I bring up with Mr. Powell regularly. He's sensitive to it, and Congress is less so. But that's the U.S. It's a complicated place.

Colleagues, regarding the SEMA, or Special Economic Measures Act, your committee is going to go to Sudan and look at it. But I hope when they come back they'll tell us something about what we can do to have a policy in respect of what Canadian corporations should do in areas of conflicts. I don't think we can construct what I call a Talisman foreign policy or a foreign policy that's totally around Sierra Leone diamonds.

You can't construct a foreign policy around a specific issue. You have to construct a foreign policy around a problem, and have a coherent approach to it. So what we should be looking at is how we respond to areas of conflicts. What are the roles of Canadian corporations there, and what are the roles of Canada there? Then we'll bring in the necessary domestic legislation to implement that policy. But it must be a policy. It can't be a knee-jerk reaction to one situation. I think this is true.

The issue of the environment is the same thing. You can appreciate that these environmental issues are sensitive. Lots of times, people are conducting.... You know, there are areas where there are environmental concerns. If we're going to have a policy on restricting Canadians' ability to participate in the world, we can't say no, you can't go here, or you can't go there. Canadians are free citizens. We're engaged in the world. The U.S. Congress has adopted something like 180 boycotts over the years. Nobody pays any attention to these. So we have to have a policy that's coherent. That's what I'm willing to work with you and the committee on.

À (1000)

As for Mr. Ben-Menashe, we did have contact with him, but the department has hundreds of contacts with thousands of people around the country. We need to get information. Some of the people we talk to aren't very nice people, but we need their information. We talk to them, but that doesn't mean we have anything to do with them. We're just talking to them. That happened. There was a conversation with Mr. Ben-Menashe. We got some information. We were able to analyse it in respect of where it was coming from, and that sort of thing.

I'll have to leave softwood lumber for Mr. Pettigrew.

About the reciprocal employment agreements, we'll write you a letter and get back to you on that.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, and a big thank you to our witnesses. It was most interesting to hear from you this morning. We hope you will come back as soon as possible.

[English]

Mr. Bill Graham: Thank you very much, colleagues.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Before we go in camera for our study, I would like all the members to remain seated, please. We need to pass some motions.

Mr. Robinson, very quickly.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, on the issue of motions, I want to give the committee formal notice that I am resubmitting for consideration by the committee the motion I proposed previously with respect to the recognition of the Armenian genocide. That motion has been dealt with previously by the committee. I am resubmitting it and will obviously give the committee notice of the precise point at which I intend to move the motion, but I did want to give notice of that at this point.

À (1005)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Fine. Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

We're going to take a break for few minutes.

À (1005)

À (1007)

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We will resume our work, please.

Ms. Jennings, we have your notice of motion; I will read it aloud:

That after the House resumes sitting in the fall, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade undertake a study of the results-based management and accountability framework of the Canadian International Development Agency.

Is this agreed to by the members of the committee?

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: That's fine. That's about CIDA.

Ms. Carroll.

[Translation]

Yes, we have quorum.

[English]

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs): On Tuesday the committee asked me to speak to the powers that be, that being the minister's office and the department, with regard to the possibility of this committee attending at Kananaskis. That is not a possibility at this time. It is far too late in the process. The G-8 has been designed, as was mentioned--as I mentioned at the time, and it certainly has been reiterated to me--to be a much smaller forum, with a much reduced number of attendees. In fact, leaders of the G-8--

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Ms. Carroll, excuse me for a second. This is supposed to be discussed in camera.

An hon. member: Are we in camera now, Mr. Chairman?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): No, we're not in camera at the moment. We're just passing motions. If you want to discuss this in camera, we'll go in camera, but I have another motion. It's about the fact that the Minister of Foreign Affairs from Iran is going to be here next week, and he would like to....

Do you want to move that?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: No, it's not necessary to move it again. I don't think we need a motion about an exchange of information. So do you want to do that now?

À (1010)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Yes, we'll do it now.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: The Iranian Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs for Europe and North America would be available to join the committee, again pursuant to our discussion on Tuesday, for lunch after our committee hearings on June 4--June 4 being Tuesday. I think that is better than our tentative discussion of June 3, because the reality is that a lot of the members of the committee are not here on Mondays.

So if the committee is happy with that, the protocol office and certainly the visitor are happy. However, just to be clear, it's not being put on by the Department of Foreign Affairs. That will be part of the committee's budget, to be arranged by the committee.

Sometimes I have got caught in the crossfire on these engagements, so I've made it clear on that one: let's be sure we're clear and willing to accept that.

The rest of it I'll leave, then, until we go in camera. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Whose budget is going to be used? I didn't get whose budget....

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): The committee budget.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Is this going to be only for the members of the committee, or can we bring in--

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): No, members of the committee.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Members of the committee only, I see. Thanks.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Ms. Lalonde, please.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: There was some noise: I didn't hear clearly. When will this study of the committee's budget happen?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): No. It is that Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs wanted to come and meet with us. We will meet with him over lunch on Tuesday, and we will have a discussion here around the table. We're asking for it to be unanimously approved so that we can meet him.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: It will be Tuesday instead of Monday, is that it? That suits me. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): That is correct.

Ms. Carroll.

[English]

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Let's be clear, he's not the Minister of Foreign Affairs, he is the Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs responsible for North America and Europe. It must be the way they split up responsibilities within the foreign affairs ministry of Iran.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Are there any other motions? If not, we'll go in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]