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, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 29, 2003

0910

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

The Honourable Susan Whelan (Minister for International Cooperation)

0915

The Chair

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance)

Hon. Susan Whelan

0920

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

The Chair

Hon. Susan Whelan

0925

The Chair

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Hon. Susan Whelan

0930

The Chair

Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.)

0935

Hon. Susan Whelan

The Chair

Mr. Mark Eyking

The Chair

Hon. Susan Whelan

0940

The Chair

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

The Chair

Hon. Susan Whelan

Mr. Keith Martin

Hon. Susan Whelan

0945

The Chair

Mr. Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Hon. Susan Whelan

0950

The Chair

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

The Chair

Hon. Susan Whelan

0955

The Chair

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.)

The Chair

Hon. Susan Whelan

1000

The Chair

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

1005

The Chair

Mr. Paul Thibault (President, Canadian International Development Agency)

The Chair

Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

1010

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll

The Chair

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

The Chair

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

The Chair

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

The Chair

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu (Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade)

1035

1040

1045

1050

The Chair

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

The Chair

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu

1055

1100

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

The Chair

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

The Chair

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu

1105

1110

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll

The Chair

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu

1115

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

1120

The Chair

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu

1125

The Chair

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Irwin Cotler

The Chair

1130

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

1135

The Chair

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu

The Chair

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

NUMBER 037

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 29, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0910)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.)): Are we ready to start?

Following the order of the day, we'll resume the consideration of main estimates 2003-2004: votes 20, 25, L30 and L35 under Foreign Affairs and International Trade--Canadian International Development Agency.

[Translation]

I call vote 20.

[English]

Appearing this morning we have the privilege and the pleasure to have the Honourable Susan Whelan, who is the Minister for International Cooperation.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Thibault, the new President of the Canadian International Development Agency, will also be with us. Welcome, Mr. Thibault. I wish you both courage and determination, qualities you will need to meet the challenges that lie before you as President of the Canadian International Development Agency.

[English]

Before we start the elocution of Mrs. Whelan, I want to thank the department, CIDA, for the written answers relating to their last appearance on March 20. All the answers were really good answers and the timing was good. I want to thank the department for the cooperation you have with our committee.

Ms. Whelan, the floor is yours, please.

The Honourable Susan Whelan (Minister for International Cooperation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you and your committee for inviting me here to discuss the main estimates today.

As you are all aware, the global community has reached an unprecedented consensus on the goals, the conditions, and the resources that are needed to achieve sustainable development. Canada has supported this international consensus with increased dollars for development to ensure that these goals are met with effective action. In Monterrey, the Prime Minister pledged to increase international assistance by 8% per year.

[Translation]

This commitment was reflected in the 2002 budget when the government stated its intention to double funding for development by 2010. At least half of this new funding will be for Africa. This permanent increase will facilitate Canada's involvement in some of the most pressing international issues.

When I spoke before this committee two months ago, I mentioned CIDA's new policy on strengthening aid effectiveness.

[English]

This policy is the framework for all we do at CIDA, and it's going to be our guide as we continue to meet Canada's commitment to help the global community reach its targets. In Kananaskis the G-8 launched the Africa Action Plan, committing industrialized countries to work in partnership with the countries of Africa. Canada's flagship response to this plan is the $500 million Canada Fund for Africa.

Earlier this week the Prime Minister announced that half of the remaining $60 million in the fund will go towards agriculture and rural development programs, and part of the final $30 million will support war-affected and AIDS-affected young people, two of the most vulnerable groups in Africa. The rest of these funds will create more opportunities for young Canadians and young Africans to work together on community development with a focus on the environment. To strengthen the effectiveness of our aid we are focusing Canadian dollars on a limited number of countries and sectors where we can maximize our impact.

[Translation]

For example, Canada has helped save the lives of millions of children over the past 10 years through its vaccination and nutrition campaign.

There is no doubt that Canadian aid in these fields has had a truly positive impact, and that is why, last month, I had the great pleasure of announcing that Canada will provide $143 million in supplementary funding to continue these campaigns.

As is stated in the policy on strengthening aid effectiveness, agricultural development and private sector development are two of the areas on which Canada will be focusing its aid.

[English]

In April, after months of domestic and international consultation, I launched CIDA's policy on agricultural and rural development. CIDA is increasing our investments in this area because of the impact on food security and economic growth in the developing world.

Since I was last before the committee, CIDA concluded its consultations on private sector development, which is the basic engine for growth in any economy. Consultations in this area were held across the country as well as in the developing countries. Canadians generally agree that growth and economic development are critical for development and that CIDA should enable the private sector in developing countries and countries in transition.

I'll be launching the new policy in early July. We all should look forward to that because it will give Canada many opportunities to continue to assist in economic growth. We all recognize that Canadians cannot be safe in an unstable world, prosperous in a poverty-stricken world, or healthy in a sick world. The Canadian official development assistance and official assistance are integral parts of Canada's foreign policy to deal with these issues.

I am very conscious of the importance of policy coherence between CIDA and the other departments, particularly in terms of the three “Ds”, as they've come to be known: diplomacy, development, and defence. CIDA has been working very closely with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Department of National Defence to meet Canada's international obligations.

This collaboration is most obvious in conflict prevention, peace-building, and reconstruction, which is exemplified by our continuing work in Iraq. The Prime Minister announced two weeks ago that Canada will contribute up to a further $200 million to meet humanitarian and reconstruction needs in Iraq, bringing Canada's expected total commitment to more than $300 million. This contribution will draw on Canada's significant expertise and experience in helping societies recover from conflict.

Most of CIDA's efforts, however, are not covered by the media the way our work in Iraq has been. Our policy statement on strengthening aid effectiveness, “Canada Making a Difference in the World” noted the importance of engaging the Canadian public in international assistance. Canadians support development cooperation because they consider it to be the right thing to do. But those who are not involved are often unaware of how much Canada is truly accomplishing.

CIDA is doing more now to reach out to the Canadian public who have entrusted us with their hard-earned tax dollars. We have to demonstrate that we're strengthening the effectiveness of Canadian aid, that we're getting results, and delivering value for taxpayers' money. The development community must work together as well to communicate to Canadians that we are together making a difference in the world.

Canadians can be very proud of Canada's aid program. With international consensus on development goals and the changing international security situation, this is a time of tremendous challenges and opportunities. CIDA is working effectively to help meet Canada's international obligation and to contribute to a safer, fairer, more prosperous world.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank you for the opportunity to begin with a statement. I would let you know that I'm going to be here to take questions until about 10 o'clock. Then my president, Mr. Paul Thibault, who is sitting with me, will be here for the remaining hour.

I want you to be aware that Mr. Thibault became president of CIDA on May 5, so he's quite up to speed for today. We have a number of officials with us in the back if there are some more specific questions. We look forward to the opportunity to have an exchange of dialogue this morning.

¿ (0915)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Minister.

[English]

We are going to start now the questions and answers. It's ten minutes, and I'll be very strict, because, as you mentioned, Madame la ministre will leave at 10 o'clock.

Deepak, you're first.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

Thank you, Minister, for coming. I see your colleagues have still not arrived. There are few people coming out to see your riveting speech here.

Before I start, I would like to congratulate Mr. Thibault for taking his new position. It was news to us when we were told. Nevertheless, congratulations. And I hope we have an excellent working relationship, which I'm sure we will through the minister.

Minister, we have discussed this issue many times. My point of view, and as I've noted in travelling, is that CIDA has a lot of goodwill overseas. It has a good name and a tremendous amount of goodwill, as I said. But in Canada it seems not to have that much goodwill among Canadians because it is perceived to have political interference and political objectives, which seem to take a lot of the sting out of development aid.

In my point of view, if CIDA's mandate is development then the government should stick and make that agency a development agency and not have a lot of political interference and other political goals.

In your submission you just mentioned aid effectiveness, and noted the document that you have said is the road map. It's good. I've read the document, and there are some positive initiatives there you have taken.

What I'm interested in knowing is, as this has been the direction in CIDA for a while now, has there been any reallocation? Has there been any action based on this document, which talks about untying aid and reducing the focus to more countries, whereby you have taken some money out and redirected the money to places like Africa? We know the facts about the G-8 and the Prime Minister's commitment, but we are more interested in seeing what effectivenes has actually taken place, whether it has really taken place or it hasn't. Because I can still count other areas where you can be more effective--as you know, I've said it many times--redirecting aid from countries like China and India, which don't need it, although you hide behind the millennium goals. Nevertheless, I think you should stick with the effectiveness program.

I'm interested to know where steps have been taken in reference to the effectiveness, and how far, and whether there'll be any saving reallocated to areas where there's a need for priority--i.e., Africa.

Hon. Susan Whelan: Thank you very much.

Mr. Obhrai, you should know that we don't hide behind China and India and millennium development goals. We recognize that there are a large number of poor people, over 200 million, who live on less than a dollar a day in China and that there are opportunities for Canada to offer expertise, which we do, and we've had some successes there.

To get more directly to your question, we are a development agency. We are not governed by political interference in any way, shape, or form. We work very closely with countries, and with what their policy directions are, particularly what the poverty reduction strategies are of many countries.

For those that have adopted PRSPs and those that are moving forward with their own poverty reduction strategies and economic plans, we try to ensure that our programming is in parallel to theirs. And we are narrowing that focus.

Instead of being involved in four, five, six, or seven different sectors in the countries we're involved in, we're narrowing that focus to three or four in all countries, not just the nine countries of focus. But particularly, with regard to the nine countries of focus we are making great progress. I've had an opportunity now to visit seven of those nine countries, and I'll be visiting the last two the last week of June--Honduras and Bolivia. We hope to be able to move forward very quickly in all nine of those countries in enhancing a smaller number of programs.

We're in final discussions with the governments of those countries and are working very closely with their own poverty reduction plans. We have already announced an increase in education in Tanzania and Mozambique as part of our commitment to enhancing aid dollars more effectively. We look forward to that opportunity to do more.

¿ (0920)

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: You're going back to hiding behind China and India. The issue is actually the millennium goals. In my point of view, an issue in the aid effectiveness document--and you have alluded to this yourself in your statement--is that you need to use taxpayers' dollars more carefully in everything. And we'll differ on this. These countries are, in my point of view, emerging economies that can take care of themselves. And I'm not denying the fact of what you said, that there is poverty in these countries. Yes, there is poverty in these countries, but my contention is they can handle it themselves. We need to go where it is.

But you still haven't answered my question, which is based on your documentation, on your road map--let's call it a road map now, as this seems to be the new buzzword--of an aid effectiveness delivery document. I'm interested in knowing, has there been reallocation of funds out of that document, out of that focus? That is to say, the focus of untying aid and reducing the focus should be able to give you more dollars to be addressed to areas where there is a need--i.e., Africa again. Has there been any reallocation of those within the existing envelope that CIDA has?

The Chair: Ms. Whelan.

Hon. Susan Whelan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Certainly we recognize that there are emerging economies in certain countries, Mr. Obhrai, and we have actually announced the fact that we are graduating several countries. I think that CIDA does recognize that as countries are able to stand on their own and move forward we can work with them. So we are graduating a number of countries, and we've announced that, and we will continue to do that as they meet certain targets and certain levels.

I thought I did answer specifically that we have met our commitment from the policy document that we released last September by identifying the nine countries of focus, by looking at all of our programming. Obviously, all of our programming doesn't become due at the exact same time, but as we have gone through different competitions.... For example, in the Association of Universities and Colleges there is a competition where we have funding, and we have redefined the parameters of that competition to recognize that 50% of the funding should go towards African countries. We are redefining the parameters of our programming as it comes up for renewal, as it comes up for competition, as it goes out to publication, for those types of relationships.

In each country we are looking at what you can call a road map, but we are looking at what we call the poverty reduction strategy, or the economic plan, or our country development framework, working with the country, saying Canada is narrowing its focus and we are moving out of sectors.

Certainly dollars are being freed up as contracts are completed or as projects or programs are completed, and they are being re-channelled into more specific or narrow sectors. That isn't going to happen overnight in every single country, but it is happening, and it's happening across the board, not just in the nine countries of focus.

Specifically, as I tried to identify, in the nine countries of focus we are looking at the envelope that we have this year and finding new dollars for those nine countries. We hope to be able to announce very soon what types of opportunities will exist in those nine countries. We have been working very closely with them. And as I said, we have already committed an additional $50 million to both Mozambique and Tanzania for education over the next five years. So it's $100 million in total, $10 million a year, recognizing that those are two countries of focus, that education is a priority sector. We are going to narrow the focus and we are going to put specifically that type of increase into that area in those two countries.

So I think that's a good example of the direction we are heading in. I think you'll find more of that, and you'll be able to see more transparency as we move forward in how we have identified the sectors in each country. It's not going to happen overnight, and we didn't suggest it would happen overnight, but we are definitely applying our policy.

We are in the process of making sure we are untying as often as possible, going that extra step, particularly in the nine countries of focus, to see what types of competitions can be held, what types of international competitions, what types of opportunities are there, what type of capacity is there on the ground, and how we utilize that south-south capacity that we are training and developing as we look at the untying of aid as well.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Good morning, Minister. Good morning, Mr. Thibault. Thank you for appearing before the committee.

I have four questions for you, Minister.

Firstly, one of the most striking testimonies which we have heard at the Sub-committee on Human Rights and International Development was that of Mr. Stephen Lewis. Mr. Lewis spoke to us, with a great deal of passion and conviction, about the tragic spread of AIDS and HIV in Africa. Naturally, he deplores the attitude of the Americans and their decision not to cooperate in facilitating the use of generic drugs in Africa.

I would like to know how Canada stands on this issue. Has Canada drawn up a strategy to correct the situation and ensure that the real problems will not be forgotten in spite of the decision taken by the United States?

Secondly, one of the witnesses—I believe it was the CARE Canada representative—urged us not to be distracted by the terrible problem Iraq is suffering as a result of the decision which led to the country being attacked and not to forget Africa's tragic and ever-present reality. Has CIDA reiterated its commitment to keeping the focus on Africa without being distracted by any other issue?

Thirdly, on page 2 of your document, you say:

Canadians generally agree that growth and economic development are critical for development, and that CIDA should enable the private sector in developing countries and countries in transition.

I would like to know that you mean by the private sector. Are you referring to the private sector in the traditional sense, a private sector whose primary objective is profit and only profit—if so I would like you to explain the link with public interest—or are you also including NGOs in your definition?

My fourth question has to do with current world events. Is CIDA planning on creating an emergency fund to help the Algerian people whose current situation is tragic? Apparently, 2,500 people have died and a high number have disappeared. Is CIDA planning to introduce a special fund for these people, or does the agency not deal with this issue?

Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Susan Whelan: Thank you very much, Mr. Rocheleau for those questions. I'll just respond in the order you put the questions out there.

With regard to the use of drugs and the strategy to get back on track, obviously Canada has been very active as part of the discussion on trips at the WTO. Minister Pierre Pettigrew has been very actively there leading this issue to try to ensure that there are drugs available for the more needy people in the poverty-stricken areas.

I've had several conversations as well just this week with pharmaceutical companies that are located in Canada about what they are doing already on the ground and what other opportunities exist. We are trying to find ways to have those drugs available for those countries that cannot manufacture, and Canada will continue to push that this be part of our position.

Secondly, with regard to CARE Canada, certainly we do not want to be distracted or diverted by Iraq. We have specifically outlined and allocated a certain amount of money that will be available to deal with the situation in Iraq and Canada's contribution over the next several years, but that will not in any way affect the targeting of Africa. The Prime Minister was very clear that half of the 8% would go towards Africa, the Canada Fund for Africa, and in addition, the increase that we've received. We've been very active and I think very articulate about the fact that Canada will continue to support Africa and that Canada will continue to invest and work with the different African countries.

One of the things we are doing, though, is making some tough decisions there as well as we move forward to ensure that the countries we're working with do reflect our new policy of aid direction, do reflect the fact that there's a commitment to good governance, do reflect the fact that they have the ability to have effective aid dollars.

That's not to say we won't be there for humanitarian situations, but when we talk about development dollars, we are focusing in on those countries where we believe we can achieve more effective results at this time. Africa is definitely at the forefront; it's definitely a big topic of conversation at CIDA, and we will not be diverted or distracted by the situation in Iraq. But we will deal with the situation in Iraq.

Thirdly, yes, I fully believe economic growth is essential to development. I don't know if that comes from six years of chairing the industry committee, but I look at these countries and the opportunities that should exist for the number of people who live there. When you think about increasing their standard of living or their buying capacity or dollar capacity by even such a small amount, it would cause the economy to grow in leaps and bounds.

By that, do I mean private businesses that make profits? Are we looking at that? Certainly we're looking at that. We're looking at how to help businesses' on-the-ground development. A lot of our programming is targeted towards what we call micro-credit financing, the very small businesses, because we recognize that here in Canada that has been the engine of growth over the last decade, the small businesses.

So how do we ensure that businesses grow on the ground, to ensure that those African economies can grow? That's done by a number of tools. Our private sector policy document, as I said, our new direction, will come out in July, and we're in the final days of looking at all the consultations, the analysis, and the commentary that we've received from people to come up with that.

NGOs are a big partner in that as well. A lot of our micro-credit financing is done with NGO partners. A lot of our educational training is done with NGO partners. That's how the private sector will grow and develop on the ground--by ensuring that the education is there so that people can run their own business, by ensuring that the access to credit is there so that people can develop their own business. We're very optimistic that Canada has been able to achieve some very good results, and by refocusing and re-energizing our private sector policy, they will be able to help those results grow even more.

Lastly, with regard to Algeria, I believe Canada has responded very quickly to the emergency appeal that was put out. We have not received yet, to my knowledge, an additional request for funds. We are waiting to see and monitoring the situation on a daily basis.

Obviously, the Algerian people need to analyse the situation and determine what the overall impact is going to be, and then we'll have to take a very close look at what Canada's contribution could be or should be in the realm of it, recognizing that we want to be there to help people in humanitarian situations and in their time of need.

¿ (0930)

We want to ensure also that as we develop and move forward in many of these countries, they do have the proper education and training and medical preparedness and emergency-type skills for these situations. But we can't prevent natural disasters. We can just try to ensure that Canada is there to be very compassionate and of assistance, as we hope to be. We are monitoring the situation very closely.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Eyking.

[English]

Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming, Minister. I see quite a difference in your department since you took it over. It seems to be quite proactive.

There's one thing we find when travelling around, whether it's on the trade committee or foreign affairs: often what CIDA does in these underdeveloped countries is a reflection on us as Canadians. It's very important that we show leadership in what our policies are and what not.

Africa is becoming a high priority for us, and it should be. With the disease and malnutrition, the biggest challenge is there. Our committee is undertaking a major fact-finding and a bridging with Muslim countries. We just came back from a trip. These countries don't seem to have the same challenge as Africa has. They're a little bit different.

What is our focus, as Canadians and as CIDA, on the Middle East with your department? We were in Morocco, and you see the challenges they face politically, their class systems, education, religion, how women are portrayed in society, and what's taking place.

In the last two years, between 9/11, the Iraq situation, and the Palestinian situation, is your department's demand for resources increasing in the Middle East because of that situation? Is our focus changing on how we apply those resources to that region?

I'm thinking about how we are trying to get these countries to change a bit, try to deal with extremism in those countries, the education. Are we changing our focus on how we do things in the Middle East compared to maybe two years ago?

¿ (0935)

Hon. Susan Whelan: Mr. Eyking, certainly we recognize, and I agree with you, that Canada's leadership is very important in the developing world. How CIDA provides and directs our assistance represents Canada, and we need to make sure we do it as best we can--and we believe we do.

We have been seen to be slightly different from some of the other countries because we do work very closely with the governments on the ground, with our partners on the ground, to ensure that we're listening to them and that we're responding to their needs. The Middle East is definitely an area that is a focus for us and is definitely an area where we have many challenges, particularly on the issue of equity for women.

You should know, though, that gender equity is an underlying theme for all of our programming at CIDA. As we move forward in the coming years, we have to be very diligent to ensure that it is reflected in all our policies and all our programming in the Middle East as well.

I've just returned from a trip to Africa over the Easter break. There are different parts of Africa where you will see areas that have Muslim population or different types of religion that would not be as well accepted in Canada because of the differences between men and women. We have to ensure that our programming and the things we do provide that gender equity that we want to be in all our programming and that reflects Canadian values--recognizing that there are different cultures around the world and there are different areas.

The challenges are great. Certainly there is a demand for increased dollars in every country and in every region. We look for those opportunities, though, in the Middle East where we believe we can have impact, where we can make a difference, and we've provided humanitarian assistance.

We've worked on some peace-building initiatives as well. We hope to be able to continue to move in that area. We think Canada has some expertise in peace building, and there have been some good opportunities for us to work on that with many of our partners. But it's a very difficult situation in some countries. Some countries are at very different levels. When you're dealing in countries in conflict, you often find yourself mainly in a humanitarian situation for a number of months and then edging out of the conflict and back into a more proactive type of peace-building reconstruction effort, and sometimes falling back into that humanitarian situation very quickly.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Eyking.

Mr. Mark Eyking: After we left Morocco there was quite a bomb blast there, and I was thinking about our workers in these countries. As I say, you have to walk quite softly when you're going there. You're dealing with cultures of thousands of years. Sometimes you have to go in softly and deal with the immediate needs and then slowly work in our ideals. It's a very fine line, and I think your department must be a little more on edge with the situations, with the extremists and so on in these countries.

How do you deal with that?

The Chair: Ms. Whelan.

Hon. Susan Whelan: We try to recognize that there are those differences. For example, I'm a female minister and some of my predecessors have also been female ministers. We recognize that in some countries that's not accepted yet—to have ministers of their government as females or to treat them as equals. There can be those differences automatically just by my being present in a country.

We try to ensure that our people who are on the ground are well supported. We recognize that many of them live in what we determine to be hardship countries and hardship situations, and that it can often be difficult. Obviously, we are constantly monitoring their safety and their security as well as their ability to make progress in the countries they're involved in.

We hope that Canada's presence and Canada's work is effective and that we continue to ensure that we have a role in many of those countries because we believe we can make a difference and help countries change some of their outlook on things.

¿ (0940)

The Chair: Thank you.

Now we'll go to Mr. Martin.

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

Thank you, Minister Whelan, for being here. And again, welcome, Mr. Thibault. Truly, I wish you well in your new post. It's a very exciting one to have.

The number of questions i have will be impossible to answer in the time allotted, but with your help I'd like to submit them and at your leisure perhaps your officials could answer them and submit them to the committee when they're finished.

The first question deals with the global fund for AIDS, TB, and malaria. We're not meeting our commitments on that fund. Perhaps you could tell us, Minister Whelan, why we're not meeting those commitments when AIDS is the disease that in the history of our species will kill more people than any other disease, more than 200 million at the last count.

Question two deals with the Congo. While we may or may not be able to make a true contribution, there are many other things we can do. Are we planning on making a contribution to the primary health needs of the people there? More people are dying because of a lack of basic medications and micro-nutrient deficiencies and starvation than actually at the end of a machete.

Number three deals with famine. Are we working with our partners to develop a multilateral working group to develop the preventative initiatives that are required to prevent famines, most of which, as you know, are caused by human decisions?

My fourth question deals with tied aid. Our objective previously at CIDA was to reduce tied aid to 20%. That was listed in 2000. Perhaps you could tell this committee what percentage of our aid is tied aid.

My next question deals with NGOs. Has CIDA done an analysis on NGOs to determine what percentage of their funds go into helping the people they're supposed to help, as opposed to the bureaucracy? Or do we measure whether they're meeting the outcomes and objectives that CIDA has targeted them to accomplish?

Lastly, governance--or lack of governance--and corruption is the most important issue, I feel, that prevents the continent of Africa, for example, from being able to ensure that the wealth the continent possesses is getting to the hands of the people. The resources are being pillaged. They're not being used. Corruption is the cause of that. I wonder if you could list the programs that CIDA is funding that deal with the issues of combating corruption and dealing with good governance.

Again, I just want to list those, and when your officials could put the answers together we'd be grateful.

Thank you.

The Chair: Now, Ms. Whelan, you pick up which one you want from the six and the department will answer the other ones.

Hon. Susan Whelan: Well, I'll try to address a few of them and allow the department to respond in more detail in writing.

First of all, with regard to the global fund, Canada is meeting the commitment that Canada put out, so I'm not sure where that question comes from. With all due respect, we said we would commit and provide $100 million U.S. to that fund, and we're meeting that commitment. We're actually on time and ahead of meeting that commitment. I guess we'll have to delve into more of what you--

Mr. Keith Martin: It was based on the percentage of GDP--

Hon. Susan Whelan: Canada committed $100 million U.S., and Canada is meeting that commitment. If you are saying we should be putting more in, that's a different question from the one you asked.

Secondly, with regard to the possibility of a multilateral working group on famine, you should know there are many efforts that deal with famine. Canada has specifically increased its support to the world food program to address that situation directly this year, but I'll allow the department to expand on that in more detail.

With regard to governance, though, certainly it's a focus for us and certainly it's a theme in many, many of the countries we are involved in. Specifically, the Canada Fund for Africa has identified funds to work with local governments on the ground, to work through and partner with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to try to deal specifically with the issues of corruption and the issues of governance themselves. We are optimistic that we are going to make some progress there, because we have had some very successful twinning relationships in the past between the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and local governments on the ground. We hope that by the additional funding and programming through the Canada Fund for Africa we'll be able to enhance that.

If you are asking for a list of projects, you are going to end up with a stack that's like this, because I did that the very first week I became minister, and the stack is tall. There are many, many projects and many, many commitments.

We have done some very good work in some countries. We have been very successful in some of our corruption-fighting programming and we have seen some transitions now of governments and re-elections of democratic governments where Canada has had a role in ensuring that there are free and fair democratic elections and at the same time that corruption is removed from the government and that this is maintained through that process, which is key, as there is a change in government, so that they don't fall back into their past ways.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: We go now to Mr. Eggleton.

Mr. Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.): First of all, Mr. Chairman, the last time the minister appeared I asked about some further funding for Eritrea in connection with their famine, and the minister has provided additional funds that are more proportional to what I was arguing at the time were necessary in view of the aid we were giving to neighbouring Somalia.

Thank you for that additional contribution. I'm sure the people of Eritrea plus the Eritrean community in Canada are most appreciative of that.

As for Paul Thibault, I've known him for many years in many different capacities. He has acquitted himself well in all of them, and I'm sure he will in this one. Good luck, Paul.

I have two questions. First of all, Mr. Rocheleau mentioned Stephen Lewis' appearance here. When he was here he suggested that we triple the amount of money we put into the global fund relevant to AIDS and malaria and other diseases, and that by doing so we would be taking a leadership role.

I know we try to do as much as we can with the money we have, and we have more money, but some would argue that perhaps we shouldn't spread ourselves too thinly and that maybe we should take a few areas and focus on them. Maybe this is one of them where we could take a leadership role, really stand out and really make a difference. He seemed to think that this was a good way of doing it. It sounds very compelling to me.

I'd like to get your views on the possibility of moving up our involvement into a leadership role and doing something like tripling the amount of money we put into that particular fund.

My second question deals with the elusive 0.7% ODA that's associated with Lester Pearson and which we all talk about from time to time. I know you have additional money this year, and it's heading in the right direction, but we are still a long away from it. How do you envision us getting there, getting up to that elusive 0.7%?

Those are my two questions.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Minister.

Hon. Susan Whelan: Thank you.

First, with regard to the global fund, as I said, Canada has pledged a total of $150 million Canadian or $100 million U.S. between 2001 and 2004. We actually rank seventh out of all donors, so we're more than paying our fair share, I guess you could say, to the global fund at this time.

The global fund is still in the process of allocating dollars and analysing projects. We're monitoring that on a regular basis. There were some difficulties in the fund in starting up and actually getting projects in the door.

But I don't think we can just talk about the global fund. The fact is, we're quadrupling our money to HIV and AIDS, which is a commitment that was set by one of my predecessors, and between 2000 and 2005 we'll have had an investment in HIV and AIDS of $270 million. On top of that, the Prime Minister announced an additional $50 million to an HIV/AIDS vaccine as part of the Canada fund for Africa, and I announced an additional $19 million last November specifically to fight HIV and AIDS in developing countries.

So we are doing quite a bit in different areas. As well, when you look at tuberculosis, Canada again is providing $80 million over four years--something I announced last October--to continue the stop tuberculosis partnership, which is based at the World Health Organization. We have to remember there are a number of other organizations that also are working in the health area. We have and have had successful arrangements and successful contributions with those organizations.

We also are very much committed to the malaria campaign. We are in the third year of implementing the “roll back malaria” campaign in Africa, and we are continuing to provide further dollars. For example, I just announced a couple of weeks ago the contribution of $140 million to the immunization program, which will continue over the next five years.

So there are ongoing contributions in the health sector in a very substantial way. Canada is making a very serious commitment to a contribution to health.

With regard to the dollars in ODA, yes, I recognize quite clearly the 0.7% was set by Lester Pearson, a very distinguished and well-respected former prime minister of Canada. I also recognize we are heading in the right direction, as you said. We have turned that corner, which I think is vital in Canada's ability to get to the 0.7%.

The most recent numbers that came out of the DAC show that Canada has moved to approximately 0.28%. We know those numbers fluctuate from year to year. We've gone from being 19th to 12th, according to the most recent numbers. However, we know those numbers fluctuate from year to year based on our rates of economic growth and our budgetary expenditures.

But the good news is the budget of this year says an 8% increase for the next three years. It talks about doubling our ODA by the year 2010 in that commitment. That will help us move along the track. Depending on our economic growth, will we end up at 0.35% or 0.40%? I can't predict that if we stick just to that 8%, or that doubling. Is there a will among all parliamentarians to increase that? I would hope so. I would hope we could pick up that pace.

I think 8% is a good pace, but I would hope that as we show the aid effectiveness, the new strategies we're implementing, and the effectiveness of those results, Canada would be willing to contribute just a bit higher percentage and help get us a little quicker to that 0.7%.

¿ (0950)

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Rocheleau, please.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to come back to the question of the private sector, Minister. You spoke of aid for the private sector, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses.

What concerns me, and I believe this to be an ideologically important issue, is that elements of the public sector are sometimes privatized. I am thinking in particular of water and electricity. Some countries, in particular African countries, have bowed to western pressure and privatized key sectors, which has, in some cases, led to anarchy.

I was reading recently that in Ethiopia, if I am not mistaken, six months after the American company Bechtel bought the water sector, the price of water had doubled and people no longer had true access to it.

Does the Canadian policy also go that far or is it restricted, more modestly, and perhaps also more effectively, to what you outlined earlier, in particular with regard to small businesses?

The Chair: Minister.

[English]

Hon. Susan Whelan: We do have many programs and many opportunities to work in the areas of, for example, water and some of the more basic resources people need access to. Water is a focus. It's a focus of the Canada Fund for Africa. It's a focus of much of our programming, in recognition of the link between water and agriculture, the link between water and the development of different industries, and in recognition of Canada's commitment to the millennium development goal of access to clean water and how many people have access to clean water by 2015.

You should know I've made some very public comments on behalf of Canada at many international meetings that we need to be very careful as we move forward in some of the developing countries to ensure they do have access to and maintain certain types of resources. We are having that ongoing debate, I guess you could say, from the donor countries right now on what that means.

I think it's interesting when we talk about water in Africa, the use of water and how it should operate, that we don't have our act together here in each municipality across the country. We don't operate the same way across our own country. I have raised this with the Canadian Federation of Municipalities and I've almost put a challenge to them, saying we depend on them to help us in these developing countries to help set up systems and municipalities and local governance, but we need to be sure there's some leadership and direction.

For example, I live in southern Ontario, on the Detroit River and Lake Erie. I live within a mile of 20% of the world's fresh water. I pay for water based on consumption. There are large cities in this country that don't pay for water based on consumption, and I live right next to it. So it's hard to dictate a policy in other countries when our policy is not consistent across the board here in Canada.

That being said, our private sector development policy is not about pressure being put on countries. It's not about people giving up their resources to have access to funds. What we want to see happen from a CIDA base is for the private sector to grow and develop on the ground, from the ground up.

We also have the investment fund for Africa that my colleague, Pierre Pettigrew, is now leading. That's a $100 million fund that will be operational hopefully this fall. It will encourage foreign direct investment and opportunities for Canadian companies to invest in partnership with companies and others in Africa to develop and grow businesses there on a larger scale, for some of those larger projects that are needed. But obviously there is no pressure coming from the Canadian government or from our policy shop to relinquish resources in the process.

¿ (0955)

The Chair: Now, we have a last question. I know you need to leave. We have three minutes left.

Monsieur Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Allow me to thank the minister and wish Mr. Thibault every success in his new position.

Mr. Chairman, a few years ago, when we spoke of international cooperation we were speaking of something which did not really affect us. However, as the Prime Minister said, world poverty is increasingly becoming a significant factor in the development of terrorism. I am convinced that international cooperation amongst all donor-countries is key to ending violence. I believe that it is key to stemming global disintegration. Whether we like it or not, one of the primary causes behind the rise in terrorism is poverty. It is therefore important that all donor countries work together effectively.

I would like to give the minister the opportunity to speak to us about the way in which the management framework has been improved and the partners with whom we worked to bring about this improvement. If she has time, I would also like the minister to speak to us about additional tools that CIDA has developed in order to be more effective.

Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Whelan.

[English]

Hon. Susan Whelan: Well, we are working with a number of partners as we move forward, and we are trying to ensure that a number of our new policies are implemented as we move forward as well, so that we can deal specifically with the issue of poverty.

We have partners both in the private sector and in the NGO sector. We have partners that are colleges and universities that have tremendous expertise, and we have partners in the Canadian government. Many of our own government departments work with us in the developing country, from the agriculture department to the natural resources department to the health department. We take our expertise from Canada to assist in the developing world.

Definitely we have the new policies that we've put in place. We're in the process of implementing the agricultural policy that I announced earlier this year, recognizing that 70% to 80% of the world's poor live in rural areas and their main livelihood is agriculture. I think it's a great step forward for us at CIDA to be able to implement that plan. It's a great step forward for Canada to be proud and to be able to step up to the plate and recognize this.

We've shown tremendous leadership in that area, and other countries are also looking at doing similar things, as we move forward. I think it's also important to recognize that our private sector development policy that will come out in July will give us an opportunity to enhance our relationship with many of our partners as well, and to revitalize and refocus, as I said earlier, our energy in that area.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that we have to make sure that everything we're doing, which is our mandate at CIDA, is to reduce poverty, and our policy has to reflect that. So we are quickly trying to ensure that between our results and our partners' results, we're achieving the goals we have set.

All of our programming now is going through a regular analysis on results and a regular review to ensure that we don't wait till five or seven years to ask these questions. Did we achieve the results? Is it achieving the results, as we move forward on a timely basis? Are we reducing poverty? Are we being effective? And can we work better together?

We've also had a chance in the developing countries to develop new partner relationships through the poverty reduction strategies, through what's called sector-wide approaches and swaps, by sitting at the table and working together as a group. Canada, Germany, France, and other countries are now working in an education sector together, instead of Canada just doing its own thing in education, and working with the country's direction and the country's government.

Imagine how difficult it was in the past to operate an education program in a country like Tanzania, when everyone was in there doing their own thing and then to say to the Government of Tanzania, why don't you have it right?

Well, with Tanzania opening up its doors to access to all for education, accepting the millennium development goal, and removing education fees a year ago February, Canada is participating in that education sector by directly providing funds and budgetary support to the Government of Tanzania so that they can deliver on their education program.

By working together as a whole, we're not doing little pockets of education in different parts of countries. That's one of the things we heard together. It cannot be effective if people are just picking different regions, because if NGOs and governments work in one sector, it then totally abandons another sector in a country. There has to be an overall policy within a country.

We have many partners in Canada, many partners in the developing countries, and the governments themselves are our major partners in the developing countries. But we focus on poverty reduction.

Thank you very much, Mr. Harvey.

I apologize, I'm going to leave. You're in very capable hands with Mr. Thibault, as you know, who was the Associate Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, as he comes to this new role. So he is well aware of what's going on in the developing world and he will do a very good job.

À (1000)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Whelan, for appearing in front of the committee.

You know CIDA is always on the spot. CIDA is part of the daily actuality here in Canada, in the world.

[Translation]

Thank you once again.

We are going to ask Mr. Thibault to stay because Mr. Obhrai has a question for him. Then, I would ask members of the committee

[English]

to stay here, because we're going to get a motion concerning Congo, since we have a quorum. It's going to be brought by Mr. Cotler.

Monsieur Obhrai, you have a question for Mr. Thibault.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes, I do, and I'll try to make it as short as possible.

Mr. Thibault, I have here a development cooperation review from OECD, which was done in November 2002. Interestingly, it talks about the ten top recipients of Canadian aid, some of which are Poland, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, and India. These are some of the top ten recipients of ODA from Canada. So my question still remains on that.

As I see in this graph here, I'm picking up the areas where $582 million of your budget is for “unspecified programs”. And then you go down to where it says how this has been broken down, into “education”, “debt relief”, “other social infrastructure”, “emergency aid”, “program assistance”. And then you have a big chunk in there that says “unspecified”. So there are lots of areas in your programs that are called “unspecified”.

If I follow this one here, Aid to Developing Countries, issued by the Library of Parliament, it says that the last in-depth review of ODA policies and programs was done in 1994. That is almost ten years ago, and yet there has been a huge, substantial increase in this thing. So areas are unspecified.

Can you tell us when there is going to be a total review of CIDA programs to see their effectiveness or not?

À (1005)

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Thibault, the question is a very complex one. As we are in the realm of unspecified programs, I do not feel that much can be specified. I would ask you to give a brief answer and ask your officials to give us a more detailed answer later on.

Mr. Thibault, please.

[English]

Mr. Paul Thibault (President, Canadian International Development Agency): Merci.

Thank you for this opportunity to answer a question. Not having the piece of paper to which you refer and having only three weeks behind me, I'm going to be very general in my response.

I think the document you referred to is a 2000 document. I think the situation has changed. Certainly the Kananaskis declaration, just by the fact of putting $500 million into Africa, I think has changed the equation. I think the aid effectiveness document has changed the equation by concentrating on countries. I don't have at my fingertips today what the countries are, but certainly Poland would not be number one.

I think we can give you a different set of priorities today, and I'll make sure you get the top countries where we are spending our dollars.

On the second point, you mention we haven't been reviewed since 1994. Now, unless I'm totally mistaken, a new DAC review has been done on Canada. We might get you a copy of it so that you can look at the conclusions of that. I think you'll find they are somewhat different from the conclusions that were drawn ten years ago.

Perhaps you could share with me, after the meeting, the document regarding where the gaps are and we can see what we can fill in for you, if that's all right.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thibault. I would like to thank you for appearing before us this morning. It was your first visit here, but it will certainly not be your last. We will always be happy to meet with you.

I would also like to thank all the people from the department who participated in this morning's meeting. Thank you once again.

[English]

Now, colleagues, a motion was brought by Mr. Cotler regarding the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Mr. Cotler, do you want to speak on this, please?

Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I'm moving the motion because of the urgency of the situation. I will in one minute describe it in terms of the evidence that came before us. We are in a situation, and the Secretary of State for Africa, Mr. Denis Paradis, referred to the war as the most serious political and humanitarian crisis in Africa.

In a word, sixteen million people have critical humanitarian needs, which we've just discussed. Over three million died in the last two and a half years alone in the eastern part of the Congo.

I can go on, Mr. Chairman, but I make those remarks because of the urgency of the situation. Therefore, the motion reads as follows:

The Committee, in view of the worsening crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and of compelling evidence presented recently to it,

--of which I've given you just some of the examples--

calls upon the Government of Canada to intensify its efforts to reach agreement in the United Nations and through other multilateral channels, to act immediately and forcefully to bring an end to the fighting in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to start a massive humanitarian relief effort and to engage the commitment of the international community to play its part in achieving long-term stability and development in the region;

further urges the Government to seriously consider contributing a significant Canadian Forces and civilian police contingent to a new United Nations security force in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where Canada's expertise in peacekeeping and post-conflict reconstruction and credibility in the region allow the possibility of a substantial contribution toward resolving this crisis;

notes the implication for Canada's involvement in other multilateral efforts but believes that the urgency and magnitude of this humanitarian crisis must make it a priority for the Government.

The Chair: Any other comment?

Monsieur Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin: I completely and utterly support Professor Cotler's intervention. I hope the committee sees the wisdom of it, the urgency of it, because the sheer numbers of people who are dying in this conflict make all other conflicts and humanitarian interventions in the world pale by comparison.

So I would think it's something we absolutely must support and push the government to adopt. I thank Professor Cotler for his intervention.

The Chair: I have Mr. Obhrai and Madam Carroll.

Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: While there is absolutely a crisis in the Congo that requires attention, this motion has some language that is very weird--i.e., “massive humanitarian relief”. What do you mean by “massive humanitarian relief”?

I can understand about saying “start a humanitarian relief effort”, but the word “massive” itself is leading to.... What kind of massiveness are we talking about? Are we talking about huge...? I don't know. You're talking about the Canadian Forces, civilian police, that's fine. You've identified areas where it should go.

I wouldn't have much problem at all to say “to start a humanitarian relief effort” in that. “Massive” to me is.... I don't know in which direction we are going.

À (1010)

The Chair: I'll take the comments, then you can respond after that.

Ms. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I share Professor Cotler's grave concerns--and Keith Martin's and everyone around the table--of the horrors that are occurring, and it would appear to be getting far worse in the Congo.

I have just now seen the motion, and I would ask Professor Cotler to give the committee the 24 hours' notice usually requested, and to do so today, which is Thursday, so that we may deal with this on Tuesday of next week, or whenever.

The Chair: Okay.

Now, the ruling on this is the fact that this motion didn't have the 24 hours' notice, and I need to get unanimous consent to pass the motion today.

Do we have quorum of the ten members? My question is very simple: Do we have unanimous consent to pass it this morning? And if you say no, you don't give unanimous consent at this time, it's going to be brought back next Tuesday at our next meeting. That's the question.

Mr. Rocheleau, you want to--

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: That motion is very relevant and I would like to congratulate our colleague Mr. Cotler for his initiative. With all the information we have at our disposal, I think it is high time that the international community do something with the means at its disposal. I think that the suggestions are perfectly correct and relevant, and I would be pleased to support the motion.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Carroll, do you give unanimous consent?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: No, I don't.

The Chair: Okay, that's fine.

It's going to be brought up, Mr. Clerk, next Tuesday.

Now, we have two items, items B and C. Both are pursuant to Standing Order 39.(5). One is the failure of the ministry to respond to question Q-197 on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Casson of Lethbridge, and the other one is the failure of the ministry to respond to question Q-204 on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Rajotte of Edmonton Southwest.

Both were answered in a response tabled in the House on May 27. They've already been answered, but we need to bring this back to the committee.

Any comments? Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I just want to ask this question, because this was put forward by Mr. Casson and by Mr. Rajotte. Did anybody inform them that--

The Chair: Yes, they were both informed by the clerk officially that it was coming up this morning, but it's not compulsory that they appear before the committee. If there was no answer, probably they would have appeared because they didn't have any answer. They wanted to discuss the subject, but because there was an answer tabled in the House two days ago, I think, for them, the answer was given. There was no reason for them to appear in front of the committee, but both of them have been given notice of what's going on this morning.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: So what is the purpose of putting this now?

The Chair: It's compulsory. It's regarding a ruling, and we need to do it according to our rules in the committee.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: If it's done, it's done.

The Chair: That's it. That's what I said. It's done.

We're going to have the deputy minister, Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu, here as soon as possible, with Madame McCallion and Madame Sinclair. We're going to recess for about five or ten minutes to wait for them, and then we'll start.

À (1014)

À (1033)

The Chair Now we're going to continue. We resume consideration of estimates for 2003-2004: votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, L35, 40, 45, 50, and 55 under Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

[Translation]

I call vote 1.

[English]

As witnesses this morning, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade we have the pleasure to have Mr. Gäetan Lavertu, who is Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Mrs. Jill Sinclair, Director General, International Security Bureau.

I want to tell my colleagues that Mr. Lavertu and Madame Sinclair

[Translation]

are here this morning in their capacity as managers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and not as officials responsible for policy. Therefore, questions must deal with estimates.

Mr. Lavertu, please feel free to begin.

[English]

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu (Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Merci beaucoup, monsieur le président.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good morning. Bonjour à tous.

I am pleased to appear before you today. Minister Graham has asked me to convey his sincere regret at not being able to be here today, owing to his presence in Europe for a series of multilateral and bilateral meetings, including the Canada-EU summit, which he attended yesterday with the Prime Minister, and the upcoming NATO foreign ministers meeting in Madrid.

The minister is, as you are well aware, a strong believer in the principle of ministerial responsibility to Parliament and in the value and importance of this particular committee. As Deputy Minister of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, I will focus my remarks on departmental management in the context of your review of the main estimates for 2003-2004. Afterwards I will be pleased to answer your questions on these matters.

À (1035)

[Translation]

Before I begin, I would like to recognize that this is a truly opportune moment to come before the standing committee. Recently, you completed a series of important studies. And now you are embarking on another timely one concerning Canada's relations with the Muslim world.

I would like to convey my gratitude to the committee for two achievements in particular. Your report on North American relations was a powerful catalyst for a public debate. And your report concerning the dialogue on foreign policy was insightful. Both are helping to stimulate thinking within DFAIT and in other departments.

[English]

With respect to the dialogue, Minister Graham is committed to reporting back to Canadians in June. He will outline the major themes emerging from the large volume of submissions to the dialogue. He had the opportunity to hear directly from Canadians by leading town-hall forums in every province and in the north. Expert round tables were conducted on major challenges facing Canada and also involved the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of the Environment. The website for the dialogue was visited by thousands of Canadians.

In his response document, which will not be a policy statement but rather a reflection of Canadians' views--in a sense, the mood of the nation at a time when Iraq generated extraordinary interest in international policy--the minister plans to outline the major themes that emerged, including broad support for existing directions and for strong international engagement; the importance of values as the foundation of our policy; clear understanding of the prime importance of the United States as well as the desire for an independent foreign policy; the wish for more action on human security and sustainable development; and the need to adequately resource our foreign policy instruments.

Minister Graham asked me to convey his assurance that as the government re-examines its international policy it will reflect further upon your report and those of the many concerned citizens, NGOs, trade associations, and other groups who were good enough to share their views and expertise. He would also like to thank those members of Parliament who organized their own town halls on the dialogue.

[Translation]

Let me now turn to the focus of these hearings with a brief overview of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

DFAIT is a substantial organization with 164 missions in 114 independent states and approximately 10,000 employee positions worldwide. Our primary contribution and value derive from the work we do abroad on behalf of Canada and Canadians.

The department's main estimates, or its opening reference levels, for 2003-2004 total $1.75 billion, a net increase of nearly 6 per cent from last year. Roughly 70 per cent of the increase represents compensation for the additional costs of existing programs. The balance of the increase goes toward financing new programs or initiatives.

[English]

While the new strategic planning and priorities framework that we have adopted this year is flexible, the department's budget, while significant, is inherently rigid. Let me explain.

The largest single component of our overseas expenditures, some $196 million in 2002-2003, is the cost of supporting the overseas representations and operations of our partner departments. In fact, other departments account for more than half of all program staff abroad. As a result, we cannot reallocate overseas expenditures without consulting extensively with affected partner departments.

Another major component of our expenditures is non-discretionary payments arising from Canada's international obligations. By definition, these assessed contributions cannot be reallocated. In this year's estimates we have budgeted $344 million for Canada's membership dues in a wide range of international organizations.

The inflexible nature of our budget has been recognized by both the 1999 program integrity review and the 2001 departmental assessment. They said that just over 90% of our budget should be considered non-discretionary. The remaining 10% is tightly focused on core government and departmental priorities.

As the committee reviews the main estimates, I would like to point out that successive program reviews and other budget cuts have reduced the department's A base by nearly 26% in real terms since 1990-91. At the same time, the volume and scope of work have increased. Globalization has meant that a great number of issues once considered domestic are now very much international, requiring the negotiation of treaties and extensive cooperation within international organizations. The number of relationships we manage has multiplied since the end of the Cold War and the creation of many new countries.

We are of course seized with significant new threats to Canada and to our missions and citizens overseas. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a security challenge difficult to understate. Terrorism requires us to focus on areas where Canada has had little presence on the ground, most notably now with the government's sizable contribution to the international stabilization force in Afghanistan.

Canada's commitment to rebuilding Iraq places demands on DFAIT. The department has received some new resources to cope with these pressures but has also reallocated to a significant degree.

Similarly, the government's expansion of representation and advocacy programs in the United States received some new funding in the latest budget but also involves an important shifting of resources within the department. Moreover, the department has internally reallocated $10 million to implement our human resources action plan. Please allow me to elaborate on this investment in our people.

At DFAIT we are working towards a better, more effective, more efficient workplace. This plan focuses on modernizing our human resources structure so that it best responds to the department's mandate and takes into account changes and trends in the working environment.

Specifically, we are restructuring the foreign service group. We are reclassifying the secretarial group to ensure that the work descriptions and classifications reflect current responsibilities performed at home and abroad. We will also be reviewing the classification of our clerical staff, and we are planning to integrate the management and consular officers into the foreign service group.

The plan also focuses on enhancing our recruitment practices so that we have the best candidates from across Canada.

Finally, the plan will ensure that official languages training, foreign languages training, and professional curriculum meet the increasing needs of our employees.

The examples I have just mentioned and others add up to a reduced ability to respond to additional pressures.

À (1040)

It is worth noting that the public conveyed through the dialogue a very clear message that it wants Canada to be even more activist on the global stage, telling us to do more of what we are already doing plus putting forward many new ideas as to what else Canada should do. Many individuals and organizations proposed that our foreign policy instruments, including DFAIT, need to be reinforced if we are to effectively promote our interests and values in a rapidly changing world.

[Translation]

As matters currently stand, despite what I've just said, major programs are set to wind down and the department's reference level is to decline over the next few years.

Last fall, the department established a strategic planning and priorities framework. It is explained in the main estimates. The framework had two major objectives: to help us respond effectively to the major international issues facing Canada, and to address the financial pressures confronting us. At the same time, it became a key component of our efforts to meet Treasury Board requirements for results-based management systems. This change of focus from activities to results will force us to re-examine our work methods. We are, however, convinced that this will be a fruitful exercise, one which will allow us to attain, more effectively than ever before, results that will be of benefit to Canadians.

À (1045)

[English]

The starting point for the overarching themes set out in the 2003-2004 estimates are the three pillars from the government's “Canada and the World” white paper; namely, to protect our national security within a stable global context, to increase prosperity and employment for Canadians through greater trade and investment, and to project Canadian values and culture internationally.

The framework identifies 12 priorities, the top four of which are based on the 2002 Speech from the Throne. They are: to advance Canada-U.S. affairs, particularly security and border issues; resolution of the trade dispute related to softwood lumber and collaboration on key international political issues; to continue to participate actively in the international campaign against terrorism and work toward threat reduction; to undertake consultations with Canadians to discuss the role that Canada will play in the world, which we have now done; and to implement the G-8 Africa Action Plan.

Other international priorities are to strengthen multilateral organizations like the United Nations and to enhance key bilateral relations with G-8 and other countries such as emerging regional powers like Mexico, Brazil, China, and India; to promote human rights, good governance, and the rule of law; to make real progress in the Doha Round of the World Trade Organization negotiations and in the talks to establish a free trade area of the Americas; and to coordinate federal activities in the area of international business development, including investment promotion and the branding of Canada in international markets.

The Minister of International Trade, Mr. Pierre Pettigrew, has addressed you and has spoken to our efforts to advance a number of these priorities. In concert with CIDA, DFAIT is paying particular attention to the promotion of good governance and human security in Africa.

The new partnership for African development championed among donor countries by Canada was developed and is led by Africans themselves. Our part of the bargain is to support progressive governance with new resources.

Finally, the list of our priorities includes the following internal priorities: to link to government-wide initiatives; to improve communications with the department's stakeholders as well as the public and to strengthen its working relationship with a broad range of strategic partners; to modernize human resources management with an emphasis on learning, official languages, and diversity, and to put in place more innovative management and operations; and to continue to introduce more integrated client-centred services making full use of up-to-date information technologies.

[Translation]

A part of this work involves pursuing new relationships with our partner departments in DFAIT's capacity as common services provider abroad.

We have given ourselves the tools to support a better alignment of resources abroad.

We have also launched initiatives to “work smarter" across the organization and to improve delivery of the trade program.

I mentioned that the strategic planning and priorities framework is designed to be flexible. Each year, the department plans to update it in light of experience. We will, of course, review it in light of government decisions following its consideration of the results of the dialogue on foreign policy.

À (1050)

[English]

Our business planning process flows from the priorities mentioned, and factors in pressures to enhance services abroad. It serves as a basis from which to proceed in turning to the very difficult challenge of deciding what to cut as DFAIT's part of the government-wide reallocation exercise announced in the 2003 budget.

Mr. Chairman, over the past few minutes I've attempted to provide the context for the department's 2003-2004 main estimates. Our strategic planning and priorities framework helps us to determine the best ways to achieve results for Canadians. At the same time, our ability to manoeuvre within our budget is limited and shrinking, notwithstanding the modest increase in our main estimates for this year.

In concluding, I wish to highlight the exceptional level of skill, energy, and resolve the department's employees have demonstrated in serving Canadian interests at home and abroad over the last year.

Thank you for your attention.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lavertu.

[English]

First of all, I want to thank you for the nice remarks you just mentioned regarding the last two reports of our committee. It's very well appreciated, coming from the deputy minister.

Secondly, I want to also thank the department for the great help and professionalism we found in all of the missions in the countries we visited on our last trip to New York, Rabat, London, and Paris. I'm sure we're going to get the same help also in the fall for phase two of our study. Thanks again to the department for this support.

Now we're going to start with questions and answers. We'll start with Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming before the committee and for your overview picture.

Actually, what I'm going to do is ask four quick questions. You can respond or you can have the department send its answers later on--either way.

First, how much strain is there in the relationships between Canada and the U.S.A. and between Canadians and the European Union? How far apart are we, arising from the international events in the last couple of months?

The second question concerns the war on terrorism and the rebuilding of Afghanistan, of Iraq now, and the attention everybody is giving to Congo. Realistically, do you think that in stretching ourselves far and wide with all these commitments, Canada can be an effective presence or meet the objectives set?

Thirdly, you talked about $344 million being sent out for our memberships in various international organizations. I think some time back it came to my attention that we were members of many organizations, some of which didn't even exist. Could you or your department provide a list of all these memberships—which, where, and how much our contribution to them is, and what is the purpose of each and every organization?

Finally, to Kathryn who's here from the passport office, it's very critical for my constituents to know what improvements there have been in passport services. As you know, there has been a huge amount of complaint. The minister said in the House that your department was working very hard to cut the timeline down. Has there been an improvement? Has it been cut down? What do I tell my constituents?

I'll leave it there.

The Chair: Thank you.

I just want to remind you there are five minutes for question and answer.

Mr. Lavertu, it's up to you. Certainly some of the answers to the questions on the list will come from the department. Go ahead.

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: Thank you very much.

On the first question, Canada-U.S.A. relations and how much strain there is, one has to admit there has been some strain in the relationship over the disappointment of the United States with respect to our lack of participation in the military intervention in Iraq. However, I have to say that overall the relationship is very, very strong. In fact, it's stronger between Canada and the United States than between any other country and the United States, and that is very much the way we are perceived abroad whenever I travel. We are seen as the closest friend and partner of the U.S.A. We have been in these recent years--let's talk about the last two years--very much working very closely with the Americans, in fact getting closer to the Americans.

Let's remember post-September 11 and the action we took together with the United States to combat terrorism through all means, including security intelligence cooperation. Let's remember the border cooperation that we have witnessed with the signing of a declaration and the adoption of a 30-point action plan, the smart border agreement on which we are actively delivering, and the good relationship that has been established in that context between Secretary Ridge and Deputy Prime Minister Manley.

Let's remember the close defence cooperation we have and which we have reinforced, notably through the establishment of a joint planning group at NORAD for the land and sea elements of North America's defence. And currently we are discussing the possible participation of Canada in the building of a missile defence capability for North America.

We are also working very closely with the Americans to deepen NAFTA and secure growth in the long-term perspective by facilitating the movement of goods and people across the border while taking into consideration the security concerns of our American friends.

There will be instances when we will disagree with the Americans, as we have seen with respect to the land-mine convention, the Ottawa Convention, or with respect to the International Criminal Court or with respect to the Kyoto Protocol, which we have decided to ratify and are now in the process of implementing, or, as I said more recently, on Iraq. There will be instances when we simply disagree, but the relationship is rich enough and solid enough that it can sustain these differences.

On the war on terrorism, your second question, we have taken a very active part from the very beginning. In that war this has been erected as one of the priorities of Canadian foreign policy post-9/11. I just mentioned the cooperation that we have seen in a North American context. Let's remember also that we were very quick in responding to the American invitation to become part of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and we have sent a sizable number of troops on the ground in addition to ships and air units in the gulf. Now this summer we are sending 1,800 people for a year, and we will be taking the leadership of the international security assistance force in the area of Kabul.

Therefore, we are very much involved in close cooperation with the United States and others in the fight against terrorism, not only in Afghanistan but more broadly including in multilateral forums. The G-8 meeting that we chaired last year gave us an opportunity to put forward initiatives that are now being pursued in various international forums.

À (1055)

With respect to our membership on international organizations, you are right that we are members of several organizations. I once conducted a survey of these organizations and found out that in fact Canada is no more multilateralist in that sense than other countries. We are members of several, but so are our partners. They have their own set, and we have ours. The fact is that these multilateral circles are proliferating, as can be expected in a world where everything is globalized.

The only answer is to work cooperatively with others to address the challenges of the day. I think we're going to see this happen. I take note of your specific interest in which organizations, where, to do what, how much we spend, and we will provide that information.

With respect to passports, we have taken several steps to improve the passport service. Perhaps I should let Kathryn McCallion, ADM for corporate services and passport services, say a few words about that.

Kathryn.

Á (1100)

Ms. Kathryn McCallion (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Passport and Consular Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you. Sorry for being slightly late at the beginning.

We are pleased to be able to report to this committee that we have made improvements in the passport office, as committed. We hope it has reached finally the constituents, who are also our clients.

Our turnaround time at the moment is down to eight days. We have an arrangement we are about to sign with HRDC where we will use, as a pilot project, several of their offices as receiving agents. We've improved our communications with the photography community to make fewer mistakes on the pictures because of the higher quality due to the passport. We have talked to several private companies about improving our processes over time.

Bearing in mind that as a result of circumstances the demand for passports remains abnormally high, we have hired new staff. We're running a telephone centre to personally respond as fast as possible to individual requests. We're not perfect; we still have quite a way to go. But we're a good way into our program of commitments to MPs, to the minister, and certainly to the public to improve our services.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Rocheleau, please.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for being with us today, Mr. Lavertu. I have four questions.

In the context of the Kananaskis Summit in 2002, and particularly in the context of NEPAD, we heard that Canada would contribute $500 million for aid to Africa, particularly humanitarian aid. Can you tell us what happened to this $500 million or how much has been used to date?

Second, if I understood correctly, the Canada Investment Fund for Africa includes an amount of $100 million to be managed by the Minister of International Trade, Mr. Pettigrew. What is CIDA's role with respect to this fund, how are investments and investors chosen, what type of investments are made, and what steps are taken to evaluate the humanitarian or commercial benefits of such investments?

Third, you said in your statement that 50 per cent of employees representing Canada abroad do not come under the Department of Foreign Affairs. If they do not come under the Department of Foreign Affairs, under which department do they come? This intrigues me.

My fourth question is somewhat gratuitous. I would ask you to reply, not as regards the substance, but rather from an administrative point of view. Under a new procedure that was introduced a year ago, today we got a copy of question No. 204, which was asked by our colleague, Mr. Rajotte, from Edmonton Southwest. It deals with border crossings between Canada and the United States and contains a number of related questions.

As deputy minister, how do you explain that your department did not reply to this question asked by our colleague within the 45 days provided for in the regulations?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Rocheleau.

I'm not sure the second question was relevant, Mr. Lavertu, because it referred to CIDA and to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. However, you may reply if you wish.

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your questions, Mr. Rocheleau.

It is true that at the Kananaskis Summit Canada succeeded in getting its partners to adopt a very important initiative, the Africa Action Plan, at the invitation of the NEPAD countries, the New Partnership for Africa's Development. So Canada took the initiative to establish a partnership with them for the development of Africa. The plan also required that the African countries would assume responsibility for their future and would make progress, particularly in the areas of governance, good government and sound economic policies.

This initiative has progressed since Kananaskis. There have been a number of meetings of the group of the leaders' personal representatives for Africa in past months, and next week in Évian, at the G-8 Summit, a progress report will be made following discussions with the Africans themselves.

As regards Canada's contribution, we had announced that we would make a special effort. You mentioned an amount of $500 million. A good percentage of this money has already been committed. I believe we are about to publish, if it has not already been done, a document on the use made of the funds to date. I could send you a copy of the document, which sets out the figures very precisely.

The Canada Investment Fund for Africa was another Canadian initiative made in the context of this general effort to support Africa. CIDA's role is indeed very important.

You ask what specific steps have been taken and what investments have been made to date. I could not tell you that from memory, but I would also be pleased to get that information for you.

Your third point was that more than 50 per cent of Canada's employees abroad do not come under the Department of Foreign Affairs. That is true. It is a new reality.

Let me give you a brief sketch of our representatives abroad. Most of our employees are not Canadians. Increasingly, we rely on local employees, who have phenomenal expertise in terms of local knowledge, language, and so on.

Over 15 per cent of Canadian employees now come under other departments, even though they receive support from staff obtained by the Department of Foreign Affairs. All administrative and support staff are there to assist these employees. Where are they from? They are from the Department of Immigration, for example. In some missions, such as Hong Kong, or Damas, for example, there are some very large immigration services, which sometimes make up over half the staff of our consulates and embassies. There are also CIDA employees, whose job is to administer Canadian aid funds, chiefly in developing countries, but also in central and eastern European countries, for example. Some employees come under the Department of the Solicitor General, whose work includes police and intelligence liaison activities. These people come under the RCMP, and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Our embassies also include staff from the Department of National Defence. I forget how many military attaches there are, but there are quite a few of them.

So a number of departments with international activities are involved, and a number of other departments whose main activity may not necessarily be international are also present in our embassies, high commissions and consulates.

Á (1105)

There are probably over 20 departments and agencies with representatives abroad these days. There is the Department of Agriculture, which promotes Canadian agricultural products, the Department of Industry, which promotes industrial cooperation, and a number of others. This is particularly true of countries such as the United States, where so many Canadian interests are at stake. The Department of Foreign Affairs, by itself, could never include all the expertise and resources required to pursue Canadian interests.

I will check on the situation regarding the question you asked about borders. We should have replied within 45 days. If that was not done, if there was a delay, I will find out exactly why that happened. Thank you.

Á (1110)

The Chair: I should tell you, Mr. Lavertu, that we did get the answer, but it was perhaps one or two days late. The rules of our committee require that the answer be provided within this period of time. However, we have now received the reply.

We will now go to Ms. Carroll.

[English]

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

It's very good to have you here. Certainly the committee enjoys the occasion and the opportunity to question you and receive the insights we are receiving. I'm going to leave the time mainly to my colleagues.

I do feel and do want to put it on the record that this committee has expressed its concern in recent reports about the fact that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has seen its budget reduced by 34% since the year 1993. I think I'm accurate in that regard. Mention of that, as I say, was in our report.

It seems to me--and other colleagues can agree or not, and I think they will--that we are in a set of international dynamics, as ever, when more and more is being asked of the department. Yet we register concern at the decrease in resources and therefore the huge challenge that continues to grow for the department, however professional and capable you are to achieve those dynamics.

I in no way, Mr. Lavertu, want to put you in an awkward position; I wouldn't do that. However, you yourself in the course of your discussions this morning made reference to trying to do great things with limited resources. I think it's important that this committee believes that to be true and that we too register concern, because questions today will probably lead to new directions and we will be asking even more.

Did you wish to comment any further, or just let me have my tirade and stop there?

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Lavertu.

[English]

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: Mrs. Carroll, I can only be very sympathetic to your tirade--welcoming it wholeheartedly.

These have been tough times for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. In the last ten years we have undergone two major program reviews, and now we are further examining our options with respect to reductions in order to contribute to the $1 billion transformation fund that was established in the last budget.

This is not without a lot of pain. These cuts have been supplemented in terms of suffering by the pressures that have constantly been put on the department and that the department has experienced over the years, including this year. In this fiscal year alone we have over $55 million worth of pressures that have to be addressed.

We have made a tremendous effort at reallocation over the years. In recent years we've reallocated $90 million to be able to focus on priorities. In the last year we decided to put money on our human resources strategy--money that we didn't have--$10 million through a reallocation so that we would have the workforce that we need.

We can only do so much in terms of reallocation. We're all for reallocation and we're constantly reviewing the allocation of our resources. To be absolutely sure that we're right on priorities, we've developed a very precise, very extensive, clear framework for planning and priorities with five strategic objectives, key results to be achieved for each, and twelve specific priorities to focus on in the next couple of years.

Dozens and dozens of reallocation transactions are taking place within the department and within the respective branches and at posts abroad and between posts so that we make the best use possible of the money we have available. But the question arises of the extent to which the government is prepared to invest into foreign policy instruments as opposed to other priorities. I know that there are many pressures elsewhere.

We have seen in the last Speech from the Throne and the last budget a priority being given to implementation of the Kyoto Protocol and implementation of the health accord and the innovation agenda and various socio-economic initiatives in the pursuit of a quality-of-life agenda. We respect that and try to reflect that in the pursuit of our international activities.

At the same time, this necessarily has implications for the amount of money available for foreign policy in general. The government will have to take a decision as to how much it wants to invest in the future in that part of the forest, so to speak, and which specific instruments it wants to privilege for that purpose, whether it's official development assistance or defence or diplomacy.

For sure, the Department of Foreign Affairs could use additional money for the purpose of investing in people, investing in policy capacity, investing in our representation abroad, investing in our plant abroad.

Á (1115)

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

[English]

Mr. Keith Martin: Merci, Monsieur Lavertu, and also to Madam Sinclair and Ms. McCallion for being here today. We really appreciate your presence.

I have a couple of questions.

Is there a plan, Monsieur Lavertu, in terms of mending bridges with the United States? If there is such a plan, could you share that with us?

Secondly, as you well know, our foreign service officers are the lowest paid in our public service. Perhaps you could let us know what is being done to rectify that problem.

Sir, you will not be able to answer the questions in the allotted time, but perhaps they can be responded to at a later date.

I also have an observation on that side. I see in our embassies and high commissions that our foreign service officers, our trade and foreign affairs sections, sometimes operate as silos. In some countries we have a lot of work in one section and not much in the others. If I may suggest, perhaps ambassadors and high commissioners could direct their officers to help the other side out when there is asymmetry in the workload.

Also, we want to focus on nine countries with our ODA, and I'd just strongly suggest we do not forget Kenya, Angola, and the Sudan. There's a critical need for a small amount of engagement at this point in time that could pay off enormously in the future in terms of security in those areas.

Lastly, I know this has been a huge interest and a lot of work has been done by Madam Sinclair on it--the issue of prevention. And for all the UN's warts, it is the only organization that I think can do this. We desperately need a functional early warning system that not only addresses conflict prevention but also food security and environmental degradation. If our department is engaging with the international community on building such an integrated group under the auspices of the UN, perhaps you could share that with us.

Thank you very much.

Á (1120)

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Lavertu, please.

[English]

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: Thank you.

I'm not sure I understood the first question, with respect to the United States. Was it in relation to visits?

Mr. Keith Martin: Do we have a plan in terms of mending bridges with the United States in terms of a dialogue, in terms of articulating the problems they have with us and we have with them, so these problems can be addressed?

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: Thank you.

On the first question, on Canada-U.S. relations, there is a very active dialogue between the United States and Canada on a variety of fronts and at various levels. I have to say there is an ongoing communication on the issues of the day. This starts at the political level.

We have seen in recent months the high-level engagement at the political level continue, with meetings between, for example, Mr. Bill Graham and Mr. Colin Powell; Mr. McCallum and Mr. Rumsfeld; Mr. Manley and Mr. Ridge; and so on. There is an incredible number of meetings that take place bilaterally in Washington, quite often, but also multilateral meetings, and a lot of phone calls and visits back and forth at the level of officials, between Washington and Ottawa.

I think that communication is of excellent quality. There is a good sense of cooperation, a good understanding. Of course, we differ on some issues--for example, softwood lumber, wheat, or other agricultural disputes. There are always problems to be addressed, but I think we address them in a spirit of cooperation and good understanding.

With respect to the foreign service officers, it is true we have in the past not been able to obtain the right kind of remuneration to be able to keep all of our people. We haven't been competitive in terms of salaries. We haven't been able to obtain the money necessary.

This being said, there has been some progress recently. For example, last year we had a new convention for foreign service officers, a new collective agreement that went a long way toward improving the situation and improving morale among foreign service officers. We are more competitive now than we were, say, two years ago.

We're now working on restructuring the foreign service. We're no longer going to have only two categories--foreign service one and two--but four levels, with the upper level being remunerated at the EX-1 level, which will provide a greater incentive to our foreign service officers.

We're already discussing with Treasury Board what could be the terms of the next collective agreement, which would further improve the treatment of our foreign service officers. We're also engaging Treasury Board, collectively with other departments with an international vocation, to improve the terms and conditions of service abroad, including with respect to spousal issues. We have lost some people, unfortunately, as a result of the inadequacy of the regime in place, but I'm hopeful we are on the way to improving the situation.

On the third question, there are indeed several sectors within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Our headquarters is organized in various branches. Our embassies abroad are organized in various sections. I keep reminding our departing heads of mission--and I was speaking to them this week--that they are, above all, leaders of an interdepartmental team and a departmental team, and they should get people to work as a team. We should be using our resources abroad with some flexibility so we develop synergies between them and the various components of an embassy will work together toward commonly shared Canadian objectives.

Á (1125)

With respect to official development assistance, there's no doubt we have to move in the direction of greater concentration of Canadian ODA funds if we're going to have an impact. It's much better than to simply disperse aid through an infinity of countries.

At the same time, I agree with you that if there is one area where we must make a special effort, it is indeed Africa. I'm glad to note that of the nine countries of concentration that have been retained, six of them are in Africa--which doesn't rule out significant investments in other countries of Africa, including Kenya, Sudan, and others you mentioned.

With respect to the broader picture of the effectiveness of international organizations in terms of coherence and quick response to situations, I can only echo your hope that there's going to be a greater coordination of all aspects involved in the response to some situations, whether it's security or humanitarian assistance. This is what we see at the moment in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, in the Balkans, and in a number of failing states where there has to be much more coherence and coordination on the part of the international community in general, and between international agencies, including UN agencies.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lavertu.

[English]

Mr. Calder, do you have a question?

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): No.

The Chair: Mr. Cotler.

Mr. Irwin Cotler: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd also like to express to our witnesses our appreciation for appearing before us.

Maybe I'll just get right to your last comment, because it really dovetails with my question about the special efforts with regard to Africa.

This committee's subcommittee on human rights has been holding hearings, and we've heard compelling evidence about the humanitarian catastrophe in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where, as you know, some three million have died in the last two and a half years alone--a humanitarian catastrophe that has been compounded by the armed conflict. This has led the International Rescue Committee to refer to it as the most deadly war ever documented in Africa, indeed the highest war death toll documented in the world since World War II. And the United Nations, which does not normally speak in these terms, has warned of the risk of genocide, which is a term I would not use lightly either. But I suspect this is a remembrance of what happened in Rwanda, where we didn't act.

So my question is, given our commitment to human security, and your reference this morning to even more action in the matter of human security, has the department, or particularly the strategic planning and priorities network, recommended any specific initiatives to address the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? I'll just refer to one example, which is to consider contributing significant Canadian forces and a civilian police contingent to a new UN security force in the Congo.

I make this question and my remarks in relation to what my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, has referred to and what we discussed this morning--the budgetary constraints. So I appreciate that. I'm speaking now about specific policy initiatives that might be recommended.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Lavertu.

Á (1130)

[English]

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: Thank you.

Yes, indeed the situation in the Congo and many other places in Africa is absolutely appalling when one thinks of the famine prevailing in Ethiopia and in other parts of Africa, and now Congo with this terrible civil war. Unfortunately, Africa has a history of absolutely horrific situations, war situations and humanitarian disasters. We have to address these situations as a matter of priority.

With respect to Congo specifically, we have paid close attention to the events in that country stemming from the civil war and have been involved for some time in humanitarian assistance. But we've also been involved in the facilitation of the resolution of the conflict. We have had over the years various special envoys, and we continue to have a special envoy in the person of Monsieur Marc-André Brault, who was very active keeping in touch with the parties and providing support for the inter-Congolese dialogue.

Canada has made a specific contribution there for the return of peace in the Republic of Congo. We have been keeping in touch on that with the UN agencies and with a number of partners, particularly France.

We now have a situation where there's a proposal before the United Nations, in the form of a resolution tabled in the Security Council this week at the initiative of France, for an international force to be sent to Congo to help keep peace in that part of the world. There was already a force in place made up of 700 or 800 observers called the MONUC, composed primarily of Uruguayan personnel. There's now a proposal to reinforce that by a force of about 1,000 soldiers. It's not impossible that this Security Council resolution is going to be adopted this week. The Prime Minister has already indicated that Canada would participate. We have had some officers participating in the MONUC so far. What we're considering now is the facilitation of air transport, C-130s, to ferry troops, particularly African troops, who could be brought quickly to the theatre. This would be a multinational force, which would involve France and a few other countries from the northern hemisphere, but primarily African troops. So Canada is prepared to participate to support that effort.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lavertu.

[English]

Now we're going to have one question without any preamble from Mr. Martin and Mr. Rocheleau, one after the other one.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Lavertu, the DRC in Zimbabwe is Rwanda redux. We've put together the document The Responsibility to Protect, which compels us to act in extreme cases. The UN observer force was irresponsible...an unarmed force into a blood bath.

Mr. Lavertu, will you ask for Canada's active engagement on the ground in terms of a peacemaking force that is armed, not only into the DRC but also into Zimbabwe?

Thank you.

The Chair: Monsieur Rocheleau, you can put your question now.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Earlier, I asked a question about the Canada Investment Fund for Africa.

What criteria are used for selecting investments, and has there been an evaluation of the results of these investments?

Á (1135)

The Chair: Mr. Lavertu.

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: Thank you.

[English]

On Zimbabwe, we are not contemplating at the moment an intervention through the United Nations in a form that would lead to a military presence on the ground. The Zimbabwe issue is primarily handled within the framework of the Commonwealth, and there have been significant efforts by the Secretary General, Mr. McKinnon, to facilitate a resolution to this situation.

There are also a number of African leaders who are currently trying to influence the outcome. I am thinking of Mr. Mbeki of South Africa, for example, and President Obasanjo of Nigeria.

This issue is currently being discussed within a committee of the Commonwealth called CMAG, and it's going to be addressed at the next CHOGM--that is, at the next Commonwealth heads of government meeting, which is going to be held in Abuja in December. The hope is that we can arrive at a situation where there is an easy, smooth way out of the problem. The problem, of course, is at the critical level.

So there is no intention at the moment to go in the direction of intervention using chapter 7 of the UN Charter in Zimbabwe.

[Translation]

With respect to the investment fund, Mr. Rocheleau, I must unfortunately confess my ignorance of the specific steps that may have been taken or the specific criteria established regarding these investments. I will have to find out about that. I do not think that the colleagues with me here today could help me. I will consult with CIDA, and we will send you an answer as quickly as possible.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lavertu, Ms. Sinclair and Ms. McCallion.

I would like to inform my colleagues that Mr. Lavertu is leaving his position as Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. On behalf of my colleagues, Mr. Lavertu, I would like to thank you for your hard work and dedication and for facilitating the relationship between the department and our committee.

I do not know what new challenges await you, but I am sure you will take them on with gusto. Thank you, and we wish you every success in your new endeavours.

Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu: Thank you.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.