Debates of May 29th, 2008

Foreign Affairs and International Trade--Main Estimates, 2008-09

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

No, it was not.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Am I taking time out of my colleague's time?

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Right now you are on your own time. I will signal.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Chair, we cannot have a foreign policy unless our diplomats are working abroad. DAC assessments show that we are at the bottom of the barrel of the G-8 countries in terms of the percentage of our diplomats working abroad.

Is there a management plan to reverse this trend and ensure that our diplomats are going to be abroad in the field where they can do their job representing our country? Does he have a specific management plan with targets?

[David Emerson, Conservative, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, the answer is yes. Earlier, one of the members mentioned a strategic review. Part of that strategic review involves a plan for the department which will result in our moving from a world where we have one and a half people abroad for every one in Canada to a goal of two people abroad for every one here in Canada.

We will be staffing up quite significantly in a number of priority spots around the world as well. We will be changing the complexion of the people that we are retaining and putting out in the field, because the nature of the trade game has changed very fundamentally in the last five or ten years.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Chair, in your opening remarks, Minister, you spoke about principles being connected with interest. I am wondering if you could comment.

Canada was only one of four countries to vote against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The minister knows that his government's opposition to the declaration came in spite of recommendations to support it from three departments: the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, the Department of National Defence, and your own department.

I wonder if you could tell me how you justify the government's opposition to the declaration.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Chair, of course our government's position on the matter in relation to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is quite principled. In particular, article 26 of the declaration calls for all traditional lands to be returned to indigenous peoples. In Canada, we have had over 200 years of negotiated settlements with indigenous people. This actually runs in direct contrast to all that we have settled throughout our history and we feel that this declaration would run against everything that Canada has negotiated.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Chair, the declaration came after two decades of negotiation in which Canada played a large role. One hundred and forty-four countries voted for it and four countries voted against it. One hundred and one legal experts in this country have indicated the authenticity of this declaration.

Again, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. How can you justify your government's opposition to this declaration?

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I would like the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre to note that I want to be even-handed with all members. I beg you not to ask questions in the second person, but only in the third person.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has the floor.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, our government is very cognizant of being able to actually fulfill international treaties or declarations. As such, when we analyzed this declaration as written by the United Nations and ratified by other countries, we appreciated the fact that what we had accomplished in our country over the years would be unravelled by this declaration. As such, we could not take on that international obligation. It would not be something we would be able to fulfill, unlike her previous government which was happy to do that on many declarations.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Chair, that is in spite of 101 legal experts in this country.

Canada has continued to play mischief and has continued its defensive campaign against the rights of indigenous people both in Canada and around the world by maintaining its rejection of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the starting point or minimum outcome for further negotiations on the OAS Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

How can the government defend cherry-picking which human rights standards and instruments it will respect when doing so violates the rule of law in Canada and threatens the stability of the international human rights system?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, the member mentioned human rights. Of course, she will note that 30 years ago when the Canadian Human Rights Act was first brought into force, there was an exemption for first nations communities. After 30 years, no government was able to repeal that exemption, except for this government. This government was the first to extend human rights to first nations people.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Again, Mr. Chair, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Is it the minister's view that indigenous collective rights are not human rights? This appears to be the view of his government, even though the Human Rights Council and other international and regional bodies regularly consider indigenous collective rights under their respective human rights mandates.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, in Canada we have a Constitution that recognizes a number of indigenous rights. This is something which is, for the most part, unparalleled in the world. This is one of the biggest reasons that we felt, in relation to article 26 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we would not be able to fulfill our obligations to it, because we have these rights already built into our Constitution and we do not want to unravel that.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, the Manley report was highly critical of the lack of transparency and accountability in the government's presentation of the mission to the Canadian people.

What specific steps is his department going to undertake to correct that situation and respond to the criticism in the Manley report?

[David Emerson, Conservative, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, I will have to move very quickly.

Clearly, we have a cabinet committee right now reviewing the plans and strategies for Afghanistan. There is a parliamentary committee, of which the hon. member is a member. We will be presenting quarterly reports to Parliament. We will have a communications strategy in Afghanistan to communicate with the people in Afghanistan. We will have a communications strategy here in Canada to convey a sense to Canadians as to what the important objectives are for the people of Afghanistan. We will have a diplomatic strategy to ensure--

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, there have been recurrent criticisms of the corruption of the Karzai government. It is even said that the corruption of the Karzai government is eroding the political strategies the government needs to succeed in our mission in Afghanistan.

What specific measures is his department and the officials in Afghanistan taking to engage with the Karzai government on the corruption issue? That is the first question.

The second question is for the Minister of International Cooperation.

What specific measures is her department taking to ensure that Canadian funds for development in Afghanistan are not misappropriated?

[David Emerson, Conservative, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, we are very active. I know the ambassador was before the committee, I think it was yesterday. We have been diplomatically very active with the Afghanistan government. We have been very concerned about the corruption issue. As the member knows, weeding out corruption is very difficult. It is a long term proposition. Some of the specific initiatives include assisting to ensure that, for example, the pay for the Afghan national police is competitive and does not leave them so dependent on corrupt practices. There is also the training of public servants, the professionalization of the public service--

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, may I ask the Minister of International Cooperation to answer the question that I asked in respect of how her department can guarantee that funds spent in development projects are not systematically misappropriated by Afghan and other authorities.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, actually, the accountability assessment is done on three levels: at the country level, the program level and the project level.

In fact, we are guided by the Afghanistan Compact. We are working with organizations. There are assurances that we do the risk and result management accountability framework, which has been tabled with the Treasury Board Secretariat. We do it through organizations. Even though it may be supporting the Government of Afghanistan's programming and plans, we do it through trust funds and multilateral organizations.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore has the floor.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, what specifically has the Government of Canada told the Karzai government about the 2011 deadline? Is the Karzai government clearly aware that the military mission in Canada will end, or has it been led to believe we might be there for longer?

[David Emerson, Conservative, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think the Government of Canada has been very transparent and very clear that the military mission will end in 2011. There are communications going on at a variety of levels, ministerial, first ministerial. Officials have been over there communicating our thinking on the evolution of our role there. The role of the military is scheduled to change as the Americans and others move in, in disproportionately large numbers.

I do not think there is any mystery at all as to what Canada's plans are.