Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 7th, 2006

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's frustrating, because there are probably two dozen questions we would love to ask. You may have noticed, I just turned to my very capable parliamentary assistant and asked him how many countries there are in Africa, 53 or 57, because it occurred—

[Samson Moyo Guma]

Fifty-three.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Fifty-three? He got it right. I had it wrong; I said 57.

But here is my point: I really appreciated your response, because in all humility, Canadians have a very hard time taking any responsibility for the misdeeds and misadventures of the only neighbour we have, which is the U.S. So it's understandable you can't be responsible for 52 other countries on a day-by-day basis, although lots of people try to make various governments feel responsible for their neighbours.

I have a couple of questions. One is with respect to NEPAD. There was some criticism in the early discussions about the launch of NEPAD, about it not being as thoroughly grounded in the experience and in the aspirations of African nations as it might have been. I'm wondering if you have any comments on that at this point.

We're about to have an opportunity to ask questions of our Minister of Foreign Affairs in the next hour. If you had the opportunity to look him in the eye across the table, knowing he is a new minister, not responsible for whatever early omissions there might have been, what would you want to be asking our foreign affairs minister about NEPAD in its current iteration, and where it might go?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead, sir.

[Obed Bapela]

I know that we are pressured by time, and I fully agree that we should have had more time. I'll just deal with both questions as raised.

The latter one is on the issue of the African Union and the Pan-African Parliament, and where they are in terms of human rights. These bodies are new. One was formed in 2000, reconstituted from the OAU into the African Union, with a new leadership and a new vigour to ensure that only those who are building strong states and strong democracies would be members and that as soon as you come into power through a coup, your membership would be suspended immediately—unlike the OAU, which allowed that type of situation to exist.

The Pan-African Parliament is still in its first five years, at its formative stage as a non-legislative body. After five years there will be a debate—and, in fact, it has started now—to make it a legislative body thereafter. Currently it doesn't have any powers in terms of legislation.

Thirdly, there is a challenge of finance, generally. Many member states do not contribute their fees to the African Union, so it is weak as a result. It can take decisions, but it will not be very powerful in executing some of the decisions. There are very few countries on the continent that are able to carry the coffers.

Let's take the African mission in Sudan; currently it's South Africa and Nigeria alone that are carrying that body. That is why there is a call for other nations to come in and contribute, and obviously to support what we have in Sudan around the issue of the United Nations resolution, which they do not like.

A lot of African countries have supported the resolution that it has to go. Once you do that, then they rush to the Arab world and say, “Arab brothers, look what is happening in the United Nations”. It's as complex as that, as my colleague was saying.

It's not a simple matter, but the issue of finance is a bigger issue. Niger is coming on board in terms of beginning to contribute to us some of the resources. They will not be giving money, but it will be equipment, vehicles for the mission to be able to cover Darfur, because the current region we're dealing with in Sudan is Darfur. In South Sudan there is peace. There is a United Nations peacekeeping force, and no problem about it. The northern government is not even raising an issue about it. They're only protecting Darfur.

When you look at the nitty-gritty and ask “why Darfur”, it's that there's talk about the biggest uranium find being found in Darfur. They will accuse the west and say the west wants Darfur because of the uranium in that particular area, and therefore they will not allow anybody to come in because it is their own resource.

So, on the issue of the AU and PAP, they are new bodies, but also quite a number of these are poor people; they are highly indebted, poor countries that we still have in Africa, unfortunately, and some of the debt cancellation that was committed to by rich nations has not yet happened. It has not yet been cancelled, and those countries are still trapped.

A lot of budgets in Africa are 60% or 50% aid that comes into a particular country. This means that country has not yet even recovered to build its own revenue and be a stand-alone and be able to contribute to the continental body that needs to be strengthened in order for us to be able to then implement programs such as NEPAD and so forth.

However, the NEPAD program is still continuing. It may not be grounded fully, in nation-to-nation terms; however, in terms of its being known, generally it is known. Then, parliaments are now beginning to engage at the Pan-African Parliament around the establishment of a commission on NEPAD. In every parliament there will be a commission of some sort for a debate or an engagement with civil society and the people of the respective parliament. They could also begin to follow on that.

There is a lot of transformation also taking place within the AU, because after establishing at the executive level—the ministers of foreign affairs level—now they are looking at the five commissions. They have just opened with commissioners, and the commissioners have to build. NEPAD is going to be removed as a stand-alone, to be included as part of the commission type of program.

Therefore, there's a lot of work and institution building taking place on that continent, and I think that is why you see it as weaknesses, whereas we see it as a building process. Also, it will need some type of partnership from the rich nations really to see that succeeding. With this peer review mechanism, the nations themselves will be able then to introspectively consider whether their democracies are working and then determine how they can rebuild, remodel, and modernize their nations, so that indeed the continent goes into those brighter days that we all visualize. Unfortunately, I could elaborate more, but due to time—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Was there anyone else on that one, on NEPAD? No.

We just have time for one or two very quick, concise questions. I'm going to take two, from Mr. Goldring and Mr. Martin, and then we're basically out of time. They have to be 25-to-30-second questions with the answers.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Akorli, you mentioned Ghana coming in the past, since 1992, from a military regime to a democracy that is relatively stable and prospering. Bringing a democracy from that, with a relative basis as you had mentioned--two people with experience on it--there must have been a shortage of political infrastructure. In bringing this democracy forward, was part of that process training to incorporate the politicals themselves to political party development, for the politicians to be sensitized to representation from the community level forward? Did you have some of that type of assistance too, or would that type of assistance have been helpful on the road and looked for in the future?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Martin, proceed very quickly, and then we'll get both answers.

We'll just get the other question. Please keep track of what that question was and answer them both together.

Mr. Martin.

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

Thank you.

Thank you again for being here. The essential question I have is this. What does one do with despotic leaderships? In Angola, the $6 billion surpluses, those moneys, are going into the hands of the leadership. In Zimbabwe, Mr. Mugabe is murdering his people. Ethiopia and Eritrea are engaging in a proxy war in Somalia.

What do you recommend, perhaps through the AU or other subregional organizations, must be done in order to rein in these leaders who are absolutely pillaging the resources of their country and sometimes murdering their people? And what can Canada do to support that process?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Martin, and thank you for keeping it short.

I want to go back to Mrs. McDonough as well. She also asked a question, and you may want to incorporate it into your answers. We have our foreign affairs minister attending this committee in the next hour. Part of her question, I think, if I can paraphrase it, would be this. If you were speaking to the foreign affairs minister, and perhaps you already have, what specific questions in regard to Africa would you be asking him?

Those are the three questions: Mr. Goldring's, Mr. Martin's, and that other one from Ms. McDonough.

Go ahead.

[Steve Akorli]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to start with the institutionalization of the political parties and their capacity to be able to enforce or enhance our democracy.

Yes, a lot has been happening, as I said, because we started anew. A lot of institution building had to take place, and the NDI and some other organizations working in the area of building political parties are a real help.

As of now, as I speak, there is established in Ghana what we call an IPAC, an inter-party yearly consultation, which is supported by Denmark and the Netherlands, and they are helping to build capacities in our political parties. The result is that the bickering that you have seen among political parties between 1992 and 1996 has died down considerably.

Indeed, but for that, the 2004 election could have been in some kind of turmoil, but because of the existence of this kind of IPAC and consultations within parties.... There is an institute, what they call the party chairmen forum, where they meet once every month to look at issues that are bothering them. There is what we call the general secretaries of parties meeting, which comes quarterly. All these things help. A think tank called the Institute of Economic Affairs is in charge of doing this.

So as we grow the parliamentary democracy, so also is the political party growth coming along. The result is that a lot of dialogue is going into our democratic structures rather than into bickering and war. That is the issue there. But of course, learning processes go on for quite a time, and it will take some time before we succeed.

Now, on the issue of our human rights generally, Zimbabwe and what's happening in Somalia, these two areas are a big concern to Africa. But I think in the past few years a lot has happened in Africa, and if nothing else, the institution that we call the African peer review mechanism has toned down the excesses of a lot of militant leaders in the sense that your neighbours, your peers, are ready to hold you to account and sometimes chastise you, and in certain extreme cases, if you even contemplate coming by any other means apart from democratic means, they are ready to jettison you.

So we think the APRM.... The reports coming in on the first few countries that offered to be peer-reviewed have been, I think, quite encouraging in helping others to offer themselves for peer review. We in Ghana happen to be one of the very first countries to offer ourselves for peer review, and the results are not as bad as people might think. In fact, it has really encouraged a lot of other countries.

So human rights issues are being confronted. Zimbabwe and Somalia are peculiar cases, and maybe we will have to talk with a lot of foreign or international relations aspects to be able to work on these. Because to me, the Zimbabwe issue has just moved from...it's not merely a human rights issue. That's somebody who I think is a megalomaniac and has gone.... Maybe we need a psychiatrist to work on people of that nature.

As for Somalia, that's another story altogether, and maybe we would need a whole day to talk about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Well, we'll have to have you back.

[Augustine Ruzindana]

I think the question to the foreign minister would be...although there is emphasis on the fact that NEPAD is of African origin, there is something that is always omitted, which is that there was in small print some $64 billion expected to underwrite it, and that was not supposed to be forthcoming from the African continent. That does not seem to be discussed at all. It is glossed over or never talked about.

There was an implicit understanding of that being underwritten by the developed countries, and the developed countries are talking only about the part to be played by the African countries, without assuming that they have a part to play.

[Obed Bapela]

That's one of their omissions in the G-8, which Canada is a part of.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It's too bad you're so far away and we have so little time. As you may notice, our minister is here. We have certainly appreciated your testimony here today. I think it has helped us understand it a little more. We get stats and figures and we hear information, but when it comes from those who are there on the ground and understand the trials and frustrations involved in democracy building, especially on the African continent, we very much appreciate your input.

We're going to suspend. We'll ask the minister to make his way to the table.

Thanks again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We're pleased in our second hour today to welcome Minister MacKay, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to our committee. I'm not certain how many times he's been here. It seems as if we're seeing a lot of our ministers lately, and we appreciate that. We appreciate your willingness to come.

These are the main estimates that we're here to discuss today. We welcome your comments, Mr. Minister. You are well aware of how this committee operates. We thank you for being here. After your comments we'll go to the first round, with ten-minute questions from each. Because we have votes today we'll be watching the time very closely. They may even be cut short to about eight minutes so that everyone gets an opportunity.

Minister MacKay.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm delighted to be here again.

As you can see, I have officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs with me as well. Doreen Steidle is assistant deputy minister. Peter Harder is deputy minister. Gérald Cossette is with us on passport matters, which he may want to address.

Colleagues, distinguished members of this committee,

I am pleased to appear once more before this committee.

I want to address the issues around our main estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

The estimates, and the Report on Plans and Priorities, represent the department's business plan for the current fiscal year. I do not intend to take you through it page by page.

Instead, allow me to say a few words about the department in the context of Treasury Board policies and the government's fiscal priorities, particularly in the context of value for money and a results-based approach to planning, expenditures, management and accountability.

Mr. Chair, the department's budget is $1.9 billion. Questions immediately arise: What do Canadians get for their money? Does it need to be spent? Is it well spent? How is the department handling the spending review that the government instituted for all departments?

Let me begin with the last question. The department has achieved all the budget reductions imposed on it, including the Budget 2006 reduction of $70 million that was inherited from the previous government. We are certainly doing our share in the new government's expenditure reduction program as well, and we will continue to do our share.

Having said that, I'm not going to list item by item how these expenditure reductions have occurred; you have that information, and we're pleased to answer any specific questions.

I do want to offer some perspective, though, on the significant role Canada plays on the global stage and how my department makes that role possible. Canada is a G-8 country and a NATO member with global responsibilities. We are influential with the United States and our allies because of that global role. That is why the United States of America listens to Canada. It's not only because we happen to be neighbours; our voice matters there. Friends can disagree respectfully and constructively, and we're able to accomplish much more in that environment.

Our global role also takes us into the heartland of international decision-making, negotiations, and networking. Besides the G-8 and NATO, this includes the United Nations, the Organization of American States, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation--APEC, the Commonwealth, and La Francophonie, to mention a few. There are a total, I believe, of 60 organizations of which Canada is a member, 40 of which directly touch foreign affairs.

We are certainly global in our perspective, Mr. Chair. One in five Canadians was born abroad, and 2.7 million Canadians live outside Canada, which naturally results in an increased demand for consular, passport, and commerce services. Canadian direct investment abroad reached $465 billion in 2005, and grew by 3.9% each and every year in the period from 2001 to 2005.

This is, of course, very much to our advantage, but we are facing a more complex and dangerous international security environment, and we must try to shape and influence geopolitics, geopolitical shifts, and the growth of new powers in the east.

Canadian security and prosperity depend on global economic and political developments, and on the quality and depth of our engagement with them.

Let us get to the heart of the matter. What are the department's strategic objectives? What do Canadian taxpayers get for their money?

Canada's strategic objectives fall into four main areas, Mr. Chair: security for Canada and Canadians; prosperity for Canadians; advancing our values and humanitarian actions globally; and service to Canada and Canadians.

Often overlooked is the department's value-added role in supporting domestic priorities through international action. DFAIT is the only government department that connects Canada's international and domestic interests across a whole range of programs and policies--for instance, our national security, supported by international agreements; counter-terrorism work; international law enforcement; global health issues; environment; and of course responding to foreign-based threats to security, such as combating the sources of terrorism themselves in places such as Afghanistan.

Our domestic prosperity is supported through Canada's international trade policy and programs; our sovereignty, through international law and relations with key partners; our federation, by integrating provincial representatives abroad. You would know, Mr. Chair, that this is increasingly happening, in that many of the Canadian provinces now have consuls and representation abroad with which we are interacting.

The welfare of our citizens through consular, passport, and commercial services, of course, is also our responsibility, as is our public health, by participating actively in pandemic preparedness worldwide. Indeed, the Government of Canada at large is supported by DFAIT through the department's provision of coordination and host functions for other government departments with interests and programs abroad.

Let me illustrate. The department enables the specialized work of 20 other partner departments and agencies, from Agriculture Canada to the RCMP. From these common services come greater economies and greater efficiencies in the use of taxpayers' money. In today's world, many parts of the government are involved internationally, as are the provinces, territories, and municipalities. The department's support is therefore an important feature of modern Canada in a globalized economy without borders.

Let us turn to the next question: How does DFAIT achieve results? The department pursues Canada's strategic objectives through policy development at home and representation abroad. That is, lobbying for Canada's security and prosperity interests directly; active participation in key international institutions and agencies; pursuit of important bilateral relations; and through the implementation of key programs aimed at advancing our priorities and our interests.

In carrying out these responsibilities, how does the department ensure value for money? It does so through improved accountability, risk management and modern comptrollership and the implementation of Treasury Board guidelines and policies.

As you know, our party was elected on a platform of enhanced accountability, and this philosophy is applied in all areas.

The department is ensuring improved accountability and risk management by better aligning resources with priorities and interests. That has been a common theme. The department has developed country and regional strategies as well as multilateral strategies for the organizations in which Canada participates. These are not for the department alone, but increasingly are whole-of-government strategies. These strategies specify the outcomes expected as well as the outcomes sought of each Canadian mission abroad, including those attached to multilateral organizations. And they contain assessment criteria by which performance and results can be evaluated. They also help allocate, and reallocate where possible, funds and resources.

One of the best examples we've seen in recent years was the evacuation of Lebanon, where many departments, including our own, reallocated resources to deal with the specific crisis at that time. Mandate letters assign the heads-of-missions' objectives to the broad government-wide agenda, as well as to performance management assessments and the achievement of results. In addition, the department has categorized missions in accordance with the level and intensity of Canadian interests and priorities.

Category one missions represent Canada's interests with the greatest political and economic importance to Canada. By contrast, category four missions represent very specific Canadian political and economic interests. A separate category covers crisis response missions and operations, which are high intensity but often of limited duration.

In other words, the department is constantly evaluating the size and composition of missions and the resources they require in terms of results for Canadians, in terms of value for money, and in terms of furthering Canada's interests and priorities.

In fact, Treasury Board has recognized the department's efforts in constantly re-evaluating DFAIT's property portfolio for opportunities to reduce costs and rationalize space.

These kinds of actions are set against a backdrop of unprecedented security demands for Canadian officials and mission staff abroad. Certainly it is dangerous work at times. Think of Kabul, Beirut, Port-au-Prince. Think of the more than 40 Canadian missions requiring armour-protected vehicles. From 2001 to 2005, 16 mission evacuations were required, involving over 200 Canada-based staff and their dependants.

One of the lasting memories I have shortly after being sworn in to this portfolio was being shown a picture by my deputy minister, Mr. Harder, of an armoured vehicle that had been fired upon with a bullet hole just behind the driver's door. So there are certainly reasons to invest in the protection of our officials abroad. That happened in Nigeria.

These examples and many others in the documents that have been tabled for this committee constitute, in my view, solid evidence of continuing efforts to be responsible to what matters for Canadians, results that count in advancing Canada's interests and priorities through international action and value for money in achieving them.

Let me turn briefly to the department's strategic priorities, the pursuit of which is after all what this business planning is all about.

As you will see in the report on plans and priorities, these strategic priorities are as follows: greater collaboration with the United States and increased cooperation with all hemispheric partners; a more secure world for Canada and Canadians, safer from the threats of failed or fragile states, terrorism, transnational crime, and weapons of mass destruction; a revitalized multilateralism, responding to the new challenges of globalization and putting outcomes ahead of processes; greater engagement with like-minded partners in the G-8 as well as emerging economies such as Brazil, Russia, India, and China; strengthened consular and passport services able to respond rapidly and flexibly; increasing Canadian awareness of the challenges and opportunities presented by global commerce; more secure access for Canadian business to global markets through the negotiation and implementation of commercial agreements; assistance to Canadian business to compete successfully for global opportunities; the promotion of Canada as a global competitive location and partner for investment, innovation, and value-added production; and finally, a foreign ministry that is recognized as modern, agile, and robust.

These priorities guide the day-to-day work of the department and they factor directly into the country strategy and the head-of-mission mandates and performance management agreements of the department's executives, both in headquarters and abroad.

Of course, there are also the priorities of the moment, which any government and any foreign ministry must respond to: crises and circumstances that erupt with little warning and situations of national concern that a government is called upon to manage on the spur of the moment.

I am thinking here specifically of the evacuation of Canadians from Lebanon, the dreadful tsunami of late 2004, or the hurricanes Katrina and Wilma. I am thinking expressly of the continuing demands of Canada's most important combined military, humanitarian, and development operation in decades, an operation that has required sacrifice, effort, resolve, and resources, human and financial. I am speaking of our mission in Afghanistan.

Other international issues will continue to dominate our foreign policy, security, humanitarian and commerce agendas on a day-to-day basis.

All these issues will be approached according to our philosophy, to support freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and human rights.

The economic growth in China, India, and post-Castro Cuba; consolidating fragile democratic gains in Haiti; Iran's nuclear program and UN sanctions; the rise of authoritarian populism in Latin America; multiple crises in the Middle East and quintessential rogue state North Korea; and Sudan's humanitarian crisis and the inability of the international community to respond—all of this requires our need to ensure that we continue to respond appropriately.

Finally, on the commerce side, a pressing issue that has required a great deal of attention and received a great deal of attention is our need to ensure that the border with the United States remains open to commerce and closed to security threats.

Mr. Chair, as I said at the outset, it's a complex and changing world, and Canada's interests and values are at stake. Canada needs to influence and shape this world the best way we can, in a positive fashion. My message to you today is that Canadians are getting a great deal from the Department of Foreign Affairs and the budget it receives. They are getting engagement and standing in the world. They are getting real value for this money, and real results in a way that is documented publicly and can be seen by everyone—and those are the documents that have been filed with you.

With that, Mr. Chair, my senior officials and I will be pleased to respond to any questions the committee members might have. I thank you for your attention. I appreciate your patience, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you to each and all of you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Just for the committee's information, because of the bells and because we know we're going to be going for votes, normally at the end of the debate on the estimates, we have the votes to pass the estimates. Otherwise, they're deemed adopted by November 10. We will wait on that until tomorrow perhaps, if that's all right with the committee. At least we have the Afghanistan briefing tomorrow, so there may be an opportunity to do that tomorrow. We won't be doing it today.

We're going to cut back to about eight minutes for each round, and we'll begin with Mr. Martin.

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

Thank you, Mr. MacKay, Mr. Harder, and staff. We really appreciate your diligence in being here. You've come many times, and we're grateful.

I'll just ask my questions, so that my colleague Dr. Patry will be able to ask some questions. But first I have a plea.

Minister MacKay, I believe the Canada Fund has now been transferred under your purview. I would just make a plea that you double it. It's the best bang for your buck that your ambassadors and high commissioners have on the ground. In my view, it is probably the most effective aid mechanism we have. It's really extraordinary, so if you can afford it and can double it, that would be great.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I appreciate that comment. I've seen the Canada Fund at work, and you're absolutely right. It's a tremendous contribution that Canada makes, and the officials who are operating that fund are doing superb humanitarian work.

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

And your high commissioners and ambassadors will give you a double thumbs-up.

My questions, Minister, are these, and if you can't answer them but can get the information for the committee, that would be great. They're as follows, and I'll just fire them off.

What has happened to the stabilization and reconstruction task force? I understand that it's only focusing on Afghanistan, Sudan, and Haiti. What is going to happen in terms of those funds for countries like Uganda, Somalia, Congo, and countries in West Africa that are now trying to dig themselves out from under years of conflict?

My second question: Is there any funding left, and what are those funds for conflict prevention and child soldier rehabilitation? I know that is close to your heart.

Why was public diplomacy gutted to the tune of $11.8 million, and why was the foreign policy research gutted by $1.3 million?

Also, on weapons of mass destruction, that program has been decreased from $107.8 million down to $85.9 million, and will drop down to $138,000 by 2008-09. This is for the removal and securing of weapons of mass destruction, a very important program.

Lastly, on the PRT for Afghanistan, if you could tell us what moneys are going in for what, that would be great.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Patry, we'll take your question now, and then we'll have—

Mr. Minister, we'll try to get as many answers as we can. We're going to watch the time, but we may need the department to answer some of those.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, in response to Mr. Martin's request, let me say at the outset that if we are not able to give the facts and figures here at our fingertips, we will certainly respond and have the information for the committee post-haste.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Patry.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I will continue with the line of questioning of Mr. Martin. Foreign Affairs will experience a $70 million budget cut over two years.

Mr. Martin has raised the question of a $1.3 million cut and the cancellation of consultative, research and public information programs on foreign policy. Your are eliminating all the research and information from academics, amongst others. If these programs are cancelled, how will you be able to inform the Canadian public?

You are cutting $4.2 million in the funds for consolidation of Canadian missions abroad. All these missions need more people and not less. You were talking about emerging countries like China, India, Brazil, and Russia. What are you going to do in these countries? How many consular offices do you plan on opening in these countries and elsewhere in the world?

Third, Mr. Martin also mentioned public diplomacy. Mr. Minister, public diplomacy includes cultural and educational events to make our culture better know and enhance our image abroad. The example that comes to mind is the cultural centre in Paris. Next year's budget for public diplomacy in Paris is nil. There will be no funds at all for culture in Paris. This is a disgrace.

Finally, you are wiping out the international internships for young Canadians program, a program with a $10.2 million budget. In this era of globalization and in a multi-ethnic country such as Canada, international internships are crucial if we are to meet the need of young Canadians who are our future leaders. What will happen now? What are we going to do with young Canadians, now that the Canadian government does not want to send them abroad for their education?

Thank you.