Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 7th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Patry.

I'll let the minister and the department decide which questions to answer. I would also ask Mr. Martin and Mr. Patry if we could perhaps get the written text of the questions, so that we can perhaps even pass them on to the department.

Mr. Minister.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I'll try to respond to the questions in order.

As I indicated, Mr. Chair and colleagues, one of the big challenges that we faced at the Department of Foreign Affairs was the inherited cuts from the previous government. That was prior to the program review that we went through in our current budget. We inherited cuts that had not yet been administered by the department, so this very much had a bearing on the decisions that we had to make.

As far as the public diplomacy program goes, there are a number of ways in which we continue to engage publicly. We continue to obviously have many public forums. We continue to receive papers and submissions from noted academics, from the business community, and from the cultural community. It's not as if we have cut ourselves off in any way from the sources of information that we currently enjoy in Canada and abroad. As well, as we all know, there is a tremendous use of Internet access now. That provides us with, again, much global reach that didn't exist in the past. So those were all factors in the decisions around the efficacy of public diplomacy programs that existed.

In the regions that I mentioned and highlighted in my presentation, like China and India and Brazil, we have consular and embassy presence there currently. We are doing a review within the department to decide, in the very near future, where we need to increase our consular presence, where we need to increase potential budgets as far as staffing across the board is concerned, and where we need to set our priorities. One of the big challenges, of course, is to avoid spreading our presence so thin that it doesn't have the desired effect, so that it doesn't have the impact that we would like to have, whether it be in business, whether it be in consular service, or whether it be in our ability to diplomatically intervene in areas of importance to Canadians.

On the issues with respect to research and global partners, the budgets there again went through the same rigorous review with which we approached our entire department, as we did across the board. This was not unique to Foreign Affairs, nor was it unique to any department. This was an approach that we took, upon being elected to power, upon being given a mandate from the Canadian people to look for ways in which we could increase efficiency and ensure that we are actually delivering services and getting good value for money throughout the department. That has been an abiding theme that we have pursued since taking office almost ten months ago.

The stabilization and reconstruction task force in Afghanistan that Mr. Martin inquired about is a perfect example of where we are investing, where we are assessing, on almost a daily basis the efficacy of our efforts there. And make no mistake about it. This is a very difficult and challenging mission in Afghanistan. As we know, with the insurgents in the south, the region for which we bear the greatest responsibility along with a few of our allies, is a constantly changing and constantly volatile region of Afghanistan. But the whole-of-government approach, which of course includes development, good governance, and the stabilization and revitalization programs that are administered in large part through the PRTs and many Canadian Forces personnel themselves, is having an effect.

It is our intention to continue to give our people the necessary resources and equipment to complete their tasks. We can do that without neglect and without withdrawing services in places like West Africa. We have not lost sight of our responsibilities and our commitment to Africa and to the regions there. There is a conference happening in the Great Lakes region, as I'm sure Mr. Martin is aware. We're very cognizant of the challenges particular to the Darfur region in Sudan, and Canada is clearly looking for ways to influence, in a positive way, the end of the slaughter, the end of the threat to all things humanitarian inside Darfur.

Having said that, again without getting into a long discussion on the politics of this, the challenge right now to provide more in Sudan is, in particular, the cooperation of the Sudanese government and the transition that has to take place for the United Nations to have a greater presence on the ground.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Minister, I hate to cut you off. We appreciate your comments, but I want to be certain that all members get an opportunity to ask you questions.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Sure, Mr. Chair. Just let me say that I know there are numerous questions that have been posed here. I could use my entire time to try to respond to each and every one of them, but we've made note of those questions and we will give specific answers, with details and figures, accordingly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Seven minutes, Mrs. Barbot.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I am relatively new in this committee, and I ask for your indulgence. I am a bit surprised. I thought in a meeting on the estimates, we would deal with the estimates, but the discussion is much more general. I always thought figures are specific and tell a clear story of what we are going to do.

You talked about our government's strategic priorities as they are set out in plans and priorities. What is the context of these priorities? Is the present policy of the government different from the 2005 international policy statement of the previous government? How do they differ? That would help us understand the context of budget cuts and strategic priorities.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, this government puts the emphasis on getting results, and that is different from what the previous government was doing. Promoting democracy and human rights is a priority for our government and its departments. We managed to get excellent results over a short period of time.

Contrary to the previous government, we got tangible results with the softwood lumber agreement with the US and a number of initiatives in cooperation for security in North America.

I would suggest to you that we have brought a great deal of focus. We have as well brought a great deal of effectiveness, in terms of results and administration, through this department and through other government departments.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

You are mentioning specific actions, but I would like to know the general context of your policy. Is it similar to the previous government's policy? If there are differences, what are they?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Not at all.

I've said that we have put a greater emphasis on promoting democracy. It has been front and centre in our approach with respect to dealing with countries and dealing with many of the programs we currently offer.

I would suggest that we have put more emphasis on dealing directly with our allies, including the United States and including our cooperative effort with NATO, the UN, and the mission in Afghanistan.

We have put a great deal of emphasis on respect for human rights. Of course, that includes raising issues at every available opportunity at international forums and at multilateral meetings with countries where we feel human rights abuses are continuing.

We have put a great deal of emphasis, I would suggest, on programs that promote Canadian values, promote equality, and promote the principles that Canadians put a great deal of value on.

We have been, in my view, achieving results at an accelerated pace compared to the previous government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Three minutes, Ms. Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, I am really glad you put the Foreign Affairs and International Trade departments back together. What has been the impact of this reunification?

In your statement, you said your strategic priorities included enhanced dialogue with our G8 partners and emerging economies such as Brazil, Russia, India, and China. You also want to raise the awareness of Canadians concerning the opportunities in international trade.

Every time I hear about international trade, I feel a bit of fear, because I am concerned that our traders and industries are not protected. Canada does not have any protection for them.

Do you plan on putting forward some action to protect our industries against all those emerging economies?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Minister, go ahead, please.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dear colleague, I will deal first with your first question on the impact of the reunification of both departments. The response of people in both departments is excellent. For them, it is a dream come true.

Results are positive. Both departments now work hand in had since many of their offices are in the same building. They share a common approach and the same priorities.

All of the efforts, I would suggest, are fully coordinated. The interaction is incredibly productive. In fact, the deputy minister of Mr. Emerson was previously an associate deputy minister within the Department of Foreign Affairs. So the personnel, the direction, and the coordinated effort are much more comfortable, and I would suggest much more efficient, when these ministerial responsibilities are combined. Having said that, I think there is greater coherence and greater direction when we're able to do that at the front end, rather than having the two departments try to respond separately. It's better for planning purposes as well.

Since they have the same approach, both departments are more efficient.

Regarding your second question, on further protectionism—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Please answer very quickly.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

—I'm not entirely clear about what types of industries or what type of industry approach you're suggesting we should move towards greater protectionism for. On the contrary, Canada continues to look for ways to expand trade into new markets, and in some cases to look at furthering free trade agreements, with India for example, as my colleague Mr. Obhrai knows. We have continued our efforts in places like Colombia and Guatemala, the Americas, and the Caribbean to pursue trade agreements, and to pursue memoranda of understanding. Those are areas in which we're looking to increase trade, not to the detriment of Canadian industry or Canadian business interests, but in fact to open up new markets.

I haven't heard any plea of late for increased protectionism that would lead me to believe that this is something we need to pursue vigorously.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Could we have Mr. Obhrai and then Mr. Van Loan?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you, Minister, for coming. It's always good to have you here with your deputy, Peter Harder--there are too many Peters in the department--and my colleague Peter Van Loan too. But I won't change my name.

Minister, in your statement, you just said that your message today to Canadians is that they are getting a lot from this department and the budget it receives. They're getting engagement and standing in the world. Today we have the African parliamentarians over here who are joining us. I know that in December you're going to Nairobi to talk about the Great Lakes initiative, which is one initiative that Canada is undertaking. We are spending a tremendous amount of money, on the NGO side and on all the other sides, on the issue of child soldiers, and to get all these things working. It's a huge, comprehensive plan. I think it's the best time, here now, for you to say that it's one of the best programs we have in engagement. Would you like to say something on that, Minister?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Obhrai.

I'll take the occasion to thank you for the work that you do on behalf of the department as the parliamentary secretary.

You mentioned Africa in particular as an area where Canada, Foreign Affairs, CIDA, and the whole of government have responsibilities and obligations to try to continue to elevate the human condition there.

Child soldiers, as was mentioned by Mr. Martin, is a particularly soul-destroying issue when you meet those who have been affected, the young people who had horrors perpetrated on them during some of the conflicts in Africa. There is a lack of basic amenities, starvation, and the AIDS pandemic.

There is no one in this country who feels we can't do more. It's a matter of ensuring we're doing it in a way that maximizes the impact and in a way that we know our aid is making it directly to the recipients.

How do we maximize that approach and ensure, as Canadians, as a government, and as a department, that we are making that difference? Well, we put in place mechanisms and we put in place people who are committed to the cause.

Having visited Africa and having personal knowledge of the situation there, surely you know full well that every bit helps. We are in fact doing a great deal to help the people. We have committed a great deal of money, resources, and personnel. We continue to do so.

We see the difference between our efforts in Afghanistan and our efforts in other parts of the world, including Africa. One of the great challenges is having the support of the host government and the desire to have Canadians there.

It seems fundamental to me that this is a truth that exists. We need to have an invitation, in some cases, to be able to do more inside many of the countries in which we would like to offer assistance.

Haiti is another example of where we are there at the invitation and with the goodwill of the people and the government of Haiti.

We have other commitments in which we're able to achieve a great deal because of the level of cooperation on the ground. In many cases, it also involves cooperation with other countries, international agencies, and NGOs that are the actual providers of the aid and assistance.

It takes the whole of government and a very coordinated approach, as you know full well, Mr. Obhrai, to achieve maximum results in many of these troubled spots where Canadians are giving so much of themselves.

Aside from the compassionate nature that we know is here in this country, Canadians generally are making remarkable contributions through international forums and agencies outside what the Government of Canada may sponsor. They're participants in many international organizations and many bodies, and they give of themselves daily throughout the world.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Minister, congratulations once again for the tremendous effort and success of the evacuation from Lebanon. It certainly brought to the attention of many parliamentarians the consular division of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Perhaps you could advise us on what types of challenges are facing the department in delivering the consular program. Are there lessons learned?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Goldring. That's a very relevant question.

I mentioned that somewhere in the range of 2.7 million Canadian passport holders live outside the country. The other figure that may startle you is that over 40 million trips emanate from Canada every year. So we're a very mobile population, as well. When Canadians leave this country, they don't take their charter rights with them, they don't take their health care system with them, they don't take many of the same legal protections we enjoy in this country. So when Canadians find themselves in stress, in peril, and in a difficult situation, their first point of contact in many cases is our embassies abroad.

There is tremendous pressure on officials to deal in a very personal and efficient way with Canadians who come to seek their help. I have increasing admiration every day for our officials at work abroad in this department and other departments.

As you know, having travelled a great deal yourself, the range of questions you can get on any given day, or the requests that you can get because of the situation people may find themselves in, whether they have been arrested, injured, lost documents--passports most notably--had their plane tickets taken, have been robbed, or they need to return to Canada because of an emergency.... These are just a few of the more prominent examples of situations we address regularly through the department. Global tensions, electoral and political discord and instability in some of these countries--we do more and more in terms of advertising and try to be pre-emptive and preventative as far as travel advisories on websites. All that interaction to arrange trips abroad by government officials is in large part carried by consular officials.

It's an extremely onerous and challenging position to hold, and yet one that is quickly embraced by Canadians who fill those positions in our embassies and consulates. A great deal of national pride emanates from this department in the work they do.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

They're really on the front line in some hazardous locations. I'm sure there must be some analysis on how to better secure and protect them when they are there in intense, active duty.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

You are absolutely right. We're constantly looking for ways to improve efficiencies using new technology, lessons learned, as you mentioned, from the Lebanon crisis. There's a Senate committee tasked entirely with the role of examining that evacuation as to how we might go forward in the uncertain times we live in. I hope we'll not face something of that nature again. There are 40,000 Canadians inside Lebanon, 15,000 of whom we evacuated in just one month with no significant resources there. I think we had nine people on full-time staff at the Beirut embassy when the crisis began.

Let's never forget this is risky work, as I alluded to in my earlier remarks. We lost Glyn Berry in Afghanistan. The work our consular officials do is life-threatening at times, and it's invaluable work.

I was in Poland a week ago, and just as we were about to enter the embassy, a few Canadians arrived. They had been robbed. I was taken with the professionalism and the personal attention afforded these Canadians, who found themselves in a foreign land and were in real trouble, concerned about missing their flight and getting back to Canada. Within a few hours, our officials there had sorted through this problem and given them the assurance and the assistance they needed. That has been one of the real joys to see the incredible effort that's expended every day by officials working abroad.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

Madam McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm a bit puzzled about the amount of emphasis on the importance of the field services being performed out there--consular services and so on--and yet the decision by this government not to have a parliamentary secretary dealing with consular services.

Second is the decision not to proceed with what I think was universally endorsed in last year's budget and set out by the previous minister that it was extremely important for us to get a better balance between the number of Ottawa-based and field-based foreign service personnel. Maybe you could address that briefly.

Third, I know there isn't time for detailed answers in these questions, and I appreciate your indication that you'd be prepared to follow through.

Fourth, we had a press conference earlier today with representatives of a number of NGOs and former alumni of the young professionals international program. We expressed our concern about one of the finest, most cost-effective, and valuable programs we have, and a decision by this government to eliminate it.

I wonder if I could ask you again--maybe in writing--to clear up confusion caused in question period today when the suggestion was made that this program was actually eliminated by the Liberals and you just came along and inherited that. My understanding is that the Liberals cut about $1.5 million to $1.6 million from the program, and your government has eliminated it all together.

Fifth, we had a very interesting couple of days--and just the previous hour to this session--with parliamentarians from a number of African countries. There is an interest in understanding exactly what Canada's current level of commitment and engagement is in the NEPAD program. I wonder if we might ask for a report to be tabled with the committee on that, since we don't have enough time to go into it.

Finally, on the issue of budgetary and human resource priorities, in the presentation that was made to us as well as the dollar figures to match, it is of concern to a lot of people that we have been seen to be second to none in the world in the confidence and calibre of our international personnel, yet most of the emphasis in the presentation we heard today, and many of the alarming cuts, would indicate that there is a dramatic shift in emphasis toward trade investment and commercial self-interest. Virtually absent from any commentary, and waning in terms of adequate budgetary support, are measures to support peace-building, aggressive diplomacy, disarmament, nuclear nonproliferation efforts, UN reform, and sustainable development. It is a great concern to the Canadian people and members of this committee to understand where we're headed with this shift of emphasis in diplomacy.

We know there is a tremendous need in the world for the kind of diplomatic expertise Canada has demonstrated, yet we see this sort of steady erosion following a period when the previous government began to hollow out much of our capacity. Now that we're into our eighth year of having a surplus budget, it's very alarming to understand the thinking behind a very significant increase of emphasis on our own commercial self-interest and a great deal of militarism, with so little commitment of dollars and support for the kind of diplomacy and peace-building that this world starved for.