Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2006

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

With regard to Afghanistan, the previous government committed troops there, in part in the war on terrorism. We believe very strongly in three elements: development, which we don't hear enough about; diplomacy, particularly dealing with her neighbours, including Pakistan; and obviously defence. Canada has, through a resolution of the House of Commons, committed itself until 2009.

In terms of NATO, we certainly would like to see more heavy lifting by some NATO countries. In fact, there are restrictions by some NATO countries in Afghanistan in terms of offensive capabilities. This, of course, is a concern because that puts more burden on our forces, particularly those in the Kandahar region.

As far as Iraq is concerned, the previous government decided not to support the replacement of the government of Saddam Hussein on the basis that there are many countries in the world whose governments we may not like, but we don't believe in regime change; that is really up to the people in those countries.

As far as Iran is concerned, I think Iran and North Korea clearly.... Any exclusive club--the nuclear club--does not want other members to join. What happens in North Korea will have a direct effect, certainly in my view, on Iran. As far as North Korea is concerned, the Chinese clearly are displeased with the North Koreans. They have the ability to really, if they wanted to, put the screws to them. They don't, obviously, because they don't want the Americans up at the Yalu River. On the other hand, they are very concerned that this is a regime that has continued to defy both its friends and its foes. And Iran is watching, clearly, in terms of what response the UN has taken.

We certainly have appreciated the support of the EU countries with regard to that, but again, I think the byword is that we have to be consistent; if we're not consistent, we'll continue to see proliferation, particularly if it winds up in non-state actors, which is a real concern.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.

I do recognize that you wish to attend question period. My feeling is that we could probably go until 1:45 or 1:50. I'm sure they will have reserved seating for you in the gallery, so we can probably stretch it.

I want to make sure Madam McDonough has an opportunity here, but Mr. Menzies has a question now.

Ted.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

I will not take a great deal of time.

We started down this path with the 0.7% question, and I want to carry on a little further with regard to the development aspect. Something that has been very near and dear to my heart is the 2001 Doha development round. I'm sure many of us in this room share the frustration and the disappointment that we may have just seen this huge opportunity to help the developing countries....

Canada isn't faultless in this either. We are not squeaky clean. We have some issues to deal with in our own protectionism. We look at the U.S. Farm Bill; we're just not sure what the next Farm Bill is going to hold. We look at the European Union common agriculture policy. It's protectionism, and a lot of it is for our agricultural industries. Subsidies to the tune of $360 billion go to farmers around the world. That's against, in direct proportion, the $60 billion we give in foreign aid.

I think we will all rue the day if we don't get this back on track. I'm hoping that now that the U.S. election is over with, we can maybe get the negotiations kick-started again. It's going to be very difficult.

I would like you to share some of your thoughts on that. Is there some hope here? Do you hold out some hope?

[Seán Ó Neachtain]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Braghetto wants the question, but I'll take it, if I may, because I have been to Cancun and Hong Kong, and next week will be in Geneva, trying to do exactly what you have said, trying to revive the process and in the manner that indeed you mentioned, which is very important for the global economy. It's a very ambitious project, of course, to get unanimity on overall trade, particularly on the point you mentioned on agriculture.

Now, this is not the view of the delegation; it's particularly my own view regarding agriculture, and I hold it very, very close.

Agriculture represents 5%, give or take a percentage point, of world trade. The other 95% of trade is held back by this insistence on everything agricultural going through. As you know, agriculture is a very emotive issue, with very regional aspects.

I come from the west of Ireland, where we have only small farmers. I would say that the common agricultural policy has sustained small units right throughout its history. We have, I believe, reformed that to be non-trade-distorting. I hope that in agriculture we will get some sense of bringing together those who wish to go forward on trade overall. That is our ambition, and that is very much the ambition of our commissioner, Mr. Mandelson. I do not agree with him that he should reduce our agricultural portfolios, because I believe we should not outsource our food security. That's an aspect that I in particular will be very strong on.

Now, the overall project of the Doha development round is our ambition and our aim, and it will continue to be that. We'll have to tweak the system on agriculture somewhat, but I believe we can. I believe by agreement we can. But you know that the U.S. Farm Bill has to be revised accordingly and downsized accordingly to even approach our level of reform in the CAP.

At the same time, I don't think you should dismantle the whole project by being over-ambitious. We have to be careful here. Even though I might be a lone voice on the international trade committee in the European Parliament at times, I'm not talking about the rancher-type farmer; I'm talking about the heart and soul of Europe, the small or medium farmer.

So we have to be conscious of that overall approach.

That is my response to you, sir.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Any other comments?

[Seán Ó Neachtain]

Agnes Schierhuber.

[Agnes Schierhuber]

Thank you.

You know my background; I come from Oesterreich. So you know where I come from.

Throughout the reform process, the European Union has undertaken, over the course of the last 15 years, I think, a reform thrust that has to be recognized, and the European Union, with the reform of the common agricultural policy of 2003, has actually set the pace for the Doha Round. We are not of the opinion, and it is always here a grey area of the European Parliament...it is not a unanimous opinion that we are not moving any further in one direction.

Mr. Chair has discussed this at length, but the point here is that we also have a certain responsibility to provide the 450 million, soon to be 500 million, inhabitants of Europe with base products, feeding them healthy food and giving them a certain basis. It is well known--and this is, I believe, not sufficiently highlighted at the international level--that the European Union is the biggest net importer of agricultural products in the world. The European Union imports more agricultural goods than, for instance, the United States, New Zealand, Japan, etc., together, and this is a point where we see the weight of our responsibility.

We are all interested in reform, but we simply cannot accept that we in Europe would have to give up a production that we also absolutely need, and also with regard to what the European agricultural policy is, where we have made our position clear in the decisions taken in Luxembourg. The European Union confirmed that it was promoting a comprehensive farmers’ agriculture in all regions in Europe, meaning also in the peripheral regions and in the difficult regions--I think of my member state, where more than 60% of the surface area is in disadvantaged mountain zones--where it is absolutely necessary for cultivation, and also because of and with regard to environmental concerns.

So what we have here is a totally different tradition from the one I know and have gotten to know over the past five years in Canadian agriculture.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Menzies, do you want to respond to that? You have about 35 seconds.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

It's hard for a politician to say anything in 35 seconds.

I do appreciate that, Ms. Schierhuber, but I do hope we recognize that all countries are trying to protect their farmers in some way, shape, or form. The way the developing countries are trying to protect their farmers is to give them an opportunity to trade. And that's what we need to recognize, that these developing countries need an opportunity to compete so that one day a farmer can feed his family and also hold up his head and say, “I'm growing food for more than just my family.”

We need to provide them market access, whether it's in the United States, Canada, or wherever, so that they can compete and help themselves. Otherwise, this just becomes a bottomless pit where we're throwing good aid money after bad. We have to involve them in international trade so that they can help themselves.

That was more than my time, I'm sure.

Thank you.

[Seán Ó Neachtain]

I'm conscious of the time factor, Mr. Chair, but our Italian member has asked for the floor, as has Mr. Duarte Freitas. Perhaps you would allow us to have those questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

That's great. After that, I want to recognize Madam McDonough.

Mr. Freitas.

[Duarte Freitas]

I'd like to make a brief comment on what our friend has just said.

I understand your worry, but I don't know if this is the way to give the opportunity to those developing countries. What happens most of the time is that in Europe the little farmers have no conditions to produce, and the big capitalists take the money, go to the developing countries, and don't respect the environment or the social things. We cannot compete with this.

We have to protect our farmers. We have to ask for free trade, but more than that, we have to ask for fair trade. On the Doha table we have to put this as one of the main points for agriculture. We cannot open our doors to someone who is burning the Amazon, producing things using almost slaves, while stopping our farmers in Europe or in Canada from producing.

So we have to take this into consideration as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It's more a comment to that.

We will go to our Italian colleague.

[Iles Braghetto]

I’d like to speak on a totally different topic, and from a certain perspective, a matter of curiosity, but one that could also shed light on the very diverse models of integration that are being applied in the world.

My question has to do with native Americans; that is to say, my questions are as follows: What place do they occupy in Canadian society today? What institutional guarantees have they been given so that they can live according to their traditions? What is the type or types of involvement and participation in the country’s government? And as a matter of curiosity, how many are there? I know of the Cree and the Inuit; I do not know if there are others.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

I'm looking around to see who serves on our aboriginal committee. I think Mr. Patry did, at one point in time, a long time ago.

I'll turn to Mr. Van Loan.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I am not an expert, but the first nations function at two different levels. One level is as full citizens of Canada, with all the rights of all Canadians, and we have some native members of Parliament as well. In that sense, they're fully integrated members of society.

At the same time, there are special rights that are accorded to them by virtue of the status they may have as first nations, particularly on reserve. It results in certain privileges in terms of income support and other assistance from the federal government.

The federal government has the responsibility, whereas normally the province has the responsibility, for things such as education, health care, and so on. The federal government has the responsibility for the first nations population, which is often delivered through the provinces through agreements.

In terms of actual population, I can't give you a count on that. In fact, most people probably couldn't. There are on-reserve Indians, off-reserve Indians, and Métis who come from the original fur traders, some of whom interbred with the native population.

Determining Métis status is a very difficult and challenging thing to do, because it has gone on for many generations. At what point does someone cease to be Métis and become a mainstream part of the population, and so on? They don't have reserves, and it's difficult to come up with accurate numbers.

If we looked at the census, I'm sure we could come up with peoples' self-declarations, but I don't have those.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Van Loan.

Very quickly, Mr. Patry.

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

I want to let you know about the numbers. It's difficult because we have first nations within their own bands. A lot of them live outside the band and a lot of them live in cities. The data is different. It depends on whether you take that into consideration or not. But I think there are 600 different bands across the country, and I must say a lot of them are very successful.

What you see on television is the same thing we see in any region when a band has a problem. We have a problem right now with the water supply for one band, and it's shown everywhere in the world.

I must say there are thousands and thousands of companies that are successful. In my own province of Quebec, there is a band called Innue Essipit. This band has full employment, and they hire white people. They own camping grounds. You name it; they own everything. They're very successful.

I really feel the government is treating them well in the sense that over $6 billion was budgeted for them, according to responsibility.

When you have mining companies up north, there are mining companies for diamonds and mining companies up north in the Northwest Territories, and there was negotiation. When the government negotiated with them, they took part of their customs. When it's time for fishing and hunting, they close the factory and they close the mines. Everything is taken into consideration.

I must say that when you live in Canada, the reality is much different from what you see abroad or in any other country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Patry.

I want to go to Madam McDonough.

Thank you for your patience, Madam McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you very much. There's never enough time.

Welcome.

Your chair has made it clear you're not all of one view; you're not in complete accord on all issues.

Our chairman spoke about where we are in Afghanistan.

It will come as no surprise to you to know that not all of us, as members of this committee, are in agreement with the decision of the Canadian government to extend by two years an already committed mission that had nine months to go—subjected it to a vote, basically suspended the normal rules, and put that vote through without the benefit of briefing notes, without the benefit of evaluation of how the current mission was going. So my party, although it's a difficult thing to deal with, voted unanimously against the extension of that mission. I think subsequent events make it even clearer why that was the wise course, which doesn't solve the problem, that's for sure.

I want to pick up on something I wasn't going to raise, but someone else did, and it deserves an alternate point of view, and that is the status of our aboriginal people. In some ways, the first question raised, which was about Canada's commitment to delivering on its official development assistance levels, is our greatest international shame. Our greatest domestic shame is the current status of our aboriginal people.

Not to take it from us, because I think in some ways it's a more appropriate question to be put to the aboriginal Canadian community. Today, by chance, is the tenth anniversary of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, a document that was drafted after a very exhaustive consultation across the country and a great deal of research and soul-searching.

It is not an exaggeration to say that ten years later that document, which was called Gathering Strength, is viewed by many aboriginal people as perhaps better named Gathering Dust. The reality is, yes, there are some aboriginal people doing very well, but there are many aboriginal people, inner-city people, non-reserve based, who are living in terrible conditions of poverty, with very high levels of unemployment, and there are many reserves where there are unemployed people in the 70% to 80% range, who don't have safe water in today's world, which is simply unacceptable.

It was never supposed to have been a maximum, but a minimum international obligation by donor nations to commit to 0.7% of gross national income for overseas development assistance. I have a question around the role the EEC may play or not play in this regard.

Very quickly, when I was elected to office initially, it was in the province of Nova Scotia, at the provincial level, and as chance would have it, I was the only woman and the only New Democrat elected in that election. Through some mysterious process, I know not what, the EEC somewhere took pity on me and invited me to come on a one-month study tour of the then member countries. I was instantly struck by something, now over 20 years later, which has stuck with me ever since, at the model--then EEC, now EU--for setting standards toward which you constantly work to try to elevate your member nations and toward which you try to bring aspiring members to a certain level to bring them in.

In some ways, the Canadian model is the inverse of that, and one of the criticisms about the free trade deals—not fair trade, but free trade deals—into which you've entered is that it tends to be based on a drive to the bottom, to the lowest common denominator, without setting clear standards.

With respect to that model, I've watched the success of it with respect to economic development in Ireland, the result of that regional economic policy. The result of that is I've lost my younger son to Ireland, and I have two Irish granddaughters and a third one on the way--because of the dynamism of that.

My question is whether there is a role for the European Union. I realize they can't reach in and directly affect domestic policies, member nation policies, with respect to meeting the ODA obligations.

Is there a process at the EU level that works on bringing countries up to deliver at least on the minimum of 0.7%?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madam McDonough.

[Dorian Prince]

I will answer very quickly. I don't want to take too much time, because this could take an hour. Basically, it is an obligation on member states. So you have a council regulation, and member states have to submit a timetable by which they will reach 0.7%. So we have the good guys, like the Swedes, who are there, and we have others who have to catch up. It gets more complicated as more members come in, but it's an obligatory process. It's not left to discretion. Perhaps the best thing I could do would be to give you the annual report on development assistance, which explains the mechanism.

What usually happens is that for each country getting aid, you have an EU program, and then it's shared between the member states and the European Union. So it's very rare for the European Union to act on its own or for a member state to act on its own. Do you see what I mean? The whole thing is coordinated, and the European Commission itself runs about one-fifth of the total EU budget. We run about €7 billion per annum, and the total for Europe as a whole at the moment is about €38 billion.

I think the best thing is if I give the committee a copy of the annual report. It explains how it's done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Madame Bourgeois, did you have a very short, little, concise question?

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

I have a quick comment, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to mention three things in connection with the aboriginal question.

Firstly, ten years ago, the Erasmus-Dussault Report was released in Canada. As my colleague mentioned, this report is still very timely.

Secondly, an agreement was concluded with Quebec's aboriginals pursuant to which we now consider them as our equals. The agreement is referred to as the Peace of the Braves.

Thirdly, our committee is studying democracy and you can see for yourself that regardless of party affiliation or ideology, we can express our opinions freely. Our chair allows us the freedom to do so. Furthermore, since we are studying democracy, I hope that colleagues on the other side of the House will come to understand the aspirations of our First Nations and, very democratically, consider them as our equals.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Madame Bourgeois, for clearing that up for us.

We want to thank our friends and our colleagues from the European Parliament for being here. I think our relationship, our friendship, grows closer every time we have an opportunity to meet. We certainly wish you well as you continue your meetings and your dialogues here in Ottawa and across the country. And thank you very much for being able to spend this lunchtime with us.

On behalf of our committee, we wish you the best. Thank you.