Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2006

[Den Dover]

The constitution is a very hot political potato. The British Conservatives are totally opposed to such a constitution because we see it leading toward a state of Europe, whereas, as we believe as John Major, our last Conservative Prime Minister, said, this should be in subsidiarity because things are often best dealt with within the nation-state. I agree that Europe is getting to be more of a global power, but from the British Conservative view, we want to see trade, industry, and employment, not political integration. We say that if any part of the constitution is put out for revision to the present arrangements, that has to be by referendum of the British people.

The other main parties in the United Kingdom would disagree. The Liberal Democrats, if they were here, would say they want the constitution. Tony Blair's representative, Gary Titley, will be joining us in the next day or so. He would be in favour of it, but we think it would be a bad step.

[Seán Ó Neachtain]

Thank you, Den.

Ian Hudghton wants the floor on the same issue.

[Ian Hudghton]

Thank you.

I should have said at the outset of my introduction that I'm a member of the Scottish National Party, so I have a very strong interest in Scotland's constitutional position and relationship to the European Union. That aside, as a generally pro-European party, we are not against having something called a constitution, provided that it's just a rubric for improving the efficient operation of what is becoming an extremely big and cumbersome bureaucracy.

The EU as a whole has raced ahead of public opinion in many respects. For example, in Scotland, Brussels and the European Union have been seen to be directly responsible for the virtual destruction of our fishing industry. There's a big argument behind that about the extent to which Brussels, as against successive U.K. governments, has been involved. There's a very real feeling of pain that is felt all around our coasts, and it leads to accusations of insensitivity on the part of the whole European Union.

As for their constitution, the one that's not quite on the table at the moment, I can't see that it can possibly be retabled in France and the Netherlands, for example, without taking account of the reasons why it was rejected there. I also think that had there been a referendum in Scotland, in the U.K., it quite certainly would have been rejected there too. Any one rejection is enough to kill it, so I think we have to look very seriously at how to get out of this and how to improve communication of what those who approve the constitution believe it's about.

[Seán Ó Neachtain]

One more colleague, Agnes Schierhuber, wants the floor.

[Agnes Schierhuber]

Thank you very much.

I would just like to add briefly that you can see here the various opinions, although colleagues do not come from the same political group. Like other member states, Austria has accepted these contractual actions, and we would actually welcome the coming into force of the so-called constitution. Here again you see, in this different approach to the various cultures and traditions of the soon-to-be 27 member states, the difficulty we have. But we are convinced that Europe is more than an economic policy, and we believe that we do need a common security policy and also a common vision of how we play along.

Thank you

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Is there another question?

[Seán Ó Neachtain]

There are two more members on the floor, Duarte Freitas and Lasse Lehtinen.

[Duarte Freitas]

Thank you very much.

I will try to be very quick, but this question on the constitution is very delicate, and as you can see, it divides us a little.

I come from a centre-right party in Portugal. I can say that in Portugal all the parties, except the extreme left, agree that we need a new constitution, and most of the parties in Europe think the same way. It is not only a question of governance, because now, with the actual treaty, it is not easy to govern the European Union among the institutions. We will have two more member states in January. We are going to be 27. We already have 25 commissioners and now we are going to have 27. The whole procedure inside the European institution is not easy. At least because of this, we will need another treaty, but this is not the only thing.

This new treaty can give more power to the European Parliament, which we represent here, and with this, with more procedures of co-decision, for example, we are, in my opinion, giving a more democratic view to the European institutions, not only by the council of the member states but also by giving more power to the European Parliament and the co-decision procedures in other aspects besides this one.

There are other big issues on which we can do better with a new treaty. The problem with this treaty in France and the Netherlands and in other countries is not the treaty itself. I think the treaty was more a consequence of federal things than a subject of no...and all the politicians have their own faults. In Europe, when something goes wrong we point to Brussels. When something is good, we say it is us, each country. That is one of the biggest problems. We will have to have a new treaty or constitution, whatever you call it, not only because of the governance but also because of democratic procedures and also because of getting more power and more regionality in the decisions. I am sure of this.

[Seán Ó Neachtain]

Thank you, Duarte.

Lasse.

[Lasse Lehtinen]

When I listened to Mr. Dover I thought about my years in the 1980s in London as a diplomat. I once heard Margaret Thatcher explain to a journalist that Mr. Jacques Delors wanted to make Europe a huge Sweden. She couldn't think of anything worse than Sweden.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Lasse Lehtinen]

We looked totally differently upon this thing. Maybe it was too ambitious to call it a constitution in the beginning, but we could accept very well, as Duarte said, the contents of the deal and everything that worked there. What we certainly need is a new way of making decisions. We can't do it so that all 27 countries have to agree. No parliament, no council, works that way anywhere in the world. So if we pick up what is workable from this and don't call it a constitution anymore, but have another agreement and we name it after some small Belgian town, then maybe we would get an agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

[Seán Ó Neachtain]

Chairman, our EU ambassador of this commission is here, Dorian Prince, and he might like to add something before we sum up that thought-provoking question that Mr. Lehtinen--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I know all parties here are going to want to have some questions.

Go ahead, sir.

[H.E. Dorian Ford Prince, Head of Delegation and Ambassador Designate, European Union - Delegation of the European Commission in Canada]

I think the first thing to remember is simply this: the fact that the constitution has not been ratified does not mean that the EU institutions failed to work. They're very cumbersome, and they need to be streamlined, but very many English language newspapers here are talking about a crisis in Europe, and I think that's not accurate, frankly.

I'd like to come back to your point at the very beginning. The major problem, I think, is how do we communicate better with the man in the street? I was watching Dutch television the night of the referendum in the Netherlands. They were interviewing person after person coming out of the polling booth, asking how they voted.

The interviewer suggested to one gentleman, in his seventies, that his no vote meant he was against the EU. The gentleman told the interviewer that when the Netherlands joined the European Economic Community, we didn't have a referendum. We were never consulted. When the Netherlands signed Maastricht and accepted the euro currency, we never had a referendum. When we enlarged the European Union five times, nobody ever consulted us. So last week, when this man received through the post from the Dutch government this “brick”—I'm using his word—of 400 pages of legal gobbledygook, he realized that they actually expected him to give a reasoned opinion on this day. And remember, this was the first referendum in the Netherlands for 126 years.

In those remarks I think you have the real problem. If you're going to do a referendum, you have to make it clear what you're having a referendum about. You have to give people the basic information. But don't send them a constitutional treaty.

I have to admit, even I have never read it from cover to cover.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We will go to Monsieur Blais.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you very much.

My name is Raynald Blais and I represent the riding of Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. We'll have an opportunity to meet again, since I'm also a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. You'll also get a chance to meet two of my constituents: a seal hunter and a seal entrepreneur who will be testifying here tomorrow. Today, we're not necessarily going to talk about the seal hunt.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to introduce to you my colleague, Diane Bourgeois, the Member for Terrebonne--Blainville. Her riding, if I'm not mistaken, is located north of Montreal.

I represent a rural riding. Fisheries and tourism are the two industries that drive my riding's economy. My colleague and I are also sovereigntists. We're members of a political party dedicated to laying the groundwork for independence and for the referendum that will one day be held in Quebec.

That said, I'd like to hear your views on international relations with respect to a matter like the seal hunt. As you can well appreciate, we have a great deal at stake. It's worth recalling that right now, unfortunately, a disinformation campaign about the seal hunt is under way. My feeling is that our meetings today, this evening and tomorrow will surely shed some light on this debate.

Moreover, I've had an opportunity to participate in a session of the Council of Europe. I've also welcomed to the Magdalen Islands members of the Council. They met with seal hunters and with residents of the Magdalen Islands and were able to speak more directly to them. This dialogue was a step in the right direction.

When you decided by a majority vote to sign the declaration to ban the import of all sealing products to the European continent, what was your rationale for adopting this position? I'm not speaking from the standpoint of the fishery or the marine resource, but from the standpoint of international relations. I know, as you well know, that when Quebec forms a nation - as it happens, there will be a nice debate on this very subject tomorrow -- and becomes a country, we will advocate respect for the customs and ways of other countries.

From what angle did you examine the question of the seal hunt? Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Merci, Monsieur Blais.

Mr. Chairman, do you want to direct that question to some of your colleagues?

[Seán Ó Neachtain]

I'll hand it over to my colleague Ian Hudghton, who is an expert on fisheries overall and is a member of the fisheries committee.

I'll give it to you, Ian.

[Ian Hudghton]

Firstly, I didn't sign the declaration. That was because of the fact that I'm not, in principle, against population control, if you like, in these circumstances. But particularly, I didn't sign it because we had the opportunity in Brussels not that long ago to meet with the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Hearn, who made some reasonably good points, I thought, about what we should take into consideration, namely to hear the other side of the argument first. So I preferred to not sign and to come here first and hear the background.

I'm not at all surprised that a majority of members did sign the declaration. The context is one of extreme pressure by organizations, by individuals who care about animal welfare. For example, this is fromThe Scotsman newspaper from only last Saturday. On the front page of a national newspaper of Scotland it says, “From the killing fields of Canada to the shops of Scotland”, and it goes on for two pages to make the whole case against this wickedly cruel seal hunt, as it is called, which, according to this newspaper, is mainly for the purpose of providing a decoration for sporran making in Scotland.

That's the context.

There were hundreds of e-mails that I'm sure we all received from people in connection with this written declaration. They weren't headed: “Please sign to stop the import of seal products to the EU”; they were headed: “Please sign to stop this unacceptably cruel seal hunt”. I think there was a context of that sort of pressure on the part of many well-meaning individuals.

But we look forward to having detailed discussion here tomorrow, and then in Newfoundland, just to see to what extent the information that we were given by those against the hunt was accurate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Madam Bourgeois, vous avez deux minutes.

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

Good day, ladies and gentlemen. I find it quite ironic to hear people talk about the constitution and about the European Union when we in Quebec are experiencing problems with the same issue.

That said, the European Union is keenly interested in safeguarding human rights. Recently, I received a document indicating that 173 countries had signed a UN resolution denouncing the US embargo on Cuba. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I belive some of you denounced Cuba's treatment of certain prisoners.

I need you to clarify your position for me. With respect to human rights, it's a known fact that human rights are violated in many countries. I'm somewhat uncomfortable saying this, but the UN has also taken a stand on the Aboriginal question in Canada.

SInce you are very concerned about human rights, how do you feel about Canada's treatment of Aboriginals? Is this an important issue in Europe?

On the other hand, you are the defender of human rights in the world. Where would you like to see some changes made? Where do you stand on Cuba?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame Bourgeois.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.