Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Maybe you would like to direct that question to the chair.

[Seán Ó Neachtain]

Thank you.

Before I answer that, I just had a request from Agnes Schierhuber for the floor. I will come back to this question in a minute.

[Agnes Schierhuber]

Thank you very much.

I also belong to those who accept the fact that there is a seal hunt here. As we have heard, there is no problem with regard to environmental protection, etc., that the area is inhabited. But my question is very simple. What is so criticized in the European Union by bureaucrats, based on those pictures and based on what animal protection means in Europe.... Is there no other type of hunting, especially as far as seals are concerned? That is the question here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

That was on the previous question.

Mr. Blais, just quickly respond.

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

Very quickly, I'll have you know that we will be broaching this subject in detail tomorrow.

First of all, I want to say that the seal hunt as it is currently carried has been analysed by an group of independent veterinarians. By independent, I mean that they are not paid either by the government or by another party, for instance, by groups opposed to the hunt. These veterinarians examined current sealing practices. They concluded that these methods were neither cruel nor barbaric, and that proper regulations were being followed.

We'll have an opportunity to present to you in detail the veterinarians' report and tomorrow, you'll receive additional details. If I had more time, I would gladly provide you with more details, but we'll have a chance to do just that either this evening or tomorrow.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Ó Neachtain--perhaps a question?

[Seán Ó Neachtain]

Thank you.

I'm sorry for that, but we will have an opportunity tomorrow to elaborate further on the subject. Believe me, we came here to be very open-minded on the aspect of the seal hunt, and so on. We're here to learn, look, and see. We're not here to judge. That's very important.

I'm sorry, I lost the question of Madame Bourgeois in translation. It was on human rights in Cuba particularly, if any of the colleagues want to answer that. If not, I'll hand it to our ambassador, Mr. Prince, to answer that in general.

[Dorian Prince]

Thank you for the question.

On the subject of human rights, the European Union is very active, as you know, and once a year, we produce a report on the human rights situation in each world country, beginning with member states. Obviously, if even a minor violation is noted, the matter is brought to the attention of the Court of Justice. The same goes for violations by third party countries. Consequently, once a year, member states, the European Commission, the Parliament of Europe and the General Secretariat of the Council of Europe -- because our structure is quite complex -- work together to draft a report on how Canada has done in terms of meeting the obligations it has agreed to and, if necessary, we formulate recommendations.

We drew up our report on Cuba the same way. We found that in some respects, there was no justification for the US embargo. However, we were also critical of Cuba's attitude. We try to remain neutral. You understand what I'm saying.

Our last report on Canada - the one released last year -- was critical of certain things, notably the disadvantaged position of the Inuit, along with drug and prostitution problems in certain communities. However, we also recognized the considerable efforts made by the provinces and by federal authorities and we did not raise any objections or make any recommendations.

On a yearly basis, we look at the situation in each individual country. A working group comprised of member states, known as COHOM, focusses on human rights and determines if any cases should be brought before the United Nations Human Rights Commission. For example, every year, the European Commission has tabled resolutions to the UN on the human rights situation in North Korea. It's a matter of procedure.

Obviously, I don't want to take up too much time right now, but this is a very timely issue in Europe, one that is being followed very closely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

Are there some questions from your side, Mr. Chair?

[Seán Ó Neachtain]

Are there any questions from members on any specific aspect of our work and your interests?

As you know, we have a very wide program in coming to Canada. We have diversified our interest in the seal hunt and other areas, and we want to give a lot of time and attention to those in their various places. But if there are any questions on foreign affairs or development particularly....

Mr. Toomas Savi.

[Toomas Savi]

Thank you, Chair.

When we came to Canada we knew that the main issue would be the seals. But I represent a small country and we are a new member. After the last enlargement in Europe, we have seven or eight countries that are struggling now with the visa requirement question. I am very happy that the Canadian government has abolished this visa requirement for Estonia. So, in this case, I travelled to Canada without requiring a visa.

But our very close neighbours, Latvia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Federative Republic, and Hungary have difficulty now. As you know, every country in the European Union has to be treated equally, whether we are new or small. So what will happen in the near future on this issue?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

I'm going to ask two people to answer that question. First is Mr. Van Loan, and then Mr. Patry--very quick and concise answers, please.

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

I am the parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs, with specific responsibilities for the Americas, Europe, and the Middle East. It's a file that I've been engaged in actively. The fact that Estonia just had its visa requirements lifted has nothing to do with the fact that I'm from Estonian background.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

However, I have been active on it, and the approach the government has taken has been to establish certain criteria to evaluate whether countries are making progress toward having the visa requirement lifted, not unlike what you might be doing on EU accession. We want to see the refusal rate reduced to an acceptable level, and so on.

Estonia was in that range for a long time, although the previous government took a decision not to lift visa requirements for anyone. We looked at it right from the start, and Estonia was clearly in a very low range of refusal with virtually no problems, so it was very easy.

There are a number of new accession countries that are very close, and some have a bit more work to do. We've committed to review it on a regular basis. It's something I continue to press our government to pay attention to. I do not expect to see imminent release for all of those countries, but there might be very good progress in the short term for some of them, based on the kind of criteria you're looking for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Van Loan.

Mr. Patry, do you want to supplement that question?

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

Yes. Every time we meet our colleagues from these countries, the question is raised. There was a review done in 2005, and there will probably be another review done by the department some time in April or May 2007.

We don't accept reciprocity just because another country gives it to us. Some guarantees are needed, and we're very careful about this. But it doesn't mean we don't have any interest in this. Parliamentarians have a great interest in this, and we're pushing our government to do these reviews as quickly as possible, because I think that's the solution. We want to give all of these countries the same reciprocity they give us. We know that next spring there will be another comprehensive review, and we hope that some new countries will benefit at that time from our government lifting the requirements.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Patry.

Mr. Chair, do you have another question on that side?

[Seán Ó Neachtain]

Mr. Dover has a question.

[Den Dover]

I was delighted to hear last night that Canada is playing a very strong part in Afghanistan in infrastructure development. But could you deal with the two dreaded words “Iraq” and “Iran”? What is the view, if any, of the Canadian government?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I can speak on that a little bit. Mr. Wilfert may want to add something.

Canada has a leading role in Afghanistan. We are committed to staying there. We believe it's a very important country, not only for the Afghan people and the human rights and all those things, but we believe it's a test of a couple of other institutions, one being NATO and the other being the United Nations. So I think the government has been very clear that our military actions are committed until 2009.

We recognize that delivery of humanitarian aid is very difficult if we haven't secured the area, so it's important. We commend all NATO countries that are involved in it. There's an ongoing request to invite other NATO countries to become more involved, and we're deeply committed to....

Pardon me?

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

Iran and Iraq.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Iran and Iraq. Actually, you didn't mention North Korea. Or did you mention North Korea? Yes, we've got enough with Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq; we don't have to bring up North Korea.

I think the resolutions that have been brought forward to North Korea are very important with respect to how we deal with some of the other countries down the road. I think we must be very sure that any country that has any element of influence in that country, especially those in close proximity--China, other countries--will exert whatever ability they can to see that the letter of the resolution is followed, and that we make it very clear that we are not going to waiver, because Iran is watching.

Certainly, I think all parties, all countries, are very concerned about what we see happening in Iran. Hopefully, the United Nations will be able to step up to it.

We're not involved in Iraq. There are issues there. Maybe I'll leave them to Mr. Van Loan.

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

First on Iran, picking up on the security theme, we're very supportive of the process that was put in place in which the EU has been involved. Obviously, we're not a party to it in terms of dealing with the nuclear issue. I'm a bit disappointed, as I am sure everyone else is, that it has not borne better fruit up to this point in time, but rest assured that Canada strongly supports taking a firm position on the proliferation issues and the risk there and supports the efforts of the European Union there.

In Iraq, in terms of reconstruction, obviously we don't have military involvement. There are some military folk who, through transfers with the States, have been in Iraq as members of U.S. contingents. But in terms of development, we've been involved on the security front with the training of police, doing it out of Jordan, and I believe we've been pretty involved in the donors' group--Ted can perhaps correct me if I'm missing the mark on that--including chairing one of the meetings, I think. So we've been involved in the reconstruction. We've given generously there. Our biggest recipients of aid have been Afghanistan and Haiti, but Iraq has figured into the equation because we recognize the reconstruction there is very important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Wilfert, very quickly.