Foreign Affairs Committee on March 20th, 2007

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister and departmental officials, for being here again—and for two hours. It's way better than the short time that we sometimes have to squeeze our questions into, so it's much appreciated.

Mr. Minister, at the outset you stated that Canada's chief foreign policy priority is restoring Canadian leadership in the world. I can't let that pass without a mention. And perhaps you don't want to engage around it; you might want to say “Go talk to the CIDA minister”. But if we're actually going to restore Canada's leadership and reputation in the world, it has to be said that as it relates to ODA, the very disappointing budget that was brought in can't possibly make sense if that is in fact the real priority.

And with some justification, Mr. Minister, you could say that it was not the Conservative government that dragged us from 0.53% of our gross national income for ODA down to 0.23%. Those were the Martin budgets and the Liberal government. But we have to start where we are and try to make progress.

Yesterday's budget actually will take us backwards from where we finally had climbed, out of the position of being the ultimate laggard, from 0.3% up to 0.34%. We did that in the previous budget. But yesterday's budget drags it back to 0.31%.

At the rate we're going currently, even if 600 million extra dollars had been put in the budget yesterday, it would take us 37 years to get to where we would meet our ODA obligation of 0.7%, and that, of course, was always meant to be a minimum.

Meanwhile, we go to countries like Sweden and Finland, as this committee did recently, to be reminded that they've already reached 1%, or 0.98%.

How do we end up looking like we've restored or resumed our position as a leader in today's world?

I have very little time for questions. I have two further questions I want to raise. As perhaps the easiest and most direct one, I want to start by congratulating the government for stepping forward when there was a lot of unease on the part of the community of persons in the country living with disabilities about the possibility that Canada was going to back away from participating in this signing ceremony that's coming up. I want to congratulate the government for being there, working in tandem with tremendous leadership of civil society, of the disability advocacy groups and so on, to be part of passing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

I want to ask this very specifically, because you've raised further concerns, frankly, by your statement today—and perhaps I'm reading too much into this. You suggested there needs to be more collaboration with the provinces and territories before you can sign. Now, I'm hoping what you really mean is before you can ratify. Because as you've already said here, you've been engaged in some consultations with the provinces and territories. That will be ongoing. But of course to participate in the signing ceremony is the next important step. There's nothing in that signing that commits to legal obligations per se. It's really a way of saying we honour the point we've reached and we want to make sure that we continue to be a leader here.

So my question is asking you to clarify whether Canada will participate in the signing ceremony that's coming up, because it's going to mean a great deal to not just the huge number of persons in Canada living with disabilities, but to 650 million people living with disabilities in the world. If Canada is going to continue to resume its position as a leader, I guess I'd like to hear you confirm that.

Secondly, on Afghanistan, there are so many questions, and it's very difficult to deal with the complexities, but I want to go directly to the issue that has been addressed again and again, by people before this committee as well as in international venues, that there can be no real peace and security in Afghanistan, let alone genuine human progress, without there being engagement with the Taliban, with other political actors, and with ethnic groups that have been excluded, the Pashtun being the most obvious one.

Ten million Pashtun people in Afghanistan are excluded from, really, the whole political process, are excluded from government, are excluded from meaningful representation. This point has been made again and again by everybody, from Chris Alexander, who was very direct before the committee that this needs to happen, and by Brahimi, the key figure in the negotiation of the Afghanistan Compact, who said it was his greatest regret. Karzai himself said it when he was here in Canada, and he's said it since, most recently back in Afghanistan.

My question to you, Mr. Minister, is whether you are in agreement with the position, which has been articulated by so many people, that we need to bring the moderate Taliban into negotiations and we need to ramp up a robust diplomacy and peace negotiations and be more inclusive.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madam McDonough.

Mr. MacKay, you're going to have to really hurry. You don't have a lot of time left to answer the questions.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Sure.

I have spent a lot of time on Afghanistan, and I agree with Madam McDonough's assessment that in fact we could spend many more hours just discussing that one subject alone.

I'll try to answer these questions succinctly. The short answer is there's no intention on the part of the government to engage directly in discussions with the Taliban, for a number of reasons. First of all, they're a banned terrorist organization. And there is no identifiable leadership to engage with. Having said that, you've also made the very important point that there are occasions within the Karzai government itself, and with other international organizations, when communications are happening.

And the more important issue you've touched on is the need to ensure we are not leaving huge numbers of Afghan people out of this process of reconstruction, development, and building their capacity within government. I can assure you that those discussions are happening at a meaningful level.

The Afghan government itself, clearly, in President Karzai has a leader who is Pashtun and who understands the need to reach out to all of the people, and of course not just the people currently in Afghanistan. There was reference earlier to Pakistan, where we have somewhere in the range of three million to four million Afghans living in refugee camps, and countless others who are dispersed around the globe, who need to be given a sense of inclusion and be brought back—and many of them have come, thankfully. There are estimates of four million to five million who have come back.

So the moderates, yes, those who have renounced their affiliation to the Taliban and to violence, are certainly included, and we want to find and identify more of those people.

On the issue of the UN convention, let me return the compliment you made when you referenced the importance Canada has placed on it. I know you have been a champion in this regard; I know you are very passionate about this and have engaged with the persons in your community on this subject, and perhaps even more nationally. We have every intention of being there on signing day. I have personally spoken to every attorney general and minister of community services, depending on who was assigned the file in the provinces and territories, to explain Canada's position.

I appreciate your clarifying this, because there is a big difference between signing and the obligations that flow from that act and the ratification process to follow. In the ratification process, we must be respectful of the obligations that will then be assigned to the provinces. I've had discussions on this very recently with the Quebec minister. There are real concerns about the legal obligations, because the last thing we want to do—and I think you would agree—is to sign another international accord, document, or commitment and not live up to that obligation, because if there's anything that can tarnish our reputation quickly, it's doing that.

So it is our intention and our stated purpose to not only be signatories, but also to live up to those obligations. We owe nothing less to the people in the disabilities community. They have been so active and so progressive in bringing us to this point, they have to be included in the process beyond just the signing ceremony.

Finally, on the subject of our national commitment to overseas development assistance, I'm glad you pointed out the recent history where it was the last Conservative government that was moving in the right direction on this subject. The numbers were actually inching up towards that magic goal of 0.7% that we all want to see this country aspire to reaching. Having said that, the numbers have fluctuated. We've been in office now just 13 months. We have increased our overseas commitment. When you start to calculate, the issue is how do you calculate overseas development assistance? Do you include certain projects and certain commitments on which we have expended enormous amounts of money to assist? The figures through CIDA that I'm being given are that the money that will take us to 2011 includes $900 million over the next two years. The budget commits to doubling overseas development assistance, and we hope to reach these goals and to do so in a targeted way.

You're right in talking about other countries and how they have reached those goals. For lack of time, we can't get into all the specifics of this, but I would suggest that in some instances, such as your two examples of Sweden and Finland, they have a different calculation. Their GDP figures compared to Canada's are quite different.

I would suggest to you that Canada has a much larger footprint in the world than either of those two countries that you cite as examples. That is to say, we have missions in over 170 countries. We have development assistance projects in many more countries than those two that you have cited.

Let me just conclude by saying I share the goal and the concerns that you have about ensuring that Canada's reputation is continually enhanced by our commitments, particularly in places like Africa, the Americas, and Haiti. We are committed to doing just that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

In the second round, we have five-minute rounds. We will go to the government side, to the opposition, back to the government, to the Bloc, and then back.

We'll go to Mr. Casey.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Minister, welcome to the committee. I have three quick questions for you, and they're very simple.

As the first question, where will the $200 million go that was recently announced for Afghanistan? I didn't see the breakdown on where that was going to be spent.

The second question would be with reference to the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Most people knowledgeable about the situation in Afghanistan agree that the border has to be tightened up and made less porous. I just wonder if you could speak on that a little bit. There has been turmoil in Pakistan lately, and I'm wondering if that will have any effect on that.

The last thing involves Egypt. Canada has had a long-lasting, good relationship with Egypt that has benefited both sides. Recently there was a Canadian-Egyptian arrested for spying, and I'm just wondering if that has had any effect on the relationship. Are we working to maintain that good, long-lasting, beneficial relationship?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Casey.

Mr. Minister.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Casey. I'll try to respond to these quickly.

This is the breakdown, Mr. Casey, of the $200 million in additional funding, announced on February 17, that is to be spent in the coming fiscal year. There is $120 million for the Afghanistan reconstruction trust fund—that is money that is placed in a fund that the Afghan government, in conjunction with us and other countries, will designate for certain projects. There is $27 million for the UN Office on Drugs and Crime in Afghanistan, which is specifically aimed at counter-narcotics. An additional $3 million is specifically for counter-narcotics. There is a $20-million fund for law and order, a $20-million fund for a UN mine action program inside Afghanistan, and finally, $10 million for the Asian Development Bank. There are specific projects, like road construction, that will be accessible through those funds.

The issue of Pakistan and its porous border remains, perhaps, one of the biggest logistical challenges and the biggest threat to our troops and the NATO forces there. The flow of Taliban—the ability to recruit from refugee camps, to re-arm, to retrain, and to then come back into the country—is very much expedited by the nature of that border and the sheer size and rough terrain of that area.

I've had occasion to speak directly to President Musharraf, the President of Pakistan, my counterpart, about the need to do more. We have, since my return, sent a team of Canadians made up of officials from Canada Border Services Agency and American officials who have a similar experience to our domestic capacity, to share some of our expertise, if you will, on types of surveillance, whether it be aerial surveillance, the types of communications we use, techniques like fencing, patrol—I mentioned aerial patrol—and the type of global satellite communication that's necessary in a large, vast border region like that. And, yes, we continue to work with the Pakistan government and with our NATO partners to address this issue.

One of the recent discussions involved talk of a buffer zone, which would involve both countries taking responsibility for an area on either side of the border. One of the big diplomatic challenges, if you will, is the fact that both countries continue to dispute the actual location of the border, which is described as the Duran Line.

As to the last question you had with respect to Egypt, we are, of course, concerned about any Canadians who find themselves caught up in the justice system of another country. We have made a number of specific interventions in the case to which you refer. It's a complex case, to say the least. There are other countries involved and allegations that are quite serious.

We have always made Canadians and consular cases a huge priority at Foreign Affairs. We work diligently with the governments in question to ensure that Canadians' rights are protected, that they are afforded humanitarian relief, and that they are afforded access to legal counsel and medical personnel, if necessary.

To get into the specifics of this case in any detail would take a lot of time, but as I mentioned, I have raised, specifically with the Egyptian ambassador and their government, concerns about the allegations of the Canadian in question. These are very serious allegations. I've been given assurances that this person would be given access not only to counsel, but to a medical professional to see that he is being treated properly. I do not believe that it has impacted negatively the overall relationship with Canada. We have to work these issues through in a professional, diplomatic way, and forcefully, if necessary, as we have exhibited in other consular cases, including in the Celil case, including cases in Mexico, where we have made very forceful, direct interventions, high-level interventions. In some cases, the Prime Minister himself has been involved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We'll go to Mr. Eyking, please.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming here, Mr. Minister. As you can see, Nova Scotia is well represented around this table here today, so it's good to see you here.

I was quite surprised with your answer to Dr. Patry stating that we are taking a leadership role in Africa. We had a meeting today with the Somali ambassador, and we've met with ambassadors over the last few months, and they seem to be quite disappointed in some of our actions in Africa.

Northern European countries were mentioned today. They seem to be very proactive in stepping up to the plate. We had the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway here not too long ago.

I have two short questions, I guess, and one comes out of your inspiring budget book. It's dealing with our commitment to the Kananaskis agreement. We committed to doubling our aid in Africa by, I think, 2010. It doesn't seem to reflect that here in the budget. Why?

There was an African report done by the Senate, and it was led by Hugh Segal. It had quite a few criticisms, but it also had some good insight and direction in there for Canadians in Africa. I guess my question would be whether your government is going to implement any of these objectives.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Let me begin by thanking you for calling our budget inspiring. I think that's what I heard you say.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I was sarcastic.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I know you would want that sincerity reflected in my response.

On the Senate report, you are absolutely correct. I commend not only the chairman, Senator Segal, but all the senators who worked on that. It was an extensive report, and there are some very important, insightful recommendations, which we intend to study.

The issue of the effectiveness and the accountability of the delivery of aid appears to be one of the areas they have specifically earmarked. That is to say it is not only necessary to try to increase and enhance our assistance there, but to ensure that it's actually reaching the recipients, that the money is being delivered to the people who need it most and that it's not being used up in either bureaucracy or worse, or corrupted. That has been a serious concern in the past, unfortunately, for many of our attempts to assist in Africa.

The report also talks about strengthening and being more effective in the delivery of good governance practices in democracy-building to help the country itself stabilize. We have been effective, I would suggest. In fact, it's an area I would highlight as leadership for Canada in the area of election monitoring, working to help build capacity and good governance practices, and trying to include greater transparency, greater law and order, and human rights issues in those countries' governments.

On the question you had specifically on how we intend to meet those goals in 2010, the short answer is we're not there yet. We are certainly looking at ways in which we can make a greater contribution. I would point to Sudan and the Darfur region specifically as an area where our ability to make a greater contribution is very much contingent upon the willingness of the Sudanese government to be more inviting not just to Canada, but to the UN mission itself. That transition is still under way, as you know, but Canada is there; we are working with local NGOs, we are working in some cases with the African Union specifically to deliver aid, to provide gas, to provide heavy lift, to provide the type of training that is necessary in that country, but there is so much more to do.

I don't want to diminish any country's efforts. You mentioned Norway. I met with the Norwegian foreign minister. They are showing leadership in many parts of the world, and we're looking to partner with them in places like Sri Lanka and Africa as well. Certainly it's our intention to continue to focus on the places where we can, Somalia and Zimbabwe. We need to have a presence in those countries, and those countries similarly look to Canada for assistance in leadership and direct intervention when they need it most.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mister Minister.

Mr. McTeague, for a very short question.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Minister, for being here.

I will confine my comments to one particular consular case, Minister, and I raised it with you in the House. Your secretary of state has also been following up on this, and I think the family would certainly like to hear if you can update this committee as to the case of Brenda Martin, who has been languishing in a Mexican jail for the better part of a year. She has the affidavit from the accused, or the individual who was in fact accused of the scam. A co-accused, who happened to be the former deputy chief of police, was released after three days, and she continues to languish in jail. I provided you with the affidavit of Mr. Waage. Can you update this committee as to the status and the work that your department has been able to do to secure her justified release?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

As you know all too well from your previous role, Mr. McTeague, on these consular cases it's not a matter of being able to go in and tell a country how their justice system is to operate. We can certainly make very forceful representations. We can certainly render criticisms against the way their system works. In many cases, we have. Mexico has a long way to go before they reach the standard of legal rights that exists in this country.

With respect to Ms. Martin, we were notified of her arrest in Guadalajara back in February 2006, so sadly it has been over a year since she has been in custody, as you've pointed out. Since that time, we have regularly visited and communicated with her. We have followed up on concerns that she raised at that time and have tried to assist her to the best of our ability, to meet her needs, and to provide whatever physical items of comfort we could in her current state of confinement. We've also been in contact with her family and have followed closely the developments in the case.

You did provide an affidavit that pertains to the case. I'm led to believe that an attempt was made to enter that particular information into court as an exhibit. Again, on the rules of evidence and the admissibility of evidence in Mexico, while I have practised law in Canada, I can assure you that their rules of evidence are quite different and perhaps of a much different threshold from what we have here in Canada. To my knowledge, while that affidavit is in the hands of both the defence and the prosecution, it has not resulted in securing in any way the release of Ms. Martin.

We will continue. At your request, shortly after you had asked questions in the House, I raised this matter directly with Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs Patricia Espinosa, and I also spoke directly to President Calderón about the importance not only of this case, but a number of cases that involve Canadians, sadly some of whom are not in custody, but lost their lives in that country.

So, Mr. McTeague, I can assure you that we are taking all of these matters very seriously. We are doing whatever we can to protect Canadians' interests, to protect those who are in custody, to see that they are not only treated fairly and receive due process of law, but that we can return them to Canada when we can secure their release, when we can see that the justice system has run its course.

What I wish I could tell you, sir, is that I was able to redraft the Mexican constitution or somehow rewrite their rules of evidence or impact on these cases in a direct way. I can't do that in Canada. I could not interfere in a criminal court case in my own country. Yet what we can do is certainly prod the Mexican government in the right direction and make them fully aware of the interest the Canadian government has in this case and many others.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Khan, please.

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here.

I'll be very quick. I just came back from Afghanistan, and I have one disappointment that CIDA is not getting enough attention. Questions around this table indicate that people need to know that the terrific work they're doing is exemplary.

Can you imagine in Kabul having an industrial compound where there is a project called Maharat funded through the Afghanistan reconstruction trust fund? There are 250 women sitting there working at full speed. Their wages are $120 to $150 per month, which is four or five times greater than the average family income in Afghanistan. CIDA is now building another such project elsewhere to provide uniforms for all the military. There will be fully trained factory workers.

I also want to compliment the strategic assistance team, which has taken the deputy minister and the government officials of the Government of Afghanistan to 17 provinces, extending the writ of the Government of Afghanistan.

I was really proud, as a Canadian, when I stood in front of General McNeil, the ISAF commander, and Deputy Commanding General Chambers, who said that since Medusa, Canada has undertaken 100 projects in Kandahar. They complimented our troops and our developmental people. It is absolutely remarkable work that CIDA is doing.

Nobody talks about the de-mining projects. There are 8.3 million Afghans who have benefited from mine risk education. About 150 people used to die every month clearing mines. That has been reduced by 55%. This is phenomenal work, amazing work by these people.

I even had the opportunity to meet the grand jirga that has been established on the Afghan side. On the Pakistan side there are two governors and three federal ministers involved in that.

This is the kind of work that is ongoing—border settlement program initiatives are taking place. These things need to be brought to light.

Minister, I have a couple of quick questions and I'll give you time to answer.

Can we perhaps give our diplomats the ability to talk about these things so the concerns that Canadians have are addressed and we really see the progress and success we're having? There's no question in my mind that there will be success in Afghanistan. I am from that area and know the culture and the people, so I think I speak with some knowledge.

The absorptive capacity of our investment is an issue. There is no dearth of money; how quickly it can be absorbed and the projects delivered is the question.

The other question I have concerns the capacity and will of the NATO countries—Canada and others—to stay the course. There is a huge project that is one of the most important projects, because it is said that when you control Kandahar you control Afghanistan. The Kandahar highway is being built, and that is so crucial for development aid, etc. They have asked for Canada's help on that. Could you please comment, sir?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Kahn.

Minister MacKay.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Khan. You've displayed quite an intimate knowledge of the country and what has to happen and what's currently under way.

Picking up on your last point, the highway itself is one of the largest infrastructure investments that country has ever had. Canada is front and centre in supporting the completion of that road. It will not only increase the ability of movement of traffic for merchandise, goods going to and from the capital city to the rest of the country, but it will also once again demonstrate the need for Afghan-led projects to unfold. That is to say, the Afghan people themselves, their government, the employees who are involved in the construction of this road are the essential component. We want to continue to marry up the CIDA projects with those identified priorities as stated by the Afghan government.

You mentioned some of the CIDA initiatives. One that very much comes to mind where there is great emphasis put is the still very real inequities in the country between men and women and the need for women to be more active in the community, more able to access services and improve their own futures. A specific $14-million contribution to a project that has been implemented and undertaken by the Afghan Ministry of Education has established 4,000 community-based schools around the country and after-school learning programs to train as many as 9,000 new female school teachers.

I would suggest that there is very little that is more powerful in empowering young women in that country than seeing their own women take leadership roles and become role models, teachers, officials in the government itself, police officers, or army officers. They need to see that the country is very much embracing equality. So there is an intrinsic value in targeting those types of initiatives.

Micro finance is another one that I could go on about at some length, to empower women entrepreneurs in business. Vocational training is another area where we're able to help provide the assistance and the necessary tools, the actual equipment and technology, to elevate them to a much higher level.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Was there one more?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

There may have been one other question, but I'll speak with Mr. Khan afterwards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Madame Barbot.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Good afternoon, Minister and gentlemen.

What strikes me in the department's budget is that cuts have been made everywhere and they seem to focus primarily on areas involving humanitarian assistance.

I will simply give you two examples. This year, the budget for mine clearing went from $1.480 million to $815,000. The same applies for the Francophonie, that has seen its funds go down to nothing this year from a budget of $542,000. This general trend that we have seen in several areas is of even greater concern because there has been no indication with respect to the direction the department is taking. On what basis are these cuts being made? We are in the dark.

You stated that you are reducing your spending by consolidating missions. It's all very well to want to spend as little as possible, but there are reasons why money is spent.

You have closed consulates or embassies and obviously you are telling us that you'll be able to meet Canadians' needs. That is all well and good but consular services are also there to meet the needs of people in those countries.

You'll tell me that this already began under the previous government. In fact, several consulates in African countries had to close down and people did not have the means to go to the countries where those services were subsequently offered. I'm talking about students and all kinds of other people who, for one reason or another, are travelling. This makes their lives more difficult. Thus, on the one hand, we're being told that there's a will to assist these countries through international aid, and on the other hand, lives of individuals in those countries are being made more difficult because of the measures being adopted here.

In terms of consulates in particular, you told us that between 1993 and 2006 Canada closed 31 missions and opened 43 elsewhere. Since you have been minister, how many missions have you closed and how many have you opened? We're trying to understand how the missions that were closed were replaced and how those services have been reorganized. Perhaps information could be given to us that would explain clearly how those Canadian services have been moved.

In some ridings, at least in mine, people travelling abroad are having a much harder time accessing those services.

You also mentioned that a Canadian presence also involves provincial delegations, etc. However, to my knowledge Canada does not pay, for example, for delegations from Quebec to go abroad. I would like to hear your comments on this.

Obviously, this is all taking place in the context of reducing spending. You stated that this is not a reduction in services, but rather a reduction in expenditures, however this is at a time when the government is making more and more money. I'm therefore having difficulty in understanding what is being done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madam Barbot.

Mr. Minister.