Foreign Affairs Committee on June 6th, 2006

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

May I add a bit, Mr. Chair?

Under the Canadian Constitution traditionally, foreign policy was the exclusive or sole responsibility of the Governor in Council, which meant the Prime Minister and cabinet in practice. What has changed recently as a result of a campaign commitment of the new Conservative government is a step to further consultation with Parliament on matters that traditionally were left solely for the cabinet.

For example, we had a vote to consider changes to and continuation of the NORAD treaty--the defence of North America, the treaty with the United States. Traditionally the way that would have been done is cabinet would have considered it, and after the treaty was negotiated, it would have been ratified by cabinet. We have inserted an additional step in which there was a debate in Parliament and a vote on that and then the ultimate cabinet ratification.

Similarly, on a decision on extending our involvement of our military in Afghanistan, when those troops were sent originally, the normal historic constitutional practice of the decision being made by the Prime Minister and cabinet was followed. This time we went to Parliament and sought its approval for extending that commitment.

So there is a bit of an evolution happening here. Does it have legal force and consequence, or is it just the practice of this Parliament? I would say right now it's just the practice of this Parliament, but as time evolves, if it continues and is practised continually, it might adopt the status of maybe a convention that is an accepted practice.

I hope that doesn't take away from question time, but helps answer the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

No, it doesn't. We'll come back to your question time. As I sat and listened maybe I misinterpreted your question. I don't think our government is responsible for bringing a white paper every four years, or every so many years. In the last Parliament we had an IPS, an international policy statement, that gave a little bit of an indication as to the direction the government was...a state of the union statement basically on Canada's involvement around the world, their vision, their thoughts on certain policies.

I'm going to go back to Madam Lalonde for a minute or two, because she still had a couple of minutes before the question came back.

Madam Lalonde.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you.

I'd like to know how the Finnish government gives concrete expression to the commitment it has made. You stated that the government proposes a policy to you every four years. Can you be a little more specific?

[Liisa Jaakonsaari]

In general, the Finnish Parliament is very active in the field of foreign security policy. Earlier we had a constitution. According to the old constitution the president alone led the foreign policy, but now the cooperation between the government and the president is crucial. That's why the Parliament is more involved in giving opinions on foreign security policy.

In our committee, of course, our timely issue is how the European Union foreign security policy is proceeding. As I mentioned earlier, the progress that the EU has made has been enormous in that field. We are following the development very carefully. Actually, very recently we passed new crisis management legislation. Then, of course, these development questions.... And an actual question is how we reorganize our relationship with NATO. As you know, Finland is not a member of NATO, but we are cooperating very closely and actively within the framework of partnership with NATO.

The latest statement from my party leader was that we could join NATO if we could get crucial benefits from the membership. Because Canada is a member of NATO, perhap it's self-evident for you to be a member of NATO and you see relations with NATO as very crucial. In Finland we are criticizing that NATO is so strongly a U.S-led organization that other countries--especially a small country--have no influence on the decision-making of NATO. We know that it's strong. It's not right, but it would be very interesting to discuss with you how you see the future development on NATO and what kind of relationship Canada has with NATO.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Van Loan, I know you were going to pose a very good question.

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

That's exactly where I was going to be going.

And just by way of background, it might be helpful for you to know that notwithstanding the Dutch-sounding name, my own family is actually Estonian. And also as a matter of interest, I have with me an intern who is American, but her name is Kara Vänni. Her family background is Finnish. So there is some knowledge and interest among us about this part of the world.

You talked about the recent developments in Russia, and I do think this is linked to NATO. Whatever people may say in polite company, the reality is that is a matter of concern. The increasing assertiveness, shall we say, of Russia has to be a concern. While people can debate the wisdom of the strategy Finland adopted in the wake of World War II, in the new environment, freed from that, having seen NATO expansion, having seen how the Baltics and most of the former Warsaw Pact countries have gone, it is puzzling to a Canadian why Finland would not have said, “The conditions are different now; we can take this as an opportunity to engage in that web of collective security.”

Certainly we don't see--I don't see, and this government doesn't see--NATO as an American-led organization, but rather one that is more an example of American largesse and generosity in providing a security umbrella to western democracies. Perhaps we in Canada understand that more acutely because we sit next door with a huge amount of real estate, and certainly not the real economic means to meaningfully defend it against international threats. Through NORAD, we have been accustomed to that kind of security cooperation. We feel the joint command reflects our interests, and in NATO the obvious rationale or reason for NATO was to defend the same interest. From this side of the ocean, it seems to us an enormous benefit for Europeans to have that security while only paying a small share of the cost.

Why is Finland not taking this opportunity to consolidate that security blanket while it can, when trends suggest this may become more of an issue in the years ahead if you don't? I'd be interested in hearing from all the different parties, because I suspect there is a difference of perspectives.

[Jari Vilén]

I will start from the opposition side.

I think all the opinions in Finland concerning NATO are within a very small margin. All the parties are saying, as the Social Democratic leader said, that we are willing to join NATO if we can see added value for Finland and for our security.

But I think the basic element, and the reason why NATO still is a very difficult issue, is you cannot win the elections with foreign policy, but you can lose the elections with foreign policy. So none of the parties are willing to take a very positive stand in favour of NATO membership before the elections. For historical or some other reasons, there are always elements saying NATO is part of the confrontation between east and west, part of the confrontation of the global powers.

Many people still don't see in Finland as a new emerging power for crisis management on a global scale, and therefore it's difficult to have a favourable decision.

At the same time, we must take into account also that public opinion is very much against it. Roughly 29% of the population is in favour, over 50% against. But in the same opinion surveys, if you ask, “Will Finland join NATO in the future?”, over 50% will say yes, which is a contradiction in public opinion.

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

What if you asked, “If we were under threat or attack, would the NATO countries come to our aid?”

[Jari Vilén]

The first response would be that it's the European Union that is the first security guarantee for us. It's easier for people to take steps first in the European Union, which is developing roles in the foreign affairs and security policy. It doesn't have this hard power that NATO has. Today the challenges in the world are a very different kind. Actually, the European Union we see has much more power to respond to challenges of global terrorism, failing states, and organized crime than NATO, which is military might.

NATO's power would be if you had a conventional threat against Finland, which of course is a very remote possibility somewhere in the future. Therefore the parties are not willing to take a stand in favour, because of the lack of public opinion support and because they're not willing to jeopardize the outcome of the elections.

Sweden doesn't want to talk about the European Union. Finland doesn't want to talk at a political level about NATO. None of the party leaders are willing to do that. Of course, as I said, there's a margin of error. I think our party is the most pro-NATO party. We want to join NATO, with the condition that there's large public support and a large political consensus for joining NATO. We're not willing to stand all alone saying that Finland should join NATO.

I think it takes time. Unfortunately, it may take more years. Until then, there seems to be very large consensus that we're taking all the necessary steps to being as close to NATO as possible. One of those elements--which is actually on your government's agenda and which we're looking for your response on--is the in-house partnership with NATO being drafted by the U.K. and the U.S.A. It gives willing and capable partners--countries like Finland, together with Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Japan, countries willing to participate in very challenging organizational operations like in Afghanistan--in-house cooperation where we would have access to information, intelligence sources, and participation in the decision-making structures.

I would like to ask your support in supporting this idea, because we see it as beneficial for Finnish security at the same time.

[Liisa Jaakonsaari]

May I add, there are still some really genuine questions open for us, for example, on what the future of NATO is. We have the impression, for example with the U.S.A. still having this unilateral approach and with all these kinds of coalitions of the willing, that NATO is not as relevant for the U.S.A. as it was earlier. Of course, we've seen the changes during Mr. Bush's second coalition. We want to be sure that NATO is still relevant in the future. It's a very important organization.

We will follow how the European Union's security and defence policy is developing and what kind of division of labour it will be between NATO and the European Union. We have to elaborate all these questions very carefully and then make the decision. At the moment I agree with the opinion of the majority of the Finns that nowadays our security questions.... We feel safe somehow by cooperating closely with NATO and contributing to different crisis operations with NATO and the European Union.

There is not a lack of security from our point of view, but for a future perspective it's good to get answers to these crucial questions.

[Johannes Koskinen]

I'll say a couple of words.

All the new members of NATO have become members through a referendum. That's the reason that in Finland we have to look carefully at what the people think about this. Almost all the eastern and central European countries had a referendum on NATO. Now, according to the Finnish constitution, it's not obligatory to have a referendum. But like EU membership, the possibility of NATO membership could be an issue for a referendum.

About this constitutional role of the Parliament and the foreign affairs committee, in Finland almost all the international treaties have to be accepted by the Parliament. That's the reason the government has to listen to the views of the Parliament. Only when the treaty has nothing to do with legislation or budgetary questions and issues is it possible to ratify it by the government and the president only. But I think 95% of the international treaties are accepted by the Parliament

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Do we have another answer over here?

[Aulis Ranta-Muotio]

Some politicians, and many Finnish people, now think that NATO's article 5 is no longer relevant in this situation. That's one reason why we have only 20% of Finnish people for NATO.

[Liisa Jaakonsaari]

As you say, this NATO question is very important for us.

Madam Perho.

[Maija Perho]

I would like to add very briefly something about the climate in Finland now that it is allowed to discuss NATO. Some months or years ago, if someone said it was very important to openly discuss NATO, the positive and negative sides and the economy, and so on, parties that were against NATO said, “You won't go into NATO”. It was a very simple discussion. I hope that we can now really analyze the situation and what NATO is.

If it's allowed, I would like to change the subject and ask you about the climate policy, the Kyoto agreement, and the actual situation now, because in our briefing papers we have information that the goal is quite far away. Maybe you have other ways to reach the goals. We are interested in hearing your views on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I hesitate to turn that over to the former government to answer, but very quickly--and then I want Mr. Wilfert to pose a question--the new government recognizes that the goals put forward in the Kyoto agreement were unachievable in this country. Instead of going down 6% from 1995, which is what we would have had to drop, we actually had 35% growth above the targets for greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide emissions. So although we're signed on to Kyoto, we want to be realistic about whether we can achieve the goals.

When you set a goal, you had better ask if it is achievable and whether we can reach those goals. This government has suggested that we need to do things to help clean up the environment, our climate, and our pollution, but we need to have a plan that is going to achieve something. Certainly this government has taken a different approach from the former government. We want to put in place a plan that's going to work.

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

We must be honest about keeping commitments if we make them. That is our view.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes.

I will go to Mr. Wilfert. In all fairness, Mr. Wilfert had a question in regard to climate.

Maybe you can talk a little bit about it, Bryon, and also pose your question.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to talk about the Arctic Council and the program of action. I'm talking about sustainability issues in the Arctic. We all share a common border, in a sense, with the Arctic, and I wanted to ask you about that.

You've heard from government members--and it's not an opinion that I share, and I'll get into the Arctic Council--but I think it is important to keep in mind, by way of comment, that Canada had the most aggressive plan of the G-8 when it came to climate change policy, as articulated in April of 2005 under Project Green. We do have international commitments, and I believe we can fulfill them.

The way to do that, obviously, is to make sure they are properly funded, which they were. We had the most successful COP, COP-11, in Montreal in December, and we have to look at the framework. Obviously, Kyoto isn't perfect, and looking beyond 2012 is very important. The previous government clearly had a position supported, I believe, by all opposition--well, now we have the two opposition parties, although the degree of support may have varied, but I think the principles we were involved with were supported.

However, changing gears slightly, in terms of the program of action, the issue of the Arctic Council, and the issue of sharing of information on the arctic, we all know of the problems with habitat, whether it's wildlife or otherwise. Lapland is an example. We see a disturbing situation now in terms of the toxics that are appearing in animals--caribou, reindeer--in the North.

I wanted to know your view as to the areas in which we could be doing more sharing of information and taking a more aggressive approach in terms of the council; of course, we have things like the University of the Arctic.

The second area I want to deal with, Mr. Chairman, is the International Criminal Court, because there are many people who are unconvinced about the merits of the court. Canada and Finland, I know, are very supportive of it, but we have those who don't seem to agree on ending impunity on the international stage. We have had very severe issues out there in the past--Rwanda, Yugoslavia, etc.

Do you have any thoughts on how we could collaborate more effectively--particularly, in your case, as EU partners--in getting others to sign on to the whole issue of the Statute of Rome? Clearly, it is something that Canada, regardless of the political party, has supported. I believe we have a distinguished Finnish journalist, Erkki Kourula, who is on the ICC, and I would appreciate your thoughts on that.

At any time over a cold drink I'd be more than happy to discuss with you and my colleagues the climate change policy. I never believe in airing dirty laundry in front of guests, so I really won't go into that--and it can be dirty over there; I know that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Liisa Jaakonsaari]

Before I give the opportunity to Mr. Koskinen to answer the question related to the International Criminal Court, I would like to ask him whether my analysis is correct--that there are no big changes in terms of climate policy due to your regime change. Nowadays, you have a more pragmatic approach--or am I right? Are you keeping the goals or targets of the Kyoto protocol? No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We are still working to reduce; we're encouraging anyone to work towards those targets, but the penalities and the other things that go along with it were problematic to this government. I think they want to put in practical, achievable goals in climate legislation, and they'll work towards that end.

[Johannes Koskinen]

On the International Criminal Court, I quite agree that we have to strengthen the role and efficiency of it and also the special ad hoc criminal courts, so that they do not take five years or ten years to punish the most severe criminals. In the EU, this principle is quite widely accepted, but we need to find the right time to have new assignments to this Rome Statute so that the scope of the International Criminal Court can be widened.

I also have to admit that on these efforts of the Canadian government to create a new chapter of international law, this responsibility to protect is very important. It's a major step toward the principle of having responsibility for criminal actions, with as much cooperation as possible, to avoid major human catastrophes of manslaughter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

[Liisa Jaakonsaari]

Thank you.

As far as Arctic cooperation is concerned, it's very important. I pay tribute to Canada, because Canada has been so active in Arctic cooperation. In my opinion, there is no lack of research and no lack of information. In terms of climate change, for example, high-quality research has recently been published. Really, we all know the problems. It is how we implement all these recommendations and how to place those crucial questions of the combined climate change and Arctic cooperation on the agenda.

My impression is that earlier the United States was more interested in Arctic issues, but they are not so interested any more, and that is a cause of concern.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I just want to say that having been to Finland on two occasions, I have been very impressed, particularly in the area I was involved in, which was district energy systems. Regarding the whole concept of dealing with the environment--with garbage issues, which is really a major concern here--and the public education approach, really from the youngest to the oldest, I must say, we have a lot to learn. I certainly appreciate the leadership that Finland has taken in that regard.