Foreign Affairs Committee on March 4th, 2009

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Can I make a suggestion? I'm not precluding the amendment. Can we just pass this? Then when we get to the business of that particular number five, we can then talk about.... Is that a good call?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Okay. Are we ready for the question? All in favour, then, of the recommendations of the steering committee?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we will quickly flip over to the budget. On the budget, you see that the numbers were drawn up under the idea that we would use travel points. Be fully aware of that. You see the budget for $40,908, which would, in the next week, have to go to the Liaison Committee.

Do you have comments on the budget, Mr. Abbott?

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

If I could speak just briefly again to Mr. Patry's intervention, I understand that with the budget people would prefer to get a low number, but the fact is that the principle still remains. I've been around here since 1993. This has been tried many, many times by many different committees. I think it's really important for the people of Canada to be able to see exactly what it costs for this committee to do its business.

There are people--I'm not one of them--who have other business that they go to Washington, D.C. on, and should they happen to be the people on this committee, they would be disadvantaged in not being able to conduct the other things. The points are given to or put into the control of a member of Parliament for a member of Parliament to do the business of the Canadian people as he or she may see fit.

As for taking those points away in this way, I'm not suggesting that it's not above board. It is above board; otherwise, we wouldn't be having this public meeting. That isn't the issue. The issue is accountability. I believe that this committee and any other committee should be held accountable for whatever costs the committee incurs in order to do its business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Taking my friend's advice here, I say why don't we just ask which members would like to use their points and which don't want to use their points, based on whatever it is. Each member can then individually decide if they would like to use their points to go there.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

You can't do that. You can't get your budget approved because you don't know what the budget's going to be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I understand Mr. Abbott's principle on this. These are his points and this is committee business. These are all of our points.

From the spirit of the steering committee, a lot of us realized that we weren't using our points. We're trying to put some constraints on our expenditures, so it was, I think, a goodwill suggestion that we use our points and so that's how it came forward.

Mr. Patry.

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

I just want to say to Mr. Abbott that last time we travelled to Washington and New York in the last government, with the Conservatives, we used half a point because we were going to Washington and because of travelling back from New York to Ottawa, Toronto, and Montreal. It wasn't a budget, just to let you know about this.

Either one doesn't matter to me. The thing is that I just want to...[Inaudible--Editor]...points, and we'll accept two budgets at that time and see. He's the one who's going to need to defend the budget, but we need to be all together in a sense.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'm going to refer to my clerk here.

What do you suggest is the proper way to go?

I don't have a motion yet to redraft the motion. There's a motion that we could have, either that we accept the budget as is or we amend it to include travel of all committee, or we amend it.... You can't draft a budget saying we're going to have travel for some, because it becomes a--

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I move that we adopt it as it stands.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. Monsieur Crête moves that we adopt it as it stands.

Is there any more debate? Are we ready for the question?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

No one is calling the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Are we ready for the question?

(Motion agreed to)

I will then present this budget.

I think that's good. Thank you for taking a stand on principle. I don't think anyone said you're wrong on your principle. I think, rather, it's to expedite this thing and keep it moving.

Monsieur Crête.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

It may be a good idea, now that we've passed this, for the full committee to get back to the motion. In that way, we would avoid having to reiterate the same debate each time. Let us move the budget as it stands, but look into whether there is a decision stating that we always have to use our own points when we go to Washington, even for committee business. That way, we will know what to expect in the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Patry is absolutely right. It makes it almost impossible to pass through. When you appear before that Liaison Committee, they ask you if you are going to use your own points for the Washington trip. If we say no, then they say, “Well, if you aren't willing to use your own points...” and then you get a battle. It's not that it can't be won, but it does handcuff us.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

All right, forget that.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

We've had the vote, but I just want to say the difficulty is that $1,977 is the cost of the return airfare per person. If the $1,977 is hidden in our MP travel cost, that really isn't fair to the Canadian taxpayer because it's not reflective of the cost of this committee doing its legitimate business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Point taken.

The budget is carried.

I think that's all the committee business we have. We will again just very briefly suspend. Don't leave your seats. Dial up the video conference and we'll be prepared to go on from there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

In our second hour, by video conference, we're pleased to have, from the University of British Columbia, Professor Michael Byers. He holds a Canada research chair in global politics and international law.

Mr. Byers, we look forward to your comments. We don't have a perfect connection, but we look forward to your comments, and then we will go into the first round of questioning. We have had some difficulty to connect with your line, Mr. Byers, and even now we're still experiencing some technical difficulties. Can you hear me?

We aren't certain we can hear you. Can you speak into your microphone? We have someone on our roof trying to adjust the satellite dish—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Welcome. We finally hear your much welcomed voice.

We've been looking forward to hearing your testimony, Mr. Byers. We've already introduced you and the position that you hold. We will just move right into your testimony, if that's possible. We are doing a study of the key elements of Canadian foreign policy at the present time, with a focus on Canada-U.S. relationship and foreign policy. So we look forward to your comments, and we would move into a round of questions.

I will warn you right now, Mr. Byers, that at 5:30 our time, which is in 45 minutes, we will have a vote in the House of Commons, so we'll have to cut it short, right on the half hour, right at 2:30 your time if you're in B.C.

We look forward to your comments. Welcome.

[Professor Michael Byers, Professor, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law, University of British Columbia]

Thank you very much. Thank you for inviting me to speak and for allowing me to do so by video conference today. By staying in Vancouver, I'm able to address another even more intimidating audience later this afternoon in the form of 150 undergraduate students.

The issue of Canada-U.S. relations is very close to my heart. My two children were born in Durham, North Carolina, where I was a professor of international law and the director of the Center for Canadian Studies at Duke University. They are, as a result, U.S. citizens, and I hope they will serve both their countries well.

Barack Obama clearly cares about Canada-U.S. relations too, having said “I love this country” during his recent visit to Ottawa. I believe the straightforward expression of affection is rooted not just in President Obama's family connections but also in his awareness of the historically important role of Canada as the terminus of the underground railroad; as a long-time proponent of human rights, international law, and multilateral diplomacy; and as a model of successful multiculturalism and universal public health care.

I also believe the comment indicates awareness on President Obama's part of just how important Canada could be to achieving his economic, environmental, and foreign policy goals.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has placed smart power at the centre of the Obama administration's foreign policy. According to this approach, influences derive from many factors, including diplomacy, cooperation, a good reputation, and economic vitality. And smart power plays to Canada's strengths, which are truly multi-faceted.

Geographically, we are the second largest country in the world. We have the eighth largest economy. We are the United States' largest trading partner. We have a population of 33 million well-educated, globally connected people. Our military is small but highly competent. Our foreign service is among the very best. Seen through the lens of smart power, Canada has considerable potential influence that could and should be exercised on behalf of our own citizens, the international community, and, on issues of common cause, the United States.

Afghanistan is clearly an issue of common cause. The Canadian Forces have suffered the highest casualty rate per soldier of all the allied troops in that country. The deaths, injuries, and other demands of the mission have prompted retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie to conclude that “Canada will not be capable of remaining in Afghanistan in a combat role beyond 2011”.

Fortunately, President Obama is already applying the concept of smart power to Afghanistan. The appointment of Richard Holbrooke as his envoy is a clear indication of just how important the diplomatic angle has become. And while President Obama is increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan, he is actually cutting, by around 100,000, the number of U.S. soldiers deployed abroad. The end result is that Canadian soldiers are less needed than they might have been before.

Consistent with the concept of smart power, we can and should offer to contribute in other ways. Our diplomats could help negotiate with tribal and insurgent leaders as well as with regional actors, such as Iran, India, and Pakistan. CIDA could provide more reconstruction assistance. The RCMP could do more to assist in the training of Afghan police.

All indications are that the Obama administration has made the same calculation and that pressure will not be applied to keep Canadian soldiers in a combat role in Afghanistan after 2011. So there is no reason whatsoever to even consider another extension.

On the economy, President Obama is demonstrating extraordinary leadership in addressing the global economic crisis, but I believe that he's looking for more international support for his economic stimulus and almost certainly for much more from Canada.

According to the parliamentary budget officer, the net effect of Canada's stimulus plan is equivalent to just 0.7% of GDP, which is just one-quarter of President Obama's package and less than half of the stimulus recommended by the International Monetary Fund.

The Great Depression led to the creation of the World Bank, the IMF, and GATT. The current crisis is likely to generate similar international institutional reforms, including mechanisms for regulating banks, stock exchanges, and currency speculators. Canada could play a major role here developing and circulating concrete proposals that could then be used as the basis for collective decision-making.

Canada could also seize on President Obama's declared intent to bring labour and environmental standards into the main body of NAFTA. Such changes would work to this country's comparative advantage since we already have relatively robust standards, and particularly so if the practice of including such standards spreads to other trade agreements, such as the WTO.

The environment is a key economic issue, because the environment is the foundation on which all human activity takes place.

Sir Nicholas Stern made the point in his report on climate change to then British Prime Minister Tony Blair, that every dollar spent on mitigating climate change now will save $20 of expenditure in 2050. President Obama understands this. Shortly after his election, he confirmed that the United States would “help lead the world towards a new era of global co-operation on climate change. Now,” he said, “is the time to confront this challenge once and for all. Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high, the consequences too serious.”

At the same time, every crisis creates opportunity; in this case, to move through the next industrial revolution into a new economy based on non-hydrocarbon sources of energy. It is hugely significant that President Obama has appointed Steven Chu, the Nobel-prize-winning physicist, as his Secretary of Energy.

The tide has changed, and Canada, I'm afraid, risks being left high and dry. Already we're seeing a profound shift in public opinion in the United States. This month's issue of National Geographic is only part of that. And so the question is, are we willing to lead together on climate change, or will Canada condemn itself to reluctantly and eventually follow?

The Arctic, my final issue, is not a priority for the Obama administration because it knows that international cooperation there is already well advanced. Last May, the five Arctic Ocean countries--Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States--collectively affirmed their commitment to the Law of the Sea and the “orderly settlement of any possible overlapping claims”.

And with all respect, the Canadian government does everyone a disservice by feeding the media interest in conflict stories, such as the comments last week after two Russian bombers exercised the right that every country has to fly in international airspace.

It's important to remember that as recently as November 2007 Prime Minister Harper and the Russian Prime Minister issued a joint statement on cooperation in the Arctic. And since then, Canadian and Russian diplomats and scientists have been working together as both countries exercise their unchallenged rights to define the outer limits of their extended continental shelves under the Arctic Ocean.

Canada is also cooperating closely with the United States in the Arctic. In 1988 we established procedures for coast guard icebreaker transits through the Northwest Passage and declared them to be “without prejudice to the legal dispute”. Three years ago we expanded the NORAD agreement to include joint maritime surveillance over the Northwest Passage, and the two countries have been jointly mapping the floor of the Beaufort Sea, using U.S. and Canadian icebreakers.

In the one minute I have left, let me just say that there's much more that could be done. Canada could, and should, follow the lead of the United States in making public all of the data being gathered by its scientists concerning the extended continental shelf to ensure that common data sets are used by countries with potential overlapping claims, and we should also be engaging the United States on the Northwest Passage before the increasing traffic causes a diplomatic crisis.

One year ago, former U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci and I demonstrated that negotiations could be quite fruitful. In a day and a half of mock negotiations, our two teams of non-government experts identified nine concrete ways in which the two countries could cooperate and build confidence in the Northwest Passage. Similar negotiations could also lead to a mutually agreeable resolution to the maritime boundary dispute in the Beaufort Sea.

Although for decades the relationship between Canada and the United States has been understood as involving a degree of dependence or even subservience, the economic and environmental crises have changed much of that. To his great credit, President Obama is showing international leadership. This is no time for celebration, however, for the same crises have created immense shared perils that require our two countries to work together regardless of whether we need each other as much as we might have before. I believe the United States needs Canada desperately today, and I hope very much that you will recommend we do all that we can.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Byers.

We'll move into the first round and we'll go to Mr. Bagnell. Welcome to our committee. You have approximately six minutes.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have two questions on the Arctic.

First of all, leaving aside the great exercise you talked about for the Northwest Passage, this is simply a legal question. Which do you think is the stronger argument in the Arctic on the Northwest Passage, the Canadian one about enclosing the archipelago, or the European and American one about the strait between two international waters?

My second question is related to the Beaufort Sea. Do you think we should maintain our “sleeping dogs lie” on that issue? I'd prefer to sit down--and I think you vaguely referred to this--and have some discussions and come up with a solution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Myers.