Foreign Affairs Committee on March 4th, 2009

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

For that to be possible, there would have to be political direction given to the ambassador to indicate to him how important this aspect of things is, right? Is it up to the ambassador himself to decide on how to do his job?

[Paul Heinbecker]

No, it's pursuant to the policy, and it certainly has to reflect the government's wishes. I'm saying you need somebody whose modus operandi is broader than just the bilateral relationship.

And that has been the case. To go back to a semi-neutral example, in the 1980s Ambassador Gottlieb, for example, and Ambassador Burney were both very engaged in international questions--especially Gottlieb. He was named by the Washingtonian magazine as one of the 50 most influential people on American foreign policy. He was also the most well-known ambassador in town, both from a congressional and a policy point of view. Frankly, looking back, those were very positive days.

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

Canada, in its dealings with the United States, must factor in the importance of the various levels in the administration, for instance the President's Office, the Senate, the House of Representatives and the diplomatic corps. What relative weight do you attribute to these things, or how would you ascribe a relative value to this involvement?

Is it important to significantly enhance our dealings with the Senate and senators? You said it was important to understand how others think. Well, how do we know whether we're speaking to the right people, if we are active enough or within which groups we need to be more active?

[Paul Heinbecker]

One of the most difficult things to do in Washington is to be sure you're talking to the right person on an issue, because it's a very big place.

One of the things I was told when I first came to Washington was that if you don't like American foreign policy it's like the weather in central Europe; just wait five minutes and you'll get another one. There's the National Security Council. The White House has a foreign policy. The State Department has its vision, the Treasury, the Department of Defense, and they're not necessarily coordinated. Then you have the Congress, where every senator is his own secretary of state. It's very difficult, and you have to be able to deal with all of them. You can't just say we're going to deal with the administration. It's not possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Heinbecker.

We'll move to Mr. Goldring and Madam Brown. Very quickly, please.

I'm sorry, it's Mr. Lunney.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thanks.

It's great to have someone with your experience here, Mr. Heinbecker. We welcome you.

When you started to talk about what Canada can do, I believe I heard you had five or possibly six points. I got four down before you ran out of time. I understand you said to invest. You said to believe we can make a difference, that we shouldn't change our foreign ministers every year--that seems like a practical suggestion--and if we do, we shouldn't do the light-switch diplomacy.

I had four there. Were there a couple of other points you wanted to make just briefly?

[Paul Heinbecker]

I was being a bit slippery with the numbers. There are actually about 20, but I thought if I said five, people would pay attention. I don't think you want all 20 at once.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

If you've got a brilliant one you want to add to that, I'd be glad to hear it.

But let me go right to Afghanistan, because you commented briefly on the balance between military and aid, and diplomacy was a little different. But you know we're working with, as we described, a whole of government approach and are largely concentrated on Kandahar, where we have not only the commander of the Canadian Forces, but the RoCK, the representative of Canada in Kandahar--a powerful little lady over there--Elissa Golberg. I don't know if you know her.

[Paul Heinbecker]

I know her well.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

She's a dynamo. I was quite impressed to be over there last May with the defence committee to see this diminutive but powerful woman, with our Brigadier-General Thompson sitting beside her. I think it's quite a model for the provincial reps from Kandahar to see the role a woman plays in our Canadian structure.

We're working on building institutions, training Afghan National Police, an army, and prison officials. We're doing all of that there, as well as reconstruction. Given the challenge we have over there, can you describe what diplomacy we should be doing, beyond what we're doing in Kandahar? Are you saying we should be doing more in Kabul with international colleagues, or...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Lunney.

Do you want to try to answer it?

[Paul Heinbecker]

Under the heading of what Canada can do in Afghanistan, I had these, of course: continue to train Afghan forces, which is the main mission of the Canadian Forces there now; continue to strengthen Afghan institutions, which is a job in part that has to happen in Kabul. And that's where I got into the business of appointing a special envoy contact over there.

I think the issue is not diplomacy vis-à-vis Afghanistan. I think it's a question about what's going on among our allies, what's going on among the countries in the region. There used to be a six-nation group trying to supervise, or handle, developments in Afghanistan. It was, if I remember correctly: United States, Russia, China, Britain--I'm not quite sure anymore. But it's clear there won't be a solution to the Afghanistan issue without some kind of resolution or some kind of better outcomes on Pakistan.

It's also clear that the relationship with Iran can be very important. It can be constructive or it can be destructive, depending on how things are going. By the way, I don't think we're being excessively critical of Iran and I think we should find some way of re-engaging with Iran. I'm perfectly aware of Madam Kazemi's situation, how completely corrupt the Iranian response to that was. I don't have any doubt about that. I also don't have any doubt about Iranian influence in Iraq. But at the same time, we have interests in Afghanistan, and I think engaging with the Iranians, for example, is one part of the diplomacy.

I think the other part is, among the major allies, to try to play a role to get engaged and influence their thinking. That's also part of diplomacy: influence Washington's thinking, influence the British thinking, influence the Germans and the French, and so on. Somehow we have to also make an impact in Pakistan, as I was saying. That, I find, is the most difficult problem of all. If you asked me exactly how to do that, I'm not sure I could answer it. I just do think that without some sort of better relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan, this can go on forever.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Heinbecker.

We'll move to Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I want to follow up on the issue of Afghanistan--I wasn't going to touch it--then move to another one.

One of the things that seem to be emerging is that we need to move beyond what this whole rubric has been about. We did a report on it, etc., and many of us have said we should get beyond, that it's not just about Afghanistan, it's about the neighbourhood, and to have a contact group, as you said--China being part of that as well. I note that NATO was discussing the possibility of bringing in China as part of the equation, which is interesting.

So my question to you is, as it relates to Canada-U.S. relations, are you saying that Canada could be the one to propose a process in concert with what the Americans are doing, and that now is the time to propose that?

[Paul Heinbecker]

Yes, I think so.

We've stated that we will be ending our combat role by 2011. President Obama has said that he did not come to Ottawa with an ask in his pocket, but it's pretty clear from listening to other people in his administration that they would like us to do more and to do it longer. Gates said that the longer we can have Canadian Forces there the better. Susan Rice, their ambassador in New York, has said she very much hopes Canadian Forces will stay on, or words to that effect. And, by the way, her husband is or was Canadian—though I don't want to be held accountable for that—so she knows us pretty well.

The issue there is, will we be asked to do more, and will it be possible simply to walk away? I don't think that will be the case. The emphasis is going to shift to diplomacy as well as the military. I think that in those circumstances ideas are going to matter, and ideas don't necessarily always come from the largest contributor. I think that with the appointment of a special envoy by the Americans, with the appointment of a special envoy by the French, we'll probably see others. I think we probably ought to follow suit so that we're part of the game and we can try to influence the outcome. If we don't do that, I think we're likely going to be on the sidelines.

But we've earned a place at the table. We don't have to tug at people's coat sleeves; we should be there as a right.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you for that.

Another issue was raised by a former colleague of yours, Mr. Taylor, here at this committee, and Mr. Harder as well. One of the things Mr. Taylor raised—and certainly the Obama administration has referenced it—is nuclear proliferation or non-proliferation. On that issue, I'm wondering where you think Canada could play a role vis-à-vis the U.S. in terms of having good ideas on the global stage. Do you want to speak to that, if you have some suggestions, or if it's a good idea?

[Paul Heinbecker]

Yes, I do have some suggestions, and they proceed from the reality that people are talking about nuclear disarmament.

During the Bush administration, they talked about arms control. They talked about a lot of things. They didn't talk about disarmament, but that is back on the agenda now as a conversation between the Russians and the United States. And in due course, it's going to have to be more than just the Russians and the United States. But there are moves afoot to reduce nuclear weapons between them.

I think we should be supporting and encouraging that as much as we can. We should get ready to play a constructive role. There's going to a review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2010. That treaty has languished under the Bush administration's leadership. Now Obama wants to reinforce it. It's manifestly in our interests to do that.

The same thing goes for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. We can be active diplomatically in trying to get people to ratify that. The fissile material cut-off treaty, and a weapons in space treaty, these are all things the Canadian government has done in the past and has the expertise to do. This is a game that we can play; we have the people. On an issue like the fuel cycle, for example, where the questions are, should countries get access to nuclear fuel, and should that be done internationally, and is it a way of avoiding the problems that Iran is creating, we have something to say about that. We're a major uranium exporter, we're a major nuclear technology exporter, and I think that's something we should participate in.

So a lot can be done under the rubric of arms control and disarmament. And I just want to say for one second that this is not pie-in-the-sky stuff. The people who were advocating these things very recently in The Wall Street Journal, of all papers, twice were George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry, and Sam Nunn. These are people with a lot of experience, who are very realistic and who think something has to be done about the number of nuclear weapons and the fact they're on hair triggers, or nearly hair triggers, and so on.

So it is an important issue. It is an issue the Obama administration is going to push, and it is one that suits our interests, and we have the expertise to play on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Heinbecker. With that, we will try to honour your time schedule and allow you to meet your next engagement. We do appreciate your being here again and look forward to the time you can come back.

[Paul Heinbecker]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We will allow him to make his exit, and then we will move into committee business.

You have in front of you a little agenda. You also have the steering committee meeting minutes and a budget.

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

Just for clarification, is this committee business in camera?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

No, no.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

On a point of clarification, do we have dates for that in April?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It's April 19 to 22, Monday to Wednesday. It's listed in the committee report. I knew I read it somewhere.

All right, we're moving into committee business now. I think the first part of the agenda.... Do we have an agenda?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Angela Crandall]

No, just the report.