Foreign Affairs Committee on March 9th, 2009

[Joe Clark]

I wouldn't, because I think the CIDA mandate would become lost in Foreign Affairs. Having said that, I think there needs to be a very serious consideration of what the contemporaries see the mandate to be. I don't think that has begun anywhere.

I wouldn't merge them, because my belief, not yet proven, which requires consideration, is that there is a contemporary role for CIDA in this world, but we haven't defined it. My experience with CIDA is that if CIDA is too closely involved with Foreign Affairs, it can lose its capacity to perform its specific mandate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

The question was asked last week of Paul Heinbecker, and he unequivocally said yes, for two or three reasons, and he listed them. It's something that has been thrown out there.

We appreciate your input on that.

We'll go to Mr. Abbott, please.

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

Just very briefly, Mr. Clark. I was pleased to hear your comment about the Americas, because, as you are well aware, our Prime Minister has gone with the Americas initiative. But I would like to give you an opportunity to perhaps clarify something with respect to your comments on Africa. The fact of the matter is that this government doubled our aid to Africa. We are in line with the objective of being able to achieve that doubling by the end of this month in which we sit. I don't imagine that you were trying to say that we have shortchanged Africa, when in fact we have doubled it.

Furthermore, with our policy of targeted nations, we are going to be in a position to walk and chew gum. First off, we are going to be able to give the acknowledgement to the Americas they deserve with respect to the Prime Minister's policy. Secondly, we are going to be able to focus our assistance, our development. As you would be well aware, there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of people in Sudan and Darfur and other parts of Africa who are alive because of Canada and the generosity of Canada. I'm sure that, upon reflection, you wouldn't want to leave the readers of the Hansard of this committee with the impression that you were saying that our government was shortchanging Africa.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

There are millions across the country who read the Hansard from this committee.

Mr. Clark.

[Joe Clark]

If I were still a parliamentarian and engaged in partisan debate, I'd be tempted to say that I don't think they would have drawn that impression until you entered the idea into the record of Hansard.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Joe Clark]

Nonetheless, on the Americas, I think one of the really fortunate things that happened is that the current government established its Americas policy before the election of a new president, because it's not going to look like a Johnny-come-lately initiative. I think now the challenge--and it's being acted on in part by the changes in aid allocations--is to make real use of that.

I'm very impressed by the work of the new minister in this field. I've just spent a couple of days in Washington speaking with people who work in this area, and his impact is being felt and the country's capacity is well understood.

On Africa, I think we could get into a debate, which probably doesn't serve much purpose, about aid levels. I think the attention paid to Africa by Canada has declined, in particular on the governmental side. You're absolutely right, and others are absolutely right, that it has not happened with regard to NGOs and faith groups and others, who are more present and more effective than ever in Africa. And I don't think this should ever be a partisan matter.

My view of this is that Africa is an immensely resourceful and highly troubled continent, and it needs attention, and it needs friends in the developed world. Very often, we have been able to provide some of that friendship. We have great capacities to get a lot of bang out of a few bucks simply because we have that strong tradition. I would hope that it would be pursued vigorously.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Abbott.

Monsieur Crête.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Very quickly.

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

Mr. Clark, I would like to go back to what you just said about Africa. We're going to begin a study in the committee; that's one of our next priorities. I would like you to explain a little more what the two or three major issues for study should be in terms of the choices that are to be made so that, in six months or a year, Canada has a revised policy on this continent, not just piecemeal decisions.

[Joe Clark]

May I consider that question and perhaps submit something in writing to you?

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

That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. LeBlanc.

[André J. LeBlanc]

Briefly, referring back to Dr. Patry's question, just for the sake of clarity, more is better. I did not mean to infer that Canadian consular offices were understaffed or underfunded. So referring to your question, yes, more is certainly better. It's a wonderful modality, but I certainly didn't mean to infer that you're understaffed or underfunded.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Clark, I have just one other quick question.

During the 1980s, while you served in the capacity as minister there, we had a very close relationship with the United States. In fact, we've heard in previous meetings that George Shultz and you had a fairly close friendship as well as a professional working relationship. He called it “tending his garden”. He could go all around the world, but he felt he needed to tend the garden at home, and almost quarterly you would meet.

Is there a fear that our foreign policy with the States is going to be built around personalities? Maybe that was good; maybe you have to foster those personalties. But everyone is looking now, with this new administration, at this being a time of hope for the world. Is there a fear that we change policies based on who's in power, and then go back if they aren't, and that in the long term it can hurt our close friendship and relationship that we have with them?

[Joe Clark]

I think that has to be avoided. It's a very important question. What was effective in the relationship between Secretary Shultz and me in fact was the structure that had been put in place, and to give credit where it is due, I inherited the structure. It was put in place by Secretary Shultz and Allan MacEachen when he was minister, but we both made it work. It had the following advantage. A Canadian foreign minister can't avoid being preoccupied with events in the United States, but a United States Secretary of State has to work very hard to pay any attention to Canada. Those regular meetings every quarter meant that there was a period of time when the Secretary of State of the U.S. had to put everything else aside and focus on details, often very precise details, about Canada, and it meant we were constantly getting very high attention.

The office that dealt with the Americas had a lot of Canadian experts in it when I was fortunate enough to be minister. Later, the experts tended to come from elsewhere in the Americas, so there was, on a structural level, a decline in the frequency and the quality, I would say, of the consultation. I think if there were some opportunity to rebuild that kind of structure, it should be seized upon, and I would think it's the sort of thing one would want to act on early to cause the American administration to pick it up as a good idea. It survived personalities; it wasn't personality-dependent. It worked with MacEachen and Shultz, me and Shultz, me and Baker, other ministers and other American counterparts. If that's not the mechanism--and it might not fit current times--something like it should be found.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We went a little past our hour. I thank you for appearing before us today and I wish you all the best. We look forward to perhaps having you back.

The meeting is adjourned.