Foreign Affairs Committee on March 9th, 2009

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I'm going to continue along the same lines as Mr. Crête.

Mr. Clark, you said at the outset that Canada has a sound international reputation. You made seven main points in your address. You also talked about the increased funding that Canada is allocating to defence, to the detriment of diplomacy and development.

I'm particularly interested in issues that concern Africa. I have very close ties with non-governmental organizations in the field that must leave the field for lack of funding or because programs that have expired have not been extended.

Is it somewhat troubling to see our NGOs leave Africa, in view of the vision those countries have of Canada's role? Canada's credibility is being very much undermined, for lack of NGOs and humanitarian assistance. This is all the more troubling when we know that the government has just made cuts in that area once again. I believe it has removed seven countries from the list of persons...

I'm going to let you speak on that point.

[Joe Clark]

Canada has reduced its presence in Africa, and I regret that approach. However, we haven't lost our reputation. It can be regained or reinforced.

I didn't say that expenditures were being allocated to defence to the detriment of development. I can understand why priority is being given to defence, not to development and diplomacy.

CIDA has just reviewed its policy regarding its global presence. This is not good news for Africa. Personally, I don't understand the reasons why CIDA has made those decisions. I believe they aren't related to development policy. In short, Africa could well be disregarded by a number of major powers. Canada does not have the same presence as it did at the time of the war against apartheid or of the G8 meeting in Kananaskis. This is the most difficult region in the world.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

We'll move to the government side.

Mr. Lunney, please, then Mr. Young.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to both of our witnesses here.

Mr. Clark, I just wanted to pick up on your remarks earlier. You remarked about our proud history of engaging and working hard on two priorities: we have worked hard on our relationship with the United States and we have worked hard on our independent foreign policy. You made a remark about how the world is changing and that our policy should be innovative and independent.

But I think you appropriately described the multicultural nature of Canada, which gives us the opportunity to be a bridge to many parts of the world, because we have many historic and cultural links.

The challenge, as you said, for a small country is to come up with some focus. A lot of our discussions in our hearings so far have been about Canada and the U.S., and we've had some discussions about Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. You might have heard some of the discussion with the previous witnesses about whether we should be concentrating on a trilateral relationship or be shifting more to a bilateral relationship.

I simply wanted to ask, first, for your take on that particular issue, whether Canada should be emphasizing more a bilateral relationship than a trilateral one.

By the way, Mr. Chair, I'll fire the questioning down to my colleague here, Mr. Young.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll go to Mr. Young, and then we'll let Mr. Clark answer and then Mr. LeBlanc can answer at the same time.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you. I'll try to be brief.

Mr. Clark, it is a dangerous world since 9/11, as we know. We know in Afghanistan that what we've accomplished in our military by equipping them properly has allowed them to bring order with 36 other countries so that we could build dams and schools. There used to be a few hundred boys in school and now there are five million children in school. So military, development, and aid seem to go hand in hand.

Is it a matter of money? You're saying you approve that we've given them the best equipment; I think they're the best equipped troops on the ground. You know that in government it's all about tough choices. So if it is a question of money, where would the money come from? If it's not a question of money, what is required to be successful?

[Joe Clark]

First of all, on the North American issue, I think we should emphasize a trilateral arrangement. I think the Canada-U.S. arrangement is very important and requires a lot of our attention. A lot of our challenge has to be to keep getting their attention. I don't think that would benefit from hiving off Mexico.

I wanted to avoid speaking of the past, but the first issue that came to me as foreign minister in 1984 was a request by Mexico for help in getting into the GATT. So in 1984 our NAFTA partner was not a member of the GATT. What's interesting is that they wouldn't go to the United States for help; they came to us. I think there are a multitude of reasons for us to maintain that tripartite arrangement.

I think the very tough issue for Canada and this committee is going to revolve around the issue of how we make the tough choices and where should the spending go. Within the envelope of spending on development and diplomacy, where should it go? The other side of that is, where should it not go? The questions are tightly allied. I hope you have the opportunity to take a very close look at both of those questions.

The Afghanistan question is very interesting, because, among other things, there has been a side to the military demonstrated that not many people knew about. It is a side that has real proficiency and skill in development and in other non-traditional military capacities. But that's not their first job, and they're naturally going to take an approach to that through the lens of what their first job is. I suspect that even though we have had enormously able people from Foreign Affairs and CIDA operating and working with DND in Afghanistan, our approach to the development side, the post-conflict side, if you will, of Afghanistan, would have been stronger had there been a greater sense of morale, esprit, and confidence among the Foreign Affairs and CIDA people who were part of that approach.

You know there is a very active debate in the U.S. as to whether development issues should be led by military personnel or not. We haven't had that debate, and we don't tend to have those kinds of debates here. We didn't debate whether or not there should be an increase in military spending. No vote, no debate.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

No vote, no debate on it. The one in Afghanistan went on for years with no vote and no debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Abbott.

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

Just very quickly, I guess the Right Honourable Mr. Clark and I will have a difference of opinion here, in that if you cannot maintain the integrity of a dam you're building, if you cannot keep a school standing because of the Taliban, then what is the point of building them? I suggest the difference of opinion rests in the fact that I believe we have that capacity because we have the Canadian soldiers there who are doing their job, and as a result of them doing their job we can deliver the aid and the development assistance that we want to do.

[Joe Clark]

With respect, I don't think we disagree at all. I strongly support the military activities of Canada in Afghanistan. I even support in general terms the increase in the defence budget. I wish it had been debated. I wish there had been a broad discussion of priorities at the time, and I hope you might be able to do that now in the committee.

There's no doubt that development can be wasted unless there is security. The question is whether we would be getting more security or getting better development, more durable development, if there had been a broader perspective in the development programs that we're necessary partners to the security investments. I'm not suggesting pulling money away from Defence for Foreign Affairs and development. I would look elsewhere in department budgets. I know it's a hard time to do that, and I don't propose to do it today, but I would look elsewhere for those sorts of things.

I think our international presence is essential. I regard the increase in defence spending as a good first step, but we're undervaluing the investment we made in Defence if we don't back it up in associated fields, in my view.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Clark.

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To our guests, thank you.

I have to say, Mr. Chair, it is an honour. Something that Canada needs to improve a lot on is taking advantage of the fact that our former Prime Ministers have a lot to say. I'm glad we're hearing the sage advice of a former Prime Minister. Maybe a recommendation to the committee is that we do a better job of that. They certainly do a better job of that in the States than we do here.

But it's good to have you here today.

I actually had the opportunity to hear you speak recently on Canada's role, and it was vis-à-vis the United States. You made some of the same points today—I also look forward to the data you tabled for us to look at—in particular your point on budgets, because as everyone around this table knows, money is important and how money is spent is important. I've always said that the budget of any government shows to Canadians the priorities of the government. So I think that data is important for us to understand.

I want to start with you, Mr. Clark, on Canada's role with the United States as it relates to Mexico—we talked a little bit about that with the previous witnesses—and your take on how we can involve them on the environment.

It was interesting to hear Mr. Obama talk in trilateral terms when it came to climate change. When I asked a departmental official about who was taking the lead on the environment in cap and trade, it certainly wasn't Foreign Affairs. However, at times we hear the Minister of Foreign Affairs suggesting this is a major initiative. I would like your opinion, because of your experience with the acid rain treaty in particular, about how Canada should deal with the issue of particularly the cap and trade, because that seems to be where we're going—I think that's a good thing, and it certainly was something we campaigned on—and how it relates to Mexico and who should actually be the lead ministry on it.

[Joe Clark]

Here's an observation. I think one consequence of the Obama election, on environmental issues, is that the inclination to sort of set the developed world off against the developing world is over. I think we've passed that phase. I don't think it's something in his mindset. And given the immense influence the Americans have on this file, because they were regarded as being recalcitrant before, I think we could have a more productive debate about moving forward together.

The question you're raising now has broader implications than simply a conversation among the three members of NAFTA. If we can find some formula that takes account of the differing situations with which these nations approach environmental questions, that could well hold some guidance for the future.

Who does this? You know who did this in acid rain? The ministers took the credit; the members of Parliament did it. There was a very active movement, led by the late Stan Darling, the MP for Parry Sound—Muskoka, but joined by several of his colleagues, who simply worked the lines all of you know, with the members of Congress and the Senate in the United States, and persuaded them that there was a real issue here. They were followed up by ministers.

In that case, I suppose because it was a different era, Foreign Affairs—External Affairs at that time—probably was the lead ministry. However, in another sense the PMO was the lead ministry—the Prime Minister was deeply engaged in that issue—and Parry Sound—Muskoka was a lead influence. These environmental issues, at least in the Canada-U.S. context, I think are international issues but also highly local, so they are almost tailor-made for collaboration among members of Congress and members of Parliament in Canada.

The Mexico side, I can't comment on. My experience doesn't apply to that.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I have two other questions. Maybe I'll start with one and see where we go.

When it comes to Canada-U.S. relations, something that is extremely important is international affairs, and security is obviously very important. Canada is looking at winning a seat on the United Nations Security Council. We've had witnesses here who've said there needs to be a very concerted effort to win that seat. No one would disagree, I'm sure, but we have to have something in the window to show that when you vote for Canada for the Security Council, you'll get this.

One of the things that is possible is that Canada can bring a process to the next steps in Afghanistan. One of the things we've heard is not just having an envoy, because there are envoys being sent, etc., but actually have Canada involved in setting up an eminent persons group to set the table for a contact group. This would be part of a UN process.

What would you think of Canada involving itself in something like that? Do you think it would help us to win a seat on the Security Council?

[Joe Clark]

I'd separate the two. Winning seats on the Security Council is tougher than the constituencies most of us have run into, and odd factors apply.

On initiatives, the importance of initiatives from Canada's perspective is that we do have credentials that other countries don't have, but we can't be taking those initiatives for Canadian reasons. It can't be a Canadian action for action's sake. It has to be a Canadian response to a real need. If, as may well be the case, there is a real need for a balanced, respected group that could plan the next steps in Afghanistan, then yes, Canada should be taking an active role because we have experience on the ground--very strong experience on the ground--but also because we have a credibility beyond the countries that have experience on the ground that might make a contribution. But don't do it unless it's necessary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Dewar.

We will go to Madam Brown.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just a comment.

Mr. LeBlanc, some years ago I worked for a Canadian company that did a considerable amount of business in the Carolinas. Our office was actually located in Raleigh-Durham. I spent six delightful months down there representing a company and enjoying the hospitality of the southern states. I would recommend that they do learn how to use teapots, though. It's a sad neglect, given the fact that they had the Boston tea party, that they have never really learned how to use teapots.

My question is for Mr. Clark, and thank you very much for your presentation.

I want to talk about your discussion about the increased role of NGOs and activists particularly, an area that I would like to explore more in my responsibilities. One of the things that we have seen is the ability for them to react very quickly, particularly in catastrophic situations. Think of the tsunami that we had and how those NGOs were able to get aid into countries, and there are organizations like those you mentioned, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. What comes to mind for me is World Vision and the great work they do around the world, or the international Red Cross and how responsive they are able to be.

I go back then to the discussion about the budgets, where we see that CIDA has more money in its budget than DFAIT does. I am wondering, and this is purely speculation on my part, if there is a significant change in the ability of technology. My sister worked for USAID in Kenya for a number of years and she commented about how, over her years there, the differences in technology--even in the years that she was in the office--increased the ability of USAID to get goods to the ground for the people who needed them. Is that perhaps part of what we're seeing here, that the money has been shifted from DFAIT into CIDA, and rightly so, because then we can supply more health services, more food services, more education services? Is that part of this equation?

I read the Thomas Friedman book, The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century , and he talks significantly about the ability in communications and how that has changed so much of what we're doing. Is it possible that is part of what we're seeing here in this changing world?

[Joe Clark]

There is absolutely no doubt that technology has transformed the effectiveness and the capacity of governments and non-governmental organizations, and that's something of which account has to be taken. It raises very real questions about traditional approaches to diplomacy and to development.

But is that the explanation in Canada? I don't think so. I wish there had been a strategy that led to that. My suspicion is that.... I mentioned earlier my observation that leadership on international policy has to come from leaders. There needs to be an advocate somewhere.

In recent years I don't think there has been an advocate for either CIDA or Foreign Affairs when national priorities were set within the government. And perhaps this is a comment on the priorities this committee has to look at.

So I think part of the reason the CIDA budget is high is that commitments were made by earlier governments in the context of G-8 summits, specifically to Africa, that's very difficult for any government to step away from. I think that may well have inflated some of the budgets and the commitments that apply to CIDA now.

I also believe CIDA is in urgent need of a very thorough review of its functions. It would be a hard review, because so much has gone wrong--so much has gone right, but so much has gone wrong with CIDA over the decades of its experience that debate could focus too much on particular failures. That won't get us anywhere.

The notion I'd like to see pursued is to take the idea that inspired a Canadian presence in international development--and I should say for the record that the idea was first captured in law by Mr. Diefenbaker's Progressive Conservative government prior to the creation of CIDA--and take a look at what we thought we could do in the world as it then was and how we would take that thinking and apply it to the world as it now is and determine an effective development policy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Clark.

We'll go to Mr. Patry.

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

I'd like to put a question to Mr. LeBlanc and then another one to Mr. Clark.

Mr. LeBlanc, you say that, in South Carolina, you rely somewhat on the consulate which is in Atlanta, Georgia. In the past, this committee conducted a study on international trade and suggested to the government that it make an enormous increase in the number of consulates in the United States. It did so in one of the recent budgets. We're often told that the person responsible for trade in one of those consulates can go to various U.S. states, but it doesn't work that way.

Do you think that, if we increase the number of consulates and the number of people working in trade in those consulates, as in South Carolina, that could really help increase trade between Canada and the United States?

Mr. Clark, I have a question for you also. Last week, Peter Harder, former deputy minister of Foreign Affairs, talked to us about the projection for 2010 and 2015. I don't know if it was a goal or a projection, but he pinpointed that Canada will be, as you mentioned, a respectable country. But in fact we're not represented in the emerging countries. My question is, how do we engage with the emerging countries? I'm talking mainly of China, India, Brazil, and some other countries, because it is now time to engage for the future and not to wait for 10 or 12 years from now.

[Joe Clark]

Do you want to go ahead, Mr. LeBlanc?

[André J. LeBlanc]

It goes back somewhat to what I said earlier. We often work through a U.S. consul. It's very effective; it enables us to reach business people and bring them together. If that option existed to a lesser degree, there would be a direct impact. It's very cost-effective indeed. In short, my answer is yes. There's no doubt on that point. If there were a greater presence, greater availability of people who can support missions to the United States, that would be very beneficial, I'm sure.

[Joe Clark]

We have extraordinarily strong relations of various kinds with those major emerging countries. Take India, for example. Not only do we have a substantial population in Canada of people of Indian origin that maintains very close connections, but we also are members of the Commonwealth. That's not an organization; it's a tradition. Their way of looking at laws and order might not always look the same, but they are based on the same roots. For reasons that are difficult to gauge, we have not made enough use of those connections, but there are natural connections there.

When Canada used to be involved very actively in mediation processes, typically you would find that the Canadians and Indians were the co-chairs of various committees. We were in Cambodia. We were in Vietnam. We were around the world. There's a very strong basis there, and it's something we can build on. It's historic, and it's current. And it's very ambitious. It's very active with the populations here. So we should be able to do a lot with that.

The Brazil connection has been less well developed, but it's full of potential. One of the interesting side elements of what's happening in Haiti now is that the Brazilians are playing an increasingly active role, with Canadian encouragement. If you wanted to name a region in the world where Canada can do things the United States can't do to move forward, it is the Americas; it is our own hemisphere. They have the disadvantage of being the big guys in the hemisphere. We took our seat at the OAS precisely because we had an unusual ability to do things the Americans couldn't do and that others wanted done. There's a potentially strong partnership with Brazil and with other emerging countries.

In China, there's a very strong tradition. I don't want to get into the China question here except to say that the Prime Minister made it very clear that he intends to visit China soon. I join others who urge that it should be a comprehensive approach, probably preceded by a number of ministerial visits. It's an enormously important relationship with Canada. I think it's fair to say that China is less open to us than it might have been a couple of years ago, because it doesn't understand the initial policy that was followed by Canada. But I think that can easily be repaired.

I believe that if we are serious about it, there are a number of very strong linkages with those emerging countries. What I'm saying is that we have to build on those linkages, some of which are economic and some of which are political and diplomatic, if we want to get farther than our economic strength alone can take us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Patry.

I'm going to go back to Mr. Abbott, but before I do that, I would like to ask one question.

There are a lot of potential reasons why we should or shouldn't do this. There's duplication going on in the field. My question is whether you think we should merge CIDA and Foreign Affairs.