Debates of May 29th, 2008

Foreign Affairs and International Trade--Main Estimates, 2008-09

[David Emerson, Conservative, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, the truth of the matter is that Canada has taken perhaps the strongest measures in terms of sanctions against Burma. Those sanctions cover a host of issues from exports and imports to investment and personal assets. It is a whole range of very comprehensive sanctions.

On some of the matters in terms of how one tracks the data, it is very difficult, as the member knows, to track indirect investment flows. This can go through multiple companies, layers of companies and subsidiaries of companies. We have our staff tracking the activities of companies as much as they can do so, but we have to rely to some degree on information that comes to us.

I would challenge any of the hon. members to come up with a fiscally and administratively responsible way of actually tracking a lot of these flows when it comes to these kinds of sanctions.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would make the recommendation as to registration.

We are witnessing--and have been witnessing for some time--a state sanctioned incitement to genocide whose epicentre is Ahmadinejad's Iran. There have been repeated calls for the disappearance of Israel, dramatized by the parading in the streets of Tehran of a Shahab-3 missile with the words “wipe Israel off the map” and referring to Israel and Jews as “filthy bacteria”, “defilers of Islam”, and the like.

All of this is a clear violation of the prohibition in the genocide convention against the “direct and public” incitement to genocide. The genocide convention also contains a number of remedies, however, to prevent it. Canada is a state party to the genocide convention. We have not only a right to enforce it, but a responsibility to enforce it.

Will the government perhaps take the lead, or join with Australia, which has now indicated it is prepared to take initiatives as authorized by the genocide convention, to hold Ahmadinejad to account before United Nations agencies or other appropriate bodies?

[David Emerson, Conservative, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think the hon. member knows that Canada has been a leader in the United Nations in pursuing a resolution condemning the human rights record in Iran.

As the member knows, I have been in this portfolio for a couple of days. If there is an initiative under way, it is something that we would certainly undertake to review. I think the hon. member's sentiments are shared philosophically with this government. We certainly will be reviewing the situation.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, I commend the government on its resolution regarding human rights in Iran, but there was no reference in that resolution to the entire issue to which I made reference and which speaks to the invoking of the genocide convention. I would hope that the government would do this as it is the responsibility of Canada as a state party, and as other state parties under the convention are obliged to do.

This is my last question. When asked whether Canada supports the responsibility to protect doctrine, the former foreign affairs minister did not answer the question. So I put the question to the present foreign affairs minister: does the government support the responsibility to protect doctrine?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chair, as the member knows, this government has been urging along with the United Nations and all the international countries that are working together and are very seriously concerned about the situation in Burma. We know that progress has been made with the Secretary-General's visit to Burma. We know that access has been opened up. More humanitarian workers are in the country and are being given access to the territory that is most devastated. Aid is going there. We will continue to work as part of the international effort in this situation.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, that long answer was a short “no” to my question.

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

If the member has no further questions, then we will proceed to the 15 minutes allotted to the government. My understanding is that the Minister of Foreign Affairs will speak for 10 minutes. Then there will be a five minute question and answer period. At least that is the way things rolled out last night.

The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[David Emerson, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Chair, it is a great honour for me to stand in this committee in this House and give my first, albeit brief, speech on foreign affairs.

The government's policy on foreign affairs and international trade is about principle and it is about commitment. We seek a more peaceful and a more secure world. We seek political and economic freedom. We seek the spread of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Greater prosperity for Canadians through open markets and investment is another critical aspect of our approach to foreign policy.

Principles, however, must be connected with interests. This means setting priorities. It means making choices. Above all, it means following through.

Let us talk about Afghanistan. In terms of Canadian interests and values, nowhere is our commitment more clear than in Afghanistan.

All members were part of the debate earlier this year on the future of Canada's mission in Afghanistan. The resolution passed by Parliament extended Canada's role there through June 2011.

Not only did the resolution express the support of Parliament for the mission, it also sent a strong message to our NATO allies. That message had a strong effect at the NATO summit in Bucharest, giving us the leverage we needed to secure more support from our allies for the work we are doing in Afghanistan.

That same strong message spoke clearly of Canada's commitment to the Afghan people. Our commitment can be seen in the 2,500 members of the Canadian Forces serving in Kandahar. It can be seen in the Canadian diplomats, development experts, corrections officers, civilian police and others contributing to the mission.

There will be no quick and easy fix or easy solutions in Afghanistan. And there is a long way to go. Nevertheless, we are making progress. Ministers and officials, the media, and individual Canadians have seen this in their own visits to Afghanistan.

Canada is serving the cause of international peace and security in Afghanistan. We are playing our part as a member of the international community. Canadians know this and they are proud of it.

What about the Americas and the United States? The government came to power with a commitment to improve Canada-U.S. relations. This we have done.

Our strategy of working constructively with the United States administration is paying off. For example, we see it on softwood lumber, border security and broader foreign policy issues.

We have re-established a positive dialogue and a willingness to listen closely to each other. On every issue and at all levels we have worked to ensure that the partnership between Canada and the United States remains respectful, close and productive.

Canada is also taking a larger role in the Americas. We are laying the foundations to be a long term player in the region. We will contribute where we can to help defuse longstanding conflicts, promote freer trade and strengthen democratic governance.

Haiti is an example of where we can contribute in the short term as well as in the long term. In the short term, Canadian Forces officers and civilian police are helping the country address its day to day security needs. At the same time, we are also strengthening Haitian security institutions, looking forward to the day when they can guarantee their own country's security.

Earlier this year, Canada announced a $19 million package to strengthen the capacity of the Haitian government and police forces to manage its borders. We are taking a similar approach to social and economic development. We have responded to Haiti's immediate needs, such as food, drinking water and medical aid.

At the same time, we are contributing to longer term social and economic development, for example, in the agricultural sector, to ensure a more secure food supply or an infrastructure where we are literally laying the foundations for a better future by funding a $75 million road construction project. Progress is being made, but it is a long term project and recent violence shows how fragile these gains can be.

Let us talk about emerging markets. Our third major priority is to strengthen Canada's presence in emerging markets, particularly India and China. The government is committed to helping Canadian business succeed in making Canada the destination of choice for foreign investment. We have set out our plans in the global commerce strategy and have backed up these plans to the tune of $100 million over the next two years.

What about the Arctic? Our foreign policy in the Arctic is based on the foundations of our integrated northern strategy. The goal of our approach is to support Canada's domestic policies, social and economic development, stronger local government institutions and environmental protection, including the critical issue of climate change.

The future of the north and of the Arctic is a matter of national and global importance. The region is integral to Canada's history and national identity. It is also critical to the future of the planet.

The Northwest Passage is part of Canada's internal waters. Canada's sovereignty over these waters is well established and based on historic title. The government has repeatedly made this clear. This will not change. Nor will the government's position on it.

What about Sudan? The hon. member referred to it earlier. Since January 2006, Canada has committed nearly $400 million for peace, humanitarian assistance and governance in Sudan. If we combine our UN peacekeeping assessments with our voluntary contributions, Canada will be providing up to $275 million in assistance to Sudan this year.

In March Canada announced that it would be increasing its assistance, but we will also set down some markers with Sudanese ministers, specifically that the future of our relations depends on Sudan's conduct within its own borders. We urged all parties in Sudan to end the violence in Darfur, to support the prompt and full deployment of the UN African Union mission in Darfur and to improve the human rights situation in all areas of the country.

In the area of international trade, the goals of Canadian foreign policy are inseparable from our trade and investment strategy. The government believes that a strong, aggressive and forward looking trade and investment strategy is good for Canada, especially in this day of hypercompetitive emerging economies like China, India and Brazil.

Initiatives like “Advantage Canada” are clearly positioning Canada as a more attractive destination for foreign investment and a partner of choice for global business. Take our Asia Pacific gateway initiative, an unprecedented effort to create more Asian trans-Pacific trade both to and through North America. Our global commerce strategy is another important part of our efforts to draw the world's attention to Canada.

A few weeks ago, I stood in the House to table legislation to enact Canada's first free trade agreement since 2001, with the EFTA countries of Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Today, we are signing a free trade agreement with Peru, an economic leader in Latin America. With the EFTA and Peru agreements, our global commerce strategy is getting Canada back on track and we are moving forward with a list of other negotiations around the world, with Colombia, the Caribbean community, the Dominican Republic, Jordan and South Korea.

These agreements will give Canadian businesses and producers more competitive terms of access to key global markets. These efforts are part of a strategic suite of initiatives to get Canadians more involved in the global economy. These include foreign investment, promotion and protection agreements.

These agreements will help Canadians build linkages to the global value chains that are driving business around the world today, such as air services agreements to foster the human links so vital to strong business relations, not to mention carrying high value cargo along global supply and value chains, as well as the science and technology cooperation agreements we are pursuing to work with other innovative countries to develop and market tomorrow's technological breakthroughs.

Finally, there are the market plans being developed by our department and trade commissioners to zero in on the opportunities in global markets. These plans include new trade offices in key markets in China, India, Brazil and elsewhere.

The global commerce strategy is a comprehensive road map that will help Canadian businesses and investors succeed in the global economy and continue building on our country's long-standing heritage as a trading nation. We are proud of our success to date and there will be much more to come in the time ahead.

On the issue of democracy and human rights, the government has also been proud to maintain Canada's enduring commitment to freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. I will continue to make our views known bilaterally and in multilateral fora, such as the United Nations, in NATO, the G-8 and in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.

Among the multilateral fora of importance to Canada it is la Francophonie. The French language and culture remain an integral to Canada's identity. We look forward to Summit 2008 this October in Quebec City and to the city's 400th anniversary.

Let me close my remarks by saying a few words about my department. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is made up of people that match our ambitions on the world stage, with the required talent, the dedication and the energy. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them and recognize their professionalism and dedication.

Canada is back, but the work of Canadian foreign policy and international commerce is never done. Interest and values have to be advocated and defended at all times. This is unchanging. Equally unchanging is the commitment and determination with which I will continue to promote Canada's interests and values on the world stage. Of that, members have my highest assurance.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Chair, in the spirit of thanks, we should continue by thanking the minister who has obviously been rewarded for his diligence and hard work in the trade department. It has been recognized by the Prime Minister that he can take on this new task. He needs to know the government is solidly behind him in that challenge and we will be there to support him in it.

Speaking of leadership, it is under the leadership of the international trade minister that we signed our first free trade agreement since 2001, the agreement the EFTA. Many people ask, what is the EFTA? The minister has already acknowledged it is the European Free Trade Association, those countries that are not in the EU.

The minister recognized that this was the way Canada would have a doorway to that huge opportunity, that huge trading bloc, the European Union. It was under his leadership that we signed an agreement with Iceland, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

I had the privilege to visit a few of these countries on behalf of the minister. I saw for myself the tremendous benefits. One simple one is they consume purely Canadian durum for their pastas. There was an 8% tariff on that. Guess what? That is gone now: no tariff, plain and simple. If no one else, my wheat farmers are very happy about that.

That is only one example of what has happened with this first transatlantic free trade agreement. Canada now has a doorway to the European market.

Canada and the EFTA both enjoy access to some of the richest markets. Not only is it a benefit for us, but it is a doorway for the EFTA countries into our NAFTA trading bloc as well. They see that as a benefit. That is the beauty of free trade agreements, they are two way.

I enjoy talking about all the accomplishments of the trade minister. We know they will be reflected in his leadership in foreign affairs.

Could he perhaps explain some of the other benefits that he sees through EFTA into the European market?

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Before I recognize the minister, the minister went overtime and there was very little time left. Then the member for Macleod went on at some length.

The minister now has about 10 seconds left to respond.

[David Emerson, Conservative, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, I will be as brief as I can.

The EFTA will be a very important watershed for the evolution of Canada's trade relations over the next few decades. As the hon. member said, it creates immediate benefits. The amount of trade between the EFTA countries and Canada is actually quite substantial, something in the order of $14 billion in 2007. Direct investment between Canada and the EFTA countries is something like $28 billion.

It will provide a tremendous footprint for Canadian companies to get involved in the European market because the EFTA countries have free trade with the EU, and we will be there next.

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The Bloc Québécois has 15 minutes now. The hon. member for Joliette.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Chair, like the House leader, the new foreign affairs minister and former international trade minister must expect that we too, like our Liberal colleagues, will want to clarify certain aspects of this saga between the hon. member for Beauce and Ms. Julie Couillard. It is for the purpose of keeping the people of Quebec and Canada informed.

Everyone knows that when the hon. member for Beauce was the foreign affairs minister, he forgot some documents at Ms. Couillard's place. She has said that they were forgotten around the middle of April, or shortly after the NATO summit in Bucharest.

Originally, the Prime Minister said during his press conference that the foreign affairs minister resigned because he had left classified confidential documents—those were his words—in non-secure places. This is what led to his resignation because it was a serious mistake.

I would like to ask a question, and I suppose that it will be the House Leader who answers and not the new foreign affairs minister. If they have strict security rules at the Department of Foreign Affairs, how is it possible that the neither this department nor the office of the minister at the time, the hon. member for Beauce, noticed that the documents had disappeared over the ensuing five weeks?

This all seems very nebulous to me and I would like a clear answer. It has nothing to do with the private lives of the hon. member for Beauce or Ms. Couillard.

How could documents, some of which the Prime Minister has described as “classified”, possibly just disappear for five weeks from the radar screens of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the office of its former minister?

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

Mr. Chair, the issue is one of documents that were left inappropriately by the member for Beauce in an unsecured place and some were classified documents. As has been observed by my friend, it was inappropriate for them to be left in that place. Whether it be for five weeks, or five days or five hours, it matters not. It does not matter whether it was Madame Couillard's home or, as I have said on other occasions, the front steps of the Parliament buildings. In either case it would have been in appropriate. That is why the resignation of the minister of foreign affairs was offered, because he had violated the rules.

That I think led to a question about what measures the department had in place for tracking documents. There is a government security policy, and it is obviously too lengthy for me to answer in the brief time I have. For the benefit of my friend, he can review it on the Treasury Board Secretariat website. It outlines all the requirements that have to be followed by all departments for documents. That policy is also supplemented by what are known as operational standards. Those standards provide some additional guidance to departments in a number of areas, including how to meet the requirements of the Security of Information Act in physical and personnel security.

As I have indicated as well in the House, Foreign Affairs and International Trade is conducting a review. It will continue to operate in the future to ensure that all sensitive materials are properly protected and treated appropriately.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his answer; except that he did not answer my question.

How do documents disappear? How can documents, identified by the Prime Minister as “classified” disappear for five weeks and the department does not notice; the minister’s office does not realize it, the minister was not aware of it and the Prime Minister was not informed? There is something there.

Is the reason for this mistake—I am not referring to the mistake by the member for Beauce, but rather the administrative apparatus—the incompetence of bureaucrats in the Department of Foreign Affairs, or quite simply a somewhat causal approach on the part of the offices of the minister and the Prime Minister? I am asking him the question. If it is not the fault of the minister and not the fault of the Prime Minister, is it the fault of the Foreign Affairs department and its public servants?

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

Mr. Chair, the responsibility in the case is actually quite simple and quite clear. It was a laxity, an error on the part of the member for Beauce as minister of foreign affairs. He had the documents. They were his responsibility. He left them in an unsecured place. That is where the fault lies. That is where the responsibility lies. That is the responsibility that the member for Beauce assumed and that is why he offered his resignation, and that is why the resignation was accepted by the Prime Minister.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Chair, once again, my question has not been answered. I understand very well, and I share, the discomfort of the government and all members of Parliament in the face of the mistake by the member for Beauce. However, that does not excuse the failure by the government bureaucracy—for a period of five weeks—to notice the disappearance of what the Prime Minister describes as “classified” documents, which is what the Leader of the Government is telling us from the government side.

I put this question to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons or perhaps to the new Minister of Foreign Affairs. What steps will be taken by the department and by the government to avoid a repetition of a situation such as this? I believe that everyone here will agree that when documents disappear for five weeks without anyone noticing—which is what they are telling us—that is a situation that must be corrected. What measures will be taken to correct the situation?

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

Mr. Chair, there were numerous questions there. Of course, the reason why we had the problem is the documents were thought to be in the carriage of the minister and it turned out they were not. They were left in an unsecured location. That is why the problem occurred and that is why the resignation occurred. It is no more complex, no more simple than as I have presented it.

I have indicated that there are standards that must be upheld. The standards are quite clear and in this case the standards were not upheld. It was the failure to uphold those standards that resulted in the resignation of the minister. That is a very serious price to pay and it is a consequence of the standards not being followed. It is not a failure of the standards. It is a consequence of the standards not being followed that led to the resignation.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Chair, again, everyone here will agree that what has been told to us, and no one has questioned it, is that Ms. Couillard said she had the documents at her home, according to her account, since about mid-April. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons told us on several occasions that the government was not made aware of the disappearances until Sunday, and the Prime Minister only learned of it on Monday. For a period of five weeks, documents were missing from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Yet, they tell us that the rules are strict; that there are standards that were not respected by the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, and he has paid the price. Yes, he has paid the price; but how will they ensure that it does not happen again the next time a minister forgets documents at someone’s home, or loses them or puts them under the mattress and forgets that they are under the mattress? I am not just talking about the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It could be the Minister of International Trade or National Defence or any other minister.

How can they guarantee that the departments concerned will quickly identify those documents as missing,so that we do not relive the situation we have been through in the past few weeks?

They are not answering our question. What I understand is that the government does not intend to correct the situation and the events that we have seen in recent weeks with the Department of Foreign Affairs and the former Minister of Foreign Affairs could happen again at any time with this government. Unless it wants to be irresponsible, the government must correct the situation.

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

Mr. Chair, I did not hear anything from my friend suggesting there is a flaw in the standards that are in place or a flaw in the government's security policy. I did not hear any of those things from the member.

Therefore, I will continue to restate to him that in that regard it does not appear that the problem is with the standards. It does not appear that there needs to be a change there. The problem was, in fact, the failure to respect those standards and that is where we ended up in a problem, because government documents were left in an unsecured place and in so doing, those rules and standards were contravened.

I would hope that the example that has occurred in this instance and the price the minister has paid serves as an educational example to all of us about the importance of following those policies and upholding those standards. I hope that it will have a salutary effect in ensuring that is the case in the future.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Chair, something is not right about what the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons told us. Everyone agrees that the member for Beauce made a mistake. But how does the government explain the fact that if Ms. Couillard had not revealed on TVA that the documents had been at her home since mid-April, we probably would not even know about it today?

If I speed—and it happens from time to time, as I imagine it does with other MPs—a police officer with a radar gun could pull me over, tell me that I broke the law and that I will have to pay. In this case, I am hearing that within the machinery of government, there is no police force and no way of ensuring that the rules are followed.

Once again, if Ms. Couillard had not revealed this information on TVA, the document could very well still be at her home. It could have been used for other means, and—from what we have been told—the minister would not have even known it was missing. I do not believe any of it.

I have one more question about this issue, and if I still have time, I will ask about the Omar Khadr affair.

What guarantees can the government give us that these classified documents—as the Prime Minister called them—did not constitute a danger to public safety, that they were not used by Ms. Couillard for other means, and that they did not end up in the wrong hands?

What guarantees can the government give us? Has it investigated? Are they just trusting in the good faith of Ms. Couillard, in spite of her unfortunate past connections? How has the government investigated to back up its statement that there were no leaks?

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to cover a few points. First, the hon. member said there is no policy in place, or at least that is what the interpretation said. There is, in fact, a policy in place. I referred to it a little bit earlier. It is the government's security policy.

For his information it is posted on the Treasury Board Secretariat website if he wishes to enquire into it and it will provide him with information on what those requirements are. As I indicated, each department has its own supplemental operational standards which are in place. So, there are policies and there are standards in place which is quite clear.

As for the question of what will be done to ensure there were no outstanding security issues, first, we know two things with regard to the documents. They were returned. Madame Couillard did that after consulting her lawyers and recognized they were the property of the government. So we do know they have been returned. In that regard, that has been addressed.

With regard to any other questions, the Department of Foreign Affairs is conducting a review. It has the ability to draw on the considerable resources of this government and the agencies that exist for that purpose with expertise if it feels it is necessary to satisfy itself with regard to any other security questions.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Chair, I understand that the former minister of foreign affairs, the member for Beauce, is taking all the blame for this and that nobody has any intention of changing a thing. This could happen again anytime.

There is absolutely no guarantee that between April 15 and the day the documents were returned to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Ms. Couillard or other individuals did not use the documents for other purposes. It seems to me that in this case, the government was negligent at best, and at worst, attempted to hide the truth in order to mislead Canadians and Quebeckers.

Not only am I extremely disappointed, but I believe that tomorrow and every day after that, the Bloc Québécois and the other opposition parties must continue to force the government to reveal the truth, given that the government is incapable of disciplining itself. Fortunately, the opposition, particularly the Bloc Québécois, is here to help.

I would like to use the few minutes I have left to talk about Omar Khadr. As we all know, Omar Khadr is a young man who was taken by his family, particularly his father, into al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Nobody is disputing that. He was 11 years old at the time.

My question is this. If an 11-year-old Canadian is taken by his father into an al-Qaeda camp, is he responsible for the decision to be in that terrorist camp? My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Well, how about that—with the Prime Minister gone, there is just one minister in the House: the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Chair, my friend made a lengthy statement again about the issue of the security policy and that is why I am responding to address that. I heard him suggest that what the government is saying is that an individual committed a mistake and therefore there is no need to change the policy because the individual contravened the policy. That is what happened. When the rules are contravened, then they are enforced in this fashion and disciplined in this fashion. That is why a resignation took place.

I have to reaffirm once again that I did not hear from my friend any suggestion there is a problem with those rules. He suggested the rules should be changed, but he offered no way in which the rules should be changed or the standards should be changed. In fact, it appears that the standards and the rules are in place, are the correct standards and rules, and the problem is simply that they were not followed.

That is why it is indeed the responsibility of the individual who did not follow the rules. It is not the fault of the rules that they were broken. It is the fault of the individual who committed the error and he took that responsibility by offering his resignation, and the government accepted that resignation. In that way there was accountability as there should be.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to begin by congratulating the member, the new Minister of Foreign Affairs, on his new appointment.

I am tempted to ask him the same question I asked the previous minister of foreign affairs, and that is, who is the president Haiti, but I am sure he knows who that is.

Seriously, I understand there is a policy document that has been produced by the deputy minister of foreign affairs which outlines the government's vision for the future of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Canadians want to know where this government is going in foreign affairs. So, my question is very simple. Could the minister confirm that a document has been written about the future of foreign affairs with this government and if so, could he provide it for us?