[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, April 16, 1996
.1536 
[English]
The Chairman: I'd like to call this meeting of the foreign affairs and international trade committee to order. We'll just give a moment to the gentlemen from the media to clear the room and then we'll commence the session.
We have with us this afternoon the Hon. Lloyd Axworthy, the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Minister, I know the members of the committee would want me to congratulate you on your appointment, since this is your first appearance before the committee. Thank you very much for coming before us this afternoon to speak on the estimates and more generally to give us a sort of tour d'horizon as you see things.
I don't think it would be inappropriate for me to say to the members of the committee that the minister indicated he was quite happy to stay until five o'clock, and I know he's anxiously looking forward to working with the members of the committee.
Welcome, minister, and welcome also to Mr. Lavertu and Mr. Judd from the department.
[Translation]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Thank you for inviting me to appear before your committee. It is a real privilege.
I've reviewed your work of the last few years and I'm struck by your dedication and your accomplishments in strengthening Canada's foreign policy. Indeed, your committee sets a very good example on how the parliamentary system can support the government's policy making.
I want also to stress my commitment to work with all parties and I note the good collaboration that existed within the committee during the last few years. I want to establish a regular dialogue with the committee and with Canadians during this period of budget cuts. I want more input from your committee to the reevaluation of Canada's foreign policy priorities.
I believe that our foreign policy is at a crossroad.
[English]
We're at a major turning point, and I want to centre my remarks on the critical developments taking place around us and with us that make the creation of a coherent, integrated and focused foreign policy one of the most important challenges for Canadians.
First, it's very important to point out that the term ``foreign affairs'' is increasingly an anachronism. More and more the developments outside Canada have an impact inside Canada, and the boundaries between them simply don't make much sense any more.
Just to give you a couple of leading facts and figures, foreign direct investment in this country now totals over $150 billion a year. Fully 37% of our gross domestic product is generated by trade. Some five million Canadians are foreign-born and carry with them many concerns and continuing interests. Also, four million Canadians travel outside North America annually for business, tourism, family reasons or whatever. And as we are increasingly aware, Canada is totally within a new global information and economic system where markets never close and information never ceases.
.1540
So we're not dealing with some abstract or distant issue when we talk about foreign affairs. We're dealing with an international dimension of national issues that have an impact on and touch every Canadian in every way almost every day. More than ever Canadians have a direct stake in developments outside our boundaries, so where you hear the odd voices in this country who counsel withdrawal, isolationism or protectionism, they simply are living in a bygone age that no longer has any sense or relevance to the reality we live in.
Second, it is the case that as nations of the world become more interdependent, international affairs and relationships become even more complex. The growing need for forms of global coordination has produced a vast array of international bodies. An incredible number of actors are now playing out on the international scene. Businesses, NGOs, individuals and various forms of associations and organizations are multiplying at a very heavy rate.
There's also an incredible explosion in the number of issues that now have vital interest for Canadians internationally. You can no longer talk about the environment, health or criminal matters purely in a domestic context.
It's important to note that perhaps one of the most serious security concerns for Canada is not nuclear weapons but the degradation of our environment. This is not something that is limited to boundaries; it is something we're all responsible for in many ways. Unless we find some international answers to it, we'll be facing a crisis, or certainly our children will, that goes beyond anything we've seen before.
There are also far more international regimes and institutions, and again, the growth in the last few years has been quite geometrical. Examples are the new biodiversity secretariat to the World Trade Organization, the ASEAN regional forum, the Middle East and North Africa economic summit, and even recent events such as the summit meetings taking place in Moscow this week, where again world leaders are being brought together, and the summit meeting that took place a few weeks ago in Sharm el Sheikh to deal with terrorism.
Increasingly, international matters are becoming a daily or weekly requirement, and it's the responsibility of prime ministers, presidents and others to be able to respond in a very effective way. So once again, the boundaries no longer make much sense.
It's been pointed out that by the mid-1980s there were 365 intergovernmental bodies of one kind or another and no fewer than 4,600 non-governmental ones. This is almost twice the figure we had in the 1970s. And I'm sure those numbers take no account of the most profound phenomenon of the 1990s: the virtual international networking on the World Wide Web and all it means for trade, human rights, resource development and exchange of information and ideas.
Third, there's no question that the demand for Canadian resources abroad is vastly increasing. A few examples from recent months include the long-term need in Haiti for assistance to provide a political and civil space to construct a more democratic and more prosperous society; the unanimous call from NGOs, political leaders and civilians in the former Yugoslavia for a continuation of international presence and reconstruction; and the day-to-day financial struggle of the UN Human Rights Commission to meet the ever-increasing demands of an international community more sensitive and engaged in protecting human rights and the rule of law in a wide variety of places around the globe.
Against this background there is a fourth development. Our foreign policy agencies - the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Canadian International Development Agency and the International Development Research Centre - face a reduction of resources as their contribution to deficit reduction. To give you a sense of the nature of the tough choices to be made, let me point to a few telling statistics.
Since 1988-89, the department will have cut its budget on ten different occasions, bringing cumulative cuts of $292 million by 1998-99. To put just $100 million of that cut into context, it represents the salary of 80% of the headquarters' employees, or it reflects total spending on consular activities and cultural relations and communications. More importantly, from 1988-89 to 1998-99, just a decade, the percentage of spending for core programs - that is, discretionary spending - has declined from 70% to 36% of total expenditures.
You may well ask why. Well, the answer is fairly obvious. Canada's share of costs for its various memberships internationally is increasing substantially. UNESCO, ILO, the secretariats for NAFTA and other areas have gone from $137 million to $227 million, a growth of 66%. Peacekeeping assessments have jumped from $7 million to $134 million, an increase of 1,800% over that period of time.
.1545
So there's a lot more complexity, a lot more demands, greater relevance, and a constant shaping and reshaping of all our lives by what happens internationally.
Clearly, to maintain a foreign policy we must undertake a serious, considered restructuring and retooling of the mechanisms, the delivery, and the priorities. We can no longer afford overlap and duplication. In the federal government we must begin to bring coherence into the international activities of some ten federal departments beyond the Department of Foreign Affairs, which are engaged in a multitude of international activities.
Among the foreign affairs agencies we will be carefully reviewing the nature and delivery of development assistance to ensure that we maximize effectiveness. Within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade we will be looking at increasing coordination of linkages and flexibility. We also must address the coordination and linkage of different levels of government. We must review the roles and responsibilities to ensure efficiencies and commonality of purpose.
To that end, I am sitting down with the portfolio ministers to review Foreign Affairs' roles and responsibilities, the governance process, structure, operations, and overseas representations and facilities. This examination should shortly produce options for expenditure reductions and revenue generation, and most importantly for improved coherence in policy direction and resource management.
I will be pleased to return to this committee to share our views at the appropriate time, which I hope will be in several months. In the meantime, I can announce that this year's department financial outlook, a more detailed review of our spending, will be tabled before this committee in mid-May to meet the deadline set by the committee.
The government will not act alone in pursuing these initiatives. Clearly we can't. We want your committee to help us, to become engaged in helping to define new agendas and working with NGOs, interested Canadians, and interested parties to help ensure, on an ongoing annual basis, that our resources and our reach are being directed and targeted at the needs that are most apparent.
We know the objectives were firmly established by members of this committee, meeting in joint review with their counterparts in the Senate. Prosperity, security, and Canadian values and cultures are the three pillars, but within the orbit of those basic objectives we can now begin to set actual, specific, concrete priorities.
I invite the committee to now begin reviewing Canada's foreign policy priorities. This could perhaps be accomplished over a period of weeks in the upcoming months, calling expert witnesses so that the committee can report to Parliament and make its recommendations.
It would be my hope, Mr. Chairman, that the committee do this on an annual basis, to reinforce the role of Parliament in opening up foreign policy and bringing more Canadians into a dialogue of our role in changing times. We should not just set in stone objectives that live forever but do an annual, revolving review of what is important on a year-to-year basis. I would also suggest that this committee do something similar to what the finance committee does in pre-budget preparation, where the committee plays an invaluable role in acting as the venue for Canadians to make their views known and for Parliament to put forward its proposals and ideas.
I would also like to invite the committee to provide me with ongoing recommendations on the new crises, the emerging priorities, and the events that take place with little warning but that need the engagement of Canadians, events such as developments in Cuba, Haiti, China, Taiwan, or what we now see in the Middle East. There's an opportunity for this committee to play a rapid reactive role to allow Canadians to feel there's a place they can be heard and where opinions can be expressed.
For example, next week I will be participating in meetings on the international fight against terrorism at the foreign ministers meeting in Luxembourg and I will be attending the Commonwealth ministerial meeting in London to talk about restoration of democracy in Nigeria. I think those two issues are of great pertinence and relevance to Canadians. If members of this committee, as a joint body or individually, would wish to provide me with their views or ideas, those would be most welcome and most timely.
As you know, Parliament has been playing an increasingly more active role in foreign policy. It has held several debates on issues such as Haiti and various peacekeeping areas. Of course this will continue.
Mr. Chairman, in discussions with yourself, members of the opposition, and other members of the committee, it was interesting that it was felt that the committee itself could act more as an ongoing monitoring agency. It wouldn't just be a series of ad hoc parliamentary debates, but the committee itself could form a monitoring role on our peacekeeping commitments so that we could report on a regular basis as to developments and changes. We could receive reports and recommendations back from committee members, again so that we have that ongoing relationship and feedback on what we think is important.
.1550
I know you have also begun to set out outreach programs, such as the one you'll be conducting on development assistance. This is certainly a welcome initiative, which I hope you will also renew and expand.
In particular, Mr. Chairman, I think I would encourage, if I could.... I know that a discussion of the Arctic Council and their work in the north is on the agenda of the committee. I just returned from a trip to Russia last week, where I had very extensive discussions with both the foreign minister and the prime minister of Russia. I can tell members of the committee of a very strong interest on the part of members of that government to establish a concrete agenda with Canada for bilateral relations dealing with the north - transportation, trade, commerce, environment, aboriginal rights, security issues. They'd like to sit down and start doing things on a direct, deliberate basis on all of those matters. So I think the work of this committee would be very timely.
I indicated to the prime minister of Russia that what we'd like to do at a meeting next fall of the Canada-Russia Intergovernmental Committee is to be able to have a clear cut plan of action on things that we could do not just on a multipolar way, but in a bilateral way. As we come up to the inauguration of the Arctic Council this summer, I would welcome very much the work of this committee in helping us to shape this agenda of action with the Russians in this respect in order to be able to put that kind of program in place.
Mr. Chairman, just before we get to the questions, if I may I'll just turn for a moment to some of the areas that I think are of priority and that we might want to address at the outset.
First and perhaps foremost, the fundamental task and responsibility of the Government of Canada through the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is the protection of Canadians and their interests abroad. We must look into the need for additional international legal and other instruments to assist Canadians who face difficulties overseas, and assist them and their relatives as may be required in a variety of cases. I will be making an announcement very shortly on the nomination of a special adviser on consular matters to take up the task of representing Canadians where there are particularly difficult cases with foreign governments. He can then provide direct attention on such matters.
If you might allow it, Mr. Chairman, I also would just like to draw to the committee's attention - and I'd be happy to pass it out - the new publication on Bon Voyage, which will made available to the 1.5 million Canadians who come to our passport offices every year. It will contain a very extensive collection of information that every traveller will need when they are visiting abroad.
What's interesting about it is that it is primarily financed through advertising, so it is a cost-recovery effort that will allow those businesses that enjoy the commerce of Canadians as they travel abroad to help pay for the information they need. It's an example of where we can work in partnership with the private sector to get out information of this kind.
Other similar publications are now in production and will cover the following topics: Canadians arrested abroad; international travel abductions; advice to Canadians concerning changes in Hong Kong that take place next year; travel by women in foreign countries and the laws they may expect. And again, if the committee has any recommendations about further points of information we can make available to Canadians, I'd certainly like to hear about them.
Mr. Chairman, I've also dealt in my opening remarks with the other major concern and interest of the committee: the creation of more jobs for Canadians to enhance trade promotion. I know that my colleague, the Minister of International Trade, will be appearing before this committee to outline or give you an overview of his activities in those areas. I therefore won't take up any of your time other than to emphasize that to make it happen, one of the most important things is that we have to be engaged in constructive engagement with countries.
We can't simply have trade relationships. They must be relationships in a variety of aspects because what we do, for example, on refugee programs helps us to develop a line of communication and a line of reception. What we do to work together on environmental matters or what we do to work together on international health matters gives us access, gives us a response. And one of the things that we are all most proud of is the way in which we are received as Canadians, how we are so welcomed by virtually every country abroad that I've visited. It therefore provides us with a useful environment and atmosphere in which we can engage in more direct economic activities.
A third area that I think is very important is the protection and promotion of direct Canadian national interests. Let me point to the example of perhaps our most important relationship, the one between Canada and the United States, which is also our most successful bilateral relationship. We've made it work for a number of years. But it is obvious that in matters of population and economic muscle, ours is not a partnership of equals. Therefore, we have to fashion mechanisms, such as more regular bilateral contacts, to make our relationship even more intricate and to make it work better on our behalf.
.1555
At the same time, we must not at any time be hesitant to defend our interests when necessary. During my recent trip to Washington, I raised with American counterparts the importance to current and future generations of upholding the conservation goals set out in the Pacific Salmon Treaty. I pointed out that it was in our mutual interest to resolve the issues at stake. We need a solution that meets both our short-term objectives for the 1996 fishing season and our longer-term need to conserve the salmon resource and share it equitably. To achieve that, I proposed to the United States that they should engage with us in a process of binding arbitration. At this point, they are still considering that proposal.
I also registered, at the same time, Canada's strong concern over the extraterritorial extension of U.S. law through the Helms-Burton bill on doing business with Cuba. U.S. Secretary of State Christopher acknowledged Canada's concerns about the extraterritorial effects of the legislation. He said that the United States would take into account the interests and concerns of Canada in the application of the bill. The U.S. administration has also agreed to consult with us and other countries on the implementation of provisions of the act, especially those dealing with temporary entry.
The fourth area that I think deserves special attention by members of the committee is in the area of human rights. As you know, I've just returned from Geneva, where I addressed the UN Commission on Human Rights and spoke to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. I outlined some of the ways in which I believe we can review the UN's role in protecting human rights: passing legislation to act against child sex tourism; encouraging business and other NGO players to take some of the responsibility for ensuring that abuses do not occur; tackling the creation of effective national human rights watchdogs; and countering hate propaganda, which I believe is essential.
If we are to prevent human rights violations, sometimes on a massive scale, such as the genocides we have seen in Rwanda or the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, we need to ensure that the words of hate that precede it are stymied and stopped.
The Internet is an awesome new communication resource for linking people together across national, cultural and linguistic divides. By its very nature, it can also become an unfettered channel for the propagation of hate. As a major player in information technology, Canada should take the lead in finding a solution that links free speech rights and responsibilities to defend the dignity of persons. In this respect, the Internet may serve as a prime vehicle through which we can assure the freedom of the press and a continuing preoccupation for NGOs.
As an aside, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to comment on the recent visit I had in Bosnia, where we looked at a number of concerns related to the implementation of the civil side of those activities. One of the most serious concerns raised about the successful application of the election process is of ensuring freedom of access for journalists and the media, to ensure that there are alternative points of view.
Now, I know that's not always a favourite topic of politicians, but the reality is that if those elections are going to be successful, there has to be a much wider dissemination of different views, media options and points of view. The climate that's been created over the last several years, which has seen a kind of intense dislike, hatred and discrimination, now must be countered. There are people interested in doing it. There are NGOs working there. They are working with our military, who are very active in trying to promote the dissemination of information. There's the work of the Carl Bildt committee and the election observers committee under the OSCE.
They all came back with the basic information that we need to set up a support system, resources, for a much better freedom of access. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that by working with my colleagues, Mr. Pettigrew and Mr. Eggleton, and by discussing this matter with journalistic bodies here in Canada, we can provide direct assistance in the application of freedom of the press as part of that election process.
I think we have to begin to face, Mr. Chairman, that information is becoming an enormous power source in its own right. As a result, it is something that is part of our foreign policy. It's one we haven't paid a lot of attention to, and I think it's time we began to think more directly of how these vast new sorts of potent sources of information, along with the protection of the rights of access to it, must be looked at carefully.
I would hope that Canada could take a real lead in a variety of fora to bring about that kind of development of a much more open system. That may be one of the best contributions we can make to developing democracy around the world.
.1600
On the international development area, I won't spend any time, Mr. Chairman, because the Minister of International Trade will be appearing before the committee.
On the last point, I would like to talk about the necessity for UN renewal. We in this government still believe the UN to be the cornerstone of our multilateral system. We are deeply concerned about the impacts of the looming financial crisis. It's a crisis brought on by countries, such as the United States, that have not paid their dues. It is a crisis brought on by a UN superstructure that has often lacked efficiency and operational effectiveness. The result is a crisis of confidence in the ability of the UN to deal with problems of our time. We will be making a major effort to work with a variety of other countries to act and act quickly.
One area in which we can demonstrate to the world that the UN can work is in the action in Haiti. By focusing the creation of a credible and effective Haitian police force, Canada is in a leading position to help the Haitian people to keep the peace. I will be travelling to Haiti in May to further assess Canada's contribution. Again, I would welcome any observations by members of the committee.
Canada has, I believe, made major contributions to help ensure that peacekeeping adapts to the demands of new kinds of instabilities, such as internal conflicts that spill over into other countries. First, we will be pursuing the implementation of the operational portions of the rapid reaction study that was launched by my predecessor. Second, we will be developing procedures to more quickly and smoothly deploy Canadian police trainers abroad.
Finally, the whole civilian side of peacekeeping will be examined to see if we can mobilize Canadian experience and ability far more broadly to help war-torn countries rebuild their civil society, notably the former Yugoslavia. In that effort, we must properly look at peacemaking, not just peacekeeping, the enlarged participation of the UN and other bodies, and having the troops of these bodies in such civilian tasks as election surveillance, economic reconstruction, human rights monitoring and social assistance.
Mr. Chairman, finally, I think that it's incumbent upon all of us to make a major effort to help develop the engagement of Canada's next leading generation with what's happening abroad. As I've stressed, foreign affairs are increasingly domestic. It becomes more important, therefore, for the broadest possible range of young people to understand us and to begin to take part in shaping our global role.
We will be using our outreach mechanisms to help engage young people in international matters. We're working with the Minister of Human Resources Development to develop, as part of his internship program, an international aspect for all young people to work abroad.
These priorities I've just outlined are by no means exhaustive for members of the committee, but I hope they will give us a starting point for discussions. I welcome your views.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear. I would be pleased to take any questions.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Minister. That's a very challenging prospect you've set before us. I think we'll have to change the name of the committee from the standing committee to the permanently sitting committee if we are going to achieve the goals you've laid out before us today.
Mr. Axworthy: It will keep you out of trouble in the House, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: I think the members here will have no trouble responding to your challenge, Minister, provided we can get the resources that will go with it.
Mr. Bergeron.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron (Verchères): Minister, this is the first time we have the pleasure of welcoming you to our committee. We hope that this will not be the last time and that we will be able to work in close collaboration with the department.
Having said that, I would be very interested in having a general discussion with you about your thoughts on what work the committee could be usefully engaged in but that is not the main purpose of our meeting today since it deals with the department's expenditures.
Let's turn to serious matters then and discuss the department's spending. The figures presented to us show a certain decline in the department's budget.
I should note in passing that the development aid budget has undergone an even greater reduction proportionally speaking than the department as a whole.
I must say that this strikes me as paradoxical in view of the government's commitments to achieve the objective of 0.7 %. I think that we've reached 0.25% with the successive reductions through the development aid budget.
I recognize that there has been a number of increases, particularly for Canada's participation in peacekeeping operation but generally speaking there has been a number of budget cuts in the federal government, more particularly within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
.1605
I'd like to know whether these cutbacks have had a certain effect on departmental operations, particularly outside the country. A few days ago I received information in my office about the case of a Canadian who sent a letter to the Canadian embassy in the Philippines and the letter was returned because it was written in French.
Do the budget reductions in the department mean that it is no longer possible to provide adequate service in both official languages in the Department of Foreign Affairs?
Mr. Axworthy: On the contrary, the Department of Foreign Affairs is a completely bilingual one. If there is a particular problem in the Manilla Embassy, I'd like you to provide me with specific information and I'll have the matter investigated.
Mr. Bergeron: We have all the relevant information and I'll be pleased to give it to you after the meeting.
The Canadian Centre in Paris was recently renovated. Although such renovation was considered necessary and therefore acceptable, we may wonder about the need for such work, it's the building's facade that was renovated, when at the same time there has been a reduction in the budget for programming Quebec cultural products, the main activity of the Cultural Centre in Paris. Can you explain to me how a decision is made to renovate a building and cut back on a program in the budget for the centre's activities?
Mr. Axworthy: When I was in Paris two weeks ago, I visited the Canadian Cultural Centre. First of all, it is a very effective Canadian presence close to the Quai d'Orsay, etc. The renovations will be substantial and not merely cosmetic; it includes an audiovisual system as well as a new computer system, an electronic access to archives as well as space for exhibitions and performances, etc.
I hope that the centre will be opening this fall. We will mobilize the private sector along with the Heritage Department to present Canadian reality in Paris, with children's performers like the Cirque du Soleil and exhibitions on Canadian natives.
This will be a fine opportunity to present in Europe, in French, different facets of Canadian life along with our technological, communications and cultural achievements. It will be a fine presence in Paris.
Mr. Bergeron: Let me come back to my original point. Can you explain to me how the renovation of the building can be effective if the programs for which the building is planned have undergone substantial reductions with cultural programming in particular very hard hit?
.1610
Could we have the figures for the renovation of the Canadian Cultural Centre in Paris and the cutbacks on cultural programming?
Mr. Axworthy: We have maintained the cultural programs. I think that the spending is in the order of $4.5 million. Perhaps Mr. Lavertu could add something to this.
Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu (associate deputy minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): When the government set as its third main objective in foreign policy the projection of Canadian values and culture abroad, the department, in keeping with this aim, undertook to protect cultural programs in so far as possible, in spite of the budget cuts.
Most of these cuts have been made to administrative rather than program expenditures, and cultural programs have been protected to a large extent with an attempt made to improve efficiency.
For example, within the Department of Foreign Affairs, we have created a directorate for the promotion of cultural products, taking a more commercial stance. That means that we no longer limit ourselves to presenting artists abroad or the promotion of university exchanges. There is an active promotion of specific cultural products in foreign markets in both the cultural and trade sectors of the department.
Mr. Axworthy: We began a transatlantic dialogue with Europeans, with the French in particular, to look at the possibility of a partnership relating to trade, security and culture.
I think that the establishment of the Canadian Cultural Centre in Paris is a good response to this transatlantic dialogue aimed at creating a system of exchange between France and Canada in the field of culture, communications, etc. There is a commercial element involved.
Mr. Bergeron: That is not the purpose...
The Chairman: I'd like to ask you a question so that other committee members can understand. Are you in page 43 of the Estimates?
I've been able to find references to overall spending in culture, but not any specific figures for the Paris centre. Does this document contain any indication, either specific or general, on spending in Paris?
Mr. Bergeron: I don't have the particular information in the Estimates before me, and I was simply asking the Minister whether he could provide me with precise information on cultural programming, in Paris in particular.
I know that this was not the purpose of the meeting, but I do hope that as part of this attempt to establish closer relations with European countries in matters involving security, trade, culture, communications and education, the federal government will be in partnership with the provinces and work in close co-operation with them.
I previously mentioned that there was a substantial increase in costs related to our participation in the UN's peacekeeping operations. I believe it is an additional amount of $63.2 million. Canada regularly pays its fees to the UN along with its contribution to peacekeeping operations.
.1615
It is also a fact that some countries are not as strict in paying their contributions to the UN and to peacekeeping and that in order to continue operating the UN must often dip into its peacekeeping budget so that countries like Canada which contribute large numbers of troops to peacekeeping operations are not refunded the costs involved.
Of course the case of Haiti is quite different for reasons we are aware of but I would like to know whether Canada intends to continue its deficit-incurring participation in peacekeeping operations. If so, how and to what extent?
[English]
Mr. Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I certainly share the honourable member's sense of angst about the fact that a lot of countries are not paying their dues. We said so very forcibly, and I underlined that when I spoke in the United States two weeks ago. It's deplorable that an institution with a budget roughly the size of that of the police force in New York City doesn't get the kind of support it needs when it has such a far-flung importance around the world. We'll do everything we can to try to correct that. I think we're working very actively at the United Nations. We're making representations, and I have already spoken directly to a number of foreign ministers about our concerns. We're also working closely with the European Union on plans or formulas that would help change that.
In the meantime, we can't let the work of the UN go into limbo. We have to continue doing our part, because whether it's a human rights monitor in Guatemala who makes sure that there is progress being made in the development of a more open system in that country, or whether it is the maintenance of troops in the former Yugoslavia - IFOR has taken over the major role, but as you know there is still a substantial UN contender in the eastern Slovenia area, and it is very crucial to maintaining the peace between the former Serbia and Croatia - if they disappear, get pulled out, or we can't pay for them, then the chance for conflict increases. So those are the commitments that we've made.
We have received money back. I think last year we did receive about $50 million in repayment, which is proportional. They still owe us money, there's no question about that, but they are trying to pay back what they can. In the meantime, I think it's much better that we continue to be in the vanguard, to take the leadership in trying to maintain the UN system, and to get people to pay up their bills, while at the same time looking for efficiencies in the system.
I don't know that there was much attention drawn to it, but you might be interested to know that Canada was one of the leading countries in getting the UN to have a zero-growth budget last year, which was decided upon just in the waning days before Christmas, 1995. So we're saying to the UN that it simply can't keep proliferating agencies and organizations all over the place and that it has to get its house in order. In the meantime, we gain some real leverage or some resources as a country by being one of those that pays our bills, and we can therefore exercise real influence in those forums to try to bring about the reforms that we need.
So I agree, I don't like it, and I wish we were getting full retribution. But in the meantime, I think we have to weather this crisis and help to solve it, as opposed to simply being like other countries and withdrawing from any active involvement in it.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mills.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): I welcome the minister and certainly find interesting some of his comments, such as the monitoring role of this committee in current world issues. We welcome looking at things like the Arctic Council, Nigeria, and so on. He expressed a lot of good ideas. Hopefully they will come to pass and will make this committee more functional.
What I have done is try to address directly the main estimates. I have ten questions that I'd like to ask, so I'm going to ask you to condense your answers as much as possible, and I'll try to condense my questions. I will send you the ones we don't get to and ask you to answer them.
The Chairman: Can you condense the time?
Mr. Mills: No, don't condense the time.
First of all, with regard the UN expenditures for peacekeeping, you acknowledged that they have gone up an awful lot. I look at the estimate in here for UNPROFOR, which has been downsized dramatically because IFOR has of course pretty much taken over. We've gone from $36 million to $86 million in our expenditure for this upcoming year. That's a 238% increase in a force that's been downsized. I would like to know why. I'm concerned, because last year we found that the Somalia mission had a $5 million budget and that mission hadn't existed for two years.
.1620
So is this another one of these slow-moving steps? Do you want a couple in a row, Mr. Minister? What would you like?
Mr. Axworthy: It's your question. I'll answer that one. I think it's a fairly simple answer. The estimates, as you know, were prepared last September before the IFOR mission was established. So this will be re-profiled and the money that is not spent would be returned to the treasury.
Mr. Mills: Okay. As for the UN, we acknowledge that there are a great many problems, such as the high cost and all the problems there. We find that the canton of Geneva is paying for the general accounts of the UN, that the International Court in the Hague is being paid for by the Netherlands and that of course we're doing our Haiti mission, which is 100% our expenditure. There are lots of examples of an organization in a lot of financial trouble.
We condemn the U.S. for not paying their dues. If we ask them why they don't pay their dues they tell us it's because of the bloated bureaucracy, the overlapping agencies, the ineffectiveness, the unaccountability and the refusal to modernize a fifty-year-old organization. You know about some of those examples and we've discussed those before.
Changes seem to happen at a snail's pace. Why could we not take the initiative, as an upstanding UN member, to get together with other foreign ministers from other countries and look at a radical overhaul of the UN? Set a timeline of two or three years or whatever, but at least show that it's being done. I think the U.S. would be prepared to pay their dues if they saw that sort of radical change happening, but the way it is now I don't think they're going to.
Mr. Axworthy: To give you a quick answer, I think in part your assessment is correct. The UN has become inefficient in many areas but we have been taking steps, as a country, to correct it. I said in my earlier answer that we are deeply involved in the budgeting exercise that for the first time in the fifty-year history brought the UN to a zero growth budget. It wasn't easy, but we did it.
I think we can go beyond that. I think there is a need for a more serious look at the economic and social agencies and how they can be better coordinated and managed than they are right now. There's clearly a lot of duplication in some of the programs of the UN and we're looking at that.
There is a committee formed at the UN with our ambassadors there. I tell you, Mr. Mills, I've only been on the job for about eight weeks now but I've had meetings with about seven or eight foreign ministers and in each case we have brought forward the need for UN reform. We have established what we hope will be some serious engagements on that and we're working on it. I hope that as we move towards the UN General Assembly session in the fall we'll be able to do further work on this proposal. But you're quite right. I think it would help a great deal.
At the same time, though, let's be candid. There are forces in the U.S. Congress who, even if the UN were the model of efficiency, would still oppose it simply because they don't believe in the organization. Unfortunately, they occupy significant positions of influence and they're not going to change. But you're right, I think the better the case we can present for the UN the more likely we will be able to at least get them to pay their bills.
Mr. Mills: I'm thinking of a task force, with ourselves, Sweden, some of the countries that really have a belief in the UN, and the people have to back this, because if it keeps floundering the trust in the organization is going to disappear -
Mr. Axworthy: I agree.
Mr. Mills: - and you're not going to have that grassroots support. I think that's the concern.
Third, when we get to something like Haiti and we have $24 million being allocated for a four-month extension of that mission, the answer about the cost is that it is coming out of somewhere else. I would like to hear you make a commitment that for every extra dollar we spend we will show where the dollar came from, where the dollar cut came from. In other words, the total budget doesn't go up. We just rearrange the dollars. It seems we don't see that because of the supplemental estimates where things can change and we never quite do that tracking.
.1625
Mr. Axworthy: As far as the expenditure on the Haitian exercise, DND has a set envelope for peacekeeping. I think it's in the range of about $360 million per year. The Minister of Defence felt that the cost for covering the entire responsibilities for the extra 700 people in Haiti could be covered within those envelopes. There wasn't an extra expenditure. It was within that envelope.
It may mean that we can't participate in some other exercise but as you know we felt that was a priority. It's in our hemisphere, it's a country that has close roots with Canada, and we think it's also a chance to demonstrate a good redevelopment story and picture for the rest of it. For those reasons we said it's a priority.
I can guarantee that the Minister of Finance did not allocate more money. It was within the envelope itself.
Mr. Mills: I guess the concern comes on June 30 when we then re-examine the situation and the potential.
Mr. Axworthy: Yes.
Mr. Mills: How long does it take for the long-term rebuilding of a country with no infrastructure? I guess all of us are concerned about the Cyprus comparison that could reoccur and the dollars that would take. That's really the point I'm trying to make.
Mr. Axworthy: When President Préval was here he indicated a very strong interest in having the international presence of the UN force and the Canadian force end as soon as possible. He wants to have a reasonably independent system, but he does recognize that it will take some time to build up his own police force. That's the key issue.
As we know, the kind of anarchy that reigned in Haiti for several years.... You need a decent police force, a court system and a jail system just to maintain basic order. So the key question will be: when do they feel that's ready to take place?
As I indicated in my opening remarks, it's been agreed that I'll visit Haiti in May to discuss with Haitian officials. At the same time, we've held discussions with what they call ``the friends of Haiti'', a group in the UN system, to see what their views are. At this point it is a four-month force. We're not making any further commitments.
I would be happy to come back to the committee after that and share with you my assessments on what we think may have to occur afterwards.
Mr. Mills: International organizations: we look at those and there are a great many of them. We were great joiners in the past thirty years. I don't know if an evaluation of many of these organizations has been done as to the benefits and so on. I won't go into detail here. I think you're aware of where I'm coming from.
At what point are we going to examine all of these memberships and prioritize them and come up with some sort of a list of what we can and can't belong to?
Mr. Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I share with Mr. Mills.... I was quite entranced by how we have become the perpetual joiner. We belong to virtually everything. And I think one of the reasons that is quite valid is that as a G-7 member, as one of the major powers, we must have a presence. We're perhaps expected to carry significant responsibility simply because we've been given that responsibility by dint of our membership in the G-7 and in other organizations.
But I agree with you. I think we have to review. I've asked the department to do an evaluation for me as part of our restructuring, our program review.
Mr. Mills: That's potentially something this committee could....
Mr. Axworthy: We could share that. I guess to put you on notice, I expect it will mean that we'll be cutting out our obligations to some international organizations. I can't tell you right now which ones they will be. I'm going to have some evaluation done. We just can't be in all places at all times doing all things.
Mr. Mills: Right. As an example, I look at the UN's Angola verification mission and I see that last year we spent $1 million and this year we spent $16.5 million. I'm not exactly sure what that is, but certainly that's an enormous increase in cost.
Mr. Axworthy: It's funny, but that caught my eye too.
Mr. Mills: It's a huge increase.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps -
The Chairman: Do you want to go to Angola, Mr. Mills?
Mr. Mills: Yes, I'll go to Angola.
Mr. Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, maybe we'll prepare an analysis or an assessment for Mr. Mills on that particular issue.
Mr. Mills: How's my time?
The Chairman: You've just timed it perfectly. I think we're going to move on to Mr. Speller, but I think we'll have a chance to get back to you before we're finished.
.1630
Mr. Speller (Haldimand - Norfolk): I have three relatively quick questions, and I'll start with Nigeria. I'm glad to hear that you're going to London to meet with the Commonwealth foreign ministers to talk about Nigeria. We all remember the experience we went through with South Africa and how long that took.
I'm wondering what significant progress has been made to date since the Auckland meetings. Who is actually monitoring Nigeria, and what further actions are being considered against Nigeria?
Mr. Axworthy: The answer to the first question is that not much progress has been made. I think the decisions at Auckland were very important ones and did provide a certain response, though not a welcome one.
Since then the Nigerian government has not in any way cooperated with the request of the Commonwealth ministers to have a monitoring commission visit Nigeria. They did agree to have the UN have a special inquiry, but you probably saw the public results of that. The statement that was issued was pretty scathing in terms of cooperation; it simply said that they were not given much access and when they were it was done in the most negative fashion.
I think we have to do more and I think it's important for the Commonwealth to take a lead in this matter. We'll have to take a look at economic measures as well as some of the political sanctioning measures that have been applied up until now. We've been in touch with a number of Commonwealth members and we've also talked to the Europeans and the United States about this.
It would be my hope that at the meetings in London we'll put on the table some proposals to move the Commonwealth's initiative further along. I think it's a place where that organization can play a very significant role and hopefully convince the leadership in Nigeria that its actions are not acceptable and that the international community, led by the Commonwealth, will take the appropriate action to bring the changes about and will keep doing it.
I don't know if the committee is going to consider the issue, but we're looking at a number of measures now. If there were in any way some feeling of what Canadians will adopt or be prepared to support, it would be helpful for me to know before I went there. I would welcome any statement or proposal put forward by this committee.
The Chairman: We had hoped to have a meeting with Shell before your attendance at the London meeting. Unfortunately they were not able to attend, but we have one for June 18. That is a continuation of the hearing we had earlier, at the end of last year. So we certainly will be looking at the issue and reporting to the department on it.
Mr. Speller: Lloyd, I have another question on another Commonwealth country, Hong Kong. I can bring this one back and relate it to my own riding; I have businesses in my riding that now deal with Hong Kong. I'm talking about the tobacco industry and the ginseng industry, which do a lot of work through Hong Kong. They're concerned about the future next year.
What assurances can you give to these people and to Canadians of Hong Kong descent that life will go on after China takes over? Have you had meetings with China? What actions will we be taking in the future to monitor what's going on in Hong Kong?
Mr. Axworthy: First I should say that I'm glad your constituency is still producing ginseng. Since I've taken this job I find that I need double doses of it just to keep my energy level up.
When Chairman Qiao was visiting Canada last week, both the Prime Minister and myself raised the question of Hong Kong for the very reasons you just stated. It's of real importance to Canada. We have a number of Canadians who have dual citizenship. We clearly have a huge number of relationships, both business and otherwise.
We were given the assurance that China will live up to its undertakings under the basic law and the agreement they've made with the British. They said they will fulfil all those requirements, and they have given assurances.
As you know, we have also started negotiations with the Chinese to ensure that passport visa questions are facilitated and that there would be acceptance of the dual citizenship responsibility so that people can continue to have that access. We made it clear that it is a matter of highest priority for us to protect both the interests of individual Canadians, as well as a large number of transactions.
.1635
The sense I got is that the Chinese well understand that, as they say, Hong Kong for them is an ample demonstration that you can have one country with several systems. I think that seems to be the test they have to meet.
Mr. Speller: Finally, Mr. Chairman, I have a question about the Balkans.
You have recently returned from the Balkans. As a country, we have committed $25 million to the restoration. Can you tell us where you feel this money will be going and what the long-term needs of the region are? And I'm also wondering about IFOR and its one-year mandate. There seems to be a lot of question now as to whether or not a year is long enough for the Dayton accords to be brought in. Do you feel it is long enough? Do you feel there's going to be a longer need in that area for our troops?
Mr. Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, that was one of the key questions that I posed during my visits there. I have to tell you that the virtually universal response was that people don't think so - and that includes people in the military, politics and NGOs.
I should say, by the way, that there has been a remarkable job done in developing military stability. I had a short visit there, and it's incredible that by the 18th of this month, all of the armies of Bosnia, Croatia, and the Serbs will now be in what they call their cantons. They will be demobilizing about 200,000 people. All the tanks and heavy weapons have been assembled and they're under monitoring. The presence of the IFOR troops, certainly as I saw them in the Canadian sector, provides an enormous sense of confidence. Having talked to a number of the NGOs and economic development people, it's a very reassuring sight when you see them go by. They just know they're there.
In a sense, I think that objective has almost been overachieved, that they've achieved it earlier than anyone thought. But there's great concern about whether the other major initiatives such as the economic reconstruction, the elections, and the development of some kind of civil code can be maintained if there's uncertainty about the maintenance of some form of stability.
As we now stand, there is a clear decision. IFOR as it now exists will come to an end. Will there have to be something to replace it? That is likely, but who knows what it will be. I think that's a discussion that will have to be had. It certainly doesn't have to be at the same size or magnitude or whatever, but there will have to be some sort of international presence; I think that's an issue the western countries will have to face.
On the other side of the issue, I said earlier that there are a couple of key things that have to be accomplished. Successful elections are very crucial and that's why there's need for.... I think we can contribute, particularly on the journalism side in terms of getting free access for media and for the dissemination of information.
Interestingly, I think there is room within the former Yugoslavia for some really active private sector involvement. Housing is a good example. There was a real demand expressed to me in various parts of Croatia, Bosnia and others, to help with the reconstruction of housing. Of course, we have good technologies in this country for modular housing and issues of that kind.
Thirdly, there has to be a continued investment in what I guess you'd call the reconciliation and remedial work. I talked to a number of CARE Canada workers who were working with young children. They have gone through incredible experiences. And by the way, if you want to see some real heroes and heroines, talk to these young Canadian CARE workers who have gone through all the shelling over the past two or three years. They have lived in these towns and as a result have acquired the enormous respect and confidence of the people locally.
One of the programs they're undertaking right now in the schools is to deal with the trauma of these young children who have gone through four years of war. Never mind the scars of physical disabilities. The internal psychological scars have been enormous. So with programs of that kind, I think we can make a real contribution to help that transition.
If we don't deal with the war crimes issues and the election issue, though, I'm afraid that reconciliation won't take place. There has to be new leadership, which means a lot of the people who have been responsible for the serious atrocities.
.1640
I don't know if any of you have had a chance to visit, but I'll just express one personal observation. One afternoon I was with our IFOR troops travelling on the outskirts of Prijedor, which is a city up in the northwest corner. It is very close to the mass grave site, and some of the leadership there are alleged to have been involved.
What absolutely stopped me in my tracks as we were travelling along was to see mile upon mile of housing that had been totally and completely dismantled, devastated, picked apart. Ethnic cleansing took on a new meaning when I saw that kind of cold, calculated extermination of an entire community, whether they were moved out or put in camps. I just had never seen anything like that in my life. How human rationality was applied to such a devious and evil kind of exercise, I have to tell you, is just something you can't get the impression of from a TV set or a report until you actually see it with your own eyes.
The Chairman: Thank you, Minister.
[Translation]
Mrs. Debien, you have five minutes.
Mrs. Debien (Laval East): Let me indulge in a bit of humour and respond to Mr. Speller's questions about ginseng. I hope that unpasteurized milk is not being used the manufacture of ginseng.
My question concerns the number of missions and embassies that will increase from 117 to 129 this year. In view of the severe reprimands made by the Auditor General relating to the extravagant spending in certain embassies, I'd like to know whether you have issued any directives concerning these expenditures?
We were also informed that six new chanceries will be purchased, there will be the construction of a new embassy, expansion, repair and the purchase of land in Seoul for a total amount of approximately $140 million. We are told that this new spending will be funded from existing resources and through the rationalization of operations abroad. I'd like to have an elaboration on this.
[English]
Mr. Axworthy: I'll start the answer and then maybe Mr. Judd can complete it.
The first thing we have to understand is what an embassy or a chancellery does. It's not a place for parties or social occasions. It houses about ten, sometimes more, federal departments: immigration, agriculture, health, trade, etc., plus the consular services that protect our citizens. It's the hub of a wide variety of things. You have to have a place.
In some cases embassies have to be strengthened because of security reasons. There are parts of the world where it's becoming dangerous for Canadians to work abroad, and we simply have to fortify them or rebuild them to get far better security.
The other issue is we're finding that in many cases it's cheaper or more cost-effective to build rather than to lease, because in some countries, particularly in some of the developing countries, the costs are going sky-high and it's better for us to amortize our own building over a period of time to get some cost savings. It also means we can then free up properties we presently hold. Rather than being scattered over a variety of places, we can consolidate our activities into one facility. So that's a savings.
I think there was a consolidation this year and a saving of about $30 million from the sale of properties we held. That is being reinvested in these new facilities.
Also, as I said in my remarks, we're trying to engage in a much more contemporary hook-up to the information networks so we can have much better service facilities. We can have information go around the world much more easily and quickly, and therefore we can provide much better service to Canadians when they need it.
.1645
In other cases we simply need to build a new chancellery. A good example is in Germany, where they're moving the capital from Bonn to Berlin. That's a decision made by the German government because of the unification. We have to be there, and therefore we need a new embassy. We can either rent one or build one. We haven't made a decision on that yet, but we need to be located in Berlin. It's a major partner of ours.
Each of these cases has its requirements. Again, I can tell you we'll be taking a very careful look at our facilities budgets and trying to get the maximum use.
I should explain why sometimes there's an increase in number. My predecessor undertook, I thought, some interesting innovations. When we talk about a new embassy, sometimes it's just a two-person operation that acts as a satellite, so it may be a very small operation.
An example is the kind of operation I opened in Sarajevo last week. It's a very small operation with one or two staff and a couple of locally engaged people, but it's very crucial for the Canadian presence. We just talked about the need to mount a major exercise in reconstruction and protection of elections and civil rights. We needed an embassy there, but it's a very small operation. It's not what you see in Washington, Paris, London or Bonn.
[Translation]
Ms Debien: I am not questioning the creation of new embassies or the purchase of chanceries. My question relates to the extravagant spending of embassies noted in the Auditor General's report. Have there been any directives to embassies about the need to reduce such extravagant spending?
[English]
Mr. Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I just asked my officials, and they're not sure what Auditor General report the member is referring to. If she could give me a direct reference, I could respond.
[Translation]
Mr. Lavertu: The Auditor General has examined the foreign services present guidelines and concluded in a fairly elaborate report that such guidelines were appropriate in that they establish a level of comparison between the requirements of life abroad and conditions in Canada. He also concluded that the guidelines of the Canadian Foreign Service were pretty much in keeping with the average conditions offered by foreign countries and other diplomatic services to their personnel abroad.
They may have been some excess in the past in certain locations but as we become aware of such cases, we take the appropriate corrective steps.
As for the system now in effect, I don't think there is any exaggeration. On the contrary, the Auditor General said that he was satisfied that the money made available to personnel abroad was put to good use.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. English.
Mr. English (Kitchener): I'd like to congratulate you, Minister, on your appointment and on any initiatives you've already taken.
One of the subjects you did not discuss today was NATO expansion. The Prime Minister's on his way to Moscow, I believe, and he's arriving at a time when there is a presidential election campaign at full tilt. Clearly the question of NATO expansion has been troubling ever since the end of the Soviet Union. I was wondering what your view would be of the possibility of enlargement of NATO at this point before the election, or after the election for that matter, and what Canada's attitude towards that particular issue would be.
Mr. Axworthy: You're certainly right that it's a very major preoccupation. The decision was taken, and I think the best explanation for it is one I read that President Havel of the Czech Republic issued, which is every country should have the right to belong to those organizations it wants to belong to, especially when a question of security is involved. So clearly the question of enlargement is one that would continue.
.1650
At the same time, in the discussions I had with Foreign Minister Primakov when I was in Moscow, we spent a lot of time on this. The concern they expressed, however, was that it not be seen as one that would destabilize what they consider their security interests.
So the meeting point has to be how we formulate the enlargement in a way that also ensures that Russian security interests are considered. I don't think there is a huge problem in doing that, because I think that as we go about the reform of NATO itself, looking at its infrastructure requirements and so on, we can maintain a very high level of security agreements without necessarily having a huge infrastructure that looks like it's going back to the old geopolitical problems of the last 200 or 300 years.
Secondly, the IFOR initiative and the fact that it's working in a close relationship with the Russians is another model to pose. We're in uncharted waters here and I think we have to be a little innovative and not necessarily be trapped by all the old answers coming out of the Cold War. I think there is room in that security context in eastern Europe for NATO to enlarge and expand and to do so in a way that is not going to destabilize Russian interests.
So the discussions I'll have and that I'm sure the Prime Minister will have will be that as Canadians we will do our best to make sure there is a proper balance in the formula for enlargement, so that it's done in a way that isn't going to create massive reactions. Those will be discussed at the Berlin meetings with NATO ministers in June.
Mr. English: Yesterday in The Ottawa Citizen there was an article by Evan Potter, the distinguished co-editor of Canadian Foreign Policy. The title of the article was ``Canada must become expert in niche diplomacy''. I don't know whether you saw the article.
The view he expressed is that Canadian foreign policy has been dominated by trade, yet from abroad Canada's international role continues to be that of a country highly valued for its diplomacy and ideas to promote international justice, fairness and the rule of law.
He further talks about the excellence of the Department of External Affairs and its officers. However, he says, we can't do this any more; we don't have the governmental capacity to be so broadly engaged. What you have described is a diplomacy that's still very broadly engaged.
Then he says: ``Less and less will our international faces be those of diplomats, soldiers and aid officials. More and more they will be staff of Canadian-based NGOs, academic, philanthropic and business.'' Then he finally says: ``The financing needed to support this non-official Canadian presence will in the short term have to come from public coffers and over time will be phased out.''
Is that an accurate description of the way in which Canada's face outside this country is likely to take shape?
Mr. Axworthy: In part that's happening already. I think it's quite true that the new world of international affairs is not dominated by the diplomats or the soldiers or the aid officials.
Let me just give an example. When I was in my previous portfolio, the UN sponsored these major conferences on individual security. There were the women's conference and the conference on social development. I saw the power of organizations around the world to organize and mobilize through communications systems and the pressure they brought to bear. What was happening in those alternate forums and the way they were able to channel and shape the outcomes of those meetings was awesome, it really was. It was incredible to watch.
You're seeing the same thing, not only in individual businesses, but in individual business associations and labour organizations. For example, let's just take the issue we put on the table as a priority for us in the throne speech, the issue of children's rights. The enormous power of Mr. Kielburger and his children's organizations across Canada is very influential.
We can facilitate that happening. I increasingly see that maybe as much as it is a niche diplomacy, it's also a facilitating diplomacy. It will enable a lot more of these actors to carry that out with fewer barriers and to have certain resources that enable them to happen. At the same time, as I said in response to an earlier question, if you don't have the system abroad, if you don't have a basic embassy structure with information systems and with highly trained people who know how the system works, and if you don't maintain your complex of government, then the rest of that evolution and expansion won't take place.
.1655
So I don't think it's a matter of either/or. I think it's a matter of understanding that it's going to be awfully different and that it makes the job much more challenging. And even in our own government we have as many trade officials from the Department of Agriculture working as we do from the trade department in that particular area of competence. That's a healthy thing in some ways because it multiplies our presence abroad.
I think the key to it, Mr. English, is to try to get some coherence in what we want to do and to set the priorities, because the one thing I agree with from Mr. Potter's analysis is that we simply can no longer afford to dissipate all of our energies and resources in 1,001 different activities, locations and places. We really have to focus, target and concentrate on those areas that we can do extremely well, where we can provide a real service, and really make a difference. In some cases, as I said, such as in a place like Haiti, I think we could bring to bear a lot of resources to make that happen.
The other area in which I really think we have an enormous potential is in the area of information systems and freedom of information, just by using our technology. And we also have a good body of law in this country on hate literature and propaganda. We can make an enormous difference to the international community by bringing that enormous wealth of ideas to bear and by saying that we must do something about it before it gets out of hand. Those are the kinds of things I'd like to focus on, and I hope we try, as a government, to mobilize Canadians around them.
Mr. English: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Mills.
Mr. Mills: The Quebec government announced that it was going to close most of its missions. At the time, the minister said that Quebec would negotiate with Foreign Affairs to put provincial representatives in the embassies to put forward their concept of separation. I believe Ms Copps answered in your absence, but I wonder if you could just clarify her answer.
Mr. Axworthy: I'll repeat what my distinguished colleague had to say about the existing realities.
For a long time we have provided cooperative agreements with various provincial governments on certain services such as immigration, trade and tourism. As long as that's the function they provide and they understand that they're responsible to the ambassador or high commissioner in each of those offices, we're prepared to continue with that. But if there was any intent to use somebody from another government to promote separatism, we would not agree, pure and simple.
Mr. Mills: Thank you.
The Canadian consulate in Manhattan is being refurbished, rebuilt, renovated. Is that necessary at this point in time?
Mr. Axworthy: Mr. Judd.
Mr. Jim Judd (Associate Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): There's an expansion being done on the office facilities of the consul general in New York, principally to get a longer-term lease with a longer-term savings for us, but also to accommodate some changes in the immigration program at the mission in New York. Those are the principal two reasons.
Mr. Mills: Things like that become very hard sells in times of restraint. To try to sell that our ambassadors need to expand.... I think it's a pretty tough sell at this particular point in time.
You mentioned war criminals in the former Yugoslavia. I can't help but also draw the analogy of that young child coming up and tugging on one of our Canadian soldiers and saying look at that guy over there, he's the guy who killed my parents, or that's the guy who raped my sister, or whatever. That touches us all. But that Canadian soldier has to say sorry, we're not here to enforce war crimes laws. How are we going to deal with that problem?
Mr. Axworthy: Mr. Mills, I think it's a very pertinent question. It's one I tried to pursue directly when I was over there.
At this point in time, the IFOR troops have a mandate to fully support and secure protection for the investigating teams of the war crimes tribunal. Secondly, there is what you would call the international police force in the Balkans, and which is part of the Dayton peace accords. They have about 700 investigators or actual civil police.
.1700
The role up to now for the IFOR troops is to ensure that the conduct of their duties is fully protected, and they're doing it. They don't have the capacity, nor in some cases the training, to do the criminal investigation or to do the apprehension. I hope to talk to Justice Arbour, the chief prosecutor.
By the way, the third element is that the individual government of each of those jurisdictions is also supposed to provide the apprehension and transfer of those who have been indicted for war crimes. There is a real onus for responsibility on the respective governments.
In a case where there is an indictment and somebody from the war crimes office or the international police force is attempting to make an arrest, it's my understanding that IFOR would be asked to provide the protective security to allow them to carry out those duties.
We haven't run into that exact situation yet, although they have provided very major protection for the investigations. The war crimes site that I visited.... Our own IFOR troops provided full-scale protection for a two-week period for the tribunal's investigations to take place there.
I think that area can work, and as I said when I was there, as one of the participants we have to make sure it works. We have to make sure that on the civil side, the tribunal and the IPY have exactly what they need to conduct their work and we have to ensure that IFOR is.... That goes back to the previous question we asked: will there be a continuing national presence? Completing it could be one of the responsibilities for any continuation.
I have other comments, Mr. Chairman. I know you want to close.
The Chairman: Minister, France and Britain recently made it very clear that if the United States leaves at the end of the mandate, as they've indicated, France and Britain are out as well. Has Canada made any official pronouncement?
Mr. Axworthy: Yes, we've said so and I think it's clear that IFOR will be over at the end of the year. It has not been clear if there will be some kind of replacement for it under some different kind of sponsorship. That's not clear at this point in time, but IFOR is finished at the end of the year.
I just want to say that the actual war crimes activity is crucial for exhuming the ghosts of that place. That's the way someone put it to me. They would find it very hard to have respect for a new government regime if some of the major players were still indicted for war crimes activities. That came through to me from talking to ordinary citizens there as much as anything else.
Mr. Mills: Just talk to Canadians who are involved, they'll tell you that same thing -
Mr. Axworthy: Yes, the same thing.
Mr. Mills: - that's the ghost, if you want.
Mr. Axworthy: It's a ghost that's there and it has to be dealt with, but it's going to be one of the most difficult areas to pursue.
Mr. Mills: I have a very short, final question. In terms of the amount of money spent on Radio Canada International and the extension of that, how much has Foreign Affairs committed, and did that money again come out of another place where we didn't spend?
Mr. Axworthy: I think we committed $1 million. In the past fiscal year we had a commitment of $8 million. Responsibility was then transferred to the Minister of Heritage, who worked together to put a temporary package together. We contributed $1 million directly from our department. CIDA contributed money. The Department of Defence made a contribution and CBC made a contribution.
That was simply to get ourselves a year in which we could do a major re-examination, as I said in my opening remarks, of the whole role of information and its international presence. That means not just having the shortwave radio activities, but looking at the Internet, looking at satellite transmission, looking at what we as Canadians would like to see ourselves doing in terms of establishing some form of international communication presence. It's not only for purposes of reaching troops; it's also an enormously important way of transferring information.
Let me give you an example. As you know, Mr. Mills, the International Development Research Centre has a good record of developing new innovative technologies. One of the areas they're starting to work on is how you can transfer the information of those technologies. Rather than having a group of consultants going abroad, you put it on the Internet. It's much cheaper and much more effective. There are a number of our agencies such as CIDA, the Centre for Human Rights, the IDRC and our own department, and, along with the work that RCI is doing, if we could combine it into a more integrated information system, I think we could have a very valuable tool for our own foreign policy that would provide support for a lot of other countries as well.
.1705
The Chairman: Thank you, Minister.
Mr. Flis draws to my attention the fact that the clock reads four o'clock, so we're glad to have you here for another hour with us.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Axworthy: I don't want to interrupt you, but I have some compelling requirement to be at the Manitoba caucus in five minutes.
The Chairman: Minister, I know you'll have an opportunity to come back. Thanks very much to you and to the other ministers from the department for being with us today.
Mr. Axworthy: You're welcome.
The Chairman: You've set out a challenging program for us. I hope we will have the resources to follow through on the program you've outlined. Perhaps another time when you come we could discuss with you how you see the resources of your department being able to deal with the extraordinary, complex issues you've raised with us today.
Thank you very much.
We're adjourned until 8:45 on Thursday morning.