Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs
Issue 1 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 14, 1999
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs met this day at 10:30 a.m. to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Ms Line Gravel, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, I see a quorum.
The first item on the agenda today is the election of a chairman, and I am prepared to accept nominations to that effect.
Senator Lewis: I move that Senator Stewart be chairman of the committee.
Ms Gravel: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Lewis that the Honourable Senator Stewart be chairman of the committee. Are there any other nominations?
If not, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms Gravel: Carried.
Honourable Senator Stewart, please take the Chair.
Senator John B. Stewart (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I attribute the fact that there was no opposition to the realization that the time remaining to me in the Senate is restricted. I appreciate your confidence.
The second order of business is the election of a deputy chair. Do we have a motion?
Senator Bolduc: I move that Senator Andreychuk be deputy chair of the committee.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Honourable senators, the next order of business relates to the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. Could we have a motion?
Senator Losier-Cool: Honourable senators, I move:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman and one other member of the committee to be designated after the usual consultation;
That the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses and schedule hearings; and
That the subcommittee report its decisions to the committee.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Senator Corbin: May I ask the significance of the words "the usual consultations"? I have always been mystified by that.
The Chairman: I am not in a position to give a conclusive definition.
Senator Corbin: Are you one of the persons to be consulted?
The Chairman: Yes. I would be consulted and I would consult with the deputy chairman.
Senator Corbin: And it stops there?
The Chairman: Probably not. I do not know that there is an established formula for the performance of this duty.
Senator Corbin: But you have had some past practice in other situations.
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Corbin: How far do the consultations go? I ask this as a backbencher.
The Chairman: Your modesty is unbecoming because of your great experience. I am not in a position to attempt a conclusive definition of that term.
Senator Corbin: Would I be consulted, for example?
The Chairman: If you wish to be consulted.
Senator Corbin: Would the committee be consulted?
The Chairman: I think the committee would not be consulted as a whole. In other words, there would not be a motion in the committee.
Senator Corbin: The committee would be faced with a fait accompli, then?
Senator Bolduc: No. There would be a recommendation from the subcommittee. That is why the third paragraph states that the subcommittee reports its decision to the committee.
Senator Corbin: "Its decision." That is a fait accompli. You will have to withdraw your previous statements. A decision is a decision. It is final. Therefore, as committee members, we have no say. That is fine. I wanted merely to know the routine.
I will propose that the subcommittee report and seek the approval of this committee for any nominee to fill the vacancy on the steering committee.
I think that is the way democracy should work at the committee level.
The Chairman: Do you want to move an amendment to the motion?
Senator Corbin: I am moving that the committee proceed with its so-called usual consultations but that it report back to this committee with the recommendation of an individual to complete membership of the steering committee.
The Chairman: Before I put your proposed amendment, would you clarify? You used the term "the committee". The committee does not exist until that third person has been selected and, consequently, could not report. How is that problem to be overcome?
Senator Corbin: Why do we not do it here and now? Why do we not do this as a committee? You talked about my experience in your previous comment. My previous experience in committees, which goes back quite a ways, Mr. Chairman, is that that the whole membership of the committee designates the members of the subcommittee, ascertaining that proper representation in terms of party and sometimes regionalism and so on and so forth is noted and taken into account.
The Chairman: Let me tell you what went on in this committee in the last session and what the arrangement was.
I was the chairman, and I came from Atlantic Canada. Senator Andreychuk was the deputy chairman, and she came from what is often referred to Western Canada, or the west. Senator Stollery was the third member of the steering committee, and he comes from Toronto, what some people call "Tomland". That was the arrangement. We heard no objection to that. That is how it shook down the last time, Senator Corbin.
Senator Corbin: Was that deliberate or accidental?
The Chairman: I think it was done deliberately.
Senator Corbin: That is fine.
Senator Stollery: May I make a slight observation? Some time ago, there was an actual motion in which I was put on the steering committee. It was not in the last session but in some previous session. Do you recall that, Senator Andreychuk?
Senator Andreychuk: It was a long time ago.
Senator Stollery: Yes, it was a while ago.
Senator Prud'homme: Briefly, I feel embarrassed when I hear it is by region. I see one which is completely ignored, and it is quite an important one. If someone was to speak, they could say there is no Quebec representative. I am not putting that to you, but please keep away from a discussion about regionalism. Otherwise, one is bound to ask about Quebec.
In my experience of 30 years in the House of Commons, 25 years chairing all kinds of committees, when we were putting together the steering committee, we arrived at a motion saying, "The following people shall sit on the committee." You first agree on the number. You have three, and that is perfect. Then you say it shall consist of the chairman, the deputy chairman, and you name someone else, and that is the steering committee.
Even now you talk about consultation. To be frank, I am always extremely worried about these words. Consultation with whom? It is like these members of the House of Commons who are waiting for a call that will never come from upstairs. Why not put the three names?
The Chairman: I do not feel comfortable with changing the procedure of committees. This is the standard procedure.
Senator Prud'homme: It is not written anywhere.
Senator Corbin: We are masters of our house.
The Chairman: There is a practice. It is after the usual consultations. Would members prefer that we not proceed with this motion until the usual consultations have taken place?
Senator Stollery: Mr. Chairman, we have business to do. We have a report to make. I will not get into a discussion over the actual technical details of the steering committee, but I do not think we want to put anything off which would upset our very tight agenda for the next few days. We are in a very tight schedule here. That is my only observation.
Senator Losier-Cool: Mr. Chairman, I moved the motion, but someone else is free to move any amendments they choose. You talked about consultation, and you mentioned the regions. It should also be mentioned that there are two official languages in Canada, and they should be represented on any subcommittee. Perhaps that could be considered when doing your consultation. I understand that Senator Stollery can offer that service.
The Chairman: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: Senator Stollery is correct. We are beginning a new session of Parliament and we have important work to do.
I have observed that the traditional privileges that senators have enjoyed in this institution have gradually eroded. Recently, the Speaker of the Senate ruled that senators are not entitled to be notified of subcommittee or steering committee meetings.
It has always been my understanding that traditionally, all senators could attend any meeting of any Senate committee.
I intend to fight this trend because I see it as an erosion of my rights as a parliamentarian. Personally, I disagree with the ruling that was handed down.
It is quite possible that not so very long ago, we were informed of the decisions made by the steering committee, without necessarily having the right to comment on them or try to change them. In the case of a committee such as this, it is important that we acknowledge certain existing rights.
I had no intention of raising this matter this morning, but on reading the text, I became mildly annoyed. I would not want to be taken for granted as a member of this committee.
I dislike it when the committee is confronted with decisions made earlier as to the membership of the steering committee and the choice of witnesses, as we have seen happen in the past. I would also like to point out that the committee heard from very few French-speaking witnesses when this matter was considered.
Everything is decided in advance. We are presented with a fait accompli. I feel that my ability to work in my own language and with people who speak my language is being increasingly limited. We hear testimony from many English-speaking university professors, but from very few French-speaking witnesses. Do not imagine for one moment that in future I will go along with decisions made in advance.
You can proceed as you wish to select a third person to sit on the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, but understand that I plan to question your choice of witnesses in the future. I want to be consulted on this matter. We are not getting a complete picture of the Canadian perspective when it comes to international questions. We must rectify this in future.
[English]
The Chairman: I did not realize that you had a problem, senator.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: I am not the only one who has a problem with this.
[English]
The Chairman: I do not recall that you ever spoke with me about it. I am most apologetic for not asking if you had a problem.
Senator Prud'homme: As Senator Corbin put it, I think there is a way around that. I have not pushed any case here because I am not a full member of the committee. Therefore, I observe and I register. However, the senator has a point.
One way to get around the senator's concerns is for each member to put forward a tentative list of people they would like to hear as witnesses. A final list is made out of that list.
To be frank, I have letters I could give to Senator Corbin now, because of his interest, and to others. I did not want to do it because I am not a full member of the committee. I know when to stop.
Many great scholars from the University of Montreal, Université Laval and Université du Québec à Montréal have never been asked to appear as witnesses before the committee.
Senator Corbin has a good point. There is a point of view that is totally different from that of the majority in Canada. Perhaps the steering committee could address this issue, because it needs approval.
The Chairman: I understand, Senator Prud'homme. That is exactly what we have done in the past in this committee.
Senator Andreychuk: We must not leave it on the record that members have not been allowed to provide names. I believe the opposite is true. We have been encouraging them.
I am not saying that sitting as the deputy chairman. I am saying that was the case before I was deputy chairman. I have never been restricted from giving names. It is our duty to put forward whomever we think would be good.
I do not recall in the six years I have sat on this committee that we have denied the names put forward. Sometimes the witnesses could not come or we were not sitting and they did not appear, but my names were always taken into account. From our side, we have all contributed names when we felt we had them.
The Chairman: We have a motion in amendment, moved by Senator Corbin. Perhaps Senator Corbin could repeat his language so that the committee could consider it.
Senator Corbin: Let me say, first, that I have no opposition to Senator Stollery being the third member of that steering committee. Rather, I would suggest that we ignore this motion and that you take instead my proposal that Senator Stollery be the third member of the steering committee. I make it a formal motion.
The Chairman: We will assume that the usual consultations have taken place.
Senator Corbin: The usual consultations have taken place with the committee members.
The Chairman: We now have a subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure consisting of Senator Stollery, Senator Andreychuk, and Senator Stewart, and we have it in the form of a motion.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The next order of business relates to the printing of our proceedings. Do we have a motion?
Senator Andreychuk: Honourable senators, I move:
That the committee print 500 copies of its proceedings and that the Chairman be authorized to adjust this number to meet demand.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The next order of business pertains to an authorization to hold meetings and to print evidence when a quorum is not present. Could I have a motion, please?
Senator Andreychuk: Honourable senators, I move:
That, pursuant to rule 89, the Chairman be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the printing of the evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that a representative of each party is present.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The next item on our agenda is the matter of a financial report.
Senator Atkins: Honourable senators, I move:
That, pursuant to rule 104, the Chairman be authorized to report expenses incurred by the committee during the last session.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
With regard to research staff, do you have the text of that motion before you? If so, I presume we need read it out.
Senator Corbin: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators? Any discussion?
Senator Prud'homme: Does the committee draft its budget prior to incurring expenses, or does it wait to see what it will need and how much it will cost? We may need various specialists at high cost. Was that addressed in the budget that was voted on?
The Chairman: A budget was drawn up in the last session to cover the two references with which we have been dealing. Part of that money has been spent. Proposed motions 11 and 12 would draw against the amount allocated by Internal Economy for this committee in this fiscal year. We would not be asking for new money.
Senator Prud'homme: You think that you will have enough money to finish the work within that budget. That is very interesting because the necessary extra staff is very expensive.
The Chairman: Earlier, I should have mentioned in the Senate that we did not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars. This committee has been penurious.
I shall ask the clerk of the committee to explain the budgetary situation.
Ms Gravel: Our budget was approved to complete the study, but when Parliament prorogued, the budget no longer existed. Therefore, to complete this study I simply put forth the same budget as we had in the previous session. We are asking for no new money.
Senator Corbin: With regard to the motion I just made about the committee asking the Library of Parliament to assign research officers, and with respect to the chair being authorized to obtain authority from the Senate to engage the services of counsel, technical, clerical and other personnel, I hope the provisions of the Official Languages Act will be abided in all respects.
This comment is linked to my previous comment with respect to the choice of witnesses before the committee on any and every matter. I suspect that witnesses are usually chosen based on exploration and research done by our able staff. I do not want to take anything away from them, but it is essential that they be sensitized to the fact that all of Canada should be heard before this committee. I commented on the fact that we have not had many French-speaking witnesses in the past. That is not only regrettable, but it is a loss to this committee. We have French-speaking Canadians who have vast experience in the diplomatic field, in NGOs, at the university educational level, in business, et cetera. Many of them would want to appear before this committee to express views and opinions and to make suggestions. However, they must be called.
I do not know many of them personally, but I expect that our staff would be well-informed or would obtain information in that respect so that we have a much broader view of the world than we have had in the past. I have nothing against university people, but I believe that they do not have much pragmatic experience. I would like to see more real people before this committee. I make this comment hoping that every player at every level will keep it in mind in the future.
Senator Stewart: If any honourable senator has the names of people they think the committee should hear, they should bring those names forward. Perhaps I ought to have emphasized that more than I did in the past. Members of the committee did indeed put forward names and we sought to have the persons suggested come before the committee. However, perhaps I ought to have gone back two or three times to the members of the committee to insist that they put names forward. I commit myself to do so as of now.
If you have names of people that you would like this committee to hear relative to our present references, please give us your list immediately, because we have specific time limits. We would appreciate that.
Senator Corbin: That is fine, as far as it goes, but our research and support staff are supposedly the experts in this field by dint of their knowledge, experience, and certainly their contacts. Is there any reason they could not broach with us, as individual members do from time to time, the possibility of having certain witnesses appear before this committee because they represent certain interests, certain communities, and certain views in Canada? The tendency has been to crystallize many of these issues around central Canadian universities and a certain establishment, with the rest of the people being ignored.
I think that, as individual members, we ought to have more input. As I have told you, I am a humble man. I do not have all these contacts and I do not know all these people. However, I would expect our staff to put the options before us in a very realistic way and to ascertain that we do get this broad range of views from Canadians from across the country.
Senator Prud'homme: Senator Corbin has touched on an important point. I rely on our able staff to open up the avenues of possibility, to introduce to us the people who have written and to present their résumés. Certain issues are so technical that we end up with a club.
I met today the witnesses of Mr. Graham. They are the same witnesses I called when I was chairman in the 1980s. They are the experts.
The Chairman: The staff has heard the comments of Senator Corbin and Senator Prud'homme, and they look as if they are prepared to be obedient.
Mr. Wolfgang Koerner, Researcher, Library of Parliament: When we selected these witnesses, we did a bit of cherry-picking. The procedure discussed by the two senators is the exact procedure used on the House of Commons side. Here we were in a bit of a hurry. There were a variety of obvious witnesses from whom to choose.
We tried to call on some witnesses from Quebec, but we had trouble fitting them into the schedule, as it was extremely tight.
I take the point, Mr. Chairman. We have taken that obvious course on every committee for which we have suggested witnesses. The community known publicly for defence writing in this country is very small.
Senator Losier-Cool: I was on the subcommittee that considered post-secondary education. It was chaired by Senator Bonnell. We reached the same time limits. The problem was that when the report was submitted to translation, the quality of the translation was poor. Senator Lavoie-Roux used to jump every time that happened.
We do not need a translator, necessarily, when it comes to making a final report. We need someone familiar with the subject matter and the language used, not necessarily someone who translates word for word.
The Chairman: That is a good point. I am thinking particularly of the report on the implications for Canada of what is happening in Europe. The topic is economics; hence, the language tends to be technical. I am sure there are people who are very good at translating that technical language to French, but they may not be ordinary translators.
I am very much aware of the problem. I believe the person preparing that report is also aware of that specific problem, and it is serious. It is less difficult to obtain a good translator in the case of our peacekeeping report because, for the most part, that topic is not as technical. We will bear that in mind.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion of Senator Corbin with regard to research staff?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The next motion is one to commit funds and to certify accounts.
Senator Bolduc: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That, pursuant to section 32 of the Financial Administration Act, authority to commit funds be conferred on the Chairman or, in the Chairman's absence, the Deputy Chairman; and
That, pursuant to section 34 of the Financial Administration Act, and Guideline 3:05 of Appendix II of the Rules of the Senate, authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred on the Chairman, or the Deputy Chairman, and the Clerk of the Committee.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The next motion is a standard motion relating to expenses for witnesses.
Senator Corbin: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witnesses expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for no more than two witnesses from any one organization and payment will take place upon application.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The next motion is one for electronic media coverage of public meetings of the committee.
Senator Losier-Cool: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That the Chairman be authorized to seek permission from the Senate to permit coverage by electronic media of its public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings; and
That, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to allow such coverage at its discretion.
Senator Prud'homme: We will have to revise that motion since the Senate will not be sitting for two weeks. In the other motion passed this morning the committee has the power to permit coverage by electronic media.
Senator Stewart: We have two references. The authority is not given in the second reference. Thus, in one case it would be repletive. In the other case, it would be necessary, if we are to have electronic media coverage.
Senator Prud'homme: Can we expect you to go ahead with media coverage for the NATO issue?
The Chairman: Are you asking even if this motion does not pass?
Senator Prud'homme: I am sure this motion will pass.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
We now come to the matter of budgets. We have two proposed budgets. The proposed budget for the NATO peacekeeping reference is in the amount of $54,470. Let us deal with that budget first.
I understand there is a breakdown of how that total is reached. It may well be that someone will want to move a motion adding money to both budgets for the purpose of employing a French editor.
Senator Corbin: Mr. Chairman, could you explain?
The Chairman: This was not anticipated, Senator Corbin. However, as a consequence of your intervention here this morning, I raise the possibility that you or someone else may wish to move to increase the budget request so as to permit the employment of a French editor.
Senator Corbin: It was Senator Losier-Cool's suggestion.
What is important is that we do not lose face. There have been many instances in this institution in the past when committee reports were rejected outright by the Senate because of the poor quality of the translation. I remember very well the occasions. One of them had to do with Senator Kelly's special committee on security and related matters. My memory is not very faithful, but the facts are there.
Thus, it is better to ascertain that we obtain a good text before you table any report in the Senate, Mr. Chairman, rather than be faced with the fact that it lacks in quality.
Senator Andreychuk: Are we saying that there is not sufficient money under the rubric "Professional and Other Services" to accomplish a proper French text? I am presuming in this case that we are working from English to French.
The Chairman: Yes, your presumption is correct.
Senator Andreychuk: If we do not have enough, then what would the clerk determine a necessary amount to be?
The Chairman: That is helpful. Under "Professional and Other Services," we now have provision for a communication consultant. That amount is $5,000. What is being suggested as a possibility is that we have a second item under that heading, which would be for a French editor, with a provision of $5,000 to cover that particular item.
Senator Stollery: Mr. Chairman, assuming that can be done under our overall budget, I think it is a very good idea.
I think there is a lot of sense in the comments of Senators Corbin and Losier-Cool regarding the French translation problems. There is no question that having someone participate from the beginning makes a great deal of difference. As we know, there are two forms of translation -- one in which you translate the grammar and one in which you translate the sense of what has been said.
I read several languages other than English, and that is a very difficult and complex business. If I am not mistaken, Senator Losier-Cool is saying that we want someone to translate the sense, not just to give us a grammatical translation. If we have someone involved in the process earlier, that will make a difference.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: Am I to understand that, under the item "professional services," the persons who will be retained to draft our report will be able to edit the French version?
I would prefer that we allot more than the $5,000 specified for this purpose, rather than specify separately that we want French translators to do the job. We would not want to have Canadians complaining that the committee has to hire editors to review the French version of its report.
With respect to item 7, the experts hired should be able to provide us with a French translation that, in addition to being grammatically correct, accurately conveys the meaning of the original text.
[English]
The Chairman: I am reminded by Ms Gravel that the proposed item is not for a translator but for an editor, someone to make sure that the work of the translator meets the requirements.
Senator Losier-Cool, does that help?
Senator Bolduc: From the point of view of public relations, I think she does not want to see the words "French editor." Instead of having provision for a communications consultant at $5,000, I think she would like it to be $10,000, including that but without saying it.
Senator Andreychuk: I do not think we need to state it. It is under "Professional and Other Services," and we are simply increasing the sum to $10,000, because I am not sure we will use it on communications. That is always the suggestion we hear from the Internal Economy Committee, and we may want to seek advice on that. However, I think that if we set the amount at $10,000, it is discretionary and can be used for whatever we need in preparing the report.
The Chairman: The language would be as follows, then: "No. 1: Editor of report and communications consultant -- $10,000." Is that acceptable?
Senator Losier-Cool: We would not specify the editor.
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Prud'homme: I would prefer that, and I will tell you why. Nothing grates on my nerves more than when I see the word "French" in this type of context. It reminds me of when I would call Bell Canada and ask for a certain number, and they would ask if I wanted a French operator. I would say, "I am not racist. Give me a Polish lady who speaks French." Sometimes the best editors of the French language are not necessarily French Canadians. That is a division that is not necessary. As long as we have someone who is fluent in both languages, we should try to keep away from using such terminology.
The Chairman: I take your point, senator.
Are we agreed on that particular line of the proposed budget?
Senator Bolduc: My problem is that since we had decided that the budget would be $54,000, do we have the money to go to $59,000?
The Chairman: Yes, we do.
Perhaps we can move along, then, to the heading "Transportation and Communications." Members who were here last session will know that there were those on the committee who felt we could not complete our work without hearing some witnesses in Washington and New York. This budget has been prepared with a trip to those cities in mind.
Senator Bolduc: I agree with that, Mr. Chairman, because I cannot see how we can talk about NATO without Washington's point of view. That is not realistic.
The Chairman: Is there any problem with regard to the proposed budget of $49,470 for that purpose? We are budgeting for 10 senators plus two staff.
Senator Atkins: Is that enough money when you consider foreign exchange?
The Chairman: The clerk says yes.
Senator Stollery: When we were on the road in June and July, the accommodations and the travel arrangements were terrific. We did not need any more than that. We were comfortable. Our clerk put it together, and if she puts this trip together in the same fashion, then that will be fine with me. She did a fine job. If she can do that and save money, then I will be even more impressed.
The Chairman: We therefore have the budget as presented, save that the first item, "Professional and Other Services," has been increased from $5,000 to $10,000, bringing the total for this particular reference to $59,470. Is that acceptable to the committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
We have a second budget. This refers to our second reference, on the implications for Canada of what is happening within Europe, particularly the implementation of the monetary union. We are asking for $1,500 relative to that item. Again, the primary purpose is for a consultant on communications, but, consistent with what we did before, we should increase that to $6,500 to provide for an editor. Is that agreeable?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Let us now go on to talk about the future business of the committee. Let me describe the situation. I will start with the work that we have been doing on the European Monetary Union. That work would appear to be almost complete, and Mr. Berg has prepared a draft report. I now am working my way through that draft, which is quite long. I am having some problems with it because it is highly technical in places.
My function at the moment is to call those passages to his attention so that we can incorporate language that will be readily accessible by members of the Senate when we make our report, which is well underway.
At the moment, I know of only one more witness whom we need, namely, a witness who is in the process of preparing a careful, detailed study of the prospect of a better trade relationship between the European Union and Canada. That witness comes from the University of Calgary and is prepared to come before the committee and, prior to planned publication, give us a preview of what will appear in that publication. That is the situation.
When we look at the peacekeeping reference, we see that it is not limited to only NATO. It involves any other organization. The situation is more complicated.
We have been drafting all summer. Various pieces have been done. A draft has been prepared on the NATO-Kosovo experience and on the decisions of the heads of state and governments at the Washington meeting last spring. A draft has also been prepared on the proposal for a European defence and security pillar within NATO, but those drafts have not been put on the same table and integrated into one work.
As our work under this reference is not limited to NATO, it is very difficult for the committee to ignore what is happening in East Timor. I have prepared a draft report on that topic. I have managed to recruit a member of the research office of the Library of Parliament who is knowledgeable on the East Timor subject. She prepared the questions for the meetings of the two committees of the other place, which some of us heard about. However, we were not allowed to participate in those meetings. She is very knowledgeable.
With respect to East Timor, I do not think it will be a complicated problem for the committee, but it raises one important question. Earlier, I stated in the chamber that in the Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada is saying that it intends to place special emphasis in its foreign policy on human security. The emphasis is not on the security of states, but on the security of individuals.
A peacekeeping mission with that particular end is quite different from a peacekeeping mission designed to keep one state from beating up on another state. It would appear that the East Timor mission authorized by the United Nations is a good example of that particular kind of peacekeeping.
What question arises? Over the years, the Government of Canada, in various ways, has been promoting stability and order in Indonesia to the end that prosperity and domestic peace may set in. In various ways, Canada, the United States and other governments have supported the Government of Indonesia. A situation has now developed in East Timor where, because of the emphasis on human security, we are participating in a force which has gone in there against the wishes, not of the Indonesian government, but of the groups that are said to be closely related to the Indonesian armed forces. It appears to be a situation of the left hand and the right hand not getting their act together. I should like to hear Mr. Axworthy explain how we cope with that kind of problem, using East Timor as the current example.
I quoted from the Speech from the Throne. Human security is now the big thing. How do we promote human security where we are supporting a government that is guilty of breaches of human security?
Senator Bolduc: I feel uncomfortable discussing that because the committee has not done any work in that area. This is police work. We have not discussed this particular matter in the last six months, as it is a fairly recent event. We had one meeting that lasted three hours, wherein we heard from a couple of ministers, but that is all. The committee as such has not worked on that aspect up to now. I feel uncomfortable to report on that. We are talking about something that happened last week. I do not think we have to report on that in November.
The Chairman: Our term of reference does cover "peacekeeping with particular reference to Canada participating under the auspices of any international body of which Canada is a member." That would be the UN in this case.
Senator Bolduc, this matter is not as formidable as you think. I would have agreed with you three weeks ago, but I think I can put a document in your hands that will give you assurance that if we ask Mr. Axworthy questions relative to East Timor, we will know what he is talking about.
Senator Bolduc: He is only one witness, though. We are the Senate of Canada. We must not have only the point of view of the government. If we are to discuss that situation, we must look at it on a wider basis.
The Chairman: Let us come at it this way. We have, in the Speech from the Throne, this greater emphasis on security. It arose with regard to Kosovo. When Mr. Axworthy went on television to explain what we were doing in Kosovo, he did not talk about the fear that the situation there might spread and go the way that the Balkans did in 1914. He talked about human security. That was the emphasis.
Senator Bolduc: But it was a war. Everyone knows that it was a war. We bombed the place.
The Chairman: That may be true, but from the viewpoint of the Government of Canada, this was an exercise for the promotion of human security. Mr. Clinton did much the same thing.
Senator Andreychuk: Mr. Chairman, we did talk about including East Timor, and we must say something about it. The question is what we can say and to what extent we can study the matter? I agree with you that we should look at it, but I am not certain that we should just restrict ourselves to questioning the minister.
We are working at a disadvantage. I do not know what the draft looks like. I have not seen parts of it. If I had the draft, at some point I could say perhaps we need another perspective. At this point, perhaps we could have someone in other than the minister to give another perspective on East Timor, and I have some suggestions in that regard.
We will definitely hit on this subject matter when we go to Washington and the UN. By the time we finish our study, we will have adequate information to start something. The question is how to attack the East Timor issue. Do we use it simply as another example, or do we conduct an exhaustive study? From my perspective, we were led to believe that Kosovo was Europe and therefore special and different. Here we are in East Timor, and the minister is saying that we are there for relatively the same reasons. Is this now the trend?
I said I wanted the Speech from the Throne covered because we are being told that peacekeeping is equal to our military operations. I want to know, first, if that is true, and second, if we are prepared to be doing that. That is not the purpose for which the military is trained.
We do not need to do an exhaustive study on East Timor, but we should use it selectively in our study. That is very important in relation to how a report is drafted.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I am having a bit of a problem with regard to our procedure here because we are on the record. Given the fact that our conversation is exploratory, is it agreed that we move in camera at this point?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The committee continued in camera.