Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue 16 - Evidence - May 30, 2007
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 30, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 4:11 p.m. to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to foreign relations generally; and to examine the Department of Foreign Affairs User Fee Proposal relating to the International Youth Program, pursuant to the User Fees Act, S.C. 2004, c. 6, sbs. 4(2).
Senator Consiglio Di Nino (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, it is with a great deal of pleasure that we are here to welcome some special guests. I commence by extending to our guests, good day and welcome to our Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Today we have the pleasure of welcoming a delegation of MPs from the Czech Republic to discuss international issues. We may even talk about hockey, Senator Mahovlich. This is a friendly meeting but that is thrown in on my part.
Senator Mahovlich: I do not know if they would remember Vaclav Nedomansky who was my teammate.
The Chairman: Nedomansky, do you remember him? Of course they do; he is a hero.
Honourable senators, I welcome from the Czech Republic: Jan Hamácek, Chairman, Katerina Konecná, Deputy Chair, Jan Bauer, Member, Zdenek Jicínský, Member, Stanistava Miksova Secretary to the Committee, and Dalila Graffova, Interpreter. It is a pleasure to welcome His Excellency, Pavel Vosalik, Ambassador of the Czech Republic to Canada, and Tomas Vacek, Counsellor. Welcome to each and every one of you. I understand that there will be an introduction of the members by the Chairman, Mr. Hamácek; I also understand from discussions with our clerk, the issues we will be discussing will include international development assistance to Afghanistan, Darfur and also NATO. As I suggested before, particularly in honour of our own hockey legend who is a member of the Senate, Senator Mahovlich I am sure will get into hockey a little bit, which you are most welcome to do.
Mr. Hamácek, if you would like to introduce your colleagues, we will then start.
Jan Hamácek, Chairman, Foreign Affairs Committee, Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure for us all to be here with you today. Thank you for the warm words of welcome. You have already introduced our delegation in excellent Czech and we have name tags. I will provide an explanation of the composition of our delegation. We have three members of the opposition and one member of the governing coalition of the Czech Republic, who is Mr. Bauer. To the left of him is all opposition, including me.
We have had several discussions and meetings here in Ottawa, and the topics we covered are precisely those you have mentioned. I am very open to discuss hockey as well; I think everybody on this side of the table is a hockey fan. I have to say we were cheering for Ottawa Senators the other day, and we are awfully sorry that it did not work out. We will keep our fingers crossed for today and hope the result will be substantially different.
We are ready to discuss any of the issues you mentioned at the beginning. I see some honourable senators are already willing to ask some questions so we will be happy to answer them. We can take it as an informal exchange of views on all of those subjects you have spoken about.
The Chairman: We wanted to extend the courtesy to you and your colleagues, if anyone wanted to make an initial statement. I should have added that you can speak in either of our official languages, English or French. That is your choice. If you are prepared to engage in a dialogue, I am happy to do that on any topic which would obviously be of interest to our two countries.
Senator Segal: Thank you very much. I want to express my appreciation for your decision to visit us in Canada, and to have this opportunity for exchange. The evolution of Czech democracy, the leadership in eastern Europe, in NATO, in the new Europe, that the Czech Republic has been providing is a source of great inspiration to Canadians. We are honoured to have you as NATO partners and treat with great respect and appreciation the service the Czech armed forces are providing in the various enterprises that NATO is pursuing.
I seek advice today with respect to one of your neighbours. From the Canadian perspective, we see a significant toughening up of the Russian federations with respect to what they call the near and proximate territory that used be part of the old east Bloc Iron Curtain countries. We sense a particularly difficult tactical position with respect to Estonia, something which causes Canadians great concern because of our commitment to the first liberation and continued democracy in that part of the world. We are very concerned about how to read the potential that the Russians have announced with respect to abrogating some of the troop number agreements that have existed with respect to conventional forces in Europe, as a result of the decision of various new members of NATO to be supportive of the anti-ballistic missile system worldwide. We would be interested in your perspective on that and your attitude towards your Russian neighbours. What should we be thinking about strategically to be supportive of the Czech Republic? While there will be difficulties from time to time, nobody is interested in a hardening of the relationship between Russia and Canada. On the other hand we do not want to stand down if our NATO brothers and sisters and fellow democrats are in difficulty. We want to understand the dynamics of that situation. I know my colleagues and I would very much appreciate any advice you can provide.
Mr. Hamácek: You have opened up many interesting questions and I will try to comment on each one. First allow me to say we also appreciate that Canada has always been very supportive during our transition period after the change in all the fields. We appreciate also the cooperation with NATO. Our forces are jointly deployed in the NATO's most important operation in Afghanistan. We also hope to learn or maybe we can share some experiences because the Czech Republic is currently reconsidering its deployment in Afghanistan in terms of a more concentrated approach. These days our units and resources are scattered throughout the country and there is a debate at both the executive and parliamentary levels whether we should concentrate them so that we can deliver. We have already listened to your experiences from your deployment in Kandahar, where you have deployed as a coherent unit, and that is something we should learn from.
As far as Russia is concerned, we also are watching it closely because it affects us on various levels. While speaking about the Czech-Russian relations, one should bear in mind that Russia is a key supplier of oil and gas to the Czech Republic, as well as to the rest of Europe. The Czech Republic relies on Russia for 70 per cent of its oil and more than 50 per cent of its gas. We take our energy security very seriously, and this is a factor that we have to deal with.
What we see in Russia, is emancipation in a way, if you allow me to call it that. Russia has always been frustrated by the fact that it is no longer the power that it used to be as the Soviet Union. Obviously, the downfall in the 1990s that was caused by the break-up of the union and all other ties caused some frustration in the Russian nation. As Russia is now surfing on the wave of oil and oil money that is going back to the country, we can see there is some political emancipation as well.
The cornerstone of Russian foreign policy has always been multilateralism, but the Russians say they are trying to prevent a unilateral world. They are convinced they are trying to balance the too-strong role of the United States on the global scene.
This is all obviously influenced by the fact that Mr. Putin is ending his second term. As far as I know, he said that he will not be running again. Therefore, the whole atmosphere is obviously influenced by the fact that there is a certain uncertainty about the future of the Russian political scene. It is not clear who will be Mr. Putin's successor.
Therefore, if we look at certain moves and certain speeches, one always has to bear in mind that there is a strong domestic aspect to that. Unfortunately, the tougher one gets on Russian partners — meaning the West — the more political points on the domestic scene one gets.
You have mentioned Estonia. That is a clear example where the European Union has to show its solidarity to Estonia. I think it has already done that and Angela Merkel was pretty clear about the whole thing.
We do not think that it is a good solution to question treaties and commitments made in the past. It does not help the stability in Europe. On the other hand, what we see at the moment is an attempt to expand the missile defence system to Europe, and it is a complex issue. It is clear there has been a certain lack of discussion and information, not only as far as the U.S.-Russia dialogue is concerned, but also as far as the NATO dialogue is concerned. It is not only Russia that is questioning the system; it is also NATO member countries and our allies.
We should aim at more debate and more frequent exchange of information, so that we prevent any unnecessary escalation and steps that would not make our continent a safer place.
Jan Bauer, Member, Foreign Affairs Committee, Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic: Let me tell you the situation regarding the missile base. First, do you have an easier question about the instalment of the missile base, because it is a very complicated matter and situation? This is not a black and white matter.
I can only tell you that at the moment, we have started discussions with the American side about the final contract. The final contract can be — perhaps will be or will not be — decided in the months to come.
We understand the disappointment from the Russian side. We understand the disappointment from the side of the European Union states — for example, France, Germany and other states. I can tell you we have discussed this matter with your colleague, the former Minister of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Mr. Graham, and I agree that the final decision will be a political decision.
Senator Stollery: Does the Czech Republic pay world prices for Russian oil and gas?
Mr. Hamácek: I think we do. We pay under long-term contracts that were recently renewed. I think the gas contract is valid until 2019, or maybe beyond. We have a long-term contract with Russia but we pay competitive prices.
Senator Stollery: You do not have the same issue as Ukraine, Georgia and some of the Baltic republics, which are getting their energy at a much reduced price. You are not, is that correct?
Mr. Hamácek: We are not. We have not experienced any shortages or any cut-offs, where there were cut-offs to Ukraine, Hungary and Slovakia.
Senator Stollery: That is because they were paying less than the world price and you were not, so you were not involved in that dispute. I have been in Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia privately, and I believe it was Slovakia that lost a piece of its eastern territory to Ukraine at the end of the war. I am old enough to remember the beginning of the war.
In my family business, we bought a lot of material from Czechoslovakia in 1937. As the members of the committee are aware, the Czech Republic was the industrial centre of the Austrian Empire, and they were highly regarded for the quality of their industrial products.
I must say I find this missile business troubling. I know Russia quite well and most of the areas — the Baltic States, Poland and Czechoslovakia. This is my own personal opinion, but I would think we would want to break down barriers between Russia and what we think of as the West. I get the impression, as the briefing paper explains that the Czech Republic part of this is the radar sites not missile sites. The two go hand in hand presumably.
I do not think I would be the only Canadian who finds this troubling when the whole purpose of the collapse of the Soviet Union was to bring the Czech Republic into the modern and peaceful world rather than set up another threatening operation. If I were Russian I would certainly find it threatening. What do you think about that?
Mr. Hamácek: That is the problem. If we want to have Russia on board, then we should convince Russia that the system is not aimed against them. I believe there has been a certain lack of communication, which is changed. There are frequent consultations between U.S. and Russian officials. My question is to what extent these are real consultations or whether these are just briefings. Certain Russian politicians feel they are just being briefed about the system and their questions not answered.
When we had Russian delegations in Prague, the main argument of the Russian Federation presented was that the radar in the Czech Republic is viewed more dangerous to Russian security than the missiles. They believe the radar stations in the Czech Republic would be capable of covering two major western Russian ICBM bases. They say they are currently not under coverage from other U.S. sensors. The sensors under the radar in the Czech Republic would be filling in a current gap. I do not know. I am not an expert on radar systems but if we want to have Russians as partners, we should explain and convince them that they are not the targets.
Senator Stollery: Who would they be aimed at if not them?
Mr. Hamácek: The official reason for expanding the system in Europe is the threat from Iran. That is what the Americans have told us. I would like to have NATO-wide debate on the threat assessment to determine whether Iran is a threat and makes such a system necessary for our defence. Provided we all agree on a NATO basis that such a threat is real then we could move forward and construct such a system but on a NATO basis. My worry is that if we start constructing these systems or if we go along the path of having bilateral agreements between the United States and individual NATO members then we would soon end up with an alliance that has two classes of membership. There would be those who have bilateral agreements with the U.S. and those who do not. This all goes with the one aspect and that is both Czech and Polish governments have already indicated they will be demanding security guarantees from the United States in exchange for agreement to host such a system. That is precisely what I was meant when I was referring to two classes of membership. In my view, if a country gets extra security guarantees from the U.S. it would be a serious threat to NATO.
Mr. Bauer: Let me add just two sentences to the Russian position. I am sure that in case you have decided to be against it is very easy to say there is no communications, there is no discussion. I am too young but I have heard the same story. For example, 17 days after the Russian army left the former Czechoslovakia I heard the same story with the same answers. There is no news from this side.
Senator Stollery: There is a place in Czechoslovakia they have a place called Znojmo, which is famous for pickles. In English, we define "a pickle" as something that is very complicated. I was thinking of that place when you were talking about it because this situation is a real pickle.
Senator Downe: I am interested in following up on an earlier question on Estonia. The Estonians decided to move their war monument, which is their right. The Russians objected to the move. The cyber attacks on their country are appalling. Poland made a different decision and did not move the war memorials. What decision did your country make?
Mr. Hamácek: We did not make any decisions as far as Russian monuments are concerned. We have kept them in place. We did not see any reason to move them. It is a fact that the Red Army liberated the majority of our country and it is appropriate to erect monuments to those who liberated us. We have monuments to the Soviet soldiers as well as to the American soldiers who liberated the western part of Czechoslovakia. It is perfectly appropriate. It does not create any tensions because we did not decide to move them. We do not have a strong Russian minority as in Estonia.
Senator Downe: My next question involves your involvement in NATO. Many Canadians are growing concerned that when article 5 of the NATO agreement was invoked, it was one for all and one for all. After 56 Canadians have been killed, it seems that other countries do not become involved and are putting restrictions on their involvement. Does your country put restrictions on your involvement in Afghanistan?
Mr. Hamácek: We do not put any restrictions on our soldiers in Afghanistan. Our involvement in Afghanistan is fairly heavy, if you take it in relation to the size of our army and the size of our population. We have approximately 35,000 troops. We have over 300 soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, 600 in the Balkans and 100 in Iraq. Altogether, we have more than 1,000 deployed abroad and if you allow for rotations, it is a heavy engagement. There is also another factor that plays a role. The Czech Republic has agreed to supply the EU battle group for the first half of 2009 and for that 1,200 troops are ready to go anywhere in the world for six months.
We are committed to peacekeeping missions and we hold them in high regard. We do not have any restrictions on our soldiers in Afghanistan. On the other hand, it is fair to say to say our units are not in combat. There used to be a special forces unit within Operation Enduring Freedom down south that was deployed in combat. The units in Afghanistan are in a field hospital and we have an 80-soldier strong infantry unit in the north, which is not involved in combat because the area is fairly quiet. The rest is support personnel. Even though, there are no restrictions put on the troops.
The Chairman: This month your component in Afghanistan suffered its first death as well, so you obviously understand the kind of sympathy we extend to you for your contribution there as well.
[Translation]
Zdenek Jicínský, Member, Foreign Affairs Committee, Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic: I would like to add a few words about the American radar base in the Czech Republic. This is a bone of contention inside our government, because most citizens of the Czech Republic are against the base, 70 per cent of the population in fact. For this reason, our party is asking for a referendum to be held on the question. Alas, we do not have the majority required by the constitution to win that victory. The problem arises from the course taken by the Czechoslovak Republic's foreign policy. Is the policy based on the fear of terrorism or on our specific relations with the United States? In my opinion, it is more to do with the danger that we may not be able to handle the growth of the European Union.
A controversial debate is presently going on in the Czech Republic about the evolution of the European Union and constitutional agreements. Our government's domestic and foreign policies are very much linked, and this places us in a very complicated situation. We shall see how these questions will be debated in the Czech Parliament.
[English]
Senator Smith: I have been lucky enough to visit your beautiful country several times. I was lucky to visit Eastern Europe. The first time I was in the Soviet Union was in 1969 and I was there with a group of British graduate students. In the early 1980s, I was an MP and on a UN committee that met in Vienna for a couple of weeks each summer. Sometimes we would do weekends in Prague and Budapest. I think that the transition Czechoslovakia went through is almost like a role model. I am positively impressed.
I always remember spending great times in Prague enjoying the opera. I crossed the border several times and I always felt bad that — maybe I should not say it — all the border guards seemed to be pointing their guns inward. I can see that the guns would point outward, but I felt bad about that and I think that the transition your country has gone through is wonderful.
I want to talk about the issue of Afghanistan. I am not trying to be partisan at all. I am trying to hear things from you.
Our government has troops there and there have been a significant number of deaths now, over 50. The party that I belong to, the Liberal Party, sent the troops there. The government that is in power now has kept them there and has been very supportive. Our Prime Minister was over there last week. Canadians, by and large, are supportive of the troops.
We have a multicultural country. This is one of the most multicultural countries in the world and particularly in some of the large urban centres. We do get a range of views. At the moment we are certainly totally supportive of our troops there, but it is the subject of increasing debate.
I know that there are three different parties here; you represent three different parties and I know none of you want to be partisan. I am just curious about the extent to which in Czechoslovakia there is consensus on this subject. Are there divisions, are these matters the subject of debates or is there solid consensus on Czechoslovakia's participation in NATO and just for example, on the role in Afghanistan?
Mr. Hamácek: We had a quick debate on how to tackle this question. The agreement is that I will try to give you the idea and then my colleagues would like to ask some questions.
There is a fairly strong and wide consensus among the political parties that we should carry on in the mission in Afghanistan. That is why we are debating the possibility of concentrating our efforts and we are considering the possibility of taking over one of the provincial reconstruction teams so that we do not only have a military aspect to our involvement in Afghanistan, but also the civilian aspect and that we do our part in restoration of the country. That is under discussing and I think pretty much the same applies to other deployments, Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
What will be difficult is to get a consensus of the future role of our military policemen in Iraq. There will be a debate in the open and we will have to consider the development in that country and consider the positions of our allies, the United States and Great Britain, who are in a way reconsidering their commitments in this country.
Mr. Bauer: Let me ask you one question that may not be as important as Afghanistan or the missile system, but it is very important for me and for the people I work with each day.
My question is about visa policy. I am sure you know the system is unequal. We have discussed this with your colleagues, but I have not received an official statement. Let me ask you what could be done about that? What could you do for us to make this system equal to other countries all over the world?
The Chairman: Let me see if I can give you a brief comment and then I will ask my colleagues to add to it.
First, I would like to applaud His Excellency Ambassador Kotzy, who was here before and with whom I became quite friendly. I can assure you he brought that issue up at every opportunity, whenever we had a meeting or a discussion. He was a passionate defender of your country.
The issue, as you know, is a complicated one. I do know that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is committed and working on a policy to treat all EU members the same way, but there are some hurdles that have to be overcome. I believe that we have made some movement forward but I do not think we are quite there yet. From what I have been able to find out, and from what we have been told, we are moving ahead and hopefully we can resolve this issue sooner rather than later. I invite any of my colleagues to make a comment on this as well.
Senator Segal: Members of the Senate are quite independent in their views and do not necessarily reflect the view of the government, or even of the party in government of which they might be a member. I think the Canadian government position on the visa is driven by the civil service in the Department of Foreign Affairs. The civil service is always opposed and resistant to change.
We had a presentation before this committee some time ago with respect to the difficulties associated with some young Czech participants coming to play hockey and participate in some hockey activities. Senator Mahovlich spoke to the matter at that time. I know there are many Canadians who are very concerned.
The elephant in the room that no one talks about is the undue anxiety about the Roma population. From my perspective as a Canadian, I find this anxiety deeply offensive anywhere it exists in Europe or in Canada.
I remember who the Nazis put into those concentration camps; they were communists, Roma and Jews. Any process that is premised upon our own visa context being tied in any way to that kind of bigotry is completely outside the realm of what is appropriate and acceptable. Therefore, I am hopeful our policy will change very quickly.
Senator Smith: Canada is very generous concerning immigration in terms of Western countries. If you compare us with the United States, on a per capita basis, we take more than three times annually what they take. With regard to political refugees, Canada is one of the most generous countries in the world.
For years, we have had a system whereby once a person gets here, he or she can claim to be a political refugee. Sometimes it is not accepted and there is a hearing, but it can drag on for years. I will give you an example.
Our general system is that you get a certain number of points for certain things — your education, your ability to speak English or French, your occupation, your skill sets. Much is related to whether you can support yourself when you come here. If you declare that you are a refugee, you jump to the head of the queue; and none of us quarrel with people who are doing it on a bona fide basis.
I remember a situation some years ago where one particular immigration consultant in Toronto had 200 claimants who came here and declared political refugee status. They claimed that status because they had been supporters of Michael Manley and Mr. Seaga won the Jamaican election. They said they would be persecuted and their lives would be threatened if they went back to Jamaica. They dragged out these hearings for a long time; and before the hearings started coming up, there was another election and Mr. Manley won. All 200 of them then had a new set of reasons why they were political refugees.
Let us take the category of the Roma community from Czechoslovakia, although I think their population is greater in Hungary, who would think that they should be political refugees. If they could not make it here on the point system and they go the political refugee route because they would be discriminated against, would those be valid claims in many instances? Do you have a reaction to that?
Mr. Hamácek: I do not want to start a substantial discussion on the visa question, but I think what those people did years back was use a loophole in the Canadian immigration system that pretty much anyone could use. They were just the first. I think that there is work to be done on the Canadian side so that your immigration legislation is not easily abused. That is very frankly said.
What those people did pointed out the problem and they took advantage of it. Obviously, times have changed and it would be difficult for them to do it again — nor do I think they have any intention of doing so. It was a one-time phenomenon that would not be repeated, so I think this argument is no longer on the table.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: I notice that one of the members of your delegation is a member of the permanent delegation to the Central European Initiative. Can you briefly tell me the makeup of this organization and what is its interest for the Czech Republic?
Mr. Jicínský: The organization was formed after the fall of the communist regime. It was made up of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Austria, Italy, and Poland. But in the years that followed, the initiative diminished in importance because more formal organizations were created. Those organizations are more closely integrated into the system of international organizations in Europe. We are an associate member of the European Union. The importance of the organization is therefore much less.
Senator Corbin: Does the delegation still exist?
Mr. Jicínský: It exists, but it is less active.
Senator Corbin: It is much less important?
Mr. Jicínský: Recently, a major meeting of 15 presidents was held in the Czech Republic. They were the presidents of the countries that I mentioned, other countries in the former Soviet empire and Italy. We discussed common problems, but there is no formal channel to take binding political decisions.
Senator Corbin: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jicínský: If you will allow me, I have a little personal memory of a little episode in Canada-Czech relations. In November 1989, at the time of our velvet revolution, that is, we wanted to create a new democratic constitution for the new Czechoslovakia. Fundamental to that work was the formation of a group of international experts. The group included your former prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, among others. I had the opportunity to meet that Canadian political celebrity on that occasion. I am proud to share with you the memory of this small Canadian contribution to our mutual relations.
[English]
The Chairman: I will close this by making a comment. Honourable senators will notice that I did not intervene in asking questions. On behalf of all of our colleagues, we have a great deal of sympathy concerning the visa issue. Mr. Kotzy and I have discussed this, a number of times. You will have good support around this table, and probably throughout the Senate on that issue. We will continue to add our voice to a speedy resolution.
In general it would be appropriate for me to say that the relationship between our two countries has been a very good one. We have had a very good relationship in trade, but in my opinion Canada has been the big winner principally because of the large number of Czechs who have come to this country and decided to enrich our country in a way which has been very beneficial to all of us. I certainly hope that will continue. I know that the Czech Republic is probably not quite as generous as in the past in sending us its sons and daughters, but they have been more than welcome and we continue to welcome them. Also, I can say with the support of all our colleagues that we can look forward and continue building on this very strong relationship. Thank you for coming and we extend to you our good wishes for a wonderful remainder of your visit.
Mr. Hamácek: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for those words. I would like to add that even though we are not sending our sons and daughters for good to Canada, we will try to send them at least for a while, because we have just ratified the treaty between Canada and the Czech Republic on students' stays in Canada. At least for a while you will enjoy the presence of our sons and daughters. We will be very happy to send them.
Thank you very much for the debate. I completely agree with what you have said. The relations between the Czech Republic and Canada are very good. We are allied within NATO. We have many common bonds and hope the future will be even better, if it is possible and we do not get too upset when one country defeats the other country in ice hockey. Again, all the best for the Senators.
The Chairman: Thank you.
We will now be looking at a proposal by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to change the amount of the user fees for the International Youth Program.
According to the User Fees Act, "Before a regulating authority fixes, increases, expands the application of or increases the duration of a user fee. . . ." one of the things it must do is table a proposal in each House of Parliament. This proposal is deemed referred to the appropriate committee in each House, which in this case is our committee. This committee may review the proposal and report back to the Senate, either accepting the proposal or recommending that we think it is an appropriate fee. If we do not report back to the Senate within 20 sitting days after the tabling of the proposal in the Senate, the committee will be, ". . . deemed to have submitted a report recommending that the proposed user fee be approved."
As this report was deemed reported to the Senate on April 17, this committee must report back regarding the proposal by Thursday, June 7. Here to explain the proposed changes to the fees of the International Youth Program are Mr. Chris Greenshields, Director of International Education and Youth Division and Mr. Michel Gigault, Head of the International Youth Programs Section.
Senator Segal: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I just want to be clear that I understand the "deemed" rule that you read. If I understand it correctly, and I defer to colleagues more experienced in these matters, does "deemed" mean that were we to consider it, not to consider it, have a negative view on it or otherwise, it is still deemed to be reported and positively so by a certain time frame, whatever we discuss here one way or the other.
The Chairman: That is my understanding.
Senator Segal: Is that a statutory provision?
The Chairman: The User Fees Act is legislation.
Senator Segal: Let me go on the record — and this has no reflection on the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade — to state my opposition to any statute that would presume that a committee would have an opinion or that the committee's opinion, such as it might be, would not actually count as to the outcome of the process.
The Chairman: This is the first time I have dealt with this issue as well, so I am not sure I have any more wisdom on this than you have, Senator Segal. Having said that, we do have the opportunity to make recommendations or make amendments that may or may not be considered.
I have been directed to read something into the record. It says, "The Senate or House of Commons may pass a resolution approving, rejecting or amending the recommendation made by the Committee pursuant to section 5."
We could make an amendment if we so desire.
Senator Segal: Thank you.
Chris Greenshields, Director, International Education and Youth Division, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have the proposal before you. I would like to make a few opening remarks.
The International Youth Program is a work program for international youth here in Canada and abroad. It serves as a valuable exchange program and pays dividends for decades in terms of promoting knowledge of Canada among the young. Right now, it is useful in terms of alleviating workforce needs, especially in Western Canada, as we head to the 2010 Olympics, to be even more specific. We need to bring in more youth; employers are clamouring for them. We can do well by doing good, in other words.
Through this program young Canadian participants obtain job experience in a different cultural environment. This experience, the skills and networks attained through these international opportunities, allow young adults to better prepare themselves for the demands of the workplace in an increasingly globalized world.
[Translation]
International youth programs are part of a network of bilateral and multilateral agreements with almost 40 countries around the world, allowing Canadians to obtain work permits abroad, and for young people from abroad to obtain work permits in Canada.
Bilateral agreements, protocols or treaties are in effect in about 20 countries, including France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Japan, South Korea, as well as all Scandinavian countries.
The agreements describe the types of activities available to the young participants, for example, the working holiday program for students, the young workers program and the cooperative education program.
[English]
A program participation fee is currently charged only to Australian and New Zealander participants further to the Treasury Board's decision in 2000 that Canada could charge fees to foreign participants. The Treasury Board authorized that revenues generated under the program, currently about $1.4 million a year, were to be used to fund the program.
In addition toll Australia and New Zealand, Germany, the Netherlands, USA, the U.K, Belgium, Sweden, Ireland, Japan, South Africa and other countries already charge fees whether for visa residents or work permit fees to Canadians participating in the various programs under the arrangements.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is proposing to expand the program over the next couple of years. We are proposing to almost double the number of participants from the current level of 55,000 — that is 33,000 international youth who come to Canada, and 22,000 young Canadians who go abroad — to 100,000 by 2010. This would be 60,000 international youth, and hopefully as many as 40,000 young Canadians.
The expansion would be achieved through the conclusion of new bilateral arrangements in Europe, Asia, and Latin America and through the increase of the number of places offered under bilateral arrangements. In many cases, the current places offered are gone in a matter of weeks.
In order to sustain this growth in both directions, however, the program needs to broaden its base of funding. This is essentially a self-financing program. The growth of incoming participants together with other demands is putting increasing pressure on Citizenship and Immigration Canada offices, particularly in Europe. To accommodate further growth, CIC needs to increase its processing capacity at embassies abroad. Revenues from the global participation fee will be used to assist CIC application processing capacity at these missions.
[Translation]
The revenues will increase the management capacity at the headquarters in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. This will allow the expansion of promotional efforts in Canada and abroad, more specifically in order to increase the visibility of the program for young Canadians, their parents and their teachers.
As the number of international opportunities increases, it is important that young Canadians are encouraged to participate. More specifically, we want to promote employment possibilities abroad for young Canadians in order to enhance their career development.
We must therefore work in close cooperation with universities and colleges in order to access their international travel programs, as well as with younger Canadians, for example, those in high school, colleges and cégeps.
The $150 fee is payable by foreign participants only. Candidates who do not meet the program criteria will be reimbursed. The fees will equal those charged to Canadians by Australia and New Zealand and are intended to provide the student visas required by Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
[English]
The funds will increase the administrative capacity at DFAIT headquarters and expand domestic and international marketing efforts, particularly in order to raise the program's awareness.
The International Youth Program forms an integral part of a number of programs administer by DFAIT's international education and youth division. These include the international scholarship program, Canadian studies and EDUCANADA, which promotes Canada as a study destination.
Our objective is to develop an integrated approach to get international youth to learn about Canada; to choose Canada as a study destination because of its educational excellence; to attract the best and brightest through scholarships; and to offer international youth a work experience in Canada. For Canadians, it means promoting opportunities for studying and working abroad and strengthening Canada's role in the world.
The Chairman: Before I call on Senator Stollery, do either of you have an answer to Senator Segal's question?
Senator Dawson: Everywhere in the document, you talk about the fees starting to apply on April 1. I am wondering why we are meeting if this is being applied. Is it, in fact, being applied?
Mr. Greenshields: There has been a fee in place since 2000 for participants from Australia and New Zealand. We are awaiting parliamentary consultation before we move forward in any extension of that fee to foreign participants.
Senator Dawson: In the document, it says if you should agree with this proposal, we anticipate the implementation fee as of April 1, 2007. That is what is written in the document. I am wondering if we are just going through the motions.
Mr. Greenshields: That is an error, senator. We would not be in a position to implement it before the next cycle. We go by calendar year, so it would take place for the 2008 period.
Some of the applications are treated already in the fall. Ideally, if the process of consultation is complete, we would be able to introduce the fee by that time.
The Chairman: For the record, you are saying if both Houses of Parliament accept this, the commencement date for the fees would be April 1, 2008. Is that correct? Is it April 1, 2008, or is it retroactive to April 1, 2007?
Mr. Greenshields: It would be effective for participation in 2008.
The Chairman: I do not want to take any more time, but I believe Senator Segal asked — and I am paraphrasing — if we do not accept the recommendation, if we say we do not like it, does that make a difference to this going forward? I think that is a valid question.
Mr. Greenshields: We have a process whereby we are consulting Parliament, and we certainly need to take into account what Parliament is saying. We had another process where we engaged stakeholders in a similar exercise on this proposal, concerning the expansion of the program generally. These activities are required under the User Fees Act.
The Chairman: We may look at this further as we start questioning.
Senator Stollery: A few years ago, I was in Japan on a cycling trip. I had never been there before. This was about five or six years ago and I did about 700 kilometres by bicycle. During that trip, I kept running into people who told me about some town in Alberta in which they had spent six months. I ran into it quite a few young people who told me the same story. In small towns, someone would come up to me and say they had been in some town in Alberta.
Then someone told me that 6,000 or 7,000 Japanese youth come every year and it is very successful — I know nothing about this. Is this the same program?
Mr. Greenshields: This is the program, senator.
Senator Stollery: I was impressed.
Mr. Greenshields: We have about 5,000 youth from Japan and 8,000 from Australia.
Senator Stollery: In Japan, they obviously do not speak English, while in Australia, they do. I was amazed.
Senator Corbin: I am looking at page 7 of the briefing paper entitled, International Youth Program Fee Proposal, which must come from your office. It deals with the revenues and expenses, it illustrates the procurement of employment, which is $1,110,000 for 2007-08, and it includes the forthcoming years. What does procurement of employment opportunities for Canadians mean?
Mr. Greenshields: The program has traditionally featured the working holiday, where young Canadians travel and perform incidental employment as part of that travel. What we are interested in doing, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, is promoting more opportunities for young Canadians to obtain employment in career-enhancing activities.
For example, we are proposing a pilot program with different organizations that would identify job opportunities for Canadians abroad. This is the kind of activity that we are proposing in this context. Other activities involve working with our embassies abroad, who are contacting multinational corporations and Canadian companies to see whether they would employ Canadians.
Senator Corbin: I have another question on a different topic. I would not, by any stretch of the imagination, suggest this is a program for the elites because I had members of my own family benefit from these exchanges. However, when I look at Annex 1, it is obvious that the students from poorer regions of the world do not stand much of a chance of coming to Canada, which would be highly beneficial for them.
What type of promotion do you do in Africa to have African youth visit Canada? Is there a part of the program that consists of subsidies to help youth enjoy the benefits of a program like this one, or is it pay as you go only?
Mr. Greenshields: For your first question, we do take into account developing countries. Under our multilateral program we have a number of possibilities for exchanges. For example, I am aware of the program with Ghana and Mr. Gigault can tell you more about it. We are proposing to conclude new agreements, particularly in Latin America and Asia, and we anticipate that will extend the reach of what you would note has been largely focused in Europe, Japan, Australia and Korea. That is our proposed approach.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: Mr. Gigault, can you talk to us about the program with Ghana?
Michel Gigault, Head, International Youth Programs Section, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: One of our partners, Travel CUTS, an affiliate of the Canadian Federation of Students, offers many programs in a number of countries where we have no bilateral agreements. I must say that Canada is a little different from other countries in that we are able to offer programs for young people from developing countries to come to Canada through such things as the working holiday program or the International Association for Exchange of Students in technological and commercial fields. The same thing applies to the international association InterCulture, which offers volunteer programs around the world and allows young people from developing countries to come to Canada.
One of the criteria required in bilateral negotiations used to be for the partner country to have to offer Canadians the same opportunity as Canada offered to the young people from that country. We changed that approach several years ago. With the approval of participation fees, we hope to be able to offer and open the program to more countries, countries that are not in a position to offer the same possibilities to Canadians as we offer to them.
Mr. Greenshields: As to your second question, there are no direct grants, we enter into partnerships with a number of organizations, either universities or NGOs, that look after their participants in that way. There are no grants or direct contributions in the program.
[English]
Senator Corbin: I conclude that this chart does not reflect the total exchange of youth travel and work experience with other countries. This chart pertains to the four organizations that are mentioned in the paper, but there is much activity beyond this as well. Is that what you are telling us?
Mr. Greenshields: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: Could you correct the document that clearly indicates April 2, 2007, so that people do not think that we are being taken for granted. We get that from time to time. We are class of 2005, Senator Segal and I. We are rookies, new kids on the block, and sometimes people come to conclusions that are based on the wisdom of our colleagues.
[English]
Senator Corbin: You would not be the new kids on the block if the Senate seats were filled.
Senator Dawson: First, I agree with the concept of user fee agreements and I see from your document that there have not been negative effects in the country in which it has been implemented. Had you increased that in Australia or New Zealand where they would be landed at $240? Would 10 per cent be a little high if you were looking at the next 10 years?
The concept of recuperation does not have negative effect. It inspires me. It is more the question of the scale of the growth. If you would have done it with Australia and New Zealand they would be now at $235 or $240.
Mr. Greenshields: Certainly, senator, there are national market limitations. We are expanding the number of agreements so there would be participants from more countries and in situations where there is a particular pressure where the quotas are filled literally in a matter of weeks, we would be in a position to increase the number of participants. This is the case in Japan. We would like to increase the number from France but there are clear constraints in terms of processing these applications. That is one of the reasons for the participation fee.
On the Canadian side, it is very important for the number of Canadians to continue to grow. We have seen in the last few years since we have done a much more active program of promotion among Canadians, substantial growth. It is around 9 per cent over the last three years. Mr. Gigault can correct me in I am wrong. It is an exchange, a two-way street and we want to continue to see that happen.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: I have just received a message on my Blackberry from a girl who is working for me this summer; that is proof of the concrete effect of your program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied with the answers.
Senator De Bané: I would like you to explain how this program works. In what year was it established?
Mr. Greenshields: It began with a program in Germany in 1956. Because of the presence of Canadian soldiers in Germany, they wanted to thank their hosts for their hospitality.
Senator De Bané: It began in 1956 and gradually expanded?
Mr. Greenshields: Yes, a number of programs were added; I was a participant in 1970, for example.
Senator De Bané: So now, what does a young Canadian who wants to go and work in England do? Does he fill in a form on the Internet?
Mr. Greenshields: He can read the rules on the Internet. We have a website.
Senator De Bané: He can fill out an application on the Internet?
Mr. Greenshields: They apply to the British Embassy for a work permit. A number choose to contact the working holiday office, and that works very well.
[English]
Senator De Bané: I would like to understand the program properly. If a student wants to work abroad for the program in England, does he apply to the British High Commission?
Mr. Greenshields: That is right. He would apply to the consulate section of the British High Commission here in Ottawa.
Senator De Bané: Do you do anything for that Canadian or does he or she have to contact that foreign embassy in Canada to be able to go there? Do you interface with the foreigners?
Mr. Greenshields: Yes and no. Certainly, there is greater interface with foreign youth, but, as I mentioned, we work with Canadian organizations to identify arrangements with particular countries so whether it is SWAP or l'Office franco-québécois pour la jeunesse to facilitate the process, we would work with the foreign governments to ensure that Canadians are treated quickly.
Senator De Bané: Let us say a Canadian youth wants to work in the U.K. Does that person apply to the British High Commission? Does the high commission find a job for the youth?
Mr. Greenshields: No, that is up to the youth to do. However, there are organizations that would help them find jobs such as SWAP or Vacances-Travail.
Senator De Bané: That Canadian student, let us say a young woman, applies to a foreign embassy in Ottawa and finds a job in another country. While she is there she is subject to sexual harassment. Who does she get in touch with?
Mr. Greenshields: She would get in touch with, in some cases, the Canadian consular services. I would not say that it often happens but the services are there for that reason.
Senator De Bané: It happens in Canada, so it must happen abroad also.
Are those students informed of what to do if ever there is a situation where people are trying to take advantage of them? Are they warned, notified how to behave, told what to do, et cetera?
Mr. Greenshields: In many instances the students choose to go through an organization like SWAP or Vacances-Travail and they have a local partner with facilities for the Canadian participants. The Canadian participants have access to their facilities and advice and so forth. That is an added service that is available if the student chooses to make use of it.
Senator De Bané: With respect to marketing, what is the percentage of Canadian students who know of or are aware of this program? Have you performed any marketing studies on that subject?
Mr. Greenshields: We did conduct an Ipsos-Reid survey. The results of that survey told us that we should be making much stronger promotion efforts at younger ages, in the high schools, because the kids are already pretty much making up their minds about what they want to do in the next few years. The survey advised us that we should widen our net to reach more Canadians.
Senator De Bané: To what segment of the population does this apply?
Mr. Greenshields: The age group is 18 years to 30 years and sometimes 35 years.
Senator Segal: We are raising the fees to cover Citizen and Immigration Canada processing costs; is that what we are doing?
Mr. Greenshields: We are not raising the fee; we are extending the fee.
Senator Segal: I want to understand the transition on page 6 item 3:
Canadian youth will benefit from international career related work experience to address concerns some of the revenues generated from the implementation of the fees would serve to help Canadian youth find gainful employment during their stay overseas and establish a support mechanism to allow for faster assimilation and support.
I have a general anxiety about the fungibility of funds that go in one place and somehow, magically, they end up helping elsewhere. Tell me how that actually happens. Who is involved, what are the instruments that you use and what is the measurable benefit to the Canadian kids on the road?
Senator Corbin: What document is the honourable senator quoting from?
The Chairman: International Youth Program Key Proposal for Tabling Under the User Fee Act. It is a 14-page document. It is on page 6, under tab 3.
Mr. Greenshields: One of the pilot programs, which I can explain in detail, would be international career enhancement. We would be working with organizations on a tender basis asking them to identify sustainable job opportunities for young Canadians abroad. That is an example of what we would be doing.
Other activities would be in terms of working with our missions, our embassies and high commissions abroad to identify job opportunities with Canadian companies abroad or multinationals.
Senator Segal: I am trying to understand. When I was a university student there was an organization on our campus of University of Ottawa called AIESEC.
[Translation]
Students in the administration program at the University of Ottawa applied through ASAC and got jobs in a factory in Finland. They worked there for a month and it was a great experience. The costs were paid partly by the student's family and partly by the company which paid a small salary. I am not aware of the government's role in arranging that exchange. How do you see the increase in fees?
[English]
Mr. Greenshields: We are already doing it and we need to do more of it. We would like to invite past participants to be ambassadors of the program, to go out and talk on their campuses and in high schools. We would like to also devise other ways where we can link up international work opportunities to career development, including to the public service.
Senator Segal: I am always interested how pieces connect. As I stand from the position of a parent, taxpayer, I would say that the kids from countries who apply to come to Canada and meet the normative criteria would be wonderful immigrants. Their countries of origin might not be so excited to lose them; but from our point of view, we would be attracting bright, young, potential good immigrants — pre-family formation in terms of our demographics — clearly with economic prospects and wonderful linkages.
Without violating their privacy, I would think someone at DFAIT or CIC would say while they are in Canada or before they leave, we are going to make sure they get a kit about what finishing their studies in Canada or moving to Canada might mean so as to retain their interest. If even a small percentage, having been here, walked away with that experience, what a wonderful net benefit to Canada this would be. Does any of this actually happen or is it wishful thinking on my part?
Mr. Greenshields: I think you have identified a very important element of what we are trying to accomplish through this program. We could do it better if we had the resources. For example, instead of the kids just coming away with their visa and passport when they return from a Canadian embassy or consulate, I would like them to return with a package of information about how to study in Canada and what future possibilities they might find here in Canada. We have new programs in place where you can study and work off campus, and remain in Canada after graduation. We would want to get that information to them.
Senator Segal: Would it be helpful to you if in our report on this matter, we were to remark that there should be arrangements made so that precisely what you suggested did transpire? Would that help you or hinder you?
Mr. Greenshields: Any advice from the Senate would be very helpful.
Senator Segal: If your colleagues from the Public Service Commission were sitting in the next spot, they would say we have a huge demographic problem in terms of replacing public servants when they retire. We want to attract the best into the public service.
It strikes me, quite aside from the immigration question that Canadian kids who have the get up and go to do this around the world come back with remarkable experiences. If I understand the proposition, this fee increase will facilitate more remarkable young people to be on the recruitment list for joining the public service of Canada. Is there any link between who these kids are and our ability to include them?
Recruiters from the Public Service Commission come down to Queen's University and other universities on a regular basis to try to recruit the best and the brightest. Is there any hope that these kids might be linked up in some way so that when they finish that experience, they are at least in some pool, which is then latterly approached to consider a career in the public service of Canada?
[Translation]
Mr. Greenshields: We are already working with that organization in order to establish the legal possibilities of accessing a work permit. What we want to do with those organizations on a contractual basis is to work with them and be able to make jobs available like in Finland.
[English]
Mr. Gigault: As to Senator Segal's recommendation we are already inviting young people coming to Canada to take advantage of the opportunities in the public service or in the private sector.
We also facilitate the employment of bright, young, public service candidates from other countries coming to do internships in Canada. We facilitate this through our existing programs and we hope to do even more in the future.
Senator Corbin: I would like to come back to the matter of possible subsidies to some of the not so well off young people of the world that would benefit greatly by a stay in Canada of the nature we are talking about here today. You will be making some money — I am using the phrase "making some money" loosely here — but you will have good revenue from applications from France, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and a few other places. Why not use some of that income to subsidize the less well off youth of the world to allow them to gain a valid Canadian experience during their student years?
Mr. Greenshields: We do not have the possibility, under our current regulatory environment and our terms and conditions from the Treasury Board, to provide grants and contributions; therefore, it would not be possible.
Senator Corbin: Would you welcome a suggestion on the part of the committee for the government to allow that?
Mr. Greenshields: It is not my place to say.
Senator Corbin: You are being bureaucratic.
Mr. Greenshields: I would say that through our Government of Canada and the Canadian Commonwealth Scholarship Programs, we are bringing students from developing countries — particularly in Commonwealth Africa — to study in Canada. We are trying to reach out through other ways and through our multilateral arrangements.
Senator Corbin: Have any of the participants disappeared never to be heard of again?
Mr. Greenshields: In fact, the experience has been quite remarkable and successful. We have had very little, if any, negative feedback of individuals not returning.
Senator Corbin: There have been programs where youth from other countries have come here and disappeared?
Mr. Greenshields: It is true, senator, that in terms of the bilateral agreements we are concluding, we are taking into account the factors in terms of migration pressures and so forth. We would not necessarily have a bilateral agreement with a country where we would see large flows of refugee claimants under the program. That is why it is tilted in a certain way, I admit.
The Chairman: Thank you for that clarification.
Senator Dawson: What is the process from here on about what we recommend?
The Chairman: We will deal with that later.
Senator Dawson: Okay, but in reality, you are adding 54 countries to a list that had two. If we only added the first 15 to the list, we would cover 20,000 for one list and 30,000 for the other; and we would be helping, with the last few thousand, all countries with which the honourable senator is preoccupied. I do not know if that is the type of flexibility we could offer, but I would like it to be included if we do a report.
I would like it to say that we would have liked to have the option of saying it applies to the rich countries and we are making exceptions for the countries that cannot afford it. If you look at the list of the first 13 names, they are all countries where people can afford to pay, more so than the last 40 countries on the list.
The Chairman: I appreciate that, although I may want to add that maybe the countries are a little wealthier than the others, but I am not sure that all the applicants from those countries can necessarily afford to come. However, that is another issue.
Gentlemen, I want to thank you for coming. It has been useful and informative, and we appreciate it. I think you have heard some eloquent comments from my colleagues who have dealt with this issue quite extensively. Again, I extend our gratitude for your participation.
Senator Segal: I have heard enough about what they are going to do with the money and why they want to increase the fees. I have no trouble in being supportive. I would hope that in the drafting of the report whatever colleagues would feel appropriate might be added with respect to some of the linkages to which colleagues referred including the subsidy issue referred to by Senator Corbin. We could add that. I certainly feel comfortable and do not feel the need to hear other witnesses on the matter.
Senator De Bane: We should give a lot of emphasis to the suggestion of Senator Segal about how that program can be an ideal opportunity to be more proactive in selling our country to those foreign students. I find his idea very stimulating.
The Chairman: I will not call the meeting off until Senator Corbin returns because he had a question. If we are satisfied with this I will have our staff prepare a report which would contain the commentary and the opinions expressed by our colleagues. As a personal opinion, it would be useful and helpful to include in the report some suggestions, commentary and recommendations on how we believe this program could be improved, particularly to the Third World countries Senator Corbin mentioned.
Senator Corbin, we had a discussion of where we go from here and because of the constraints we had, we would like to send in a report. We have heard enough on this issue and wish to make a report containing some strong recommendations and comments as expressed by our colleagues here this evening.
Senator Corbin: Have we had any requests from the outside?
The Chairman: The answer is no. We did reach out. We did try to find others.
Honourable senators, if I understand the wishes of this committee correctly, we will instruct our staff to prepare a report for next Tuesday which we will deal with first thing. It should only take a few minutes. It will contain recommendations reflecting the opinions and thoughts our members expressed at this meeting.
Senator Corbin: Do you expect that to be adopted next week?
The Chairman: I believe so because June 7 is the drop-dead date. My suggestion would be to have it sent to everyone on Friday.
Senator Dawson: I would suggest that in writing. Having the report at the last minute is not a good idea.
Senator Corbin: Friday is not a good day. The place is empty.
The Chairman: Certainly you will have it by Monday if not on Friday.
Senator Corbin: At what time?
The Chairman: When the Senate rises but not before five.
We will ask our colleagues to give us a few minutes before we start the other one.
The committee adjourned.