Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs
Issue 26 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 19, 1997
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and the House of Commons Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 3:30 p.m. to hold discussions with the Joint Committee on European Affairs of the Parliament of Ireland.
Senator John B. Stewart and Mr. Bill Graham (Joint Chairmen) in the Chair.
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Stewart): Honourable senators, this afternoon we have a break from our usual hard work. We have with us the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons, and members of the House of Commons.
We also have with us a delegation from the Parliament of Ireland: the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Mr. Michael Ferris; Mr. David Andrews; Mr. John Browne; Senator Michael Calnan; Mr. Liam Canniffe; Mr. Noel Davern; and Senator Joe O'Toole.
Mr. Graham, last year the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs did an intensive study of Canada's relationship with the European Union. We made a visit to several European capitals. One of the places to which we went was Dublin. We were all delighted by the good meeting we had there, and we all resolved that it would be advantageous and salutary to maintain a good and friendly relationship with people in the Parliament of Ireland.
Quite aside from the fact that many people from Ireland came to Canada, there is a similarity of a structural nature. Here in Canada, we are next door to a very big neighbour. We get on very well with that very big neighbour, but we like to maintain our separate identity. I suspect that people in Ireland might say their relationship with one or more of their neighbours is somewhat similar, perhaps at times not quite so friendly. Here we are, then: both countries with big neighbours. I think that means that many of the problems we have are similar, and I have found that we can talk very candidly with our counterparts from the Parliament of Ireland.
This afternoon, I propose that we proceed to ask each other questions concerning matters that involve our people and matters that are to the fore right now, if that is agreeable.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Graham): Yes, sir.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Stewart): I will ask the Chairman of the delegation from the Parliament of Ireland to say a few words, just to get us started.
Mr. Michael Ferris, Chairman, European Affairs: Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Chairman. I realize that this is a very special occasion because we have the privilege of sitting in committee now with two chairpersons from the Senate and from the House of Commons. Our delegation comprises members of both houses as well because our committee is structured in a way that facilitates members of the D<#00E1>il and the Senate.
It is a particular privilege for us to come to you, basically to renew acquaintance with you and to continue this inter-parliamentary dialogue between us, in the same way as the Action Plan identifies the concept of people to people. It is important for us, as members of Parliament who will be initiating legislation or involved, as we will be, through the Council of Ministers and the commission as members of the union, to put into operation, hopefully, the Action Plan that our government, acting as president of the union, was seized with at the Dublin summit. We hope that the Action Plan, now that it is in place, will go forward into implementation in the many areas that we have already discussed. Members of my committee will be anxious to put flesh on those thoughts and ideas.
There is, as you have said, a great link between our two countries. There is a bond of friendship and understanding, and an anxiety to assist one another. Being on the periphery of Europe as we are, and a small nation, we are still a very influential member of the European Union. We are independent and neutral in many ways, but we want to make a contribution in the whole area of peacekeeping. Our people have problems at home, living in a divided island, but we are working with our colleagues in the British government to bring together a peace situation so that we can have a peaceful dialogue, and beginning as soon as possible, provided that we manage to achieve a ceasefire. Mr. Andrews has particular expertise in that area, having filled the role of foreign minister in the past. I am sure he will want to speak on this subject.
With respect to trade relationships, many Canadian companies are trading in Ireland very successfully, and they are most welcome. They have benefited from our particular tax regime, but also I think there has been a fruitful involvement of some of your companies in Ireland. You have been with us for the long haul, so your experience with us has been good. We want to foster that, and have reciprocal arrangements in that area as well.
The area of education identified in the Action Plan is one that we want to sponsor and move on. Senator Joe O'Toole is a specialist in that area, as indeed are some of my delegation who are all teachers by trade, as well as being politicians. They are predominantly politicians now, but they learned all their expertise, through politics, in being able to bring that to the fore.
Without going through a wide script, we have many similar outlooks and understandings. It is hopeful that that will continue. Our president has a scheduled visit to Canada, depending on the election situation here and at home. Our prime minister, indeed, signed the Action Plan in December last, on behalf of the European Union, acting as president of that union. I think we assisted in no uncertain terms in bringing that plan to fruition. As members of the troika, we also have a commitment to have that plan continued and put into action under the Dutch presidency.
From our committee's point of view, we will be involved in the COSAC group of European affairs committees, and the committee of the European Parliament in bringing forward legislation in consultation with the Council of Ministers, with direct access to them in each national parliament. We want to ensure that all of the movements of legislation in that area, before it becomes law and accepted, will be discussed by ourselves on behalf of the Parliament. We understand the dilemma of members of Parliament in feeling removed from the centre of power and the centre of decision-making. We hope to break down that democratic deficit by moving in consultation with ministers in the Council of Ministers.
I am looking forward to a good, lively discussion, as lively as we saw during Question Period, which I think impressed all of the members of my delegation. They really enjoyed that spontaneous exchange. There was a good feeling that Canada is alive and democratic, and not afraid to express itself from whichever side of the House.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Graham): It is a great privilege to be here. I always enjoy joint meetings with the Senate, because this is one of the more attractive rooms in our building. It is always a privilege to be invited down. Thank you very much, Senator Stewart. This is a good way for us to take advantage of our time to meet with the delegation.
I have both political and personal reasons for enjoying the opportunity particularly to meet with our colleagues from the D<#00E1>il. The political reasons are that I think we have a great deal to learn from the European Union. We have NAFTA; we have issues of economic integration, and we just signed a free trade treaty with Chile. Prior to that, we signed a free trade agreement with Israel.
You mentioned the Action Plan between the European Union and ourselves. Those of us who have been involved in the WTO negotiations know that there is a tremendous process of economic integration going on, and we watch with great interest the European experience in dealing with the political dimension of economic integration. Various members of our committee had the opportunity of travelling in Germany in November, and met with the members of the German European Community Committee. It was very interesting because they included in their group not only members from their federal parliament but representatives from their Länder as well. We were very impressed with their enormous work program.
It is very clear that your committee, given the pace of economic integration and political integration in Europe, must have a great deal of work to do. When you see the number of directives and regulations coming out of Brussels, there must be a great deal of work for your committees. It will be interesting for us to see what we can learn, and to what extent any of that is applicable within our own context of NAFTA.
I do commend the Senate on the report they produced on the European Union. It was very helpful for many of us in that respect.
I would like to say to the Irish representatives how grateful we were in Canada for your help in ensuring that the Action Plan was adopted. We had some concerns in that respect, as you will recall. We had a minor disagreement with one of the countries of the European Union over the matter of some fish, which seemed to slow down the process. However, we know that the Irish government and the Irish members were most helpful to us in making sure that that important Action Plan was adopted. I would like to express my gratitude for that.
A personal reason that I am delighted to see you is that while I am part Irish, myself, my wife is fully Irish and a former chairman of the Ireland Fund of Canada. We have a great many personal links with Ireland. It has always been an important part of our family and our relations. Perhaps one of the proudest moments was when my wife acted as the beadle when the President of Ireland, Mary Robinson, received an honorary degree at the University of Toronto. This was a matter of great pride for my wife. It was a matter of great concern for me because I had just been newly elected a member of Parliament. After your president had given her speech, the president of the university turned to me and said, "If she ever comes back here, I will offer her your job." In other words, I would no longer have a job teaching European law, European Community law and trade law at the University of Toronto! Now that I have heard your president, I hope she is hired quickly by the UN before our president tries to bring her back!
Thank you very much for being here. We look forward to having our discussions with you.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Stewart): Perhaps I can begin the discussion by referring back to the Action Plan. It is very big and diverse, that obviously everything cannot be given priority. Insofar as Canada and Ireland are concerned, where do you think the first emphasis should be placed?
Mr. Ferris: In Ireland, we tend to go for what we can achieve in the beginning. The achievable aspects of the plan should be put into place as quickly as possible, and into operation so that people will see that we are quite serious about what we want to do with this plan. In other words, there must be a little bit of ingenuity, understanding and agreement between both sides
I know that the educational people in Ireland are very keen on this plan. I will ask Senator O'Toole to elaborate on that. We have some of the finest universities in the world. Trinity, for instance, is probably the best known
Senator Joe O'Toole: I would like to outline maybe one or two things which I feel should be done. The real issue, and what jumps off the page, to me, about the Action Plan is the reference to people-to-people links. The danger with this kind of a plan is that people spend too much time wondering about how it might be implemented, and how we might achieve the most comprehensive thing possible. I think we should begin with the basics. We must look at what is happening within our two countries, and how difficult it is for you to get to Ireland, or for us to get to Canada.
We are going backwards on this issue. We have a situation where, in GrosseÎle, we are commemorating the emigrants who came directly to Ireland. Most people in Ireland have never heard of Grosse-Île; however, they have all heard of Ellis Island. Why is that? This is where we need to begin.
Every year, something like 60,000 people come from Canada to Ireland on holidays. There is probably something similar in reverse. The reality is that we both have national airlines, and if 2,000 or 3,000 people a week are travelling in both directions, why can we not have a regular service? As politicians, I think we must mount a straightforward, pressure campaign to get that kind of service operational. If it is not operational, and if people then must go to the U.S. in order to travel into Canada, then we are all losing. The same thing applies to Canadians having to come to the U.K. in order to get to Ireland. We are back to reinforcing the fact that we are living in the shadow of Big Brother. Communication begins with easy access; It also deals with many of the issues relating to the diaspora.
I have been here in Canada for the last week. I have met many Canadian people. I have been in a great many places. I had a long discussion with your deputy prime minister earlier on this week about developing, perhaps, an educational exchange. At the time, we were unveiling a monument to immigrants in Hamilton. I would be worried, and I am sure my colleagues would be worried, about the image of Ireland that exists is in Canada. People in Canada celebrate St. Patrick's Day by drinking green beer. Nobody in Ireland would drink green beer!
We do have Irish music and the Irish language, but nowadays Irish culture is as much formed by people such as Seamus Heaney, U2, Van Morrison and Sinéad O'Connor as it is by those great cultural events that occurred in our history. We are failing to get that message across. That is why it is important to us to have the people-to-people links, and I suggest that it begins at education.
Education in Canada is provincial, as you well know, rather than federal, which creates a difficulty in arranging such an exchange. However, I suggest that we press forward towards a situation where education, at its different levels, can be made to work within our different jurisdictions, and where a teacher from Ireland, at whatever level, could move from Ireland to Canada for a school year and do a straight swap in terms of jobs.
There are two ways in which we can do this: We can hand this to bureaucrats, who will spend four years working out how it can work, or both governments can recognize the other's qualifications, and continue to pay the teachers and others who move to the other jurisdiction. In that way, we would not have to worry about pensions, social insurance and promotion prospects. It is a simple arrangement whereby people move from one country to the other for a year. In that way, people will learn more about each other's culture, and learn to respect each other faster than any other way I can think of.
That does happen to a small extent at third-level universities, with the U.S. in particular. However, we need to have more of it with Canadian universities. It should also take place at the elementary school level, junior school level, primary school level and secondary school level. These schemes can be implemented with a minimum of bureaucracy. It is actually just a matter of making decisions.
If the Action Plan is to work, it should be worked out on a practical basis first. Let us see what can be done at each level. There are a whole variety of issues involved, such as a cultural exchange. First of all, let us see what can be done without putting money into it; by simply removing obstacles, and opening up access and communications.
Reference has been made to technology and the need to open links. That can be done through the education system. There is no reason why our two countries cannot be in complete contact with each other at all levels. I suggest that that kind of access could be opened very easily, with the various communication industries cooperating with each other.
I could go on at length. However, I do not intend to go any further than that, except to say that I will certainly be putting forward proposals. I am the general secretary of a teachers' union, and I have had discussions with a number of different groups in Canada over the last week. As politicians, we know that for every solution I put forward, someone will find a problem to match it. That is the difficulty. However, I think these arrangements could easily be made, and I think we should just move them along.
Mr. Ferris: The question of an exchange program in post-graduate studies is a very important aspect which would be very easy to adapt if we identified the university and the actual program. That can easily be put in place.
Senator Kinsella: I wish to preface my remarks by pointing out that in my view, respectfully, I think the better university is the Ollscoil Na heireann University College. I studied at the University College of Dublin from 1957 to 1960.
Senator O'Toole: That means you are a constituent of mine. I hope you are exercising your vote.
Senator Kinsella: My paternal ancestors came out before the potato famine, and, along with Senator Corbin, we represent in the Senate the province of New Brunswick. We are looking forward to welcoming your president to our province in marking the 150th anniversary of the potato famine later on this spring.
What surcharge is made by Irish universities to non-Irish students attending their university?
Senator O'Toole: It is more or less the same in every country in the Western World. They more or less double the fees for non-nationalists, or in our case for non-Europeans. That is the kind of arrangement that governments could arrive at. All it requires is a regulation stating that students from Canada would, in fact, pay the same as students from the European Union. That is easy enough to do.
I was aware of a situation last year. My own daughter was attending college in Belfast, which obviously is in the U.K. Her roommate was a student teacher from Mississauga, outside of Toronto, and they were both paying the same fees. That was happening on the island of Ireland last year. If it can happen in the north part of Ireland, it should also happen in the Republic. It is just a matter of decision-making and implementation.
Senator Kinsella: You also alluded to the issues of equivalency and the recognition of credentials. Am I correct in saying that a few years back, the Irish went through the exercise with their colleagues in the European Community relating to that whole issue of credential recognition?
Senator O'Toole: Yes, but it has not worked out. The way to deal with that, and I have certainly given this a lot of thought, is that the local management of schools should satisfy themselves that the qualification of the teacher proposing to do the exchange, whether it be at elementary, post-primary or third level, is acceptable to the authorities in the educational institution. If we have to go through the process of the mutual recognition of qualifications, it will never be done. As the chairman was saying, we have been trying to do that in terms of the European systems, and we have made some progress on it.
Ireland and Canada both have predominantly one language but bilingual educational systems. We have had an awful struggle to attain recognition in the Republic of Ireland for teachers trained in the North of Ireland, because those trained in the north do not have the qualification to teach the Irish language. You know about this kind of thing, and if we get into that whole area, then the problems will never be resolved. The exchange should simply have the agreement of the management authorities of the educational institutions, and then just carry it out.
Senator Kinsella: One of my areas of interest is the field of human rights. I am always interested to see how Canadian foreign policy is able to rest on one of the pillars, namely that of the promotion and protection of human rights, internationally as well as domestically.
In your experience in going through the process of becoming a member of the European Community, and now with your active participation in that community, and as you observe the new countries seeking admission, to what extent does the question of human rights become an important factor in that policy development process of your government?
Mr. Ferris: It is a minimum and basic requirement to abide by the convention on human rights as it is defined. In Ireland, we do not have a problem. We do have problems with some of the applicant member states, such as Turkey and others who do have a human rights problem but are trying to address it. There is no doubt that it is an area on which we are very strong, internationally. Within the United Nations, we have played a very active role in this particular area. We have seen atrocities on the African continent, all relating back to a lack of respect for people, and discrimination in the area of human rights.
Our president has tried to push out this particular issue to where people will recognize the difficulties involved in human rights. This even applies to foreign policy and the whole concept of land mines. That whole question is a contravention of human rights. We know that you in Canada have taken a very strong stand on that issue. Indeed, we have as well. As a government and as a Parliament, we have adopted a very positive role in this area of eliminating discord from the whole issue of land mines. Within the European Union, as members will confirm, we have member states who still manufacture weapons of destruction, from land mines up to the limit, for vested interests. We continually use our position as a neutral nation. We are involved in the area of peacekeeping like yourselves, and we admire your role. We are very involved in trying to eliminate some of these areas of conflict from international politics.
As I said, we do have a divided island at the moment. David Andrews has been a minister of foreign affairs, and would have a good grasp of the feeling on these issues internationally, as well.
Mr. David Andrews: I was minister for foreign affairs when Somalia was at its worst. I went out to Somalia in September of 1992, and was followed by our president two months later, in November. I think it is fair to say that there appeared to be an unwillingness amongst the member states at that time to face up to the situation in Somalia. As the chairman said, there is an ongoing obscenity within the EU. Countries still manufacture and flood African states with armaments on the one hand, while on the other, countries like ourselves are trying to keep the peace.
When I was minister for defence, subsequent to being minister for foreign affairs, I sent down a couple of battalions on two six-month stints to a place called Baidoa. Our function was to take food from Mogadishu to Baidoa, sometimes covered by the Canadians, sometimes by the Indians, and on other occasions by the French. There is no doubt about it but your input into Somalia at that time was terribly important. Now, I realize there are sensitivities for you presently in that regard, but that is none of my business. I wish you well, and I wish you hope.
We do have a strong role as a small country in relation to peacekeeping. We have been peacekeeping since 1957. We lost some 15 or 16 people in the Belgian Congo, which is now Zaire. We have been in Lebanon for many years. We have been also in Bosnia. In fact, we have been all over the world. I think from any point of view, our input into the United Nations in that regard, more particularly on the peacekeeping front, would bear any close examination, and I think we should be justly proud of it.
I wish to cover briefly one or two areas that may be of interest to you. I also happened to be minister for foreign affairs at the time that the north-south peace talks commenced in late 1992. We were in confabulation with people such as Ian Paisley and Dennis Trimble, Mr. McGinnis and others, of course, with the SDLP, such as Mr. Hume and Mr. Mallin on the one hand, and these other guys on the other, and the talks went on for six months. However, these talks were running into the sand, tragically, and from any point of view the position taken by the unionists was intransigent and tedious, to say the least of it, and really the talks were going nowhere. Therefore it was mutually agreed that we abort the talks for the time being. I see those talks as the embryo of the peace process, which has now been engaged in by the nationalists, the unionists and the Irish government, on the one hand, and the British government on the other.
Tragically, after six or 18 months of peace, the Canary Wharf bomb went off, and the IRA were back on the streets, and back at their terrible business of terrorism. Happily, however, the CLMC, the Combined Loyalists Military Council, have held relatively steady. That, of course, is the unionist outfit controlling the terrorist organizations on that side of the divide.
Tragically, however, the peace talks have presently ground to a halt because of the imminence of the British general election. We would like to think that as soon as there is a new British government in situe, whether it is Blair or Major -- and it looks like it will be Mr. Blair, probably with his present spokeswoman on the North of Ireland, Mo Mowlam, as the new Secretary of State for the North of Ireland, that the efforts presently being made by Mr. Major will be resumed. Let us be fair to Mr. Major; he was very good on the north, and he took a huge risk in relation to the direction in which he was going. As you know, he had behind him a group of shire Tories that would bring disgrace to any democracy, and I say that with respect. That is basically what Mr. Major's problem was.
I met Mr. Major on a number of occasions, and I found him to be a terribly decent man with the right instincts and the right feelings for the North of Ireland, but as I say, his day appears to be coming to an end, and we would like to think that immediately after this general election, the peace process will be wound up again and we will be on the way once more.
That, then, is the position, Mr. Chairman. I do not think there is very much more for me to say, except that we deeply appreciate your contribution to the International Fund for Ireland. That is the fund which helps those communities in the North of Ireland which are divided by terror and divided by religious differences, and we deeply appreciate that.
In conclusion, may I say that as far as Grosse-Île is concerned, we realize that you have now made this particular part of your country a monument to what happened in 1847. We deeply appreciate that, too. We appreciated your help then, and we appreciate it now. Just to make it very clear, the famine lies deeply in the psyche of the people of Ireland, even in 1997; 150 years on. We feel deeply about it, we feel badly about it. Now, we forgive, but we will not forget.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Graham): I will just say very quickly to Senator O'Toole that, in terms of education, if you have the opportunity to travel to Toronto, you will find that at the University of Toronto there is a full program in Irish studies which focuses on Irish literature primarily. It was founded by Professor Robert O'Driscoll some years ago, and is now ably continued. I know that Seamus Heaney and many other prominent Irish people have been to the University of Toronto as a result of that program, and perhaps that is the type of program we should be more active in trying to build on in different parts of Canada as well. It has, indeed, made a real contribution to the richness of the cultural life of Toronto; there is no question about that.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Stewart): I should tell you that senators in Canada are good talkers. However, we have here also some members of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons, and I encourage them to push forward. Do not be reluctant.
Senator Andreychuk: I should thank the members of the House of Commons for not speaking, and thus giving us senators more of a chance.
I want to go back to the education question. I am a member of a subcommittee within the Senate that has been looking at post-secondary education, and at the globalization issue that maintains that we will all need be trained and educated differently. One of the interesting debates that seems to be occurring in Canada is how to market educational services abroad, and when we first started our study, I thought that was something which would find favour with all of us. Now there is a growing debate as to whether that is an appropriate function, and, if it is, how do we go about it? For example, our universities are setting up branches in other countries. We are marketing, selling and advertising education, and how to acquire the ability to get into the field.
If Canadian universities were to approach Ireland to start setting up and trading services there, would you see that as desirable or undesirable? In other words, it is moving more into a trade issue, the marketing of education.
Senator O'Toole: There is one very easy way of approaching that question. I recently had some meetings with the industrial development authority in Ireland, with the idea of putting together an educational institution on the Internet. The developed world could provide an extraordinary service to the developing world in the educational area at very low cost by offering open access through Internet sites. In other words, the open university could actually be offered free to the whole world if there was a will to do it. That is somewhat different to what you were mentioning, but there must be a beginning somewhere. Instead of this sort of trundling people by the busload out to so-called developing countries, and more or less imposing our world on them, there is a way in which we can share our world with them, and also interact with them: This can be done through the Worldwide Web very effectively.
The Action Plan makes particular reference to developing the Information Highway. I actually prefer to say, particularly to academics, that if they would start by dealing with and harnessing the technology to do what they say it can do, before having even one meeting, it would be of benefit. In other words, I start off with the point by saying that if people must travel a hundred thousand miles, cumulatively, in order to have a meeting to decide something which could be done through video-conferencing or through the internet, then we do not need to talk to those people. They are behind their day, and the world has passed them by. I would be absolutely brutal on such people. The technology is there, if you want to share. The reality is that if I move into the Internet site, or website, of most universities, it is quite difficult to get information. I can find bibliographies, list of books, and Ph.D. theses at various levels, but I can find very little original work put there by the heads of departments, or whatever.
I think that is my answer to what you are asking about. I think we could interact very easily in that way. There is no reason why we could not share qualifications, or modules of qualification. I do not understand why someone studying psychology cannot do a module through McGill, or through Dublin, or vice versa in engineering. I think that these kind of things could be done. It just needs the will to do it, and the effort to bring people into the information age. In terms of selling our services, yes, we would want to do that as well, and yes, we would want to have the advantage.
Mr. Ferris: We found that education is the key to employment for young people, if you motivate the curriculum, specially at third level. In Ireland, we found that this has had an effect, and has been of benefit. The unemployment problem that we still have is long-term unemployment, but not among young people, which it certainly was in the beginning. Deputy Browne, who is a teacher, will probably confirm how that change took place, and the advantages it has had for young people in Ireland.
Deputy John Browne: I do think that the exchange of teachers is something that should be cultivated far more, for several reasons. Above all, as a teacher you can speak with some kind of genuine concern. I was telling someone earlier that I spent years telling the children in my senior class of 12 to 14-year-olds that Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba were the greatest wheat-producing areas of Canada -- which I had learnt from geography books. Someone has since told me that Alberta has gone over to a different form of agriculture at this stage, but we are still relying on books that, basically, are out of date.
I have also been telling them about the St. Lawrence being frozen over, and unavailable for shipping in the winter. For the first time in my life last evening, I saw the St. Lawrence as I passed over it. In my opinion, apart from the cultural side of things, it is vital that the teachers should exchange, and that should definitely be encouraged.
Teachers who go to Third World countries, I think, gain an outlook by seeing exactly what they are talking about, and for that reason I would support any scheme that would help. As Senator O'Toole has said, in this case should be a bilateral agreement and it should not go through the red tape.
All of which takes me back to education. When I saw the report "The Dublin Summit: Progress or Procrastination?" written by someone called B. Jeffrey, Ph.D., I presumed that he or she was not a practising politician. If politicians in Canada think that reaching agreement in Europe at a summit is a simple process, then they are slightly in difficulties -- although, in fairness, I have only glanced through this report. It is balanced, overall, but an impression is given that it was simply a question of fobbing off the whole thing.
The question of veto, the question of every country having to have a commissioner -- these are questions that will not be solved very quickly. As long as progress is made, it is very important that the next presidency continues in a positive line and that there is not a stalemate. In fairness, whether Britain opts in or out -- and John Major has been mentioned already -- but if he had had half his team backing him, we might have had a stronger Europe by now. However, he has his difficulties. The fact that there will soon be a British election, and it is mentioned there in a throwaway fashion, is a very important factor as to what is decided in Europe at the moment. The result of the next British election might be a major factor.
Therefore, in my opinion, education is important. I also think it is important that academics are not altogether allowed to control the carriage of the initiative, because sometimes it is very easy to look at something objectively, and yet not have the remotest idea of what the practicalities of it are.
Mr. Jesse Flis: We have so many foreign affairs experts here, that I want to move us into the European Union expansion with Central and Eastern Europeans countries, as well as Cyprus and Malta, making application to join the European Union. At the same time, we have been lobbied a lot here about NATO enlargement, and I know your country is not a member of NATO, but you are a member of the European Union. Will NATO enlargement hamper the European Union expansion? Will such expansions need to go in tandem, in your opinion, or could many of these countries join the European Union without belonging to NATO, and vice-versa? Another aspect is, what role is Turkey playing in perhaps blocking NATO expansion because some countries are objecting to Turkey's entry into the European Union?
Mr. Ferris: We are a neutral member of the European Union, and our neutrality is perhaps not understood, but certainly it is appreciated and respected. We are not members of NATO; we are not members of the WEU, although we are observers there. We are debating the concept of partnership for peace. We are just debating, it because no decision has been made, and it was mentioned in our white paper on foreign policy which was recently published.
Membership of NATO is not necessary to be considered for membership of the European Union. We have had several neutral nations joining recently, some a member of NATO and some not, so it is not obligatory. The East Bloc countries have certainly stated a preference for being a member of NATO even before they are members of the union. You mentioned that Turkey is obstructing, or is having reservations. We found definitively that it was the Russians who have a real problem with the East Bloc countries joining NATO. They have expressed that to us in committee, although they are now beginning to retract slightly and say that they will not obstruct.
We presumed that, by this time, these countries had all achieved their own independence, and if they want to join NATO, that should be their right, if they meet the requirements of joining. We do not have a problem with this. In principle, we accept that the community, if it is to mean anything, will need to enlarge. We would welcome that. I might also say that we have accepted the application of Cyprus Malta, although Malta has changed its mind, as you know.
In COSAC, which is the Conference of European Affairs Committees of the Parliament of the European Union and the European Parliaments, which we have chaired during our presidency, we accepted the principle that applicant member states could be observers at COSAC before the negotiations began, because the more people are involved in what is happening, the more they will understand the principle and the procedure.
Mr. Flis: I just have a question of clarification on Malta. Malta changed its mind since the October elections, because the successful party campaigned on not joining, or opting out?
Mr. Ferris: Yes. We have to accept their democratic decision. There is no obligation on anybody to join the union. The previous government had formally applied, and we accepted it as being a legitimate application. The whole question of structural changes we can discuss with you, too.
Mr. Speller: I want to say that it is a pleasure for me to meet with your delegation here today. I think you are right. It gives us an opportunity to exchange ideas, and until now, I have not had the opportunity to meet with parliamentarians from your country.
I want to get off-topic a little here, but my new topic is obviously close to your hearts, since you are an agricultural country. In fact, I think your prime minister is a farmer, or lives in a farming community. I am from a rural area, and I am interested in your comments on a couple of points. After getting into the European Union, I want to ask you what effect signing the Maastricht treaty had in terms of the things you had to do in order to become involved in the trade side of things. In terms of our North American Free Trade Agreement, we have had some difficulties in making sure that our agriculture is protected from the Americans and the Mexicans. I am wondering if you can share some of your experiences in that area.
Second, with the next round on the World Trade Organization coming some time within the next few years, there seems to be a great deal of talk about state trading organizations. We have a number of them here that we consider very important. I am wondering what your experience has been there. There has been some talk of trying to get rid of such state trading organizations in the next round. What would your position be on that?
Mr. Ferris: That is a very sensitive subject when you speak about agriculture to Irish members of parliament, because it is very important. Quite a lot of our economic trading is from agriculture, most of which we export, in any case. However, we have lived within a common agricultural policy designed in the European Union with an Irish commissioner in the commission, Mr. MacSherry, who was part of the restructuring of the common agricultural policy in order to bring it into line for the world's GATT negotiations. There were a lot of objections and protestations at the time.
However, in hindsight, if these changes had not taken place, agriculture in Ireland would have been in a very impoverished position as of now. We do have problems with trying to live within quotas, whether it is quotas for milk production, or quotas for beef, etcetera, but we can produce food probably better and cheaper than any other country because we have a tremendous climate. Most of our beef is grass-produced, which makes us extremely concerned about the outbreak of BSE, which is usually associated with intensive feeding. Unfortunately, because of a restriction that was in place, a view was expressed that if you produce meat and bonemeal, for instance, as part of the diet for animals, you would not have an outbreak if it was prepared properly. Unfortunately, that did not happen at the time, and we are now realizing some of the difficulties arising from that situation. However, we have only a minimal concept of BSE in Ireland, and we are trading into Third World countries. We honestly believe that we have come up with a new test that can actually ensure that the carcass will be guaranteed to be free of BSE.
Returning to your comment: you are quite right; agriculture is important to us. More changes are coming, and we must adapt to them. Some of the changes will be brought about by price, the demand for the product, and that will influence whether or not quotas will be eliminated, whether prices will floor out, which will be of benefit to the consumer. Irish farmers will have to adjust to those changes, as will everybody else, and they are much better at doing so than the farmers in most of the European member countries.
Senator O'Toole: There is a view in Europe at the moment that farm prices will need to move towards those of the world market. In Ireland at that moment, we are trading with the Third World. It is a false and artificial trade and it will not continue. The European taxpayer is paying for it. We have a situation in Ireland where beef being exported to Third World countries on the basis of its export subsidy. The price of beef in Ireland at the moment is running, roughly, at about 90 pence to the pound; but it does not matter what it is, except to say that it is about 50 per cent higher than the world price.
The same applies to milk. There is no doubt whatever about it: the movement in Europe, as in North America, will be towards a global levelling out of prices, which will bring back the element of productivity and competition into agriculture. The situation has occurred in many Western European countries -- and I may be in the minority in my delegation in saying this -- where it is no longer in a farmer's interest to be productive. The quota has effectively stopped them from developing in the way that they might. There are some fine industries in Ireland at the moment in the meat area who are working, outside of quotas, buying materials and processing it with add-on value and selling it to the world, apart from export quotas. However, there is no doubt about it that within seven years, the price of milk and the price of beef in Europe will be at the world market level. That is the way in which it is moving.
It all started with Commissioner MacSherry six or seven years ago. The beef price took a huge hit last year with the BSE crisis. Last year was probably the worst year for beef farmers, ever. They will need to be supported. What is happening is that the subsidies at the European level are pushing up the price to a point where they are having to borrow to buy, and then sell in order to pay the bank. It is totally artificial at the moment, and I cannot see it developing. I suspect I may well be in a minority of my delegations on this.
Mr. Noel Davern: One of the problems, and it is a problem, that we have coming into play with the European Union, that small farms in particular will not be viable. That will create a huge cultural shock. It is something that will upset all the -- indeed right throughout Europe -- of the rural-based societies of the countries of the European Union, because it has been said that these rural communities are the backbone of the culture that is being passed on and preserved, of language, of everything.
We have a system called "a cheque in the post" whereby the European Community actually, directly, subsidize farmers for a living, because we know it is essential to keep that balance there. It is four times cheaper to subsidize a farmer on the land than it is to put him into a city. Not only that, but you keep all the other benefits which we can imagine coming from a rural area. Thus there will be major problems coming forth in that respect.
The next round of GATT will be extremely difficult. Milk will be at free market prices, as Senator O'Toole has said, and so will beef. That will create a huge shock wave right throughout. Unfortunately, that means that what we have striven to create since our freedom from Britain will be exactly reversed. There will be bigger farms, with less people living on the land, and therefore whole rural communities will disappear. As you have seen in parts of Canada, and particularly in mid-western America, the huge effect of such changes have been felt there, where towns have simply disappeared.
Thus I say that there is a major cultural shock coming in that respect, and I do not think it is really appreciated yet the effects that that will have. However, many of us, with the exception of Senator O'Toole, will be fighting very hard to ensure that smaller farming communities are maintained.
Mr. Speller: There is no comparison between the American farmer and the Canadian farmer. We looked after our farmers much better than they have.
Mr. Davern: One of the things that happens, for instance, in the European Community is that land is allowed to lie fallow for three or four years. I think morally that is totally wrong. It cannot be justified to do that. Even if crops were to be produced organically, or without fertilizer, would be fine, but to leave land like that lying fallow is totally bankrupt of morality. There is something wrong there.
Senator Calnan: First of all, I would like to say that if there had been anyone from the Canadian committee in my county, County Cork, in the South of Ireland, in Castletownbere, when the difficulties arose off the East Coast of Canada, that person would have been made King or Queen of Ireland -- and of Castletownbere -- that evening, because there were more Canadian flags flying there than were flying in Canada altogether. They were flying off boats, off houses and off public buildings in Castletownbere. It looked more like Canada than Ireland, and that was the kind of support that the Irish fishermen were giving to the Canadian government for the stands they were taking, despite the fact that the offending parties were members of the European Union.
We badly need international agreements on conservation, particularly in relation to fish stocks, because a lot of fish stocks are at dangerously low levels. In Ireland at the moment, quite a number of foreign vessels are coming into our waters, and we had a tragic loss of life there very recently where a young captain of one of our boats died following an accident. The police are examining the facts and circumstances to determine whether it is a legitimate accident on a clear sunny day, or whether it was part of this awful pattern that is going on right now, with larger ships ramming small ships and driving across their nets.
We do need international agreements to enforce such things and to have conservation, because if we do not, fish stocks will be depleted along our coasts. In places like Ireland where many people live in the peripheral, coastal areas, where the coastal communities depend on fishing for a living, and these peripheral and coastal areas, and island areas off our coasts, need fishing, with plenty of fish, and they need conservation. This is something that we must press for, and press for very strongly.
We must also have an intensive understanding of the fishing communities. Some people have developed a way of life over the years, and if commercial vessels are coming in and blowing them apart, it is not right. We do need preservation of our stocks, and we do need proper patrolling. Those are the few comments I want to make.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Stewart): Just for the sake of our record, I will not ask you nationality of the larger ship. Suffice it to say that it was not an Irish ship.
Mr. Andrews: It begins with an "S", but we cannot tell you.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Stewart): Let me ask you about the nature of the fishing operation in the part of Ireland from which you come. We distinguish in Canada between the so-called inshore fishery, the mid-water fishery, and the far or distant-water fishery. Do you have much of inshore fishery along that coast?
Senator Calnan: In County Cork at any rate, we have quite a lot of fish farming, and mariculture. There is fishing along the coast, shell-fishing, and there is also the deep-sea fishing. All forms of fish are caught off the coast whether you are talking about inshore or the deep-water fishing.
Senator O'Toole: What, in fact, has happen is that during its development, the Irish fishing fleet was restricted to smaller trawlers, up to about 60 feet in length, until about 15 to 20 years ago. I grew up in the fishing village of Dingle, and even at that time, the stories were that they used to fish as far away as Newfoundland. That is what they used to say in the older days. However, they have stopped doing that.
What has happened in the last five years in Ireland, is that the non-quota fish fishing has really developed, except that it needs a larger boat. We are trying to develop our fishing industry at the moment in order to compete, particularly in the mid Atlantic, for fish such as blue mackerel and those other kinds of fish that, as we grew up, nobody had even heard of them. They are new names, new kinds of fish that we never heard of before. A huge industry is developing in those kinds of fish at the moment, and that is just beginning to be tapped into by Ireland.
However, there is difficulty with the "unmentionable" boats that we talked about earlier, coming inside and simply trawling the sea bottom, and effectively almost completely depleting stocks, where environmentalism just cannot work at all. Not only that, but it is driving out our fishermen who are interested in the long term in their industry. They are looking at their fishing stocks and their livelihoods and future being destroyed by these people coming in.
The inshore fishing has always been fine, if you are talking about inshore as in, say, ten miles from the shore. However, what is now developing is the non-quota fish; the fish that are being caught in large numbers at very great depths, depths at which we did not fish before. Obviously, Canada is doing the same thing. That is now where the development is taking place. The boats that are doing that are large boats, and they are being successful.
Mr. Ferris: The difficulty lies with trying to equip the Irish fishermen with boats that are big enough to go farther and farther. Also, we have to have the navy patrol our fishing grounds. Our navy has to be on the alert all the time around the island, to make sure that people who are supposed to be members of the union, with acceptance and understanding of where they should and should not fish, still breaking that boundary and coming in closer to us. Thus it is always a difficulty for us, as an island nation.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Stewart): How helpful is the European Union in enforcing proper fishing standards?
Mr. Ferris: They are helpful.
Mr. Andrews: I have been involved in negotiations from time to time. You see, what is good for the farmers within the context of CAP, the common agricultural policy, CFA is not good for the Irish fishermen -- that is the common fisheries policy. The reality is that within the Irish fishery, we have quite huge fishing grounds, and tragically, in those circumstances, we have an obligation to allow the other 14 members states into our fishing grounds. As I say, we have about 16 per cent of the EU fisheries within our purview, which, from the point of view of a common fisheries policy, does us no good whatever.
We also have a number of other indigenous problems. We have problems with the age of our fleet. About 80 per cent of our fleet is over 30 years old, and about 4 per cent of our fleet is between the ages of five and ten years. These are some of the problems. However, we also have problems with, as I say, "unmentionable" nations fishing, using such devices as secret holds, on the one hand, oversized meshes, on the other hand, and taking too many fish outside their quotas and leaving the fishing grounds.
We have a problem, too, with the attitude of some of the member states to our fisheries. We are trying to overcome that, as my confrères have said, by adding to our navy. We have an excellent navy, but again, unfortunately, it is under-equipped. We understand that the present minister for fisheries, Government Minister Barrett, my colleague -- and indeed friend, if I may say so -- is doing his best to equip the navy with a couple of additional ships in order to deal with the protection of our fisheries grounds. We are seeking a number of additional helicopters for our air corps, which is an excellent air corps; first class, but again, under-equipped.
Therefore we do look to Europe to supply us with the wherewithal and the requirements to add decent boats to our fishing fleet, to give us extra vessels for our navy and a number of extra helicopters for our air corps. When we get that, I think we will be set fair to protect the fishing in the interests of conservation, and indeed in the general interests of the EU.
On balance, I would say, the EU has not been great for us. Our colleagues have not been supportive of us. That would be my experience as a minister of the marine and minister of fisheries over 2-1/2 years. It is very difficult for them to perceive that there is an essential element in all international fishing, and that is conservation. That is terribly important. However, we could not get that message across, as I say, to the "unmentionable" nations. Not unmentionable nations -- that would be quite wrong -- but nations that cannot be mentioned.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Stewart): This is a problem with which we are wrestling. We know that, even with our own fishing fleets, there are problems. However, when we move beyond that, out into the waters where fleets from other places -- not all from Europe -- are active, out on particularly the Nose and Tail of the Bank, it is extremely difficult to assure that proper conservation is the goal.
Mr. Andrews: I just have a very quick comment to make here. When you were in trouble with the country under question, or under the microscope -- I was not minister at the time; I think Minister Barrett or Minister Coveny was there, as Minister for Fisheries, and we had to be sort of communitaire. We were within the club, and we could not sort of point out to the rest of them that the Canadians were right, and our colleagues were wrong. However, as has been pointed out in the excellent intervention from my senator colleague, the Canadian flag flew on every rustbucket, decent boat and great boat, in the Irish fishing fleet. That was the way we responded to the way the EU treat us, and continue to treat us. Therefore we understood your problem; we appreciated your problem, but unfortunately we could not declare for you in the public domain because of the necessity of maintaining the clubability of the community, and this whole nonsense, in my opinion, this whole communitaire thing.
Mr. Ferris: The people responded instead of the government.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Stewart): We understand. This may well be a topic on which we ought to keep lines of communication open, because it would be a disaster, not only for the people of that part of Canada, but for the people of Europe if those fish stocks, which for centuries have been fundamental to the livelihood of communities, and indeed countries, should be wiped out. I think in some cases there is a real danger of that. I am told the northern cod just is not reviving in the way that people had hoped. That, then, is an example.
I believe the members of the House of Commons have had to withdraw because of their vote.
Senator Grafstein: First of all, I would like to add my words of thanks to our Irish colleagues. When we went on our search for friends in the EU, we were frustrated to find that our traditional allies, France and the U.K., were not standing by our side. However, we were delighted to discover that you in Ireland, and fishermen in Germany, turned out to be Canada's greatest allies in trying to make a meaningful, constructive engagement with the EU. I just want to add my words of thanks to you for that. We have noted it in our reports. We are now saying it outright to our English and French colleagues, and I do it with a great deal of delight. Because they talk a good game, but they rarely put their money --
The Joint Chairman (Senator Stewart): Now, you are speaking, of course, for yourself, senator.
Senator Grafstein: For myself; always for myself. Having said all that, I am cautioned by my chairman to be a little bit more diplomatic.
Two issues are of interest to us: One which we are confronting, and it has been mentioned by our colleague from the other place, Jesse Flis. As a neutral country -- and Ireland is such a neutral country -- and concerned, obviously, with stability in Europe. What do you make, really, of Russia's unhappiness and objections to NATO enlargement? That is question number one.
Question number two, if I might, Mr. Chairman: Yesterday, we were advised by the press that the Germans seem to be having second thoughts in relation to the tracking towards the euro. In a press statement it is reporter that, in a meeting of European Union finance ministers that took place yesterday in Brussels, the Finance Minister of Germany said, for the first time, that Germany might fail to achieve the government's forecast of the accepted growth -- I think it is 2.5 per cent-- and that that was vital to Bonn's chances of meeting the low deficit requirement for the single currency. He went on to say that this was Germany's first request for leniency in judging Germany's debt, which stands slightly above the single currency ceiling. Immediately after that statement, apparently the currencies of Italy and Spain, the lira and the peseta, took a dive.
I wonder what the Irish position is with respect to the speed of achieving the euro? Is it on track? I know that Ireland meets the criteria, more so than the others, but what is the current thinking about when that might happen, if at all, and second, what happens in the event that the Eurosceptics in the U.K. choose not to join, in the first instance? Where does that really leave Ireland, because of its close ties in terms of trade, and the tie between the Irish currency and the U.K. currency? Where do you see the consequences if the U.K. does not join up?
Mr. Ferris: I will deal with the question of the attitude of the Russians towards the East Bloc countries joining NATO. The reason I made my comments about this was that when the representatives of the Dumas came to visit Ireland last year, they were emphatic that they had reservations, not about the actual joining of NATO by these applicant member nations, but that they themselves did not want to be isolated. I think it is essential for the natural evolution and enlargement of the European Union that NATO and the EU must enter into good relations with Russia. After all, Russia is a member of the Council of Europe now. They are within the same concept as the European nations, and it is important that they are not isolated as such.
They do have a historical problem with the Warsaw Pact countries joining, now that that pact, of course, has gone along with the Cold War and the Berlin wall, et cetera. That is their view, and I am expressing it as we heard it from them. Since that time, what they have said is that, although they still have their reservations, they will not impede the proper negotiation, and of course it is a matter for NATO itself to negotiate with the applicant member states. If they achieve the requirements of membership in NATO, then it will happen, irrespective of the Russian view. However, it is important, I think -- and this would be the Irish position -- that we not isolate Russia, because they are an important trading block, and are undergoing an important evolution into democracy as well.
The second question is in connection with the euro. The Maastricht treaty has set the date. We, at the moment, have achieved the requirements within the guidelines laid down, but as was said this morning, there is no point in being in the euro on our own, so we are looking to as many member nations as possible to be part of the fourth tranche.
We are disappointed at the United Kingdom's attitude. We are not sure if, in fact, a change of government may affect this, or whether their economy, which appears to be on the turn, might just achieve the standard requirements, if the political will was there to do it. The political will is there in Germany, but the financial circumstances have changed. They do have a deterioration.
We are confident, in the discussions that have gone on between our Minister of Finance and his contemporaries in Europe, that Germany still wants to achieve the euro. Of course, it is a matter for the German people to finalize. However, the date has been set, and if there is a derogation on the date, I think then the whole principle of a common currency, the euro, as it has been agreed on, would be gone forever.
In my opinion, you must work towards targets, and try to achieve those targets. We know what you yourselves have tried to do in achieving monetary reform, if you wish to call it that. You have had your difficulties, and attacking it has been painful for your people, and yet you still must do it. We have all had to go through that. We, in Ireland, had to go through it, and with a minority government at one stage, because the main opposition decided that, in the interests of the country, actions being taken by a minority government were the right actions in the whole area of changing where the country was going, financially.
At the moment we are doing extremely well, thank God, and we keep our fingers crossed every day. We are an exception. We are an exception even to Belgium, and to all the other Europeans who were there ahead of us. We would like to think that we are where we are because of, perhaps, political acumen, rather than just good luck. I do not know the answer to that. All I know is that we are doing well, and we do not want to look over our shoulder. We would like to bring everybody with us, in particular the United Kingdom. However, some analysis have been done on this, and they are not joining at the same time as ourselves. There are figures which illustrate that, if the United Kingdom joined with us, the benefits arising from the instigation of the euro, the common currency, would increase the number of jobs in Ireland by about 40,000. If they do not join, that figure for improvement in the labour market in Ireland could drop down to as low as 10,000. Those surveys and statistical analyses were carried out by economists and various other professional people who applied their expertise on how and what would happen, and where.
Senator Grafstein: Just on the Irish side, is that the collective job?
Mr. Ferris: Yes.
Senator Grafstein: What are the consequences for the U.K. on joining?
Mr. Ferris: I think the consequences are political, more than anything else. The lack of debate with the public on these issues has created difficulties in the United Kingdom. The common currency has always been the subject of political debate between the two sides, the government and the aspiring government. I think a change of government, or a new government with a working majority, would probably start taking decisions that, at the moment, they are unable to take, and it should happen as soon after the elections as possible, whoever is elected.
Senator Corbin: I would like to broach the question of youth unemployment. It is a phenomenon common to some continental European countries as well. France, for example, has quite a large force of qualified youth who are unemployed in the hundreds of thousands. How do you perceive your problems compared to other European Union members? Is this something that will take quite some time to phase itself out? What are the structural problems? What are the current tendencies in terms of percentages and numbers, and in your opinion, what will the ultimate solution be?
Mr. Ferris: As we have said in a number of our meetings today already, we found that educating our young people in a particular way was of benefit to us. It did not address the question of long-term unemployed, but it did address the problem of young people being suitably qualified and educated to take advantage of the economic boom that is happening. That is happening, of course, because we are a doorway into Europe for many American and Canadian companies who use our tax base and our incentives to set up. As a result, we do have a well-educated young work force who are able to take advantage of these needs, especially in the area of technology, and many other areas. Senator O'Toole might like to comment on this, because he is an educator by profession, as well as being a legislator.
Senator O'Toole: First of all, what we have been attempting to deal with in Ireland -- and it is the same problem that you have experienced in Canada -- is the kind of jobs that people take up. There has been a huge shift of jobs from Europe to the Middle East, and to the Far East, and effectively those are jobs that would be described in most western societies as menial types of jobs or tasks. They are the kinds of jobs that are only really acceptable to people who are without any qualification. However, there was a time when those jobs were available for people within our own society who were not fully educated, or fully trained, or adaptable as such. With the export of those jobs to the Far East, in particular, our unemployment rate, like yours, just went up. We were then forced to face a situation all over Europe wherein we saw the clear link between education, qualification and employment, and also training and retraining.
We have been working on that premise, and what has happened on the Irish scene is that we have managed to create huge numbers of jobs over the last ten years, in particular, and yet our unemployment rate is now running at over 12 per cent, which is much higher than your own at just over nine, I understand. One of the reason is that there is a population bulge making its way through our system, and the numbers of people entering the labour market since 1980 have been the highest ever in our history. Therefore, even the creation of large numbers of jobs was simply keeping pace -- and that just barely -- with the numbers of young people entering the labour market.
The last time we did a survey of unemployed people was in 1994, and at that stage 50 per cent of the long-term unemployed claimants had no qualifications beyond a fundamental or basic education level. That is a problem which I think both of our societies have experienced. There is a view that, at the time we did that survey, our unemployment rate was running at 18 per cent, and was one of the highest in Europe. Our rate is now down very close to single-digit figures, and that, I suppose, will be our next goal.
However, in the meantime, what has happened is that the jobs have all gone either to young people just entering the labour market, to women returning to the labour market from domestic responsibilities, and also to returned immigrants, those who emigrated earlier for the country, gained some job experience abroad and then came back. Thus only one in four, or five, were in fact coming off the unemployment register, at the same time as the number of those entering the labour market was increasing.
It has been a very difficult ten years, and we will see the value of what we have done during this time only over the next couple of years. We have managed to put huge amounts of money, in Irish terms, into training and retraining -- into that area, and trying to promote that sense amongst people of recognizing what they need, and how flexible they need to be.
On the other hand, if we were to come back here in three years' time, when unemployment has gone below ten per cent, I would have to tell you at that time that I would not know how we could get it below that point, because if the people in the system who are 30, 35 and 40 years of age have no qualifications beyond primary level, as a trade union leader, it would be impossible for me to use the phrase "these people might be unemployable," but that, in fact, just might be the reality. I do not know the solution to that situation.
Mr. Ferris: We were quite surprised today to learn that, in Canada, youth unemployment is a problem. We have addressed that situation through the educational process. In the last year, we have created a thousand new jobs every week, but we still have that kernel of long-term unemployed.
We are using European funding for retraining, for social programs, and for environmental programs. We are also using that funding as a means of removing from the unemployment register some of those people who are signing that they are looking for work. In effect, we are asking them to do community work, and with some of that funding, retraining them in environmental works, such as building stone walls and other things from which the community benefits, and they get a new sense of being involved in work again.
There is one particular program, called a part-time job opportunity program, which was designed to pay people the rate for the job but restrict the number of hours that they work in order to qualify for that amount of money. In a pilot survey, we found that up to 40 per cent of the people who took advantage of that program actually obtained full-time employment because of the expertise that they gained therein, as well as the attitude of going back to work again, instead of sitting at home, complaining about everything, and not getting out and meeting their colleagues. The European Union has been of tremendous assistance in funding these kind of retraining and educational programs.
Those retraining funds are also used to retrain people with mental and physical handicaps, in workshops. These are admittedly sheltered workshops, but at the same time, such programs keep them from feeling useless in society, and aids them in doing something of benefit.
Senator Stollery: First of all, I would just like to say, as one of the members of the committee who visited Dublin, what a refreshing visit that was. It was really very interesting. Your committee was very gracious to us. In fact, I must tell you that I found our entire European Community tour extremely enlightening.
The European Community is facing many issues, both now and in the future. My questions are addressed to you as the former president -- and the Irish presidency has just ended. It seems to me that the community has many characteristics, and one of them is that it is a very "weighted" community. By that, I mean that there is the weight of what I might call the Mediterranean, or southern countries; the weight in the European Monetary Union of Germany, France and the Benelux countries. Then there is the weight of smaller countries such as Ireland -- which is a bit unusual, in fact, because it is on the periphery.
We have been discussing questions and issues relating to the fishery and the agricultural policy, and in this respect it is my view that these weights, particularly between the Northern European countries and the Mediterranean countries -- Italy, Spain, and to some extent Portugal -- is misunderstood by a great many people. That is important, particularly in the minds of the Germans, because until now, they have been paying so many of the bills -- or so they think.
What will it do, do you think, to your Common Agricultural Policy, and to the sense of community that you have now when Poland and Czechoslovakia become part of the European Union? As an outsider, I would think that that would have some effect on your agricultural policy. For example, when the massive imports of Polish agricultural production hit your market -- and I would have thought that would be one of the reasons why Poland would want to joint the European Community -- what effect will this have on the Irish? Already, in France, for example, 13 or 14 per cent of the countryside has been abandoned, according to Mr. Delors.
All of the western countries face these same pressures: the community must expand; the people leave the agricultural communities, and there is a general abandonment of the countryside, with all of the implications thereof.What do you think will happen, given your experience in having just hosted the presidency, and thus having been intimately involved with these negotiations? I use Poland as an example because Poland is a country I have visited once or twice, and I know about the huge agricultural production of Poland. What do you think this move will do to the community?
Mr. Ferris: First of all, the European Union, as it is presently constituted -- even the expanded one -- works, effectively. Obviously, there are areas of compromise, and countries aspiring to membership must make adjustments in order to become members. We had to make a lot of adjustments; most of them, in balance, have been good for us. In fact, they have been good for us in a great many ways. I know that we are net beneficiaries in this particular area.
However, we have had discussions with the Poles and the Hungarians, and they have assured us that the reason they are joining the European Union is not because of agriculture. As a matter of fact that part, for them, is not the most important part. What is more important to them, in my opinion, is being part of a trading block, and also being part of NATO, on the side.
We realize that expanding will hold some difficulties for the existing members, but if we believe at all in the principle of enlargement -- which we have accepted as a nation, as a parliament and as a committee -- then some adjustments will need to be made, and a price must be paid in order for these people to be with us. The price that was paid in the beginning by the founding fathers was the possibility of creating an economic area that would lead to peace, and by and large that has been successful, by the very fact of trading with one another. The Yugoslavian situation was an exception, and while they were not members, they were close enough to us geographically for us to realize that we must make adjustments as well in areas such as those, and be able to take action.
Membership brings with it the need for compromise, and the Irish are very good at achieving consensus and agreement -- and this is probably our forte; this was our forte during our presidency. At the beginning of our six months' presidency, there were so many disagreements in so many areas. We knew this ourselves from the COSAC group of meetings. There were so many things that needed to be done. There were demands for extraordinary things to be done -- by the French, in particular -- which were impossible to achieve, but by negotiating, we achieved a consensus at the end of our presidency which will restructure the whole of the COSAC group of committees, and give us the power to make decisions, without having the mandate of parliaments, but more in the interests of what bringing people together is about.
It is difficult, I suppose, to explain it in terms of a black-and-white situation, but we can say from our experience that the union works; it will be successful by virtue of being able to compromise. However, we must not compromise some of the existing principles in the Treaty of Rome, for which we fought so hard, and to which we have aspired. We cannot throw it all out just to accommodate the entry of others. Therefore, the assimilation will take a number of years.
Some people are putting dates on the entry of various countries, and when we met the applicant states, the burning question from most of them, such as Lithuania and the others was: When will it be? Will it be two years? Will it be the end of the millennium? Will it be 2010? In my opinion, it will take many years; less for some, but certainly it will take seven, eight, or nine years for the final entry of most of these applicant countries.
By that time, many changes will have taken place; changes that have been outlined for us by Deputy Davern, particularly in the area of causes, changing prices, production, natural production, and sustaining people in the countryside, because areas cannot be depopulated without incurring some economic costs in so doing. You must sustain people on the land, if you can. They will produce when they are on the land, and that generates materials into the economy. Even the production of food which is not subsidized, the changing farming practices, and such things as organic farming.
The Irish are very good at adapting to change. We have adapted to changes with respect to the Common Agricultural Policy, embracing such things as changes to the whole concept of milk production. If you saw the kind of level of milk assembly that we have Ireland now, and the facilities that we have, we could take on the whole of Europe's production of milk without it costing any more money, because of the infrastructure that is there.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Stewart): Our guests have been very generous, and we went to Dublin and asked them a lot of questions. Now they are here in Ottawa, and we are asking them a lot of questions!
I noticed three specific things: The whole question of air links; the education matter; and then the need for cooperation on fish conservation. Those seem to be the three things on which there is need for immediate cooperation. I assume that you are still interested in the whole problem of control of the drug trade?
Mr. Ferris: Of course. That is the third pillar, which we have not addressed at all. You know our position on it, and we know yours, and we appreciate it. We are trying to move that third pillar on during this review of the treaty, and perhaps some of it will relate to the first pillar -- we are not quite sure what the final decision is -- but little progress has been made on that third pillar by home affairs ministers and justice ministers because of the differences between all the member states. However, we have a very strong position on that pillar, and Ireland managed to get included in one of the declarations for the new treaty, that we must approach these drug trafficking and terrorist problems, because they are undermining all of us, unless we approach them.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Stewart): We will add that to the list of topics on which we will put the priority stamp. These are the ones that emerge.
Mr. Andrews: Mr. Chairman, I think this whole question of humanitarian cooperation and aid at the United Nations, is a very important one. In other words, we have a common position with yourselves within the structures which are common to us, namely the United Nations.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Stewart): Our Foreign Affairs Committee is looking at our relations with Asia Pacific, and the whole question of human rights comes up again and again. I cannot speak for our committee on this matter, because I know that we have not yet formulated a corporate view. When you talk about humanitarian cooperation, is it this area of human rights as it relates to trade that you are talking about, or is it something else?
Mr. Andrews: I would imagine it is humanitarian cooperation in a very general way. What are human rights? Surely it is the right of people to exist in a peaceful and decent manner in their own countries, to the greater advantage of everybody else, and all other countries. Look what is happening in Central Africa at the moment, and at the way in which the international community has stood back from that. By yourselves, in that area, Canada was prepared to go ahead; and Ireland was prepared to go ahead. These are areas of human rights which are common to us. That is what I am talking about: international aid, international refugees -- the spectrum is so broad. I would not confine it to trade.
Mr. Ferris: I agree with you.
Mr. Andrews: I personally find trade and economics to be tedious subjects, because I know very little about them, and I say that with humility and disrespect. On the other hand, I do find humanitarian aspects to be terribly important. If we spoke about those more often, as Senator O'Toole says, on a people-to-people basis, I think we would be a better world for that.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Stewart): That is helpful. Honourable senators, we are most grateful to our guests. They have been our guests, and we have taken advantage of their presence. We thank you very much for coming, and please let us keep the lines of communication thoroughly open.
Mr. Ferris: Before we go, I want to thank you for receiving us, and as a token of our esteem for your hospitality to us, I want to make to you a small presentation of a little piece of Tipperary crystal, which is handmade. I hope you enjoy it.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Stewart): Thank you very much. We will adjourn the meeting.
The meeting was adjourned.