Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs

Issue 9 - Evidence

The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs met this day at 6:00 p.m. to examine the Performance Report of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade for the period ending March 31, 1999, tabled in the Senate on November 2, 1999.

Senator Peter A. Stollery (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Honourable senators, for the information of our guests, the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs has decided to examine the Estimates of the Department of Foreign Affairs in order to learn more about the department. Technically, we are looking at the Performance Report of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I am told that Transport Canada will be responding to our NATO report soon.

I suppose that some of our queries will be answered in the written response to our report, which is being prepared by the department.

Ms McCallion, would you introduce your colleagues, please.

Ms Kathryn E. McCallion, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Passport and Consular Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade: Mr. Chairman, I am accompanied today by a number of officials from the department who will be addressing their own areas of expertise. When were asked to appear before you, you sent us four areas of concern.

Paul Meyer is Director General for the International Security Bureau. He will discuss NATO and developments with respect to Europe's common security and defence policy. Jill Sinclair, Director General for the Global and Human Issues Bureau, will discuss the department's human security agenda. Bill Crosbie, Acting Director General for Trade and Policy--Services, Investment and Intellectual Property Bureau, will report on the WTO's progress on multilateral trade liberalization. David Karsgaard, Director of Economic Relations with the Developing Countries Division, will discuss the department's role in international development assistance.

The Chairman: The four topics of which you spoke are NATO and European security and defence identity, the department's human security agenda, the World Trade Organization and trade liberalization, and the department and international development assistance.

This is not a cross-examination. We should like to know more about these issues. We examined them thoroughly in our NATO report, but we crossed into many areas when we drafted that report, as we did with our European report.

Please proceed with your opening statement.

Ms McCallion: Mr. Chairman, I will speak mainly to what a performance report is, and then my colleagues will address the individual issues that you indicated you wish to discuss.

On behalf of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, I am pleased to appear before you to discuss the 1998-99 departmental performance report for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I understand this is the first time officials from the department have appeared before this committee to discuss our performance report, and we welcome your comments and your feedback.

I would like to start by providing you with a brief overview of performance reports. As you may be aware, in October of 1999, the President of the Treasury Board tabled the 1998-99 performance reports on behalf of approximately 80 departments and agencies. The reports identify the results achieved by a department in comparison to the commitments established in the department's Report on Plans and Priorities, and financial performance information is included in the report. Performance reports are an important element in the government's Improved Reporting to Parliament Project, which was approved by Parliament in 1997.

I would like to highlight a few of the department's accomplishments in 1998-99. This is not an exhaustive listing but merely the highlights.

In 1998-99, we campaigned successfully for a seat on the United Nations Security Council. We were successful in creating an international criminal court to enforce international humanitarian law. I understand that the committee is likely to receive Bill C-19, the legislation to facilitate ratification of the international criminal court, in the near future.

We continue to enhance human security, global peace and stability by participating in the NATO campaign in Kosovo. We worked to ensure that department systems would remain operational for the rollover to the year 2000. We not only had to ensure that headquarters' systems would continue to function, but also that systems in our more than 160 points of service worldwide would also function.

We established contingency plans to ensure the delivery of essential services in the face of potential year 2000 host country problems, and we published a Year 2000 Travel and Information Report outlining potential risks to the travelling public. We promoted human rights in formal bilateral dialogues with China, Cuba and Indonesia. We provided consular assistance to more than two million Canadians. We responded to more than 100,000 emergency calls abroad for incidents of natural or man-made disasters, accidents, robberies, incarceration or death.

As well, we consulted with Canadians on the World Trade Organization in western hemispheric trade negotiations. We increased the Team Canada Inc. partnership from the original three departments -- DFAIT, Industry Canada, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada -- to 23 departments and agencies. We actively defended Canadian interests in a number of trade disputes.

I have been encouraged to mention that I was the Chief Trade Commissioner and Assistant Deputy Minister for International Business when Team Canada Inc. won the public service award for excellence in service delivery.

We launched Canada World View, a publication designed to explain Canadian foreign policy to domestic and international audiences. I have produced copies to be circulated. We supported approximately 450 Canadian cultural events abroad, involving between 4,000 to 5,000 artists in 45 countries.

In conclusion, we are very proud of the department's performance in 1998 and 1999. If you have no specific questions on my opening statement, I would turn to Paul Meyer for his presentation.

Senator Corbin: The WTO, of course, remains a problematic situation in the minds of many people across the board on all continents. You consulted with Canadians. Was there ever a debate in Parliament on the Canadian position to the Seattle meeting?

Ms McCallion: There was a presentation to the standing committee, but there was no debate in Parliament.

Senator Corbin: There was no debate and no Canadian position enunciated by Parliament with respect to that.

Ms McCallion: Oh, yes, the paper was presented.

Senator Corbin: Was there a parliamentary debate on the issue?

Ms McCallion: No, only at the committee level.

Senator Grafstein: Do you have within the department, both on the external side and trade side, a priorities and planning group? The problem with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, both with the external side and the international trade side, is that there are so many issues and so many places involved. When we talk to councillors and ambassadors abroad, there is a question of stretching slender resources over many conflicting and difficult objectives.

Within the different sections of the department, is there a priorities and planning secretariat to sort out priorities? This is a superb analysis of what you do, but it is not done in a way that sets out the primary priorities, the secondary priorities, and so on. It may well be that tertiary priorities overtake primary priorities because of moving events, and so on. Is there such a planning process within the department that you would be able to share with us?

Ms McCallion: Yes, there is formal planning process. It has started up for this coming year. The final document actually goes to Treasury Board, and it starts at the bureau level. It is run by a group called Corporate Services. We are trying to evolve the guidelines each year and add certain key elements. For instance, this year, one of the things we must come to terms with is the role my department will play on our government online initiative.

At the end of the summer, there is a meeting of the executive committee of the department, with both the ministers and the deputies, where we try to articulate in a more coherent way the collectivity of many of the issues. It is downward driven by ministers and upward driven a bit by our work right across the department. Usually the report is finalized in the fall, and it is the guiding document for resource allocation.

Senator Grafstein: Is that document of a nature that at some time you could share it with us so that we could compare your priorities?

Ms McCallion: Compare it to what we actually did?

Senator Grafstein: Yes, and whether we agree with those priorities.

Ms McCallion: I am not sure at what point it becomes public.

Senator Grafstein: I do not mean to slow down the discussion. You might come back to us on that point.

Ms McCallion: That report is tabled in February.

Mr. Paul Meyer, Director General, International Security Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade: Mr. Chairman and honourable senators, I have some remarks, the text of which will be available. I will try to compress them because I realize we are short on time. I am pleased to address the question of ESDI, or European Security and Defence.

[Translation]

As you know, the development of an EU security and defence role has gained tremendous momentum, in large part because of the Europeans' desire to assume greater responsibility for crisis management and to lessen their reliance on US military support.

At the Helsinki European Council meeting last December, EU leaders announced a Headline Goal for military capabilities, under which members states would agree to collectively develop, the capacity, by 2003, to deploy and sustain in the field for one year a force of up to 60,000 troops.

More recently, in March, the EU established interim political, security and military committees, as well as an embryonic military staff.

Thus far, the building of security structures has far outpaced that development of capabilities. EU members have taken few concrete steps to implement the Headline Goal. Indeed, many of these nations are under strong domestic pressure to reduce their defence expenditures.

However, the EU's new security structures are real, as is its determination to complete and implement the European Security and Defence Policy.

[English]

Canada's position with respect to this is one where we have full support for measures that will strengthen the European pillar of the alliance. That said, we do have specific concerns about these initiatives. For example, in our view, NATO must remain Europe's premier security and defence organization. It must not become an organization of last resort. We also want to ensure that decision making in NATO is based on consensus among all 19 members. We do not want to see an EU caucus emerge within the alliance. NATO-EU cooperation is vital. These organizations have to develop real relationships of consultation and transparency. We believe these institutional links should be defined now and not put off until later.

Another key concern for us is the participation of non-EU members of NATO in the EU security discussions and operations. If this participation is not secure, it will lead to divisions within the alliance. The EU has proposed consultations with non-EU European allies, NATO members. It is a constructive first step, but we have to be cautious that in this "15 plus 6" dialogue, there is room for Canada as things are currently configured.

In our bilateral contacts with the EU, we have proposed consideration of Canada's unique position and the creation of a tailored Canada-EU consultative mechanism on security and defence. We have not yet received a formal response to this proposal, but we are pursuing it. It will be on the agenda on the June 26 Canada-EU summit meeting in Lisbon.

The broad area of ESDI-ESDP has also figured prominently, of course, in NATO considerations. The meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Florence also gave rise to tension. Mr. Axworthy made the point that our continued contribution to European security and defence and the possibility of future contributions of participation to eventual EU-led operations required an appropriate role for us in the control and the consultative processes regarding those operations. In the end, this thought was embodied in the communiqué that spoke of the need for appropriate modalities to be agreed upon if Canada was to participate in EU-led operations involving NATO assets.

This theme will be on the agenda of a meeting of the defence ministers later this week, and the EU's European council will meet in Portugal from June 19 to 20, where the next steps on ESDI and ESDP will come about.

It is fair to say that France will be taking over the presidency of the EU in July and sees this area as one of its top priorities.

[Translation]

Over the next few weeks and months, we will be actively participating in NATO's internal discussions on European security and defence.

We will continue to stress the importance of NATO retaining control over the use of the common assets and capabilities to which all Allies contribute.

[English]

Ms Jill Sinclair, Director General, Global and Human Issues Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade: Mr. Chairman, I will walk you through the human security agenda. Given that it is a bit of a work in progress, I think the real value of talking about human security is in the discussion. Thus, I look forward to engaging in a discussion on this topic.

Human security is a practical approach to a new foreign policy agenda. It is not entirely new for Canadians. Perhaps people sometimes have difficulty getting their heads around human security because it all sounds so sensible and so logical to Canadians. I say that because the human security agenda is rooted in long-standing Canadian values that we can find in our own Charter. They are articulated and represented at the international level in the United Nations Charter and in things like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Thus, the human security agenda is about making real these values and norms that have been part of Canadian reality for a long time and ensuring that they are not simply articulated at the international level but that they are implemented at the international level.

Having just come from Windsor yesterday, which is one of the reasons I was not able to provide you with written comments in preparation for this presentation, the human security agenda is catching on globally. I sat and listened to the debate that took place among ministers and heard a dozen ministers -- and there were a dozen more after I left the room -- talk about human security in terms that were very real to the Americas. They talked about drugs, the problem of small arms and the issue of war-affected children. This is an agenda that resonates internationally; it also resonates with Canadians. We feel that we really are doing something that is very useful to Canadians, but it is also moving the world ahead in very practical ways to, as we say, put people first, which is our simple but, I hope, clear definition of what is human security.

We could intellectualize human security, and I can if you would like. However, it is easier to just get down to a simple definition of putting people first. What we are trying to do through the human security agenda is ensure an environment where people are free from fear, where they are able to prosper and where they are able to realize their full potential. It is nothing more complex than that. It is really quite simple. What we are doing here is trying to move the focus, or broaden the focus, strictly from the nation-state to the individual.

This does not mean that we juxtapose human security to traditional security. Paul Meyer and I work hand in hand on many issues. I come from a traditional security background. I worked with Senator Roche on arms control and disarmament. There are no contradictions here. These are two sides of the same coin. If we are to build true security, we have to look at security in all its aspects. This means that we have to look at issues of sovereignty and national security, but we also have to do security from the ground up, which means looking at human security at the level of the individual.

This is an agenda that, obviously, the Department of Foreign Affairs has been promoting. I am pleased to say it is a government-wide agenda. You will know from the Speech from the Throne that the Prime Minister spoke about human security. Indeed, in the budget, resources to the tune of $10 million per year for five years were dedicated to human security.

This is a government-wide agenda. When I speak with my colleagues from CIDA, it is there. Development is freedom from want. Human security is freedom from fear. They are two sides of the same coin and they are absolutely integrated.

I speak to my colleagues from the Department of National Defence about human security. We are looking at the protection and enhancement of peace support operations and more effective conflict prevention measures that feed directly to an agenda that they can understand and support. Similarly, we are talking about issues of public safety and security with the Solicitor General. We are talking about crime, drugs and terrorism with Health Canada. This is a cross-cutting agenda, which gives us an opportunity to have a coherent, cohesive, integrated Canadian government agenda. We are trying to take this agenda to the international community and encourage organizations like the United Nations to work in a similarly horizontal and integrated fashion. It is a new way of doing business and it upsets some people. It is difficult because we are asking people to restructure and to look at an issue like the problem of the proliferation of small arms, not simply as a question of law enforcement, not simply as a question of perhaps irresponsible supply, but what the problem means. Why is there demand for small arms? What about the insecurities on the ground that are provoking and prompting such transfers of weapons?

If we are to deal with issues such as this, if we are to deal with the question of war-affected children, we have to deal with issues in a comprehensive way. This is what a human security approach brings to these issues. It requires that we do foreign policy a bit differently.

Some of the priority areas on our agenda include land mines. The issue of land mines is not over; it has just begun. We have a treaty. The key now is to implement this treaty. With 95 ratifications to date, we are doing extremely well. Almost all of our hemisphere has signed up to this convention, with the exception of the United States. Now Canada is leading the campaign to ensure implementation, to clear the mines and to help the victims. Human security has to get down to the local level, the personal level.

Canada will be hosting a major international meeting in Winnipeg in September to look at the issue of war-affected children, not simply the use of children in conflict and combat, which we have dealt with through an optional protocol, but the question of rehabilitating and reintegrating children into societies where they have been traumatized.

This is not an issue that is only relevant in Africa and the Americas and Asia. In the consultations we have had with civil society here, we have many war-affected children in Canada because we have many immigrants from places where people have had to flee. These are issues that resonate with Canadians.

I have alluded to small arms. This is a high priority for us. We are getting ready for an international conference on this issue through the United Nations.

The question of drugs is obviously high on the hemispheric agenda, but this is an issue that touches Canadians directly. We have to engage with our partners in Asia and the Americas if we are to effectively deal with these problems and the related problems that flow from them, such as international crime and the disruption to governance structures in democracies that are not yet firmly entrenched and that are being challenged and threatened by war lords and international criminal organizations.

The whole issue of international accountability is also key to the human security agenda. Here I get back to the question of the international criminal court. As Kathryn has already said, we know that you will be considering Bill C-19 shortly. The international criminal court will have a tremendous impact on the way in which the world is run. What it means is that there is no safe haven for those who would commit atrocities against their own people. There will be an international legal regime to deal with this problem.

Yesterday, Venezuela announced that it would be ratifying the statutes of Rome, an extremely important move forward for that country. A number of other countries in the hemisphere will be moving in that direction, as will the Europeans. We are hopeful that now that we have 11 ratifications of the statute, we can move quickly to the 60 ratifications required for the Rome statutes to enter into force so that this thing can take hold.

Another area we are focusing on is engaging new partners in building human security. This includes the private sector and the issue of corporate social responsibility, or corporate governance. What is the role of the private sector? How can we work with the private sector to promote good corporate behaviour?

There are a number of great leaders in this area in Canada already. There are codes of conduct which show that ethical business is good business practice, but this is a new area on the human security agenda.

I also mention in passing the issue of conflict prevention because the best way of building human security is to take effective preventive action.

Human security is also about building new partnerships. I have talked about the private sector, but the work that is done with civil society in building this agenda and in implementing it is absolutely key. It was essential to the success of the land mine campaign. It will be essential to the success of the international criminal court in dealing with war-affected children and the numerous other issues on the human security agenda.

We have a program of systemic sustained engagement with civil society from the development of policy, which we do in an open way with civil society, through to its implementation and through to government accountability for ensuring the implementation of this agenda.

As well, we are looking at new partnerships globally. Traditionally, we have worked within the G8, within the OSCE and within NATO. These are good places to work on this agenda. We continue to promote this agenda within those fora.

Also, we are looking at new partnerships across the north-south boundary and being able to take advantage of the changed international situation. That means that we can work with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. It means that we can work with the South Africas and the Malis and the Thailands.

Minister Axworthy has established a human security network bringing together 13 countries that cut across all of the old divides and that work on a human security agenda with a sense of common purpose and common agenda.

The human security agenda is also about making existing institutions work better. We are working very hard, for example, within the United Nations. During our term on the Security Council, we have made the Security Council more transparent, more accountable and more open than it has ever been before.

We have also put new issues onto the Security Council agenda. One issue, for example, involves of the protection of civilians in armed conflict. How do we protect refugees in refugee camps? How do we make sure that we give the right mandates to peace operations so that they can do what is necessary to protect those individuals who have been suffering through conflict?

Honourable senators, these are some of the elements of our human security agenda.

Mr. William Crosbie, Acting Director General, Trade Policy II -- Services, Investment and Intellectual Property Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade: Senators, as I am sure you are aware, Canada is one of the long-standing supporters of building a rules-based trading system. We are one of the original architects of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which was signed in 1947. Since then, we have participated very actively in the rounds of multilateral trade negotiations.

I will talk a bit about the Seattle meeting because I understand that is one of the areas about which you would like to have a discussion. Perhaps, before I do, I will just mention a little bit about what we have done in preparation for that Seattle meeting.

[Translation]

It was extremely important for Canada and for the government to initiate a negotiation process prior to the Seattle meeting to prepare Canada's position. We launched a consultation process which involved a notice in the Canada Gazette inviting Canadians to share their views on the WTO negotiations. The standing committee organized meetings across Canada on the negotiations. They invited stakeholders from all sectors of society, including civil society, to discuss issues on the table at the WTO.

Furthermore, a cross-Canada round of sectoral consultations was launched on such contentious issues as trade and governments, competition policy and investment.

DFAIT hosted two major consultations on trade negotiation issues for all stakeholders, in particular for representatives of civil society. These sessions were chaired by our Deputy Minister and benefited from the participation of the Minister for International Trade.

[English]

Canada spent a lot of time preparing for the negotiations at Seattle and consulting with Canadians so that we were sure that the positions we were adopting were supported not only by the industries affected but by all the stakeholders in the system: provincial governments, non-governmental organizations and ordinary Canadians. We received a great deal of input through both our Web site and through the Canada Gazette process. We received hundreds of representations and briefs, which were also presented to the standing committee. All of these helped to inform the positions that we eventually brought to Seattle.

However, as I am sure you are aware, the Seattle meeting did not result in a decision to launch a new round of negotiations, as had been our hope. The Seattle meeting failed for several reasons. From the Canadian perspective, we were pleased that the Canadians participated very actively on our delegation and were very much a part of developing Canadian positions, not only before Seattle but also in Seattle. Included in the delegation were quite a few provincial ministers, as well as representatives of industries and non-governmental organizations.

Why did Seattle fail? We all saw what was represented on television. There is no doubt that the demonstrations that took place outside the meeting rooms represented real concerns by many people. They also impacted on what went on inside the committee rooms. However, the general consensus seemed to be that in the run-up to Seattle, we failed to develop support among the member governments of the WTO for a broad-based negotiation.

The differences of view between some of the major players meant that when they got to Seattle they were unable to find a compromise. For example, the differences between Canada, the Cairns Group, and the United States, which sought some commitment for ambitious negotiations on agriculture, versus the European Union and Japan, who were opposed to substantial negotiation on agriculture, proved to be a chasm that could not be bridged in the course of a few days in Seattle.

As well, some of the positions of the United States attracted a great deal of criticism. The United States was totally opposed to any possibility of negotiation in the area of anti-dumping and trade remedy laws. They refused any recognition that this had to be an issue for negotiation, as was insisted upon by Canada and many developing countries. In fact, it was the U.S. versus the rest of the world on that issue.

Another issue on which the U.S. took a very strong stand was labour standards. Canada, the United States and many other governments would like to see work done on the issue of labour standards and better cooperation between the organization responsible for international labour issues, that being the International Labour Organization, and the WTO. However, the United States chose to take a rather extreme position at Seattle and insisted that certain countries accept that labour standards should be included in future negotiations, even suggesting that perhaps the use of trade sanctions should be endorsed in selected circumstances. This created much opposition among developing countries that might have been willing to see some discussion of labour standards issues, but once it was coupled with the notion of using trade sanctions, that immediately created a backlash.

Apart from those particular issues, it is also fair to say that there was a divide on a north-south basis, if we think of the north as being the rich industrialized countries and the south as being developing countries. Many developing countries expressed concern that they were having difficulties implementing their existing obligations, concerns which related to their technical ability to bring about all the changes required and their ability to develop opportunities as a result of the market access that would occur through the WTO agreements.

That sense of having to respond to some real problems on the part of developing countries is a subject that Minister Pettigrew has taken to heart. In fact, he chaired the working group at the Seattle meeting which attempted to address, in particular, the problems of implementation that were brought to the fore by the developing countries.

As well, it was clear from the preparatory process in Geneva, a process that lasted for nine months in 1999, that the very real differences of view were not being bridged in any way. Therefore, from the inside of the trade negotiations, we were not altogether surprised that we were unable to bridge those gaps when we got to Seattle because we had made very little headway in the discussions leading up to Seattle.

The government has taken very seriously the protests in Seattle. We believe that many of the concerns expressed were integrated in terms of the Canadian approach to the trade negotiations. We also recognize that many of the concerns expressed go well beyond the issue of trade. They are concerns about the process of globalization, the impact on various individuals, and the ability of governments to regulate. We are addressing those concerns in various ways and intend to continue doing so.

Where do we go next? We failed at Seattle to develop a consensus on a broad-based negotiation. However, notwithstanding Seattle, there had already been a commitment by members to begin negotiations for further liberalization in the areas of agriculture and services. Without an outcome in Seattle that established clear benchmarks for those negotiations, it is fair to say that our expectations for any rapid progress in those negotiations are very low. That said, there is still much work that can be done and is being done in Geneva and in working with Canadians to develop Canadian priorities and positions for those negotiations.

The second area in which we are working is to respond to the concerns of developing countries through a package of measures intended to build the confidence of those member countries and all members of the WTO, as well as responding to the real problems they are encountering. The director general of the WTO has been spearheading an effort to pull together a trade-related technical assistance package. He has also achieved agreement to establish a new mechanism to look, on a case-by-case basis, at the problems of implementation that developing countries are encountering.

Finally, Canada and a number of other countries are looking at ways in which we might unilaterally extend additional market access in areas of interest to developing countries as a way of demonstrating that we are committed to working with them to build a consensus that we know is needed to bridge the north-south and east-west divide on many of these issues.

Mr. David Karsgaard, Director, Economic Relations with Developing Countries Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade: Honourable senators, I will be brief for two reasons. First, I believe that a note was circulated in both official languages as to our role in development policy. Second, unlike my colleagues, I do not work in an area for which the department is finally responsible. CIDA has the principal role in formulating and developing Canadian development policy, but we work extremely closely with them in that role. In the note that was circulated, we identified five areas in which we work together with them, a couple of which Ms Sinclair and Mr. Crosbie have already touched upon.

I do not want to repeat what is in that note. In the interests of saving time, I might simply supplement it under several of the categories with other examples of the way in which we work with CIDA in developing and implementing Canadian international assistance.

As I said, we have identified five categories.

[Translation]

First, let us focus on international development policies.

[English]

There are a number of different multilateral organizations that discuss development policy -- the OECD, the United Nations -- and we, jointly with CIDA, provide the delegations for those discussions. There are two important meetings coming up in the next year that I might flag for your attention. One is a meeting that is sponsored by UNCTAD on the least developed countries. It will be the third in a series of conferences on the particular problems and challenges faced by the least developed, poorest countries.

Second, for the first time, there will be a conference sponsored in the first instance by the United Nations, but in which the Bretton Woods institutions, the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO will also be participating, looking at the question of financing for development. We are working to ensure that this is not merely a request to donor countries to increase their ODA levels, but that it looks at the spectrum of ways in which, using private-sector resources, or NGOs, financing for development can be made more effective.

A second area that we work on in the department is with reference to the Bretton Woods institutions. They have great influence on what goes on in the development world, simply given the scale of the resources that are available to institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. We must pay particular attention to what they do. More specifically, on the role of the department and the department's foreign policy agenda, if you will, I can give you a specific example of how this works.

A few weeks ago, there was a proposal for a World Bank project in Iran. As a result of our concerns over the trial of Iranians who had been accused of spying, the lack of due process in that judicial process, and the absence of respect for law and human rights, we voted against that project. There are instances in which specific political issues come into play in the consideration of development issues, and questions are looked at by the international financial institutions.

A third general area is in bilateral relations. This is an area in which I do not become too involved personally because our geographic bureaus and branches that deal with the bilateral relations work directly with their counterparts in CIDA. I can tell you, however, that they work together closely in determining the nature, shape and structure of bilateral aid programs. As you are aware, Mr. Axworthy and Madam Minna often appear together or issue joint press releases in announcing new initiatives and new aid for particular countries or particular projects.

The fourth area is the development of international commerce. Mr. Crosbie has already referred to a number of the issues that we look at in this connection. Largely as a result of Mr. Pettigrew's interest, we are focusing on the question of coherence. I am speaking of coherence on two levels: policy coherence internationally, as it relates to development, and program coherence. We focus on policy coherence because we have discovered that at times conditions that the Bretton Woods institutions, the IMF or the World Bank would like to impose on a country are not the same as the obligations that country has undertaken under the WTO with respect to tariff liberalization, for instance. We have been working on policy coherence with respect to developing countries.

There is also a question of programming coherence. So many multilateral and bilateral donors are landing in small developing countries that I sometimes wonder how they have any time to do any work because they are simply meeting one delegation after another. Much work needs to be done in coordinating the programming of the multilateral institutions, the banks and the bilateral donors. We are working with CIDA, with the Department of Finance and with these institutions to try to promote that coordination.

I do not think I need to refer to the fifth area in any detail because Ms Sinclair has already spoke about some of the specific foreign policy objectives identified in the note that we have circulated, such as human security. To state the obvious, development cannot take place in conflict situations or when an individual's human security is at risk. That is something that we, with Ms Sinclair and with CIDA, work together on as well.

Senator Corbin: I would like to link two activities of the department, one being under the concept of human security, of which this committee would like to have a better definition, and the other being foreign aid programs. How do you manage to reconcile aid on the one hand with preoccupations such as human security when you are dealing with corrupt regimes? Let us take the cases of Senegal and the Ivory Coast. A number of European nations have decided to reduce their help. They have red-listed a number of countries throughout the world to whom they will no longer distribute aid or, indeed, they have drastically reduced or warned that they will drastically reduce their development programs if things do not change. Are there checks in Canada to that effect? I have not seen Canada take a stand on this issue. It is fine to promote development and help for kids, women and everyone else, but the help programs are being used to the advantage of corrupt regimes and the funds end up in Swiss banks or elsewhere. How do you respond to that? It is a Canadian preoccupation. It is not something you read in European papers only.

I would like to make another general comment, Mr. Chairman. This is a department with two ministers, three secretaries of state, a multitude of programs, and an agency that was never created by Parliament. I wonder how they manage to fit everything together. They must spend a lot of time just talking to each other in conferences to find out what the other head is doing. I am not being critical; I just want to know what goes on.

Ms Sinclair: I will answer part of the question and Paul Meyer can supplement my answer because he does the direct interface with CIDA in so many ways.

The first question I will deal with is the definitional one. I gave you the simple definition, which is putting people first, and I said that I could give you a more elaborate one. We have defined human security as a condition or state of being characterized by freedom from pervasive threats to people's rights, safety or even their lives. That is another definition of human security.

Senator Corbin: Is that an internationally accepted definition?

Ms Sinclair: There is no internationally accepted definition yet because the concept is rather new. The United Nations has done some work on this issue. A couple of years ago, the United Nations Development Program produced a report that touched on the issue of human security. They used a definition that was much more developmentally driven. We have taken a variation on a theme of that report. We have defined it in a slightly different way.

When I said that human security is a work in progress, it is. The way Canada defines human security is one thing. The agenda that flows from that, the agenda I have described, is one set of issues that we see as a priority.

I have been around the world speaking with people on this issue. When I go into the Middle East, they say that they instinctively understand the human security agenda. We are talking to people in a region who know that armies do not protect their security and who know that security is much more than defined borders. What they want to talk about is water -- that is human security.

Because human security is security at the level of the individual, it takes on very local characteristics. However, I have given you Canada's definition. I heard many definitions yesterday when I sat in on the OAS meetings. I heard from the Carribeans that, for them, human security is bananas.

Senator Corbin: I understand that the definition is evolving. We first heard about this in the last Speech from the Throne. That is when this whole human security approach to international affairs was announced to Parliament, and to Canada for that matter. Is it an evolving concept?

I am not sure I am catching what you are telling us. Is the exercise all about transferring Canadian values to other jurisdictions?

Ms Sinclair: If that is the sense you have, senator, I am obviously being a bit incoherent. The human security agenda was articulated by the government, by the Prime Minister in the Speech from the Throne, but that was not the first time that it has been spoken of. Certainly, Minister Axworthy has been speaking repeatedly about this issue for a couple of years. Indeed, the land mine ban campaign is probably the very best example we have of the human security agenda being articulated and implemented. It was a graphic example of taking a weapons system that was considered to be absolutely necessary for state security, an inherent and integral part of an armed forces' inventory and something that armies simply needed, with no questions asked. We suggested that the humanitarian cost of using these weapons -- that is, the human dimension of this weapons system -- far outweighed any military utility, and we therefore challenged people to ban this weapons system. The achievement of the convention banning anti-personnel mines showed that we could take a human security approach even to a widely used weapons system.

I have given you a definition that we use, and we use it internationally. The idea is not to impose on others a strictly Canadian-derived definition.

The Chairman: We spent a considerable amount of time dealing with NATO. In our report we asked the question: Is there an international definition of "human security"? How would you respond to this? The government says that we went into Kosovo for reasons of human security. The result of that seems to have been, although I suppose it will never be clear, that the NATO commanders, according to their claims, killed about 6,500 people. The reports of the Spanish pathologists which we read said that they went home irritated because the number of bodies on which they were to perform autopsies was in the hundreds and not in the thousands. What do you say to the observation that, in the name of human security, we killed 10 times more people than seem to have been killed? Words have meaning, and before one acts, one should have a clear idea of the meaning and definition of those words. How would you respond to that?

Ms Sinclair: Human security is a broad-based definition. Human security implies intervention, but intervention can be done in different ways. I have talked about the human security agenda as comprising everything from conflict prevention to humanitarian intervention, but humanitarian intervention is way out there. It is a last resort. For those of us who have worked on the issue of the Balkans for a number of years, which I have, we watched nine years of systemic and increasing abuses of human rights. We saw the efforts of the OSCE to send in missions and their inability to stay in place. We saw the conflict prevention efforts that were made. We saw this gradual, systematic mounting of egregious abuses of human rights.

The Chairman: Two weeks ago, in a very interesting program, the CBC effectively said that human security was used to manipulate the situation so that NATO would have an excuse to intervene. The program very definitely showed, and the European press certainly believe, that the situation was manipulated using the concept of human security. Of course, no one is in favour of atrocities and people being murdered. I did not know about the OSCE observer mission until I heard about it on TV. All those who were supposed to be the observers seemed to have been soldiers or members of NATO countries. They were using a very controversial act, human security, which is so ill-defined that in our report we said that we would like to know its definition. The reason we said that was because it seems to be easily manipulated, as some people say it was in Kosovo. Other people might disagree. What is your response to that and to the program on the CBC, which I thought was pretty well done, knowing many of the personalities myself?

Ms Sinclair: I would like to get back to a number of the other questions that Senator Corbin asked. If people are to manipulate terminology, we could have intervened in Kosovo using any terminology.

If people did not like the intervention, I would respectfully submit they would have used that language against us, too.

The fact is that this was a long-standing problem. A lot of people only woke up to the situation in Kosovo after many years. Canada sent the very first mission in to places like Kosovo before people even knew how to pronounce their names. The international community, through the OSCE's High Commissioner on National Minorities, had been working with the regimes in the region to avoid exactly what happened.

At some point one must ask oneself, if there are systemic and egregious violations of human rights on an ongoing basis, do we simply sit back and do nothing? Maybe the answer is yes. In this case, the answer by the Canadian government and its NATO allies and many countries around the world was, looking at the pictures that were on the television, that there was a sense that something needed to be done.

As I say, the terminology that may have been used to describe human security could have been any terminology. I do not think that you should take the definition of human security as meaning humanitarian intervention. It does not mean that. At its outer edges, certainly humanitarian intervention is there because you have to see through your actions if you are serious about human security. That is not all it comprises.

Senator Taylor: You do not feel you were manipulated.

Senator Corbin: Could I have the answer to the other part of my question?

Ms Sinclair: The other part of the question, on corruption, I am happy to pass to Mr. Karsgaard.

Mr. Karsgaard: On the question of corruption, I do not want to speak for CIDA, but we share a concern on the effect of corruption on development programs and the misuse of Canadian taxpayers' money. There is no question about that. That is why, over the last 10 years or so, CIDA has moved away from government-to-government assistance and has been allocating far more of its resources -- in particular, to countries that are of particular concern -- to NGOs and local groups where possible.

On the one hand, we want to make sure that Canadian taxpayers' money does not end up in a Swiss bank account. On the other hand, it would be a pity to stop trying to help the poor people in a country simply because they have corrupt leaders.

One of the ways we are dealing with that situation is that we are trying to keep the money out of their hands and to give it to NGOs and local groups. We and CIDA both work with organizations such as Transparency International, which looks at the question of corruption. I can tell you that both we and CIDA have made use of some of the expertise in Howard Wilson's office in dealing with questions of good practices in other countries.

Finally, I would simply note that when the Prime Minister announced the Canadian contribution to debt relief in March of last year, he made it very clear that these monies would be freed up on the provision of solid evidence that it would be put to good use, and that expenditures on health, education and other social programs would be the result of debt relief. This is one of our concerns.

We are under a lot of pressure from certain groups to simply write off all developing country debt, the argument being that this is the moral thing to do as the countries cannot afford it. If we do, all we would be doing would be setting up a situation where leaders continue to line their pockets.

Some framework must be put in place, some procedures, some checks and balances, to assure us that debt relief will, in fact, be used productively. There really is a concern in that regard, senator.

Senator Corbin: Do you have any kind of monitoring system in place? How are you actually able to check that these non-reimbursed debts are being put to good national use? What is the technique?

Mr. Karsgaard: That is one of the things we are working on with Transparency International and with Howard Wilson.

Senator Corbin: Is that a long-term exercise?

Mr. Karsgaard: Yes.

Senator Bolduc: I should like to congratulate Ms McCallion. In five or ten minutes she gave us the basic results of the department in the last year. I appreciated that. I do not mean to say that the other presentations were not good. Each one was excellent.

Mr. Meyer, could you give us a preview of the department's answer to our report? Is it possible, or is it unethical to do that? Our report was on NATO, after all, and you are the man.

Mr. Meyer: Honourable senator, as you acknowledge, your report is being studied by the department, and we are not yet in a position to give you a reply.

Senator Bolduc: I understand.

Mr. Crosbie, you have to coordinate 23 agencies that are preparing the material for your position and your work on the World Trade Organization. Given that the United States will hold a presidential election in a few months, we do not expect big results, as you have said. Do you think there may be progress after that election in terms of investment agreements? It is quite important for Canadian corporations all over the place and for investors to be able to know that they are in a safe environment when they do invest outside their country. What is your opinion? Do you think there is a possibility of progress in the next two or three years in this field?

Mr. Crosbie: Most countries are looking to the United States and the fact that there will be a presidential election as a defining event in terms of the ability to move ahead with negotiations. It is not the only factor, as I pointed out. There is a lack of consensus internationally on many issues, including whether we should have a big round of negotiations on everything under the sun or whether we should have something that is more restrictive.

Governments recognize that the world is not standing still. Economies are integrating and business is taking place across borders. Governments will have to address the issues of new technologies, the growth of electronic commerce and information technology, growing investment, competition policy, and increased international trade in many commodities. I think there will be a will at some point, but probably not until next year, to move ahead with negotiations.

Specifically on the question of investment, discussions that have taken place so far in the WTO indicate that there is not a great desire to repeat what some countries have attempted to do through the Multilateral Agreement on Investment -- that is, to create an all-encompassing framework of rules. The discussions are more along the lines of whether specific investment issues need to be addressed. I think we are more likely to see something less inclusive that will be more focused on problems that have emerged and that will build up, in a more gradual fashion, some multilateral disciplines and rules with respect to investment.

Senator Bolduc: On the administrative side of the department, how many full-time equivalent employees do you have?

Ms McCallion: We have two categories of employees -- Canada based and locally engaged. The total is 7,600, I think.

Senator Bolduc: Plus the 1,200 in CIDA.

Ms McCallion: Yes, but that is a separate agency.

Senator Bolduc: Of those approximately 8,000 employees, how many are on the international trade or economic side, how many are in human security, and how many are in defence and strategy?

Ms McCallion: There are 1,000 trade commissioners. There are 185 for aid and 1,500 for international trade.

Senator Bolduc: I see here approximately 660 for international security and cooperation. How many are in consular services?

Ms McCallion: That number is very small. It is rolled up into about 200 people, but it is an arm here and a leg there. It is a composite program with administration at our posts. We have 30 full-time people in Ottawa and the rest are fractions of people in all our missions.

Senator Bolduc: How many are in your own systems and corporate services?

Ms McCallion: I have about 1,000.

Senator Bolduc: There is also, of course, the diplomatic service as such, plus clerical employees.

Ms McCallion: To clarify, I am more familiar with the trade side because I have just come from there. As part of the response to the program review, Canada-based employees were cut back and brought home, and we put more locally engaged officers in the field on the trade side. That changed the balance specific to trade in the 1990s. However, ministers have subsequently decided to reverse that and to try to put the trade commissioner service back abroad. The commitment is to have a 70-30 ratio.

Senator Bolduc: In terms of allocation of resources, I know that there is probably much more in Asia than in Africa because of the population. However, CIDA spends more money in Africa than in Asia.

Speaking in those terms, how do you see the allocation of your resources all over the world? Are you well staffed in Europe and understaffed in Asia?

Ms McCallion: The balance is fairly good. The lowest level of staffing is in Africa. Europe is well staffed. All our missions are very small now and quite thin on the ground. We do not have large missions. Outside of the G-8 capitals, our missions are much smaller than they used to be.

Senator Bolduc: Do you use a lot of honorary consuls?

Ms McCallion: Yes, I believe that we have 102 honorary consuls.

Senator Bolduc: Are they mostly in Asia?

Ms McCallion: No. We usually have them in locations far from Canadian embassies where there are Canadians who require assistance. We have them in Africa where the embassy is in another country. We have a lot of them in Mexico. In the wintertime, there are 35 flights a day directly from Canada to Puerto Vallarta. We have an honorary consul there who is busier than you and me put together. We have an honorary consul on the north coast of Cuba because of the Canadian tourists there. We have them where there are pockets of Canadians needing assistance.

Senator Bolduc: My last question is about the fact that we insist on labour standards in the negotiations. I believe that as long as you do that, it will be very difficult for underdeveloped countries to get in because they have the impression that you are protecting our labour organizations here. Would it not be better to work on the international labour office and let the trade mechanism conduct their own business? Otherwise, I do not see where we are going. It will be an impediment to a settlement.

Mr. Crosbie: Canada has not proposed that labour standards be part of trade negotiations. We have said that the issue of labour standards is an appropriate issue to be discussed, but it must be discussed among the right players. For example, the International Labour Organization should be an observer to the WTO, as many other international organizations are. It would be helpful to have a working group to look generally at the issue of globalization, which includes labour standards, development, and many other issues that are part of international governance but not necessarily the responsibility of the WTO.

Senator Bolduc: When you say that to the Americans, what do they answer?

Mr. Crosbie: I think the Americans will take a more pragmatic and reasonable approach in the future. I think that there were certain considerations in Seattle. They indicated that they have heard the opposition to any discussion, and I think they are willing to moderate their approach to find some compromise that would enable a dialogue without insisting that it be part of negotiations.

The Chairman: I have read the American position on labour standards and I have some sympathy with them. What do you say to your own workers who are competing with workers in Malaysia, for example, when your own workers are allowed to have free collective bargaining and the workers in the country from where you are importing goods that will compete with the goods made by your workers are not allowed free collective bargaining? Is that not at the heart of the issue? How can that be excluded from negotiation?

Mr. Crosbie: That is a very legitimate concern and we are trying to address it. The organization that has specific responsibility for labour standards is the ILO.

The Chairman: However, it has never worked, as we all know.

Mr. Crosbie: We have been successful, over the last five years, in generating a number of reforms in the ILO, one of which was to develop a draft convention on fundamental human rights, including the right to collective bargaining. There was never any agreement on a set of core principles. We have that, and the ILO members have endorsed it. We also have a convention on the worst exploitative forms of child labour. There was never such a convention before. We now need to work to ensure that those conventions are respected, including the countries that do not want to talk about them in the WTO.

If they are also saying they are committed to labour standards, they need to work with us, in the ILO and in other places, to improve labour standards. Therefore, we are not saying the issue should not be addressed. We are saying that the issue needs to be addressed in the appropriate places. It does not exclude the WTO or the World Bank or the IMF or many other organizations, but the WTO is only one part of that debate.

[Translation]

Senator De Bané: I enjoyed your presentation tremendously, Ms Sinclair. Indeed, quite apart from legal and formal rights, the right to legal representation and freedom of speech, we cannot forget those rights that affect people's daily lives, such as the right to clean water and the right to live with dignity. In my view, concern for these rights has given the forces of the left the upper hand during the 20th century.

[English]

It is well and good to talk about fundamental rights, legal rights and formal rights, but in the end the living conditions of people were not stressed until now. That being said, I was moved by the eloquence and passion of your presentation. To tell you the truth, I am quite sceptical about the resolve of my country to really do something about what you are saying.

I should like to put to you a very simple test to see if, over the next week or two, we really can do something. It is a relatively simple challenge.

Recently, as you know, the Israeli army left southern Lebanon. Overnight, 7,500 Lebanese people moved to Israel. It so happened that Canada is well-positioned both with Israel and Lebanon. We cannot have better relations than we do with those two countries. Among those 7,500 people who moved to Israel, some were very much involved in "l'armée du Sud du Liban." I suspect that those people will never go back to Lebanon because they know what awaits them. The bulk of the people there, of course, are senior people, old people, women, babies, and so on. Those people want desperately to go back to their villages.

I believe that Canada, with its goodwill, credibility and influence over Israel -- which I am sure would love to see those individuals go back to Lebanon -- and Lebanon can do something to alleviate the suffering of those 7,500 people.

I respectfully put that problem before you and ask that we use Canada's goodwill and influence over those two countries to do something. Those people want to go back to their mother country. They realize that they made a mistake in leaving. Now they want to go back. I leave that with you. Perhaps Canada, my country, can make energetic representations to Lebanon to accept those people. Maybe it can be done through the Red Cross organizations for Israel and Lebanon.

I am not talking about those who must suffer the legal consequences of their behaviour. This is something else. These people know that they will go to prison if they go back to Lebanon. This is another issue. I am talking about humanitarian issues. I would like to see my country play an active role because this is a simple case. Those are two countries with which our opinion carries weight. We have done a great deal for both. I am sure Israel would like to see them go back to their country. I leave that to your reflection.

The Chairman: To whom are you addressing your question, senator?

Senator De Bané: Madam Sinclair, because she was so eloquent on the issue. I fully agree with her. After talking about all the legal and formal rights, now she is taking stock of the actual living conditions of people. That touched me greatly. Thank you. Perhaps she could respond.

Ms Sinclair: Senator De Bané, all I can tell you is that I will certainly take your point back to my colleagues at the Department of Foreign Affairs and make your statement well known to them.

Senator Taylor: First, I want to tell Ms Sinclair that she will qualify for the Pearson peace prize if she gets that issue worked out.

I want to assure the chairman that I will not go into my usual tirade about NATO. I spent a good chunk of my life in the Balkans. For a number of years, I believe we were led around by the nose on that issue, but that is for another day. Mr. Turner in the U.S. got the best of us.

I would like to talk about the problem with the EU. I want to ask about the EU and NATO. NATO has the idea of trying to promote economic parity amongst its members, and they do well within the EU, but when it comes to Canada there seems to be a total breakdown. For some reason, we belong to NATO but we do not qualify for the same benefits that a European country in NATO does when it comes to the trade element. I just wonder how much longer we should take that.

NATO puts restrictions on Canadian trade. A great deal of our agricultural exports are restricted from going into the EU, yet we are members of NATO. NATO would not think of putting restrictions on Holland versus Germany. We are a member of NATO and yet they are continually taking moves against us. How do we handle that?

The Chairman: I think it is the European Union to which you are referring, senator, not NATO.

Senator Taylor: No, there is a clause with respect to NATO that says they should try to promote trade. I said the EU is set up for free trade. Why do we, year after year, ignore that clause with respect to NATO? In other words, why are not we added to the EU? If NATO can cross the ocean, why does the EU not do the same?

The Chairman: Senator Taylor is referring to Article 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

Mr. Crosbie: The NATO agreement does not have any trade commitments. The trade commitments to which you refer link the members of the European Union, which of course is an endeavour that is not just an economic union but also a political one. The non-members of the EU -- the United States, central Europe and other countries who belong to NATO -- do not enjoy trade privileges as a result of their NATO membership.

Canada has proposed to the European Community that we try to negotiate a free trade agreement. We have been unsuccessful thus far in persuading them to take us up on that challenge. However, we are engaged and working with the Europeans, looking specifically at the economic rationale needed to pursue a free trade agreement with the European Union. Whether we are able to persuade them to do so remains to be seen, but Canada would very much like to see a transatlantic trade agreement.

In lieu of the European Union, we have a negotiation process with the European free trade area, bringing together the four countries that are not members of the European Union to talk about and to develop a free trade agreement with Canada. We hope that negotiation will be concluded shortly.

Senator Taylor: What is NATO's outlook on the U.S. anti-rogue missile program? I know the outlook for Russia, Canada and the U.S. What is NATO's position? Is there one?

Mr. Meyer: The simple answer is that, no, there is not one. There is no agreed consensus among NATO's member states concerning this U.S. project. The United States has increased its briefings and consultations on this issue within NATO, but I think it is fair to say that there is quite a spectrum of opinion within the alliance and that the centre of gravity is among countries that continue to have significant concerns with the U.S. program.

Senator Roche: The title of this session is "performance." I want to throw into the hopper that the performance of Ambassador Chris Westdal on behalf of Canada at the Non- Proliferation Treaty conference at the UN in New York was nothing short of outstanding. I made a short statement on this subject in the Senate, so I will not repeat everything here, Mr. Chairman.

I only want to point out that the quality of the representatives of Canada in serving our country is too often underappreciated by the public. In the case of Ambassador Westdal at the NPT, he literally saved the consensus that was about to emerge but for a problem concerning relationships in the Middle East. It was Chris Westdal, ably assisted by David Viveash, building on the work of his predecessor Mark Moher, that enabled Canada to play this outstanding role which, in my view, was a reflection of the quality of diplomacy that we are able to do.

Mr. Meyer, you mentioned Mr. Axworthy's statement at the Florence meeting of NATO a week or so ago. That was a remarkable speech for its forthrightness in telling NATO squarely -- I never saw anything like it.

The Chairman: May we have the question, please?

Senator Roche: The speech that Mr. Axworthy made laid on the line the responsibilities of NATO to live up to the commitment that their own countries made at the NPT review when they signed on to the consensus statement that there be an unequivocal undertaking for total nuclear disarmament. Canada and Mr. Axworthy have led the way in having a review undertaken by NATO in this respect.

Since the Florence statement was rather muted on the subject, can you tell me what will happen now? Is Canada working to get support from its other non-nuclear NATO allies to push ahead so that the nuclear review becomes meaningful?

Mr. Meyer: Thank you, senator, for those kind words about the efforts of our NPT review conference delegation. As you said, it is not often that there is explicit recognition of the efforts of our diplomats in Parliament. We very much appreciate that vote of confidence.

In terms of the NATO review, you have remarked on the very forthright character of Mr. Axworthy's speech. Clearly, he was trying to draw the link between what was happening in New York in the NPT context and what should be happening at NATO in terms of the review. We are working actively with other like-minded states at NATO in terms of moving ahead. I would not want to misrepresent the situation. We continue to be very much in an uphill struggle here. There is a lot of resistance to some of the more far-reaching proposals that Mr. Axworthy outlined. Nevertheless, we are registering some progress.

One becomes a bit of an expert in communiqué deciphering when one works in the job that I do. I draw your attention to a reference in paragraph 55 of the Florence communiqué which talks about the need for a framework for an integrated report, prior to the conclusion of this report in December of this year. This is something we have been advocating for some time, without agreement. I think we saw a small victory in that communiqué endorsement. We cannot really have a substantive report until we begin to have an agreed framework for it.

Senator Roche: I also noted that paragraph. I took some hope that they will get serious about a full-scale review perhaps in December.

Ms Sinclair, I have two questions. First, I want to give my full support to --

The Chairman: We would like to have your question, Senator Roche. We only have 10 minutes left, and we have two other senators who wish to ask questions.

Senator Roche: Mr. Chairman, I am not taking any more time than any other member of this committee took. I will come to my question immediately.

I want to give my full support to the human security agenda for all the reasons you eloquently set out in the closing comment of your main intervention that this will make existing institutions work better. You mentioned the United Nations Security Council becoming more open than ever. We go off the Security Council very shortly. In what way will putting the human security agenda into the Security Council survive Canada's departure from the Security Council at the end of this year?

Ms Sinclair: We are already working to ensure that the agenda survives Canada. The idea, of course, is that we find new partners. As you may know, Norway is running for the Security Council. We are looking to hand this issue to other countries, such as Bangladesh, Mali and countries across both the north and south divide. We have a strategy for ensuring that people will not be able to breathe a sigh of relief when we are off the Security Council because the agenda will endure after us.

Senator Roche: You mentioned land mines as a prime example on the human security agenda, and I totally agree. Do you agree that one of the fundamental aspects of the success of the Ottawa land mines process was that there was a certain amalgam or coalition or cooperation between like-minded states and that the advanced wing of civil society was a key to that? Your comment was very interesting. You described this as dealing with a weapons system that had hitherto been considered absolutely essential, and yet we did away with it as a result of this. Do you think you can get nuclear weapons into this equation?

Ms Sinclair: The Ottawa process provides some interesting lessons to be learned.

Do not forget that with the Ottawa process we were able to get many of the countries that used weapons systems to agree to give up their systems. If we were able to get the nuclear weapons states to agree to that, we would have a process with some validity. We need to have the stakeholders in the process. We were able to do that on the land mines issue. That is why it was effective and why it had an impact.

[Translation]

Senator Prud'homme: Since I would eventually like to become a full member of this committee, I will not take advantage of Senator Stollery's kindness.

I did not wish to say anything, but merely to listen to the presentations and read the documents. However, I was a little disturbed by the comments of my colleague and good friend, Senator Pierre De Bané. Most likely I misunderstood him, but I want to be clear about what he actually said.

[English]

That is the fourth event I have attended with the Lebanese, who are rejoicing about the liberation of South Lebanon. The message is very clear to the minister that it is a hot debate and that we should be extremely careful in every single one of them.

I put to the minister, through you, first, the sensitivity of the community in Canada. Second, there is no doubt that these people were mercenaries. There is no doubt that some of them are already back. I keep in touch daily with the situation over there. Some have already returned for a three-month prison term. They have to think also of the reaction of the others who have seen them as mercenaries. Damage has been done, and if we are perceived as being more active there than we were in the last 52 years with regard to those who are rotting in Palestinian camps, the message could be misunderstood. Although Germany just announced that they would take 400 to release the pressure on Israel, I hope the message will not be misunderstood.

In any case, there was a letter sent to Minister Caplan dated March 23. At that time, no one knew there would be a withdrawal. She went very far. I will ensure that we live up to that very clear letter.

Remember that some of these people were in charge of jails and torture. Every single one of them must be scrutinized. Even though I am very close to the Lebanese community, I will scrutinize every one of them because it is extremely dangerous for the community in Canada. It is very dangerous to exert too much effort with the rest of the people of South Lebanon who have suffered and are now rebuilding. They are making miracles every day. It is hard to believe, but I believe it because I know their way of doing things. They can kill in the morning and kiss at night. It is quite unusual.

I do not say that to disagree with Senator De Bané but to complete his message.

Senator Corbin: The WTO in Seattle and Geneva and the OAS in Windsor are examples of situations where we now have police exercises. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister say that we have to listen to the people who are protesting. In Seattle, the delegates and the people who accompanied you missed something, in spite of your broad consultation with Canadians generally. There is a real concern, and I think the European press reflects that much better than the press does here in Canada for, in my opinion, obvious reasons. It depends upon who owns the press.

I hope that we will not hear people such as Thomas d'Aquino speaking on the CBC from Seattle saying, "We know that rabble. They were here and they were there at other meetings." The people who are taking part in these events are trying to deliver a message. I do not know to what extent that message was picked up in your Canadian consultations, but they are very real concerns. I share many of them. People are worried about a number of things and governments seem to be taking a back seat to them.

People are worried about simple things like labelling GMOs. We refuse to do that in Canada. You know about genetically modified incidents in Europe. You know what their trade position is with respect to that issue. You know the concerns in the Third World about having genetically modified seed imposed on them after we stole their seed stocks.

If you are not more attentive, regardless of the number of police and militia you bring in, you will get more of these protests. We will have a situation that will balloon into something not unlike the anti-nuclear protests of the 1950s. I wish you would listen to these people because they are my people. They are spokespeople for home-grown concerns, people who do not have a loud public voice, who do not belong to the elite. I was somewhat satisfied to hear the Prime Minister of Canada say at Windsor the other day that we have to listen more closely to what these people are trying to tell us. As a parliamentarian, I share that concern.

Ms McCallion: Senator, I was the past chair of the FTAA exercise that was terminated in Toronto last November, two weeks before Seattle. We were lucky that we were before Seattle. I should like to take the opportunity to reassure you that this was one of the more successful meetings for engagement and genuine dialogue with the people concerned. We met with representatives of most of the NGOs in Canada and in the hemisphere. One large group had amassed a lot of support throughout the hemisphere. Twenty-two ministers showed up for a dialogue with them at a public forum. The press was invited and had a conference thereafter.

It is a very tricky exercise. We spent months trying to get it going. There are always people who wish to be seen on the national news fighting in the street rather than having a genuine dialogue. That is just the nature of the exercise. I can assure you that we are making efforts. However, it is a sensitive business. We have obviously not solved the problem, but I did not want it to go unnoticed that we had one success.

We need to work harder at it, I am sure.

Senator Corbin: I was not being critical. I want you to be ultra-sensitive to those concerns.

Ms McCallion: I am trying to reassure you that we are, senator.

Senator Corbin: Generally, I am satisfied with the way you work.

The Chairman: Honourable senators, on your behalf, I wish to thank our witnesses. This has been a very interesting meeting.

The commitee adjourned.