Y
Yard Ape
Guest
We don‘t pull our weight: Manley
Canada shows ‘glaring inadequacy‘ in time of crisis: ‘You can‘t just sit at the G8 table and then, when the bill comes, go to the washroom‘
Paul Wells, with files from Sheldon Alberts in Ottawa
National Post
05 Oct 01
OTTAWA - John Manley, Minister of Foreign Affairs, yesterday said Canada faces a "glaring inadequacy" in its intelligence-gathering, defence and foreign-aid capabilities that is compromising the country‘s ability to meet overseas commitments or live up to its international reputation.
In an interview with the National Post, Mr. Manley blamed the shortcomings in part on the failure of successive federal governments to convince Canadians that spending on overseas capability is necessary.
His remarks contrast sharply with the tone most ministers have taken since the Sept. 11 attacks, and suggest Mr. Manley will use his position as chairman of a new Cabinet committee on security to push for a major shift in government priorities.
"You can‘t just sit at the G8 table and then, when the bill comes, go to the washroom," Mr. Manley said, referring to Canada‘s membership in the global club of seven rich countries plus Russia. "If you want to play a role in the world, even as a small member of the G8, there‘s a cost to doing that."
He said Canada has managed to avoid paying that cost because we are "still trading on a reputation that was built two generations and more ago -- but that we haven‘t continued to live up to."
Canada is performing a smaller share of international peacekeeping and paying a smaller share of development aid than it used to, Mr. Manley said.
And Canada has been forced to watch the United States and the United Kingdom take the lead in building and publishing the case against Osama bin Laden because Canada has no foreign intelligence-gathering capability.
Mr. Manley called the performance of Tony Blair, Britain‘s Prime Minister, in publishing the case against bin Laden "great," and said he urged Jack Straw, the British Foreign Minister, to make the information public during a conversation last week.
But "we don‘t have a foreign intelligence service to begin with," Mr. Manley said. Whether Canada should set up such a service is one of dozens of matters being considered by the new Cabinet committee, which began its deliberations last week.
Mr. Manley emphasized that Canada‘s armed forces have specialized capabilities that may turn out to be useful in action against terrorists and the countries that harbour them.
In similar fashion, he said aid money distributed by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) "seems to go a lot farther than some countries‘ aid money and has fewer strings and is more appreciated."
But he said Canada is "borderline in terms of our ability to influence situations that are unexpected." And he rolled his eyes as he considered the gap between the $6-million in new CIDA aid to Afghanistan and the US$320-million announced yesterday by George W. Bush, the U.S. President. "It‘s a glaring inadequacy that we‘re going to have to address, but we‘re going to have to build a Canadian constituency to do it."
Aid, intelligence and armies are "not on the hit parade with health care and education" among Canadians‘ public policy priorities, he said. However, he apportioned blame, not only to Canadians, but to their political leaders. "In part, that reflects the fact that we haven‘t tried to lead them there. And I think that‘s what we‘re going to have to do."
Mr. Manley made his remarks after he and three other senior ministers -- Art Eggleton, the Minister of National Defence; Eleanor Caplan, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; and David Collenette, the Minister of Transport -- testified before Commons committees on the government‘s response to the Sept. 11 attacks. More announcements on specific changes, dealing in the first instance with border security and improvements to identity documents, will follow "as early as next week."
Mr. Manley told the Foreign Affairs and International Trade parliamentary committee that a so-called perimeter approach to border issues -- whereby a common continental security policy is followed -- is "simplistic." He vowed yesterday that Canada would not give the "keys of sovereignty" to the United States.
Mr. Manley said the federal government will introduce far-reaching anti-terrorism legislation on Oct. 15, but signalled neither Canada nor the United States is ready for serious talks about a European Union-style perimeter that would tighten security through harmonized immigration policies.
"Working closely with the United States does not mean turning over to them the keys to Canadian sovereignty in the area of immigration, border control or foreign policy," Mr. Manley told the committee.
"Something troubles me about this perimeter talk because I believe it is short form for something but I don‘t quite know what it is short form for. ... The notion that somehow or other we can solve a perceived problem by something called a perimeter is rather simplistic to me."
In his interview yesterday afternoon with the Post, Mr. Manley said he has spoken once with Tom Ridge, the new U.S. Director of Homeland Security and Mr. Manley‘s rough equivalent in the Bush administration. Mr. Manley said he is eager to meet Mr. Ridge at the latter‘s earliest convenience, anywhere Mr. Ridge wants to meet. Their agenda will include the management of the Canada-U.S. border.
Mr. Manley said he realized the danger of a breakdown in U.S. confidence about their northern border as soon as he heard about the Sept. 11 attack.
"One of the things that was evident to me was that if these people [the terrorists] came from Canada, we had a serious, serious problem. The second thought was, even if not ... there will be a natural inclination to build some kind of protective shell around [the U.S.]. And we really cannot afford to be outside that shell."
Mr. Manley said he will talk specifically about the management of the Canada-U.S. border with Mr. Ridge, repeating that that he does not like talk of a "continental perimeter."
"‘Perimeter‘ implies NAFTA," Mr. Manley said. "I think we can manage the relationship on the Canada-U.S. border. I think it‘s tremendously complicated by the Mexican border. ... I think it makes the problems, whatever they are, much more complex if you try and do two borders at once."
The minister rejected the suggestion that keeping the Canada-U.S. border open demands that Canada adopt U.S. policy wholesale. Close consultation should be adequate.
"Authorities have been doing that for years in air transport: We look at their regulations, they look at ours, they comment back and forth, make sure everybody‘s happy. And it works."
Canada shows ‘glaring inadequacy‘ in time of crisis: ‘You can‘t just sit at the G8 table and then, when the bill comes, go to the washroom‘
Paul Wells, with files from Sheldon Alberts in Ottawa
National Post
05 Oct 01
OTTAWA - John Manley, Minister of Foreign Affairs, yesterday said Canada faces a "glaring inadequacy" in its intelligence-gathering, defence and foreign-aid capabilities that is compromising the country‘s ability to meet overseas commitments or live up to its international reputation.
In an interview with the National Post, Mr. Manley blamed the shortcomings in part on the failure of successive federal governments to convince Canadians that spending on overseas capability is necessary.
His remarks contrast sharply with the tone most ministers have taken since the Sept. 11 attacks, and suggest Mr. Manley will use his position as chairman of a new Cabinet committee on security to push for a major shift in government priorities.
"You can‘t just sit at the G8 table and then, when the bill comes, go to the washroom," Mr. Manley said, referring to Canada‘s membership in the global club of seven rich countries plus Russia. "If you want to play a role in the world, even as a small member of the G8, there‘s a cost to doing that."
He said Canada has managed to avoid paying that cost because we are "still trading on a reputation that was built two generations and more ago -- but that we haven‘t continued to live up to."
Canada is performing a smaller share of international peacekeeping and paying a smaller share of development aid than it used to, Mr. Manley said.
And Canada has been forced to watch the United States and the United Kingdom take the lead in building and publishing the case against Osama bin Laden because Canada has no foreign intelligence-gathering capability.
Mr. Manley called the performance of Tony Blair, Britain‘s Prime Minister, in publishing the case against bin Laden "great," and said he urged Jack Straw, the British Foreign Minister, to make the information public during a conversation last week.
But "we don‘t have a foreign intelligence service to begin with," Mr. Manley said. Whether Canada should set up such a service is one of dozens of matters being considered by the new Cabinet committee, which began its deliberations last week.
Mr. Manley emphasized that Canada‘s armed forces have specialized capabilities that may turn out to be useful in action against terrorists and the countries that harbour them.
In similar fashion, he said aid money distributed by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) "seems to go a lot farther than some countries‘ aid money and has fewer strings and is more appreciated."
But he said Canada is "borderline in terms of our ability to influence situations that are unexpected." And he rolled his eyes as he considered the gap between the $6-million in new CIDA aid to Afghanistan and the US$320-million announced yesterday by George W. Bush, the U.S. President. "It‘s a glaring inadequacy that we‘re going to have to address, but we‘re going to have to build a Canadian constituency to do it."
Aid, intelligence and armies are "not on the hit parade with health care and education" among Canadians‘ public policy priorities, he said. However, he apportioned blame, not only to Canadians, but to their political leaders. "In part, that reflects the fact that we haven‘t tried to lead them there. And I think that‘s what we‘re going to have to do."
Mr. Manley made his remarks after he and three other senior ministers -- Art Eggleton, the Minister of National Defence; Eleanor Caplan, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; and David Collenette, the Minister of Transport -- testified before Commons committees on the government‘s response to the Sept. 11 attacks. More announcements on specific changes, dealing in the first instance with border security and improvements to identity documents, will follow "as early as next week."
Mr. Manley told the Foreign Affairs and International Trade parliamentary committee that a so-called perimeter approach to border issues -- whereby a common continental security policy is followed -- is "simplistic." He vowed yesterday that Canada would not give the "keys of sovereignty" to the United States.
Mr. Manley said the federal government will introduce far-reaching anti-terrorism legislation on Oct. 15, but signalled neither Canada nor the United States is ready for serious talks about a European Union-style perimeter that would tighten security through harmonized immigration policies.
"Working closely with the United States does not mean turning over to them the keys to Canadian sovereignty in the area of immigration, border control or foreign policy," Mr. Manley told the committee.
"Something troubles me about this perimeter talk because I believe it is short form for something but I don‘t quite know what it is short form for. ... The notion that somehow or other we can solve a perceived problem by something called a perimeter is rather simplistic to me."
In his interview yesterday afternoon with the Post, Mr. Manley said he has spoken once with Tom Ridge, the new U.S. Director of Homeland Security and Mr. Manley‘s rough equivalent in the Bush administration. Mr. Manley said he is eager to meet Mr. Ridge at the latter‘s earliest convenience, anywhere Mr. Ridge wants to meet. Their agenda will include the management of the Canada-U.S. border.
Mr. Manley said he realized the danger of a breakdown in U.S. confidence about their northern border as soon as he heard about the Sept. 11 attack.
"One of the things that was evident to me was that if these people [the terrorists] came from Canada, we had a serious, serious problem. The second thought was, even if not ... there will be a natural inclination to build some kind of protective shell around [the U.S.]. And we really cannot afford to be outside that shell."
Mr. Manley said he will talk specifically about the management of the Canada-U.S. border with Mr. Ridge, repeating that that he does not like talk of a "continental perimeter."
"‘Perimeter‘ implies NAFTA," Mr. Manley said. "I think we can manage the relationship on the Canada-U.S. border. I think it‘s tremendously complicated by the Mexican border. ... I think it makes the problems, whatever they are, much more complex if you try and do two borders at once."
The minister rejected the suggestion that keeping the Canada-U.S. border open demands that Canada adopt U.S. policy wholesale. Close consultation should be adequate.
"Authorities have been doing that for years in air transport: We look at their regulations, they look at ours, they comment back and forth, make sure everybody‘s happy. And it works."
