[Senate Prints 106-69]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



106th Congress                                                  S. Prt.
 2d Session                 COMMITTEE PRINT                     106-69                                                              _______________________________________________________________________

                                     

 
                       FORTY-FIRST MEETING OF THE
                          CANADA-UNITED STATES
                        INTERPARLIAMENTARY GROUP

                            MAY 19-23, 2000

                               __________

                                 REPORT

                                 OF THE

                                CHAIRMAN

                                 TO THE

                           SENATE DELEGATION

                              PURSUANT TO

                      Public Law 42, 86th Congress

                                     





                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

                 JESSE HELMS, North Carolina, Chairman

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana                JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska                    PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon                  CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
ROD GRAMS, Minnesota                     JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas                    RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming                    PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri                  BARBARA BOXER, California
BILL FRIST, Tennessee                    ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island

             Stephen E. Biegun, Staff Director
             Edwin K. Hall, Minority Staff Director

         FORTY-FIRST CANADA-U.S. INTERPARLIAMENTARY GROUP

                       SENATE DELEGATION

             FRANK MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman

                PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

                CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa

                    MIKE DeWINE, Ohio

                   SUSAN COLLINS, Maine

                GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

Steve Benza, Manager, U.S. Senate Photo Studio, Sergeant at Arms

Isaac Edwards, Legislative Correspondent, Office of Senator Murkowski

Charles Freeman, Legislative Counsel, Office of Senator Murkowski

Julia Hart, Office of Interparliamentary Services, Secretary of the Senate

Sally Walsh, Director, Office of Interparliamentary Services, Secretary of 
the Senate

Bill Woolf, Legislative Assistant, Office of Senator Murkowski

                     HOUSE DELEGATION

             AMO HOUGHTON, New York, Chairman

                  PAT DANNER, Missouri

                DONALD MANZULLO, Illinios

                 DONALD PAYNE, New Jersey

                COLLIN PETERSON, Minnesota

                  CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

                   FRED UPTON, Michigan

           Carl Ek, Congressional Research Service

     Adolfo Franco, Committee on International Relations

       Jill Quinn, Committee on International Relations

     Francesca Tedesco, Committee on International Relations

     Bod Van Wicklin, Committee on International Relations

                             (ii)

  


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Foreword.........................................................     v
Letter of Transmittal............................................   vii
Committee I--Issues in International Trade.......................     1
    WTO Issues After the Seattle Meetings........................     1
    China and the WTO............................................     3
    Trans-Atlantic Trade Issues..................................     3
    Free Trade of the Americas...................................     4
    Agriculture..................................................     4
    Pharmaceuticals..............................................     5
    Internet & E-Commerce........................................     5
    Softwood Lumber..............................................     5
Committee II--International Affairs..............................     7
    Balkans, Southeast Europe and the Caspian Region.............     7
    The Russian Elections and the Chechnya Crisis................    12
    National Missile Defense and Arms Proliferation..............    13
    The Middle East..............................................    15
    Africa.......................................................    16
    Bilateral Security Cooperation--Drugs and Terrorism..........    17
    Cuba.........................................................    20
    Land Mines...................................................    20
    Internet.....................................................    21
Committee III--Transborder Issues................................    23
    Border Facilitation..........................................    23
    Pre-Clearance at Airports....................................    23
    Water Resources..............................................    24
    Alaska-Yukon-B.C. Railroad Link..............................    25
    Pacific Coast Fisheries......................................    25
    Transportation Issues Including Trade Corridors..............    26
    Atlantic Coast Fisheries.....................................    26
    St. Lawrence Seaway..........................................    27
    Environmental Issues: Climate Change, Water and Air Quality..    27
Final Plenary Session............................................    29
    Report From Committee I......................................    29
    Report From Committee II.....................................    31
    Report From Committee III....................................    33

                                 (iii)

  


                                FOREWORD

                              ----------                              


                BACKGROUND AND COMPOSITION OF DELEGATION

    Public Law 86-42, adopted on June 11, 1959, authorizes U.S. 
participation in an interparliamentary group conference with 
Canada. The law provides that members of the U.S. Congress are 
to be appointed to meet annually with representatives of the 
House of Commons and the Senate of the Canadian Parliament 
``for discussion of common problems in the interest of 
relations between the United States and Canada.'' The meetings 
are held alternately in Canada and the United States.
    The 41st annual meeting of the Canada-U.S. 
Interparliamentary Conference met May 19-23, 2000 on the 
Steamboat Delta Queen along a route from Memphis, Tennessee; 
through Natchez, Mississippi; on to Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and 
disembarking in New Orleans, Louisiana. The Co-Chairmen of the 
U.S. Delegation were Senator Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) and 
Congressman Amo Houghton (R-New York). The Co-Chairmen of the 
Canadian Delegation were Jerry Grafstein (Liberal, Ontario) and 
Joseph R. Comuzzi, M.P. (Liberal, Ontario).

                        United States Delegation

    The United States Senate was represented by Co-Chairman 
Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), Charles 
Grassley (R-Iowa), Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), Susan Collins (R-
Maine), and George Voinovich (R-Ohio).
    The United States House of Representatives was represented 
by Co-Chairman Amo Houghton (R-New York), Fred Upton (R-
Michigan), Donald Payne (D-New Jersey), Cliff Stearns (R-
Florida), Collin Peterson (D-Minnesota), Pat Danner (D-
Missouri), and Dan Manzullo (R-Illinois).

                          Canadian Delegation

    The Canadian Senate was represented by Co-Chairman Jerry 
Grafstein (Liberal, Ontario), Norm Atkins (Progressive 
Conservative, Ontario), Roch Bolduc (Progressive Conservative, 
Ontario), John Buchanan (Progressive Conservative, Nova 
Scotia), Joan Cook (Liberal, Newfoundland), Ross Fitzpatrick 
(Liberal, British Columbia), and Dan Hays (Liberal, Alberta).
    The Canadian House of Commons was represented by Co-
Chairman Joseph Comuzzi (Liberal, Ontario), Bill Blaikie (New 
Democratic Party, Manitoba), Bonnie Brown (Liberal, Ontario), 
Pierre DeSavoye (Bloc Quebecios, Quebec), John Duncan (Canadian 
Alliance, British Columbia), Wayne Easter (Liberal, Prince 
Edward Island), John Godfrey (Liberal, Ontario), Bill Graham 
(Liberal, Ontario), Monique Guay (Bloc Quebecois, Quebec), John 
Maloney (Liberal, Ontario), Ted McWhinney (Liberal, British 
Columbia), Val Meredith (Canadian Alliance, Ontario), Gary 
Pillitteri (Liberal, Ontario), Carmen Provenzano (Liberal, 
Ontario), Monte Solberg (Canadian Alliance, Alberta), Greg 
Thompson (Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick), and Susan 
Whelan (Liberal, Ontario).


                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                                                  October 16, 2000.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations
United States, Senate.
    Dear Chairman Helms: Pursuant to Public Law 86-42, it is my 
honor, as Chairman of the Senate Delegation to the 41st annual 
meeting of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group, 
to submit a report of the meeting held on the Steamboat Delta 
Queen from May 19 to May 23, 2000.
    It is my understanding that, in the past, the reports of 
the Interparliamentary Conference have been published by the 
authorizing committee of jurisdiction. I respectfully request 
that this year's report also be published for the benefit of 
other Senators.
            Sincerely,
                                Frank H. Murkowski,
                               Chairman, Senate Delegation,
                     Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group.

                                 (vii)

                                     
               COMMITTEE I--ISSUES IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE

    Committee I was co-chaired by U.S. Senator Charles Grassley 
and Canadian Senator Jerry Grafstein.

                 WTO Issues After the Seattle Meetings

    A U.S. delegate began by moving to consolidate this 
discussion with the one on China's drive to enter the World 
Trade Organization (WTO). He had been in Seattle, he said, and 
noted that this was the first protest organized via the 
Internet. In particular, he pointed to the website 
[www.radical.com] as an internet meeting place for professional 
protesters. He suggested that the true problem of the WTO was a 
lack of transparency on the part of Europeans.
    A fellow American interjected that the lack of transparency 
was in the WTO, and not just in the European delegation. The 
process of decision-making in the WTO would be improved, he 
said, if a televised system of WTO meetings, like C-SPAN, were 
put in place.
    Another U.S. participant suggested that Canada and the 
United States should play a major role in the post-Seattle WTO 
proceedings. He suggested that a major impediment to this was 
that U.S. leadership in Seattle ``turned-off'' many delegations 
from the developing world. He said that Presidential fast-track 
trade negotiating authority was needed to restore American 
leadership.
    A Canadian then said that it was very important that a new 
round of WTO negotiations begin, understanding and appreciating 
both the need for WTO transparency and developing-country 
sensitivities. The need for a new agreement in agriculture and 
services was dramatic, but these probably wouldn't come about 
absent a new round, he said.
    The Canadian chair suggested that the key problem is the 
need for public defense of globalism in order to answer the 
challenges put forward by the highly visible, anti-globalism 
movement. He agreed that it was critical for the U.S. President 
to gain fast-track authority. He said he believed the central 
problem in trade negotiations is European protectionism, and 
that the only venue to tackle this problem for the United 
States and Canada was the WTO.
    A Canadian, seconded by an American, said that the Seattle 
protesters were not simply a radical movement. People are 
anxious that their concerns are not being addressed, that they 
are being left behind by globalization, that there has been an 
``over-commoditization'' of basic values, and that too much 
power is being exercised by too few people. There is a need for 
more democratic involvement in trade negotiations, he 
concluded.
    Another Canadian participant offered the notion that the 
problem was one of education, that too few people understood 
how much value had been generated by globalization. Even those 
who are most interested in wealth distribution need to 
recognize that wealth must be generated before it can be 
distributed, he argued.
    An American added that another problem is the snobbery in 
developed countries about issues like environmentalism. Wealth 
is the tool needed to deal with environmental problems, he 
averred, and lesser developed countries need wealth before they 
can attack environmental issues. He also declared that there 
was a misconception among protesters at Seattle that 
environmental and labor concerns were not represented at the 
WTO meeting; they were represented on many of the delegations, 
yet the protesters refused to allow these representatives to 
take part. As for involvement of democratic representatives in 
trade negotiations, he noted that Congress could never agree on 
the specifics of a trade deal while it was still in the 
negotiating stage; these needed to be managed via Presidential 
fast-track.
    A Canadian pointed out that if there is no transparency in 
the WTO, there could be empowerment of special interests of the 
worst kind.
    An American pointed out that the WTO issues raised by the 
protesters should not be so easily dismissed, and compared the 
WTO protests with Vietnam War protests. He claimed that the 
fundamental issue is one of income disparity, which is rising 
so rapidly. This can be traced to globalization, and should be 
managed carefully, he warned.
    Another U.S. representative said that the main reason for 
concern is the loss of sovereignty that the WTO entails. The 
focus of any WTO reforms should not be on how to overcome 
globalization, he argued, but on how to trade more freely 
without a loss of sovereignty.
    A Canadian asked how to overcome the sense of powerlessness 
people feel--do we need to question Bretton Woods, the WTO, and 
so on? What should be done when the European Union undermines 
or ignores WTO decisions? The Europeans are becoming 
increasingly protectionist--how should this be dealt with?
    Another Canadian noted that there is great resistance to 
change throughout the world, including in Europe, and that this 
has been manifesting itself as political resistance to change. 
There is a need to convince people that democracy is driving 
the WTO regime, he said.
    On the issue of income disparity, a Canadian said that 
people needed to be convinced that free trade is not a case of 
haves and have-nots, but, rather, one of have-nots and have-
laters.
    Another Canadian suggested forming a grander parliamentary 
system for the WTO, one that would allow people to feel better 
represented. He realized, of course, that this would be broadly 
resisted in the United States because of fears of ``world 
federalism.'' Under any circumstances, a new structure for the 
WTO was needed, he said; at a minimum, more oversight of trade 
negotiators was necessary.
    An American pointed out that the U.S. Congress does have 
oversight over the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), but that 
the Canadian parliament does not have similar oversight.
    A U.S. representative suggested that a balance between 
democratic accountability and delegated authority was necessary 
in trade negotiations, but that at some point, delegation was 
necessary.
    There was a lively discussion regarding the question of 
whether the benefits of globalization are trickling down to all 
sectors of the economy. Some participants maintained that there 
was little evidence that agricultural workers benefited. Others 
said that low unemployment was itself proof that the advantages 
of globalization are being felt.
    The two sides agreed that legislators in both countries 
need to work much harder to educate people about the benefits 
of trade in order to mute the voices of those who argue against 
globalization.

                           China and the WTO

    A Canadian began by stating his country's firm commitment 
to China's entry into WTO. Canada is aware of the concerns over 
such issues as human rights, he said, but believes that the 
best way to manage these issues is to bring China into the 
international fold. An American agreed, stating that commercial 
relations will do more to enhance world peace than political 
solutions.
    Another U.S. delegate argued that granting China Permanent 
Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) would surrender all leverage over 
that country.
    A Canadian, seconded by an American, stated that much can 
be gained by increasing trade with China, and that there are 
people in other countries, notably Europe, who would be quite 
happy if the United States were to stay on the sidelines.
    A lively discussion followed; there was general agreement--
with some dissent--that China can be changed for the better by 
bringing it into the world of nations through trade. One 
American suggested that Chinese violations of human rights 
should not be rewarded through granting preferential trade 
terms. Another U.S. delegate noted that the United States was 
only some 35 years away from treating African-Americans as 
second-class citizens and abusing their human rights. Did that 
mean, he inquired, that the United States should have been 
excluded from trade during that time?
    A Canadian concluded that a ``no'' vote on Permanent Normal 
Trade Relations will not produce a better result in China for 
the issues of concern to opponents of PNTR.

                      Trans-Atlantic Trade Issues

    An American launched the discussion by stating that EU 
recalcitrance in trade disputes will be muted if the United 
States and Canada present a united front. In particular, 
biotech issues should involve a joint effort to: (1) negotiate 
government-to-government; (2) educate people about the safety 
of biotech products; (3) point out the hypocrisy between 
according different treatment to pharmaceutical and farm 
products; and (4) mobilize the scientific community on biotech 
issues. There was general agreement that EU concerns were 
intellectually dishonest, and actually mask protectionism.
    A broad discussion then ensued on the topic of EU 
subsidization, particularly of the agricultural sector. A 
Canadian suggested that Canada might want to drive a wedge in 
the EU bloc by negotiating a free-trade agreement with the 
United Kingdom. There was general agreement that the best way 
to combat EU protectionism is to present an opposing bloc to 
the EU through negotiating a Free Trade of the Americas 
Agreement (FTAA). However, Brazil is a serious impediment to 
accomplishing this. At a minimum, the United States and Canada 
should present a united front in negotiating with the EU.
    One Canadian also put forward a theory that the EU was 
deliberately devaluing the Euro to simultaneously make EU 
products more competitive overseas and reduce the 
competitiveness of imports.
    Another Canadian, seconded by an American, suggested that 
there should be greater linkage between trade with Europe and 
North America's commitment to European security. Europe was 
vigorously rejecting this linkage. A Canadian strongly objected 
to the negative impact of European subsidies on his country's 
farmers. He contrasted this to security cooperation, where 
North America ``had to do all the heavy lifting,'' and 
concluded that ``we need to start playing hardball.''

                       Free Trade of the Americas

    An American made a general statement to the effect that the 
FTAA talks were stalled, in part because of Brazilian 
intransigence, and in part because of the absence of fast-track 
negotiating authority for the U.S. Administration. Delegates 
were in general agreement that more attention needs to be paid 
to this, despite the fact that immediate benefits might be 
fairly negligible--the Canadians characterized the gains of 
Chile-Canada trade after their free trade agreement as 
``tiny.'' Delegates concurred that the major issue confronting 
FTAA negotiators is Brazil, which appears to be attempting to 
play the Mercosur countries off North America, while 
simultaneously negotiating with Europe to improve South 
America-EU trade.

                              Agriculture

    A Canadian began by saying the North Dakota Wheat 
Commission's recent announcement--that it should pursue a trade 
action ``because of unfair pricing by the Canadian Wheat 
Board''--could deal a huge blow to the Canadian industry. 
Subsidies paid to U.S. wheat farmers are difficult enough, he 
said.
    The Canadians contended that their farmers are suffering a 
serious crisis, and that many people are leaving the land. 
While some Canadians suggested that a culling of family farmers 
might be better in the long-run, the situation is in a serious 
crisis right now.
    In the United States, the industry is headed toward a 
contract basis for farming, said an American. In the long-run, 
this will lead to higher monopolistic prices to consumers, he 
said; also, family farmers are retiring and not being replaced, 
which will put further upward pressure on commodity prices.
    Some of the Canadian delegates called for more domestic 
political solutions to the problem. One Canadian, however, 
questioned the cabinet's familiarity with agricultural issues.
    With some pride, a Canadian pointed to the settlement of a 
recent diary dispute, and suggested that trade relations 
between the United States and Canada are healthy once more. 
American delegates, however, argued that ``milk is thicker than 
blood,'' and said that they did not foresee a broad, long-term 
dairy agreement that will allow greater free trade in dairy. 
``We can't get agreement from state to state, so how are we 
going to agree across countries, especially when the world 
export market for dairy is so minimal?'' asked one U.S. 
delegate. He concluded that North American has already ceded 
the world market to New Zealand.

                            Pharmaceuticals

    In a short, spirited discussion, the two sides aired their 
views on the issue of pharmaceuticals. Attention focused in 
particular on Canadian drug prices, which are lower than those 
in the United States. Bus loads of Americans cross the border 
to fill their prescriptions. The Canadians stated that their 
country has a different concept of what constitutes research 
and development in pricing; Canada believes that pharmaceutical 
companies add unnecessary marketing costs into R&D and fix 
prices accordingly. The U.S. side said that Canadian prices are 
too low, while the Canadians maintained that U.S. prices are 
too high.

                         Internet & E-Commerce

    A Canadian noted that Canada is second to the United States 
in internet penetration, but lags far behind the Americans in 
e-commerce. He urged that policymakers pay more attention to 
consumer protection and security, and added that tax issues 
need to be resolved in the near term. Several Canadians 
concurred.
    Both sides agreed that there are many issues which are 
being raised on this front, including intellectual property 
protection, broadband development, the digital divide, and tax 
issues.
    An American participant contended that Congress has shirked 
its responsibility by placing a five-year moratorium on 
internet taxation.
    A Canadian said that the internet is making a mockery of 
Canadian content laws, but added that that might not be such a 
bad thing if one were a true market capitalist.
    Another Canadian suggested that the intellectual property 
rights issues raised by e-commerce may hold the potential for 
anarchy.

                            Softwood Lumber

    There was unanimity on both sides that the quota on 
Canadian softwood lumber exports to the United States should be 
allowed to lapse. A Canadian asserted that the true danger is a 
recurrence of countervailing actions by the United States, 
which will kill a lot of independent producers. Members of the 
U.S. delegation said that they understand this issue, but noted 
that it is so easy to initiate countervailing actions that they 
can not be easily stopped, and that Congress will never waive 
this right. However, the U.S. side said that the Canadian side 
should take heart that the U.S. coalition of lobbyists in 
support of lumber imports will be a strong voice against future 
countervailing duties.
                  COMMITTEE II--INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

    Committee II was co-chaired by U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy 
and Canadian Member of Parliament Bill Graham.

            Balkans, Southeast Europe and the Caspian Region

    A Canadian began by inquiring whether we were right or 
wrong in the way we handled Bosnia. He noted that historical 
peace treaties had set international boundaries and seeded 
minorities throughout the region. When the breakup of 
Yugoslavia occurred, however, there was no plan, a fact which 
disturbs North American scholars. After the end of the air war, 
the operation was returned to the control of the United Nations 
(UN). Several problems still remain, and there is a possibility 
of long-term engagement. There is growing unhappiness, he said, 
with using Canadian Forces within the Balkans as a whole. He 
urged that, in the event of future interventions, UN 
authorization be gained, using the UN General Assembly if the 
Security Council does not approve a particular action.
    An American delegate noted that there is a debate on this 
within the UN. The peacekeepers are in, he said, and NATO has 
stepped back. At times, the UN has been very ineffective; they 
put in a peacekeeping operation prior to any peace. In 
addition, the chain of command was fragmented. Bosnians were 
rounded up and executed while the peacekeepers stood by. Some 
now believe that the relevance of NATO is its ability to 
respond to regional conflicts. He asked his colleague, who 
traveled to the region, to report on what he learned.
    The U. S. delegate said that NATO needs to reassess its 
role--when they go in and when they don't--against the backdrop 
of the European Union (EU) creating a rapid intervention 
contingency force of 60,000 troops. There is an international 
commitment to stability in Southeastern Europe. The EU is 
spending $12 billion over the next few years. The Canadians 
also should be commended for their contributions. The good news 
is that the Europeans understand that stability in the region 
is important, and that the countries in the region eventually 
need to be brought into the EU and NATO. He also noted that 
there is good news from Croatia; Tudjman is gone, and new 
leaders have been elected. In Macedonia, there is a coalition 
government, which includes ethnic Albanians, Bulgarians, and 
Romanians. Although economically troubled, the country has good 
leadership. Even Kosovo is looking better, he said; their 
chances of success depend upon how they treat their minorities. 
The Turkish government notes, however, that ethnic Turks are 
being poorly treated in Kosovo.
    An American participant said that, if the people in the 
region don't work things out, then at some point, someone is 
going to say, ``a pox on all your houses.''
    Another U.S. representative said that the political 
structure isn't working in Bosnia; this issue needs to be 
revisited, he maintained, because the Serb, Croatian, and 
Muslim groups are not working together. In Serbia, the 
opposition is not doing very well. Only time will tell whether 
they will get rid of Slobodan Milosevic.
    An American said that the U.S. House of Representatives 
voted overwhelmingly to withdraw troops from Kosovo, and 
inquired as to the status of the issue in the Senate.
    Another American said that the Appropriations Committee 
voted on the proposal that basically says ``get out'' of 
Kosovo. He noted that only three members voted against it, and 
that he was one of them. By the time it got on the floor, he 
said, both Governor Bush and Vice President Gore urged Congress 
to vote against it.
    A U.S. delegate said that the legislation revealed that 
people are concerned with the issue of burden sharing.
    Another American responded that United States troops make 
up only about 15 percent of the Kosovo force--a fact not known 
to most people. He contended that we should be patting 
Europeans on the back, not threatening them; they would say 
they're leaving, too.
    A U.S. delegate said that he, too, voted against 
withdrawal. It might sound good back home, he said, but we need 
to look at what happened in Bosnia; if you could predict the 
endgame, it would be great, but we can't. The choices are 
either: don't do it, or do it and hope it works. Look at what 
happened in 1918, he urged.
    A Canadian said that it is interesting to watch the kind of 
critical reflection that has been going on since the Kosovo 
intervention--it didn't break down along normal political 
lines. The NDP approved of the NATO action. The human rights 
community is divided; those who normally disagreed, agreed, and 
vice versa. The same thing is going on in the United States, it 
seems.
    He added that he would like to mention two things: first of 
all, there was an inadequacy of information on which the 
decisions were based. We don't know if it was a problem all the 
way down the line from the foreign minister, or if there was 
some misleading going on. The authorities said this would only 
be a three-day affair, that there would be a short period of 
therapeutic bombing, after which Milosevic would come to the 
table. It was supposed to be brief, selective and effective, 
but it turned out to be none of the above. Who fed us this? 
What kind of information was it being based on--was it bad 
intelligence, or were we being misled? The member said that he 
has not seen the reports yet. Politicians need to reckon with 
this, he said.
    A U.S. participant said that President Clinton invited the 
foreign policy leadership from both the House and Senate to the 
White House, along with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and 
the head of the CIA. At that meeting, someone raised the issue 
of the brevity of the conflict; there was a unanimous reaction 
among the U.S. Members of Congress, across the political 
spectrum, that we had backed into this conflict on an ad hoc 
basis. The question now is what impact will it have on NATO.
    An American delegate asked the Canadians for their sense of 
how long the conflict would continue. A Canadian replied that 
his country will continue to participate as long as it is 
necessary, and as long as Canada is asked to participate, 
especially under a UN mandate. He noted that Canada's resources 
are stretched as thin as they could possibly be, and that they 
could hardly do anything in Sierra Leone, because there are no 
more front line military people available. He added that Canada 
is dealing with the police by municipalities, not through the 
RCMP. There's still a willingness to stay engaged. If there's a 
new government, for example, under the Canadian Alliance, there 
might be a reluctance to stay involved.
    The committee then discussed the issue of Kosovar refugees. 
A Canadian said that only half have returned. He said that in 
Canada, a whole host of social problems have arisen, 
particularly in small towns. The refugees have different 
cultural values; they don't pay their bills, and have not 
adjusted well in his area, he said. An American reported that 
the refugees in his constituency came from a U.S. Air Force 
base, and that they stayed together as a community. Although he 
said that he had not heard of any problems, a colleague stated 
that some Kosovars have reportedly hidden from the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service.
    Switching back to the Kosovo conflict, a Canadian said that 
neither the U.S. State Department nor Canada's Department of 
Foreign Affairs and International Trade are competent to face 
the situation. The NATO operation didn't solve many of the 
consequent problems, particularly the current diaspora of 
Serbians.
    An American said that his country has not really developed 
a post-Cold War policy on the use of the military. There has 
been a huge debate about this. It's a common problem that our 
allies have to figure out--what is it that the various 
countries bring to the table that is unique? We're behind where 
we should be in figuring out where we should be. We haven't 
focused enough on this, and it will be a challenge for the next 
President. The problem, he said, is that there is no such thing 
as a Clinton Doctrine, because there hasn't been sufficient 
debate.
    A Canadian replied that there was no debate about U.S. 
foreign policy in the Truman and Eisenhower eras; there is an 
absence of a doctrine today. The American agreed, adding that 
this is a defining point in history, and that decisions today 
are even more difficult.
    A Canadian raised the question of how long NATO will stay 
in Kosovo, particularly in light of cost considerations. 
Canada's involvement in 1999 and 1998 cost $850 million, and 
through 2000 it was projected to cost $1 billion--out of $10-12 
billion on defense. That's 10 percent, he said, and Canada 
can't continue to do that, as it's a huge amount. He also 
commented that the UN peacekeeping operations were effective in 
cases where a peace was in place, but not when a war is going 
on. Only NATO can manage that, and it can't go out of its own 
territory. There needs to be some thoughtful reasoning from the 
United States on what should be done in those circumstances. 
Canadian foreign policy has been based in recent years on 
``human security,'' which is an evolving concept.
    Another Canadian remarked that if the UN had said it would 
do something in 3 days, and it took 11 weeks, we would be 
talking about how stupid the UN is. But when that happens to 
NATO, we come up with excuses; there's bias at work. There is 
an institutional rivalry between the UN and NATO, he asserted. 
We promote both groups in Canada. We need to examine whether 
there is an obvious role for NATO. He stated that it is not 
enough simply for the United States to come up with a modern-
day Truman doctrine. It needs to be arrived at a little more 
consensually, either through the UN, or NATO, or in some other 
manner.
    Another Canadian said that in the United States, the 
remarkable thing is that after every major intervention, 
there's a painful period of critical study. The intellectual 
inspiration, he said, is likely to come from the United States; 
we Canadians are very minor players. NATO developed the 
technique of containment, he noted. Was it competent for an 
offensive operation?
    A U.S. participant noted that some of the Kosovars are 
creating problems; there have been criminal elements, but 
overall, the majority of the people have worked out; so 
probably most of the Kosovars are doing all right. On the 
Truman doctrine, he argued that it was easy then to have a 
policy to be against Communism. It is easy to be against 
something, he said; it's more difficult to figure out what 
you're for. The NATO operation was a very difficult task for 
General Clark. He had particular problems with the choice of 
ground targets, many of which were vetoed by various allies.
    On the issue of peacekeeping operations and peace-building, 
an American delegate noted that U.S. transport planes were to 
have been used to lift Bangladeshi troops to Sierra Leone; but 
it was too expensive, so the UN chartered commercial airlines 
instead. The United States just approved a $310 billion defense 
budget, he said, but U.S. policymakers say they just can't do 
things because the United States doesn't have the resources. 
The delegate said he wonders about this.
    Another American discussed the new Eurocorps, a 60,000-
strong peacekeeping operation. Right now, he said, NATO makes 
bad use of its resources, with every country doing its own 
thing.
    When asked by a colleague if this force would materialize, 
the member replied that he had spoken to NATO officials, and 
had been told that the Europeans are very serious about this. 
They realize they couldn't deal with the crisis in Kosovo, and 
that they need to coordinate their resources. In the long run, 
he added, they may be able to take over the peacekeeping 
operation in Kosovo.
    On the conduct of the NATO operation, a Canadian noted that 
American commanders were criticized because of their insistence 
on high altitude bombing to protect allied pilots. If the 
Europeans had handled it, however, they would have had gone in 
by land, he claimed. He added that Canada's connection with 
NATO gives it a connection to Europe.
    An American responded that he thought General Clark had 
been very much in favor of ordinary bombing--saturation bombing 
where you really go in. The allied military didn't have the 
clout they would have had. Slobodan Milosevic would have folded 
if they had been able to hit him that hard, he said.
    A Canadian appealed for allies to pull transatlantic issues 
together. On the theme of what the United States will see as 
its role in future security architecture, he said that it is 
very hard for more modest players such as Canada to do anything 
until the United States figures things out. He said that he is 
bothered by the fact that, with its ``smart bombs,'' the United 
States military is the technological leader, but that it won't 
put troops at risk. He suggested that this would create a world 
in which there will be enormous resentment against the West in 
general and Americans in particular, because they are perceived 
as hiding behind a shield of hi-tech wizardry. Canada doesn't 
have this technology. The decision not to send in ground troops 
was a political one. How stable, he asked, was that on a long-
term basis?
    An American contended that CNN changed all that when they 
showed an American soldier's body being dragged through the 
streets of Mogadishu. She said she was disturbed that so many 
civilians were killed in Kosovo.
    Another American reiterated that the Pentagon is being 
funded at $310 billion, despite the fact that there was no 
major enemy; Iran, Iraq, and Cuba are the biggest threats. 
Politicians make decisions, and nobody wants body bags coming 
back, he said. Members of Congress and Senators think about how 
they sound back home, rather than saying what will we do in the 
world. For example, if we build a national missile defense 
around the United States, we will become more isolationist, he 
said. We will have to take the risk of casualties, or we should 
get out of the business of intervening in conflicts. He said 
many of the ground troops were from his district, so this 
concerns him; but if the United States is going to remain a 
world power, he concluded, that is part of the role.
    An American interjected that such an intervention depends, 
for example, on whether people think being in Somalia is 
protecting American interests. Her colleague responded that one 
can isolate everything by saying ``we should only protect 
America, and we should do nothing unless the threat is right at 
our shores.''
    A Canadian observed that he had heard in briefings that, in 
the next Kosovo in 10 years, the United States would be capable 
of bombing without pilots. That will just exacerbate problems, 
he said.
    An American said that, with its Cruise missiles, the United 
States was close to having that capability right now. In World 
War II, bombing runs were conducted during daylight hours, at 
low altitude, which resulted in enormous casualties. Commanders 
knew that a certain percentage of allied bombers would not come 
back. Today's Stealth bombers are different, he said. But that 
shouldn't be the question. The questions are: Where do you get 
involved? Do you get involved pro-actively? For example, the 
delegate said, in the foreign operations appropriations 
legislation, the Senate just put in his request for 
substantially more for polio eradication this year, for a 
multi-billion dollar immunization program throughout Africa. If 
you can eliminate diseases, he argued, you can raise living 
standards, improve economic development, and lower the risk of 
war. But we are not doing enough of that, he contended. We can 
spend $1-2 million per day bombing, but we are reluctant to do 
preventative things. If all you have are really successful aid 
programs, then you haven't taken any risks. We handle things 
episodically, reacting to what happens at the moment, and not 
over the long term. He speculated that in Korea, this approach 
might finally pay off; there may be some rapprochement between 
the North and South. Also, the United States has troops in the 
Sinai. But CNN doesn't focus on it, so it isn't there. We could 
also get into the question of land mines, where there have been 
some expensive mistakes that could have been prevented, he 
suggested.
    A Canadian introduced the topic of the Caspian region, 
which he characterized as a potential future Kosovo. He visited 
the region, he said, and found it to be a volatile mix of 
politics, complicated by a potentially huge oil deposit. The 
United States, he said, is encouraging the construction of a 
pipeline through longer routes because of political problems. 
The size of the deposit is a key question--whether it is 
strategically big enough. The United States would like to 
develop an oil source that is an alternative to the Middle 
East. Meanwhile, the Great Game is being played between Russia 
and the United States. Independence of ethnic groups and border 
conflicts are also an issue. Russia has been suppressing 
Chechnya. The Russians are fomenting local revolutions; they 
are simultaneously encouraging the Chechens in Georgia, while 
crushing them in Chechnya. This region now seems to be one that 
the United States has chosen as an area of strategic interest. 
Surveying the region, the delegate said that Azerbaijan is 
ruled by a dictator, and that Georgia is led by former Soviet 
Foreign Minister Edward Scheverdnadze. Armenia is poor and 
badly run, and is suffering more out-migration than it did 
during the great genocide. The Russian arm is there, but they 
also get support from the U.S. Congress, which helps because of 
domestic politics. On aid, he reported that the USAID officer 
told him that they receive more assistance than they ask for or 
can use. The Turks are also a complicating factor. They are 
trying to show that they are Europeanizing--for example, 
through reform of their court system. Although the Turks don't 
want to talk about Cyprus, they realize it's an important issue 
for EU membership.

             The Russian Elections and the Chechnya Crisis

    An American remarked that President Vladimir Putin is 
taking powers away from 89 governors and giving it to 7 
individuals he trusts. That is a major change, the delegate 
observed.
    A Canadian said that the Russian elections were criticized 
on the basis of media bias and fairness; however, he added, 
many elections would be judged unfair if their media were held 
to the same standards. The participant said that the Canadian 
deputy speaker is en route to Moscow to be part of discussions 
with members of the Duma on how to set up a committee system. 
The delegate added that he hoped the Russians don't adopt 
Canada's system. President Putin obviously wants to strengthen 
the state in certain ways, but that could be a positive thing 
if it restores a climate where things can be done. On Chechnya, 
little can be said except that Canada thinks Russia has a right 
to protect its territorial integrity; however, they've gone way 
beyond what is morally appropriate. But it's unrealistic to 
respond to Chechnya unless you want a war with Russia; you do 
what you can do. The delegate also had some criticism for the 
West on Kosovo. Another aspect is National Missile Defence 
(NMD) and the extent to which it effects existing Russian 
relationships and arms treaties. There is a curious aspect to 
this debate. It seems that the United States is now urging 
Russia to accept a certain level of nuclear arms and stay on a 
launch-on-warning alert system. The delegate said he was not 
sure what was going on: Russia is being encouraged to do 
certain things so the United States can do its own thing. This 
is also a part of the discussion about NATO and how it defines 
its relevance, especially taking into account Russian paranoia. 
We've already had one NATO expansion, and there are plans for 
more. This is of concern in Canada--that NATO not expand 
further and thereby create a new version of the Cold War.
    Another Canadian said that Russia is not an economic power. 
President Gorbachev was replaced by the chaos of Boris Yeltsin; 
Russia is an awful mess, which raises the question of whether 
it is a great power any more.
    An American pointed out that Russia remains one of the two 
largest nuclear powers, regardless of its economic weakness. He 
said that the old assessments always showed Russia to be way 
ahead of the United States in military equipment and manpower. 
They are a major nuclear power, however, and paranoid, and 
significant to us. They are closer than anyone else in the 
world to Pakistan or countries that might launch a nuclear war. 
No one says we should disengage. There are different ways of 
addressing their frustration, but we can't ignore them. They 
are attempting to improve their system of justice. They were 
surprised, for example, to learn that one could sue the federal 
government in the United States.
    A Canadian noted that corruption is a major problem; it is 
impossible, he said, to do anything in the courts, for example, 
until someone is paid off; the same thing is true in business, 
but there are ever-escalating bribes. This is a huge problem 
for foreign investment, he concluded.
    An American said that the Ben and Jerry's ice cream company 
pulled out of Russia because it wasn't worth it. The delegate 
recounted the story of a large U.S. energy company that 
invested in Russia and was told that the taxes were set up with 
several different authorities and that the U.S. company would 
be taxed at 300-400% of what it made. The CEO was told to lie 
like everyone else; the CEO said he would go to jail for that 
in the United States.
    A Canadian remarked that the Russians don't understand the 
basics of a market economy and don't understand the concept of 
a contract.

            National Missile Defense and Arms Proliferation

    A Canadian began by saying that the parliament's Foreign 
Affairs Committee did a report on disarmament a year ago, and 
had concluded that proliferation is in serious trouble. There 
are several non-declared nuclear weapons states, including 
India, Pakistan, and Israel. Although there are some positive 
signs, the U.S. Senate's rejection of the Comprehensive Test 
Ban Treaty (CTBT) was a negative sign for those who are working 
on nuclear disarmament. The committee's report recommended that 
NATO re-examine its nuclear policy, but this met with a lot of 
resistance in the United States. The committee got beat up on 
that; the U.K., France and the United States opposed the 
recommendation, but some others thought it would be worth 
talking about. U.S. military people came up to Canada to talk 
about this; they seem discouraged about the prospects, and 
American nuclear disarmament activists are discouraged. This is 
linked to the NMD issue, because it could exacerbate the 
problem. The Canadian said that those who were nervous about 
it, as he was, are afraid that if the United States proceeds 
with this plan, then there will be problems with the ABM 
treaty. The Russians and the Chinese are adamantly against it; 
they claim it would unravel the ABM treaty and launch a new 
arms race. They do not see it as a defense against small rogue 
states. With NMD, the United States would have a shield and 
they would have no defense. The United States is negotiating 
with the Russians, however; if they agree, then there might not 
be a threat of escalation. A lot depends on that, the Canadian 
said, and on whether or not the system is plausible--scientists 
have said they are incapable of dealing with the problem of 
decoys.
    An American participant said that one should worry more 
about a trawler carrying a nuclear bomb entering the New York 
harbor; he said that he is more concerned about a nuke coming 
in under the Brooklyn Bridge than one being delivered by a 
ballistic missile.
    A Canadian said that in his country the Defense Minister 
and the parliamentary Defense Committee tend to lean more 
toward favoring NMD, because Canada could participate within 
NORAD. There is a debate in Canada today between the two issues 
of general nuclear stability and North American security.
    Another Canadian said that if negotiations between the 
United States and Russia could lead to agreement for the 
Americans to go ahead on NMD, then the problem would be 
eliminated. However, he said that he questioned the possible 
tradeoffs. If it creates a collusion between United States and 
Russia, with an affirmation of the status quo with both systems 
being on alert all the time, and if it brings a halt to arms 
reductions in the name of getting the Russians to agree to NMD, 
then the whole thing is still open to criticism.
    An American agreed that the NATO allies are very concerned 
about this. It came up in the Senate--the issue about Kosovo. 
If that hadn't been stricken, it would have added another great 
concern to the Europeans of us pulling out. We need more 
cooperation, he said.
    An American said that there would be some discussion next 
month when President Clinton goes to Moscow; he speculated that 
the meeting would end inconclusively. The President, he said, 
does not feel he can move forward with NMD or cut it off, so it 
will be put off until next year. No matter who is President, 
the U.S. participant said, it's a case in which real diplomacy 
will be a lot more beneficial. The American people will realize 
that no matter how great this looks on TV, it will protect not 
U.S. cities, but U.S. missile sites. This does not make sense, 
as the United States has a massive, invulnerable nuclear 
weapons delivery system in place: her submarines. In addition, 
there is a nuclear flashpoint potential between India and 
Pakistan, and it is impossible to say where that will go if 
something happens there. No nuclear weapons have been used 
since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is a bad mistake to think that 
nuclear war is predicated on what the nuclear system is. You 
can make some pretty primitive delivery systems now because the 
warheads are so small. No matter who is President, he said, 
Members of the Senate will need to talk about how we get off 
this image of isolationism that has built up. Businesses in the 
United States are anything but isolationist, because they're in 
a global economy, and they need the government's prestige and 
backing in the international community. There's no way to 
escape this. The world won't bend its will for the United 
States; it will just build up resentment. There are so many 
ways the United Stats can become influential world-wide, e.g., 
educationally and economically, that it shouldn't rely on just 
defense. In addition, the U.S. Air Force budget has been 
depleted by unnecessary bombers that no one wants to mothball.
    Another American said that the White House argues that if 
the country is well defended, it will be better able to help 
others. Another U.S. delegate inquired if that reasoning 
applied to the U.S. foreign aid budget, which keeps being cut.
    A Canadian stated that the cost potential is horrendous; 
what if, for example, the United States asked Canada to 
contribute 10 percent of NMD? That's $6 billion, he said.
    A U.S. participant said that if there is a successful 
technological breakthrough, then there will be a whole 
different set of issues, and destabilization will be a far more 
difficult issue to debate. If people become convinced that the 
NMD system will work, it will be a lot harder to stop its 
development and deployment.
    An American said that, if the U.S. system functions, many 
other countries would want to have such interceptors.
    Another U.S. member raised the issue of nuclear 
proliferation; he noted that more States have recently acquired 
nuclear capabilities. Turkey, for example, has confirmed a bid 
on a nuclear reactor. General Electric and the Canadians are 
bidding to build it. If this continues, he said, the Turkish 
military may be able to begin working on a bomb.
    A Canadian said that his country looked at the reactor sale 
and concluded that Turkey would not use it to develop a bomb, 
because Turkey is a signatory of the Nonproliferation Treaty. 
In addition, the Turks agreed that they would accept the 
highest level of inspections. The delegate said that he has not 
heard anyone suggest that Turkey would do what India did with 
their reactors in the 1950s. The Armenians are relying on a 
Chernobyl-type reactor for 80 percent of their electric power, 
he added.

                            The Middle East

    A Canadian stated that the United States and Canada share a 
common interest in bringing peace to the region.
    An American responded by pointing out that every time they 
are close to an agreement, some splinter group throws a wrench 
in the works. Another Canadian said that at least the various 
sides were still talking.
    A Canadian said that his country still had troops in the 
region. The water issue, he said, will be part of the 
resolution of the problems in the area. He reported that a 
Canadian parliamentary delegation that visited the region was 
told by the Arabs that they were only allowed to dig wells of a 
certain depth, but that the Israelis didn't have those 
restrictions. The delegate speculated that this could be one 
strategic issue that might drag the two back to war. They need 
to be able to share the resource, he said.
    An American said that if Israel doesn't give up the Golan 
Heights, there might not be peace in the region. The extreme 
groups would leverage that issue. He said that he questioned 
how long the United States will continue to pour billions of 
dollars into the region.
    A Canadian representative said that the Israelis wouldn't 
like the Egyptian agreement because they gave up so much land. 
He shifted the topic to another area where there is some 
disagreement between the United States and Canada--the 
sanctions against Iraq. He said that the embargo is having a 
devastating effect on the population--especially the children. 
Also, there is resonance among other countries--France, for 
example--to lighten or eliminate the sanctions.
    An American noted that the Senate passed a resolution on 
humanitarian relief from sanctions.

                                 Africa

    A U.S. delegate reported that he was a member of a 
delegation that visited Africa, and that they found three 
important issues: crime, unemployment and AIDS. The last is 
particularly troublesome, he said, especially in light of South 
African President Mbeki's position. The United States is trying 
to put bills through to address this. He said that the 
situation in many countries is simply overpowering; the things 
that are going on in Congo and Sierra Leone were gnawing at us 
all the time, he said.
    Another American said that there has been an increase in 
attention given to Africa. The U.S. Congress finally passed the 
Africa Trade and Opportunity Growth bill, which was signed into 
law and will give some trade preferences. The basic goal is to 
have Africa move more toward democracy, and to have trade 
transparency and rule of law. However, there are still some 
problems: Congo, and all the other countries involved there 
(the conflict has been likened to a mini world war), Ethiopia 
and Eritrea, and Sierra Leone, where the British have gone in 
with ground troops and are helping stabilize the situation. He 
said that there is a difficult question right now over whether 
or not the UN can send in peacekeepers when there is no peace 
to keep. Several hundred million dollars have already been put 
in this year, and the pharmaceutical companies have been 
helping. There is an AIDS pandemic there, and it is a world 
issue. It may strike the Indian continent, which is much more 
densely populated than Africa, or China. The latter two could 
cause a serious security issue if there is a total breakdown of 
government and civil society. The Congressional Black Caucus 
has been addressing this. We have some allies outside the 
caucus, too, who have gotten really interested.
    Another U.S. participant said that Canada had done 
excellent work in Africa--more than the United States. He 
suggested that the two countries could go into Africa together 
on peacekeeping or micro-lending or drug availability. It's not 
just two countries, he added, it's way beyond the impact of 
just two countries. He said that in Nigeria, a senator asked 
whether our over-indulgent country could help in gaining loan 
forgiveness.
    A Canadian added that the West needs to open its gates to 
Africa's products.
    An American suggested that there are specific things that 
African governments can do. Typically, ambassadors and foreign 
ministers plead with developed governments for investment in 
their countries, but the African States don't know how to go 
about it. They have assets, and they don't know how to explain 
it.
    A Canadian representative said that a French-trained 
bureaucracy is prevalent in Africa; government intervention is 
regarded as the main thing to do. Their agricultural policies, 
for example, are anti-farming; agriculture should be the first 
thing addressed. Place the African people in charge of their 
own food supply.
    A Canadian argued that the loans being made to African 
women are working. The West can't develop their industries for 
them, she contended; they have to do it on their own. And, 
given the means, they're doing so. It's the women who are 
working in Africa, not the men, she said. An American 
interjected that the United States has a similarly successful 
program that deals with micro-enterprises. Another U.S. 
participant pointed to a disconnect: everyone thinks this is a 
good idea, but there's not enough money around. He suggested 
once more that if Canada and the United States got together it 
would leverage the assistance.
    A Canadian said that the Canadian International Development 
Agency (CIDA) had identified AIDS as one of three priorities to 
address. The AIDS problem in all these countries is the 
inability to talk about it. In Uganda, a local singer 
contracted AIDS and sang about it, and they're treating it 
differently now. But in general, there's been a taboo against 
speaking about AIDS. The problem cannot be controlled with a 
few local AIDS programs.
    Another Canadian remarked that there is an ``involvement 
fatigue'' that affects all avenues; he suggested that debt 
remission be considered. An American responded that, if loans 
are forgiven, lender nations ought to ask for something in 
return, such as good government.
    An American described a summit on Africa with regional 
meetings about 3-4 months ago; it was attended by 8,000 people, 
and 2,000 delegates. He said that gradually, people have been 
coming in from all areas, and that this will become more of a 
group that will make its voice heard.

          Bilateral Security Cooperation--Drugs and Terrorism

    A Canadian introduced the topic by stating that there has 
been a tremendous amount of cooperation between Canada and the 
United States. The Americans, he said, think that Canada is a 
funnel for drug traffickers, but it works both ways. Canada's 
justice system may be encouraging the Mafia in Canada because 
of the light sentences that are being imposed on them. The same 
is true of the parole system. Many believe there is a need to 
toughen up in that area. On terrorism, there could have been a 
major disaster. No one knows what their plan was; maybe it will 
never be known. One of the big problems is identifying where 
these people are coming from and how their missions are being 
directed. We as a country are willing to do everything we can 
to cooperate with the United States on addressing this problem, 
he declared.
    A U.S. participant said that one big problem is that when a 
plan was proposed to tighten up borders with Mexico, it hit 
both borders, and a number of members of Congress objected. 
Three members put legislation in the Senate to require a more 
extensive check of everyone crossing the border, but the 
participant said that he and others had put in an amendment 
questioning the funding, and the proposal was dropped. Do drugs 
flow both ways? Of course. The authorities work closely 
together, and cooperation is increasing. It would be ridiculous 
to close down the borders; it would hurt those who have 
relatives, and cross-trafficking would be gone. And it wouldn't 
matter anyway, because the frontier, which is unguarded, is so 
long. There are farms and ranches that span both countries, he 
said. The delegate suggested that both countries have a lot at 
stake, and that it is worthwhile to work on it because we never 
know which side will be targeted.
    Another American said that the problem of Section 110 may 
be on the way to being resolved. If both sides are already 
working together, what more do we need to do?
    A U.S. representative said that Canadians point out that 
the United States has 10 times their population, and that they 
have a huge land mass. He called for better liaison on 
intelligence between law enforcement organizations.
    A Canadian spoke about bank account seizures, and the 
formula for sharing the proceeds. He added that intelligence 
from third countries also is valuable, and cited as an example 
the assistance that had been provided recently by Jordan.
    A Canadian noted that President Clinton had announced $300 
million in high-technology security measures.
    An American argued that if somebody really wants to get 
across that border, they will, and that can never be changed.
    Another American asked the Canadians if there was anything 
the United States should be doing now that they were not doing. 
A Canadian admitted that he and his countrymen were paranoid 
about Section 110. Apart from that, he said, all that is needed 
is cooperation. The Canadian parliament adopted a bill to allow 
pre-clearance, and that's reciprocal.
    An American said that the United States has a terrific 
commissioner of customs. He urged the Canadians to go out to 
Dulles airport with this commissioner to see what people do to 
get drugs into the United States.
    An American suggested that both countries need to address 
the other side of the drug issue: consumption.
    A Canadian said that they definitely feel the United States 
is too severe on criminalization. Canada, he explained, is more 
in the European mold, which stresses the need for treatment. 
About one-third of Canada's drug policy resources are devoted 
to interdiction, one third to information, and one-third to 
health. Marijuana has been virtually decriminalized, as it 
takes up too much police and court time. Canada is struggling 
with this, and trying to look at the drug issue as a health 
problem, emphasizing prevention.
    An American asked what the Canadians thought the result has 
been, and a Canadian replied that it was still too early to 
tell. In some parts of Vancouver and Toronto, he said, it's 
pretty depressing; it's a social problem of huge proportions. 
Politically, the Canadian Alliance believes in stronger 
criminalization, while the BQ views it as a health problem.
    A member of the Canadian Alliance said that his party's 
criticism is focused on how the government deals with violent 
offenders. Even within the Canadian Alliance, there are people 
who believe in decriminalization. Most members of the party 
aren't inclined to imitate the American model because it 
doesn't appear to be working, he said.
    A U.S. delegate stated that the United States has more 
people in prison than any democratic country in the world. 
Suddenly, all the states are realizing that the cost is fairly 
high, and that it creates employment problems, he said.
    A Canadian then spoke about the successful rehabilitation 
program in Quebec. It has a low rate of recidivism. The 
province has a drug problem, he said, but the program helps 
people become honest citizens down the road.
    Another Canadian said that his government is working with 
other Latin and South American countries on the decertification 
process.
    Another Canadian said that they often hear in Canada the 
United States has a higher rate of incarceration, but that 
Canada's is much higher than the European average, and a very 
high percentage of the prison population is aboriginal; they 
are imprisoned for domestic violence, nonpayment of fines, and 
other social problems.
    An American inquired whether anyone thought that demand 
will ever be reduced under decriminalization.
    On the contrary, replied a Canadian. At a UN conference, he 
said, everyone was saying that even if today's drugs are 
stopped, they well be replaced by chemical drugs, because the 
ingredients are already there. He said that the real problem is 
how one determine what a precursor is for these drugs. An 
American agreed, noting that the recipes for these chemical 
drugs are already posted on the internet, which makes them much 
easier to produce.
    An American asked to hear more about the Quebec drug 
rehabilitation program; what was happening there to make it 
work? A Canadian responded that the provincial government has a 
directorate to protect youngsters. A social worker looks at a 
child who's having problems, and helps him get the proper 
treatment to help him. The approach does not seek to punish, 
but to try to reeducate, to provide what's lacking in the home 
or school. It's expensive to do that, he admitted, but it costs 
much less than later law enforcement. We don't think 
legislation will make a youngster think twice, he said; 
instead, we make sure that we correct as early as possible what 
is going wrong.
    The American responded that, in his state, the best thing 
going was the civic courts, where the judge was a sort of 
social worker. Also, the state had alternatives to juvenile 
facility camps. It's expensive, he said, but probably the best 
way to deal with the problem.
    A Canadian said that, at the WTO summit in Seattle, he had 
heard that, in one or two Carribean countries, the banana 
economy had collapsed and people were growing dope. He urged 
that the Americans keep that in mind the next time they go 
after a particular product.

                                  Cuba

    A U.S. participant began by saying that he thought that the 
feeling is changing in his country. People say the best thing 
Castro has going for him is the embargo, because he can blame 
everything on America. After the dissidents were jailed last 
year, Castro was very perturbed by the Canadian reaction, 
referring to ``my former friend Lloyd Axworthy!'' The policy we 
have is driven by a vocal lobby in Miami, and their ability to 
do this has been hampered by the handling of the Elian Gonzales 
case. All of this has changed the temper here. Cuban-Americans 
suffered greatly and have strong family values, but they 
overstepped on the Elian thing, he said.
    A Canadian noted that Canada was now sending almost 200,000 
tourists a year to Cuba. A lot of American money is going to 
families in Cuba. The Cuban government is pretty sensible, he 
said; the issue for them is sovereignty. They are afraid of the 
United States coming in and taking over. They point to the 
collapse in Russia. There's an opportunity here. If there were 
some way to let Cuba develop in a moderate way it would be the 
best thing for all of us. If the embargo had been gone 20 years 
ago, Castro would be gone by now.
    An American said that there is a feeling of oppression--
worrying what one says aloud. He said he finds it very 
difficult that it's the only country that he can't go to 
without his government's permission. It's a remnant of the Cold 
War that should change. The Chamber of Commerce wants things 
changed, and they're conservative, he said.

                               Land Mines

    A U.S. participant said that the United States was the 
first country to pass a law to ban the trade in land mines. The 
most important thing in this movement was the Ottawa process. 
The treaty was signed, but unfortunately the United States 
didn't take it seriously. In Oslo, the American concerns about 
Korea would have been accommodated. The U.S. government 
officials said they didn't want to listen to other countries 
that were willing to negotiate. Just before the treaty was to 
be signed, President Clinton was calling world leaders, but it 
was too late by then. There is a great deal of reason to try to 
get the United States into this treaty. There will have to be 
some accommodation. The Americans are spending much more than 
anyone else on land mine removal. There are ways of 
accommodating everyone. The United States is only using self-
destruct mines. A lot of the countries that signed the treaty 
are not abiding by it. Many other countries haven't signed 
because the Unites States hasn't. Canadian peacekeepers are in 
more danger of mines than anything else--in Mozambique, for 
example. Most of the people in Congress who have been in combat 
support the land mine ban. I think it's doable, he concluded.
    Another American asked whether that was going to happen 
within the next year or two, and the first American replied 
that he thought it would. The United States, he said, is not 
going to use anything that isn't in the treaty; it's getting 
rid of all the dumb mines in Korea. There's a realization that 
even the Korean mine field is a danger to U.S. troops, and that 
the fields can be breached in a matter of hours. He added that 
General Shalikashvili had told him not long ago that he was 
convinced it would pass within a couple of years. It is 
unlikely for any treaty to be passed this year, due to the 
elections.
    A Canadian said that he wanted to make a couple of points 
on behalf of the Canadian government. First of all, he said, 
there was a lot of talk in the NATO delegation that the 
alliance had to do things because the UN was weak. He said that 
he had raised the issue of the dues to the UN, and said they 
were old and should be paid in full, not piecemeal. The United 
States isn't a third world country negotiating with the World 
Bank, he asserted. We spoke about isolationism versus 
multilateralism. The United States wants to cherry-pick issues, 
and lead when it suits them. Fundamental to this is the UN and 
the payment of dues. Some of this is due to criticism of the 
UN, but you have to pay to the club to remain a member and 
effect change.
    An American stated that the message is abortion. Period. He 
said that he and a lot of other Members were fighting this. In 
the House last year, he said, there were something like 80 
abortion votes-on trade, medicine, and the military. The House 
leadership is trying to do something about this. There was a 
motion to eliminate all peripheral issues from the 
appropriations process--there were 28 amendments pending.
    Another American argued that the world is different today 
than it was in the late 1940s, when we had to pay a higher 
percentage because the European countries were on their knees. 
Now they are rich, and should pay more.
    A Canadian countered that a reduction in shares has to be 
negotiated among all members.
    Another Canadian said that the attitude at home is: ``pay 
the bills and we'll address the reform issues together.'' He 
said that the Americans have someone on the UN staff who has 
been changing things--it's no longer the Aegean stables, he 
argued.
    An American said that the UN is not understood in the 
United States; our payment really isn't out of line when you 
look at what the Europeans pay, as a percentage of GDP. We're 
paying less than some. Many of us are embarrassed, even if we 
support reform. He said that he agreed that the United States 
should not put conditions on its repayment.
    Regarding UN reform, a Canadian said that they, too, had 
their frustrations, but that they want to be in the UN tent 
trying to change it.

                                Internet

    A Canadian began by discussing the recent ``I love you'' 
virus. We have a lot of problems, he said. The ``Mafiaboy'' 
thing is very simple; he said: a guy in Montreal sent messages 
to addresses in the United States, and shut down their 
computers. He was arrested. The ``love'' virus destroyed files, 
and used address books to move on. Can legislation stop that? 
Think of an electrical system we have in any home, which is 
connected to a grid, and a network of grids. There is an set of 
breakers that will prevent a shutdown of the whole system. But 
the Mafiaboy situation should be coped with through breakers, 
so that a problem can be stopped at the nearest location. Any 
department in Canada or the United States can build it, he 
said. As far as viruses are concerned, all of our computers can 
monitor situations--except for themselves; they aren't 
intelligent at all that way. The operating systems need to be 
intelligent enough to protect themselves. We can trace the 
culprit today, but we need to be able to stop a virus before it 
spreads.
    An American noted that all the preparations that were done 
for Y2K weren't necessary. The real danger came a few months 
later, and we weren't ready for it.
    It's kids doing this, not foreign countries, said a 
Canadian. Think of what they could do if they tried. We have 
all the technology we need to intercept such problems, so let's 
install it, he urged.
                    COMMITTEE III-TRANSBORDER ISSUES

    Committee III was co-chaired by U.S. Senator Frank 
Murkowski and Canadian Member of Parliament Joseph R. Comuzzi.

                          Border Facilitation

    Consideration of border facilitation issues led off with a 
discussion of efforts to amend Section 110 of the U.S. 
Immigration Reform Act, which has been a concern of the 
Interparliamentary Group (IPG) for several years. An American 
member observed that he had attended several sessions of the 
IPG, and saw the Section 110 issue as an example of how the IPG 
can have significant influence by helping educate and persuade 
members of Congress and the Parliament that certain issues need 
to be addressed. He noted that the Section 110 matter has been 
one of the most contentious issues between the two countries, 
but that a bill to correct the problem was introduced in 
Congress just before this year's meeting, and is expected to 
become law well before an existing temporary measure expires. 
He added that he did not believe this solution would have been 
possible without the work done by IPG members, and suggested 
that there were other areas of customs and immigration law that 
could use similar efforts.
    A Canadian delegate responded that the efforts of American 
members on the Section 110 issue have been highly successful 
and very satisfactory from the Canadian viewpoint. The delegate 
agreed that other issues will also require the efforts of IPG 
members to resolve, noting especially the issues of pre-
clearance for customs, and Section 342 of the Immigration Act, 
which affects healthcare workers.

                       Pre-Clearance at Airports

    On pre-clearance, a Canadian member indicated that Canadian 
legislation has been passed and is being fine-tuned at the 
highest government level to resolve issues involving the 
authority of U.S. officials operating in Canada. Unless that is 
completed, over 66 sites in the United States will remain 
inaccessible for direct flights from Canada due to the lack of 
customs clearance at those locations.
    An American agreed, noting a personal experience with an 
aircraft that was detained overnight because customs officials 
had gone home when the delayed flight arrived in the U.S.
    A Canadian member then suggested that customs coverage 
needs to be expanded, not just for air travel but for rail and 
vessel travel as well, saying this would provide smoother 
transportation and travel throughout the system.
    Another American asked if the intention would be to apply 
the same pre-clearance principle to private travel as well, 
saying that private aircraft were often forced to divert to 
airports with customs coverage before continuing to a final 
destination. This was noted to be a problem with other forms of 
private transportation as well, such as snow machines, which 
are not restricted to highways with border stations.
    A Canadian responded that there was no reason why the pre-
clearance concept could not be applied to private aircraft. 
Another said that efforts were being made to work out a call-in 
clearance system for boaters and snowmobilers.
    Another Canadian delegate indicated an understanding that 
the negotiations toward a reciprocal agreement had broken down, 
but efforts are being made to get them back on track and deal 
with two issues: the U.S. desire to have customs officials on 
Canadian soil armed (as they are when in the U.S.) when 
Canadian customs officers are not armed, and the issue of U.S. 
enforcement officers being subject to civil liability if 
something went wrong.
    A Canadian delegate then suggested that the IPG should go 
on record to encourage both countries to expand the pre-
clearance program and make it more generally applicable to all 
forms of travel.
    An American noted that there are a number of 
inconsistencies in treatment at the present time, calling 
attention to the fact that the clearance ``policy'' seems to 
vary with circumstances--some borders are on an honor system at 
certain times of the day, for example. The member also called 
for a strong resolution from the IPG.
    Another American suggested the IPG should appoint a 
subcommittee or working group to bring together customs 
officials from both sides and work on drafting a report on 
specific needs. This met with general approval.
    An American then raised a non-agenda item described as an 
irritant: the disparity in the personal exemption allowance for 
those returning to the two countries. An American returning 
from Canada can bring in $200 worth of goods, while a Canadian 
can only bring back $50 worth. The members then discussed 
without resolution whether there are different rules depending 
on the length of the visitor's stay. After additional 
discussion, it was decided that two of the Canadian members 
would get together in the interim and try to define this matter 
more clearly.

                            Water Resources

    The committee then took up the diversion of water 
resources, with a Canadian remarking that Canada has serious 
concerns about the Devil's Lake project, which would divert 
overflow from the lake into systems that flow into Canada. Two 
Americans agreed that it was not popular in their areas of the 
Midwest and Great Lakes regions, either.
    An American also noted that the biggest concern may not 
simply be the possibility of downstream flooding, but also the 
movement of pollutants such as agricultural chemicals into 
areas where they may create problems. This individual also 
stated that the issue has become highly politicized on both 
sides of the border, a sentiment with which many members 
agreed.

                    Alaska-Yukon-B.C. Railroad Link

    An American next presented information regarding a proposal 
to connect the continental rail system, presumably through its 
northernmost point in British Columbia, with the Alaska 
Railroad system which presently terminates near Fairbanks, 
Alaska. It was noted that the proposal had originated during 
the 40th annual meeting, during a discussion of a West Coast 
trade corridor project. At this time, one of the American 
delegates has offered legislation to create and fund a 
bilateral commission to investigate the feasibility of the 
project and is hoping the legislation will be moved this year. 
The committee then discussed the project, including various 
potential routes for new track. An American explained that such 
a route was actually surveyed during World War II, but events 
of that conflict resulted in the line never being constructed. 
In response to a Canadian question, an American clarified that 
the legislative proposal is silent with respect to a partially 
similar proposal by a private individual in British Columbia. 
No support is being offered to that individual, it was stated, 
but neither is he being opposed.
    The committee also heard from an American that other 
developments could stem from the rail connection, if the latter 
were completed. Mineral resources such as coal could be shipped 
from Northwest Alaska, for example, and eventually a connection 
might be made with the Russian rail system. It was noted that 
the Russian government has been in the process of extending its 
system north from Tynda, but has no current plans to move as 
far up the coast as would be necessary for a connection. The 
committee consensus on the rail proposal was positive, and a 
small working group was named to continue encouraging officials 
in both countries to view it favorably.

               Pacific Coast Fisheries, Including Salmon

    The committee next took up the subject of the Pacific 
Salmon Treaty, which has been one of the most contentious 
issues on the IPG agenda for several years. It was reported by 
a Canadian member that a resolution to the long-standing 
conflict was reached last summer, and that the treaty revisions 
will stand for a period of several years. The negotiated 
settlement will shift emphasis toward conservation, which both 
countries consider necessary.
    An American then noted that another key provision was the 
agreement to move from giving each country specific harvest 
quotas to a system in which harvests will reflect actual 
abundance. According to the American this change will probably 
be the single biggest influence toward recovering stocks that 
are currently at low levels.
    Finally, a Canadian member noted that the one remaining 
irritant, the matter of a fee charged by Canada against U.S. 
fishing vessels in 1994, had also been resolved. An American 
provided additional detail, explaining that just two days 
before this year's conference, the Canadian ambassador to the 
United States had responded to a letter sent by two U.S. 
members of the IPG last summer, in which they had suggested 
that an amount equivalent to the fees collected might be 
productively deposited into salmon conservation funds created 
under the new treaty provisions. This was agreed to by the 
Canadian government, with the ambassador's letter specifying 
that the sum of CAN$500,000 is to be deposited.

            Transportation Issues Including Trade Corridors

    A Canadian then commenced a discussion of more general 
transportation needs and trade corridors by noting a recent 
Canadian national highway initiative, which has been championed 
by IPG members and is in some respect a response to issues 
raised in previous meetings. Two Canadian members joined to 
explain that although the Canadian federal government is not 
considered responsible for highways, new legislation will put 
approximately $150 million per year toward highway and border 
point needs. While not as much as the United States spends, 
this is a major change in direction for Canada, which has 
previously left highway construction to provincial governments.

                        Atlantic Coast Fisheries

    The committee then turned its attention to Atlantic 
fisheries issues. Two Canadian members explained that 
management problems have been aggravated by a recent Canadian 
court decision--the Marshall decision--regarding aboriginal 
fishing rights. While specific to eel fishing, other fisheries 
may ultimately be implicated, and Canada is attempting to work 
out the new relationships between aboriginal fishers and 
others. It was noted also that a group of Passamaquoddy Indians 
from the United States is attempting to use the rights granted 
to Canadian Passamaquoddies to gain privileges in Canada.
    Another Canadian termed the issue of Native American 
fishing rights ``very explosive.'' He commented that the 
approach of reducing the number of available non-Indian 
licenses would have the effect of raising the price for the 
remaining licenses beyond the means of most fishermen.
    A Canadian raised the issue of aquaculture, suggesting that 
improvements in technology for fish farming had been made in 
recent years, and stating a belief that environmental 
organizations opposed to aquaculture are dealing with 
information that is several years out of date. This led to a 
discussion between American and Canadian participants about the 
similarities and differences in the aquaculture debate in Maine 
and in the Pacific Northwest, especially with regard to 
Atlantic salmon and depressed stocks in the Columbia/Snake 
river system.
    An American raised the question of whether any of the 
stocks now remaining in Maine streams could be termed ``wild'' 
after so many years of stocking hatchery-bred fish which return 
to spawn, and questioned the application of the U.S. Endangered 
Species Act in that case.
    A Canadian member observed that it is clear that the courts 
are entering what the member described as a legislative arena, 
citing Canada's Marshall case and the Boldt decision in 
Washington State several years ago, both dealing with 
aboriginal fishing rights. This section of the agenda closed 
with several members making individual observations on aspects 
of aboriginal/non-aboriginal fishing relationships under the 
laws as defined.

                          St. Lawrence Seaway

    Discussion then turned to the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence 
Seaway transportation system. A Canadian delegate noted that 
the system now moves approximately 225 million tons of cargo 
per year, mostly bulk goods. Approximately 32 to 35 million 
tons goes through the St. Lawrence. Among the problems 
currently facing the system are reduced water levels, which 
affect the load each vessel can carry through areas where the 
depth is insufficient for a full load.
    The member also noted that tolls and fees under the 
separate U.S. and Canadian seaway administrations can be 
prohibitively costly, and suggested that Canada and the United 
States should combine administrations for the Seaway to achieve 
a significant cost saving. According to the member, the cost 
reduction could make it possible to avoid direct tolls and 
charges, and finance the Seaway through local port authorities. 
The member noted that the IPG has discussed this proposal 
several times in the past, and that Canada--as of two weeks 
before the current IPG meeting--was now prepared to go forward 
on discussions toward a combined administrative system.
    An American delegate asked what would be required for the 
United States to engage in such discussions. The Canadian 
responded that it would certainly require a memo of 
understanding, but legislation may not be necessary.
    A Canadian noted that there has been strong support from 
former U.S. delegates to the IPG, one of whom spoke in favor at 
a hearing.
    An American commented that the United States has been 
interested in improvements in the Seaway system, and was 
concerned about Canada's recent move to unilaterally raise 
rates for passage.
    An American then suggested that the committee should go on 
record supporting the proposal to develop a joint system. This 
met with general approval.

      Environmental Issues: Climate Change, Water and Air Quality

    A Canadian reiterated concern over the falling water levels 
in the Great Lakes. This led the discussion into the issue of 
global climate change. An American noted that if the Arctic ice 
pack is indeed melting at the rate suggested by some, it might 
solve the low water problem altogether. The member noted that 
there is a continuing debate over competing hypotheses, and the 
state of the science is insufficient to draw conclusions.
    A Canadian stated that Canada is concerned about the future 
of the Kyoto Accord, noting the possibility that rising 
temperatures could cause a cascade of economic effects.
    An American commented that it was a very emotional issue, 
but that the scientific information on human activity as a 
proximate cause is not consistent. It was noted that solid 
evidence from ice coring in Greenland indicates there have been 
a series of cyclical climatic changes in the past, without 
human intervention. The member noted that many U.S. 
parliamentarians felt there would be no net gain from the Kyoto 
Accord, especially in that it would provide greater flexibility 
to developing nations despite the fact that some, such as 
China, will in a fairly short time be surpassing the western 
nations as sources of pollution. On the other hand, said the 
member, Congress would be more likely to support a plan to 
assist developing nations gain the benefit of technical work to 
help them avoid becoming a problem, and allow all nations to be 
treated equally.
    A Canadian noted that despite strong Canadian support for 
Kyoto, what mattered most was whether the United States is in 
fact improving air quality, not the formal agreement to do so.
    Another American commented that air quality measurements 
are indeed improving, and significant strides have been made by 
the United States.
    A Canadian remarked that the financial issues involved go 
far beyond the cost of new technology, citing the economic and 
social costs of various respiratory complaints that are 
aggravated by poor air quality. The same delegate suggested 
that because clean air is a shared resource, we should work 
together to devise incentives for businesses to produce cleaner 
products.
    An American cited Michigan as a State that has made 
significant progress controlling its own pollution sources, but 
has still not achieved full compliance with air quality 
regulations because it is affected by sources outside the 
state. Some of those sources are still operating at higher 
pollution levels than sources in Michigan because they were 
dirtier to begin with, and were given more time to comply with 
regulations.
    Another American stated that air quality controls will be 
an issue as Congress deals with electrical service 
deregulation, noting that some power companies resent the fact 
that they had to clean up emissions while others were allowed 
to continue using cheaper but less environment friendly 
technology. ``Now those companies want to sell us power,'' 
remarked the delegate.
    A Canadian member summed up the debate on the issue by 
calling on both American and Canadian members to continue 
pressing on air quality matters.
                         FINAL PLENARY SESSION

                              Committee I

    A Canadian began by offering a retrospective on U.S.-Canada 
trade. Over the last two or three years, he said, a number of 
controversial issues are resolving themselves nicely through 
the dispute resolution mechanism. He named dairy as one 
example; other agricultural issues, he said, were addressed in 
1998 under the ROU. In general, there has been ``economic 
peace.'' The cultural issue has been resolved, although Canada 
still feels strongly about it; the two sides have come to a 
fair accommodation on the question of spit-runs.
    The delegate then discussed several issues that are still 
on the agenda. Seattle, he said, demonstrated the need for more 
transparency and accountability in the WTO. The main issue for 
growing globalization is how various countries should adjust.
    The participant said that he hoped the U.S. Congress would 
sort out the problems with China. By opening up trade with the 
Chinese, he said, we will more closely engage them, and reduce 
the trade imbalance. Hopefully, there will be a breakthrough on 
communications--they are keeping our high-value equipment out 
of their markets with high tariffs. On the transatlantic trade 
dialogue, the delegate characterized Europe as an ``iron 
curtain of trade.'' The EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 
is keeping North American farmers from selling in that market. 
We are prevented on all forms of agriculture from penetrating 
their markets--that includes raw commodities and processed 
foods, he said.
    The Canadian representative reported that there had been a 
consensus in the committee on the FTAA. There was a sense that 
Brazil was attempting to keep out North America. Canada and the 
United States, therefore, share the same concerns: if we don't 
penetrate this market, we'll be shut out by the Europeans, who 
have made a concerted effort to get in.
    The delegate said that the bilateral agricultural issues 
could be resolved; only sugar is going to be a problem. We have 
to admonish our bureaucrats to be sensitive to that. On 
pharmaceuticals, the delegate reported that the Canadians had 
sorted out their price structure. In Canada, there has been a 
problem with Americans coming over to fill their prescriptions. 
We think prices are too high, he said. The aging of the 
population contributes to this issue. On electronic commerce, 
he said that the United States is way ahead in terms of web 
sites and commerce. There are some common problems, including 
intellectual property, privacy, and piracy. Private industry is 
trying to squash costs; we need to set up some policy about the 
cost of government, he asserted. Turning to softwood lumber, 
the Canadian participant cautioned that, once the agreement 
terminates, serious problems may re-emerge. He said that the 
Canadians were in favor of a level playing field, and that they 
don't want countervailing duties as a threat. Both sides are 
compared to compete, he said. He closed by stating that Sable 
gas was providing cheap, efficient gas in the northeastern 
corner of the United States, and that a lifeline depends on 
this project.
    An American opened by responding that he did not disagree 
with much of what the Canadian had said--something which was 
fairly uncharacteristic of many of the recent IPG meetings. He 
said that, when it comes to the WTO, dispute settlement is 
pretty much the basis for what we've done for 50 years, and 
particularly since 1994. The United States wants to keep it 
going, especially with regard to agricultural problems with 
Europe. Central to keeping the process working is the 
leadership the United States has exhibited since 1947; however, 
this has been in a lull in recent years because the U.S. 
President hasn't been active, and Congress hasn't provided fast 
track to allow him to negotiate. We won't get far in reducing 
barriers to trade--particularly agricultural trade--until we 
get the United States back into a position of leadership, he 
contended. There are negotiations on services and agriculture, 
but there won't be much success in those areas until there's an 
all-encompassing agreement. Under a new administration, this 
must be given top priority. This will also help with the 
transatlantic trade agenda, and the FTAA. The U.S. Government 
hasn't been doing enough to include Canada, and it should 
because of the affinity on trade issues. The key nations need 
to get the Seattle round started again; some believe that 
environmental and labor issues need to be put on the agenda. On 
the issue of China, the American said that he thought that 
Congress would grant China Permanent Normal Trade Relations 
status by a narrow margin. He then discussed problems with the 
EU and identified subsidies as the main issue; the Europeans 
have over 80 percent of all the subsidies in the world, he 
claimed. The FTAA is closely tied to fast track and involves 
countries that want to cooperate, isolating Brazil.
    The U.S. participant said that he saw improvements in the 
area of agriculture, noting that U.S. cattle were being 
exported into Canada. He said that Congress was trying to pass 
a concurrent resolution to let the softwood lumber agreement 
expire, and to discourage the countervailing duty cases that 
would be launched by U.S. industries. The U.S. delegate then 
characterized the pharmaceuticals issue as ``very touchy.'' It 
is not primary to Congress, he said, and is probably more of an 
American than a Canadian problem.
    The American closed by discussing the dispute over of meat 
labeling, which he described as not nearly as acute as in the 
past. He said that the U.S. side was asking whether it was 
worth the additional cost, given the harm that it does to U.S. 
interests. Nevertheless, there is a feeling among American 
farmers and consumers that they should have information--that 
food origination ought to be known by the consumer as well as 
everything else.
    A Canadian said that there had been some dissent on the 
consensus over the WTO, and urged, as Clinton had done, that 
the concerns being addressed with respect to the need for the 
globalization paradigm take into account such things as 
cultural diversity, labor and environment; these are legitimate 
concerns, the Canadian said, and they won't go away. He also 
said that Chapter 11 of the NAFTA should be examined, as both 
Americans and Canadians are suing as a result of decisions made 
by State government; even supporters of NAFTA are critical of 
this, he said. The problem is that decisions are no longer 
being made by democratically elected politicians; they're done 
by the WTO. As examples, he cited the U.S. Endangered Species 
Act, and Canadian gasoline additives. Ultimately, they are 
political issues, he argued.
    Another Canadian stated that, while transparency of the WTO 
is important, the benefits of the WTO also need to be 
explained, and that those benefits have not been communicated 
very well. We need to arm ourselves with the facts to show that 
trade enriches people, he said, and that income must be created 
before it can be redistributed.
    Another Canadian offered the concrete suggestion that a 
parliamentary assembly be created for WTO countries and urged 
that that recommendation be accepted. Otherwise, he argued, the 
whole of the civil society input will be done by the non-
governmental organizations, who aren't elected. We delegates 
here are the most representative of the people. On FTAA, he 
said that he had traveled to Brazil and met with many 
officials, and that he had developed the clear impression that 
the Brazilians have no interest in pursuing the FTAA. He said 
that Brazil is the hegemon of Mercosur, and feels it needs to 
get in control of its own economy and Mercosur. He suggested 
that consideration be given to ``making an end run around 
them,'' as Brazil will be hostile to the FTAA for at least 
another 10 years.
    A Canadian urged fellow delegates to contemplate the 
failure of the WTO to deliver on the promises of the Uruguay 
Round for freer agricultural trade. Patience is running out, he 
said. On Chapter 11, he compared the Canadian banning of MMT, a 
gas additive, to softwood lumber. If there's manipulative 
activity on legislation, the two sides should go to the dispute 
resolution mechanism.
    An American said that he had met with Brazilian President 
Cardoso for an hour and came away with the same impression: the 
Brazilians are going to stay with Mercosur and talk to the 
Europeans. The United States needs to pass fast track, sit down 
with the Canadians, and work on the FTAA.
    A Canadian pointed to the fallout from the debate over the 
proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment, which left 
people with the impression that big business is in charge of 
the agenda. The perception is one we're stuck with if we don't 
address it, he said.

                              Committee II

    A Canadian began summarizing the committee's session by 
saying there were few areas of dispute. On the Balkans, there 
was quite a debate last year on how appropriate our involvement 
was; this year it was retrospective. He said that more money 
ought to be spent on conflict prevention than on the wars 
themselves. He stated that the committee had also wrestled with 
the difficult issue of where and when to get involved--Kosovo, 
but not Chechnya--and had also discussed the use of military 
force. Canadian forces, he said, were more geared for peace-
keeping operations, and U.S. forces for technological war-
making.
    Turning attention eastward, the delegate noted that the 
Caspian region has big potential, but lots of corruption, and 
that many of the countries in the area are politically 
unstable. He urged that North America focus on it now, given 
the resource potentials. On Russia, he summarized the 
committee's sentiment that the verdict is out on Mr. Putin, but 
that, given Russia's nuclear capability, it needs to be watched 
carefully.
    On the issue of NMD, the Canadian representative noted that 
there had been skepticism in the room on lots of aspects of the 
proposed missile shield, including its technological 
feasibility, and the effect it might have on relations with 
Russia. This is a domestic issue for the United States, but we 
all need to discuss it, he stated; in the meantime, all sides 
should continue to pursue nonproliferation.
    The Canadian also discussed the possibility of the two 
sides working together more closely, especially on developing 
health care programs for and improving trade with Africa. On 
the issue of bilateral security cooperation, he stated that 
Canada and the United States have the longest undefended border 
in the world, and that security problems will not be solved by 
Section 110 but by increased cooperation across the border. He 
pointed out that there is a lot more trans-border cooperation 
than people realize--through the police and others--and that it 
will intensify. He reported that the two sides had discussed 
their different domestic approaches, with the United States 
relying more on incarceration, and Canada focusing on health 
and rehabilitation. Cuba, he said, is not as controversial as 
it has been in the past. Everyone pretty much agrees that the 
embargo is counterproductive; the Elian Gonzales case pointed 
that up. Canada has been pursuing a policy of engagement, but 
it has not been working as well as hoped--Canada was very 
disappointed with the jailing of dissidents; the Cuban 
government broke its word. On land mines, the delegate 
expressed hope that the United States would adhere to the 
treaty with some reservations. And on the UN, he said that the 
committee discussed the payment of U.S. dues and the need for 
institutional reform. He concluded his report by saying that 
the committee agreed that e-commerce needed a technical, not a 
governmental solution.
    An American began by saying that both sides are curious 
about the outcome of the U.S.-Russia summit next month. On 
missile defense, he said that if the tests are successful, its 
popularity among Americans will increase, but if it doesn't 
work, support may falter--especially if people realize that the 
system will be designed to protect missile sites rather than 
population centers; finally, the public reaction against 
spending may decide the debate.
    The U.S. delegate said that a number of Members of 
Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, agreed that Section 
110 needs to be put in abeyance, at a minimum. Last week, he 
said, legislation was introduced to address it. Cuba will 
continue to be a problem, he said. Many believe that the 
embargo has outlived its usefulness. More and more people, 
especially in the farm states, but also within the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce, want to make changes in the embargo, and it will 
likely happen. On the issue of land mines, the American agreed 
that the United States does have to find a way to get into the 
treaty. Otherwise, it will be difficult for the country to 
exercise leadership on this issue.
    An American participant inquired about the Canadian 
position on missile defense. A Canadian explained that his 
government would not make a decision until the United States 
does so. On the other hand, he said, the parliament has held 
hearings, and there is an internal debate in Canada between the 
Foreign Ministry and the Department of National Defense. Some 
policy makers, he said, believe that NMD would increase the 
possibility of nuclear war; others feel that Canada's position 
in NORAD compels us to support it.
    An American asked the Canadians to comment on the staying 
power of Canada in the Balkans and on the vote in the U.S. 
Senate last week on a possible U.S. withdrawal. A Canadian 
responded that his government was discussing reducing the 
number of troops in Kosovo and moving them to Bosnia, but that 
Canada would not reduce the overall number of troops in the 
area. Another Canadian asserted that there should be clear 
objectives, and that when those objectives are accomplished, 
Canada should go. He said that he didn't think those objectives 
had been clearly delineated yet.
    Another Canadian asked about the ABM treaty and how NMD 
would fit into it. He also asked about the hardware. An 
American said that he hoped that Clinton and Putin will address 
not only this issue, but also the danger represented by the 
dispute between India and Pakistan.
    An American reported that his group of lawmakers had really 
made the change in Section 110 come about in Congress. He said 
that several Members had orchestrated efforts in the House, 
working with the White House, the Senate, and the Chamber of 
Commerce. He discussed legislation that would be introduced 
soon. He attributed the likely success of the initiative to the 
efforts of the IPG.

                             Committee III

    Before launching his report on Committee III, an American 
said that, on NMD, the Russians had already built a system, and 
that the United States had not. The two U.S. tests had been 
inconclusive; the test in June will help determine what 
happens. The debate will also focus on the likely sites, 
whether in North Dakota or in Alaska. The emphasis at this 
point in the United States is focused on third world countries, 
although that might change with time. The launch technology 
also might change, he said.
    On trans-boundary issues, a Canadian pointed out that the 
Pacific Salmon dispute has been resolved. An American replied 
that gratitude might be more appropriate than a detailed 
explanation. He outlined some of the highlights of the 
agreement, and gave special thanks to two members of the 
Canadian delegation for helping resolve the issue--finally.
    A Canadian then thanked the Americans who are working on 
the Section 110 issue. She also talked about the Devils Lake 
and Garrison diversion project. She further reported that there 
had been a resolution in the committee encouraging the two 
governments to work together on the preclearance issue. She 
then spoke about transportation and trade corridors, noting 
that 70 percent of all goods are transported by trucks, and 
that there are tens of millions of daily trips; the Canadian 
government was providing some funding to alleviate problems in 
this area, she said. She then discussed Atlantic coast 
fisheries, particularly Maine and the Passamaquoddy Indians. 
Turning to environmental issues, she said that climate change 
is still a key issue for her country, and that Canadians hope 
the Americans will sign the Kyoto Accord. She said that there 
has been tremendous progress on Great Lakes water quality, but 
that we still have a ways to go. She noted that the 
International Joint Commission would like a long-term study on 
climate change. Finally, she said that air quality is an issue 
in Southern Ontario.
    On the issue of Atlantic Coast fisheries, an American said 
that the intention to list Atlantic salmon as an endangered 
species is a very serious issue that would affect not only 
Maine, but New Brunswick as well. In the United States, both 
Republicans and Democrats in the area are united in the belief 
that this is no distinct population of Atlantic salmon. Another 
American participant raised the question of whether native 
fishermen would be exempt from the ban under the Endangered 
Species Act. On climate change, the U.S. representatives said 
that the Kyoto treaty would not be ratified because it does not 
apply to developing nations, especially China. But there was a 
consensus that we need to work to reduce emissions, she said.
    On the St. Lawrence Seaway, a U.S. delegate said that there 
are two organizations--one American, the other Canadian--that 
are spending $90 million, and that they should be put together 
into one, which would reduce the cost down to maybe $35 
million, passing the savings along to shippers. A Canadian 
talked about boat movement and ballasting. He said that a 
Michigan representative was introducing legislation on this, 
and that the regulations might affect traffic.
    An American spoke about the Devil's Lake project; North 
Dakota is proposing to drain the lake 100 miles south, into the 
Red River. Neither Manitoba nor Minnesota nor the 
environmentalists are happy about this, he said, but it is a 
huge issue in North Dakota. The lake has exploded in size, 
covering whole towns. Some have expressed doubt whether the 
proposed channel will drain enough water. To meet some of the 
environmental objections, the North Dakotans are proposing to 
treat the water so that it will be like municipal water. The 
environmentalists disapprove of this, however, because it would 
make the water too clean. The Canadians are skeptical. The 
delegate also discussed the problem of cormorants, which are 
creating problems in the region; he proposed that they be 
hunted more extensively, although the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service is opposed.
    A Canadian member presented her report on trade corridors. 
The funding that both countries put into this tends to be 
disbursed without being prioritized, she said. She highlighted 
the two recommendations of the report, suggesting that an 
American organization similar to Canada's be created, so that 
the two countries could work on the problem together. She said 
that her report points out a need for Municipal, State and 
Provincial, and Federal authorities to talk together on what is 
preventing free movement through these corridors, which include 
roads, air routes, waterways, and railroads.
    A Canadian raised the issue of a Canadian-American railroad 
merger that was being blocked. A U.S. participant said that he 
thought the Surface Transportation Board had said that it 
wanted to take a year to review its policies on all mergers, 
but that they were told by a court that they could not do so. 
So the process is probably back on track, he said, although the 
major railroads in the United States may challenge this in the 
courts.
    An American spoke of the dream of connecting the state of 
Alaska by rail through Canada to the lower forty-eight; and 
made a presentation on the issue.

                                    

      
