Evidence of meeting #86 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was icc.
A video is available from Parliament.
6 p.m.
Professor, Defence Studies, Canadian Forces College, As an Individual
I'll answer in English because if I speak a lot in French, you'll either laugh or cry.
You asked why we have taken the emphasis off cultural diplomacy. I think you may be referring in part to the cancellation of the understanding Canada program, which was a series of Canadian studies programs that allowed students from around the world to come to Canada to study briefly—and to spend money in our economy, I should add—and gave opportunities for Canadian scholars to teach Canadian studies abroad.
I think it was a fantastic program. I mean, I'm sure it had its bureaucratic issues, but it was theoretically a fantastic program. It was not expensive, but the challenge with a program like that in times when governments are managing their budgets is twofold.
First of all, it's very difficult to measure the outcomes. It's very hard to be able to prove tangibly to members of Parliament that this exchange program created “this result” for the national interest. At the diplomatic level, we're pretty confident that it did, but it's very hard to put that on paper. The second challenge is that one of the great constituencies for this program is people in other countries, who neither vote nor have a voice at a forum like this to express to members of Parliament and decision-makers how valuable these programs are.
It is my deep regret this program was cancelled. I hope it is revived.
6 p.m.
Liberal
6 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you.
Dr. Kersten, you talked about Canada being a strong proponent of the rules-based international order, and my concern, of course, is the consistency of that: that it happens throughout and that we are seen to do that no matter who's involved. Of course, we're not seeing that, as you mentioned, in the position Canada has taken in terms of the conflict in Israel and Palestine.
Can you explain more about Canada's actions toward the ICC and ICJ in the context of Israel and Palestine, including Canada's submission this summer to the ICJ? Why is there a different response when you compare that to Ukraine and Syria, and what is that impact?
6 p.m.
Assistant Professor, University of the Fraser Valley, and the Wayamo Foundation, As an Individual
Thank you for the questions.
In terms of the International Criminal Court, Canada's position is simply that it does not recognize that Palestine is a state and therefore, the ICC can't investigate in the country. What is notable about that is members of Parliament have repeatedly expressed their desire for Canada to investigate other situations in other countries that are not member states of the ICC, including China over the Xinjiang atrocities and Iran over its atrocities. I think those efforts are welcome.
Again, I ask the question: If that is the rule and if we should be supporting investigations and prosecutions in those situations, why not everywhere? Why is this only happening sometimes?
With respect to the International Court of Justice, Canada submitted a filing this past summer against the International Court of Justice's potential proceedings in relation to the legal consequences of the occupation in Palestine. I have a copy here. What is concerning there is that, at the very same time it did so, it was rightfully bringing Syria to the International Court of Justice with the Netherlands over torture. Again, this raises the question: Why is it okay for the ICJ to hear proceedings in relation to Syria but not in relation to Palestine?
Perhaps what's most disturbing about Canada's filing at the ICJ is that it amounts to saying that Canada believes international law has no role to play whatsoever in the context of peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
6:05 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
In terms of the position Canada has on potential war crimes, or other crimes, especially those committed in Israel and Palestine, and now its refusal to call for the ceasefire, can you talk about the impact of this on Canada's future, in terms of diplomacy and our credibility in the eyes of the international legal world?
6:05 p.m.
Assistant Professor, University of the Fraser Valley, and the Wayamo Foundation, As an Individual
I think some of Canada's allies appreciate its positions on different international legal matters. I can say that, in my discussions with member states of the International Criminal Court—many, if not all, are allies of Canada—there is a concern. They fail to understand why Canada would not support the International Criminal Court's investigations into Palestine. Not only that, Canada seems to want to obstruct those investigations. As I said earlier, it's one thing to stand aside and another to obstruct and continuously declare that Palestine isn't a state before the ICC, when in fact the judges at the International Criminal Court have found exactly the opposite. In my view, it does not help the credibility of Canada in various fora at the United Nations and in most of its diplomatic engagements.
Again, I think people are surprised and taken aback. They are trying to figure out how this rhetoric on defending a rules-based order and international justice fits with such selective approaches—not to abstract beings, but to people who are experiencing atrocities and who have been experiencing atrocities for a very long time.
6:05 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
In terms of that relationship, is it possible this influences what we've asked for currently, for example, the investigation into Russia and Ukraine, or is it a future...? It is a future problem, absolutely. Could it backfire on us in that way, too?
6:05 p.m.
Assistant Professor, University of the Fraser Valley, and the Wayamo Foundation, As an Individual
On the situation in Ukraine, I would note that, at the Nuremberg trials, the crime of aggression was declared as the supreme crime, because only once the crime of aggression has been committed can other crimes be committed, such as war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Canada, unfortunately, took a very strong and deleterious role during negotiations over the crime of aggression and the ICC's jurisdiction over it, which ensured, in short—I know I'm probably short on time—that the International Criminal Court could never prosecute Russian perpetrators of the crime of aggression in Ukraine.
Again, many diplomats I speak to have this one question: Why weaken the ICC's jurisdiction over the crime of aggression? It did so, and now the only body that could prosecute this crime is unable to do so. That's thanks in part—not in whole—to Canada's position on the ICC.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you.
We will now proceed to the second round. For the second round, some members will have five minutes and some will have two and a half minutes.
We will start off with MP Chong.
You have five minutes.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses for appearing.
I'd like to direct my questions to you, Dr. Welsh. Thank you for appearing. It's good to see you again.
I note that while we've had a defence policy since 2004, which is currently being updated, we've not had a national security policy since 2004 and, as you pointed out, we've not had a comprehensive foreign policy review since 2005, an initiative I believe you led way back when, under the government of Paul Martin.
I'm particularly interested in getting your take on how we should approach a foreign policy review. As you know, the government took some time to publish an Indo-Pacific strategy. If the Government of Canada is going to build on that, how should we divide the rest of the world geographically to accomplish other strategies? Should there be a Euro-Atlantic strategy and then—I know this term if falling out of use—maybe a global south strategy? How would you divide the rest of the world geographically so at least we have a written document from which everybody can be working?
6:10 p.m.
Director, Centre for International Peace and Security Studies, McGill University, As an individual
Thanks so much for the question.
As you can imagine, I've given this a lot of thought. I can also understand the concern of some about the enormous investment of time required to do a systematic foreign policy review, and I've heard our ambassadors and civil servants say we need to move beyond talking about foreign policy and actually do something about it, and this would just mire us in another internal exercise.
The counter to that is that the world has shifted so much and we seem to be careening from event to event without an overarching framework. While there were some limitations to the Indo-Pacific strategy, I think it did try to provide that framework within which specific decisions could be made. We should also give some consideration to what other states have done and how other states have demonstrated to us how foreign policy change is possible. We keep—
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
6:10 p.m.
Director, Centre for International Peace and Security Studies, McGill University, As an individual
I wouldn't create a number of regional strategies.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
6:10 p.m.
Director, Centre for International Peace and Security Studies, McGill University, As an individual
I just don't think that is a productive way. I would provide an overarching framework within which you would refer to the Indo-Pacific strategy.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Okay, I got you.
Prime Minister Martin tasked the Government of Canada internally with coming up with a comprehensive foreign policy review. My understanding is that at the time he got frustrated and so he turned to you to lead one.
Would you recommend that a comprehensive review be led externally, as was done by you, or do you think it should be led internally?
6:10 p.m.
Director, Centre for International Peace and Security Studies, McGill University, As an individual
I don't think it should be led externally, in an ideal world. It should come from government with perhaps external involvement, though in an advisory function. It's less than ideal to parachute someone in.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
It sounds as though you're speaking from experience.
6:10 p.m.
Director, Centre for International Peace and Security Studies, McGill University, As an individual
Yes, but I do appreciate that this is a very live debate, and I think we have to take great care in how we pursue it.
I just want to make one quick comment to you as well. As you'll remember, the 2005 effort was defence diplomacy and development together, and I question whether that is the right approach this time. There are real pros and cons. As Professor Chapnick suggested, when we have a defence policy update that is overdue, we need to see it, and I don't think we necessarily need to integrate in quite the same way as we tried to do in 2005.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
How much time do you think this should take: six months or a year?
6:15 p.m.
Director, Centre for International Peace and Security Studies, McGill University, As an individual
It should certainly take no more than a year. With a very rigorous process that's carefully facilitated with good analysis, it need not take more than a year.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you very much. I appreciate that perspective.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here.
I'd like to start off with Professor Kersten.
We spoke a lot about the ICC and the Rome Statute. I think it's worth noting that Lloyd Axworthy was a leader in helping to create both of those. The Rome Statute established the ICC, and a Canadian, Philippe Kirsch, ended up chairing the negotiating body and was later selected as a judge.
Some have asked the question whether one has...which poses another question. With respect to potential crimes being committed by either of the parties in the Middle East conflict, which would be the adjudicating body where one would go to look at potential crimes and have them adjudicated upon?
