Evidence of meeting #89 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 canada's.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you very much.
At this point, on behalf of the entire committee, I would like to thank all three of our witnesses: Mr. Devlen, Mr. Théberge and Madame Mallet. We're very grateful for your time and for your perspectives as well.
I will suspend very briefly, for a couple of minutes. I see that the witnesses for our next panel are actually in the room, so it shouldn't take more than two minutes.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Welcome back, everyone.
I would now like to welcome our second panel of witnesses. We're grateful to have with us today Mr. Charles Burton, senior fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and Mr. Ardi Imseis, assistant professor, faculty of law, Queen's University. From the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, we're very fortunate to have with us today Mr. Colin Robertson.
Welcome. As you are aware, given that you have been here for the past hour, you will each be provided with five minutes for your opening remarks, after which we will open it to questions from the members.
We will start off with Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton, you have five minutes for your opening remarks.
12:05 p.m.
Dr. Charles Burton Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
China's relations with the west, particularly China's strategies of hybrid warfare and the Chinese Communist Party's influence operations in western nations, are my area of expertise.
I was educated in China, subsequently worked with the Communications Security Establishment and had two diplomatic postings to Canada's embassy in Beijing earlier on in my career.
What Canada is facing today is an increasingly corrosive challenge from China's Communist Party-state-military-civilian-market People's Republic of China regime complex. China's strategic intent in Canada is severely at odds with our interests and values.
However, Global Affairs Canada's response to China's comprehensive and coordinated malign challenge to our democratic institutions has been, to be frank about it, pathetically weak and highly ineffective.
Indeed, the Senate's “Rising to the Challenge: Empowering Canada's foreign service” report, which just came out, says that foreign language capacity at Global Affairs Canada has diminished in recent decades, with an insufficient number of staff who can speak Mandarin, Russian and Arabic.
If you then look at the Global Affairs June 2023 “Future of Diplomacy: Transforming Global Affairs Canada” discussion paper, it says, along similar lines:
foreign service officers with in-depth expertise in specific geographies and issue areas...have increasingly felt disadvantaged over time, including in promotional processes, where emphasis has been placed on management competencies, rather than geographic, linguistic or issue-area expertise.
In response, the report says:
The department is coordinating an investment of $35 million over 5 years to build China-focused analytical capacity across its global mission network.
In my view, this is much too little, much too late. Anyway, this is belied by the report in the National Post last week on how last August, as a cost-cutting measure, Global Affairs was suspending all foreign-language programs offered at missions until March 31, 2024.
Furthermore, GAC's adopting of a country-agnostic diplomatic approach to China does not take into account that our Canadian institutions are not compatible and have no genuine counterparts with those of China's Leninist system.
What I mean to say is that the most important role of the Chinese ambassador in Ottawa is to be head of the embassy's Chinese Communist Party committee. The ambassador oversees a massive network outside of legitimate embassy and consulate premises, including the police stations and proxy organizations that enable interference in our elections and other democratic processes and which direct Chinese businesses in Canada to engage in a wide range of grey-zone and espionage activities to transfer sensitive technologies to the Beijing regime.
The resultant paucity of in-depth China-specific expertise within Global Affairs Canada means that our diplomats are readily flim-flammed by sophisticated Chinese regime interlocutors and Canadian special interests that are beholden to the Chinese regime interests.
Another issue I feel I should raise is the tendency of foreign service officers retiring from the public service to undertake roles effectively enabling the PRC agenda in Canada. What I mean is that they go into lucrative positions in agencies such as the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada or the Canada China Business Council or law firms and other enterprises with close relationships with business networks of the Chinese regime.
Such post-government sinecures are not available to civil servants who, while in positions of public trust, were identified by the Chinese Embassy as having been proactive in seeking to defend Canada's security against the malign activities of the Chinese regime. We are more and more aware that the Chinese authorities maintain a lot of lists and files on all of us, facilitated by AI. This reality has a dampening effect on the rigour with which GAC seeks to defend Canada's security and sovereignty against China's very serious challenge to us.
We talk a lot about China, but we do little. The upshot is that, sadly, thanks to our Canadian naivety, greed and passivity, time and time again, China comes up on top to the damage of Canadian national interests of security and sovereignty.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you very much, Mr. Burton.
We go next to Professor Imseis.
You have five minutes, sir.
12:10 p.m.
Dr. Ardi Imseis Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In brief, I have three simple points.
First, Canada's declared commitment to the rules-based international legal order is crucial to maintaining its moral standing in the world. Upholding international law as the only normative yardstick on the international plane is essential if Canada's future diplomacy initiative is to succeed.
Second, for Canada's declared commitment to international law to result in concrete diplomatic and reputational gains on the international plane, it must both be and be seen by others to be credible. Credibility is everything, and in a world where geopolitical tumult is on the rise, it is in Canada's national interest to cultivate and protect its credibility.
Third, by all objective accounts, unfortunately, Canada has failed to maintain its credibility when it comes to upholding international law in practice. This is evidenced by very clear double standards applied by Canada, which derive from an apparent prioritization of political preferences and alliances over the universal application of norms and the rule of law.
To illustrate, let us consider Canada's position on two of the most high-profile conflicts raging today: occupied Ukraine and occupied Palestine.
In Ukraine, Canada has appropriately and consistently affirmed its opposition to Russia's aggression, annexation and occupation. Canada's position is rooted in two key principles of international law: first, the prohibition on territorial conquest, and second, the obligation to respect the right of peoples to self-determination. Because these norms are peremptory in nature, derogation from them is not permitted in international law. As such, all states, including Canada, have an obligation neither to recognize their violation nor to do anything to aid or assist them.
In Palestine, while Canada's official position remains that Israel is an occupying power there and that Israeli settlements are unlawful, the government has pursued a policy that aids and assists in the maintenance of this violation. It does this by allowing for the duty-free import of Israeli settlement products under the Canada-Israel free trade agreement. Under CIFTA, Israeli territory is defined in a manner that includes the occupied Palestinian territory, thereby violating the prohibition on territorial conquest and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. The Attorney General of Canada now takes the position that it is reasonable to label Israeli settlement products as “products of Israel” when they are imported into Canada, even though these products are actually produced in occupied Palestine.
On its face, CIFTA is an unlawful treaty under international law for being in violation of the two peremptory norms that I earlier noted. In addition, the terms of CIFTA do not comport with Canada's obligations under Security Council Resolution 2334 “to distinguish, in [its] relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967”.
Canada is also clearly in breach of its obligation to respect, and to ensure respect of, the terms of the fourth Geneva Convention, as well as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in this respect, which identify settlements as war crimes. These conventions have been incorporated into the domestic legislation of Canada, as you all know.
Given the unprecedented situation in Palestine now, I must raise two further points about Canada's position that do clear harm to its reputation globally.
The first is Canada's position that despite the crisis of impunity that prevails in the Middle East, Palestine should not be allowed to seek redress at the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice. These mechanisms are central in upholding the rules-based international legal order, given they encourage states to resolve disputes pacifically rather than through the use of force. If anything is apparent from the current events, we need more, not less law. We need more pacific dispute resolution, not less of it. Why, then, would Canada actively take measures to oppose Palestine's recourse to justice through these mechanisms?
Relatedly, some two months into the most recent hostilities, which have resulted in the killing of over 18,000 Palestinians—two-thirds of whom are women and children—1,200 Israelis and the injury of 50,000 Palestinians and 5,000 Israelis, it is inexplicable that Canada refuses to join the majority of states in calling for a general ceasefire. With every day that passes, hundreds more are killed and millions remain subjected to starvation as a tool of war. Gaza is being razed through wholesale indiscriminate Israeli bombardment, and the spectre of permanent forcible transfer of all 2.3 million Gazans out of Gaza looms large. Surely, if peace is to prevail, an immediate cessation of hostilities is the least Canada could and should be calling for.
Thank you for your time. I'll conclude there. I'm happy to take questions in the Q and A.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you, Professor Imseis.
We now go to Mr. Robertson.
Mr. Robertson, you have five minutes.
12:15 p.m.
Colin Robertson Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My observations on diplomatic capacity are based on 33 years in Canada's foreign service and 15 years with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
We need diplomatic capacity to advance our objectives internationally. This is hard in a world that is messier, meaner and multi-centred. It is even harder when the political divide of our times is open versus closed, with no consensus on shared norms or rules, especially when it comes to human rights. It is further complicated with social media spewing disinformation and misinformation aimed at destabilizing and dividing democracies.
Diplomatic capacity relies on both hard and soft power. This means a robust foreign service to serve individual Canadians and Canadian interests. This also means a muscular armed forces to ensure deterrence and collective security, as well as well-funded development assistance to deal with global inequities and support fellow democracies.
We are no longer the helpful fixer we once were. We can play that role, but to do so, we must strengthen our diplomatic capacity.
As a first step, I encourage you to endorse and fund the recommendations in the recent Senate report, “More than a Vocation: Canada's Need for a 21st Century Foreign Service”.
My second observation is that the United States will always be our preponderant relationship, our partner in trade, our ally in defence and security and our co-steward in managing our shared environment. We can't change geography, nor would we want to.
We think we know all about the United States. We don't. I encourage parliamentarians to travel to the U.S. and cultivate members of Congress, whether through local, regional or policy interests. These relationships pay big dividends, especially as the U.S. tires of overseas entanglements and becomes more insular, if not isolationist.
As to managing Uncle Sam, remember three things.
First, our influence abroad hinges on our perceived access in Washington and our understanding of Americans. For its part, the United States is always interested in our intelligence and the constructive ideas that we can bring to the table. Again, this requires an active and agile global diplomacy, including being in places the United States is not, such as Pyongyang, Tehran and Havana.
Second, as Brian Mulroney put it, we can disagree without being disagreeable. Americans can take criticisms. What they cannot stand is dithering or obfuscation.
Finally, avoid preachiness. Heed Lester Pearson's advice that “as American difficulties increase, we should resist any temptation to become smug and superior”, and, “Our own experience, as we wrestle with our own problems, gives us no ground for any such conviction.”
My third observation is that we balance our bilateral U.S. relationship with an active multilateralism aimed at creating norms and rules. We need to re-embrace functionalism, meaning that if you have interests and competence, you earn and deserve a seat at the table. Functionalism is how small and medium powers level the playing field against big powers, who would return us to a system based on spheres of influence, where big dictates to small.
In conclusion, more than most nations, Canadians' sense of self-identity is realized by how we act and are seen to act abroad. More than most, Canada's prosperity depends on our ability to trade and invest abroad and to attract talented newcomers. This means strengthening our diplomatic capacity with a similar commitment to strengthening our armed forces and diplomatic assistance.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you very much, Mr. Robertson.
Now we open it up to questions from the members, and we go first to Mr. Epp.
You have five minutes, sir.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses. Technology is wonderful. In person is far better.
Let me begin with you, Mr. Burton. You have been critical of Canada's depletion of our hard power. Many call for Canada's role in the world to contain soft power. Can we have soft power without hard power?
12:20 p.m.
Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute
No. Years ago, Mr. Pearson's son, Jeff Pearson, was a Canadian diplomat and became our ambassador to the UN and in Moscow. We were having lunch, and we were talking about all the things we were doing.
Pearson turned to me and said that what the government of the time had forgotten was that you can't do soft power without hard power. Something his father fundamentally understood was that we were so successful in that post-war period—the so-called “golden era”—in large part because we had hard power to back up that soft power. That was something that Pearson and the diplomats of that era understood. I think both governments of that era also understood.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
Thank you.
I'll go back to Mr. Burton.
Canada was not included in the 2021 “three eyes” agreement to counter Chinese influence.
Why?
12:20 p.m.
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
I was in Washington three weeks ago, and we talked about this.
Frankly, particularly under our current Prime Minister, I think there's a feeling that Canada is not deserving of being part of these important multilateral, or what we call “minilateral”, institutions. We just don't bring enough to the table. Our Prime Minister's statement that we would never meet the 2% went down like a stone into a still pond.
There's a lot of rhetoric, but just not enough coming forward with what needs to be there to be considered a responsible stakeholder in these institutions.
That's not to speak of issues of leakiness in terms of our maintaining confidential documents that are shared among the Five Eyes.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
Thank you.
You mentioned that Canada doesn't bring enough to the table. A witness in the first round, Mr. Balkan Devlen, basically testified that Canada's priorities for our foreign service should be around, obviously, our U.S. relationship, our trading relationship and what Canada brings to the table.
Do you agree with that statement from a prioritization perspective?
I'll go to Mr. Burton to start.
12:20 p.m.
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
I think certainly we shouldn't work at odds to the United States. There's no question that they are our main partner and we need to continue to rely on the U.S.
I don't agree that we should be entirely oriented toward trade. I think we have to pay much more attention to the security threat from Russia and China, particularly in our north, and the security threat that seeks to undermine us everywhere.
When I learned that the Chinese were trying to go after Mr. Chong's family to pressure Mr. Chong, I thought that there's a serious problem here that we should be addressing much more rigorously.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Robertson, you testified at the Senate study on a similar basis. Given that study and those 29 recommendations, what are we doing here?
What can we add around this table, specifically, that the Senate didn't cover?
12:20 p.m.
Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute
I think that's a pretty comprehensive report, so I would encourage you to look at the recommendations, pick out the ones you think are the most salient, and support them.
It all comes down to money in the end, and, in some cases, probably a redeployment of resources.
One comment made in the Senate report is that foreign affairs is top-heavy; it's too home-based and not “foreign” enough, as they put it. I certainly concur with that.
Support that. I believe that the minister and the deputy minister would like to go down that way, but I think encouragement from this committee would help.
I think we need more people. We need more foreign service and fewer bean-counters. That's ultimately what we need.
There are situations: We talk about Gaza and we talk about Ukraine. We simply don't have the capacity to meet this anymore. Our armed forces are in a similar position, but it's our foreign service in particular. Remember, the foreign service is roughly the same size as it was when I joined almost 50 years ago, yet Canada is a third bigger. If we want to play, we have to pay for these things.
Again, I underline that it's all part of a whole—
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
If I can, I want to get in one more question for you. It's along the same vein. It's exactly where I wanted to go.
Given resource constraints, where would you prioritize it? You were critical of cutting the language studies instead of chopping the top-heavy part.
Where would you prioritize, and what could we do less of?
12:20 p.m.
Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute
Language is really important. We have made the case. You have to be able to understand and empathize with the cultures. Cutting back language is completely short-sighted, especially in a country like our own, where we have people who can probably do....
This means a whole new look at how, bluntly, we do the human resources within foreign affairs. It's probably a reallocation of where we put the resources. Again, less home-based and more foreign is what you want a foreign service for.
I spent half of my career abroad. People today spend maybe 10% of their career abroad. That's not a very effective foreign service.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
December 11th, 2023 / 12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I regret not being there with all of you, but I'm grateful for the opportunity to ask our witnesses questions.
We often talk about foreign policy being shaped by promoting our values and defending our interests. There's another factor that is understood but rarely spoken about publicly, which is politics. In a democracy, there is a role for citizens and civil society to participate in shaping our policies, but it's not [Technical difficulty—Editor]
I guess my question is, if we are to offer, as a committee, recommendations to government on how to promote the participation of civil society and of citizens in shaping policy, yet protect against the cynical perspective that policies can be bought and sold, what would you offer to us that we could study or recommend as a committee to the government?
Maybe I will start with Professor Imseis.
12:25 p.m.
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
I think it's doing exactly what you're doing here. Meet with people who are in the know, collect information and make sure there are value bases, as well, that the government operates under.
We are told, for instance, that we share values with various countries in the world with whom we share tight, strong relations, yet those countries are engaged in violations of the most basic principles of international law we claim also to have fidelity towards, so clearly our values aren't worth that much when we consider other competing factors.
It's important for our civil service, regardless of who's in power, to work towards ensuring that values are kept tight, strong and in line with the broader, more progressive middle-power politics. That is what Canada's footprint should be on the international plane.
Thank you.
