Foreign Affairs Committee on June 6th, 2018

[Martin Benjamin]

That's a very good question. Our government is quite concerned about the situation in Nicaragua.

We are actually working with both parties and we want to see a dialogue between the opposition and some of those groups in the government. There are many roads being blocked right now throughout the country and that situation worries us. There have been manifestations and there were a few people killed. This is a situation that is evolving. I think all the parties are asking for a robust dialogue between both parties, which we are actually sponsoring.

There were discussions at the OAS in the last two days. All member states of the hemisphere are concerned about the situation and we're watching with close attention. There is an ongoing dialogue right now that we're hoping will resolve those issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Saini, go ahead, please.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Good evening. Thank you very much for coming.

I have a general question to ask of you and it's basically on your departmental plan for 2018-19.

I'm reminded that today is D-Day. After the Second World War, as you are aware, Bretton Woods happened and the liberal international order was set up to prevent further war but also to provide economic growth across the world in a rules-based system. As you know, that growth has not been even in different parts of the world. If you look at sub-Saharan Africa, 50% of the world's poorest live there. One of your core priorities, priority number one in your departmental plan, states that one of the objectives is to strengthen the rules-based international order.

How do you propose the department will do that?

[Mark Gwozdecky]

That's a very big question. As the minister mentioned earlier, it was and continues to be a subject of discussion including in the G7, where G7 foreign ministers took a very clear decision that we would stand up collectively for that international rules-based order and that we would confront the threats to our democracies and these systems, both those threats that come externally and those that we need to do domestically in terms of demonstrating to the people of our countries that our democracies are working for them and delivering for them.

We also face external threats and we have committed and recommitted ourselves to bolstering the institutions that underpin that rules-based order. We've also committed to calling out activities of hostile actors when they act against us. That's one of the reasons the G7 foreign ministers agreed to establish a mechanism whereby we would be working collectively together to identify threats and examples of foreign interference, and would work to coordinate our responses to those.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

The second question I have is also about your departmental plan. I recently came back from Japan, South Korea, and the Phillippines, and I had the great opportunity to go to China, Vietnam, Hong Kong, and Indonesia in the fall. One of the things I noticed in that region of the world, especially in Southeast Asia, is the fact that right now trade groups are forming. You have ASEAN. Then you have ASEAN plus three. Then you have ASEAN plus six. Now you have RCEP currently being negotiated.

I know that we as a country have started preliminary talks with ASEAN, but it seems to me that ASEAN right now is focused on RCEP and is saying, “Let us negotiate with RCEP. Let's get that done, and then we'll discuss this with you.” Is there any appetite? The third core priority in your departmental plan is pursuing a progressive trade agenda.

I'm just wondering what the department's opinion is. Rather than waiting for ASEAN, would it be more opportune to look at RCEP or some version of that? I've even heard it said that when you look at the Asia-Pacific countries and you look at the Indo-Pacific area specifically, maybe there should be a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific, and that could be expanded to include as many countries as possible. Rather than trying to do bilateral new deals, we could do something multilaterally and kill all birds with one stone.

[Sarah Taylor]

Mr. Chair, I would agree with the statement that this is a region that has huge opportunities for Canada and for many of our major trade partners that are growing in importance for us.

We actually already have one deal almost in hand. It's before the House now to ratify, which is of course, CPTPP, the trans-Pacific partnership. That will bind us into a free trade agreement with a number of major economies in the region. Notably, Japan, our fourth-largest trading partner, but also a number of ASEAN countries are members of CPTPP. That is for us a first and important step.

I think there's been some suggestion of RCEP being somehow a rival of CPTPP. There are different sets of players, but I think there's potential for them to be complementary. There is some overlap in membership. We're certainly following with interest the progress on RCEP. It's probably a slightly less ambitious deal than is CPTPP but it is of interest. Certainly a shared goal for all in the region is ultimately a free trade area of Asia-Pacific. That is one of the goals that have been expressed collectively through our membership in APEC, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

My final question is regarding your peace and stabilization programs, and I know that you funded that. Your 2016-17 departmental results list a number of cases where money was set aside for the clearance of explosive devices, including in places such as Iraq and Ukraine. This past December, the government announced an additional $12 million to be put towards the clearance of land mines.

Can you please provide some detail as to where the money is being spent and what projects are being funded with these additional funds?

[Mark Gwozdecky]

The peace and stabilization program is a vital program that very few countries have. Not even every G7 country has a program like this. It's a program that focuses on the part of the spectrum that most conflict and fragile countries are most vulnerable to; that is, before they are stable enough to benefit from development assistance, they're going through a period of great fragility, and they need basic assistance to help them effectively get up and running. The stabilization involves helping newly liberated territories, for example, in Iraq, get their basic services up and running, whether that's water or electricity. It helps demine those areas so that people can live safely. It includes removing explosive ordnance and booby traps, and whatnot.

We have a number of those programs up and running in Iraq. We are supporting some demining in the liberated zones of Syria and elsewhere around the world. This program focuses on a broad range of stabilization activities. It complements our development assistance dollars and our humanitarian assistance dollars, and it means that Canada is a full-service provider, if you will, in terms of the states that most need our assistance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Colleagues, you're going to hear the bells start shortly. It's a 30-minute bell, so we have time.

Ms. Laverdière, the floor is yours.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to my former colleagues.

Here is my first question.

Would it be possible for the department to send us a statement of the expenditures allocated for election observations since the 2012-2013 financial year, including the budget forecasts for the current financial year?

[Arun Thangaraj]

I don't have that information with me right now, but we'd be happy to provide it to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

We'll get that provided to the committee. Thank you.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you very much.

Here is my second question.

Can you confirm that the Canada-Israel free trade agreement, or CIFTA, a new agreement on trade that has recently been modernized, improved and signed again, conforms to United Nations Security Council resolution 2334, specifically with the section requiring a distinction to be made between the territory of Israel and the occupied territories? As we know, Canada is bound by United Nations Security Council resolutions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Please introduce yourself for the record, and then go ahead and answer the question.

[Troy Lulashnyk, Director General, North Africa, Israel, West Bank/Gaza, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you very much.

I am Mr. Troy Lulashnyk, director general of Israel, Palestinian territories, northern Africa.

Thank you for the question.

We just signed a modernized free trade agreement between Canada and Israel, and this was the subject of many events as it was launched in Canada this week.

With respect to the issues of the definitions and the scope, the modernization did not change in any way the coverage of the free trade agreement. Particularly in respect of the question related to definitions, it didn't touch it all.

The modernization was really designed to look at the new chapters and the new ways in which we can facilitate trade. The important features of that agreement and the extension include the dispute resolution mechanism and the gender component. The Minister of International Trade said this week that this modernization is the first one in the world, and a guide for all future ones.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

May I see from your response that the current free trade agreement does not conform to UN Security Council resolution 2334.

[Troy Lulashnyk]

The free trade agreement that has been in place since the 1990s continues to be in place and the modernization didn't affect our definitions or the territories within which the trade is executed.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I didn't get a clear response, but I think we can presume the clear answer in that case. Thank you.

I would like to ask another question.

The Main Estimates 2018-2019 show that Global Affairs Canada has set aside about $48 million in operating expenses in order to provide assistance to Canadians abroad. However, according to the 2016-2017 departmental report, the department forecasts that the total cost of the consular program will rise to $134 million in 2018-2019.

Can you explain the difference between those two amounts?

[Heather Jeffrey]

The figures that appear in the main estimates are the direct expenditures that go to providing assistance to Canadians abroad, consular services and emergency management, whereas the DPR also reflects the indirect expenditures, for example, our platform of missions abroad and the services that are provided throughout the international platform, indirect costs that also support that service.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Mr. Levitt, please.

We have twenty-seven and a half minutes to go before the vote.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

I'm going to be splitting my time with MP Vandenbeld.

I have a couple of questions, both of them related to our recent travel to Asia which my colleague mentioned.

We just returned from Japan, Korea, and the Philippines a couple of weeks ago. Our focus was on many different issues in building the relationship with these countries, the bilateral relationship, and also a lot of discussion around ASEAN.

One of the areas where there was a great deal of appreciation for Canada and Canada's role was particularly around the Vancouver summit dealing with Korea. We heard great appreciation in Korea, and in Japan too, for Canada's leadership in bringing together so many countries to look at the prospects and help chart a path ahead.

I'm wondering if you collectively can provide any feedback on Canada's role, how that summit went, and what Canada's niche can be now, as this process moves forward.

[Mark Gwozdecky]

I would like to remind colleagues of the situation around North Korea not more than about 10 months ago when missile tests were being conducted, where the level of rhetoric was very extreme, and there was a deep sense of worry that tensions might boil over.

At that time Minister Freeland and then U.S. Secretary of State Tillerson agreed there was an important moment where countries needed to come together and put the emphasis back where it needs to be, which is on a diplomatic solution.

When 20 countries met at the ministerial level in Vancouver in January, we were very pleased and encouraged that there was a consensus that a diplomatic solution was not only possible, but was essential. Without suggesting any grandiose achievements from that single meeting, I think it was a moment in time when there was a clear determination to change the focus toward diplomacy. Fortunately, I think we would all agree that we're in a better place now with the potential for a summit between President Trump and Kim Jong-un in not too many days from now.

It was an example of Canada working with our most important partner and many other countries to try to change the channel, focus on a diplomatic solution that would stabilize the region, and benefit all.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I think it was clear to all members on that trip, and we went right up into the DMZ. Certainly in our discussions with senior Korean officials, there was, again, a great amount of appreciation for Canada's role in bringing together that group at the summit and the leadership we showed.

At this point, I'm going to pass the floor to Ms. Vandenbeld.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you so much.

I'm going to go back to the theme of my question I asked the minister, which was about elections in Venezuela. I'm very pleased that we downgraded our diplomatic relationship after what was very clearly a fraudulent election.

What are the criteria that we use when we look at elections and whether a downgrading of diplomatic relationships or a response is warranted? We know there are a number of elections around the world where.... An example is the DRC in 2011 and now there is a president who has overstayed his constitutional mandate. Another is Honduras in November 2017, where the OAS itself said that they couldn't guarantee elections were transparent. I could go on with a whole list of different elections that are questionable or not recognized by certain countries.

What do we actually look at? Is there a set of criteria? What is the determination as to whether a downgrading of our diplomatic relationship is warranted?