Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 19th, 2018

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

It sends a message that, sooner or later, you're going to be dealt with. If someone thinks, for example, you can rape a young girl and then it's just a payment, quite frankly it becomes a form of prostitution, whether she likes it or not. If there's some kind of accountability there, that, no, you're not going to get away with this, that would add to changing future behaviour as opposed to just letting it happen. You're saying they work right now with impunity.

[Georgette Gagnon]

That's the whole purpose. It's to prevent and deter.

By holding to account and highlighting that there is accountability and someone actually does go to jail for it or is sanctioned or can't travel through travel bans, or is financially penalized, which I think is what really needs to happen in South Sudan—

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

On the travel ban idea, if the sum total of other nations would say, whether you were paid off or not, as far as we're concerned if you come to our country we're dealing with you—

[Georgette Gagnon]

Yes.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Does that exist?

[Georgette Gagnon]

Yes, there are such things. There are travel bans.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Are we using them to the fullest to make it very clear that if you perpetrate some action, even if, while you're there in your neck of the woods you're safe, the minute you step outside of this area the sum total of the United Nations will deal with you? Is that clear to them, to the perpetrators?

[Georgette Gagnon]

Yes, I think it is.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Are we doing enough there?

[Georgette Gagnon]

Probably not. The classic example is the president of Sudan, who has all kinds of travel bans. He's been indicted by the International Criminal Court. He cannot travel to some countries or he will be picked up.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

To some countries, though.... He can't travel to some countries.

[Georgette Gagnon]

Other countries let him in, and that's the same for some of these individuals who are under travel bans and economic sanctions.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Should we be looking at these countries that are not enforcing the ban? Do they have a certain reason for not doing it, or economic...?

[Georgette Gagnon]

Usually...or they may be friends and allies of that state, but those tools all need to be used. They are still in use and they probably could be used a little more effectively.

My colleague may have something to say about that.

[Susan Stigant]

I would just say that the follow-up and the enforcement of those kinds of mechanisms solely depends, largely depends, on actions by members of the UN Security Council and diplomatic representatives. The UN system, in and of itself, is not positioned to do that. That falls to member states, and particularly to the Security Council. I think that's—

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Are there members in the Security Council that are not enforcing this or are being lenient where they should not be?

[Susan Stigant]

Yes.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Why don't we name them?

[Georgette Gagnon]

They are the usual suspects.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Who are they? What countries are allowing these perpetrators to continue in the UN Security Council? That's what we're here for, unless you feel uncomfortable—then don't.

[Susan Stigant]

It depends very much on the particular country and the case. South Sudan has been a relatively successful case where you've been able to get quite significant action through the UN Security Council. Other conflict situations like Yemen are much more difficult because there is a greater degree of polarization, where you have the United States, France, the U.K. maybe largely agreeing, and Russia and China often not agreeing.

That is a real reflection of some of the challenges in the multilateral system at the moment, which requires different approaches to diplomacy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you very much to both of you. You have travelled long distances, from Geneva and Washington, D.C.

This was two hours very well spent with witnesses who gave us a really detailed look at a number of the issues we are tackling in this committee. I really thank you for making your way here today and for spending this second hour with us.

Colleagues, with that, I have a reminder that on Wednesday the committee is cancelled. We'll be meeting again at the same time next week on Monday.

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.