Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 16th, 2016

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

There are lots of opportunities, clearly.

[Vincent Rigby]

Absolutely.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Mr. Kent.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thanks to all of you for appearing before the committee today, and thanks to Canada's foreign service professionals who serve the country around the world in challenging and often dangerous circumstances, very often without the recognition they truly deserve.

Among the government's various Iran initiatives, of which we in the official opposition are very skeptical, is the plan to reopen an embassy in Tehran. Of course, our government closed the embassy in 2012 out of concern for the very safety of the foreign service professionals who were serving there.

I wonder if you could give an update, given the Iranian regime's selective application of the Geneva convention on diplomacy in terms of standing back and occasionally inciting attacks and assaults and damages on diplomatic missions. We've just seen the Saudi mission ransacked, and before that the British embassy, and of course we can go back to the occupation and destruction of the U.S. embassy after the Islamic revolution.

In this update, perhaps you could tell us the considerations with regard to acquiring a new embassy or a new mission. Tell us about its physical characteristics, and since it is among the most dangerous and hazardous postings in the world today, tell us the security precautions that would be essential to putting our at-risk Canadian staff in place.

Second, what is the counterbalancing provision for reopening the Iranian mission here in Ottawa, which was found by our government previously to have been deeply engaged in working to provide prohibited goods, particularly on the nuclear side but also in terms of ballistic missile development, through the mission here in Ottawa?

[Alex Bugailiskis]

Thank you very much.

Yes, we have a rather long and rocky history of relations with Iran. We've experienced some of the difficulties you've mentioned, Mr. Kent. We're quite aware of the recent sacking of the Saudi Arabian embassy. A statement has been made in that regard.

I think we're getting far ahead of ourselves. The public pronouncement by the minister is that we are interested in opening some channels of diplomatic engagement. There are no plans at present for opening an embassy. This will have to take a good deal of time, and it will depend on the response we get from the Iranians, not only with regard to interest but also in terms of assurances on security in particular.

For the coming months, I don't anticipate any change in that status. We'll just be seeking to perhaps increase our diplomatic engagement in some modest way.

[Mark Gwozdecky]

I'd like to add something to your point about proliferation-related activities.

Many will have followed the announcement by the government a week ago, when we lifted many of the sanctions that were in place against Iran. I should tell you that we did not lift the controls that we have on exports to Iran that are of concern for proliferation, particularly with respect to nuclear and ballistic missile goods and technologies.

When we reviewed our package of sanctions, we employed a lot of rigour to ensure that we wouldn't open the door to trade and proliferation of sensitive goods and services. In fact, we also added six individuals and one entity to our autonomous sanctions under the Special Economic Measures (Iran) Regulations for their role in supporting Iran's ballistic missile program.

We're constantly watching for this kind of risk and mitigating against it when we can.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

With regard to the prohibited entities, I understand that Canada has lifted the prohibition on Bank Melli, which is an Iranian state bank, whereas the United States has not. Some concern has been expressed in certain circles in the United States that the reopening of a Canadian operation of Bank Melli may see the movement of funds for various reasons that might be suspect.

I wonder whether FINTRAC would be the government's tool to prevent unauthorized dealings.

[Mark Gwozdecky]

FINTRAC would certainly be one of the partners that we work with regularly on this issue.

The fact is that overall we have a relatively consistent approach with regard to the United States and our European allies when it comes to sanctions, but our lists are slightly different. That depends on a number of different factors, including the information we have available to us that would suggest whether or not something poses a risk. The only identical lists that we have are the UN lists, which all states are obliged to implement.

There are slight deviations. I could look for more information about that specific case. Not all of it is something we can talk about openly.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Sure, I understand.

I will ask about the Palestinian Authority now.

In recent years our previous government invested substantially in supporting justice initiatives and security initiatives, particularly in the West Bank. It supported building courthouses and training judges in the rule of law, and training security forces in Jordan so that they could take over security duties to allow the removal of the Israeli security presence in the West Bank.

I wonder if you could give us an update on where exactly those initiatives stand.

[Alex Bugailiskis]

Mr. Kent, those initiatives are ongoing. They are exactly the sectors in which we continue to do justice and economic growth programming in the West Bank and Gaza. I think we've expended around $15 million in the past year, and upward of $27 million with regard to the efforts to implement development programming that will—exactly as you said—strengthen their ability to be secure and provide assurances of security to Israel and others. Equally importantly, it will enable their economic development and their ability to provide employment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I didn't realize it was our time, but thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am going to ask a follow-up to Ms. Gould's question related to humanitarian aid.

I think everybody recognizes the importance of providing humanitarian aid within the constraints that the government has. My question is, how do you vet the international agencies to which we give this aid? For example, if the previous government made a decision to remove funding from an agency as a result of the rationale at the time, what proper vetting are we doing before considering re-engaging with that agency?

[Alex Bugailiskis]

From a development perspective, the area that I'm responsible for is a rather complex area. There are many actors. We take this very seriously and do a lot of due diligence.

There are many different levels of control and evaluation. One, of course, would be the partnerships we have with non-governmental organizations and UN agencies. Obviously these are vetted very carefully. We have an understanding that they must disclose all of their partnerships. They must tell us if they are going to delegate some of our funding to another organization, and therefore we would have the right, and indeed the obligation, to be able to do due diligence and understand what those organizations are and if we have any concerns.

In the particular case of the West Bank in Gaza, we will take special measures—that is, we will look at any contracts with organizations against Canada's terrorist list and ensure that we are not providing funding for those organizations.

[Heather Jeffrey]

From the perspective of our humanitarian assistance, first of all, especially when we're working in complex crises, such as the situations we see in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere, we work only with experienced and interested partners who have a track record of experience on the ground in conflict settings. They typically have very developed systems of registration of beneficiaries to ensure that the aid is going to the right people. They have logistics plans and distribution plans that enable us to ensure that it is in fact the most vulnerable who are receiving the assistance. We participate by virtue of our relationships with these international organizations on their governance boards, so we have a say in the decisions they make about how they work in conflict zones.

In addition, our standard procedure is to look at the financial status of the organizations. We do fiduciary risk assessments for each organization we work with. Once the projects are ongoing, they are tracked, reported on, and monitored in the field to the extent possible, either by ourselves and our missions directly or through other partners.

Finally, we have a detailed program of program- and project-based monitoring and evaluation, which looks at the results that were achieved in the field and then reports back on that.

Thank you.

[Vincent Rigby]

Perhaps I could jump in, Mr. Chairman, on the evaluations side.

We have a very robust evaluation function inside the department on the development side. On a five-year rolling plan, we evaluate all of our programming right across the board, 100%. That includes, as Heather said, the agencies and organizations we work with, including on the humanitarian side. These evaluation reports are posted publicly on the website. You can actually go and see what the reports said and see the departmental responses to the recommendations in those evaluation reports.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Mr. Sidhu, go ahead.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you.

Employment is still stuck in my mind. Thank you for all the hard work you guys are doing, but being a businessman, I know there's always room to improve. What can we do as a committee to change the policy in order to employ Canadians?

I know we're concerned about the economics of it, but as I said, we're suffering right here in our own country. We have people from all over the world here. If language is the issue in the country we're serving, then we need to come up with some sort of plan. I mean, 5,000 people is 5,000 people out of 10,000, so guide us here: what do you need from this committee to change the policy on that a little bit?

[Vincent Rigby]

I will defer to my former ambassadorial colleagues. I screwed up the number the last time, so....

[Mark Gwozdecky]

That's a fundamental policy question that I think we'd be happy to take back to our minister for consideration. It's not something we'll be able to pronounce on today, but we'll very happily bring that clear message back.

[Alex Bugailiskis]

I would only reassure the member that a major part of our work at the department is creating jobs for Canadians. Through our trade and investment programs, there are multiples of the 5,000 you're speaking to, sir. Through our work and through our embassies abroad, we are promoting Canadian goods and services. We are trying to attract investment here in Canada that is producing thousands of jobs for Canadians.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I'm glad to hear that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you.

Mr. Saini is next.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I have just a quick question. With regard to the trade agreement with Europe, one of the irritants has been investor rights between Canada and the CETA. I'm just wondering whether you can enlighten us about whether that has changed or what progress has been made with regard to that negotiation.

[Alex Bugailiskis]

I believe that our Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement trade negotiator, Mr. Steve Verheul, addressed the international trade committee this morning. I think he would have brought your colleagues up to date on negotiations.

The investor state dispute is, we hope, a final sticking point in ongoing discussions between him and his EU counterpart. We're fairly confident that we're going to find a solution very soon and move on that. I would again underline the importance of this agreement in being able to create jobs. As a very modest estimate, we are hoping for a 20% increase in trade in services and goods.