Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 16th, 2016

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd also like to ask about the possible reopening of our embassy in Tehran.

Obviously, I approach the matter from a different viewpoint, being one of those who believe in the importance of engaging in dialogue with parties even when we have a dispute with them. We will keep our eyes and ears open to see how things develop in the months ahead.

Seeing as I'm already making a few comments, I will take this opportunity to echo what my colleague said about the Global Fund. It's essential that we support the Global Fund given all the incredible work it does.

I'd also like to say a few words about the local employees in our embassies abroad. My understanding is that their expertise, in-depth understanding of the country, and network of contacts make it possible for Canadian representatives to do their jobs properly. They are, in my view, essential to the process. And that's it for my comments.

Now I'd like to come back to the topic of sanctions. Mr. Chemezov, Mr. Yakunin, and Mr. Sechin are on the list of individuals against whom the Americans have imposed sanctions. These Russian oligarchs have business dealings with Canada, and yet their names have never been added to the list of those subject to sanctions by Canada.

Will that situation be corrected soon?

[Alex Bugailiskis]

My apologies, but I'm going to answer in English seeing as it's a bit complicated for me.

The sanctions with regard to Russia, particularly in accordance with our position on Ukraine, are continually reviewed and updated as we move forward. The last update, I guess, was back in June 2015. We added a number of Russian individuals and entities.

The sanctions by other partners, whether the United States or the European Union, are harmonized, but they're not identical. They depend on the information we have, and they also depend on developments and timing. That's the best response I can give at this point.

With regard to ongoing review, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that we will continue to be very strong on Ukraine and that the sanctions will not be lifted until such time as they meet their obligations under the Minsk agreement.

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

Thank you.

I'm not sure whether you'll be able to give me an answer to my question today.

I'd like to know whether Canada is going to sign the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It applies to the treatment of people in prison. Canada has yet to sign the protocol. Are there any plans to do so?

Thank you.

[Mark Gwozdecky]

It's a very good question, Madame Laverdière, and it is an issue that is currently under discussion with our new minister with regard to an agenda related to human rights, which he may or may not wish to pursue.

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

When it comes to corporate social responsibility, we know Canada's current system simply doesn't work.

Are any efforts being made to strengthen the system? I assume that would involve a number of different departments. What efforts are being made to improve the system?

[Vincent Rigby]

On corporate social responsibility, Mr. Chairman, yes, there have been a number of discussions over the last few years in terms of how we want to move forward. In terms of the new government, I've certainly not been privy to discussions directly with ministers at this point in time with regard to how we want to move forward to strengthen standards or strengthen the provisions, etc. As you say, it's a matter not just for Global Affairs Canada but also for other departments.

As I mentioned before, we have a lot of extractive industries in Latin America. We're going to continue to work with the private sector, I think in the context of development in particular, but also more broadly in terms of promoting our prosperity. This is something that I think will remain on the radar screens, something we'll continue to look at.

In terms of specific measures right now, I can't say where government will want to go.

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

Now I'm going to turn to Ms. Fountain Smith and Ms. Jeffrey.

There is a major crisis going on in the Central African Republic. Are we, at the very least, going to maintain our humanitarian assistance to the Central African Republic? In addition, are we actively involved in the refugee camps in the neighbouring countries of the Central African Republic?

[Heather Jeffrey]

Yes. In fact, the situation in the Central African Republic is one of great concern to us, and we're following it very closely. It's a very volatile situation. We are active there and are looking at our assistance for the coming year in the context of the UN consolidated appeals, which have increased. We'll be looking at our response this year, given the increasing needs on the ground.

The sectors we've been working in relate mainly to safe water, health, emergency medical assistance, education, and seeds and tools to try to improve the very dire food security situation in the country that has been caused by displacement as a result of conflict within the borders and also by refugee flows into neighbouring states.

In 2015 Canada gave almost $28 million in assistance to respond to humanitarian needs in the Central African Republic. There are still 2.7 million people in need of assistance there, and we'll be looking at accommodating those needs going forward. We're currently the fourth-largest humanitarian donor to the Central African Republic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you very much.

I'm going to close it there for today. We have a number of items we'd like to discuss in the short time we still have left.

I want to thank the witnesses for coming.

One thing I want to signal is that we will be asking you to come back. It's my intention as the chair, if the committee will allow it, to invite the officials for updates on a fairly regular basis. I think this is very helpful, and as the government moves on, it will give us a chance to look at it as a quarterly visit, if you will.

I think this is a very good start, and as we work our way through the new government's mandate letters and the new agenda, we'll have lots to ask, for sure.

I want to take this opportunity to thank you very much for coming here today. We look forward to seeing you again.

Thank you.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, I have a quick point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Colleagues, we'll suspend for five minutes and then we'll come back.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Could I just ask very quickly?

I asked a number of questions, and there was some discussion of follow-up. Is the normal protocol that the witnesses would provide written responses to the committee that we could review at a later date?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Yes, that's the normal process. They will respond to us in writing, and it will be distributed to all committee members.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

We'll take five minutes and then we'll be right back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

May I ask everyone to come back to the table?

We have a couple of pieces of business. Hélène is not here, so we'll have to wait for a second. We're going to be talking about her motions. It wouldn't be fair to have a discussion without her, so I think we'll wait a couple of seconds for that.

Give us two seconds, colleagues. We're just waiting for the NDP member.

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

Pardon, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

It's not a problem, Hélène. We wouldn't start without you.

I appreciate the opportunity to spend a couple of minutes on what I was thinking about. I'll run this by the committee.

There are two notices of motion. I've asked Hélène to consider tabling them and sending them to the steering committee, because if the steering committee is going to be effective, I'd like to have the steering committee have a look at our work and develop our strategy as a group around the work we want to do, unless there is some political urgency to notices of motion or motions.

It's early days, and one of the things that I've been communicating to the staff here is that I'd like to do things a little differently from what we do in the House in many committees. For example, we invite some of the most outstanding witnesses the country has to offer, and then we give them 20 minutes to talk. I find that to be somewhat disheartening, frankly, and maybe disrespectful, and I'd like to see the committee try to develop a strategy around this situation. If we're going to get into some really substantive issues, we're going to ask people to spend a little time with us and make sure that we do ask the right questions and do get the right information.

I'm asking our colleague in the NDP to refer these to the steering committee. They will come back for a vote. They have to come back; we all know how the rules work.

I'm looking for the steering committee to meet on Thursday, when we'll have a discussion of what we think the issues are that we would like to focus our attention on. We'll then come back to the full committee on the following Tuesday with some advice. Then we'll have a full debate on the issues that we're bringing to your attention and maybe of others that we didn't.

That's the approach I'd like to take with the committee. As well, at some point the committee should be made aware that for fairly small studies of $40,000 or less, I understand, we are our own creature and we have our own abilities to manoeuvre around reports like that, but if we're going to get into substantive work that has a fairly large budget and may have a component of travel, we have to go to the Liaison Committee to have that discussion.

Before we get anywhere near that, we need to have a good discussion among all parties in this committee. If I go to the Liaison Committee, I want to make sure that my colleagues in the NDP and CPC are supportive. If we're going to talk about going outside this country and having these kinds of discussions, we'll need support in the House, as you know, to travel, and obviously we'll need the Liaison Committee to advance a fairly significant budget if we do that kind of work.

All that is to say that I'd like to start with the simple way of dealing with this, and that is to go to the committee—the steering committee, as we used to call it—and then have this discussion. At this stage, I don't want to put the committee to the test of either approving or not approving these motions, because I think they have merit and I don't want to see the committee having to react too quickly without having some discussion. I don't think that's fair to the mover and/or fair to the subject matter and the people out there who think very strongly about some of these matters. As you know, you've been lobbied already on some of them.

Those are my thoughts today. I want to move this over to Hélène to give me her thoughts, because it's her motion.

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

Indeed, if we come back to committee to have a full discussion and a vote in committee, I think it's a good way to go to start discussion. Having these motions—in particular, the one on women, peace, and security—within the steering committee would clear up some of the hurdles. I welcome the opportunity to work together in a convivial fashion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you.

I don't think I need a motion. All we're doing is tabling it to a meeting down the road.

Our steering committee will meet on Thursday. Dean, you're on the steering committee, right? Are you too, Peter? No.

The two Liberal members on the committee will be Peter and Marc, I think. That will work out. We'll get the clerk to inform you of where that meeting will be, and then we'll get into a very broad discussion.

Is there any further business of the committee?

Now, if you're following my train of thought, there's a lot of discussion by the present government of doing things differently, if I can put that way, but what exactly does that mean? I think we have an opportunity as a committee, independently of government, to have a look at these matters, to find out for ourselves, and to develop an understanding of what that means. I think it's important.

There's another thing I wanted to throw out there for you to keep in mind. There has not been a comprehensive review of our role in the world since I think 2005 or somewhere in that area. It's been a long time since we sat down and went through a complete and full review.

That may sound like a lot, but it can be broken up into pieces. I just throw that out there for something to think about as we work our way through this.

Mr. Kent.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Chair, are you canvassing members to provide to the members of the subcommittee some additional ideas of possible areas of study, or will we look at Hélène's two motions, and perhaps that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

No, that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm canvassing all the committee members, including the Liberals, on what they think this committee's work should entail.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

If you want to keep it really tight and specific to motions and that sort of thing, then that's your prerogative as a committee. I can't, as the chair, move you anywhere other than where you want to go. The idea is to think about what this committee can do to be helpful as it relates to government policy and in terms of informing the public.

Mr. Levitt.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

With regard to the discussion around the scope of the committee and decisions to keep it narrower or to look at projects that might involve travel, is that a discussion you want to have here, or is that a discussion for the subcommittee because of its all-party representation?