Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 21st, 2016

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Mrs. Mendès, please.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am a guest here at the committee. I'm also very involved with the Commonwealth, so I'd like to ask a question about another jurisdiction and that would be the U.K., where there have been quite a few attempts in the courts to overturn sanctions and where the application of sanctions is being considered unconstitutional, even when required by the Security Council, and mainly the grounds are lack of due course.

Is this something that we are afraid would happen here in Canada? Is that something that there is a possibility of happening here in Canada?

[Hugh Adsett]

I suppose as a general answer, anybody who's affected by an aspect of Canadian law could always seek to challenge their listing under Canadian law and seek judicial review for a variety of different reasons. That's always certainly a possibility, which is why we try very hard, when we're adopting regulations and making recommendations, to ensure that we have good information on which to base those listings. It's to protect them from challenges that might otherwise be brought.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

You haven't had any instances of challenges to due course in Canada for the application of sanctions?

[Hugh Adsett]

We have not had any that have come to trial that I'm aware of.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

That doesn't mean that we haven't had attempts.

[Hugh Adsett]

That's right.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Okay. Thank you for the clarification.

Can we have an idea of what kinds of metrics you use to measure the effectiveness of sanctions? Personally I could debate a long time about the use of sanctions. I think usually they do—this is a personal opinion—more harm to the population of the country targeted than changing the ways of the state, but do we have any measure or any metrics that could be shared with the committee about the effectiveness of sanctions?

[Marc-Yves Bertin]

I think you've heard from a number of witnesses that there are competing views around effectiveness. What was interesting in the witnesses that have appeared, in terms of the expert testimony that has been provided, is that they each, generally, have had their own methodologies.

Our sense is that the research varies, and it's case dependent. We do our own assessments. We do our own assessments on a case-by-case basis and on an ongoing basis. It's very difficult to isolate the merits of the sanction, given that they are deployed within the context of a broader diplomatic tool kit negotiation, or what have you.

Our own sense is that they are most effective when imposed universally in order to ensure an optimal impact, as well as doing so in a manner that doesn't necessarily put Canadian interest at a disadvantage, commercial interest in particular.

Our own sense as well is that setting out a clear and specific objective for the sanction also helps to ensure effectiveness, and that's generally done, as I was mentioning, as part of a broad suite of engagement tools, for no other reason than to provide the offending state the opportunity to adapt their behaviour, and therefore, de-escalate the situation.

That said, whenever we cease using sanctions within the context of a relationship, SEMA requires the Governor in Council to publish or to issue a report within 60 sitting days in terms of the operation of those sanctions. I've brought examples of that here today. I'm happy to leave those behind. They give you a sense of the assessment that has been made in terms of their operationalization.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

That should be interesting.

I'm done, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

I have one last question.

As a committee, we tend to focus most of our attention on SEMA. As you know, we're here speaking to you and doing an analysis based on the requirement under FACFOA, after five years of review of its continuation, its amendment, or whether it meets the test of what Mr. Fragiskatos has asked: is it still a good tool for the Government of Canada to have at its disposal?

It would be useful if you were willing to give us a sense of whether you see FACFOA as a piece of legislation that has met the need of the Government of Canada and would like to keep it in place for an extended period of time, whether it's another five years, or whichever way we want to recommend this. It was, as you mentioned, part of a response to the Arab Spring and was intended to be, as I understand it, a temporary measure, so it would be useful if the Government of Canada and its officials would be willing to tell us whether they think it's a tool they would like to see continue.

[Hugh Adsett]

I think our experience with the act to date has been that it has provided a tool that we lacked. It provided a tool that allowed us to respond to those very particular circumstances for which regulations were adopted. We know from some conversations with other states that they have looked at the Canadian legislation and I think found it to be interesting. I understand, for example, that Switzerland has legislation that is different, but in some elements is similar to the Canadian legislation.

As I say, what it does is it provides us with an instrument that we didn't otherwise have to respond to a very unique set of circumstances. From our own experience, at least, it has done so and it has met those objectives of allowing for a state in a situation of some internal turmoil to reach out to try to prevent essentially asset flight by requesting a temporary freeze on assets, and to give that state time to organize itself enough to be able to make a more formal mutual legal assistance request.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you very much. I appreciate that response.

Now, colleagues, I want to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Glauser and his colleagues for coming before the committee as witnesses. It was a very productive couple of hours and we very much appreciate that. Thank you. We look forward to the responses that we did not get a chance to speak to, which have been requested of you in writing.

Mr. Glauser, on behalf of the committee, I want to thank you very much for making your presentation as wholesome as it was.

[Mark Glauser]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Colleagues, I want to go in camera for five minutes. That's all it will take. I want to correct one little error that was made in the committee. With that, I'll take a 30-second time out and then we'll get right to it.

[Proceedings continue in camera]