Foreign Affairs Committee on April 14th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

We have a lot of time, so we'll get back to you.

Mr. Miller.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

I'm sorry if my answer was too long.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Maybe I can tweet my question?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Okay.

I have the tweets now.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Mr. Miller, please.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

One of the most significant changes that we have seen in your foreign affairs approach compared to the previous government is, as you said, the planning of a re-engagement policy. You have expressed your intent to re-establish the diplomatic relations with Iran and the possibility of opening a consulate in Tehran. In addition, you stated that you would resume the dialogue with Russia rather than continue to ignore it.

Why do you think this re-engagement policy is an improvement over the previous strategies used to interact with those countries? Could you also explain the role that an internationally re-engaged and popular Prime Minister may play in this new approach?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

This brings me to the concept that I have proposed to define our policy of responsible conviction. Since I am a democrat—and all of us here are democrats—I don't like to have discussions with foreign affairs ministers who have been selected in a non-democratic way. I hate that. However, I have to ask myself what impact my position would have on Canadians and other human beings if I stopped talking to those ministers and listened just to my conviction.

We must agree to cultivate relations, while keeping our eyes open and erring on the side of caution, with regimes that we don't like and governments that we don't think uphold fundamental rights. Those relations don't have to be of the same nature as the ones we have with advanced democracies. I don't know how many centuries it would take, but perhaps some day, the world will be made up of respectable democracies only. That is how we can move forward.

Severing ties with a regime because we don't like it may well fail to improve the situation of that regime and greatly harm Canada and its ability to be of use to other countries. For instance, it is fortunate that Canada had an embassy in Iran in the late 1970s. We were able to come to the rescue of the American hostages as a result. Two films have been made about this: a Hollywood movie, which was not very good, and a Canadian film, which was much better. That is a very simple example that shows that, when Canada is engaged with its eyes open and forges ties, it can get things done.

I wish we were in Geneva right now at the negotiating table on the Syrian crisis. We are not there because neither Russia nor Iran will allow us to participate as long as Canada does not want to sit at the table to discuss issues with them. That is especially true for Russia in this case. We must address the Arctic. The Russians have the largest territory in the Arctic. Some Russian scientists are used to working with Canadian scientists. What is the logic behind wanting to prevent our scientists from working with the Russian scientists? We must at all costs ensure that the Arctic ecosystem is managed properly.

I could give example after example. We must practise this responsible conviction by engaging in the world as it is with our eyes open in the hope of being able to improve it by being present, not absent.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for giving us some very incisive remarks today.

I'm an MP from a riding that is a global leader in innovation and research. With the people in our riding, it is very essential that we're able to engage meaningfully with stakeholders and partners around the world. Our relationship with certain countries, especially with the United States, didn't fare so well over the last few years. We were extremely proud and encouraged to see the Prime Minister hosted at the White House last month. We hope this re-engaged approach in Canada-U.S. relations specifically, which you had also alluded to in your mandate letter, will continue.

Can you elaborate further on this re-engagement with the United States and on what your views are going forward?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much indeed.

We just talked about creating a good relationship, so I wouldn't be too hard on the approach of the former government. It would be unfair to say that the links have been cut, that the channels have been cut, with the United States, the way they have been with, let's say, Russia. It's not the case.

But I think improvements are possible. One way to do that is to avoid focusing our relationship, in an antagonistic way, on one issue. We shared the view of the former government on the Keystone XL pipeline. We thought it was a project that made sense. We advocated for it from the opposition and in our visits with the United States. But we thought the antagonistic way by which the former government approached the issue, the Prime Minister saying it was a no-brainer and he would not accept no as an answer, was not helpful. It was also a way to slow down progress on other files.

I will not repeat this mistake. We'll have a very comprehensive approach in our relationship with the United States, a very professional one, and I will listen very closely to the views of all diplomats, because this approach was partisan. It was not recommended by our top officials of the department. I think we need to be very professional in our relationship with the United States. It is a key one, and we cannot accept continuing to please ourselves by arguing harshly in a way that is not beneficial at the end of the day. We need to speak frankly, to be strong in our opposition, but to do it with a sense of responsible conviction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Madame Laverdière.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being with us today, Mr. Minister.

I wouldn't want to give you the impression that I am being impolite or rude, but since we were not notified that the meeting would end at 5:30 p.m., I will be quick as I won't have a second round of questions.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

I'm sorry.

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

Mr. Minister, I wrote to you a while back to suggest that you to create a special envoy position for LGBT issues. As we know, President Obama has done so. Could you just tell me whether you intend to create a position like that?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

The answer is no, but a friendly no. I think this is a very valid cause, but I don’t think this would be the best way to proceed. Creating positions for special envoys on various issues was intended to offset the fact that the U.S. president has a hard time appointing ambassadors. Right now, there are 30 or 40 ambassadors that Mr. Kerry, the U.S. Secretary of State, cannot appoint because Congress is putting up resistance. To get around this problem, a lot of special envoys have been appointed for various matters.

Fortunately, we don’t have that problem, and I don’t think we should adopt this approach. Our ambassadors are responsible for those whose sexual orientation is in the minority and who must be defended around the world.

Our ambassador in Geneva is handling this matter with great conviction. I would not want us to create various categories of ambassadors. It would not be useful. I prefer that these issues be supported through collective responsibility.

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

Mr. Minister, your mandate letter also mentions transparency and openness. In relation to contracts for arms sales abroad, the Prime Minister said today that he would ensure that transparency and openness are heightened.

You may know that I have proposed the creation of a subcommittee of the Committee of Foreign Affairs so that we can study those issues in depth. Do you think it's an interesting proposal?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

I find it interesting, but I am not sure that it is a priority right now. However, it is up to the committee to decide what it wants to do.

Together, in all the parties, we will be investing a lot of energy and effort in forming the security oversight committee, which is a lot to chew on. However, if we do a good job, we may want to repeat the experience with another committee. But if we do everything at the same time, things might get out of control.

As you know, we have to overcome the effect of several years of intense partisanship. We can do it, but the idea is to start with the issue we committed to in the election. That's one of our election promises.

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

Yes, I understand, Mr. Minister. We can talk about it again, but I don't see why one would interfere with the other. We know that Canadians are very concerned about Canada's arms sales abroad.

While conducting and approving the evaluation of arms export permits to Saudi Arabia, why has the department not consulted with civil society organizations that have a lot of human rights expertise?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

My department has ongoing consultations on that.

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

However, there is no reference in the document on—

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

The consultations are part of the recommendations I receive from people. There is not always a reference to all the people who have been consulted. That is not the goal. The goal is to say: “Mr. Minister, here are the findings of our evaluation; now make your decision”.

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

The document mentions that this will help Saudi Arabia in its actions in Yemen.

Does that worry you?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Our priority for the situation in Yemen is to find a peaceful solution very quickly. That said, Saudi Arabia is a strategic partner, not just for Canada, but for all of our NATO allies, too.

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

You know that there are very serious allegations in Yemen about international rights violations against all the parties involved. I hope you will agree with me, Mr. Minister, that the international rights violations lead neither to lasting peace nor stability.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

I fully agree with you that there are currently serious concerns to be raised about the behaviour of almost everyone in Yemen. All parties present have been the subject of various accusations.

As for this weapons contract, as long as I assume this responsibility under Mr. Trudeau's leadership, the fundamental question that will guide my decision as minister will be to determine whether the use of Canadian equipment was appropriate from the perspective of human rights, our strategic interests and those of our allies. That's what needs to be considered.