Foreign Affairs Committee on April 14th, 2016

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

This is a question for both of you. Maybe Ms. Taylor can start.

It's back to this issue of human rights defenders and the challenges these women face. We heard about it on Tuesday. We heard very personal stories of two women who really put themselves in harm's way and faced threats to themselves and to their family.

Canada is in a situation now, both in terms of our review and our renewal of the C-NAP, and having a chance to improve it, and in terms of our re-engagement at the United Nations, particularly on the Commission on the Status of Women.

What opportunities do we have now to add our voice to protecting these human rights defenders? How can we make a real difference to make sure they are not in harm's way?

[Sarah Taylor]

I think you can probably take steps at just about every level. We've already talked a little bit about how you can provide long-term, consistent, reliable funding for women's rights groups at the national and community levels, and making sure that you're really providing support to those groups that are most at risk.

At the multilateral level, I think it involves having a clear position on the importance of protection of women's human rights, and women's human rights defenders, and supporting the trips of the special rapporteurs and the outcomes of that, and making sure there is a clear line held in negotiations like CSW.

I think one of the most powerful things you could do in terms of conflict would be to bring the issue of women's rights and women's rights defenders into the UN Security Council. Despite the fact that this is clearly an element of the women, peace, and security agenda, the council, somewhat unsurprisingly, seems to be a little bit allergic to receiving reports on women human rights defenders and therefore supporting them.

So, again, you have this wonderful opportunity in your campaign for the council to really make sure that you emphasize that this something that you're going to be upholding at the court in a later campaign. But if you are on the council, your time on the council means paying attention and really heightening this issue every time the council discusses a country situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

I have to move to the next round.

We'll start with Mr. Saini.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much for coming here. I really like the analysis and thoroughness.

I have a question for you, Ms. Taylor.

In your opening comments, you alluded to the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and I want to talk about a specific case in Minova. The reason I want to talk about it is that I think it highlights some of the shortcomings faced in certain conflict zones.

We know that in that situation there was a shortage of legal experts. There was an inability to gather evidence properly, and there were some prosecutorial errors that also happened there. In that case, the Rome Statute had to be applied.

My question for you is if there are other places. This can't be the only place. Is it a common occurrence in other countries that there is a lack of an ability to prosecute certain crimes, collect evidence, and those kinds of things?

[Sarah Taylor]

Yes, absolutely, and even not in a situation of conflict.

The support for survivors, investigations, prosecutions, and fair trail, which includes everything from a fair trial for the accused, witness protection, and support to survivors, is not an easy issue. This is not an easy process. This is a difficult process, and many countries at the national and local levels struggle with fair investigations, support, prosecution, etc.

This is only compounded when we talk about the complexity of conflict; when we talk about the diminution and dismantling of national-level judicial systems; when we talk about increased insecurity, displacement. That's not even getting into the issue of rape as a tactic, a tool, a strategy that's deployed by armed actors. In those cases, it becomes really difficult to adhere to good practice and good process. This is one of the reasons why the ICC is an important tool when national level redress is not possible.

Again, it's about ensuring there is support from the very first step of service provision of training and good practice on documentation, as well as support for women's local civil society groups, up through ensuring training and taking advantage of the international support that some of the actors affiliated with the Justice Rapid Response can provide to train on good practices after the fact.

This is certainly a problem that faces many countries.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Sorry, I'm going to have to leave it there, Mr. Saini, and go to Mr. Kent.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I have one question.

Thank you for your testimony and recommendations on the updating of CNAP. Given that everything that Canada and its agencies and NGOs do abroad is very often under the mandate of UN authority, what would you recommend? I ask this in the shadow of the article written by Under-Secretary Banbury some weeks ago where he characterized agencies, departments, individuals with a range of modifiers like “incompetent”, “Orwellian”, “Carrollian”, and “sclerotic”.

You've spoken to the visibility of our Prime Minister and our ministers. What would you recommend that our PM, our ministers, and our foreign-service professionals do at the United Nations in New York and beyond to encourage the reform of the United Nations in this area particularly? Beyond that as well, as the Secretary-General has conceded, in the wake of Under-Secretary Banbury's article, it is absolutely necessary to contemporize and make more effective what the UN does.

That question is for both of you.

[Sarah Taylor]

Yes, there have been a couple of really damning pieces on the UN, and that's partially to do with the culture of impunity for certain crimes like sexual exploitation and abuse that have become endemic in a number of peacekeeping operations. But it's also to do with member states. Member states need to take responsibility for this as well.

Over the last year, we've seen a range of pronouncements and commitments by the Secretary-General, by the UN system itself. If it implements a large part of those dealing with reporting significantly on incidents of sexual exploitation and abuse and other grave crimes in country reports, moving forward on vetting of troops before they're accepted into peacekeeping missions, and trying to get a much better and more robust system of vetting to make sure that those who have committed previous rights violations are not accepted into these missions....

It has to do with ensuring that there is real coordination. When I talk about a survivor-centred approach to this, that's part of what a good investigation looks like, and that requires coordination, not only with the appointment of the new coordinator on sexual exploitation and abuse, but also at the mission level, making sure that all the different organizations from human rights to UNFPA to DPKO are on the same page and that victims aren't being re-traumatized.

One of the things that's missing from this conversation or hasn't been highlighted as much is the fact that we're asking the UN—and rightly so—to not accept these troops, to make real its conditions by which it will not accept troops that are persistent perpetrators. We need to provide them with options. We need to provide them with the options of other troops. If there's no one to go, what are their options?

To look at what Tony Banbury actually wrote in that piece is to say, without in any way excusing some of the decisions that were made, there need to be stronger options so that troop-contributing countries know that the threat of non-acceptance is real.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

The last opportunity is for you, Ms. O'Neill.

[Jacqueline O'Neill]

Thank you. I'll be very brief.

In addition to everything Sarah said, I'd add one more point, which is that we're at the helm or dawn of choosing a new secretary-general for the United Nations. We can never under-estimate the importance of member-state accountability and responsibility to drive change, and we need a secretary-general who's authentically committed to it. As Canada is thinking about who it supports and the criteria for its support, we need to think and examine carefully the candidates' commitment to UN reform.

I'll note, perhaps as an appropriate closing, that we've never had a female secretary-general of the United Nations. Anytime you mention that topic, people's knee-jerk reaction is to say that someone must be qualified. Of course, they must be qualified. That's a given. There are 3.5 billion women in the world; I'm quite certain we can find one who's qualified to lead the UN. If we examine and think about the extent to which we want that person to be really committed and have a history of transparency and a record of authentic change and accountability, then I think that sets us up well for all future initiatives they're thinking through.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Now that our time is up, I just want to thank Human Rights Watch and the Institute for Inclusive Security.

There's one issue that I'd like you to think about and get back to the committee on. As we talk about the 51 countries that have a plan, and we're going into what we think is the second phase of new plans, it would be interesting to know how a process could be developed, if there is one or isn't one, with those 51 nations to collectively work to improve in the second round so that we have the kinds of structures that you're talking about. My favourite topic, of course, is then to make it easier to go to core funding, because there must have been a reason why people seem to think it should have been more program oriented than core funding.

I'm a big fan of core funding. I bring it up at almost every meeting, so I want you to think about that and maybe get back to the clerk and the committee.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. We very much appreciate it. It was a very good discussion.

We will take a five-minute break and then we'll go to the next invited guest.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Colleagues, we'll begin.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we'll have a briefing on the mandate letter of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We want to thank, first of all, the minister for coming and, of course, Daniel Jean and Mr. Vincent Rigby, his deputy minister of Foreign Affairs and assistant deputy minister of strategic policy, respectively.

We're going to try to stick to an hour, at the request of members. As usual, it's always a little tough to do that, so we'll start with opening comments by the minister, and then we'll go right into questions.

Minister, I will turn the floor over to you.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dear colleagues, thank you for inviting us to appear before you today.

I am pleased to be here with my deputy minister, Mr. Jean, and Mr. Rigby. Before I forget, I would like to thank all the public servants who are working so hard and with such professionalism. We can be proud of Canadian diplomacy.

I would also like to say that this first meeting, including our discussion, is very important to me. No party has a monopoly on good ideas or on facts. We learn from each other, and I am sure that your committee will be able to develop inter-party synergy, which will be very useful for Canada's foreign affairs. I feel very optimistic about our co-operation.

In these 10 minutes, I will try to be quick, given that I have a lot of things to say. If I say too much, please cut me off, Mr. Chair. We must respect everyone's speaking time.

So let me jump right into it, by drawing on the mandate letter that I received from the Prime Minister of Canada. This is the first time that ministerial mandate letters have been made public. Since this is what I am required to follow, I will refer to it a great deal in the 10 minutes of my presentation.

Of course, the mandate letter requires me to advance Canada's interests in the world, by serving security and economic interests. It also requires me to support what the Prime Minister calls the deeply held Canadian desire to make a real and valuable contribution to a more peaceful and prosperous world.

To fulfill this mandate, which is quite ambitious as you can see, I have announced that the guiding principle that I will follow is something I call “the ethics of responsible conviction”. By that I mean that the decisions we make must take into account their foreseeable impact on other human beings. I can elaborate on this if you have questions about it.

To achieve the objectives in my mandate, I am bound to work closely with all the members of cabinet. I will mention specifically Ms. Freeland, the Minister of International Trade, Ms. Bibeau, the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, and my colleague Mr. Sajjan, the Minister of National Defence.

I will start from the beginning: our relations with North America, more specifically with the United States. This is a fundamental relationship for Canada, one that we must never take for granted and that we must always strive to improve.

Prime Minister Trudeau has highlighted the need to strengthen our North American partnership and our relations with Mexico. In January, I hosted my foreign minister counterparts from the United States and Mexico in Quebec City. We made progress on climate change, clean energy, economic and security questions, peacekeeping, and health, including joint efforts to combat the Zika virus.

During the Prime Minister's historic state visit to Washington, our governments agreed on measures that will reduce red tape, make it easier to trade, and simpler to cross the border, while at the same time keeping both of our countries safe. This will have real results for Canadian travellers, with an agreement in principle to pursue new preclearance operations at Billy Bishop airport in Toronto as well as in Quebec City's Jean Lesage airport, and an expanded preclearance for rail service in Montreal and Vancouver. As well, we committed to working hard to find a solution to the softwood lumber dispute within 100 days.

In budget 2016 we announced $9.5 million to support the International Joint Commission. This will help all parties with a long term strategy for a healthy Great Lakes region, and for me, the Great Lakes include Lake Winnipeg.

Specific to Mexico, we are steadily progressing on lifting the Mexican visa requirement. This will improve relations with Canada's still largest trading partner.

Now to other international issues, especially multilateral institutions.

I could speak at length about COP21 in Paris and the very positive role Ms. McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, has played there, at the Prime Minister’s request. If I am asked to participate, I will do so. Since I have a limited time at my disposal, let me stress the international component, assistance to the tune of $2.5 billion over five years to help developing countries fight climate change.

Our commitment to multilateralism and the UN was highlighted when the Prime Minister announced we are seeking election to the United Nations Security Council for the 2021-22 term. The same week, Minister Hajdu announced that Canada would run for a seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women for the 2017 to 2020 term. She said she had a very interesting meeting on the status of women just before. Well, Canada was elected to this body on April 5.

My mandate letter asks that we increase Canada's support for United Nations peace operations in its mediation, conflict prevention, and post-conflict reconstruction efforts. To this end, budget 2016 provides $586.5 million over three years for stabilization, counter-terrorism capacity building, and police peacekeeping programs.

I recently announced that we will renew Canada's action plan on women, peace, and security. I know this committee's work on this topic and look forward to the outcome of your study.

Also, later this year I intend to table the arms trade treaty in Parliament as part of our accession process.

Having been called on to promote inclusiveness and accountable governance, peaceful pluralism, and respectful diversity in human rights, including the rights of women and refugees, budget 2016 provides dedicated funding to support the promotion of pluralism and respect for diversity and human rights around the world. Indeed, the department is now focused more than ever on a comprehensive approach to human rights across the government's priorities, in terms of gender and women, migration, LGBTQI and indigenous rights, climate change, and many others. Our approach to human rights will be comprehensive in order to be effective in the promotion of all universal human rights, including, of course, freedom of religion.

When the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights visited in February, we announced new funding of $15 million over three years to finance that body's work. We now support all sexual and reproductive health rights, and therefore ended the previous government's policy that prohibited giving assistance for pregnancy terminations, even in countries that authorize them.

Also, we put an end to the previous government's case-by-case policy regarding the death penalty. We now demand clemency for all Canadians facing the death penalty anywhere in the world, to maximize the possibility of obtaining clemency for some Canadians.

The Prime Minister has also asked me to be more transparent and rigorous than ever with respect to export permits and human rights reports. I will make an announcement about that in the near future.

Turning to security, my mandate letter instructed me to ensure a close link between defence policy, foreign policy, and national security. I worked with my colleagues on the development of the government's new strategy for countering ISIL and responding to the crises in Syria and Iraq. It is comprehensive, integrated, and sustained, and has been well received by our local and international partners, including within the global coalition led by the United States.

Over the next three years, we'll invest $1.6 billion in defence, security, development, and humanitarian assistance in the region. We are working with all our partners to achieve a diplomatic solution to the crisis and to prepare the long road to peace.

In terms of the refugees issue, I am proud of the role played by my department and by Canadian diplomacy in general in welcoming 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada. That has required a great deal of co-operation with other countries, specifically Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, to some degree as well. Thousands and thousands of new files had to be processed within very tight deadlines. I thank them for all their hard work.

Furthermore, I would like to point out the announcement made yesterday by my colleague, Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau, about a financial contribution of $100 million to help the most vulnerable communities affected by the Syrian crisis. Canadians have been very generous, and Canada will support this generosity.

Let’s not forget our contribution of $100 million to the United Nations Refugee Agency to help those affected by the Syrian crisis.

In other areas, I delivered a strong call to the conference on disarmament in Geneva to get back to work, with Canada ready to assist. We announced that Canada would invest an additional $42 million in the global partnership program to improve nuclear and radiological security worldwide. In fact, Canada will lead the push to secure agreement and accession to the anti-fissile material treaty.

My mandate letter also mentions my duty to help increase Canada’s educational and cultural interaction with the world and to revitalize Canada’s cultural diplomacy. I will do so in close collaboration with Ms. Joly, Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Budget 2016 proposes to invest $35 million over two years starting in 2016-2017 in promoting Canada’s artists and cultural sectors abroad. As I have just mentioned, I will be working with Ms. Joly and Ms. Freeland on accomplishing that.

As of now, that funding will help Canadian missions abroad to promote Canada’s culture and creativity on the world stage, especially since Canada is preparing to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Canadian Confederation, not of Canada, because Canada had been around well before that time.

We consider it important to stay engaged around the world, understanding that engagement is not agreement, and that we proceed with our eyes open. Engagement is essential to regaining the respect of our allies and to pursuing our interests within the multilateral governance framework.

With Iran, we are in the very preliminary stage of our re-engagement. We continue to have fundamental differences, including serious concerns about Iran's continued human rights violations and its aggressive stand toward Israel, but channels of communication are open, which is an important first step.

We made changes, along with our like-minded partners, to our sanctions regime in line with the joint comprehensive plan of action on Iran's nuclear program, negotiated by the P5 + 1 members. Canadian business is no longer at a disadvantage vis-à-vis our allies.

With Russia, the previous government's empty-chair policy caused Canada to miss opportunities to lead international meetings, to host events, and to play its full role in the negotiation process regarding Ukraine. In line with our like-minded European and American partners, we have applied additional new sanctions to Russia and are now working on a progressive re-engagement where we have clear and common interests, like the Arctic and international security for example, even as we maintain our firm stance on Russia's actions in Ukraine.

Mr. Chair and honourable members, our government has already begun delivering on the priorities identified in ministerial mandate letters. My deputy will tell you that we are keeping the department very busy.

I look forward to your questions and comments. I think the discussion we’ll have today and in the coming months or even years will be very promising and productive for Canada and for its role in the world.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you very much, Minister. Just as a reminder to colleagues, we will be inviting the minister back for one of the most important parts of our role, and that's the estimates. That will probably be within less than a month. Just keep that in mind as we work our way through here today.

I'll start with Mr. Kent. He'll begin the questions to the minister.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for visiting with us today. As the chair said, these conversations are very important, and much more enlightening than in the very often artificial constraints of question period.

Just as an aside, Mr. Chair, for our next session, it might be advisable, given the Canadian public's interest in these sorts of conversations, to take advantage of a televised facility.

Minister, shortly after the election and your appointment as Minister of Foreign Affairs, you reaffirmed the campaign pledge to work towards normalization of relations with Iran and the reopening of a mission in Tehran.

At one of our first committee meetings, departmental officials told us that it would probably be some time before a safe, secure location and property could be found for a new embassy and for the negotiations that would enable our return to Tehran.

You understand from our interaction in question period that the official opposition is very concerned about the continuing belligerence of the Iranian regime, the ballistic missile testing, the constant reiteration of threats against Israel, and the boasting of funding of terrorist endeavours among its various proxies around the Middle East.

I wonder if you could give us an update on exactly where we are in our relations with Iran today.

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

Thank you for that important question.

Yes, indeed, we believe that if Canada is alone in cutting links to Iran, it is not helping anyone. It's not helping the people of Iran and their human rights. It's not helping the interests of Canada, not only businesses but also students and families. It's not helping our allies, including Israel. Also, it's not helping our relationship with our own allies who do not think Canada is relevant anymore, or with the negotiations on Syria. If we don't speak to the Russians and the Iranians, it's difficult for us to be at the table on Syria to find a solution.

At the same time we have Canadians risking their lives, we should be at the decision-making table. If we put our fellow citizens in danger for a cause, we should be among the decision-makers.

For all these reasons, we are penalized in Canada much more than Iran or Russia when we take this kind of approach. We need to change it.

We need to do it with open eyes. There are a lot of problems, as you've mentioned, and I fully agree with you about the assessments you've made about Iran. For example, when they tested a ballistic missile, we increased our sanctions. But we did it in co-operation with our allies. If Canada is alone in doing it, it will barely be felt in Iran. If it's a collective sanction, then they are more likely to be affected. I agree fully with you about that.

Where are we? We are in a very preliminary context. It's not yet at the level of politics. The officials are doing it. It's very difficult to recreate links when they have been cut. In another context, I have spent a long time in my political career, and if we cut links with a country it's very difficult afterward to recreate the links.

That was another context, but in this context it's a bit the same. It will be step by step, and it's not so easy to do. We won't have an embassy tomorrow morning. When we have an embassy, a top priority of ours will be the consideration that you very rightly mentioned: the necessity of being careful about the safety of our diplomats.

If there is something that stops me from sleeping at night, and it's the same for my deputy, it is the security of all the diplomats around the world.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you.

The safety of our foreign service professionals was at the root of our previous government's decision to close the embassy and withdraw. It was one of the reasons for doing that, and we would hope that you would maintain strongly the listing of Iran as a state sponsor of terror.

My second and only remaining question is on another topic. After the United Nations Human Rights Council formalized the appointment of Canadian professor Michael Lynk as that discredited organization's special rapporteur on human rights in Palestine, you called for the council to review the appointment—although your call was made in the rather unconventional form of a tweet, not unlike the transport minister's tweet about the airport in Toronto. It's interesting that ministerial decisions are being proclaimed on social media.

Seriously, I wonder if you can tell us what actions or interventions you or Canada's diplomats abroad have taken to have Mr. Lynk's appointment reversed.

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

Is the question if I will ask to reverse...?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

You asked, in your tweet—

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

I'm looking for my tweet. I don't have—

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

—that the Human Rights Council review his appointment. I'm just wondering if that meant you wished that the Human Rights Council would revoke the appointment—which I would certainly strongly support—given Mr. Lynk's history and record.

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

What I have said in these tweets that are somewhere in this big binder is that I have.... I'm a practical man. If we choose someone to report and he or she is not accepted by one of the two parties, it's unlikely that he or she will be in a situation to report. What happened to the predecessor....

I don’t have the tweets. They are very good, you know.

When you have a rapporteur who is unable to report, there's a danger that the one just chosen will not be able to do his duty any more than the one who was his predecessor and who had to resign as a rapporteur and was unable to report. That's my concern. It's why I sent this message. It's not a condemnation of this individual. It is the mere fact that I have a lot of concern about what we are doing, not about.... There are two tweets. The first one was not about the choice. It was about the process, not the choice. It was not because I have something against this individual, but because I am concerned that he will not be able to do anything that he was supposed to do because there are strong concerns about his impartiality. The concern I have is about the impartiality.

On the process, the difficulty we have is that it's very secretive. Second, the design of the mandate is to look at the behaviour of the occupying authority, which is Israel, but not the behaviour of the other forces in the region. I think this process will make it very difficult for anyone who is chosen. As good as this professor may be, anyone who is chosen will create the problem of impartiality because of the way the mandate has been designed.

Canada has these kinds of concerns, and I think it's good for us to speak out about it. I welcome your views about that, because we have a duty to help improve this important process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Kent.

We'll go to Mr. Miller.

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

That's too bad. Let's talk about this another time.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Another time.