Foreign Affairs Committee on April 14th, 2016

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

Mr. Minister, I thought the idea was to ensure that there is no reasonable risk of the equipment being subsequently used to violate human rights. If abuses occur, will the export permits be suspended and the tanks recovered?

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

I understand your question. You're asking whether, once the tanks have been sent, it stops there and there is nothing else to do. We need to be careful. We need to keep in mind that the contract we're talking about goes back many years. If the recommendation that was made to me changes at any point and if I learn that the military equipment in question is being misused, I pledge to Canadians—as the Prime Minister asked me to and the process have required me to do—to no longer authorize export permits.

What is the impact of that? Production is stopped immediately. Even previous permits that authorized the shipment of equipment become null.

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

That's an interesting point—

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

Wait, if I may. I won't take long.

Production is stopped. As for the vehicles that have already been sent, it's important to understand that they need very careful maintenance. Saudi Arabia is a wealthy country, but it's not a high-tech country. It doesn't have the capacity to operate these vehicles in the long term on its own. It needs the help of the Canadian company, which would no longer be able to provide it. When export permits are cancelled, it isn't just the material equipment that is no longer provided, but the advice that goes along with the transaction, as well. Emails can no longer be sent. Everything is blocked and, as the deputy minister mentioned, spare parts can't be sent anymore either.

This is very strong leverage that the Department of Foreign Affairs has to tell countries that buy Canadian equipment—not just Saudi Arabia, but any country—to use it correctly or they won't be able to use it practically anymore.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Mr. Levitt.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you for coming here and speaking with us this afternoon, Minister Dion.

You've just returned from a trip to Asia, where you went to multiple countries, including Burma, which recently held democratic elections and elected new leadership. Can you talk to us about the kind of support we offered to Burma and whether we will be offering this to countries in similar positions as they transition to new democracy, and how does this relate to the defence of religious freedoms, such as of the Rohingya in Burma and other minority groups?

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

Thank you so much, Michael.

First, I will speak about Myanmar, because they told me that is the name they choose. I understand that we are reluctant to use it, because at the beginning it was the military that imposed this name, but now I'm told it has been accepted by the democrats as well. The military doesn't want to stop the democrats; they want to work with the democrats, and they call it Myanmar.

It's sort of too bad. The name “Birmanie” in French is very nice, but the country is now called Myanmar.

Second, there are a lot of problems in this country. It is one of the poorest in the world, the human rights record is appalling, and respect for diversity and religious rights starts from a very low level. But they are courageous. They have decided to become a democracy. It cannot be done overnight, but they have made a lot of progress. Their leader is one of the most-celebrated around the world, and as I'm sure you know, she is an honorary Canadian. We did that unanimously some years ago.

We need to support them. I hope it will work. I told them that I hope it will work not only for them and their minorities, including the one you mentioned, but that it will work for the world. They are almost alone in their region in trying this. Other countries, neighbouring countries—I was reluctant to mention them so as not to create diplomatic problems—are going the other way. They are more military than ever, and less democratic than ever. This one wants to succeed.

So let's work together to help them, to support them, and to encourage the international community to do so. It's why I was pleased to announce $44 million in support as a first step; it's not the end of the story.

One of the things I announced addresses your issue. They want to create national reconciliation, as they call it, together. Today there are still militias in some parts of the country. They want that to stop and to have national reconciliation. One of the ways they are looking at is to create what they call a “federal union”.

One of the investments Canada is making today is to provide the capacity for Myanmar to have access to the best federative practices around the world. We have an international body that is very good for that, the Forum of Federations, which the former government was working with. We're not starting from scratch. That is the kind of support that Canada must provide in Myanmar.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

We now go to Mr. Sidhu.

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

Thank you, Mr. Dion, for coming to the committee and sharing your knowledge and experience on the world stage.

Recently Canada was elected to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. The government is also pursuing a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Obviously, both of these are beneficial endeavours for our country. How do you view the impact of these endeavours on Canada's relations with other countries? How will a seat on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women impact policy in Canada?

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

As you know, our Prime Minister has some priorities, and one of them is the status of women in Canada and around the world. He doesn't want to miss the opportunity to make a difference. So we need to go there. We need to go to the international bodies that are addressing this issue. Some of them are not every effective and are jammed with traditional views that are certainly not connected with the universal understanding of what gender equality is. So we need to be there to make our case very strongly, to make progress, including at the United Nations. The United Nations is far from being a perfect institution, and I share a lot of the criticisms I hear about it, but you don't make progress by pulling out. You are not making progress by insulting everyone. You're not making progress by going for fast food instead of going to the United Nations for an important ceremony or debate.

We'll be there strong at the United Nations. If some people want them to identify us with the worst practices around the world because we sit beside questioning regimes, we'll not accept it. We are there because we are Canada. We have a strong understanding of universal rights for all human beings. At the same time, we fully respect the diversity of humanity. We think diversity is a strength as long as it is in accordance with universal human rights. We advocate for it everywhere, especially for gender equity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you. That's the end of the first round.

The second round goes to Mr. Fonseca for six minutes.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you, Minister Dion. As you know, we currently have many Canadians who are abroad. They've been sentenced to the death penalty and are waiting for our government to claim them, to bring them back to Canada to be able to be judged here in our courts. This includes two well-known cases in the United States, in which repeated calls have been made for our government's intervention to return these Canadians to Canada.

Now, Minister Dion, you've been unwavering and very clear that you will be seeking clemency for all Canadians abroad facing the death penalty. This is an obvious change from the previous government's uncertainty on this issue.

What brought you to that decision, and what steps have you taken as a foreign minister to achieve clemency for Canadians facing that death penalty abroad in other nations?

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

It is because, Mr. Fonseca, I am a Liberal, and we Liberals are against the death penalty. I think there are two reasons. I will frame it this way. Maybe you, as a Liberal, express it differently from me, but I will list two reasons why we are abolitionist, why we want to abolish the death penalty for all human beings, and certainly for Canadians.

The first reason is that we think justice is about justice, not about vengeance. That's what a civilized society is supposed to be about: about justice, not about vengeance. The second reason is that a justice system, as good as it may be, may always make mistakes. If it is possible to free a jailed man or woman; it's impossible to bring them back to life if they are being executed. So these two reasons are compelling enough to be abolitionist. It's what our party believes. And now that we are the government, we'll implement that.

I want to say that under the Progressive Conservative government of Mr. Mulroney, they resisted going back to the death penalty. The former government decided to have a policy abroad of pick and choose, case by case. If you do that, that means you lose your credibility. You cannot say to a country, “I don't want you to execute this Canadian”, if we have said to another country that it's no, or you may do so. You lose your credibility. You cannot help Canadians anywhere.

In order to have some chance to save some Canadians from the death penalty, you need to advocate it everywhere and in every forum, in the United Nations and elsewhere, and it's what we'll do. Canada is known for being resolutely abolitionist.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Minister, you're very well aware that weapons of mass destruction, whether nuclear, biological, or chemical in nature, represent a significant threat in the world today. So my question is two-fold. Can you please update the committee of the role that Canada is playing in helping to advance disarmament negotiations around the world, as well as efforts to combat biological and chemical weapons?

Second, can you also comment on the fact that Russia boycotted the 2016 nuclear summit in Washington and the ramifications of that on disarmament in general?

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

On the second part of the question, my comment is very short. I completely disagree with what they have done. I think President Obama was acting in good faith with his initiative, and the fact that the Russians boycotted it, I don't think is necessarily linked to this issue as such, as much as some of the difficulties they have in their relationships elsewhere, especially with the unacceptable behaviour of Russia in regard to Ukraine.

What I might say on this issue is that the United Nations conference on disarmament has stalled for the last 20 years. No progress has been made. I said that to them very clearly in March 2016 in Geneva. It's too bad, because we have been involved and have been able to make progress—but outside of this conference. We have made progress on the convention banning anti-personal mines and the convention on clusters munitions—Canada played a big role in both of those—and the arms trade treaty. I repeat on this occasion that we will be a member of this arms trade treaty, and this committee will likely have some work to do on it, because we'll have to make some adjustments in some of our laws.

To unjam and create a new momentum in this United Nations conference on disarmament, what Canada is proposing is not necessarily a new strategy. However, what would be new is a strong focus on successful negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. That's the one on which I think progress is the most unlikely—or the more likely if you're optimistic. The group of government experts that Canada was honoured to chair has already produced a robust in-depth assessment of future FMCT aspects. Their work showed that a treaty is not beyond our reach. Negotiations will undoubtedly be difficult, but achieving an outcome would be a significant achievement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Mr. Paul-Hus.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Minister, I'll try to be brief. I'd need half an hour to ask all my questions.

The Department of Defence just launched a policy review process. Normally a foreign affairs policy is required before doing that. Since we don't yet have this new policy, we can assume that Canada's foreign affairs policy will be based on your mandate letter.

We assume that the defence policy review is an approach that will lead to our involvement in UN missions. If that's the case, I'd like to know how you see such participation. We know that the UN cannot currently, and hasn't for 25 years, properly manage the presence of armed forces on peacekeeping missions in some countries for economic and security reasons. How will our forces be deployed and in what conditions?

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

First of all, my hon. colleague, I fully agree that the foreign policy must support the defence policy. That's why the Prime Minister asked me to work very closely with the Minister of National Defence. We have an excellent relationship. The message was sent that there should be no more state within a state. Everyone must work together.

That said, our soldiers and our defence system are part of the foreign policy considerations. It isn't just saying, “They follow and we advance”. When both ministers worked together, as in the case of Iraq and Syria, foreign policy goals were very clear. We also need to look at our defence systems and our key strengths and, for example, to determine how many instructors we can send for the mission. We managed to triple our numbers. I didn't have the information to establish a figure, but my colleague was able to take care of that.

What was the priority for our American allies? I collected information on that and so did they. I received information from Mr. Kerry and he received it from Mr. Carter and others. So we are working together very closely.

So we are going to review the defence policy and the international development policy at the same time. The Prime Minister asked us to do it together. We have an interdepartmental committee. I'm on it, and so is Ms. Bibeau and Mr. Sajjan. We're going to make headway together.

You're right to say that we will focus more on our role in the UN than in the past, particularly when it comes to peacekeeping missions. But let me tell you that our role in NATO will not suffer. We can and will take action on both fronts.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I'm pleased to hear that, given that the missions of each are really different. For example, the NATO mission and the current mission in Iraq are totally different from UN missions.

Having myself been a peacekeeper with the Canadian Forces and participated in that kind of mission, I unfortunately saw that many of my colleagues were very happy to be done with peacekeeping. We were proud about it in the beginning, but the conditions we faced, especially in Bosnia, meant that things have changed.

As for the future, we need to truly understand your intentions. In your mandate letter, you say that UN missions will be focused more on mediation, conflict-prevention and reconstruction efforts.

Does that mean that soldiers will be required to play only a peacekeeping role and will no longer have to fight? Is that your intention?

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

No, our activities will never be limited to that. However, we had ceased peacekeeping missions and we need to engage in them again. People expect that of Canada. People count on Canada so that peacekeeping missions operate well. They face enormous problems, as you know.

The trend has changed. Previously, it was developed countries that provided soldiers. Now, developing countries, particularly African countries, want to do it themselves. It's a matter of national pride and so on. They think that the local populations would be more accepting of people from the same region. That said, these soldiers need to be seen as security not a threat. But the opposite happens in many cases. The rapes are unacceptable. These are absolutely harmful behaviours. That's why Canada must be present to help professionalize peacekeeping missions.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Do you intend to have Canada in some way take control of peacekeeping operations in the world?

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

The idea isn't for Canada to take control, but for it to be present to help to make the missions effective. It isn't necessarily to send our own forces into the field, but to ensure that the personnel deployed are trained by Canadians who know the business.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

You spoke briefly about the Islamic State group and the work we are currently doing on site, but it isn't mentioned in your mandate letter.

Do you plan to withdraw troops at the end of the planned period and focus more on UN operations?