Evidence of meeting #85 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was know.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Chrystia Freeland Liberal University—Rosedale, ON
We're very mindful of the opportunities for Canadian agriculture, in particular, I would say, for Canadian ranchers. We're also mindful that this first mover advantage is very valuable.
I think we saw that with the Korea trade deal. The fact that Canada fell behind really meant that our ranchers and our pork producers were at a disadvantage, which they're still fighting to make up.
There are some great opportunities there, and I look forward to seeing Canadian farmers and ranchers take advantage of them.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Thank you, Minister.
On the supply management side, we have 3.25% access as part of the CPTPP, but there are some concerns as to what that's going to mean to NAFTA, because when the CPTPP was originally negotiated, the Americans were part of that agreement. The Americans are no longer part of that agreement.
Can you give us some assurance on NAFTA that there won't be additional access to supply? We want CPTPP to be signed as quickly as possible and we know how important NAFTA is, but are there some assurances that there won't be additional access to supply management in Canada as part of the NAFTA deal?
Liberal
Chrystia Freeland Liberal University—Rosedale, ON
You are rightly familiar with the dairy access that is granted under CPTPP, because that, of course, was negotiated by the previous Conservative government. Steve and I and our negotiating team work very closely with our stakeholders, very much including the supply-managed sector, when it comes to the NAFTA negotiation. We are very aware of the concerns and the very legitimate needs of our supply-managed sector.
When it comes to the NAFTA negotiation, as I said in my opening remarks, we are making good progress on what I would describe as the modernization chapters, areas such as cutting red tape, such as electronic forms at the border, such as our small and medium-sized business chapter, which we have closed. We've closed that chapter, the competition chapter, and the anti-corruption chapter, so we're making really good progress there. As you will know from working with business people, those are really important chapters. We actually found in our—
Liberal
Chrystia Freeland Liberal University—Rosedale, ON
Hang on; I'm going to get there, okay? I want to give you the context.
In our consultations ahead of the NAFTA negotiation, at the beginning of the negotiation we found that 40% of Canadian exporters do not use their NAFTA preferences. That's a really big number, and what that tells us is both that the red tape involved in claiming those preferences is very high and probably that the delta between the NAFTA preferences and the WTO rate is smaller than it was when NAFTA was first negotiated. As a result, we're focusing a lot on those modernization areas and we're making meaningful progress there.
That said, there are other areas where significant differences remain. The sector you've alluded to is one of them.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
Thank you, Mr. Barlow. That uses up all our time and then some.
On behalf of the committee, thank you, Minister Freeland, for coming. We very much appreciate it. We're looking forward to seeing you again very soon.
Colleagues, we'll take a five-minute break and then we'll get into our second hour of witnesses here at the foreign affairs committee.
Thank you very much.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
Colleagues, I want to bring this meeting back to order.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we have the study of the provision of assistance to Canadians in difficulty abroad, better known as consular affairs. Before us today is Mr. Gar Pardy, who's a former Canadian diplomat and a well-known writer on this particular subject.
Mr. Pardy, thank you very much, and our apologies for starting a little late. It generally happens when we have ministers at the committee. However, I want to assure you that if we don't get through your presentation and questions by members today, with your permission we'll invite you back and finish off the job that we may not be able to do today.
With that, I want to turn the floor over to Mr. Pardy for his opening comments, and then colleagues will get right into questions relating to the role of consular affairs and the importance of it. This is, of course, as you know, our second hour of this analysis, so it's a very important part of our work.
The floor is yours, Mr. Pardy, and thank you again for coming.
Gar Pardy Former Canadian Diplomat, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I commend the committee for undertaking this examination of the provisions of assistance by the government to Canadians. It is the first time, certainly in my memory that such an examination has taken place, and I think my memory is probably longer than most. A comprehensive examination of consular affairs is also a matter of added importance in light of the changes in the composition of Canadian society, which increasingly includes persons who were born outside of Canada; every few years, we get another indication of that from Statistics Canada. Equally, an increasing number of Canadians include foreign travel as an important element in their daily lives.
I've been retired long enough now that I don't know many members here, but certainly before retirement it was a rare day that I did not receive an inquiry from members or their staff about constituents who had run into trouble when they were outside of Canada. Most of the problems were easily resolved, fortunately, but there were always a small number of such matters that were deeply tragic in their outcomes or went on for months and years.
Many of these cases, if one were to list a group of names, would bring back memories to just about all of you. Some of the persons that have been in such difficulty are such persons as Alison Azer; Christine Lamont and David Spencer; Nguyen Thi Hiep, who died tragically, executed by the Government of Vietnam a number of years ago; Zahra Kazemi, a case that still lingers on in our court system; Bill Sampson; Maher Arar; Omar Khadr; Ahmad Abou El-Maati; Abdullah Almalki; Muayyed Nureddin; James Loney; Harmeet Sooden; Suaad Mohamud; Mellissa Fung; Mr. Abdelrazik; Amanda Lindhout; Robert Fowler; Louis Guay; John Ridsdel; Robert Hall; and, most recently, Joshua Boyle.
Beyond the individuals who linger on in our memories about these things, every year we see large events take place around the world that directly affect the Canadians who are in those countries. These have almost become annual events, I think, in our documentation. Of course, it's always important that we remember what happened in late June in 1985 when hundreds of Canadians were killed at the hands of other Canadians when Air India was bombed off of the coast of Ireland.
As you go about your work in this area, I would leave you with three factors firmly in mind, which I think will help guide your work.
The first of these is that there cannot be any expectation that the international environment will become more benign or peaceful in the coming years. Without being overly pessimistic, I think it's fair to say that it will become less so.
Second, and almost counterintuitive in all of this, there can be no expectation that Canadians will travel less as a result of this increasingly inhospitable international environment.
The third thing to keep in mind is that there are no initiatives under way—or interest in creating new ones—that will increase international co-operation on consular matters, and this despite the fact that nearly two billion people travel internationally each year and the travel industry internationally is valued in the trillions of dollars.
I would suggest to you that there are a number of initiatives that the Government of Canada could and should undertake in order to improve the lot of Canadians who encounter difficulty while outside Canada.
The first such initiative is to create a legal basis establishing the responsibility of the Government of Canada to provide consular services to all Canadians. I would emphasize the word “all”. Since the creation of the consular services in the aftermath of the Second World War, the provision of such services is discretionary on the part of the government and is considered part of the crown prerogative. Simply put, since it's not established in Canadian law, the government of the day can decide who is to be helped or not helped. Needless to say, such discretion on the part of governments has occasionally led to discrimination, with serious consequences for the Canadians involved.
Some of you may be familiar with an issue in the last Parliament, when a number of private members' bills were advanced in order to change that particular aspect of consular services, but they never reached the level of law. Most recently, in 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed that crown prerogative was still a factor in the work in this area.
When you look at this particular aspect of consular services, I think you should bear in mind that Canadians pay directly for consular services through a consular service fee that was enacted in 1996. I had a hand in its enactment back then. Well over a billion dollars has been collected through that fee, which has gone into the general revenues of the government. An examination—and there have been examinations over the years on the use of those monies paid—suggests that there is a significant discrepancy between the fees collected and the expenditures associated with consular services. This is a direct contravention of the law establishing the fee.
The second area needing urgent attention is the policy associated with negotiating the release of Canadians kidnapped overseas. As matters now stand, there is an absolute prohibition, both in law and in policy, on the payment of ransom in such situations. Last year, this policy probably contributed to the deaths of John Ridsdel and Robert Hall following their kidnapping in the southern Philippines in 2016.
There is much ambiguity on the value of this approach in such kidnappings. These are discussed in a paper that the Rideau Institute will release next week. It's a paper that I wrote in the last few weeks. It's called “Political Violence and Kidnapped Canadians”. That paper gives considerable detail on the issues involved here. I would hope that the committee will find the time to look at it as you discuss this subject.
Associated with the issue of Canadian policy on the payment of ransom in kidnapping cases is the role of the RCMP. It is evident that in some of the recent kidnapping cases the RCMP has played a large role. There has been no public examination of this role, and its value to the successful conclusion of such cases is ambiguous at best. It would be appropriate for the committee to examine this role and establish its value and/or its dangers.
Finally, I would emphasize a need for the establishment of an independent mechanism that would adjudicate disputes on consular services between Canadians and the government. There are a number of mechanisms active in mediating disputes between Canadians and the government, and they have been successful in dealing with a variety of disputes. There is no mechanism available to mediate or adjudicate disputes concerning consular services. At this time, consular disputes are without mediation or adjudication, except for action within the judicial system.
You are all familiar with the decisions of the courts in the last few years in terms of their granting of monies to people who have taken the government to court. We're talking of tens of millions of dollars, and there is still a case before one court right now where the award in effect will probably outdistance some of the previous ones we've heard about. Putting in place a mechanism that will help deal with these sorts of problems before they end up in the courts would be useful for everyone.
Two years ago, I wrote a paper called, “Canadians Abroad: A Policy and Legislative Agenda”. Again, it was released by the Rideau Institute. That paper details a number of consular issues that require attention. I draw it to your attention. I would hope that it would help inform you in your discussions on this subject.
Equally, as the chairman mentioned in his introduction, I've written extensively in the media on these matters. Committee members may find the articles useful in your discussions. These articles were published in my book Afterwords: From a Foreign Service Odyssey. I'll leave a copy of it with your clerk. You can distribute it and see for yourself.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
Thank you very much, Mr. Pardy.
I want to go straight to questions. I'll start with Mr. Genuis, please.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Pardy, for your presence here and your testimony.
First of all, could I ask you to dig a little deeper on this issue of the paying of ransoms? There's a certain utilitarian logic, I guess, to the “don't pay ransoms” position, but I think some Canadians would be uncomfortable with the potential coldness of that logic. Could you maybe just share with us what the alternative looks like in more robust terms? If we were to have an openness to that, what are the pros and cons and what are the implications?
Former Canadian Diplomat, As an Individual
The full answer is in that paper next week. I'll make sure the committee gets a copy. Essentially, it's an issue in terms of the non-payment of ransoms. When I was working in the foreign service, I think I dealt with well over a hundred such cases, and we never lost a Canadian during that whole period. The question here is that it's not so much that the cases are resolved on whether a ransom is paid or not paid, but the process by which in effect you enter into a set of negotiations through intermediaries in order to obtain the release of the people.
Now, there is no doubt whatsoever that ransoms get paid and that ransoms are paid by governments. People who have studied this issue have come to the conclusion that ransom is not the most important factor in whether somebody lives or dies in these situations. The University of Maryland maintains one of the great databases in terms of this kind of thing around the world. People have looked at it, and there are many books on this subject. I think the general conclusion out there is that ransom is not the issue at all in these sorts of things; it is the process by which a government organizes itself and goes about it with the objective of saving the life of one of its citizens.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I want to make sure that I understand you correctly.
If I understood it, what you were saying is that the possibility of a ransom really is part of a conversation, a negotiation, that may in many cases not actually involve the payment of a ransom, but the opening associated with that conversation increases the likelihood that we can save somebody's life, whereas a complete out-of-the-gate refusal to even talk about it, on the other hand, takes away options, reduces the likelihood of a successful negotiation, and increases the risk to the person who is a captive.
Did I understand that?
Former Canadian Diplomat, As an Individual
That's it exactly. You've summed it up quite well.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
You spoke about these cases in, I believe, the Philippines, on which the Prime Minister took a very clear public line in saying that we will not pay ransoms, and lives were obviously lost in that context. You think that had we gone about it differently, had the Prime Minister not drawn that clear public line, the outcome could have been potentially very different.
Former Canadian Diplomat, As an Individual
Well, any number of people have been released from the same situations. Two of the people who were kidnapped at the same time as Mr. Hall and Mr. Ridsdel were released subsequent to the murder of the two Canadians.
What I'm talking about is the process that one goes through here, and most governments, I think, have followed this particular rule—not only previous Canadian governments, but governments around the world. The key element in the process is that basically you do not talk publicly about what's going on. That's the last thing you can do, and it creates more danger than anything else does. The idea that you're going to say something in Ottawa, say, and that it's not heard instantaneously by the kidnappers is something that in effect we should never assume.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Presumably, the advice you would have given to the Prime Minister, were you still there, would have been not to speak publicly about this situation. Would you presume that the existing public servants would have given the same advice to not speak publicly about this?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Okay. Thank you very much. I think that's important.
On the issue of the consular services fee, I think Canadians would find it interesting that they pay a fee for a service, yet that fee exceeds the cost of providing that service. The logical conclusion would be either to address the gaps in the service, if there are any, or, if not, to reduce the fee. Could you clarify?
I got the impression from what you said that there is a basic legal issue with a government that's supposed to collect this fee for a particular purpose and is not doing that. Has there been any legal action? Do you know of any groups that have contemplated legal action over the collecting of this fee, which I think you said was outside the legal parameters for it?
Former Canadian Diplomat, As an Individual
The Auditor General did look at this issue in 2008, made some comments in the report, and suggested that Foreign Affairs should be more assiduous in terms of its accounting in this particular area. My own view, without saying anything about accountants generally, is that accountants in government can spend money and give a reason for it that's in accordance with the law, but in effect, when you look at it very closely, it's not.
It's an area where there is a real problem looming. About three years ago, the government decided to increase the period for a passport—a 10-year passport is now available—but they did not increase the consular service fee. A Canadian buying a 10-year passport pays half the consular fee paid by somebody who buys a five-year passport. There's a need here to increase the fee so that it matches up to the years of service that you get out of the passport.
In terms of the numbers that I have seen, I must say that I'm an outsider in all of this and all I can do is look at the documents that appear in public, but I think in excess of $1.4 billion has been collected in this area. My own conclusion—and other people have said the same thing—is that only about $800 million of that can be accounted for by consular services.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
It's almost double what it should be—
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
—in terms of the taxes, the fees we're collecting from Canadians, that aren't actually at all going to what they're supposed to be going towards.
Former Canadian Diplomat, As an Individual
Yes, because the fee is mandatory. You have to pay the consular service fee at the same time that you make your application for a passport.