Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 8th, 2018

[The Chair (Hon. Robert Nault (Kenora, Lib.)), Liberal, Bob Nault]

I call this meeting to order, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), for a briefing on Canada's foreign policy priorities.

Appearing before us today is the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Global Affairs. We want to thank her very much for taking this time to spend with is. As is our normal process here in committee, we will ask the minister to make her presentation, and then we'll go through a series of questions and answers.

As you know, the chair tends to be fairly lenient on how we do these things. Everybody can just relax and get their questions in, and it will all go well.

With that, I want to turn the floor over to Minister Freeland for her presentation.

Again, thank you for appearing.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

I would like to thank our chair and the committee for the opportunity to join you all here today. I have some prepared remarks, a few things I'd like to say off the top.

Before I begin, I would like to introduce two outstanding Canadian public servants who are here with me. I think everyone in Canada now knows Steve Verheul. I was about to say that he is our chief negotiator of CETA, which he is, but right now, significantly, he is our chief negotiator of NAFTA. Thank you for being here with us, Steve.

With me also is David Morrison, who has recently been named our associate deputy minister of Global Affairs. David has been doing terrific work on a number of files, but most particularly he's a Latin America expert and has been leading our effort on Venezuela.

Muchas gracias, David.

For the Albertans here, he's from Lethbridge.

Mr. Chair, honourable members, thank you for inviting me to speak to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development about how our government is delivering on its foreign policy priorities. Last June, in the House of Commons, I presented Canada's priorities in terms of foreign policy. The very essence of those priorities is the fact that they are founded on the importance of maintaining a stable and rule-based international order.

Our government is capitalizing on Canada's global presence, which is long-standing tradition, to speak with a strong voice in order to defend intolerance and nativism, while addressing the legitimate concerns of individuals who feel overwhelmed by globalization. This means that constructive leadership is needed in the established world order and with our partners to promote peace, security and prosperity around the world.

Mr. Chair, that is exactly what our government is doing.

At the United Nations, the G7, the G20, the OAS, the World Trade Organization, in the Commonwealth, la Francophonie, and NATO, to name just a few, Canada today is engaging creatively to navigate the complexities of today's world.

We are doing so, Mr. Chair, not only in word but also in deed. We have shown that Canada can lead and assemble partners to find solutions to the world's most pressing global challenges.

In October, in Toronto, I hosted the third ministerial meeting of the Lima Group on Venezuela. Foreign ministers from over a dozen countries convened to discuss steps needed for a peaceful return to democracy and to relieve the terrible suffering of the Venezuelan people. I repeated this message once again two weeks ago in Chile at the fourth Lima Group meeting, as well as the importance that Canada's sanctions against Venezuela have in our efforts to achieve these goals.

The issue of Venezuela was further extensively discussed at the North American foreign ministers meeting last Friday in Mexico City. We may be holding another meeting of the Lima Group in Lima next week. That's under discussion. Just a couple of hours ago I spoke with the Peruvian foreign minister about that possibility.

With the United States, Canada also recently hosted the Vancouver foreign ministers meeting on security and stability on the Korean peninsula. This was an essential opportunity for the international community to demonstrate unity against and opposition to North Korea's dangerous and illegal actions and to work together to strengthen diplomatic efforts towards a secure, prosperous, and denuclearized Korean peninsula.

Likewise, on Myanmar, I'm proud of Canada's leadership and cross-party support for that leadership. Too often in diplomacy, it is said that words do not matter, but they do. It is significant that Canada was one of the first countries to denounce the crimes against humanity and the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya.

Since the beginning of 2017, Canada has contributed $37.5 million to help address the needs of affected people in Myanmar and Bangladesh. This includes $12.5 million the government contributed to match the donations of generous and concerned Canadians. I would really like to thank and congratulate all the Canadians who took part in that. That is why we have appointed Bob Rae, a friend and an exemplary Canadian, as special envoy. As a non-Muslim-majority country, it's particularly important that Canada speak out in defence of this persecuted Muslim minority.

When it comes to Ukraine, I was delighted to travel to Kiev in December and to meet with President Poroshenko, Prime Minister Groysman, and Foreign Minister Klimkin.

I conveyed our unwavering support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty and spoke about our recent addition of Ukraine to the automatic firearms country control list, something that the Ukrainians thanked me for.

Last June I also said we would take strong steps to ensure that all human beings are treated with dignity and respect, based on our strong commitment to pluralism, human rights, and the rule of law. Since then, we adopted the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act—and thank you to everyone around this table for the support for that measure—to enable Canada to take action against individuals who commit serious violations of human rights and those who engage in significant acts of corruption anywhere in the world.

I want to thank all the members of this committee for your important work on this legislation. It truly would not have happened without this committee's leadership, a very important contribution.

We will continue to firmly denounce any kind of injustice and intolerance around the world, as we have done in places such as Yemen, Chechnya and Iran in recent months.

You also heard me talk about women and girls. As I said in June, it is important for a prime minister and a government to proudly self-identify as feminists.That actually marked an historic milestone.

Women's rights are human rights, and they are at the heart of our foreign policy. That is why we are determined to promote a feminist and ambitious foreign policy. That commitment is at the heart of Canada's feminist international aid policy, which was launched in June by my colleague Marie-Claude Bibeau, Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, and at the heart of Canada's new national action plan dedicated to women, peace and security, which I announced last November.

I know that the contribution of several committee members here today was a great help in developing those policies. So I would like to thank them once again.

At the United Nations Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial conference held in November, in Vancouver, Canada launched the Elsie Initiative on women's participation in peace operations. The initiative's goal is not only to ensure that women can participate fully in peacekeeping operations around the world, but also to guarantee that good conditions are in place for their long-term participation. The Elsie Initiative is designed to improve the overall effectiveness of United Nations operations. We are hearing from experts from a number of countries this month to determine that the next steps will be.

Our reputation as a country with clear and cherished democratic values that stands for human rights is strong. We must continue to be a global leader and keep working hard to protect these values and rights.

On that point, I would like to directly address an issue that has received important scrutiny in Canada: arms exports. Last summer we became aware of media reports on the possible misuse of Canadian-made vehicles in security operations in Saudi Arabia's eastern province. At that time, I asked officials at Global Affairs Canada to conduct a full and thorough investigation of these reports. Today I can confirm that officials at Global Affairs found no conclusive evidence that Canadian-made vehicles were used in human rights violations. That was the independent, objective opinion of our public service and the advice given to me as minister.

That experience did, however, cause me to pause and re-examine Canada's export permit system. My conclusion is that Canada can and must do better. Canada is not alone in the world in taking stock of how we allow and monitor the export of arms and of the considerations that go into these decisions. I have spoken with my counterparts in Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands, among others, whose countries have all recently, in one way or another, questioned how arms are exported.

I am proud of the important commitment that our government made with Bill C-47. This would amend the Export and Import Permits Act to allow Canada to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty. This is the first treaty to tackle the illicit trade in conventional weapons, and it sets an essential standard for the international community.

It is long overdue that Canada joins many of our NATO and G7 partners by acceding to the ATT. We have heard support for the arms trade treaty from civil society, NGOs, and Canadians. We also heard the clear desire to do better. We need to be ambitious and strengthen Bill C-47. We had originally planned to place the criteria by which exports are judged, including human rights, into regulation, but we heard from committee members and civil society that they would like to see the Arms Trade Treaty criteria placed directly into legislation. This would include the consideration of peace and security, human rights, and gender-based violence. I can say today that the government would welcome this.

Going further than that, our government is today announcing its support for the inclusion of a substantial risk clause in Canadian law. Such a clause would mean that our government and future governments would not allow the export of a controlled good if there were a substantial risk that it could be used to commit human rights violations. A substantial risk clause would mean that Global Affairs Canada would need to ensure, before the export of controlled goods, that we have a high level of confidence that controlled exports will not be used to commit human rights abuses.

That is an important decision because it will have an impact on the way Canada regulates arms sales, but it's the right thing to do. Canadians are deeply committed to human rights for everyone, and they rightly expect exported goods not to be used to violate human rights.

I want things to be very clear. I want us to hold ourselves to a higher standard when it comes to Canada's controlled goods exports.

This is a significant decision. It will mean changes in how Canada regulates the selling of weapons. This is the right thing to do. Canadians fundamentally care about human rights for all, and Canadians rightly expect that exports will not be used to violate human rights.

Let me be clear: from this day forward I want us to hold ourselves to a higher standard on the export of controlled goods from Canada.

I would also like to provide further clarity on one point. As a matter of broad principle, Canada will honour pre-existing contracts to the greatest extent possible. We can all understand and appreciate the fundamental importance of being able to trust Canada. We also understand the inherent importance of providing stability and certainty. Canada is a trusted partner around the world, and people must continue to be sure of the high worth of our word and our commitments. The world needs to know that an agreement with Canada endures beyond elections. This is important not only for international partners but also for Canadian companies and Canadian workers, who need to know they will be able to follow through on plans into which they invest their time and resources.

These two amendments will also provide clarity to industry by laying out the government's and Canadians' expectations for our export control process. We will work with Canadian industry to continue to provide it with appropriate guidance.

Mr. Chair, let me now turn to trade for one moment.

When it comes to NAFTA, we continue to work hard on the bread-and-butter trade issues at the negotiating table. Our goal is greater competitiveness, investment certainty, and growth in North America.

At the most recent round of talks in Montreal, we put forward some creative ideas with the view to establishing a constructive dialogue on certain key issues, including the rules of origin, investment dispute settlement, and ongoing modernization of the agreement. Serious challenges do remain, particularly with regard to the United States' unconventional proposal. As the Prime Minister said yesterday in Chicago, our objective is a good deal, not just any deal.

At the negotiating table, Canada always takes a facts-based approach. We are always polite and we are adept at seeking creative solutions and win-win-win compromises, but we are also resolute. Canada will only accept an agreement if it is in our national interest and respects Canadian values.

Finally, Mr. Chair, let me conclude with a few words about one of Canada's signature priorities for this year, our G7 presidency. This is a great opportunity for us to speak with a strong voice on the international stage.

During its G7 presidency in 2018, Canada will mobilize its counterparts on global issues requiring immediate attention, including by investing in economic growth that benefits everyone, by preparing for the jobs of the future, by working together on climate, ocean and clean energy changes, and by building a more peaceful and safer world. More specifically, we will promote gender equality and women's empowerment, and we will ensure that a gender-based analysis is conducted for each aspect of our presidency.

Mr. Chair, I will conclude by saying that, within G7 and the international community as a whole, Canada is continuing to defend a rule-based national order and to look for ways to strengthen it. We do this at every opportunity, while explicitly taking into account the relationship between peace, common prosperity, open trade and human rights.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you very much, Minister Freeland.

Colleagues, as usual, let's go right into the rounds.

As you know, your chair doesn't get involved too often, but I might have a chance to ask a question today at some point.

I'm going to start with Mr. Genuis, please.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister Freeland, I think you know and I want to emphasize again that the official opposition is committed to working with the government in areas of national interest and in particular on NAFTA. We all want to see a good deal for Canada and we want to co-operate as much as possible to ensure the success of it.

I do want to share with you just a couple of points of frustration. This committee did pass a motion inviting you to come here a year ago to talk about your mandate. Our shadow minister had requested a briefing on NAFTA. It took four months for him to get a briefing on the government's strategy and approach with respect to NAFTA.

I know that your appearance here was only scheduled after our shadow minister had already notified the embassy in Washington that he had to be away. These are a few elements of honest frustration, because we are eager to work with the government on areas of national interest.

I do want to ask you something with respect to NAFTA. You didn't speak a lot about the progressive elements of it. I think Canadians are eager to understand what exactly the government is seeking in terms of these progressive elements.

I wonder if you could share with us whether the government is seeking binding provisions with respect to things like gender and indigenous rights or if the government is seeking symbolic language similar to what we have in, say, the Canada-Chile FTA?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Thank you very much for that question, Garnett, if I may, and you're welcome to call me Chrystia if you like. We can be a little more informal here than in the House.

Let me first clarify the matter of timing of my appearance today. I apologize for not having brought that up at the beginning. I'd like to thank everyone for being willing to meet today rather than last Thursday. I am aware that this appearance was scheduled for last Thursday. As I think people know, we had a last-minute decision to hold a meeting of the North American foreign ministers in Mexico City on the Friday.

This was a meeting that we had long sought to schedule. It seemed to me, given developments in the world and in North America, that there was great value in the three foreign ministers of the North American countries coming together, and when quite quickly it became apparent that the end of last week was a time that would accommodate Rex and Luis, the U.S Secretary of State and the Mexican secretary of state, it seemed to me that the right thing to do was to go ahead with that meeting. I apologize to everyone for everyone having to change their schedules. I'm sorry some people couldn't be here, but it was truly about my being able to get to Mexico City for that meeting.

On the NAFTA negotiations, I do also want, Garnett, to thank you and thank opposition parties, as I want to thank all Canadians, for the Team Canada approach we have brought to these negotiations. As you all know, we have both NDP and Conservative members, as well as business, labour, and indigenous representation on my NAFTA council. I think our Team Canada approach is serving us extremely well. I really want to thank everybody, especially opposition colleagues, for that approach.

When it comes to the progressive elements that we have put forward, in my view our core progressive ideas are in the labour, environmental, gender, and indigenous chapters. Each of those chapters is different and speaks to a different need in a different part of the agreement.

The indigenous chapter is certainly the first time Canada has put forward an indigenous chapter in a trade agreement—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Minister, with respect, in terms of time, because I have some other matters I want to get to—

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

You asked me a question about the progressive elements, and I'd like to answer that.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I just want to nail down whether they're symbolic or binding.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Garnett, I'm answering. I am.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Please don't cut the minister off, Garnett. I told you I'll give you plenty of time, so relax; stay chilled. It will be all good.

Go ahead, Minister.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

It's certainly the first time Canada has put forward an indigenous chapter. We thought it was the first time an indigenous chapter was put forward in a trade agreement, but I was talking about this with New Zealand, and they think there appears to be one between New Zealand and Taiwan, because of some ethnic relations between their indigenous peoples. It is new ground for Canada, and I'm very proud that we're putting that forward.

When it comes to the labour and environmental chapters, it is our belief—and labour organizations agree with us—that the labour proposal we have put forward is the strongest and most progressive labour proposal Canada has ever advanced in a trade negotiation. This is a set of proposals that would bite, and that would do the important work.

I spoke in my comments about our support for globalization. At the same time, we appreciate that globalization has left some people behind. It's not fair for Canadian workers to be exposed to a race to the bottom, to be facing other countries where labour and environmental standards are lower. Our labour chapter and our environmental chapter are very much designed and have the intent of protecting our workers against that.

When it comes to the gender chapter, I'm glad that you referred to the chapter that we have in our agreement with Chile. That really is ground-breaking. This chapter very much builds on that work. Our proposals do, in any case. None of these are closed chapters, so it's important to talk about the Canadian proposals here.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Minister.

What I wanted to understand is whether or not you are seeking binding language on gender and indigenous rights. I guess those who are watching will judge whether or not you answered the question, but I do want to make sure we get some other elements in, in the time that we have.

Minister, on the issue of China, Canada's ambassador to China said recently that in some important areas such as the environment, global warming, free trade, and globalization, the policies of the Government of Canada are closer to the policies of the Government of China than they are to U.S. policies. You didn't address China in your opening remarks. I'd just be curious to know, and it can be a quick response if you're comfortable with that, if you agree with these remarks by the ambassador. Do they reflect the position of the Government of Canada?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Garnett, the reality is that China is today the world's second-largest economy. It's a country with which we already have a very significant trading relationship, and with which many countries in the world have a significant trading relationship. The existence and the importance of China is a fact, and certainly, as someone who cares very deeply about issues like our canola trade, I am very aware of the significance of China's relationship with Canada.

It is the duty of any Canadian government to have a strong and meaningful relationship with the world's second-largest economy. That is something our country is working hard to build.

That said, it is also the case—and this is something which we expressed very clearly in our meetings with Chinese officials—that in many ways and in many areas Canadian values and the Canadian political system differ very strongly from the political system of China. That is a reality as well, and that is something we all should be very clear about.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Minister, my question, though, was.... Well, I'll just say first off that my question was whether or not you agreed with the statements of Mr. McCallum. I certainly agree that we need to have a relationship with China.

Because this is my last question, I do want to table, for the benefit of the committee, this photograph of the Golden Lampstand church. It's a church in China that over 50,000 people attended. I'll table that with the committee. I also want to table a photograph of the church being blown up, and this was in the same month when Canada's ambassador to China, John McCallum, said that we have more in common in terms of our values with China than we do with the United States.

Minister, I agree that we need to trade with China. Certainly the previous government increased trade with China. On the particular case of the destruction of the church, if that happened anywhere else in the world, I don't doubt that members of the government, including the minister, would have had strong statements about that. I'd like to know if the minister has anything to say about the destruction of this church, if the government has anything to say about it. How does she feel about the comments of Canada's ambassador saying we have more in common with China than the United States in light of that terrible act of what some might call terrorism happening in the same month?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

I've been very clear on the question of the Canadian political system and Canadian political values vis-à-vis those of other countries. Let me say one thing very clearly for all Canadians: I really think, particularly at this moment in the history of the world, that something Canada is poised to do and that Canadians really believe in is to speak up for persecuted ethnic and religious minorities around the world. That's something I'm personally very committed to doing, and I believe we have strong cross-party support for doing that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

We're going to go to Mr. Saini, please.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much for being here today, Minister.

I want to start off with your last comment. As you know, our government has been at the forefront of calling for the protection of the Rohingya and an end to their persecution, going as far as to appoint a special envoy—Bob Rae—to advise the government on this matter. You, on many occasions, have also said that this is a case of ethnic cleansing and that the perpetrators responsible must be brought to justice.

Can you update the committee and Canada on what Canada is doing to help the Rohingya people?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the issue of the persecution of the Rohingya is one of particular concern for this government and for Canadians. I have been really proud of the cross-party support for the Government of Canada in focusing on that issue.

As I said in my remarks, in the world today there is a particular significance and importance for us as a non-majority Muslim country to be focused on the oppression of this Muslim minority, which is one of the most persecuted groups in the world. I said in my remarks that words matter, and I think it's important for us to be clear that what is happening to the Rohingya is ethnic cleansing. These are crimes against humanity.

It's also really important that the people committing these atrocities understand that personal accountability will happen. That is something the international community is pushing for, and it is something Canada stands behind very strongly.

You mentioned the Prime Minister's special envoy, Bob Rae. Bob's appointment to look into this issue—to travel to Myanmar, to travel to Rakhine State—is a very important part of our commitment to being engaged and to speaking up for the Rohingya.

I would like to say in conclusion that I have been really proud of the commitment of our Parliament broadly—of all the parties in Parliament—to these persecuted people, but even more proud of the commitment of Canadians. All of us knew there was a real desire among Canadians for the Government of Canada to match donations to support the Rohingya, and Canadians responded to that magnificently. We're a great country, and I think we're never greater than when we're speaking up for some of the world's most persecuted people.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you for that.

The other question I have is important to me because I've been in touch with people who have been involved in the land mine community even prior to entering politics. I was very happy to know that the government is now providing $12 million of new funding for the elimination of land mines around the world. Since we signed the Ottawa treaty 20 years ago, we've always been a leader in IED eradication.

Could you update us as to where the money is going to go and how it's going to be allocated?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

All of us can be proud of the Ottawa treaty. We celebrated together its 20th anniversary last year. That was a great Canadian international accomplishment and has made a significant difference in the world. Given the devastation caused by land mines, anything we can do to have fewer of them in use means that there are fewer mutilated people and fewer dead people in the world.

That is why we were really proud on December 4 to announce an additional $12 million to pursue our goal of ridding the world of anti-personnel land mines. Men and boys are disproportionately the group who are the direct victims of land mines, but it tends to fall to women and girls to care for them, so we are applying our gender-based analysis to dealing with the impact of land mines.

In terms of where the funding is going to go, we are focusing on Syria; Ukraine, because as members of the committee know, among its many afflictions, the Donbass region is afflicted with land mines; Colombia; Cambodia; and the Lao People's Democratic Republic. In this project, we're working with trusted international partners.

I see Anita nodding, because she has worked around the world so much.

The land mine issue is really something on which the international community recognizes Canadian leadership, and we should all be proud to build on that 20-year legacy. I certainly am.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Madame Laverdière, s'il vous plaît.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for joining us today. If that's okay with you, I will go pretty quickly because I would ideally like to ask a dozen questions. I know that I won't be able to ask all of them, but I will try. So my proceeding as quickly as possible is not impertinence.

Regarding the helicopters that were sold to the Philippines, you said today that you would not approve the export permit. I assume you know that this type of agreement does not require an export permit. Right?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Ms. Laverdière, I would like to begin by thanking you personally for your work on the export file. As I already said, we will listen to you, and we are prepared to use the amendments you talked about. Thank you for your contribution.

As for the Philippines, export permits come under my jurisdiction. As I said yesterday and today, we have not received an application for an export permit, and human rights are important to us. In the case of an application for an export permit, we are fully prepared to carry out a rigorous analysis. I will sign a permit only once a rigorous analysis has been conducted.

You also talked about an investigation by the International Criminal Court into the Philippines. I welcome that investigation, which is an important step.

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

Thank you, Minister.

The problem is that you will not receive an application for an export permit because there are so many holes is our current system—these are agreements negotiated by the Canadian Commercial Corporation—that you will not receive one. This clearly shows that our system contains major gaps.

I will soon talk about the Arms Trade Treaty, but I would first like to know something about the agreement concluded with the Philippines.

I know that a memorandum of understanding was signed in 2012 and a first agreement in 2014. I would like to know who signed the agreement to export those helicopters and when.