Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 8th, 2018

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

As I already said, I can only talk about my responsibilities.

As minister of foreign affairs, I am responsible for signing—or not—export permits. We have not received an export application. I want to be very clear, and it's important for people to understand that, if we receive an application for an export permit to the Philippines, we will take human rights into account, as they are a very important issue for Canada. The Prime Minister and I have discussed our concerns in that area regarding the Philippines.

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

Thank you.

Based on the expert opinions I have heard, you will not receive an application. So there is no mechanism in place. My understanding of your answer is that this kind of a thing will continue to happen.

You did not answer my question about the time of the transaction. Since the sale is current, I presume the agreement was signed under the Liberal government. Correct me if I am wrong.

You say that, regarding Saudi Arabia,

there is no conclusive evidence.

However, Minister, with all due respect, the standard in current Canadian regulations doesn't say that we will not export if there is conclusive evidence; it says that we shouldn't export if there is a reasonable risk. Given the fact that the ambassador for Saudi Arabia himself told The Globe and Mail that yes, Canadian LAVs were used in eastern Saudi Arabia,

and that civil society organizations, truly independent experts, confirmed that light armoured vehicles were used during attacks against civilians, I think there is a risk. What I find a bit strange is the lack of conclusive evidence. According to the current standards and regulations, Canada cannot export arms if there is reasonable risk.

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

I was very precise, and intentionally so, in my language. When the media reports appeared, what I said was that I instructed the department and our objective and independent public service—of which, Hélène, you were once a distinguished member—to do a thorough analysis. The report that I received from our public service was that there was no conclusive evidence of the use of Canadian weapons in the commission of human rights violations. That is the advice that I received, as minister.

We believe in a fact-based approach and we believe in relying on the counsel of our public service.

That said, as I said in my remarks, the issue raised some concerns for me. As I have announced today, that is why I think that now is the time for Canada to move to a more rigorous system of control over arms exports going forward.

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

Thank you, Minister.

Could we get a copy of that report?

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

I will have to ask the department representatives for it.

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

I would like to ask one last question about arms exports. Bill C-47, which concerns the implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty, includes criteria, and I think that is an improvement.

As you know, all the experts we have heard from pointed out that the bill violates the spirit and the letter of the Arms Trade Treaty. The bill still has significant shortcomings; it does not at all address the role of the Canadian Commercial Corporation or the Department of National Defence. However, in the sale of helicopters to the Philippines, we are are talking about two major players. The bill also does not cover our exports to the United States. Yet President Trump announced that he would loosen the rules on arms exports from the United States to some countries with a poor track record in human rights. We know that Canadian weapon parts got to Nigeria through the U.S.

Are you also planning to resolve those issues in the current bill? I'm talking about the role of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, the role of the Department of National Defence and exports to the U.S.

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

I agree with you on many of the issues, but I don't fully share your opinion on what you just discussed. I think the additions and amendments I announced today are a major improvement. I think it is very important for Canada that our government decided to join that treaty and it's a major improvement in terms of our export regulations.

As for our ties with the United States in defence, as you are well aware, that country is one of Canada's important strategic allies. That relationship is important to us, as well as to our American counterparts. We are allied, we share a border and we are both members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Madam Minister.

Thank you, Ms. Laverdière.

We'll go to Mr. Sidhu, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for taking time out to come in front of the committee. My question is going to be on Bill C-47.

During this committee's study of Bill C-47, we heard concerns raised by the Canadian Shooting Sports Association and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.

Coming from a rural riding in British Columbia, I get to hear those concerns at the same time. Would this bill have any impact on domestic firearms? It's a two-fold question. The next one is, does it impose any record-keeping requirements that don't already exist?

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

Thank you very much, Jati, for that question.

As you know, I currently represent a very urban riding, but I was born and raised in a very rural one, so I understand that question, and I think it is a very important one. I'm delighted to have this opportunity to offer some clarity on that issue.

Bill C-47 will make changes to the process for importing and exporting controlled goods to and from Canada. It does not affect domestic gun control regulation and it does not affect the domestic trade in arms. The Firearms Act falls under Public Safety, so admirably and effectively managed by our friend Minister Goodale. This is not the purview of Global Affairs Canada. We have quite enough on our plate without that.

Bill C-47 does not create any form of new registry for gun ownership. Let me be very clear on that. Record-keeping obligations in the Export and Import Permits Act have existed since 1947, and Bill C-47 does not change the system that Canadians already know.

Let me quote from the the Arms Trade Treaty preamble, which acknowledges, and I quote:

the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law

I know that there have been some concerns about that issue, and I am very pleased to have the opportunity to absolutely put those concerns to rest, so thank you for that question.

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

Thank you very much.

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

I'm glad to be on the record about that.

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

Second, you played host to a very important meeting in Vancouver with the Secretary of State of the U.S.A. and other foreign ministers about the increasingly volatile behaviour of North Korea.

As Canada looks to commit to the Asia-Pacific region, could you please speak to the importance of Canada's diplomatic engagement in North Korea and Canada's role in creating a peaceful and secure Korean peninsula?

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

We were very pleased just a few weeks ago to co-host with the United States the summit on peace and security on the Korean peninsula. This is one of the most pressing issues in the world today. North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile tests are a breach of international law and pose a dangerous security threat for the entire world. Our summit meeting in Vancouver was an opportunity to show international solidarity and international resolve around that important issue. It was a very important opportunity for us, the assembled foreign ministers, to assert together that a diplomatic solution is both possible and essential in this crisis.

We were very pleased to host the meeting in Vancouver for a number of reasons, not least among them that Canada is the proud home to one of the largest Korean diaspora communities anywhere in the world. As MP for University—Rosedale, Toronto's Koreatown is in my riding. We do have a special interest and responsibility. As our B.C. colleagues know, we are a Pacific nation, so we are particularly engaged in this issue.

One additional important purpose and value of that meeting was to show our support for our partner, South Korea. Minister Kang, South Korea's foreign minister, is an excellent, extremely effective foreign minister. While we in Canada certainly are concerned about what is happening in North Korea, we're concerned because of the threat to the world. Of all the countries in the world, South Korea is most directly exposed. It's very important for us to be showing solidarity and support for South Korea. This was a very good opportunity to do so.

We were very glad to host the meeting. I thank our colleagues from Global Affairs. They did a fantastic job pulling it together at what, by the standards of these sorts of summits, is very short notice. This is going to be an issue in which Canada will continue to be very urgently engaged.

Finally, the timing of the meeting turned out to be very fortuitous, because it happened just as North and South Korea were able to engage in talking about and working together on the Olympics. All the participants in the meeting were able to speak about the value of that engagement as admittedly a very small step, but a positive step.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you.

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

And “Go, Canada, Go”, for our athletes at the Olympics.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. Sidhu.

We're going to go to Ms. Vandenbeld, please.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much.

Before I begin, Minister, I want to thank you for the respect that you have shown this committee and the witnesses before this committee in your openness and willingness to see amendments that are going to improve Bill C-47 and strengthen our export control mechanisms. I appreciate that.

I would like to begin by thanking you for joining us today. I would also like to commend you on your commitment to promoting a feminist foreign affairs policy, especially on your commitment to the Global Women, Peace and Security Agenda.

As you know, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 1325 18 years ago. The resolution calls for women to be part of peace proceedings, in all respects. We know that peace treaties are more stable, inclusive and sustainable when women are involved.

Canada has a great deal of expertise and has much to offer in this area. We already have women participating, as civilians, in peacekeeping missions around the world. I noted that Canada's second action plan integrated principles relating to women, peace and security. That plan will lead to an increase in the number of women participating in all aspects of the promotion of peace, be it through peacekeepers, police officers, non-government organizations, NGOs, or through efforts to strengthen a state in the wake of a conflict.

In your opinion, how could that new policy have a greater impact worldwide?

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

Thank you for the question, Ms. Vandenbeld.

I'll start by responding to your preamble.

The work we have all been doing together on Bill C-47 is a real example—and Mr. Chair, let me address you also—of how a parliamentary committee can do really important work in improving legislation. As I said, this is not the first time this committee has had a real impact on the work of the government. The Magnitsky report is another example of the way this committee's work has shaped our government policy. That's the way parliamentary democracy is supposed to work, and I would like to thank the committee, and the witnesses who come before the committee, for being so effective. It's made a real difference to what we're doing as a country.

Regarding the theme you and I are flighting for—women, the country and security—I absolutely agree with you. I also want to congratulate you, Ms. Vandenbeld, on the work you are doing, not only in Canada, but also in Kosovo, Vietnam, Bangladesh and the Congo. I think that those life experiences enrich your life both as an MP and as a member of this committee; that's very clear to me. It is very useful for Canada to have a woman with those kinds of experiences.

For our government, including women in everything we do in terms of peace and security issues is a priority. We talked about that at the peacekeeping summit in Vancouver, and it was only the beginning. I am certain that our plan to include more women in peacekeeping operations will make a huge difference for Canada, for the world and for the United Nations.

There will be a lot of work, and it won't be easy. However, this is important work, and we now have a plan. We have the support of many countries around the world. I know that this work is necessary, and I am sure we will manage to do it

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much.

Building on that, we know that when women are involved in decision-making processes and in institutions generally, whether it's national parliaments or being part of trade or peace negotiations, we see an improvement. We see the sustainable development goals being reached sooner. If women are part of the process and participants in the process, then we see that peace agreements last longer.

However, only 4% of the signatories on peace agreements today are women, so I'm very pleased to see that we have a new policy that's going to be encouraging more women to be involved in peace agreements around the world.

I would like to ask you to elaborate on the fact that when we talk about a feminist foreign policy or feminist international development policy, we're not just talking about things that put women into existing frameworks and existing processes, but in fact improving those processes, making them more inclusive, and including women in every single part of that process.

Please explain a bit how that would work in practice in terms of the plan Canada's putting forward and the leadership we're showing around the world, particularly on the women, peace, and security file.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

It will have to be short, because time's up for this member.

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

Let me, in that case, just say we need to do precisely what you suggest in your question.

I very much agree, and I think at this point we have a pretty broad national consensus around the fact—which is now proven by quite a rich historical experience and empirical studies—that when we include women in peace and security processes, when we have women engaged in peacekeeping, and when we have women engaged in policing, we have better outcomes. It's the right thing to do because it's fair and it's in line with our values, but it also leads to better results, and that is why Canada is so proud to be championing this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Minister.

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

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's a pleasure to be joining the committee today, and thank you to the minister for being here.

I was honoured to join our leader, Andrew Scheer, in Washington last month as part of the NAFTA team that went down there. Again, we had a very positive response. It was a Team Canada approach. We know how important NAFTA is to our economy, and certainly, as the shadow minister for agriculture, I know how important it is to our agriculture file.

In saying that, I wanted to talk briefly about the CPTPP. I know that's not in your file, Minister, but I know you worked very hard on that initially when thankfully we left it for you to carry on. I appreciate that you were able to get the CPTPP signed. Certainly I know we're in good hands with Mr. Verheul and Ms. Hillman with NAFTA.

However, although I don't want to say a “grave concern”, there is a lot of concern within our stakeholder group, especially in agriculture, that we will not sign the agreement in Chile in March, that we won't get the legislation done to be among those first six countries that are going to be there, and that we'll miss out on some real opportunities if New Zealand and Australia are able to access that market with Japan, for example, before we are.

For us, we want to see the CPTPP signed and be a signatory as quickly as possible.

What is your view in terms of being at the cabinet table? Will we be signing that agreement on March 8 in Chile? When can we expect implementing legislation to be tabled in the House to get that implemented as soon as possible?

We can do that simultaneously. There's precedence there. We did it with CETA. We did it with the Canada-Korea agreement. Can you give us some confirmation that we'll be signing that on March 8, and when will the implementation bill be put before the House?

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

I worry, John, that you're trying to get me in trouble with François-Philippe, my friend who is my benchmate in the House of Commons. We all have to try to stay in our own lanes.

Let me say on behalf of the government that as the Prime Minister has announced, we were very pleased to be able to reach an agreement in principle on the CPTPP. Canada is absolutely committed to this deal, and we are very pleased particularly with the changes that we were able to achieve in the final months of negotiation.

I think the additional protections on the cultural exemption are very valuable for Canada. I'm very pleased with the changes on the IP front, and we have some additional opportunities for Canadian autos that I think make this a better deal. Our government is enthusiastic about it and committed to it. I'll leave the details to François-Philippe, but you have that assurance from me.

We are very mindful. Speaking on the agriculture file, no one, I think, knows it better than Steve Verheul. We're very mindful of the additional opportunities, particularly in the Japanese market. This is great news, in particular for Canadian ranchers.

I'll let you finish your....