Foreign Affairs Committee on March 28th, 2023

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I trust you will be as indulgent with me.

I'm very pleased to see you again, Mr. Ambassador. We've been waiting a long time to see you. I had even requested your appearance before you were appointed Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations, so that you could present your views of the mandate associated with this role. Unfortunately, for all sorts of reasons, which would take too long to explain here today, it was not possible. We finally have an opportunity today to see and hear you.

My understanding of things, and you can tell me if I'm wrong, is that your role consists of representing the interests of the Government of Canada, presenting a positive image of our country abroad, and maintaining cordial and respectful relationships with foreign states, particularly our allies.

As you know, there are two views of coexistence in this country: one that is multicultural and Anglo-Saxon, and another, more French and republican in origin, with a focus on secularism. Neither vision is better or worse than the other, but both need the mutual respect of the entire population of our country at this time.

On December 12, 2021 you re‑tweeted a tweet from Ms. Elghawaby, who had not yet been appointed Canada’s Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia, which was incredibly critical of Quebec and Bill‑21. You said:

“There is a deep, discriminatory meaning to this law. It clearly runs counter to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

Do you think that by making such a statement, you may have somehow damaged Quebec's and Canada's image abroad?

[Robert Rae]

Not at all, Mr. Bergeron. There are many visions or ideas about Canada. You just described two of them, but we could talk about dozens of others. I think it's important to reflect that.

Ever since the beginning of my public career, I have always talked about the importance of respecting human rights, Canadian pluralism and Quebec specificity. I've been on behalf of that for a long time. I did so during numerous constitutional debates, when I was a federal MP, when I was the premier of Ontario and when I engaged in discussions surrounding the Charlottetown Accord. Throughout my life, I've shown respect for Quebec's uniqueness and its distinct society. I'm a confirmed federalist, but for me, federalism does not mean a centralizing government. What it means is that the government respects differences in the country's and the provinces' areas of jurisdiction. That's the position I have always taken.

As for the tweets you mentioned, I was stating my personal opinion, as I do in all my tweets. I work closely with Canadian public service professionals who wear the hijab. And of course I treat their opinion as equal to mine, and I will continue to support their work. I will leave it to others to discuss Bill‑21, which is now before the courts in Quebec and Canada.

Frankly, I have always shown a great deal of respect for Quebec's opinions on diversity. For example, last week, Ms. Desbiens was part of our delegation attending the United Nations Water Conference. I am always respectful of people from Canada's Parliament who come to explain their opinions.

I am, of course, aware of the debate that followed my tweet, but I'm not going to pursue ir further. I had never intended to engage in it and I'm not about to do so today.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

I'm sorry that we have never had the opportunity to converse in person. I know that you sometimes come to Ottawa. In fact I once had the opportunity to meet you at the parliamentary restaurant.

[Robert Rae]

Yes, I remember.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

You opened the door to discussion a few moments ago, and so I hope that we will have an opportunity to chat at greater length.

According to an article in the Journal de Montréal on December 13, 2019, several European countries, including France and Belgium, and some Swiss cantons and German länder, among others, have regulations or statutes that are analogous to Bill‑21. In some instances, they went even farther by prohibiting the wearing of religious symbols in public places.

As the ambassador, would you say that French secularism, let's say, has a discriminatory aspect to it and contravenes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Ambassador, perhaps you could answer in less than 30 seconds.

[Robert Rae]

There will always be differences of opinion on multicultural policy. Nevertheless, I'd like to return to something you said, to the effect that multiculturalism was an Anglo-Saxon idea. I completely disagree with that statement, Mr. Bergeron.

We live in a democracy and people can have different ideas. I continue to defend Canada's position and the position of the provinces. Canadian diversity is central to what I do in New York.

I'd be glad to return to Ottawa if you would like to see me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Ambassador Rae and Mr. Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

That would give us an opportunity to discuss the issue I just asked you about.

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

Ms. McPherson, you have six minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ambassador, for being with us today.

I also want to take a moment to thank you for the work you've done with regard to Ukraine. I was there recently. I saw, just as you described, that civilian targets have been the target of Russia. It's a horrendous war. I appreciate your voice on that.

Ambassador, you spoke a lot about how the world is deeply troubled and all the challenges we face. One concern I have, as a Canadian, is that I don't understand our response to human rights around the world. It doesn't seem equitable. It doesn't seem fair. It seems like we pick and choose when we protect human rights and when we don't.

The first few questions I'd like to ask you are with regard to your role within the United Nations and Canada's record of voting with regard to Israel and Palestine. I don't think you'll be surprised to hear that I have some concerns about that.

In recent years, Canada has voted against resolutions that call on the international community to increase humanitarian assistance to Palestine. We voted against a call that urges Israel to stop violating international law in occupied territories. We voted against reaffirming that Israel's settlements are illegal and an obstacle to peace. We voted against urging Israel to comply with provisions of international law.

Ambassador, Canada is in a minority of votes with these resolutions. We've joined Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Togo and Palau. We have not joined Norway, Sweden, Germany, the U.K., France and Denmark. This year, in particular, Canada voted against a resolution calling on the International Court of Justice to seek a simply advisory opinion on the illegality of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory.

I remind you, Ambassador, that Canada is very strongly calling for justice for Ukraine. I have been part of that call. We all, in this place, have been part of that call, but I don't understand why we have a different lens for different regions.

Can you explain to me why Canada continues to vote against calls for justice and for Palestinian human rights?

Will Canada's vote change in the coming year as a result of the dangerous policies of the extreme right-wing government in Israel and the growing crisis, which is negatively impacting both Israelis and Palestinians?

[Robert Rae]

I'd make a couple of points in response to your question.

The first one is that the decisions on how we vote are made by the Government of Canada, by the minister and by discussions in the Prime Minister's Office and elsewhere. I think that those discussions would be best held on the floor of the House of Commons. I'm not here to debate with you about one vote or another.

I would take issue with one comment you've made, which is that our position on human rights is inconsistent as it relates to the situation in the Middle East. Our position with respect to the Middle East is very clear. It's set out on the website of the Department of Foreign Affairs. It's very clearly stated with respect to our support for two states for two peoples, which has been our position since the late 1940s.

The government—both in Mr. Martin's years and Mr. Harper's years, and now in Mr. Trudeau's time—made a decision some time ago that we were not going to pick and choose between a whole slew of resolutions placed in front of us—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm sorry to interrupt, sir, but with all due respect, you are inconsistent in your voting.

[Robert Rae]

Am I not allowed to respond, Madam?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes, go ahead.

[Robert Rae]

I didn't interrupt you.

You'll forgive me if I respond by saying I think that the decision we made with respect to how we vote on the Middle East is a decision we've made to say, “Look, we're not going to pick and choose between a number of resolutions.” That's a position the government has taken at the moment. Whether that position will change or not, I don't know.

I'm happy to tell you that the Government of Canada has been very consistent. In fact, I tweeted about it two days ago. We believe the rule of law should protect everyone in Israel and Palestine. We believe that everyone should be protected by the rule of law. We believe it's critically important that there be two states for two peoples.

We disagree profoundly with those people who say the Palestinians do not have a right to self-determination. We believe they do. We believe the parties have to decide, together under the rubric of international law, how they are going to negotiate their way to a better solution. The fact that they've not been able to—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Ambassador, I am going to interrupt you. You know the deal. You know that we only have a limited amount of time for our questions, so I want to make sure we don't run out of time.

Knowing the reality right now, first of all, I will say that I find the voting has been incredibly inconsistent with the two-state policy, as I've outlined already.

Extremists within the Israeli government are now in charge of security inside Israel in the occupied territories. They are threatening the annexation of Palestinian territory, which is in violation, as you know, of international law. Just yesterday, the leader of the Israeli government promised to create a militia under the control of the extremist Ben Gvir. The Israeli government is telling us very clearly that it plans to continue to violate international law and the very principles of the United Nations.

How can we continue to justify this?

One thing I'd also like to point out is that thousands of people in Israel—and, in fact, Jews around the world—are protesting against what the government is doing. Surely, the Canadian government can have the courage to vote with the Israeli people and against some of these very far-right decisions.

[Robert Rae]

You're commenting on a number of things. One of them has to do with the internal decisions of the Israeli government with respect to the internal politics of Israel, which I'm not going to spend a long time commenting on.

With respect to the impact on the West Bank and Gaza, the impact on the Palestinian people living in that part of the country and that part of the world, and the people who are there....

First of all, any annexation is illegal. Canada's position is very clear on that. We've been very clear with respect to any prospect of an annexation. I have to express my own deep concern with respect to some activities that amount to de facto annexation. I think that's something we have to pay attention to as a government. The final decisions with respect to votes, as I've said before, are going to be made by the government. They're not made by the mission here in New York. Those are decisions that are made by the Government of Canada and that's where the debate should be taking place.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Do you agree with those decisions, Ambassador?

[Robert Rae]

I don't have the luxury of agreeing or disagreeing. I have the luxury of doing what the position of the Government of Canada is. I'm explaining that as best I can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

Now we go to a second round of questioning. For this round, each member has four minutes.

We start off with MP Epp.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ambassador, for joining us today.

You're the one who raised that your public service began in the last century, so I'll acknowledge that I began intersecting with your government in Ontario also in the last decade of the last century, particularly with your Minister Buchanan.

I'll come back to food in a moment, but I want to start with the Wagner Group. Their presence is being felt throughout sub-Sahel Africa and many other parts of the world. In particular, of course, Russia is now using them in Ukraine.

A recent study that we just completed here at the foreign affairs committee recommended that they be listed as a terrorist group. Can you comment, please?

[Robert Rae]

Thank you, Mr. Epp. It's good to see you again.

Any determination of a terrorist listing is made by your colleagues in Ottawa. I'm sure the government will have a very serious look at that.

The use of a private army anywhere in the world is a source of concern. The use of the Wagner Group is of particular concern because of their record, because of the way they conduct themselves and the way they have conducted themselves. The fact that they are being widely used in Africa is a source of tremendous concern to me. It's of tremendous concern to the government.

I think it can be partly explained by the challenge facing peacekeeping. The Secretary-General is going to be releasing a report in the next few weeks on the future of overall peacekeeping in the UN system. We will be joining very vigorously in that discussion, because I think we all have a lot of concern about ensuring the public effectiveness of peacekeeping.

One has to say that the government of Mali made a decision to invite the Wagner Group in. The Wagner Group is also active in the Central African Republic. The overall situation in the Sahel and in other parts of Africa is a source of tremendous concern to us as we look at what the impacts have been.

On the particular question you raised about the terrorist designation, that's a decision for the federal government.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

You've commented earlier with respect to genocide that you have no issues declaring your opinion on that.

Can I ask your opinion of genocide with respect to Russia's invasion of Ukraine?