Evidence of meeting #58 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
I was just wondering if I could ask the officials how they respond to committee reports, as they'd need to make their best effort to respond comprehensively. Is that something that you have to do?
Marie-Josée Langlois Director General, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Shall I just go ahead, Mr. Chair?
Director General, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for the question.
Of course, the government always welcomes the discussions of the committees and the parliamentary committees and the evaluation and information that are shared with us.
When we receive recommendations from committees, of course we very seriously review and assess them. Many aspects are taken into consideration. I can speak for sanctions. These include policy considerations and legal consideration. It includes foreign policy and sometimes discussions with others, as well as the evaluation of whether there's sufficient open-source reliable evidence that we can find on the situation at hand. All of these are factored into our responses.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Through you, again to Madame Langlois, I'd like to follow up on what you mentioned in terms of the breadth, scope and robustness of the response you can give to a committee.
If we have a 40-day versus a 120-day limit, is there a material difference in terms of the robustness of the response you can give to a committee with respect to quality, thoroughness, etc.?
Director General, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Thank you, Chair.
The more time there is, of course, the more helpful it is to find more information. Open-source reliable information can be hard to find in certain circumstances, so the more time there is, of course, the better it is for us in terms of a straight and deep evaluation of the situation at hand.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
To follow up on that, would the committee be missing lots of elements if you had only 40 days versus 120 days in terms of the response that we need to do our work?
Director General, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
In certain circumstances, it can be very difficult to find information, as I mentioned, in terms of what is available. Also in terms of engagement with internal partners and in government, or with outside partners internationally, having more time is always very useful. Forty days could be difficult in certain circumstances.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I'll underline that the amendment that we have put forward already addresses the issue of 40 days. It already eliminates the 40-day requirement. That's not an issue.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I want to ask the officials if they have any comments on caretaker government status. What happens during caretaker governments after dissolution? What goes on during that period, and does it affect this or not?
Director General, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
From experience, when there's dissolution, when they're in caretaker mode, every decision is considered and is framed by the convention that applies during that period, so it's difficult for us to do the same breadth of work in terms of ensuring that only those things that are essential go forward.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I would say briefly on the caretaker government issue that foreign affairs in particular is something that has to continue during a dissolution. The foreign affairs minister is still the foreign affairs minister, the government is still the government, and the government has to act and respond to international crises. That should include the application of sanctions and therefore should include reporting on sanctions. It should be very clear that this work has to continue through that period.
Again, we don't want to see governments avoid the need to report when asked to by committee. We think the provision of reasons and the posting of that information on a website in case one of those can't be tabled in Parliament is an appropriate accountability measure. I think the points have been made on this.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I would add that in my experience after two elections, two dissolutions, having been parliamentary secretary of foreign affairs, my job stopped immediately the day the election was called, because parliamentary secretaries' jobs stop. The ministers do continue, however, in a very limited fashion. There are firewalls put up all over the place about what ministers can even know during an election period. It's very much a crisis-oriented moment. That's all there is.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
May I ask the officials how other nations deal with this kind of situation? Do you have any comparators?
Director General, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
If I may ask, is this for a clarification on sanctions in terms of evaluation? I see it is.
As you know, there are different systems across different countries, and the legal basis of those systems will affect how they deal with different discussions on sanctions.
In the U.K., we understand that there are a lot of discussions in Parliament, but as such, parliamentary committees just simply use regular means to express their views to the government, and the government will respond.
In the U.S., the division of power is very different in that context. Bills can be moved by different parts of the Congress, so those discussions will vary a lot. What has been happening over the years is that it is often through executive orders by the administration that sanctions decisions are made.
In terms of the EU, again it's complicated by the different levels of intervention in terms of competence, if you like, and in terms of the sanctions responsibilities. In the EU, there is the commission that deals with external matters and the European Union itself, but there's a big role given to the member states. The member states need to put forward proposals for discussion. It goes through various levels of committees and discussions in the EU, depending on whether there are trade elements that can go to different committees, so in the end, those discussions are more complex for them because they have many members and consensus must be obtained. Then you have a process that goes forward through all those committees by consensus and that comes, in the end, with recommendations for decisions.
Once sanctions are agreed to, the implementation goes to the member states. The member states themselves have to put in place the sanctions or put the implementation measures in place.
That's a general overview of our key like-minded partners on autonomous sanctions.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Are there differential binding elements on the nation states of the EU for a sanctions package? If the European Parliament adopts a sanctions package, for instance, it's not clear to me how that package is binding on, say, Germany or Hungary. Is there a separate assumption process?
Director General, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
I can give you a high-level overview, but I'd be happy to follow it with more precision, if you like, afterward.
From what I understand, once the sanctions announcements are made or approved by consensus—and they're made at the EU level—they are applicable in all the member states. However, in terms of implementation, each member state has to take its own steps in terms of implementation. This is due to the different types of competence in the EU system, with external affairs being at the EU level and the implementation at the domestic level. Anything, for example, that would deal with customs measures that need to be put in place would be put in place at the country level, at the member level, rather than across the board. Once there is a decision to impose sanctions, while it is effective for all member states, further steps need to be taken by the different member countries.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I don't wish to prolong this issue, Mr. Chair, but it is an opportunity. One of the issues that I've been approached about is the coordination of sanctions and how some countries do this and some countries do that. We read the headlines: “EU adopts sanctions”, we'll say—Magnitsky sanctions. The way you're describing it to me is that those individual nation states that constitute the European Union have to individually make decisions to adopt that package of Magnitsky sanctions. What's not clear to me is whether there are holes in that system, and because there are holes in the system, there are holes everywhere else.
As I said, I don't want to take up the time of the committee, but this is pretty significant, because we think that we've done things when in fact we may not have done things.
I'll leave you to give a final comment on that, and I'll then turn it back to the committee.
Sorry, Mr. Chair.
