Foreign Affairs Committee on Sept. 27th, 2023

[Tom Keatinge]

But why did the interpreters agree less than an hour ago?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

You raise a very valid point, Mr. Keatinge, but that is what I—

[Tom Keatinge]

Indeed, there was a further discussion about this, and then I was told, “Please continue.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I'm terribly sorry. I completely understand your frustration.

Go ahead, Ms. Chatel.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm terribly sorry. It has happened before in other committees. The rules have been very strict now because of health issues for our interpreters. It's really nothing about you, Mr. Keatinge. It's really about the safety of our interpreters. It's a rule now. It has created similar issues in other committees.

What I've learned is that there is a technical test, but it's not necessarily in the presence of the interpreters who are assisting our committee. I really like—

[Tom Keatinge]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but an hour ago, I did it in the presence of your interpreters. That's what I was told.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Keatinge, allow me to emphasize once again that those are the rules of the House, and we apologize for the inconvenience.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I like the suggestion of Monsieur Perron. We would really like to hear your testimony. I think it's very important for this committee.

With your permission, Mr. Chair, I would like to make sure that we invite him—with the right headset—for another time, but I would really like to hear our witnesses today on this committee.

Thank you.

[Tom Keatinge]

I apologize to my fellow witnesses for this shambles.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Keatinge, this is not a shambles. We all would have very much liked to hear from you, but the House has its rules and this is not unprecedented. It has happened to numerous—

[Tom Keatinge]

Okay. I'll tell you what. Let me save everyone's time. I will hang up on the call. You can continue with your hearing. If the clerk wants to get in touch with me and invite me back, we can figure something out, if I can be available.

Needless to say, this has not been a good experience with a fellow ally across the Atlantic on one of the most important topics that we face right now in international security.

I would have thought you would want to hear the view from Europe, where, obviously, sanctions play a critical role in response to Russia's—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Keatinge, you have my sincerest apologies. We want to hear from you, and someone will be in touch with you.

Thank you kindly for your time.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Go ahead.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Chair, this is deeply embarrassing. I would hope that we don't end up in this situation again.

If somebody is cleared an hour ahead of the meeting or half an hour before the meeting, they should be able to proceed. I don't know what happened, but he should have never been cleared to proceed half an hour before the meeting.

Let's make sure, Mr. Chair, that this doesn't happen again because, frankly, this is embarrassing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I agree. That process is in place for a reason, but we can talk about that in committee business, if that's okay with everyone.

Now we will open the floor to questions from members. For the first round, we have five minutes each.

Mr. Hoback, you are up first. You have five minutes.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Again, it is unfortunate that this has happened. I want to thank the other witnesses for being here this afternoon or evening, depending on where they're located.

One thing about having sanctions on a country or an individual is that they're only as effective as the ability of the country putting on the sanctions to enforce the sanctions. What recommendations would you make in light of the fact that Canada has not been doing that? What should we look at as a committee to see better enforcement and better follow through with regard to these sanctions when they're put in place?

I'll start with you, Mrs. Charron, and then go to Mrs. Marineau and Mr. Martin at the very end.

[Dr. Andrea Charron]

Thank you. That's an excellent question.

I think what we've heard from a lot of the testimony is that ultimately the RCMP and customs and the Border Services Agency, etc., are responsible for the enforcement of sanctions.

However, that's actually not quite correct. It is in fact Canadians—Canadian businesses and Canadian banks and financial institutions—that are on the front line of making sure that they understand sanctions and are able to make sure that they're not dealing with listed entities and individuals. That's why I'm calling for sanctions training, which Canada does not have, unlike the EU, the U.K. and the U.S. We don't provide guidance to Canadians.

For example, Guinea-Bissau is sanctioned by the UN Security Council. We are obligated to put those sanctions in place. You will not see Guinea-Bissau mentioned at all on the Global Affairs website.

We are missing information that allows Canadians and businesses to actually do their jobs and make sure they're at the front line of sanctions enforcement.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I only get five minutes, so I'll have to be a little quicker with the other witnesses. I wouldn't mind having your comment on that, quickly.

[Sophie Marineau]

In recent years, I've often been asked about the clarity of Canadian sanctions. People have often found the laws surrounding sanctions to be rather vague. That was particularly the case last year, when Bombardier engines were found on Ukrainian territory in Shahed drones made in Iran and used by Russia.

It's not extremely clear to everyone whether Canadian companies are in fact complying with sanctions. Even though, in this particular case, the engine was classified as an item used for civilian purposes, not military purposes, the difference between civilian purposes and military purposes is far from clear to most people and businesses. Even the classification on the Canadian government's website is far from clear on this subject. So businesses have to do a lot of research to find out whether their own products are subject to sanctions or not.

So there is a great deal of vagueness around the regimes currently being imposed.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Again, I only get five minutes.

Mr. Martin, I'm kind of curious. You've done a lot of international work in regard to this area. When Canada isn't perceived to be doing its share of the work when sanctions are put on, how does that impact our relationship with other countries around the world? Are we taken seriously around the world when we say that we're going to put serious sanctions in place and then we see no enforcement on the back end?

[Dr. Craig Martin]

It's not exactly my area of research.

I think that Professor Charron had her finger on the fact that when we think about enforcement, there tends to be this sort of focus on whether there are prosecutions, yet that sort of misses the point that sanctions often have their effectiveness in the way in which, for example, financial institutions refuse to process transactions or lawyers advise their clients not to engage in certain trade. Sanctions can actually have quite a profound effect, even without any evidence that the law enforcement is actually prosecuting anyone for violation of sanctions, so you'd have to do a lot more granular research to determine whether in fact the sanctions are being violated in a way that would require prosecution.

In terms of the international perception, the thing that has been getting the most attention—from my perspective, when I'm at conferences where both legal scholars and law and policy experts are convening—is Canada's suggestion that it may start expropriating assets as opposed to just freezing assets. People are thinking that Canada is actually way out in front of everybody else, perhaps not in a good way, in terms of pushing the boundaries of international law with respect to expropriation.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Martin, I'd like to talk to you more about that part of it, too, because I think that's a very important conversation we should be having.

It comes back again, though, to this: If there are no benchmarks, if there's no transparency and if there's no way of seeing exactly what's going on, how do we know whether we're being effective or not? How do we know that companies are actually obeying? You say that you think they are, but I have no measure or no tools to say that you're right or wrong.

Maybe I'll go back to you, Ms. Charron. What type of benchmarks should be put in place, and how do we make sure they're established in such a way that we get good data?

[Dr. Andrea Charron]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. These testimonies have provided a lot of data, but it's not captured and it's not given to the public. This should become routine. Our other allies provide it. They say, “Here's a summary of our sanctions regimes for the year. Here's the number; here is who asked for delisting”, and the like. That provides metrics to determine if, in fact, for Canada, things are effective.

Right now, the only metric we have is how long the lists are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I'm afraid, Ms. Charron, that you're considerably out of time. I apologize for interrupting you. I'm sure another member will ask for further clarification.

Next we go to MP Zuberi. You have five minutes.