Foreign Affairs Committee on Dec. 11th, 2023

[Colin Robertson]

Well, one of the things I know this committee has been debating is, do you do a foreign policy review? What I'd like to see is what we did in the nineties when we had a joint parliamentary committee of the Senate and the House that toured the country looking at our broad foreign relationships, which included defence and development as well.

I think parliamentarians are the best placed to listen to Canadians. You represent Canadians. In crossing the country, you'll get that wide perspective of views.

They came out with a report in about six months. That's much more effective than throwing it to Global Affairs, where doing these things is like a visit from the Dementors. It takes years and years before we get anything out. Look at our Indo-Pacific strategy, which took five or six years, and we're still wrestling with an Arctic framework.

I would say to you as parliamentarians that if you say, “Let's do this,” and you can do it in six months, I think that would make a lot of sense, and you would come out with the bare bones: “Here's what Canadian interests are and here's how our values support our interests, but here's what we as parliamentarians think you should focus on.”

I find that sometimes it's impossible within Global Affairs or some of the departments to be able to agree on anything about where our priorities should be. That's the role of government, and I think that takes us back to parliamentarians and your role to get out, listen, report and list those priorities.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

I have one last question.

Professor Imseis, you referred to this—values—but we also talked about interests. What happens when there's a tension between values and interests? We know that sometimes that happens with, for example, our biggest trading partner, the United States. How do we resolve these tensions or these questions when they surface?

[Dr. Ardi Imseis]

In my respectful view, one example of where there was a negative for us was that in what I think was about 10 years, we twice tried to get a seat on the Security Council of the United Nations and twice lost out to much smaller countries, relatively speaking: to Ireland, I think, and to Norway, if my recollection serves, both of whom have a much broader and larger footprint on the international plane, both of whom have much deeper ties to the global south and both of whom basically have their ears on the ground based on values of what the world community actually expects in the 21st century.

We've failed to meet the challenge not once but twice, and it was because we dropped the ball on our values and didn't adhere to them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

You have 10 seconds remaining, MP Alghabra.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Maybe Mr. Robertson can follow up on that.

[Colin Robertson]

I think your values inform your interests, and I think sometimes we make a false dichotomy between the two, so I don't get.... I think that becomes a circular argument. Ultimately, your values should inform your interests.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

We now go to Mr. Bergeron.

You have five minutes, sir.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Robertson, you were present during the discussion we had a few moments ago, with the representatives of the Société nationale de l'Acadie.

In an article published in Policy magazine in May 2022, you wrote that the government should fully implement the recommendations of the Senate report entitled "Cultural Diplomacy at the Front Stage of Canada’s Foreign Policy", and particularly the recommendation pertaining to the establishment of a global cultural diplomacy strategy that would be provided with resources and then assessed afterwards.

Can you tell us more about that?

[Colin Robertson]

Well, I think that Senate report was excellent. Throughout my career, cultural diplomacy, public diplomacy, was a big piece of what we did.

It needs to be funded properly, though. As we heard again in this committee, the funding for these programs has been eviscerated and they don't take place, yet they are hugely valuable.

I was posted in Los Angeles. We did a major campaign to try to win the Oscar for one of our great films that came out of Quebec—Denys Arcand's film. We were successful by working closely with the Quebec office there, and with the Canadian performers.

This raised our profile, because it then allowed me to go in and talk about other things, like the meat and potatoes trade and investment. If we're excellent in culture, then they think that this country has something. This country does have superb culture.

I endorse that Senate report, but unfortunately it's fallen by the wayside. I hope that doesn't happen to the other Senate report, which has just come out.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

You mentioned relations with the Quebec delegation in Los Angeles.

In that same article, you said that there had to be an emphasis on partnerships with provincial representatives, and particularly those in Quebec, which has a highly developed system of offices abroad.

Can you tell us more about this other recommendation?

[Colin Robertson]

Of course.

I spent most of my career overseas, and on every one of my postings, there was a Quebec delegation. I found that we could work very well together. That was the best way of doing things, because the Quebec delegation could do things that I could not. Together, we were a powerhouse. We worked well together in every area, whether trade or the environment. Frankly, it goes much more smoothly overseas than in Ottawa, because at the end of the day, we all have the same goals and targets.

As I have said on many occasions, collaboration among the Quebec delegations and the ones from other provinces, not to mention the federal government's, is very important because it opens doors to promote our industries, our interests, and our values.

Together, we are a powerhouse.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

It could also be done with a number of civil society representatives, like theSociété nationale de l'Acadie , as was mentioned earlier.

To conclude, Mr. Robertson, in that same article, you further pointed out that there had to be fewer partisan appointments.

Do you think that partisan appointments in the foreign service are an growing trend and that they undermine not only the foreign service's credibility, but also perhaps the enthusiasm and motivation of those who work in Canada?

[Colin Robertson]

Yes.

At the beginning, I found that everyone worked together to promote Canada's national interests. Over time, I found that politics got in the way every now and then, which is only natural, because that's the way things are. However, I would like to point out that it's very important for you, the parliamentarians, and your committee, to also work together.

If all parliamentarians supported plans to improve our foreign service, it would help us enormously. The government needs to hear that.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Nevertheless, do you feel that there are more and more partisan appointments?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I'm afraid you're out of time, sir.

Madam McPherson, you have five minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all three of you for your testimony today. It's been very enlightening.

Mr. Imseis, I'm going to ask you a few questions.

You spoke about credibility being everything. You spoke about Canadian values and how our foreign policy needs to be grounded in those values. I wonder if you could speak to the case of Yemen, the Saudi-led coalition and Canada's approach to this conflict.

Over the course of the war, Canada issued many statements condemning the Houthis but neglected to ever name the Saudi coalition, despite many reports of bombings of schools, hospitals and markets.

Canada has, of course, exported weapons to the coalition during this conflict. What are your concerns about that?

[Dr. Ardi Imseis]

As members of the committee know, I had the great pleasure of being named by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to the UN commission of inquiry on Yemen. I served in that capacity for two years, between 2019 and 2021, and had a front row seat to Canada's position. I was very pleased to see—and this is to the credit of Canada's mission in Geneva in particular—the great support that was provided to our work at the commission of inquiry by the Canadians in Geneva. As a matter of principle, they were there fighting for our mission, fighting for the renewal of our mandate, tooth and nail, with other like-minded states. That, to me, demonstrated that our foreign policy was moving in the right way, at least in terms of our values concerning accountability.

On the other hand, and this is the counter intuitive bit to it, this was the same Canadian government that was supplying arms to the Saudi-led coalition, and on which we at the commission of inquiry were reporting on an annual basis. This was a matter of public record, so we felt compelled to speak to it. Canada certainly isn't the largest arms supplier to the parties to the conflict in Yemen—that is to say, to the Saudi-led coalition—but it is among the largest, so there is an incongruity. On the one hand, Canada seeks accountability through the United Nations commission of inquiry, on which I served, and for good reason. On the other hand, it's focused on supplying arms to one of the parties of the conflict that we had found in our reports and in our investigations and that we had reasonable grounds to believe was indiscriminately bombarding the civilian population across the country.

It's that example that highlights my concern about congruity between what Canada says it believes in on the one hand and what, in fact, it does on the other. My heart goes out to and great credit goes out to the people in our Geneva mission. It can't be easy to be a diplomat and explain this to the world when you're confronted by it. As an independent academic, as a member of the commission of inquiry and as a proud Canadian, I know there was no way I could, in good conscience, do this work otherwise. The credibility of the work of the commission of inquiry would otherwise be called into question if I didn't speak to Canada's arms trade. This is a problem.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

For me, one of the big issues is that the rest of the world watches the way Canada picks and chooses how it applies international law, how it supports the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. That is hugely problematic. As you mentioned, there are the Security Council seats that we've lost. There are many emerging economies that.... The global south is looking at the decisions that Canada makes, and it doesn't see us as a legitimate, ethical actor anymore. We are losing that reputational benefit that Canada, as a country, has had.

You spoke a lot about what's happening, the horrific atrocities that we're seeing in Gaza right now. I want you to speak a bit about the issue of recognition of the state of Palestine. Should we, as a committee, be pushing the Canadian government to recognize the state of Palestine? Would that help in moving the political and justice processes forward?

[Dr. Ardi Imseis]

The short answer is yes. I have no doubt about that for the following reason.

The Canadian government claims that it supports the two-state solution. One of those states is recognized by Canada and has long been, since 1949. We actually had a role to play in the partition of Palestine. You all know the role of Justice Ivan Rand, who served on UNSCOP.

At the same time, one other party that is under foreign military occupation, now going on 56 years, is a state juridically at international law, recognized by 139 member states of the United Nations. Canada is an outlier. There is no rhyme or reason that it wouldn't extend recognition to the territory of Palestine, being an occupied territory, for the following reason: Israel, as an occupying power, is not sovereign and cannot be sovereign in that territory. Whyever would we not extend recognition to it in the hope that we could engage two states, with responsibilities and obligations on both states under international law, and push them towards peace?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

We next go to Mr. Chong.

Mr. Chong, you have three minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I read the Senate report last week, and one of the recommendations that really surprised me the most was recommendation 8: “The Government of Canada should ensure that Global Affairs Canada's senior officials, including deputy ministers, have in-depth knowledge of and experience in international affairs.” I was surprised that this recommendation even needed to be made in the Senate report.

However, I want to focus on what the purpose of this hearing is all about, and that's the machinery of government and how GAC manages our diplomacy. My first question is on how two of the recommendations concern reaffirming the central agency status of Global Affairs Canada and seeking separate agency status for Global Affairs Canada. I wonder if Mr. Burton and Mr. Robertson could comment on that.

[Dr. Charles Burton]

I would certainly like to see Global Affairs Canada more removed from the politics of the day. If these provisions would allow for that, it's a good idea.

Ultimately what we need are more resources and more effective deployment of resources.

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

Do we need more resources, or do we need to reallocate resources? Two of the recommendations in the Senate report concerned shifting resources around. The first was to reduce the number of senior managers—ADMs, DMs and directors general—in the department to reallocate those savings elsewhere. The second was to push down decision-making to mid-level bureaucrats and away from the bottlenecks that are currently in place because of the concentration of decision-making in senior management.

[Dr. Charles Burton]

I definitely strongly support that, in the sense that we have to make the most of what resources we have. I've written a bit about this. I think that we should be more focused on the north in a serious way and not in a rhetorical way. Other areas will have to be set aside. We can't be everywhere all the time.

I absolutely agree with you in terms of reducing the numbers of higher-level bureaucrats. Everybody in foreign affairs wants to become a director general or an ambassador, and I think that, over years, the increase in the higher ranks has been responding to those career aspirations. It doesn't serve Canada's interest.