Evidence of meeting #89 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 canada's.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute
I'll just say that the report is excellent, in large part because the driving forces behind it, as you know, are the chair and the vice-chair, both of whom are former deputies at foreign affairs. They've put their century of experience together into that report.
That's why this report is so important. You get a subtlety in the recommendations that comes only from that long experience of having sat in the chair and confronted all the problems.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
I have a very quick question.
The report recommends that GAC replace public service entrance—
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
I'm afraid you're out of time, Mr. Chong. It's been well over three minutes.
Mr. Oliphant, go ahead for three minutes, please.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Thank you, all, for your contribution today.
I do feel a little push in the defensive mode. I try not to be, but to riff off Mark Twain, the reports of our death, I think, are greatly exaggerated. I want to mention a couple of things about that.
Right now, with the Commonwealth, Canada's position and opinion are very much sought after on the situation in Guyana and the threat from Venezuela. It is something we are continually asked for leadership on. You may not know that, but Canada's position in many of our large organizations, like la Francophonie and the Commonwealth, is still quite strong.
I would also suggest that, when the leaders of the initiative from the Gulf and Arab Muslim states approached the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and went to the presidency of the EU, Spain, they added Canada. Of their mission around the world, they looked at the five large powers of the permanent members, as well as Canada and Spain, as the presidency of EU.
Just to be fair to people who are listening at home today, it would be incumbent upon us to recognize that Canada's leadership may not be as strong as it should be. We'll take these recommendations, but it is not finished yet.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to take this opportunity, unfortunately—and I don't like doing this, but with the possibility of the House rising quickly—to move a motion that I have on the order paper, on the notice. That is the motion with respect to studying Africa.
It reads:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), following the establishment of a dedicated mission and permanent observer to the African Union; recognizing Canada’s shared interests and co-operation with countries on the African continent within multilateral organizations including la Francophonie, the Commonwealth and the United Nations, as well as strong people-to-people ties between Africans and Canadians; and with a view to continuing to strengthen Canada’s efforts to collaborate with African partners on shared priorities:
(a) the Committee undertake a study on Canada’s approach to Africa;
(b) that such a study examine:
(i) Canada’s diplomatic and geopolitical engagement with countries on the African continent, including how such engagement coordinates with Canada’s International Assistance Program and Canada’s work on a Canada-Africa economic co-operation strategy,
(ii) the political and security situation in the Sahel including the impacts on Canadians and Canadian interests, and
(iii) Canada’s development and humanitarian assistance in sub-Saharan Africa;
(c) that it consist of a minimum of six meetings;
(d) that the committee report its findings to the House; and
(e) that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request a comprehensive government response.
I have copies of that available. It was sent out, I believe, on Thursday. I'd like to speak to it for a moment.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
No. I don't want us to speak to it. We want to continue to interview the witnesses first.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Yes, but under the Standing Orders, I am able to move a motion.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn debate on the motion.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
We'll put that to a vote.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Thank you.
We will proceed with our hearing, and we'll go to Mr. Bergeron for a minute and a half.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Mr. Chair, before today's meeting, we had attempted to have a discussion with our government colleagues, and as the government has moved its motion, I am moving the following motion:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee study diplomatic relations between India and Canada; that it allocate a minimum of four meetings to hear witnesses; and that the committee report its observations and recommendations to the House.
We have also provided a copy of this motion in both official languages.
Mr. Chair, since it is the wish of the committee, I will return to our witnesses.
According to the recent report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, some former members of the Global affairs Canada legal affairs branch have expressed concerns about the loss of legal expertise at the department. We saw this last week when we asked questions about what was happening in Israel and Palestine. The government representatives were unable to tell us whether, in their opinion, what was happening constituted a violation of international humanitarian law.
Mr. Imseis, do you feel there should be concerns about declining expertise in legal matters at the Department of Foreign Affairs?
12:50 p.m.
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
Frankly, there's no other explanation for it. The legal principles at play in occupied Palestine are so abundantly clear and well known, at least to the executive of this country, because we wax lyrical about them when it comes to Ukraine: the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory through force, the right of peoples to self-determination, and so on.
To my mind, either folks at GAC or in the PM's office don't know the law, that same law, as it applies to occupied Palestine, or they are otherwise playing at something altogether different, and that is being selective with international law when it serves our purposes as perceived by our government, and claiming otherwise, that we have a fidelity to it across the board.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
On a point of order, in the last round I moved a motion, and I have the right to speak to that motion. I actually verbally asked for the right to speak to the motion. Mr. Chong interrupted me while I was moving my motion.
I need it on the record that I have the right to speak to a motion when I move it. It doesn't matter when it happens in the meeting. If I have the floor, I can move a motion, and I can speak to it. I asked for the right to speak to it. I want it on the record that I was not able to speak to it before I was interrupted and Mr. Chong was recognized.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
On a point of order, I disagree. I think the chair did a wonderful job in providing me the floor to move the motion to adjourn. Mr. Chair, I sustain your decision to give me the floor, at which point I moved the motion to adjourn debate so we could actually hear from the witnesses we have called today to testify about the future of diplomacy.
Mr. Chair, I support your decision to give me the floor to adjourn debate, which I took advantage of. I thank you for that, Mr. Chair.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
On that point of order, Mr. Chair, I was not challenging your decision. I will respect your decision. However, I think it was wrong and I don't think it followed the rules of order that we have for this committee.
That was my point. I wanted it on the record. I hope in the future that.... It happens when any member moves a motion. It can happen at any time during their talk. That then stops the clock on the time. It does interrupt the witnesses, and I apologize for that, but I fear that as we near the end of the session, the analysts, etc., could actually do some work over the holidays on a new piece of work.
We've been talking about doing Africa work for quite a while. We've been talking about not spending enough time on development. We've been talking about not spending enough time on the conflicts in the Sahel and not enough time on the—
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Chair, on a point of order, we don't have to do this at all right now. Of course, we already have decided as a committee that we would be studying the Israel and Palestine issues, and the Iran issues, two of the motions that I had brought forward. We won't be looking at this issue until after we come back anyway.
There is absolutely no reason for Mr. Oliphant to raise this issue at this time. It would be much more appropriate for him to do that during a committee business meeting, so that we could hear from the experts we've brought before us today to talk about some very important issues.
Mr. Oliphant is, in fact, interrupting only the last speaker, and that is me. I would prefer it if he would allow—
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
That's my mistake, but I would prefer that we were able to address this. Studying Africa—
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
—is very important, but I think that's something we can do in February, when we return from our constituency break.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
On that point of order, I want to invite Mr. Chong to share his indignation with his Conservative colleagues on the environment committee, because it's been a recurrent issue that the Conservatives bring motions and we cannot interview witnesses. Please share it.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
I think that's debate, Ms. Chatel.
Thank you.
We now go to Madam McPherson.
You have a minute and a half.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank all the witnesses for being here. Of course, there are always some shenanigans that happen during committees, so thank you for your patience.
Mr. Imseis, you spoke about the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. We know that those are two of the only options Palestinians have to actually have non-violent or pacific dispute settlement. Would it not be in the best interests of all to utilize those mechanisms, to support the ICC and the ICJ, to have Canada give that support? Perhaps you could talk about that and the implications when we support those calls within Ukraine and don't support them in other contexts, like in Palestine.
12:55 p.m.
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
You're absolutely right. We have no credibility, because we take a double standard.
These two courts are, as you said, two of the only mechanisms that can be utilized to seek justice in the situation in Palestine, and not merely for Palestinian victims but also for Israeli ones. It strikes one as incredible that the Government of Canada would utilize those mechanisms, the ICC—indeed, Canada was at the heart of the creation of the ICC—and the ICJ, now, in matters concerning Iran and Syria, yet deny the option available for the people of Palestine and other victims, including Israelis, to utilize these mechanisms. The message this sends is that no, you may not resolve this conflict through pacific means and, by the way, if you're Palestinian, you can't use violence at all to end the occupation of your territory, now going on 56 years. Occupation is meant to be a temporary circumstance. This one has lasted generations.
If you can't use violence and you can't use non-violent legal means, what else is left?
This goes to Canada's credibility on the international plane.