Foreign Affairs Committee on Dec. 13th, 2023

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

Thank you.

I'm going to shift to Ms. Blais. I don't know if I can say the word that you did: the bureaucratization of Global Affairs.

Specifically, coming out of the Senate report, there are some recommendations around reducing the levels of upper management. How would you respond to that particular recommendation?

[Louise Blais]

I completely agree with that recommendation. I think there are too many layers in Global Affairs Canada, but at the same time, the work is there. There's a lot of work. This is why I have been talking about how we need to reduce the number of priorities. We can't be everything to everyone.

When I talk about that bureaucratization, really, it's a mindset. It's a culture that is now Global Affairs Canada. That wasn't the Global Affairs I joined. Back then, it wasn't called Global Affairs. It has changed names very often—

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

I would ask if you can expand on only one point, because I'm running out of time.

You also mentioned core interests. We should focus on several areas. Can you identify which areas you think Canada should be focused on? Would it be more our trade interests...roll them in? Where do you think we should focus to prioritize?

[Louise Blais]

That's a short answer. In my view, it's security and prosperity. At the end of the day, Canadians need to have territorial security and economic prosperity. Both of these things are forged through foreign policy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

We now go to MP Oliphant. You have five minutes.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll just begin by saying that, yes, we've had many foreign ministers over the last few years, but one parliamentary secretary over the last four ministers, which adds consistency. I'm like the sphinx.

Several comments have been made around different themes, including democracy and democracies in decline, multilateral bodies needing reformation, the expansion perhaps of BRICS causing a concern in the international rules-based order and the rule of law, a need for more consultation, a changing world, climate change, and the possibility of Trump or even other Republicans with “faraway lands” or “America first” ideas.

All of these things are complex and changing. As a result, I think Minister Joly has seen a need to make major changes in foreign affairs, which I am looking forward to.

I have two questions, one easy one and one hard one, for all of you.

The easy one is, do you believe that Canada needs to invest more money in global affairs and all its branches?

The hard one is, if we do, what are your top two or three priorities?

We can start with Mr. Rock, who wants to get out soon.

[Allan Rock]

The answer is, yes, I think we need to give resources to foreign affairs in order to meet its important mission.

I've seen, over my time in government and since I left government, a steady reduction in the investment in global affairs. It's as though we can afford to cut it because no one will notice, or it won't make any difference. Well, it does make a difference. It makes a difference to have those missions in Africa. It makes a difference to have a full complement of people at the table when the multinational organizations meet and set new rules for the game. We have to be there and we have to be there in a way that is effective.

Yes, I do think we do need more investment. I think the report that came out of the Senate makes the same point, as well as the minister's “Future of Diplomacy” report.

On your second question, I think the first priority would be the multilateral organizations; that's where the rules are being made that are going to affect us. We have to have a strong presence at the UN, NATO and the other multilateral organizations that make a real difference.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Ms. Blais.

[Louise Blais]

I fully agree with Mr. Rock.

What I would add is I think that, yes, we need more resources, but we also are in a fiscal jam. Respecting that and understanding that defence needs money, and many other initiatives need money, I think there needs to be a rationalization of how we do business at Global Affairs.

To be blunt, I think HQ is too big vis-à-vis the missions. I think the investments should be abroad, as that's where the value added is. There are too many systems in Ottawa. I'm not saying the people in Ottawa aren't busy—they are—but I think we should really look at that and favour the resources on our footprint abroad. It is a foreign department.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Monsieur Saint-Jacques.

[Guy Saint-Jacques]

I agree with what has been said so far, but I would say that the department does not need a lot of money. We are talking about incremental amounts here. I was a bit discouraged when I read in the National Post that foreign language training has been cut at missions until the end of the fiscal year. To operate abroad, you need to be able to speak the local language, so this is very unfortunate if it's true.

I agree with Mr. Rock that we have to invest more in multilateral organizations.

On the trade side, it would be important to work with the Americans to try to convince them that we need to make the World Trade Organization work again.

Internally, in the department, I was glad to hear Ms. Isfeld say there are 170 new members of PAFSO, but I think we have to continue to recruit qualified young people from across Canada and give them good training, and also try to improve conditions abroad.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Professor Roussel.

[Dr. Stéphane Roussel]

I fully agree with what the other witnesses said, that increasing the budget for the foreign service would be good. However, let me speak for my own bailiwick just for a second and recommend that if foreign affairs had a certain budget, it could do what the Department of National Defence has been doing for 50 years, which is giving awards and supporting academic research outside the department. This would make sure we have a new generation of future diplomats trained in universities and increase the possibility for academics to act as consultants for the department.

It's very successful at the Department of National Defence, but foreign affairs never accepted to do the same or saw the need to do the same.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

Next we go to Mr. Bergeron for two and a half minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Ms. Isfeld.

In an article in the Hill Times this week, you argue that the political class and the department must be willing to take risks. In your view, risk aversion is linked to a lack of understanding of Canada's foreign policy interests and values.

Now, as you no doubt know, this committee and the MPs on it are willing and ready to travel and take risks. Yet we are regularly discouraged from doing so by Global Affairs Canada and parliamentary security.

How can we change this mentality?

[Pamela Isfeld]

I'm afraid I'm not really qualified to speak on what decisions are made by security people at Global Affairs. We have a very developed network of people on the ground, and they make decisions and give advice based on what they are seeing.

The world has, as people said, gotten a lot more risky in many places. I know that it is difficult sometimes to organize visits and things like that. I would not want to second-guess.... We would have to know what the individual situation was that people were being discouraged from visiting.

I would say there's a lot that could be done, perhaps to increase awareness and ties going the other way, for instance, having more outreach from people from missions coming to speak to parliamentarians when they're in Ottawa, doing conferences, doing things like that to increase the awareness of what Global Affairs does and what the foreign service does. Sometimes they're their own worst enemies, as far as getting the story out. There are ways of doing that.

I'm sorry to hear that parliamentarians are feeling they're being discouraged from travelling. I believe that is a loss to our understanding and to good decision-making on issues related to the foreign service and foreign policy.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Ambassador Saint-Jacques, the Government of Canada, in its Indo-Pacific strategy, explains that in areas of deep disagreements, we will challenge China.

There seems to be a lot of emphasis on Canada's capacity to do this. Yet we have challenged Azerbaijan for its behaviour in Nagorno-Karabakh; we have chastised Israel for its lack of restraint in Gaza—with the results we know.

Does Canada have a real power to comment?

[Guy Saint-Jacques]

Of course, we have to understand that our power is quite limited, but I think that what's important is to try to change China's behaviour. On this, progress has been made, and I welcome the adoption of the Declaration against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations.

We are at the stage where this declaration should be given teeth, in order to punish countries that dare to use hostage-taking in the future.

It's also important for Canada to work with friendly countries to try to change China's behaviour. The message is simple. We have no problem with China being a superpower, as long as it respects international law and international rules. Moreover, it must put an end to the thuggish behaviour it displays by taking people hostage or imposing coercive trade measures.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

MP McPherson, you have two and a half minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Again, thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I want to thank Ms. Blais for bringing up the idea that the International Criminal Court has a role in prosecuting both sides of any conflict, and of course, we would expect that they would prosecute the terrorist organization that is Hamas.

We were happy to see the change from the Canadian government on the vote at the United Nations, but I want to get a better understanding of how the voting happens in the UN.

On November 10, at the UN General Assembly, Canada voted against a resolution that was condemning illegal settlements, going against Canada's own stated position.

In response, you tweeted,

Canadians need to ask our government, the rationale behind this devastating decision for Canada's standing in the world. From my experience, the [U.S.] did not ask us to side [with them]. We did this on our own. But why? Because the cost is enormous, we should be told the reason.

This vote was a month ago.

Do you have any further insight into why Canada would vote against its own policy at the United Nations while the illegal settlements are expanding and causing severe harm to any chance of a peace process being able to go forward?

[Louise Blais]

Thank you for the question. I'm glad you raised it.

Resolutions are complicated, and it's not unusual for a member state to vote against a resolution that might appear on the surface to be aligned with its own policy while sometimes it mentions things that are red lines to us. You really do have to take the resolution as a whole.

I recall that with the resolution previous to the one that was passed this week, Canada tried to get an amendment in that would have made it possible for Canada to vote in favour. We ended up abstaining, and then with a different resolution we voted in favour because there was an evolution in the conflict and our position.

Historically, Canada has, let's face it, been voting somewhat in isolation on a lot of the perennial Palestinian resolutions that have come up at the UN because we have said and we have felt, or the government has said and felt, that they are one-sided and that Israel is unjustifiably targeted at the UN.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but you did say that there's enormous cost to the vote when Canada votes against its own policies.

[Louise Blais]

I'm just coming to that. I was just quoting the government's position.

There has been a cost to this. This was a factor in why we lost our last bid, because it was well known by many countries that support the Palestinian plight that Canada might not vote in alignment with them, so it was a factor. When Canada votes with the U.S., Israel and maybe a handful of other countries, I would call that isolation. The U.S. can afford to do this; it's a superpower. Canada is a middle power, and so the cost for us is higher. This is something that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to go to the next question, Madame Blais.

Mr. Hoback, you have five minutes, sir.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here on a Wednesday afternoon.

One of the comments I get when I talk to people at GAC, the employees—and we do have some really good employees at Global Affairs. I will say that. They go beyond their job descriptions. They actually exceed there. In the interactions I've had with them, I've actually seen the work they do, and it's very good.

But one of the comments they'll always make is that GAC is run by human resources and they feel very frustrated with the HR department and their ability to have control and to get promotions and to move to different jobs because of HR policy.

Would you agree with that comment?

I'll start off with you, Ms. Blais, and then move down the list.