Foreign Affairs Committee on Dec. 13th, 2023

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Rock.

I would like to ask Mr. Saint-Jacques to react to this proposal.

[Guy Saint-Jacques]

Thank you for your question.

Both approaches are necessary. We have to recognize that there are new topics. For example, about 30 years ago, we didn't have any expertise in the department on terrorism issues. Now terrorism has become a major issue.

Artificial intelligence and cybersecurity issues have also become very important, and we don't necessarily have many experts.

What I'm advocating is having an external service where we develop as much expertise as possible. It's difficult to develop this expertise, these skills. It's done over the long term, and when necessary, when there are one-off needs, you have to try to go and find specialists.

As Mr. Rock was saying, we need to encourage consultations with universities, civil society think tanks, to hear other points of view. I'm all for doing that whenever possible. There's no contradiction between the two.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Ms. Isfeld, would you like to add anything?

[Pamela Isfeld]

Thank you.

I agree with my colleagues that it's not an either–or thing. We need both kinds of expertise.

Before I came to do the president of PAFSO job full time, I was deputy director of foreign policy research at Global Affairs. One of my frustrations there was that due to the chronic understaffing in the department, we had a very hard time protecting our small foreign policy research group of experts from day-to-day taskings.

Our job was not necessarily to be experts on every single file. As Mr. Saint-Jacques pointed out, you have new issues emerging all the time. However, you can be experts on the experts and seek out that expertise from outside. That's the kind of thing I would like to see Global Affairs doing more of.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to Mr. Bergeron.

You have six minutes, sir.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses for joining us and contributing to our reflection on the future of Canadian diplomacy.

Ms. Blais, Jennifer Welsh, Director of McGill University's Centre for International Peace and Security Studies, shared the following with the committee:

Canadians are living in an international system that is less hospitable to our interests and values than perhaps at any time since the end of the Second World War.

I understand that you share this view. What has led to this deterioration in the perception of Canadian values around the world? How can we reposition Canada in this changing context?

[Louise Blais]

Thank you for your question.

In the international context, especially the multilateral one, you have to look at the UN. Indeed, it had about fifty members in the 1950s, and, today, it has 193.

The southern hemisphere has become more prominent, and is asserting itself in international fora, through negotiating groups including the Group of 77, or G77. This is a group of around 130 countries, accompanied by China, who negotiate as a bloc at the UN. They have, de facto, two-thirds of the seats at the UN. Today, Canada's influence has waned in this company, which has expanded.

However, Canada hasn't helped itself in recent decades by focusing its foreign policy on exporting its values. We've been very moralistic abroad. When we talked to developing countries, we talked about what we could do for them and what they should do for themselves. We wanted to remake them in our image.

Today, we realize that this doesn't serve us, in the long run. For one thing, we haven't succeeded in changing these countries, and our world is becoming increasingly autocratic. So we haven't succeeded in making the world more like Canada.

Moreover, we've tripped ourselves up a bit, because, by dint of telling others what to do and talking to them on an unequal level, I think there's been some wear and tear. Now, people listen to us a lot less. Personally, I've heard heads of state say that we were not willing to listen to their priorities.

I think we first need to become aware of our position on the world chessboard and talk with countries about the things that interest them. What's more, we need to succeed in developing relations with countries we don't agree with. To be successful, we need to adopt a change of tone and a change of tactics.

We have often surrounded ourselves with those who had views similar to ours, but I think Canada would benefit from talking more often with Latin American countries, for example, with the smaller countries that have very important things to say and have their own sphere of influence in their region.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Roussel, first of all, good evening. I'm very happy to have you back.

A number of Canada's allies, including the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, have deemed it important to have some sort of periodic process for reviewing their foreign policies. We have no such plans. I took part in the last major review of Canada's foreign policy, in 1994. There haven't been any as complex since. On the other hand, Canada is in the process of revising its defence policy.

Don't you think we're putting the cart before the horse a bit?

[Dr. Stéphane Roussel]

First, good evening, Mr. Bergeron. It's good to see you again, too.

As for whether thinking about defence before thinking about foreign affairs is putting the cart before the horse, in fact, I'd say the one influences the other. While it's true that defence policy is generally expected to flow from, or conform to, foreign policy, I would also respond that, in Canada's history, the two may have operated in a decoupled fashion, or that there has rarely been much effort to make them coherent.

That said, let me return to your first point, namely the consultations we held on foreign policy, in Canada, until the late 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s.

This model leaves me a little ambivalent. Indeed, it had the advantage of allowing Canadian society to express itself, to set its priorities, but it sometimes left, too, an impression of co-optation; the government received a series of contradictory opinions from civil society, and it only had to choose those that suited its purposes.

On the other hand, there's another process I like, and that's a review every 10 years. This process is used in other states. I think Norway uses it. We set up a committee that could resemble a Canadian commission of inquiry. This committee makes recommendations to the government on how it should approach its foreign policy, as well as its defence policy, over the next few years.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

We now go to MP McPherson. You have six minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, thank you very much to all of our witnesses.

Thank you for being here in person, Mr. Rock. I know you have to leave, so I'm going to ask you a few questions first, before you have to go. I'm going to ask questions about current events through that diplomatic lens.

I read your recent article that you wrote with Lloyd Axworthy, “In the conflict in Gaza, we must think about the children”. It was very well done. Thank you very much for writing that. You said that “Shielding children from armed conflict was once an international priority” but in recent years has fallen off Canada's priority list. You also asked the question: “Do we not all love our children, and thus want to spare them the horrors of war?”

I want to ask you specifically about Gaza and the massive impact on children. We know that 7,000 to 8,000 children have been killed in the bombardments, and many more of course are at risk due to the blockade and the ongoing war. In fact, I think it's fair to say that Gaza, right now, is the most dangerous place in the world for children.

In the West Bank, we know that Israel is prosecuting between 500 and 700 Palestinian children in military courts each year. Palestinian children in the occupied West Bank, like adults, face arrest, prosecution and imprisonment under an Israeli military detention system that denies them basic human rights.

In your opinion, why has it taken Canada so long to call for a ceasefire when the impact on children in Gaza is so severe? What should Canada do now to reaffirm its commitment to the protection of children in places like Israel and Palestine or, in fact, in any conflict?

[Allan Rock]

I'm reluctant to second-guess any government on the timing of calling for a ceasefire. The enormous complexity of the issues is quite daunting, and I don't envy those who have to make that decision. That having been said, I was delighted to see that yesterday we formally called for a ceasefire.

In accepting your point, I will say that, as the Secretary-General pointed out, Gaza has become “a graveyard for children”. It's a young population anyway. Civilians are taking the brunt of the violence, particularly women and children.

It was Graça Machel who, in 1996, published a report about children and conflict. Her report gave rise to a conference that we organized here in Canada, putting children in armed conflict on the agenda. The Secretary-General appointed a special representative for children in armed conflict, and the Security Council adopted resolutions for naming and shaming countries that mistreated children. At least there was a process by which you could identify those who were committing grave violations against children in conflict. That has weakened over the years, unhappily. Now, in Gaza, it might just as well be ripped up and thrown away. We've made a mockery of all of that.

One of the main reasons for having a ceasefire, apart from providing humanitarian aid, is to spare the lives of the remaining children who are there.

I don't know if I'm responding to your question, but it has been a priority for Canada and for the world. It has slipped off the top of the agenda. It must be put back on the agenda. If we can agree on nothing else in this crazy world, we must at least agree that children should be spared the horrors of war.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Hear, hear!

I agree with you that it has fallen off for Canada. Canada, of all countries, must be one of those countries that leads on this. We have to have that ability to lead.

I've asked the minister and representatives from Global Affairs a number of times why Canada is not supporting international justice mechanisms, like the the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, in the context of Israel and Palestine. I'm very pleased to see that we are supporting those investigations in places like Ukraine, but we are applying the use of these courts very irregularly. For the rest of the world watching how we apply international humanitarian law, it must seem baffling—that's probably the best-case scenario, be perfectly honest. There's a very clear double standard.

In your experience, what can parliamentarians do and what can committee members do to put pressure on the Government of Canada to use the ICC and ICJ and to apply international humanitarian law equally in all contexts where it would be applicable?

[Allan Rock]

The trial chamber of the International Criminal Court has ruled that the ICC does have jurisdiction to investigate alleged war crimes in the West Bank and in Palestine. Canada can support the ICC in that financially. We can second people to assist them with person power.

The way to make the point to the Government of Canada is through Global Affairs. It's simply to press the minister and the department to do everything possible to support the international criminal justice system because accountability is a very important part of fixing these wrongs, and we must pursue it.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Blais, I wonder if I can ask you the same question. Is there a response that you could provide as well?

[Louise Blais]

I think that Mr. Rock had the right answer.

The decision of who to investigate is really that of the prosecutor. We have Canadians on the court, but it is ultimately the decision of the prosecutor.

As time goes on, I think there will be questions raised on this issue. Unfortunately, you have a terrorist group like Hamas that did unspeakable acts and murders. Where is the justice there?

Whatever happens is going to have to be a balance. We have not had time to react. This is a relatively new conflict, and I think that, as time goes on, we'll have to make those decisions. However, I will go back to the fact that the prosecutor does have to make that decision.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Next we go to the second round, for which each member is provided five minutes. We start off with MP Epp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here.

Mr. Rock, I'll take advantage of you while you're here. At our last meeting, we heard that it's pretty difficult to have soft power if you don't have hard power. Canada's place in the world seems to be slipping on both counts. What would your advice be, or how would you come at that issue—or do you disagree with that statement?

[Allan Rock]

I think soft power has always been one of Canada's great strengths. You earn credibility through investing in defence and doing your share in terms of international defence efforts.

Monsieur Saint-Jacques referred to the Arctic as a place where we need to spend more on defence, and I agree with that completely. I think we could kill two birds with one stone. First of all, we could invest money to ensure that we have defence systems in the Arctic and for the Arctic, which would at the same time help us achieve the 2% of GDP required of us by our colleagues in NATO.

I think that's what we talk about when we say, “hard power”. It's the actual equipment and investing in the ships, the airplanes and the troops, and putting them on the ground where they are needed for patrols and to ensure that our sovereignty is respected.

There is a link between that and our ability to be persuasive through soft power at the table, because it's a matter of credibility. If you're not respectful of your obligations for defence, if you're not pulling your weight and if you're not investing in defence systems, your credibility when you use soft power is diminished, so I think they are linked.

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

In your opening comments, you also linked credibility to Canada's development assistance. What did you mean by that?

[Allan Rock]

It was Lester Pearson who suggested 50 years ago that countries ought to invest 0.7% of their GDP in international development assistance. We have never come close to that. Countries like the U.K. and Norway are in excess of that.

We have been reducing our international development assistance over time, and I think we should increase it. It's sort of the dues you pay. It's table stakes for credibility in the international community.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to shift. One of the other criticisms, or one of the other suggestions to broaden the experience of folks going into our diplomatic core into Global Affairs.... I guess I will be up front. There was a preponderance of graduates from Carleton and the University of Ottawa.

Given your present position, how would you respond to that? Would our country be better served by a broader experience from our educational institutions?

[Allan Rock]

We have a number of excellent universities in Canada. We should take advantage of the graduates of all of them.

Let me smuggle in a comment to say that the time I spent in New York in the mission of Canada to the UN left me with a deep impression of the quality and commitment of our foreign service. They are fabulous people who work their hearts out and with great skill. Wherever they are coming from, they are doing a great job.

There are universities across the country capable of producing excellent graduates, and we should take as many as we can.