Evidence of meeting #94 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 vote.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
To clarify, Mr. Oliphant had a motion regarding the whole clause, and—
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Sorry, I meant an amendment for the whole clause, and then Mr. Bergeron's subamendment is to strike “and protect sensitive commercial interests”.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
I'm in favour of Mr. Bergeron's subamendment.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Pass it on division.
(Subamendment agreed to on division)
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Okay. That's been struck.
On the actual amendment, do we want to put that to a vote, or is everyone unanimously in favour?
(Amendment as amended agreed to)
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
We're now going to put the motion as amended to a vote.
(Motion as amended agreed to)
We will resume hearing from our witnesses. I will suspend for two minutes.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Okay, we'll resume the meeting, given that we have very little time left.
Do we only want one round of questioning, since Mr. Chong..., or do we want two shorter rounds of two minutes?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Okay. There will be one round of questions only.
We will resume today's hearing. Allow me to welcome the two witnesses we have with us today.
First of all, we're very grateful that Mr. Gar Pardy is with us here in person in the committee room. Also, Mr. Alex Neve, is with us from the University of Ottawa. Neither one of you, I think it's fair to say, requires an introduction; you are very well known to all the members.
We apologize because of the delay. There was a motion that was tabled. I understand that Mr. Neve has to leave at 5:45. We will actually be adjourning this meeting at 5:45.
Mr. Neve, since you are online, we will start with you. You have five minutes for your opening remarks, and then we will go to Mr. Pardy.
Mr. Neve for five minutes.
5:20 p.m.
Alex Neve Senior Fellow, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thank you so much, Mr. Ehsassi, and, as we're into the evening, good afternoon and good evening, committee.
This study of Canada's diplomatic capacity certainly comes at a crucial time. Harrowing crises in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Myanmar, a list that goes on, stand as wrenching testaments to the failures of our so-called international rules-based order, with devastating consequences for millions of civilians. Unprincipled use of vetoes at the Security Council blocks decisive international action. International human rights and humanitarian laws, always contested and challenged, are brazenly flouted like never before.
The ambit of your study is considerable. I'd like to focus on three points: bolstering Canada's global capacity to champion human rights, improving implementation of our own international human rights obligations, and bringing consistency and equal treatment to consular protection.
First, to be a global human rights champion requires much more than saying we are one.
Just over 75 years ago, adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states recognized a universal truth, namely that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, yet we live in a world in which the rights and dignity of entire peoples are utterly disregarded, as we are seeing right now with Palestinians in Gaza. I can think of no other ambition and imperative that should more profoundly shape Canada's diplomatic capacity than universal human rights protection.
Canada regularly declares itself a global champion of human rights. There have certainly been high-water marks over the decades and the dedicated efforts of individual Canadians, which are truly commendable. However, there has been little tangible evidence of Canada's leadership as a nation for many years now. It's been 25 years since such Canadian accomplishments as establishing the International Criminal Court, banning landmines and protecting child soldiers.
I would suggest that we sorely need a mandated international human rights strategy and action plan that would establish transparent standards to ensure consistency in our human rights efforts across the globe; treat all human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights, equally; and set and appropriately resource clear priorities such as supporting human rights defenders, uniformly pursuing justice and accountability, and advancing women's human rights and gender equality.
Second, our contribution to global human rights protections starts with upholding international human rights at home. In a world in which states regularly disregard their human rights obligations, Canada should set an example. However, we do not. A consistent concern in UN reviews of Canada's human rights record is the lack of an effective process, coordinated across federal, provincial and territorial governments, to implement international human rights in Canada.
Canada was examined under the United Nations Human Rights Council's universal periodic review process for the fourth time in November. As they did in 2009, 2013 and 2018, a significant number of countries—25 this time—called on Canada to ratify a 22-year-old torture prevention treaty, the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture, which we have been telling the UN we are considering doing for 18 years now. When Canada reports back to the UN next month, we will likely again hear that Canada is “considering” ratification. That will, frankly, again be received as empty words.
This domestic human rights gap undermines our human rights diplomacy. A recently established federal-provincial-territorial forum of ministers responsible for human rights is intended to make progress on this front but has been a deep disappointment. It has had little guidance from Global Affairs, and it needs it.
Finally, you are reviewing this committee's November 2018 report regarding consular services. The first and I believe most important recommendation in that report was for the government to carry out a review to ensure that “Canadians are not subject to arbitrary treatment or discrimination in the provision of consular services.”
In August I joined a civil society humanitarian delegation to northeast Syria that included Senator Kim Pate, retired Canadian ambassador Scott Heatherington, and immigration and human rights lawyer Hadayt Nazami. We were able to access some, though unfortunately not all, of the Canadian men, women and children who have been unlawfully detained in harsh conditions in camps and prisons there for the past seven years without charge, without trial, without access to lawyers, without contact with their families, without any means of challenging the reasons for their detention and without any consular visits.
Our delegation was deeply distressed by what we heard, which included health concerns and inhumane detention conditions. Thirteen Canadian children are held in an overcrowded, dangerous detention camp where they are not going to school, are living in fear and have been told that the Canadian government would be willing to bring them back to Canada, but not their mothers. This is a clear instance of the provision of consular services that is both arbitrary and discriminatory. I implore you to call on the government immediately to provide in-person consular support to these vulnerable and abandoned citizens, more than half of them children, and arrange for their repatriation to Canada.
Everything about how these cases are being handled betrays a commitment to the universality of human rights. That runs contrary to what the very essence of Canada's diplomatic capacity should be all about.
Thank you very much.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you very much, Mr. Neve. We're very grateful.
We will now go to Mr. Pardy for his opening remarks.
You have five minutes.
5:25 p.m.
Gar Pardy Former Ambassador and Policy Writer, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your kind invitation today. Given the fact that I'm into my ninth decade, these invitations are very rare indeed, so I very much welcome this one.
Of course, this is a very different world from when I was born in 1939. My mother would always remind me that there were two very important events that occurred in 1939. That's one she would use all the time.
The timing of this study, of course, for those of us involved in diplomacy around the world and trying to see how we fit into governments that come and go and this sort of thing.... There are significant changes in policies and approach. I think having a study of this nature, on the capacity of diplomacy, is generally overlooked when we look at foreign policy. We tend to look beyond whether or not we have the capacity to do so. Of course, capacity will determine whether we're able to protect and project the interests of Canada into the world.
As the senator mentioned earlier, Peter and I were colleagues in Central America for a number of years, chasing the wars down there. I became a member of the foreign service in 1967. It was still in the afterglow of Pearsonian diplomacy. The agenda was changing in that particular period beyond our ties with the United States and Europe to the new world created by decolonization and the self-determination of people. The empires largely disappeared. They were very much in place in 1945, but in 1945, when sovereign states got together in San Francisco to create the United Nations, there were only 52 countries. Today, there are 193. That in itself gives us the magnitude of the issues. I would suggest to you that with the way the world is today, it will not be long before we probably have 200 sovereign members of the United Nations.
In that sense, I think as an issue that gets overlooked as far as foreign policy is concerned in Canada, I would hope that the committee would note specifically that the indigenous people of the world remain a matter that will increasingly involve our international attention. It's not one. Canada, along with Australia and New Zealand and the United States, a few years ago mistakenly opposed a UNGA resolution on indigenous peoples. That, I think, was one of the more serious mistakes that Canada has made diplomatically in recent years.
As Peter mentioned, when I came to Ottawa in the 1960s, there was Canada-wide recruitment for the foreign service, and public interest was exceptionally high. It was not uncommon that somewhere between 7,000 and 9,000 people would apply for the number of jobs that were available. Today, we're into the age of contract arrangements and entry from other parts of the government. That in itself, as Peter noted, carries its own problems.
Equally, over this same period there are the name changes. We were first external affairs. Then we were foreign affairs. Today we are Global Affairs. Then the associated functions of trade, immigration and refugees and development were included within that body. The immigration and refugee function has returned to its domestic home, but as you all will note, those issues associated with immigration and refugees are as much a part of foreign policy today as anything else we are wont to do.
All foreign ministries around the world have undergone similar structural transformations and struggle to find a balance, if you like, in terms of how to meet the needs that those functions require. However, recruitment is still the main issue here. I'm glad that the committee asked Mr. Boehm a number of questions about the report that he was an author of in terms of how we recruit and whom we recruit. In effect, there is a set of characteristics that I think would be essential in terms of Canadian representation in other countries. This, of course, is the question of knowledge, aptitude and language acquisition abilities, and of course there's always personal flexibility.
These capabilities, while not necessarily unique to the foreign service, are essential for the persons required to provide the services that Canadians need internationally.
There is, of course, as I mentioned in terms of the personal suitability and in the changing Canadian mosaic that we deal with, the issue that has come up for any number of my colleagues of dual-career families: how they can adjust to, in effect, a rotational life in the foreign service.
I would also add a cautionary note for you to keep in mind: that large international events, including the conflicts that we are dealing with, have a daily if not an hourly effect on Canada's diplomatic activity. Today, global communications are faster than the proverbial speeding bullet, and no foreign ministry has the time for reflection before action is often required.
I would also mention one issue that I think we should give the committee some cautions on here, and these are the elections that are going to occur in the United States on November 5. As we all know if we watch the news at all, the political and social divisions in this, our most important relationship, have never been as extreme as they are today.
Equally, there are aspects of this reflected in our own elections and political system. What is unique is that these divisions have an existence—
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
5:35 p.m.
Former Ambassador and Policy Writer, As an Individual
Yes.
In the United States, no one has been able to do any sort of forecasting as far as what's going to happen on November 5. It's going to be one of these open agendas that's going to haunt us, I think, for the next 10 months.
Thank you.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you very much, Mr. Pardy.
We now open it up to questions from the members. Each member will be provided three minutes.
Mr. Epp.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.
We've had several witnesses come to this committee on this study and testify to Canada's diminished status on the world stage. Certainly, Mr. Neve talked about advocating for human rights. Our Prime Minister's lecturing of the Italian prime minister and our Deputy Prime Minister's tweet of the Saudis have all had fallout. Other witnesses have come.... We have to repair and restore our image. Would your recommendation be that Canada further engage in multilateral institutions or more on bilaterals or minilaterals? What would be your recommendations on restoring our image so that we are more effective?
Perhaps you take issue with the premise of my question, which is Canada's place in the world. If you have a comment on that, by all means, let's start with Mr. Pardy and then I'll go to Mr. Neve.
5:35 p.m.
Former Ambassador and Policy Writer, As an Individual
I would agree with any comment that relates to the fact that we don't have the status we had 40 or 50 years ago. It's not necessarily what we do in the world. It's that the world has changed so dramatically during that period that the expectations of the rest of the world in effect do not necessarily include what Canada has on offer.
Whether or not we can in effect address that, I think, through our staffing means or where we have embassies.... We are tied to a very defined foreign policy matrix. We are an ally of the United States as far as North American defence is concerned and as far as outer space is concerned. We are a member of NATO. We are a member of the United Nations in all of its manifestations.
I don't think there are a lot of choices we can make for going either one way or the other. You have to do it across the board, and I think most countries try to do this. How much you can do in this kind of an atmosphere, with the resource space that we have, is the question.
