National Defence Committee on Nov. 7th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, welcome to the committee.

You have the floor for six minutes.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Agustin, you mentioned something very interesting, that Canada should put international human rights at the centre of all its policies.

We can all agree that Canada is neither a trade power nor a military power. This is coming from a Quebec sovereignist. However, Canada has a history of defending human rights.

Now, we've talked about Canada's direct or indirect involvement in human rights violations in the Philippines. There are allegations against Canadian mining companies operating on Philippine soil that are allegedly violating human rights.

Are you aware of those allegations? I'd like the committee to hear your comments on that.

[Jess Agustin]

Are we aware of human rights violations that...?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I'm talking about allegations against Canadian mining companies operating in the Philippines.

[Jess Agustin]

Well, there is indeed a direct connection between the displacement of indigenous people and the mining operation. It's already well documented that Canadian mining is involved in human rights violations. Particularly the indigenous people are being affected, but not only that; those who are helping them, the environmentalists opposing this, are also being red-tagged and not only arrested, but murdered. If you look at the map in the Philippines and the data on where the human rights violations are happening, you see the direct correlation where the mining operation is happening and where arrests and killings and even massacres are happening.

There is definitely a big connection.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

If I understand what you're telling me, Mr. Agustin, not only is Canada supporting a government that is committing human rights abuses, but it's also unable to control its own mining companies that operate on Philippine soil and are violating human rights. It's quite ironic and it sends a mixed message.

You also talked about people from the Philippines who are facing transnational repression by the Philippine government abroad. Once again, isn't there a huge irony there?

In most forums, Canada says that China interfered in our electoral system, among other things, and that it committed cyber-attacks against Canada. Canada denounces the fact that China is engaging in transnational repression, but at the same time, it supports a government that is acting exactly the same way as Beijing.

Don't you think that this is a huge contradiction, a huge irony when it comes to Canada's position?

[Jess Agustin]

Well, the good thing about Canada is that it has this human rights policy in place. There is “Voices at Risk”, which we should be following. Part of our recommendation is that Canada should reassess its involvement in the Philippines, particularly related to the military, and use the existing policy that's already in place. “Voices at Risk” is a very good policy that would protect human rights defenders, and human rights defenders include those who are concerned about the mining operations in the Philippines.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Marijan, you said that we have to use diplomacy to achieve our ends. In fact, you talked a lot about diplomacy.

How can we honestly think that a diplomatic policy could be established with China, which has clearly interfered in Canadian elections and carried out cyber-attacks against Canada? How can we consider it possible to use diplomacy to advance our positions in South Asia?

I don't see how we could convince Beijing through diplomacy. That is what I'm wondering today.

[Dr. Branka Marijan]

Thank you.

I think it's fair to assess China's policies, movements in these areas, as being of concern. I think the challenge for Canada and other middle powers is to figure out a way to work diplomatically, because there are no military solutions to those issues.

One area where Canada could perhaps spend more diplomatic heft is working with other middle powers to consider ways to engage China when we're concerned and to work with the United States. I know there's a new administration coming in. There will be challenges for engagement, but there are also opportunities.

I don't know what the other solution would be if we don't engage diplomatically. As you noted, we're not a military power. We're not going to be able to make much of a change. We work best when we work with allies and through alliances. That's the reality that we have to face here.

That does not mean that we're not concerned and that we shouldn't be looking at our own national security and defence. Indeed, we are. We're quite good at cybersecurity in particular and staying on top of the threat that is coming from the People's Republic of China; however, diplomacy is not easy. We have to figure out ways we can work with our allies to best respond to China's movements and to consider in what ways we could do that, whether it's multilaterally or bilaterally, with allies.

I think there are opportunities.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave it there. Thank you very much.

Ms. Mathyssen, you have six minutes.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.

Mr. Agustin and Ms. Palabay, you mentioned Canada's potential agreements, like the visiting forces agreement, several times. Can you expand on how that worsens the culture of impunity that currently exists in the Philippines?

In addition, you mentioned both the increasing trade of weapons and the drug trade. What are the countries that are mainly involved in that, and how can Canada better help in those instances?

[Jess Agustin]

Could we ask Cristina?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Yes, of course.

Go ahead, Ms. Palabay.

[Cristina Palabay]

Thank you.

We have a history of abuses committed through visiting forces agreements by another country. There are rapes and other forms of violence. The question is about jurisdiction most of the time. At the same time, this brings to the fore the concerns about the SoVFA between our two countries and its implications. When Canada's soldiers on the ground have a presence here, then it may play into how the Philippine armed forces would use your presence here in conducting counter-insurgency operations.

Second is how it is perceived. In the Philippines, there was a poll in the middle of this year on the role of the U.S. in the tensions with China. There's very little support. I think only 8% of those polled are supportive of such actions. I think it comes from that very history of abuses by foreign troops that come into the country and are perceived to have conducted themselves in a way that is not in alignment with international human rights law and IHL.

Go ahead, Jess.

[Jess Agustin]

I think you answered the question.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Right, and then in terms of arms trade and drug trade, who are the main...?

[Jess Agustin]

In terms of military hardware, the U.S. is the number one supporter. They just gave $500 million to the Phillippines in terms of arms, and they have also increased their military presence. That started from five locations, bases, to about nine now. That includes a lot of military equipment, training, logistical support, operations and so on.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Dr. Marijan, I'll switch over to you.

You discussed the issues in terms of the focus on 2% defence spending as obscuring the issue. I know that Project Ploughshares has often talked about the five Ds of defence, diplomacy, development, disarmament and democracy. Can you talk further about that obscurity on that 2% and our seeming focus on what others have often called problematic?

[Dr. Branka Marijan]

Absolutely. I think the 2% is really an arbitrary number. It's not based on evidence. It's not evidence-based policy-making. It does not tell us the specifics of each context of national security, the defence context for each state. I think we need to be much more clear about what we're demanding from the CAF and DND and why this increase in defence spending is necessary and what division there is.

There's a bit of a one-size-fits-all approach with this number. We've said in the past that this is such a nice round number for political reasons, but it doesn't really speak to the actuality of defence needs. I think we need to stop looking at this number as an answer, when a really deep study is needed on what's actually needed for Canadian defence and how we contribute globally.

I think it also undermines how much Canada contributes in other ways that are not purely military, like when we work with NATO allies in other contexts and how much we contribute towards development and diplomacy.

I think a focus on that number alone has obscured the reality of Canada's contributions on many other levels as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have 30 seconds.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I guess, ultimately, it's this idea that we have to move away from the idea that defence is first and humanitarianism or that aid is second, and that's how we do it, how we spend our money, as opposed to the other way around.

[Dr. Branka Marijan]

Yes. I think we have really underinvested in diplomacy and are not aware of the costs of that even for defence. I think we are seeing more and more conflicts that need to be resolved with diplomatic solutions, but if we don't have the capacity to do that, then we are not contributing to global peace and security, and we're certainly not contributing to working with our allies. They go hand in hand. We cannot have humanitarianism come second and investment into diplomacy and development and peacebuilding come second, because those are really the root causes of these conflicts. Prevention is always better than having to deal with the full fallout, which I will say—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, we're going to have to leave it there.

Mr. Allison, you have five minutes, please.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and to our witnesses, thank you for being here today.

Dr. Marijan, we've been talking about AI, and you've talked about AI. Certainly, as we look at the DPU and issues around defence and security challenges, we know that new and disruptive technology is going to be an issue as we move forward. That's one of the things that have been highlighted.

Minister Blair made an announcement last week on AI. Can you give us your thoughts on how our government's doing in order to harness the power of AI and whether or not we're reaching our potential in the defence sector?

[Dr. Branka Marijan]

Yes, absolutely.

There's been a lot of discussion and movement on understanding the implications of artificial intelligence for the military and the Department of National Defence. However, much more needs to be done. I think we are one of the first countries to have an AI strategy, but the strategy is more of a guidance or vision document. It's not really telling us what the policies are. I think the hard work that needs to come now is really developing those policies.

We have the AI talent, as I said earlier, and we have the legal and technical expertise. I think we can be a leader in this sphere. We've generally been a leader in broader discussions on AI, but on military discussions of AI, again, because of capacity issues at both GAC and DND, we have not had the role I think we could be playing, because there is simply an issue of capacity. We need to address that.

It's both to leverage AI for defence, but also to consider the ethical and legal implications that our other allies are concerned with. Even in UN discussions, we're not at the forefront highlighting ethical and legal concerns, simply because we do not seem to have political vision on how we wish to proceed with the technology. Political vision has to come on this file. It's not a matter of a lack of legal or technical expertise.